Seattle’s total narrowly edged out New York City, which produced 14,240 affordable apartments in the same time period from 2020 to 2024, and Austin, Texas, which produced 13,342. Minnesota’s Twin Cities metro came in fourth with 10,722 apartments produced, followed by Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, and the “Bay Area.”

Note: San Francisco (along with the North Bay) was broken out a separate category from the East and South Bay Area in this study. Combined, the two Bay Area listings accounted for 16,301 affordable apartments, a total which would have led the list.

RentCafe’s analysis included only apartments in 100% affordable buildings, which does leave out a small subset of the data from mixed-income buildings. The study only counted apartments, not affordable homeownership projects, which also represents a small fraction of overall production.

With the growth in production, affordable apartments are a growing share of overall apartment production. “Affordable housing for renters accounted for one-quarter of the [Seattle] metro’s total of 59,000 new apartment buildings during this time,” RentCafe’s Florin Petrut noted.

Affordable housing composed 31.7% of overall apartments in New York over the past five years, since the region produced fewer apartments than Seattle. New York’s share trailed only San Francisco, where over a third of apartments were affordable since 2020. San Francisco produced fewer total apartment units than any other top 20 city, while Seattle outpaced the vastly larger New York market by nearly one-third.

For some regions the uptick in affordable housing was dramatic, but less so for Seattle, where the five-year time period was up nearly 40% over the previous five years — one of the smallest increases in the dataset. That means Seattle’s affordable housing sector was also the leader over the entire decade, not just the last five years. Metro Seattle produced more than 24,000 affordable apartments over the decade.

Most metros have momentum in affordable sector

On the other hand, if trendlines continue for fast-building metros, Seattle could get its title stolen in the decade ahead. For example, San Antonio’s affordable housing production was up 222%, Phoenix’s was up 206%, and New York City was up 185%. Although, in Phoenix’s case, that still amounted to just 4,626 affordable apartments, which shows how anemic affordable construction had been previously.

“Notably, affordable housing is starting to make up a larger portion of all new apartment construction,” Petrut noted. “In 2024, nearly 14% of all new apartments were income-restricted — up from just under 9% ten years earlier — indicating a growing emphasis on affordability in new development.”

A few regions bucked that trend, and continue to emphasize market-rate apartment development to a large degree. For example, just 5% of the more than 107,000 apartments produced in the Dallas metro from 2020 to 2024 were income-restricted affordable units. The Chicagoland area also produced just over 107,000 apartments, and just 6.6% were affordable. Houston did not even crack the top 20, despite being the sixth-most populous metro in the country.

Nationwide, 2024 was a banner year, delivering 91,000 affordable units, the highest total in decades. “Nearly 310,000 affordable apartments have been built nationwide since 2020, accounting for 12.6% of all new apartment buildings,” Petrut wrote. “Affordable housing construction rose 73% compared to 2015–2019, outpacing overall apartment building growth.”

Part of the credit for the affordable housing surge goes to the pandemic response strategy engineered under President Joe Biden: “The American Rescue Plan has helped move things forward by directing billions of dollars into housing through State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds,” Petrut wrote. “On top of that, many states introduced or expanded their own tax credit programs. These efforts helped developers cover rising costs and move projects across the finish line faster while simultaneously keeping rents affordable for the long term.”

How Seattle invests in affordable housing

Seattle goes beyond many other American cities in directly funding affordable housing production. The City of Seattle is spending nearly $350 million per year on affordable housing, which comes from a variety of revenue sources.

Since the 1980s, the Seattle Housing Levy has augmented affordable housing creation. The 2023 renewal tripled the size of the levy to a $970 million seven-year package, and it passed by a wide margin. At its new level, the levy provides $139 million in annual funding.

In 2020, Seattle also passed the “JumpStart” payroll tax on the largest companies in the city. Initially the revenue stream provided Covid relief, but over the longer-term the tax was intended to focus a majority of investments on affordable housing — at least when mayors and councils aren’t raiding it to plug budget holes and fund pet projects. The payroll tax pulled in $360 million in 2024, but only $142 million of that ended up going to the Office of Housing, a figure which was further cut in 2025.

Seattle’s Mandatory Housing Affordability or MHA program — an inclusionary zoning regime that traded upzones allowing larger apartment buildings for new affordability requirements — also raises affordable housing funds via in-lieu payments from builders who opt out of providing income-restricted homes on-site. As a developer fee, MHA revenue is volatile and varies with the pace of construction activity, which has been slowing recently in Seattle, especially in the office sector. MHA topped out at $74 million in collections in 2021, but has declined since, settling out around $22 million in 2025 and in 2026 projections.

In 2025, Seattle voters approved another dedicated revenue source, this time focused on social housing. An “excess compensation” tax hitting high earners who make more than $1 million per year is expected to raise more than $50 million annually for the recently launched Seattle Social Housing Developer, which is pursuing a mixed-income model popularized in cities like Vienna.

Other jurisdictions in the region lag far behind Seattle in affordable housing investments, but most are taking strides to boost production. The Washington State Legislature has also steadily grown the size of the state Housing Trusting Fund, setting a new record with $400 million allocated in 2024, which has also helped get more affordable housing projects off the ground.

King County has flirted with a billion-dollar bond for workforce housing — although it’s not clear how soon such an initiative could materialize after a study found the County would need to back the bonds with a dedicated funding source or risk its general fund.

The region’s largest employers — including Amazon and Microsoft — have also made large pledges of housing grants and low-interest loans to aid nonprofit builders. Two top executives at Microsoft and Amazon shared a Seattle Times op-ed byline this week arguing the state “must make it easier to build our way out of the housing crisis” — and touting that “together, our two companies have committed $1.6 billion to preserve and build more than 26,000 affordable homes.”

Growth in affordable housing production has also brought its own problems. By 2025, vacancy rates at affordable apartments in King County had climbed above 10%, which is reportedly threatening to bankrupt some buildings and providers and has already led to bailouts. While demand remains high for low income housing, overproduction in the higher income segments (e.g., around 60% of area median income) has emerged an issue, at least in some parts of the region.

Still not enough

Leading the nation in affordable housing production is a feather in Seattle’s cap, but local housing advocates would be the first to admit it’s far from enough. In 2018, King County’s Affordable Housing Task Force projected that the county would need to add 244,000 net new affordable homes by 2040.

“According to our estimates, we need 156,000 more affordable homes today and another 88,000 affordable homes by 2040 to ensure that no low-income or working households are cost burdened,” the task force wrote. “That means we need to build, preserve or subsidize a total of 244,000 net new homes by 2040 if we are to ensure that all low-income families in King County have a safe and healthy home that costs less than 30 percent of their income.”

To meet the goal would have required a 11,000 affordable homes per year pace, which the region has not met thus far, even with its nation-leading production. To make up for its slow start out of the gates, King County would need to average 15,000 net new affordable homes annually from 2026 through 2040 to meet its target.

And state leaders are projecting that solving the housing crisis will also take robust market-rate production, setting a target of 1 million additional housing units over the next 20 years, or 50,000 per year. 

More work remains to hit housing targets, and simply outproducing peer cities may not be enough, if Seattle wants to solve its affordability crisis.

The post Seattle Leads Nation in Affordable Apartment Production first appeared on The Urbanist.

The fire marshals claim these narrow pathways make access by first responders with gurneys or fire ladders more difficult. But developers and housing advocates say increasing the standard won’t necessarily increase safety and will result in higher housing costs.

The Washington State Legislature enacted statewide ADU reform in a 2023 bill that recently went into effect for many jurisdictions, including Seattle. The reform generally requires that urban jurisdictions allow two ADUs per lot, and it bars a number of onerous building requirements, including off-street parking mandates within a quarter mile of a major transit stop. The lawmakers’ intent was clearly to encourage homebuilding in single family zones — which could be at odds with the recent fire marshals’ push.

The fire marshals’ association filed for an emergency change to the state’s building code that would mandate a five-foot wide pathway to any dwelling that doesn’t face a street, alley, or parking lot. 

After listening to debate from both sides of the issue, the building code council voted in August against the emergency rule change, but instead referred the issue to a subcommittee that will investigate the issue further and make a decision at a later date. 

Dave Kokot, former president of Washington State Association of Fire Marshals, who filed the request and spoke during the council debate, said that his organization is concerned about an increasing number of properties with three-foot-wide access paths, especially those with detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) or backyard cottages, in common parlance.

“What concerns us is our access for both medical and for fire response,” Kokot said. “If we have that three-foot width, it’s not wide enough to properly get a gurney out. If there is a medical issue, having to do compressions or some other medical services, what we found is we need at least four feet of width.”

In the amendment proposal submitted to the council, the fire marshals proposed that the five-foot-wide access could be reduced to four feet if an ADU is equipped with a sprinkler system. 

“Emergency responders are seeing a problem with one section of the Fire Code that has not been an issue until the recent ‘housing crisis’ has pushed development of more than 2 dwelling units on a single family residential parcel,” the fire marshals wrote in their proposal.

Patrick Hanks, code and policy manager for the Building Industry Association Washington (BIAW) said developers are concerned about the proposed code changes. “We’re not opposed to fire safety measures, but we try to find a balance of what’s the most cost effective fire safety thing we can do to address a particular problem while still allowing for affordable construction.”

In a state that needs one million more homes in the next 20 years to address its affordability crisis, Hanks says that the proposed changes won’t make a significant difference in safety but will continue to contribute to rising housing costs. 

“As I’ve spoken with builders, the feedback on the ground is that affordable housing faces a death by a thousand cuts with every little rule, regulation, and fee that can be used by local jurisdictions that are anti-growth to stop or discourage building more homes,” Hanks said.

Kokot insists the five-foot passage is necessary, not only for stretchers and first responders but as a space to prop up fire ladders. 

“We have to get a ladder up to that rooftop,” Kokot said. “And with a three foot width, with a tall ladder coming up there, it gets to the point where we actually cannot climb the ladder safely without somebody holding the ladder to be able to get something up onto the roof.”

“Often when new things are introduced, whether that’s ADUs or single-stair buildings, there’s a higher level of scrutiny against them compared to the base code,” said Stephen Smith, director of the Center for Building in North America, which conducts research on how building codes impact housing construction and affordability. Smith questions why Washington’s fire marshals are insisting they need five feet of access to ADUs when code allows for three-foot wide hallways and stairways for townhouses and apartment buildings.

“Firefighters will tell you: well, actually three feet isn’t enough. We need more,” Smith said. “But if you take a step back, you realize, well, you don’t get five feet in other situations.”

Michael Eliason, a Seattle architect who has advocated for reforming outdated building codes that require features such as second staircases that don’t actually increase fire safety, said that the proposed changes seem like overkill. 

“Our [state’s] building codes are incredibly lengthy and complex,” Eliason said. “Our building costs are some of the highest in the country, and I think that this does a real disservice to trying to address housing affordability.”

Asked for evidence that three-foot access paths to ADUs increase fire risk or decrease safety, Kokot said he has no firm data on the difference. 

“Nothing has been tracked on that. What I hear is hearsay. I’ve heard that we have run into issues on site-specific cases,” he said.

Kokot, who once worked as a fire protection engineer for the Spokane Fire Department, said that in Spokane, the Tri-Cities, and in some Western Washington cities, houses built in the 1940s and 1950s were constructed closer together than previously, and getting ladders up to the roof in those narrow spaces is difficult. “There’s a recommended dimension for the ladders, and we’re already going past that. And that does delay and hamper our efforts as a fire service to be able to respond to a fire.”

A cost analysis that Kokot provided to the building code council asserts that the cost of the new regulations would be minimal. The fire marshal organization claims that an additional 200 square-foot paved sidewalk on any property with an ADU or DADU would only cost from $1,600 to $2,400 — or less than 1% of the budget on most developments.

“What I did was assume that we had a three-foot width for basic concrete,” Kokot said, “and the cost analysis was based on the average length that you would have on a walkway of going from three feet to five feet for concrete. It really isn’t very much of a cost.”

Hanks, with BIAW, disagrees with this analysis.

“If it requires you to have a five-foot concrete pathway, then yeah, that’s going to have a lot of cost,” he said. “And if, in order to meet the lower size requirement [of four foot width] and then put in a fire sprinkler, that’s going to increase cost. But a lot of the cost comes from indirect consequences. It may make it less suitable, you might not be able to fit it in the property.”

Eliason agrees that an indirect impact might be that fewer ADUs or DADUs will be built because of the more stringent pathway requirements. “Construction is one thing, feasibility is another,” he said. “Maybe they can’t do an ADU, or it becomes smaller and it doesn’t become cost-effective at some point.”

Smith notes that many jurisdictions across North America allow three-foot access pathways in their ADU code requirements, including San Francisco. He feels the fire marshals’ approach is often based on conjecture rather than evidence. “I would question, if you have sprinklers, for example, why is the requirement four feet, and not three feet, like an apartment building?”

Kokot said that he’s skeptical, in general, of efforts to add ADUs and DADUs in cities like Spokane, where the city is adjusting its code to allow for more units on a lot and to comply with a 2023 state law requiring cities to allow ADUs.

“We’re trying to cram an awful lot into a single family lot that was originally plotted and laid out to be for a single home,” Kokot said. “Another thing that’s a concern for us is that they no longer require parking on these lots as well. So that means there are more cars out on the street and we can’t get our fire trucks to the buildings as well.”

The idea of requiring excessive off-street parking in order to maybe present a clearer path for fire trucks in the case of emergency is likely to rub urbanists the wrong way. Smith thinks such thinking is typical of an outdated approach by many fire safety officials. 

“There’s a general discomfort in the fire and building code worlds with density,” Smith said. “And some of it is rooted specifically in technical issues. But I think some of it is a general cultural gulf between the building and fire safety worlds.”

Matt Hutchins, a Seattle-based architect who does a lot of work designing ADUs and DADUs, said the proposed state code changes won’t impact Seattle very much because it already effectively requires a five-foot wide buffer around them – though not completely paved. Seattle is also unique in that it’s the only city in the state with a completely separate building code, though it relies heavily on recommendations from the state.

“It’s somewhat superfluous in that we already require, for the most part, that a detached accessory unit going in has to be five feet away from other buildings,” Hutchins said. “And they also can’t be within five feet of a side yard setback. So, you’re kind of already guaranteed access on at least two sides.”

The Urbanist reached out to Seattle Fire Department spokesperson Kristin Hanson, who declined to comment on the specifics of proposed rule changes.

“The Seattle Fire Department is aware that a special committee will most likely be stood up by the State Building Code Council to review this proposal,” Hanson said. “We can’t comment on that work and any resulting code amendments until proposals are developed. The Seattle Fire Department will, as always, monitor and provide input to ensure adequate access and egress is maintained for life safety purposes.”

Hutchins laments that fire safety officials in the U.S. tend to err on the side of being overly cautious, even if there’s no evidence showing their approach actually increases safety or reduces response times. He notes that in Europe, for instance, elevators are sized to fit a wheelchair rather than a full gurney as is required by code in the U.S. 

“European apartment elevators and others all around the world can be much smaller because they allow for somebody to sit in a wheelchair,” Hutchins said. “And so this little building code wrinkle, to accommodate for extremely rare events, is driving the entire industry towards a less-efficient use of space.”

Smith concurs, noting that “fire and building officials don’t want to hear anything about another country. It’s of zero interest to them. They write it off very quickly.”

If fewer new units are permitted and built because of restrictions, that leaves most residents living in older buildings with lower safety standards, Smith pointed out.

“We’re not always great at balancing the various kinds of benefits,” he said. “Because new buildings are much safer than old buildings. So if you make it harder to build a new building, you are actually decreasing fire safety.”

Correction: The initial draft said the change would apply to single family lots with more than two dwellings. Actually it appears to apply to all single family lots with multiple dwellings. This was corrected at 1pm Tuesday.

The post Fire Marshals Target Backyard Cottages with Proposal for Wider Pathway Requirements first appeared on The Urbanist.

Mayor Bruce Harrell called ADUs a key element of his agenda addressing “urgent” housing affordability issues as he rolled out his legislation in September.

“Making progress on Seattle’s urgent housing affordability needs requires not only increasing overall production, but increasing the diversity of housing available,” Harrell said in a statement. “ADUs are a key element of our One Seattle Housing Agenda as an efficient, sustainable option to address the housing shortage while also creating new opportunities for first-time homebuyers, multigenerational living, age-friendly housing, and financial stability for homeowners while also preventing displacement.”

In the fall, Harrell’s Office said they had hoped to enact the changes well ahead of the state deadline, but passing the proposal ended up taking another eight months. As a result, the provisions went into effect on the last day before the state deadline hit at the end of June.

Passed as part of a series of statewide housing reforms in 2023, House Bill 1337 pushes cities to relax ADU regulations, with most Puget Sound cities facing the same deadline as Seattle. In most cases, the state bans parking mandates for new ADUs within a quarter mile of a major transit stop. Seattle had already done away with off-street parking requirements for ADUs in 2019, but many other jurisdictions will need to revise their regulations to comply.

What’s in the new ADU reform

Under Seattle’s new provisions, attached and detached accessory dwelling units will be permitted in all zones where single-family residences are allowed and allow for up to two ADUs on the same lot as a principal residence — which doesn’t necessarily have to be a single-family residence. That’s a marginal increase in the number of ADUs allowed outside of Neighborhood Residential (NR) zones.

Most ADU regulations have been consolidated to a single section in the City’s Land Use Code rather than being spread across chapters. The new legislation provides for a spate of provisions that will encourage ADU construction:

• The configuration of ADUs on lots will be more flexible than ever before, allowing ADUs to be attached, detached individually, or even in a detached structure when two detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) form a de facto duplex.
• Unit lot subdivisions will now be possible when a DADU is present on a parent lot, provided that the DADU is located on the same unit lot as its related principal residence.
• The height limit for ADUs will increase to 32 feet in the NR and Residential Small Lot (RSL) zones — a significant increase above the current highest limit of 18 feet in those zones — as well as 32 feet in multifamily zones, up from a 20-foot height limit. In other zones, the height limit for ADUs will generally be 40 feet or more.
• The maximum floor area above ground for ADUs will be 1,000 square feet, as is already the case in NR and RSL zones. For multifamily zones, this increases the maximum allowed floor area by 350 square feet. Additionally, the maximum floor area limit may be exceeded in all zones when converting space in an existing principal residence, as currently allowed in NR and RSL zones.
• Limitations on entrance locations to ADUs and exterior stairs will no longer apply.
• Favorable conversion provisions that exist in NR and RSL zones will apply to all zones, allowing for easier conversion of existing accessory structures that may be nonconforming to development standards to be converted to and expanded as ADUs.
• Street improvement requirements will not apply to the creation of ADUs, except when a project necessitates repair or replacement of the street (e.g., tearing up an existing paved street or sidewalk for site construction).

Middle housing reform could amend changes

However, interim middle housing legislation did make some changes to the new ADU regulation. Under the adopted legislation, ADUs will count as dwelling units for density purposes in NR and RSL zones and become subject to lighter-touch amenity area and design standards in multifamily zones.

Seattle’s interim middle housing legislation came about after the City struggled to meet the state deadline, due to external legal appeals and internal delays hashing out the plan within the Harrell Administration. The state deadline for middle housing reform, which also loomed at the end of June, was set in 2023’s House Bill 1110.

The City has pledged to come back quickly and pass permanent legislation to give builders more certainty about what housing they can build in Neighborhood Residential zones. Some blocks today zoned NR are set to become “Neighborhood Centers” with denser zoning designations to go along, sometime next year.

Permanent legislation proposed for middle housing — slated for adoption this fall — would make further changes to ADU laws in the city. Key changes could limit the number of ADUs allowed on all lots to just two, regardless of how many principal residences exist on a lot, and counting ADUs as dwelling units in all zones with density limits.

Another proposed change would strike reduced building separation requirements, which could mean setting DADUs further away from principal residences. 

However, the permanent legislation would simplify ADU regulations by largely applying basic development standards within zones that regular principal residences are subject to, such as height limits, lot coverage, floor-area ratio (FAR), and setbacks. That mostly keeps or adds favorable regulations for ADUs, but may not necessarily make them more attractive than other middle housing types.

The draft legislation keeps the ADU size limit at 1,000 square feet of floor area above ground, despite Harrell’s Office previously floating the idea of increasing it. Following the statewide reform, 1,000 square feet is the smallest ADU size limit that cities are allowed to set.

ADU reforms and remaining obstacles

The reform is the latest chapter in the longer saga of Seattle’s attempts to spur ADU production.

In 2019, the Seattle City Council passed sweeping ADU legislation allowing ADUs on nearly all lots in NR zones, including new allowances for larger DADUs and up to two ADUs per lot. The process to enact the legislation took several years after former Councilmember Mike O’Brien first proposed it in 2016. Legal appeals by homeowner groups delayed enactment, but ironically led to broader reforms to ADU regulations than initially contemplated.

In 2020, the City followed up the ADU reform by launching a webpage with pre-approved designs called ADUniverse that was intended to make it easier and more enticing for homeowners to add a cottage in their backyard. Unique site conditions (trees, slopes, etc.) limit the extent to which generic designs negate the need to hire an architect.

Seattle’s 2019 ADU reform succeeded in boosting permitting and production, but it hasn’t been a panacea. The City noted headwinds, pointing to high interest rates as a culprit in slowing momentum.

“A recent analysis from the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) found that the City issued 987 permits for ADUs in 2023, a fourfold increase over 2018 permitting levels,” the Mayor’s Office noted in September. “However, ADU permit applications have fallen this year by nearly 40% compared to the same period in 2023, as interest rates hit a 20-year peak. The new incentives will remove regulatory barriers to help make the construction of ADUs more feasible for homeowners, while remaining consistent with Seattle’s building code, short-term rental code, and tree code.

Even if the path to a building permit is clearer, high regulatory costs remain a major obstacle. While the new ADU ordinance seeks to reduce costs related to transportation improvements, high utility hook-up fees have remained an obstacle. Such fees are much harder for small-scale builders to bear compared to well-capitalized large-scale builders, and can kill project feasibility.

Rising costs and unexpected fees appear to be contributing to a trend of homeowners sitting on ADU permits rather than moving forward. Only 37% of ADU permits submitted to Seattle between 2017 and 2021 resulted in a completed building, Alex Czarnecki, founder of Cottage, a platform that assists with ADU construction, reported in 2023.

The Mayor’s Office has presented a proposal to lessen water hook-up fees by providing a pot of public money for cost-sharing for water main system upgrades. However, some in the development community — including civil engineer Donna Breske in an Urbanist op-ed — have criticized the move as not going far enough and falling short in addressing the cost issue.

Overall, the vast majority of Seattle’s housing growth continues to be provided by large apartment buildings. That said, ADUs offer a safety valve, albeit a small one, thus far, with the latest reform hoping to continue to build on that fledgling momentum.

The post Seattle Eases Accessory Dwelling Restrictions Just Ahead of State Deadline first appeared on The Urbanist.

In 2021, the county council made sweeping changes to encourage ADUs in urban areas. Snohomish County includes several unincorporated communities that are relatively dense and fast-growing, including areas around future light rail stations planned at Mariner and Ash Way Park and Ride. Overall, 376,700 residents live in unincorporated Snohomish County — 43% of the county’s population.

Ahead of the county council’s unanimous vote earlier this month, Councilmember Megan Dunn, who was a sponsor of the legislation last year, expressed her support for the ordinance. “I just want to appreciate all the staff and all the input and working on this for a number of years, actually,” Dunn said. “We’re excited for this, for improving home ownership, affordability, and accessibility.”

Part of the impetus for the county’s ADU reform are new state mandates to reduce barriers to ADUs and encourage their creation, which are due on June 30. The scope of the state mandates is broad, touching on the quantity, type, and configuration of ADUs that must be allowed, as well as size and bulk limitations on ADUs.

Under previous regulations, Snohomish County only permitted ADUs when proposed on a lot with a single-family home. Up to two ADUs could be formed on such lots, provided that one is an attached accessory dwelling unit (AADU) and one is a detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU). Two of the same type — two AADUs or two DADUs — were not permitted under the 2021 rules.

The new regulations will provide more flexibility by allowing ADUs on lots with single-family homes, regardless whether they are in a detached or attached form, and on lots with duplex homes. These housing types are allowed in all low- to high-density urban residential zones (R-9,600, R-8,400, R-7,200, T, LDMR, and MR). The configuration and quantity of ADUs that will be allowed for these housing types differs as follows:

The new legislation modifies bulk regulations to support the creation of ADUs. This includes increased lot coverage to a maximum of 55%, reduced setbacks from private roads to five feet for principal units and ADUs, and reduced setbacks from most public roads to five feet for ADUs. As a further incentive for ADUs, the regulations grant land use administrators leeway to permit conversion of existing nonconforming structures into ADUs even when doing so would contravene setback and lot coverage standards.

Architectural standards that had required similar aesthetics and design to a principal unit will no longer apply. That removes a small but discretionary barrier for developers and homeowners to design ADUs as they wish, offering more creativity, flexibility, and certainty.

While the county eliminated owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs or their related principal units in 2021, the ADU definition required the ADUs be under the same ownership as their related principal unit. The adopted ordinance strikes this text, allowing for ADUs to be converted to condominiums and sold separately. 

ADUs will still be subject to other existing development regulations, however. Key examples include:

• A size limitation of 1,200 square feet of floor area (not inclusive of garages, porches, unfinished basements, and unheated storage areas) for each ADU;
• Setbacks of at least 5 feet from side and rear lot lines, and potentially greater depending upon the zoning circumstances;
• A height limit of at least 30 feet, and potentially greater depending upon the zone; 
• No off-street parking requirements; and
• Documentation that there is sufficient legal water availability and flow and sewage or septic system capacity.

Natalie Reber, a government affairs manager for the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, lauded the ADU reforms ahead of the county council’s final adoption of the ordinance. 

“These proposed changes align with the Growth Management Act. They support housing affordability and promote sustainable land use policies that benefit all of the residents of Snohomish County,” Reber said. “So we think this is an important first step towards making middle housing a reality in Snohomish County, and we’re very supportive of the ordinance.”

The post Snohomish County Relaxes Urban Accessory Dwelling Rules Ahead of State Deadlines first appeared on The Urbanist.

In fact, Moore delivered a slow-growth manifesto, tinged with derision for renters, who she portrayed an unengaged and a detriment to neighborhoods.

“Too many of our young people cannot afford to live in a city, and this is what’s driving a lot of this,” Moore said. “And yet they are told, ‘if you just let us have a free rein and build, you’ll be able to afford, you’ll be able to have housing.’ It’s not true. It is an economic justice issue, and so allowing free-range zoning is not going to get you into the home that you want. It’s not going to create the ownership opportunity that you need to grow your wealth to have create a stable society where people are engaged socially and politically. What we’re talking about is building high-end townhouses and lots of rentals. Rentals are not stable.”

Moore singled out the Maple Leaf neighborhood center (where she lives) as one she’d seek to roll back in particular, citing neighbor concerns, transit service she characterized as substandard, and her “two formal requests to the mayor’s office to remove it.”

“I’m not prepared to sacrifice this particular neighborhood and reason that I live here and support this neighborhood so that we can just throw a bunch of townhouses up that start at $700,000,” Moore said.

Later in the meeting, Councilmember Dan Strauss (District 6) encouraged his colleagues seeking to remove neighborhood centers to propose zoning changes that add housing elsewhere in their respective districts in order to maintain the principle of shared commitment to addressing the housing crisis and welcoming neighbors.

Moore: Urbanists are lying

Moore’s speech was loaded with anti-developer sentiment, claims that homebuilders and urbanists are lying, and insinuations that affordable housing providers have been manipulated to be on their side. She questioned the very concept of density. The comments echoed those she made last year at King County’s Housing Affordability Committee, which levied significant criticism of Harrell’s initial growth plan as not going far enough in encouraging affordability.

“So, we also need to challenge this statement that density is going to produce what people are seeking,” Moore said. “When I talk to young people, they want a place of their own. They want a little garden. They want the amenities that us current homeowners have, and we’re creating a false promise with what we’re putting out here and what the urbanist people are telling us, and what the homebuilding association is telling us, and even some of the affordable housing providers, who desperately need more affordable housing and have had to — because of the structure of the Mandatory Housing Affordability act — have had to try to have allegiance to them.”

The Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program is Seattle’s version of inclusionary zoning, which means that all new multifamily housing contributes to affordable housing creation be either paying a fee into the City’s affordable housing trust fund or setting aside homes as affordable on-site. The MHA requirements were paired with upzones increasing housing capacity and enacted into law in 2019 across Seattle’s 27 urban villages (which are being renamed urban centers in the new comprehensive plan). So far, new single-family homes — despite being the most expensive type of housing in the city — have been exempt from MHA contributions or upzones.

Due to a statewide middle housing minimum standard, single family zones will no longer be exempt from upzones, with fourplexes set to be allowed citywide and sixplexes near major transit. The mayor’s direction on MHA requirements in these zones is not yet clear, but he seems to be leaning against applying them, hoping to avoid a drag on development. Townhome builders have smaller margins and less access to capital compared to large multifamily builders. Overall, Seattle housing production has remained strong following MHA passage, with the city likely setting a housing production record in 2024, driven mostly by apartment construction.

Moore accurately identified that the Harrell’s plan is focused on townhomes, but her assertion that $700,000 townhomes are not a welcome addition across many neighborhoods where single family homes easily cost more than $1 million is less certain, and family-sized housing options are scant otherwise. Moreover, her preferred alternative — apparently housing co-ops — hardly appears ready to be scaled up as a major housing option to be relied upon by Seattle’s middle class.

Outside of relying on the private market, the route to expanding low-income homes and family-sized middle housing would require subsidy and thus considerable public investment. It’s unclear where that public investment would be found at scale. Moore and her colleagues (besides the recently departed Morales) backed a City budget in November that raided more than $300 million in JumpStart revenues (largely set aside for affordable housing) in order to fund Council’s priorities and close a shortfall without raising new revenue.

When Moore was running for office in 2023, she told The Urbanist she was grateful for the new state mandate pushing the city to allow additional density, and said she was in favor of either the most transformative growth option that the Harrell Administration was studying — alternative five — or an even more ambitious alternative six that many housing advocates had been pushing the city to study. “If we have diversity of housing including duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and apartments in all neighborhoods, I think ultimately that makes us healthier,” she told Crosscut shortly before the election.

Getting up to speed on housing plans

Meanwhile, Councilmember Rob Saka sought a primer on the basics of comprehensive planning, growth management, and housing economics from Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) senior staff, but also shared some criticisms of the process. The newly installed chair of the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan, Joy Hollingsworth (District 3), urged councilmembers to do their homework and get basic questions answered during office hours rather than derailing meetings. This advice Saka quickly ignored.

The former chair of the committee, District 2 Councilmember Tammy Morales, resigned from the city council effective January 6, citing ostracization and mistreatment by her colleagues. Morales was the only councilmember with an urban planning background.

Organized homeowner group opposition has picked up as the One Seattle plan has neared the finish line. Dozens turned out during public comment Monday — many sharing similar talking points, such as the assertion that new housing would jeopardize Puget Sound’s resident Orca whale population. It’s unclear how the next 100,000 people added to the Puget Sound region would threaten marine ecosystems in a way that the four million residents and their two million cars (with tires that emit particles toxic to the salmon resident Orca rely on) don’t already.

OPCD shared a timeline that calls for passing the first phase of the Comprehensive Plan legislation in May, which would square the city with state middle housing mandates. OPCD split the plan into a second phase that adds the new neighborhood centers and expansions of existing urban centers, which may prove to be the more controversial half. OPCD hopes to pass phase two in September.

District 7 Councilmember Bob Kettle, a former leader with the Queen Anne Community Council, noted the City should expect legal challenges that could delay the plan, alluding to the group’s appeal that delayed backyard cottage reform by several years, among others. Both Rivera and Kettle stressed that the City should have factored that risk into their timeline.

"I'm from Queen Anne, I know groups like to appeal," CM Bob Kettle says of the potential for the city's Comp Plan to be subject to an appeal at the hearing examiner. If you'd like to unpack that comment… www.theurbanist.org/2018/10/26/w…

— Ryan Packer (@typewriteralley.bsky.social) January 6, 2025 at 11:35 AM

Rivera pressed OPCD top brass on the reasons why the Comprehensive Plan was so behind schedule, with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) not even out yet (it’s expected by the end of the month). OPCD Director Rico Quirindongo and Long Range Planning Manager Michael Hubner both repeated the phrase “a lot of moving parts” a few times, but neither gave a satisfying answer for Rivera.

Behind the scenes, it appears OPCD and the Mayor’s Office not being on the same page about the plan initially in 2023 set back the release of the Draft EIS, as The Urbanist’s reporting revealed in April. Public records show Harrell’s team halved the number of neighborhood centers in the plan, vastly scaled back transit corridor upzones, and questioned the need for ending parking mandates citywide, as neighboring Shoreline recently approved to curb housing costs. Given the lack of mayoral buy-in, OPCD redid their draft plan.

Nonetheless, housing advocates have largely rallied around the Mayor’s plan, noting the improvements it makes over the status quo. The Mayor also added five more neighborhood centers to the plan and loosened multiplex size restrictions in October, responding to advocates and increasing housing opportunities. Compared with the backsliding homeowner groups (and some councilmembers) are seeking, it looks preferable.

The next Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan meeting is January 15th at 2pm, with a whole schedule of meetings laid out through May on the committee webpage. An evening public hearing on February 5 will be an opportunity for Seattleites who aren’t free on a Monday morning to weigh in.

The post Moore Leads Housing Backlash in Seattle Council’s First Comprehensive Plan Meeting first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Mayor also announced a forthcoming companion piece of legislation, slated to be released next year that will build upon proposed reforms.

“Making progress on Seattle’s urgent housing affordability needs requires not only increasing overall production, but increasing the diversity of housing available,” Harrell said in a public statement. “ADUs are a key element of our One Seattle Housing Agenda as an efficient, sustainable option to address the housing shortage while also creating new opportunities for first-time homebuyers, multigenerational living, age-friendly housing, and financial stability for homeowners while also preventing displacement.”

Harrell staked a claim to national leadership with his ordinance: “Seattle’s ADU ordinance is one of the most progressive in the country, and this forward-thinking proposal will enhance it to create more flexible living options and inclusive, vibrant communities throughout our city.”

ADUs are categorized in two broad ways in Seattle: attached accessory dwelling units (AADUs), when attached to a principal dwelling unit; and detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs), when located in a separate structure on a lot from the principal dwelling unit. Seattle currently allows ADUs in all zones where single-family dwelling units are permitted, but the regulations diverge by zone and are highly specific in Neighborhood Residential (NR) zones where they are most commonly established.

Brief history of ADU reform

In 2019, the Seattle City Council passed sweeping ADU legislation allowing ADUs on nearly all lots in NR zones, including new allowances for larger DADUs and up to two ADUs per lot. The process to enact the legislation took several years after former Councilmember Mike O’Brien first proposed it in 2016. Appeals by homeowners opposed to more ADUs delayed enactment, but ironically led to broader reforms to ADU regulations than initially contemplated.

Since then, the Washington State Legislature has taken up the mantle in pursuing creation of ADUs statewide in urban areas. That culminated in the latest substantive state laws enacted in 2023 through House Bill 1337, which collectively push cities to further relax local ADU regulations. Seattle has until July 2025 to comply with those laws; the proposed legislation is designed to satisfy those laws and go further in some ways.

The Mayor’s Office has said they’d like to implement the ADU reforms ahead of the deadline to boost housing creation sooner. This is not the approach Harrell has taken to implementing the state’s missing middle requirement, a project which has fallen behind schedule along with the rest of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan. The state requirement for large cities to allow fourplexes citywide and sixplexes near major transit will need to be implemented by July 2025 or the state model code will supersede Seattle’s zoning and implement the standard for them.

Seattle’s 2019 cottage reform has largely been a success, with ADU production up significantly, but the City noted headwinds and a slowing of momentum, pointing to high interest rates.

“A recent analysis from the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) found that the City issued 987 permits for ADUs in 2023, a fourfold increase over 2018 permitting levels,” the Mayor’s office noted. “However, ADU permit applications have fallen this year by nearly 40% compared to the same period in 2023, as interest rates hit a 20-year peak. The new incentives will remove regulatory barriers to help make the construction of ADUs more feasible for homeowners, while remaining consistent with Seattle’s building code, short-term rental code, and tree code.”

The first batch of ADU reforms

The Mayor’s proposed legislation would accomplish the following:

• Two ADUs per lot citywide. Up to two ADUs per principal dwelling unit on a lot would be explicitly allowed. Current provisions allowing two ADUs are specific to Seattle’s NR zones. The state-required reform allows two ADUs per lot in Residential Small Lot (a subtype of NR zones) and Lowrise zones, where currently only one ADU is allowed per principal dwelling unit.
• Combination of ADUs. ADUs would be allowed in any combination, whether two AADUs, one AADU and one DADU, or two DADUs. Current provisions, which allow up to two ADUs per lot in NR zones, do not allow a configuration with two DADUs.
• Boosting living space allowance to 1,000 square feet. The maximum gross floor area for ADUs would be set at 1,000 square feet, with exemptions for any underground floor area, up to 250 square feet for an attached garage, and certain storage areas, and allowance for larger AADUs in structures existing as of July 23, 2023. Current provisions limit ADUs to no more than 650 square feet — with some exceptions — in Lowrise zones.
• Raising height limit to 30 feet or more. The height limit for all ADUs would be raised to the height limit of principal dwelling units in NR zones (generally 30 feet), townhouses and rowhouses in Lowrise zones (generally 30 to 50 feet), 40 feet in all other zones that have a height limit of 40 feet, and 50 feet in all other zones with height limit above 40 feet. On top of this, ADUs would be able to use any applicable rooftop and pitched roof exceptions for additional height. Currently, height limits affect DADUs, limiting them to 14 to 18 feet plus three- to seven-foot roof bonuses in NR zones and 20 feet plus a three-foot pitched roof bonus in Lowrise zones.
• Required yards and setbacks. The rear yards and setbacks for DADUs will be zero feet from alleys and five feet in all other circumstances, with specific exceptions for certain architectural features like eaves and bay windows which may be closer to lot lines. Current regulations are more restrictive in Lowrise zones.
• Conversion of existing accessory structures. In all zones, accessory structures existing as of July 23, 2023 would be eligible to be converted to DADUs even if non-conforming to many development standards, except for height, density, and size limits. The provision further allows for replacement of such structures and additions, provided that any additions conform to development standards. A similar provision currently exists for NR zones, but not in other zones including Lowrise zones. 
• Easing lot eligibility for DADUs. Lot eligibility requirements for DADUs, such as minimum lot area and dimensions, would no longer be required in NR zones.
• Waiving location of entry requirements. Prescriptive location of entry standards for ADUs would no longer be required in any zone.
• Eliminating car parking mandates. No car parking would be required for any ADU. This is already current law in NR and Lowrise zones, but the proposed provision would apply in all zones.
• Street improvements. Beyond repair or replacement of public streets necessitated by construction work related to an ADU (e.g., installation of a new sewer line in the street), regular street improvements would not be required in connection to construction of an ADU.

Builders and housing advocates have pointed to high utility hookup fees and other sewer upgrade requirements as a significant barrier to construction of ADUs and other forms of “missing middle” housing that lack the economic scale to weather high regulatory fees. It’s unclear how much relief the street improvements provision can offer, with Seattle Public Utilities and the Seattle Department of Transportation appearing to have a central role in determining how broadly this measure is interpreted and implemented.

Second round of reforms

Next year, the Harrell Administration will release a companion piece of legislation for ADU reform. Details are still relatively high level at this time, but the Mayor outlined four primary objectives for the legislation:

1. Encourage more family-sized homes by increasing the maximum ADU size to 1,500 square feet, to promote the creation of more three-bedroom ADUs.
2. Simplify ownership paths for ADUs, by reducing the need to establish homeowners’ associations. This presumably means allowing each ADU to exist on its own fee simple lot, which would be created through unit lot subdivisions commonly found in townhouse and rowhouse developments.
3. Seek to retain existing homes on lots by allowing additional exceptions to design standards and not counting ADU construction as a substantial alteration.
4. Make placement of second ADU on lots easier through alternative building separation and attachment options, such as permitting AADUs when only attached to a principal dwelling unit by breezeways.

While acknowledging the need for family-sized three-bedroom homes, critics have pointed out increasing ADU size would tend to increase prices, decreasing their direct applicability as a solution for working class affordability. As recently as the 1970s, the median size of new primary homes was around 1,500 square feet, but average home sizes have climbed steadily in the decades since, contributing to the housing affordability crisis.

Looking ahead

The Seattle City Council is not expected to take up the first batch of reforms until after the busy fall budget season. The legislation will start in the Land Use Committee, where Chair Tammy Morales has pledged support for the idea.

“This legislation is an important step towards making Seattle a more affordable city. By streamlining the permitting process for ADUs and creating more family-sized, flexible housing options, we are giving homeowners the tools to contribute to a more diverse housing stock,” Morales said in a statement. “I’m happy to bring this legislation forward as Chair of the Land Use Committee so we can expand access to affordable housing, homeownership, and intergenerational living opportunities while growing our toolkit to stem displacement across the City.”

The post Harrell Proposal Would Relax Accessory Dwelling Unit Rules, Implement State Law first appeared on The Urbanist.

Washington is no exception. Last year, the state house took action to make building ADUs in urban areas easier, too. HB 1337 took effect in July 2023 and aims to make it easier for residents to convert units like garages into ADUs across the state. These plans were consequently followed up by Rep. Jessica Bateman’s HB 1110, which sought to expand the concentration of duplexes to sixplexes, stacked apartments, and the like. 

These bills aren’t only a way to address population density and housing in Washington; they will protect the environment as well. ADUs support sustainable development plans as they typically require fewer resources during construction, are energy-efficient, and minimize urban sprawl. 

ADUs and resource efficiency 

Building a new home is a resource-intensive process with high carbon costs. Newly built homes create 50 million tons of carbon per year in the U.S. alone, which is an obstacle to achieving state and national climate action goals that have been set.

ADUs in cities can help cut back on carbon emissions in several ways. In Washington, transportation emissions are a huge culprit because many, especially suburban and rural residents, have long commutes for work and errands. When it comes to emissions from suburban homes versus urban homes, people who live in suburbia are responsible for more transportation emissions than city dwellers. Building affordable ADUs in cities allows people to live closer to employers, cultural attractions, amenities, and public transit.

ADUs that serve as small homes have the potential to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and improve energy efficiency. This claim is backed by state-sponsored research completed in neighboring Oregon, which found that extra-small homes produce 20% to 40% less construction emissions than medium standard homes per year. ADUs also lower heating and cooling costs than larger homes, and, in urban settings, fewer transportation emissions than comparable homes built farther into suburbs.

However, rural DADUs may not have the associated benefit of reducing transportation emissions as compared to urban infill housing. And they don’t have the same water-saving properties as urban ADUs. This is a serious issue in the Evergreen State, which experiences high levels of water stress. 

Homeowners who do decide to convert existing structures into ADUs can also use the funds they generate from rent or guest accommodation to fund energy-efficient installations like solar panels. Solar panels offer long-term savings and increase the resale value of a home. Some homeowners may be eligible for federal solar credits, one-time rebates, and low-interest loans. 

ADUs, which tend to be smaller than most homes, are perfect candidates for electric heat pumps. New rules, which come into place in March 2024, make it easier for homeowners to install energy-efficient heat pumps. This would aid in making ADUs even more sustainable, as heat pumps produce less pollution than gas furnaces. Homes that utilize heat pumps, which run solely on electricity, embolden efforts to move away from gas heating and lend support to calls for a greener grid.

Challenges facing ADUs

Despite legislative changes designed to make building ADUs easier, to increase urban infill development, and to help city-dwelling Washingtonians live more energy-efficient lives, ADUs still face some serious hurdles before they become the norm across the state. Parking requirements, in particular, are one of the most serious impediments to ADUs. For example, if an ADU is planned more than a half mile from a major transit stop, a Washington city or county may cite off-street parking requirements as a reason to withhold permitting for the project. There are challenges to ADUs in less densely populated areas, too. This spring, lawmakers battled over rural ADUs and whether they are aligned with the state’s housing and environmental protection goals. 

Washington’s lawmakers and citizens are rightfully concerned about urban sprawl. Urban sprawl, which occurs when a town or city starts to creep into rural land, is a major issue for the environment on multiple fronts. Not only does it turn green spaces into city-like zones, but it also infringes on farms and undermines our ability to support resilient, regenerative food systems. 

Allowing more housing in already built-up areas is key to slowing sprawl. Dr. Mitch Hunter, Senior Research Fellow with the American Farmland Trust, explains that a metropolis is “like an accordion,” and that building denser suburbs is akin to squeezing an accordion. Building and converting more existing structures into ADUs helps urban areas reduce sprawl, but denser multifamily housing is needed, too.

Lawmakers should also address the potential inequalities that ADUs can fuel, too. Currently, wealthy White homeowners disproportionately benefit from ADUs. This could cause income disparities and entrench racial inequalities if left unchecked. Natalie Bicknell Argerious notes that this is largely due to income inequality and the fact that White households “are significantly more likely to live in a single-family home than households of color.” Clearly, much must be done if the state is to meet its affordability, equity, and sustainability goals. 

Legislative moves that promote ADUs can free up funds for residents who choose to convert existing structures. Converted garages add plenty of value to a home in the form of rental space and guest accommodation. This is key, as eco-friendly home modifications to improve energy efficiency can be costly. By raising funds through rent and guest accommodation, folks can justify the investment in solar panels, heating pumps, and more energy-efficient HVAC systems.

Scaling urban ADUs

Of chief concern is the number of ADUs that Washingtonians can and will build in urban areas. For these structures to be most effective, it’s best for them to exist in cities where they will not contribute to sprawl and will add housing for those who need it. 

MRSC reports that Growth Management Act (GMA) counties, which must plan according to Washington’s GMA statutes, are required to allow two ADUs per qualifying lot. A total of 28 counties, making up 95% of Washington’s population, are GMA counties, which places cities like Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Olympia within the ADU provisions.

There’s huge potential for ADUs to scale up, given that local authorities can’t limit the units’ size to less than 1,000 square feet. According to the Cato Institute, ADU construction increased by 253% from 2019 to 2022 in Seattle alone, outpacing the production of single-family homes. However, the actual numbers might seem like a drop in the bucket. 

In 2022, the city issued 988 ADU building permits, while Seattle’s greater metro area saw 2,254 ADU applications. This might not seem like a lot, but Axios reports that the growth rate per capita for Seattle’s ADUs is more than two times faster than it is in any metro in California, where about 16% of new builds are ADUs. Overall, Seattle permitted about 8,200 homes in 2022.

Conclusion 

ADUs offer cost-effective living for residents in urban areas. They’re also great for the environment, as smaller spaces reduce urban sprawl, are less energy intensive, and have significantly lower carbon costs during the construction process. Residents who do decide to build ADUs can further reduce their footprint by utilizing energy-efficient heat pumps and installing solar panels. 

What remains to be seen in 2024 is whether ADUs will be able to put a real dent in the housing crisis. It’s not unreasonable to gather that ADU construction will continue to increase, and every little bit helps. However, cities can’t rely on ADUs alone to solve a housing problem that requires large-scale investment and a concerted effort from federal, state, and local governments to encourage homebuilding in the private, nonprofit, and public sectors.

The post Op-Ed: The Case for Accessory Dwelling Units first appeared on The Urbanist.

On Tuesday, amidst a deep housing affordability crisis, the outgoing Seattle City Council is setting the stage for a new fee to make building homes in Seattle even more expensive. 

This homebuilder fee — a “transportation impact fee” — threatens to hamper housing production, reduce funding for affordable housing, and deter development in areas with frequent transit service and good access to jobs and amenities. While we need more investment in Seattle’s multimodal transportation infrastructure, this is the wrong time and the wrong place for transportation impact fees on new development.

Housing starts are down, impact fees could make it worse

The timing of the proposed transportation impact fees could not be worse. With high interest rates and construction costs, home-builders are already finding it nearly impossible to make new housing projects financially feasible. While the skyline is still filled with cranes from developments started years ago, the city’s data shows applications for new apartment construction permits have plummeted, down from 11,200 between January and September of 2020 to just 2,600 between that same timeframe this year.  

Adding another fee on top of these challenges will limit new housing supply, exacerbating our existing shortage of all types of homes. Economic analysis commissioned by the Mobility Coalition projects that transportation impact fees imposed under the proposed amendment would reduce housing production by 15-17%. This reduction will worsen the housing shortage that fuels rising rents, displacement, and homelessness. 

To be clear, we believe transportation impact fees can be a helpful tool for suburban and rural jurisdictions to pay for infrastructure needs from new development, when there’s no conflict with other critical public goals. That is not the case in Seattle. Building homes close to jobs, amenities, and services reduces people’s need to drive long distances. It allows more people to get around by walking, transit, or cycling. Transportation impact fees risk displacing growth to outlying areas with fewer transportation options, increasing reliance on cars, adding to traffic congestion, and forcing our region to spend millions more in road and highway infrastructure to compensate.

Uncertain revenue with blowback potential

Finally, by disincentivizing development activity, any revenue generated by potential transportation impact fees may be offset by losses from other city revenue sources. The Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) is one of the major local sources of funding for transportation, and collections are driven by property sales and new development. REET revenues have declined precipitously and are projected to decline 10% more in 2023.

Construction also contributes to our sales and B&O tax revenues, both of which are predicted to continue to decline due to the industry-wide slowdown. And because of Mandatory Housing Affordability — which requires private developers to either include affordable apartments in new buildings or pay a fee to the Office of Housing — slowdowns in development activity will directly reduce funding available for affordable housing for low-income families. 

Seattle needs more homes to address our affordability crisis. Instead of adopting another fee that will add costs to home-builders and worsen the housing shortage, the Council should lead with the mayor on ways to help the city recover from the pandemic and catalyze the additional economic activity and housing production we need. 

We need to build on the resounding success of the Seattle Housing Levy renewal by increasing all sources of funding for affordable housing, streamlining permitting, and investing in the Downtown Activation Plan. Furthermore, the future city council should align discussions on funding transportation infrastructure projects with an existing tool, the nine-year transportation levy, set for renewal next year. By adopting a holistic approach and fostering collaboration, we can make meaningful strides in addressing the housing affordability crisis while supporting sustainable transportation investments.

Take action!

You can reach your councilmembers by emailing them at council@seattle.gov or testifying at the City Council meeting at 2pm Tuesday November 21 either in-person or electronically. The sign-up form opens at noon. It’s a packed agenda with impact fees pretty far down the list, so the public comment session may go late in the meeting

This article is a cross-post from The Stranger, where it originally appeared.

The post Op-Ed: Seattle Council Is Trying to Make Housing More Expensive first appeared on The Urbanist.

The gauntlet created by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) for access to the public water system is taking a toll on new housing, including accessory dwelling units (ADU) infill projects. Only 37% of ADU permits submitted to Seattle between 2017 and 2021 resulted in a completed building, according to Alex Czarnecki, founder of Cottage, a platform that assists with ADU construction.

A factor contributing to the dismal permit success rate are restrictions for access to existing water mains in the City. This is due to two project-crushing definitions tucked away in a SPU administrative document under the innocuous sounding terms “No Taps Water Main” and “Obsolete Distribution Water Main.” The document dates back to 2021, but it is being revised this year to be even more limiting.

Under SPU’s revised Director’s Rule WTR-440, the definition of “no-tap“ includes “any water main designated with a “No Tap” restriction by SPU.” This is incredibly nondescript. It can randomly be applied to any water main at will by SPU.

The other “obsolete” definition is similarly vague and can be used by SPU to conclude any given water main within the City as “no tap water main.” Terms include inadequate diameter, excessive corrosion, inadequate material, and compromised structural properties. The meanings of each of these leads to capricious and arbitrary determinations by SPU that restrict connection to the existing water main system in Seattle. Moreover, if the city has distribution pipes with excessive corrosion and substandard materials, it seems immediate maintenance to correct these conditions is required rather than penalizing new projects for these deficiencies.

Director’s Rules are administrative rules adopted according to the Administrative Code (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 3.02). The purpose of Director’s Rules is to aid in the implementation of the Seattle Municipal Code. Director’s Rules are not a vehicle to create mandates and definitions that are not supported by code. However, that is what these two definitions did with requirements not supported by City code.

SPU is treading into the territory of the City Council via the “on-the-fly” creation of these broad definitions. The vetting and procedural steps required within the City Council legislative process have been bypassed, thus resulting in these insidious definitions.  These definitions are being used by SPU to issue Water Availability Certificates that deny water service to new housing projects. Ironically, the Water Availability Certificate (WAC) issued by SPU has effectively become a Water Unavailability Certificate.

Furthermore, the definitions are in opposition to SPU’s own “SPU Cares Principles” affordability and accountability “to ensure utility services are available to everyone.”

As a practicing civil engineer with over 25 years of water system design experience for new housing projects, outside of Seattle I have never encountered a requirement for a capital improvement water system upgrade where there is no direct nexus between the demands of the project and the upgrade being required. Water purveyors in cities like Mukilteo and Alderwood routinely provide Water Availability Certificates with fewer hoops to jump through and no mandates for improvements to the public system as a condition of access to existing water mains.

However, a typical Seattle Water Availability Certificate comes with a condition that a costly and significant water system upgrade is required in order to have access to domestic water. SPU reverts to their created restrictive mandates in their administrative document WTR-440 to assert their position. By asserting a water main is a “no-tap main” SPU can then use another created condition found within WTR-440 that states, “A water main extension or other water system improvement is required in order to receive an Approved WAC.”

Decisions are made based upon the interest of the utility

A very troubling statement within the WTR-440 conveys a one-sided, self-serving position that is contrary to SPU’s duty to protect the interests of the public. Clearly stated is that decisions are made based upon the best interests of the utility. 

This is a “tail-wagging-the-dog” scenario, and is the complete opposite of the reason public water purveyors exist in the first place. Their very existence is to serve the public interest, not the interests of the agency. This sentence speaks volumes to the biased nature and one-sided groupthink that seems to have permeated the culture within SPU.

How SPU crushes housing projects

One example of how SPU strings-along a permit applicant through their unsavory web is demonstrated by an abandoned project I worked on at 2322 21^st Avenue S, as I laid out in a previous article. Located within the North Rainier Urban Village and west of Rainier Avenue S, the proposed project would have removed one house to construct six total dwelling units using the 2019 ADU/DADU update to the City of Seattle code.

The initial Water Availability Certificate (WAC) Issued from SPU stated that new water service to the project was not available because the water line in the street fronting the project was determined to be not suitable for tapping.  

After the applicant asked if there were any solutions, SPU then acted as the benevolent savior of the project, by responding with a condition for access to the public water system. A tap into the 24-inch main would be allowed after all, if the applicant paid for the design, procurement, and installation of a made-to-order fabricated 24-inch water valve.  

The valve had no effect on the integrity of the pipe for tapping. Why the initial WAC was issued stating the water main was unsuitable for tapping has not been explained. It is suitable and can be tapped for new domestic water service.

At this point the project proponent abandoned the project. The inconsistency of SPU designating the pipe as no-tap and then back-tracking and saying it can be tapped after all if a costly (maybe $100,000 plus) water valve is paid for and installed is troublesome and inconsistent. Plus, SPU’s lack of transparency makes it very difficult for developers to anticipate costs and proceed with investments, especially small developers with little margin for error or unexpected costs.

What’s changed: Prior water availability director’s rule

Water availability forms are to provide evidence of adequate water supply in accordance with Washington State law RCW 19.27.097(1)(a), which requires water purveyors to provide said evidence. Accordingly, a previous Director’s Rule CS-101 stated the purpose of a Water Availability Certificate is to provide information on the SPU water system only. Evidence of the water supply was conveyed by providing pressure zones and fire hydrant fire flows. 

However, SPU’s current Director’s rule WTR-440 includes verbiage that drifts from the limited purpose of a Water Availability Certificate. Instead this newer rule states that system improvements are required for a development project to receive water from SPU’s distribution system. Furthermore, the transparency of information previously provided, i.e., fire hydrant flow and pressure zone are no longer included within WTR-440.

Access to water is a right per Washington State Law (RCW 35.92.025). It is not a condition that one must pass muster via a gauntlet of unsubstantiated conditions created by an overzealous agency. Only charges proportional to the impact of the new development can be made to offset the cost of providing new water services. These charges must be established by ordinance per RCW 82.02.050(1)(b).  

Accordingly connection charges have been established by the Seattle City Council via ordinance and are provided in the below schedule. The greater the needs of the project, the greater the charge. Based upon the needs of the project and via this graduated fee schedule, each project pays an equitable share for new water service.

There are several RCW’s that protect the interest of person(s) seeking new water service.  However, none of these applicable RCW’s are harmonized into or referenced within WTR-440. Per RCW 35.02.025 and RCW 82.02.050(1)(b), an equitable or proportionate share can be charged based upon the impact the project has on the water system, not a random requirement of some overall participation via unrelated public system upgrades. Again, SPU actions are aimed at protecting the interest of the agency as opposed to ensuring the rights and interests of the public are protected.

Requiring payment via a capital system improvement is defined as an indirect fee and is specifically prohibited per RCW 82.02.020. Charging both connection fees and payment of system upgrades is “double-dipping,” i.e. collection of duplicate fees. Collection of duplicate fees is specifically prohibited per RCW 82.02.050(1)(c).

Another mandate for an unnecessary water system installation

Below is another example of how egregious SPU has become by ignoring the limitations of our RCW’s and instead asserting these Director’s Rules are the controlling documents. A two-lot short plat project that needs one new water meter, is being required to install $350,000 of new water main as a condition of access to the public water system. This despite the fact that there is an existing water main available within SW Elmgrove Street.

The applicant for the two-lot short plat has pursued the Utility System Dispute process to no avail. The Utility System Dispute Process is administered by SPU, typically making it a no-win situation for a project proponent.

The response from SPU included two reason to deny service from the water main in Elmgrove Street

• “The flag lot configuration has the effect of avoiding the water main extension”.  
• “WTR-440, Section VI.C.3.c applies when parcels are divided or adjusted in a way that has the effect of avoiding a water main installation or other appurtenance requirement. There is no discretion in the application of this rule.”

To assert anything about the geometry of lots within a water system administrative document conveys a blatant disregard for the limitations per the Seattle Municipal Code. Lot configurations and any limitations thereof are included in the Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 23. Any restrictions about lot geometry must be included within the SMC, not hidden within an administrative document. Again, SPU has placed absurd requirements within an administrative document and has circumvented the due process of the legislative review via the City Council.

SPU has no authority to place limitations for access to a public water main based upon a lot configuration and assert the lot configuration is a reason to deny access to water service. It is simply one more of many non-code supported assertions SPU has created to deny access to public water in an attempt to extract a disproportionately costly and unnecessary public water system installation as a condition of access to water.

SDCI, who, among other services, oversees sanitary sewer and storm water services, suggested the flag-lot configuration as means of access to existing sewer and storm water for the new lot. The flag lot configuration is intended to provide a means to access all public utilities in Elmgrove. 

These insidious Director’s Rules undermine the trust expected of an agency responsible for development services and permitting. It is the duty of a public water purveyor to provide service to everyone in accordance with the law, thus protecting the interests of the public. Whether a customer is a developer seeking new water service or an existing water service customer, any person has the right to access water without being required to provide disproportionally costly upgrades. The net effect of doing so is a drag on housing, particularly smaller “missing middle” type projects that cannot shoulder the burden and spread it across more homes.

SPU has created their own policy within Director’s Rules with no accountability and ignored the overarching rules-of-law to ensure that utility services are available to everyone. They have created a system that preys upon homebuilders to extract capital improvement system upgrades as a condition of access to public water. 

SPU policies and the permitting hurdles have resulted in chewing through and spitting out many contractors and developers trying to build housing in Seattle. A 37% success rate for new ADU building permits from 2017 to 2021 is shockingly low. Seattle relies upon contractors and developers to build much needed new housing.  The two developers for the two projects I included in this article do not intend to return to Seattle. They have already been burned and don’t desire to repeat the experience. One is in litigation with SPU over these costly water main requirements.

Director’s Rule WTR-440 does not demonstrate compliance with the overarching state laws or the limitations of the Seattle Municipal Code.  It must be immediately rescinded if there is any hope at providing middle-income housing that was celebrated as the outcome we would see from the heralded 2019 ADU reform legislation.

Editor’s note: A spokesperson for Seattle Public Utilities provided the following statement: “Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) disagrees with Ms. Breske’s characterizations. SPU will not comment further at this time as one of her clients has a pending lawsuit challenging the City’s water main extension requirements.” 

The post Op-Ed: Excessive Water Hook-up Fees Stunt Seattle’s ADU Building Boom first appeared on The Urbanist.

Using lawsuits and an aggressive opposition campaign in Seattle’s design review process, a small group of condominium owners has delayed construction of more than 3,000 units of housing downtown — and blocked $39.4 million in funding for the city’s affordable housing efforts.

An analysis by The Urbanist found that nine major housing developments in the downtown core have been stalled in design review, appeals to the hearing examiner, and lawsuits. All nine projects, if completed, would add significant contributions to the city’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) program — ranging from $2 million to $6.5 million per project.

One of the most active opponents to these new apartment projects is the association of condominium owners at Escala, a 31-story luxury tower built in 2010 at the intersection of Fourth Avenue and Virginia Street. In the past year, the Escala homeowners’ association has filed several lawsuits and appealed decisions by the Seattle Department of Constructions and Inspections (SDCI). It has aggressively commented in design review hearings for years, going so far as to hire a communications consultant, Megan Kruse, who frequently makes written and verbal comments on neighboring projects.

Kruse, who is not a resident of Escala, but has lived downtown for more than 40 years, told The Urbanist her client isn’t opposed to all nearby tower projects, but rather wants developers to mitigate impacts such as competing alleyway access, delivery and garbage truck traffic, and the loss of light to surrounding buildings.

“There are no guaranteed views,” Kruse said in a phone interview. “You can’t be the last one on the block. But everything should be weighed and balanced when it comes to the cumulative impacts. If you’re going to build this really huge 1,000-person building and not include a loading berth, there’s something wrong with that.” 

The project Kruse was referring to is a proposed 44-story, 550-unit apartment building at 2005 5th Avenue, across Virginia Street from Escala. During a design review meeting about the project on Tuesday evening, Kruse made comments taking issue with what she said were insufficient facilities in the alley for deliveries and garbage pickup. She presented a variety of slides asking for a redesign, citing a list of dangers ranging from national freight-related injury statistics to the climate impacts of delivery vans.

In its deliberations, the downtown design review board rejected Kruse’s criticisms, and voted unanimously to move the project forward.

Escala has also raised the issue of delivery trucks in design review comments and lengthy email correspondence with SDCI Director Nathan Torgelson regarding another nearby project, a 44-story tower with 461 apartments at 2025 5th Avenue. 

When asked to comment on delay tactics in the design review process, SDCI spokesperson Bryan Stevens wrote in an email, “[Design review] is not intended to be a vehicle for delay, but some may use it to challenge issues beyond the basis of a decision to cause delay or invoke a settlement. Our staff work to file motions for dismissal of appeals deemed to be erroneous or without merit.”

SDCI is currently holding a stakeholder review of the design review process and will make its recommendations soon, Stevens said. He said Mayor Harrell and Councilmember Dan Strauss are awaiting those findings before introducing legislation that would reform the design review process, including exempting design review from affordable housing projects or projects that contribute to the MHA fund. Also proposed in the legislation is a two-year pilot program allowing all multifamily housing projects to select internal SDCI administrative review over design review.

Brady Nordstrom, coordinator for Seattle For Everyone, said in an email to The Urbanist that “we believe that it’s time to fix Seattle’s design review as a specific bottleneck in the housing pipeline. Design review has become slower and more unpredictable in recent years.”

Twitter user @asher_971 drew attention to the delay issue in January, writing in a post about the stalled tower projects: “that’s hundreds of construction jobs, millions in MHA payments, and thousands of residents + potential shoppers + foot traffic blocked over concerns about historic preservation, views, lighting, noise, parking, and traffic.”

In addition to making comments, Escala hasn’t been shy about taking the city to court to oppose neighboring projects. It filed lawsuits against two proposed nearby developments at 1903 5th Avenue (a hotel-apartment complex with 229 units of housing) and 1933 5th Avenue (a hotel-apartment complex with 431 units of housing). The two projects, which have been stalled since 2016 and 2017, would together make an estimated contribution of $12.75 million to the city’s MHA program if built.

In December, the Washington state supreme court refused to hear both of Escala’s lawsuits against the two projects on Fifth Avenue. In a bracingly strong statement from the Seattle city attorneys arguing the case, they wrote, “Escala again failed to demonstrate any substantial public interest in their run-of-the mill ‘Not In My Backyard’ (‘NIMBY’) claims.”

Escala’s lawyers moved to strike that language from the court record, but the judge denied this request.

Arguing against the project, Escala’s attorneys claimed that shadows from the new buildings would result in “cancers, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders and mental health [sic].” The court rejected those claims, largely because of state legislation passed in 2022 that limits the use of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) challenges to housing projects based on concerns over aesthetics and light — in addition to provisions passed in 2019 limiting appeals based on traffic impacts. 

Meanwhile, a bill moving forward in the legislature introduced by Representative Amy Walen (D-48, Bellevue) would ban design review for housing projects statewide. 

“Problems with design review have recently become more well-known as evidenced by the multiple state bills seeking to reform the process,” Nordstrom said in an email. “We are enthusiastic about the growing public and political will to fix design review to be more inclusive, predictable, and efficient.”

In one of the cases before the state supreme court, city attorneys gave a shout out to the new state law limiting SEPA appeals: “In June 2022, at the urging of advocates who described how meritless SEPA appeals had delayed sorely needed housing projects, the legislature expanded the exemption to bar appeals based on alleged impacts to aesthetic and light as well.”

Escala isn’t the only opponent of new apartment towers downtown. In October, residents of the Madison Tower at 1000 First Avenue and the Seattle Historic Waterfront Association filed a lawsuit against the city, challenging a 17-floor, 245-unit apartment building replacing a surface parking lot at 1101 Western Avenue. The project would add nearly $2 million to the city’s MHA affordable housing coffers.

In August 2022, a group called the Belltown Livability Coalition filed an appeal against a Master Use Permit the city granted to a proposed 19-story, 181-unit apartment building at 2616 Western Avenue. The group’s website complains that the project, which would add $2.4 million to the city’s affordable housing fund, would end up “cluttering our skyline, cutting off light to the surroundings [sic] buildings, and modifying our city plan without our input.”

And condo owners in Fischer Studio, a 28-unit historic building constructed in 1918, have filed an appeal against a 46-story, 531-unit apartment tower at 1516 Second Avenue.

It turns out Megan Kruse lives at Fischer Studio and has, not surprisingly, been very active in opposing the project. 

Attorneys for Fischer Studio, in their appeal to the hearing examiner, claimed the nearby apartment tower would impact neighbors “through the nearly complete elimination of natural daylight in private residences, health impacts associated with loss of light, loss of privacy, loss of air quality, wind, and safety impacts associated with the proposal’s overuse of the alley, which will likely interfere with access, emergency response efforts should they arise, and put the health, life, and safety of residents of the Fischer Studio Building in jeopardy.”

In her interview with the Urbanist, Kruse echoed these dire concerns. “So there’s people going to be staring at our bedroom and living room windows 16 feet across the alley,” she said. “We had a study done, and 40% of the units will have the amount of light available in a movie theater, 365 days a year.”

Developers of the nearby tower, which was originally proposed in January 2019 before the onset of the pandemic, have guided the project through four years of design review, an appeal to the hearing examiner and a lawsuit from Fischer Studio. The project, if completed, would add $5.125 million to the city’s affordable housing efforts.

On Wednesday, February 21, the Washington state court of appeals rejected Fischer Studio’s suit, largely based on the new state law limiting SEPA challenges. The judge also observed that Fischer’s complaints about Seattle’s guidelines not being applied strictly had little legal merit, noting: “The ‘guidelines’ are not ordinances. They are not rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property. Fischer does not identify any law that requires the enforcement of the guidelines.”

For her part, Kruse would like the city to have even more stringent guidelines. “I think the reason there are all these challenges is because there are no firm rules. There are no standards that people can rely on,” she said, arguing that city residents want more assurances. “So that I’m not going to be all of a sudden living in a basement apartment because somebody decided not to be nice.”

The post Lawsuits Block Thousands of Downtown Seattle Homes, $39 Million for Affordable Housing first appeared on The Urbanist.