The stage was set: Which Councilmembers would appear to support or oppose Councilmember Tom Rasmussen’s terrible amendments to already not-so-great low-rise legislation? By the time deliberations began on his 8 amendments, 7 Councilmembers were present a the Planning Land Use and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee. As we’ve pointed out, the legislation went from bad, to better, and would have been worse than what was originally proposed if Rasmussen’s amendments passed.

Our strategy was to turn out supporters of the underlying legislation to vote “no” in the PLUS Committee whether on the Committtee or not. The hope was Councilmembers favorable to the compromise legislation would vote “no” on every amendment. Only two Councilmemebers actually did that, Bagshaw and O’Brien.

Oddly, every other Councilmember voted “yes” on at least one amendment and “no” on at least one, except for Rasmussen who voted “yes” on every one. I’m still working to find out on the exact vote of each Councilmember — votes were by voice.

My theory is that Councilmembers wanted to vote “yes” on at least one of the amendments. This hedging means they can say to everyone involved, “I voted with you at least once!”

This is kind of good politics, although it’s the kind of pleasing behavior that got us here in the first place. Councilmembers acted as if they were throwing some red meat to the sharks hoping they’d be satisfied and go away. That’s never worked. Councilmember O’Brien has tried that before with previous legislation. It doesn’t work.

Here’s the quote I gave to a couple press outlets:

Today the PLUS Committee plus extra Councilmembers hedged its bets with neighborhood angst. The only right and good thing to do was vote down all the Rasmussen amendments. Instead, some Councilmembers made a bargain with angry neighbors, voting yes on some amendments. The problem is they are bargaining away a known good — more housing– for vague benefits like a neighbors view of the sky or a few feet of distance from a row house.

We still need to assess what all this might really mean and work to reverse the damage at full Council. But here’s a quick rundown of what passed and didn’t. (Updated: I am still trying to nail down who voted “yes” and “no” on some of these, but the three to watch are the ones that passed. We’ll be trying to reverse those amendments at full Council which is likely to vote on the whole of the legislation on July 6th)

Amendment 1: Application of floor area ratio (FAR) limits to exterior corridors 

CB 118385 includes FAR provisions for exterior spaces in multifamily projects that are located in Lowrise (LR) zones. The legislation would exempt exterior corridors and stairways in such projects from FAR calculations if they meet the Seattle Building Code standard for an exterior corridor or egress balcony (effectively, if they are less than 50 percent enclosed). This amendment would count all exterior corridors and stairways toward the FAR limits for projects in LR zones, regardless of their level of enclosure.

Passed: Yes votes, Okamoto, Godden, Licata, Rasmussen; No votes, O’Brien, Bagshaw, Burgess

Amendment 2: Expansion of interior spaces subject to floor area ratio (FAR) calculations 

This amendment would require all finished interior spaces with a floor-to-ceiling clearance of 36 inches or greater to be included in FAR calculations for projects in Lowrise (LR) zones. As a result, living spaces such as sleeping lofts that commonly feature a low floor-to-ceiling clearance would be counted toward applicable FAR limits.

Failed: Yes votes, Licata, Rasmussen, Godden; No votes, O’Brien, Bagshaw, Burgess, Okamoto

Amendment 3: Elimination of Passive House qualification for floor area ratio (FAR) increase 

CB 118385 would add certification by the Passive House Institute U.S. to the list of green building performance standards that qualify development projects in Lowrise zones for a higher FAR limit. This amendment would remove Passive House certification from that list.

Failed: Yes votes, Licata, Rasmussen, Godden; No votes, O’Brien, Bagshaw, Burgess, Okamoto

 Amendment 4: Elimination of floor area ratio (FAR) and height exemptions for partially-buried floors 

Currently, a 4 foot height increase is available for apartment projects in Lowrise (LR) zones if the building includes a partially below-grade story. The area in the partially-buried floor is also generally exempted from FAR calculations. This amendment would eliminate the FAR and 4 foot height exemptions for partially below-grade floors in apartment projects in LR zones. For rowhouse and townhouse projects in LR zones that would still be eligible for the 4 foot height and FAR exemptions for partially-buried floors, the amendment would limit the number of stories that could be built above the partially-buried floor to three.

Failed: Yes votes, Rasmussen and Licata; No votes, O’Brien, Bagshaw, Burgess, Godden, and Okaomoto.

Amendment 5: Height limit for street-facing building facades 

CB 118385 would establish minimum upper-level setback requirements in Lowrise (LR) zones that would apply from all street lot lines in addition to any required ground-level setbacks. For structures in LR zones that are subject to a 30 foot height limit, the upper-level setback requirement would be 12 feet above a height of 34 feet. For structures in LR zones that are subject to a 40 foot height limit, the upper-level setback requirement would be 16 feet above a height of 44 feet. Departures from setback standards may be permitted through the Design Review process.

This amendment would remove the upper-level setback requirements proposed in CB 118385 and instead establish a height limit for street-facing building facades. For structures in LR zones that are subject to a 30 foot height limit, the maximum height of the street-facing façade would be 34 feet within 12 feet of the street-facing property line. For structures in LR zones that are subject to a 40 foot height limit, the maximum height of the street-facing façade would be 44 feet within 12 feet of the street-facing property line. Departures from height regulations are not permitted under the City’s Design Review process.

Failed: Yes votes, Rasmussen, Godden; No votes, Licata, O’Brien, Burgess, Bagshaw, and Okamoto.

Amendment 6: Rounding thresholds for density limits 

CB 118385 would establish a 0.85 rounding threshold (the current rounding threshold is 0.5) for density calculations for Lowrise 1 (LR1) zoned lots that measure less than 3,000 square feet in area. For such lots, if density calculations result in a fraction of a unit, any fraction up to and including 0.85 would be disregarded and any fraction over 0.85 would allow one additional unit. This amendment would apply the proposed 0.85 rounding threshold to all density calculations for Lowrise-zoned lots regardless of lot size.

Passed: Yes votes, Rasmussen, Burgess, Godden, and Licata; No votes, O’Brien,  Bagshaw and Okamoto.

Amendment 7: Density limits for rowhouses in Lowrise 1 (LR1) zones 

No density limit currently exists for rowhouse development in LR1 zones. CB 118385 would establish a density limit of one rowhouse per every 1,600 square feet of lot area on all LR1-zoned lots that measure less than 3,000 square feet in size. This amendment would extend the density limit of one rowhouse per every 1,600 square feet of lot area to all LR1-zoned lots that measure less than 5,000 square feet in size.

Failed: Yes votes, and Licata; No votes, Burgess, O’Brien, Bagshaw and Okamoto

Amendment 8: Side setback requirements for rowhouses 

This amendment would establish a new, 3.5 foot side setback requirement for all rowhouse projects in Lowrise zones except those that share a side lot line with another rowhouse project (no side setback required) or a single-family zone (5 to 7 foot side setback required).

Passed: Yes votes, Rasmussen, Okamoto , Godden, and Licata; No votes,  O’Brien, Bagshaw, and Burgess.

It’s possible the full City Council will change some of this. But for now a bad piece of legislation is worse than it was before, reducing housing supply and choice for no other reason than to make some angry neighbors a little less angry.