CB121215 & Amendments
Full council vote on Tuesday, July 28 at 2pm - see you then!

Tell Council: Vote NO on CB 121215 unless Amendment B passes.

How to comment in person: Meet us at City Hall at 2 p.m. Line up in the foyer and then give a 1 min comment in council chambers. By phone: Register here at 1:01 p.m. earliest on Tuesday. You’ll receive an email on how to call to comment.

SUMMARY - CB121215 Amendments were Released:

  • Amendment B preserves the public's right to appeal and also reforms the process to streamline housing-related appeals.

  • CB 121215 disenfranchises Seattle voters: Other appeals processes cost thousands of dollars, and only happen after legislation is enacted.

  • CB 121215 is a solution in search of a problem. As noted by Futurewise, Seattle has consistently led the nation in producing housing. This would not be possible if appeals were holding up housing production.

  • SEPA appeals are a tool for environmental justice; such as the I90 lid (Sam Smith Park) and Rainier Valley Community Development fund.

  • Any argument that SEPA  appeals cost time and money falls flat. Since 2016, Seattle averaged just 2.7 appeals per year, and only 8 of the 27 total appeals involved housing. Eliminating the right to address fewer than one housing-related appeal per year is out of scale.

  • CB121215 cites redlining, then leaves the equity box blank: The sponsor's public FAQ invokes the ugly history of redlining and the worse health outcomes it left for Black and Brown residents Seattle, yet no racial equity analysis was performed.

WHITEPAPER:A Better Bill Is Available. Council Should Write It, by Lois Martin - Read full whitepaper and FAQ
Councilmember Lin defended CB121215 in a July 24 FAQ and in recorded interviews. Community members across Seattle have raised important questions. This FAQ compares those claims with the public record.

News / Resources

POLICY BRIEF: Upzoning is not the answer:Why supply-side housing policy fails working families

LEGISLATION:

Learn from Other Cities

Bellingham realized that given the choice, developers would build McMansions instead of multifamily housing. They had to issue a one-year moratorium on permits for single family homes within multifamily housing-zoned areas. The details may differ—but the point remains: legislate what you want to see. If there is a glut of apartments in Seattle (13,500 on the market at this moment), why are we going to tear down single family homes to create more apartments?

Vancouver “went big” with their plan, and tripled its housing stock in hope of driving down costs; after growing more than any other city in North America, Vancouver is now the 3rd least affordable city in the world, sharing the “most expensive city” podium with Sydney and Hong Kong. Renowned professor and growth strategist Patrick Condon, author of Broken City, shows how foreign investment and speculation, which increased the cost of land, were at the root of the exacerbated affordability problem. Condon now speaks out on how “Abundance” is a fallacy in housing. Resources: Condon on land speculation & inequality (Podcast, 30 mins), Condon speaks out in Vancouver to reconsider planning for a specific area in Vancouver: 7 minute talk.

Portland literally “went small” with their plan, focusing upzoning with affordable density as the explicit, intended outcome. They did this by only allowing the building of affordable density types (attached, smaller homes). It resulted in affordable density, and housing prices have gone DOWN on average. Let’s study what they did – let’s learn from them! See article

State Mandate: Build Middle Housing,
not Single Family Homes and Tower-hoods

HB1110 defines Middle Housing as: “compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family houses and contain two or more attached, stacked, or clustered homes including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, fiveplexes, sixplexes, townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard apartments, and cottage housing.” Source: HB1110, lines 32 - 35

What is not Middle Housing? Detached single-family “tower homes” and oversized attached units over 1,250 square feet do not align with the spirit or intent of Middle Housing. When developers replace older, modestly priced homes with luxury units—especially tall, bulky tower homes—they eliminate existing Middle Housing, erase tree canopy, and drive up land values. These projects often attract wealthier buyers relocating from other cities, while long-time residents seeking attainable housing are left with even fewer options.

If we continue down this path, we risk accelerating the destruction of true Middle Housing—ironically, under the banner of creating it.

Over 30 Seattle organizations and neighborhood groups agree: Seattle can do better. The City’s HB1110 Permanent Legislation, which applies to every single-family lot in the city, unnecessarily shrinks setbacks, raises roof heights, and expands lot coverage—changes that will fast-track demolition and large-scale redevelopment across neighborhoods – to the benefit of developers and investors and to the detriment of affordable Middle Housing, current residents, and the environment. There are many examples of middle housing in Seattle today that respect the scale, character, and tree canopies of their neighborhoods – the true intent of HB1110. Let’s do more of that!

Capitol Hill | Central District | Columbia City | Green Lake | Greenwood | Haller Lake | Madison Park | Madrona |
Magnolia | Maple Leaf | Montlake | Mt Baker | Phinney Ridge | Queen Anne | Tangletown | Wallingford |
Washington Park | Wedgwood |West Seattle – Fauntleroy | West Seattle - Seaview/Fairmount | Whittier Heights

Take action today