Overview (25%): Allowing more choices in single family neighborhoods by permitting detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) citywide provides Seattle's single family homeowners with a variety choices to accommodate growth, creating affordable options for extended family members, generating additional household income, and helping the city achieve the broader benefits of compact communities like walkability and reduced environmental impact. Instead of embracing cottages, however, the Council took more than 5 years to finally pass a citywide ordinance allowing detached accessory dwelling units.

Because this new law helps the city achieve the goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA), the Council's dithering was particularly surprising. Two of the stated objectives of the GMA are to "focus urban growth in urban areas" and to "reduce sprawl." (pdf about GMA) And in the Council's most recent legislative agenda, adopted last November (see pdf of Council resolution stating the legislative agenda), the Council said, "we support the Growth Management Act (GMA) as the primary means of planning for growth." This is another example of the Council's actions lagging behind their stated goals.

The council as a whole moved too slowly on passage, so comments below reflect either any overt leadership on the issue or undue resistance or concern. All Councilmembers must be applauded, however, for ultimately voting in favor of reasonable cottage legislation.

Tim Burgess (C/A)

Burgess did not take a leading role on this issue although he echoed the concerns of a small group of opponents from Laurelhurst: "I'm worried that we're going to create an adversarial environment with no solution. And then people are really going to be ticked off." However, in the final vote, he said, "I think these cottages actually contribute to the fabric of the community."

Sally Clark (D/A)

The cottage legislation was an opportunity for Clark, the chair of the Council's Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee (PLUNC), to shine. But she indulged an overly long debate and considered provisions opposed by the Planning Commission (see pdf of Planning Commission report). Instead of moving forward quickly and decisively, Clark equivocated with her concerns about the cottages, echoing the staunchest defenders of the single-family status quo, saying, "I have to admit – they look big. Maybe too big? Maybe 800 square feet is too much? Maybe 23 feet is too high? Maybe it's just those two numbers together?" We hope that Clark will be less contemplative on areas of the land use code where there is strong consensus among sustainability advocates, urban planners, affordable housing advocates, and members of the broader community. Listening to small groups of narrowly focused and self-interested opponents of progressive land use doesn't help anyone—it emboldens them to continue their opposition of good policies, lengthens the process, and sews division among communities that ought to be motivating to work together to make their neighborhoods better places. Conversation is good, but it can widen the Sustainability Gap for Seattle the longer it goes on unhelpfully.

Richard Conlin (A/A)

Conlin expressed public support of expanding the cottage concept citywide, even acknowledginghis support of one in his own backyard—and its benefits. "I was happy to offer my neighbor an easement for a sewer line under my driveway when the tiny decrepit dwelling on that lot was replaced a few years ago with a cottage that is similar to those allowed under this legislation," wrote Conlin in one of his newsletters. "Burglars had used the alley to access the houses on our block several times, but since this dwelling unit was built that has stopped." Finally, Conlin also made smart comments to address more skittish councilmembers on enforcing caps on the number of cottages permitted. He recognized that a cap could have a negative effect "causing a rush to the permit counter, leading to an increase in poorly thought-out units." Conlin was outstanding on this issue and showed how effective he can be.

Jan Drago (C/A)

Drago voted for the bill but not a leader on the cottage legislation.

Jean Godden (C/A)

Godden supported the bill but was not a champion.

Bruce Harrell (C/A)

Harrell "expressed some concerns about the design impacts of backyard cottages on neighborhoods" but voted for them anyway.

Nick Licata (C/A)

Licata gave an unequivocal answer of "yes" when asked about whether he supported the cottage concept.

Richard McIver (C/A)

McIver voted for the legislation but didn't seem to be a champion.

Tom Rasmussen (F/A)

Rasmussen voiced so many doubts about the cottage proposal that the Seattle PI described him as the most "cautious" member of the land use committee. Rasmussen said that cottages might negatively "impact qualities that people seek in single-family neighborhoods -- privacy, solar access … and noise" He also noted, "There is concern in our single family neighborhoods that the cottages could significantly change those neighborhoods.... When people buy a home in a single-family neighborhood, they have certain expectations." He went on to offer ideas about imposing design review and allowing neighbors to appeal a permit for a cottage project and commented on his Facebook page that he thought the approved legislation allowed for buildings that were too high.