After almost two years of heated debate the Seattle City Council passed low-rise legislation in less than an hour with no debate. One highlight were a bizarre statement by outgoing (we’re counting the days!) Councilmember Rasmussen who voted against the legislation he helped make worse by expanding the rounding rule to all zones, adding setbacks to rowhouses, and making the low-rise 3 portion of the legislation worse by adding more useless spaces to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations. Apparently the legislation didn’t do enough damage.

Rasmussen also made a comment that has come to sound familiar. He supports density, but just doesn’t want to see any existing buildings demolished. Where new density would go if no existing buildings were demolished is a mystery the Councilmember left unsolved. You can find a rundown of the amemendments that passed in a recent blog post and the full legislation here.

In summary, the legislation seriously reduces the potential for new housing in low-rise zones by squeezing the building envelopes in LR 3, adding costly design review requirements in LR 2, and expanding a change to FAR calculations in all zones that lowers density by making it harder to round up.  All of these changes passed by a Council that claims we have a “housing crisis.” It’s hard to square that stated concern with legislation that is aimed at reducing the availability of housing options available in the city.

The bright spot was the only testimony questioning the density reducing agenda behind the legislation given by Ballard resident Sara Maxana (see video above). She spoke quite eloquently about why new people and growth are good for her and her family. The comments were a ray of light in a seemingly gathering darkness that favors a small group of angry neighbors bent on their narrow interest of preserving their own economic well being at the expense of new comers by limiting new housing.