Seattle City Councilmember Bruce Harrell

Incentive Zoning is a strategy to achieve public benefits, such as affordable housing, by creating incentives for developers in the form of additional height on new projects. For example, if the baseline height limit or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit is 40 feet in a given area, the City would then offer developers additional height or FAR in exchange for a commitment to provide affordable housing in or adjacent to the project. The City Council passed Council Bill 116358 as a means to ensure that new development in Seattle’s neighborhoods leads to a wider spectrum of affordable housing options and address the anticipated density. Some form of incentive zoning has been used in Seattle since the 1960s and it has produced hundreds of new housing units and generated millions of dollars to support the development of others. The City developed a program for commercial buildings in the 1980s and our recent rezoning in the downtown area is an example of how a targeted, strategic approach can work.

I remain concerned about whether a broad brush zoning approach defined in CB 116358 is the most effective means to achieve affordable housing or economic development, particularly in our current economy. The easiest and simplest approach would be to stamp this legislation as a “modest” tool to achieve the desirable end of affordable housing and hope for the best. But I believe such an approach defers the more complex work that has to be done and ignores certain housing realities that exist in our city. For example, we know that rezones for the Livable South Downtown area or the University District Urban Center or South Lake Union Urban Center are forthcoming. We know the conditions in certain neighborhoods might compel a different base or FAR (See Resolution 31104). We also know that many neighborhoods are significantly exceeding their growth targets (Ballard, Capitol Hill, Fremont), while the economic development and growth in other neighborhoods remain extremely low (Rainier Beach, Admiral, Crown Hill). We also know there is data to suggest a dramatic shortage of affordable housing for residents at lower income levels (70% of Area Median Income and below) and that higher end workforce housing (while also needed), increases the likelihood of displacement for others.

My preferred approach would be to increase our housing inventory by identifying the targeted areas where we want to encourage density and then establish the right base height. The enabling legislation, RCW 36.70A.540 affords Seattle this flexibility. We should incentivize builders by expediting the permit and review periods and prioritize this growth. We should maximize our use of light rail construction in this city and encourage designs that do not simply emphasize the height of tall “boxes” but encourage environmentally friendly designs that can add more housing units and amenities such as open space. Simultaneously, we should coordinate this strategy with the design of our upcoming housing levy and work toward increasing our housing growth fund with the same level of intensity and meticulousness.

In 1916, the first zoning laws in the United States were instituted in New York City. In Seattle, the first zoning ordinance was instituted in 1923. Then, the city was divided into six “use” districts and stated that no building should be constructed with an intended use that differed from that of the zone or district that it was in. At the core of zoning, both in its history and its current application, is the concept of targeted segmentation. In the end, I look forward to examining the success of CB 116358 and I am proud of the advocacy demonstrated by the housing communities and my colleagues on the Council. In 2010, we will reevaluate its effectiveness. I will be at the table advocating for how it can be improved with the goal of increased affordable housing being the goal.