By Erica C. Barnett

State Rep. (and former Seattle Office of Housing director) Emily Alvarado (D-34, West Seattle) is sponsoring a bill this year that would require cities and counties to allow housing in every area where commercial development is allowed.

If it passes, the legislation will be another win for housing advocates who’ve worked over the past several sessions to pass bills aimed at local NIMBY regulations, including a bill from Rep. Jessica Bateman (D-22, Olympia) that forced cities like Seattle to allow at least four housing units per residential lot.

Bateman’s a co-sponsor on Alvarado’s bill, which came as a request from Governor Bob Ferguson. It could significantly change the landscape in suburban cities like Redmond and Kirkland, where anti-growth activists have fought plans to replace low-density commercial uses—like two sites in north Kirkland where a Michael’s and a Goodwill are currently located—with housing.

Seattle’s zoning generally allows housing in neighborhood commercial areas, so that part of the bill wouldn’t require huge changes here. But the bill would impact Seattle in a different (and, many urbanists would argue, long-overdue) way: It would also prohibit cities from requiring ground-floor retail spaces as part of new mixed-use housing developments, except in areas around light rail stations. Seattle requires ground-floor retail in most mixed-use areas.

Currently, according to a report by HR&A Advisors, 71 percent of the lots, or land parcels, that would be impacted by the legislation have prohibitions or restrictions on ground-floor residential development.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

Housing advocates and developers have long argued that mandatory ground-story retail is an impediment to housing development, since retail space often remains vacant; that vacant space costs money to build and maintain but provides no revenue, and can be detrimental to neighborhoods.

“There is a lot of underused land, and that’s especially true as the market dynamics have changed for both office and commercial,” Alvarado said. “We’re seeing lots of vacant strip malls, empty office parks, and even in mixed-use zones, you see a lot of vacant retail.”

At a hearing on the bill last Friday, opponents argued that allowing people to live on the ground floor of residential buildings will harm cities’ ability to raise revenues, hit job targets, and support small businesses. “Sales taxes are untapped and can be very significant compared to residential property taxes, which are capped and much smaller,” Association of Washington Cities representative Carl Schroeder said. “We are hearing from cities who are concerned that this will erode their ability to support local small businesses who are not in a position to build standalone structures, in contrast to national chains.”

Scott Bonjukian, a Seattle urban designer, argued that removing prohibitions on ground-level housing outright seemed like “a bit of an overreach based on a temporary economic situation. … These [mandates] are usually in place for good reason, in limited locations to reinforce downtown main streets or shape a transit oriented development.”

Testifying in favor of the bill, Sightline’s Dan Bertolet pointed to an analysis by the pro-housing group that found the bill would increase the amount of land where housing is allowed by 62 percent statewide.

In cities like Seattle, “there’s no shortage of retail spaces in the vast majority of our downtowns and commercial centers,” Bertolet said. “What those centers almost always do have, though, is a shortage of housing, and the problem is mandating money losing ground floor retail and new apartment buildings only makes it less likely that new housing gets built.”

Alvarado said “there has been far more pushback” on allowing housing on the ground floor of apartment buildings than allowing housing in commercial areas more broadly.

“I think cities want the autonomy to determine the look and feel of their communities. and they think that markets are cyclical and at some point there will be more opportunity to bring in more retail on ground floors,” she said. “My argument is there is a lot of stalled development right now, and if we can reduce barriers to get some housing built, that in and of itself is an economic benefit to cities, counties, and the state.”