Seattle City Council’s land use committee has voted against a bill proposed by Councilmember Tammy Morales, effectively rejecting a pilot program aimed at promoting affordable housing development. The program, known as the Connected Communities Pilot, would have provided incentives for the construction of mixed-use buildings in partnership with community organizations.
Under the pilot program, private or nonprofit developers would have been allowed to build taller or wider buildings, bypass design review processes, and be exempt from certain development fees. In return, they would have been required to partner with community organizations to construct projects that included at least 30% subsidized units and ground-floor amenities such as child care centers or health care facilities. The pilot program was proposed to be in effect until 2029 or until 35 projects were completed, whichever came first.
The community organizations involved in the program would have likely focused on serving marginalized communities, including refugees, immigrants, communities of color, LGBTQ+ communities, and individuals experiencing homelessness or at risk of economic displacement.
Councilmember Morales made amendments to the legislation in response to concerns raised by colleagues in an earlier committee meeting. These concerns included the income level at which the affordable units would be targeted and a complicated home ownership provision. The amended bill required the subsidized studio and one-bedroom units to be affordable to households earning 60% or less of the area median income, while two-bedroom units or larger would remain at 80% of the area median income.
Despite the amendments, the majority of the land use committee voted against the bill. Councilmembers expressed concerns about passing a new development incentive while the City Council reviews the Comprehensive Plan update, which will address zoning regulations citywide. The bill will still go to the full City Council for a vote on April 30, but it is unlikely to receive the necessary majority support to pass.
While the private market provides affordable options for individuals earning 80% of the area median income, there is a lack of affordable housing for families at the same income level. The decision raises questions about the balance between development incentives and the need for comprehensive planning to address housing affordability issues in the city.