
September 2025 Update: Status of Phase 1
Background
Phase 1 of the current rezoning process involves adopting the One Seattle Plan as well as the zoning regulations that apply to Neighborhood Residential zones. Phase 1 is targeted for completion in late 2025. Phase 2 revises zoning regulations in Centers and Corridors, and that will happen in 2026. “Centers” refers to Regional, Urban and Neighborhood Centers, and “Corridors” refers to arterials with frequent public transportation for which additional upzoning is planned.
As described on the “Background and Process” zoning page, the City Council approved interim zoning through Council Bill CB 120969. It was passed by Council on May 27, 2025, and approved by Mayor Harrell on May 28, as Ordinance 127219. This was done to ensure that State law HB 1110 had adequate coverage in the Seattle Municipal Code in time for the state-mandated deadline of June 30, 2025.
Seattle then had to create permanent zoning legislation which replaces the interim legislation , and this is done in substitute bill CB 120993. The One Seattle Plan also needed to be codified, and this is done in CB 120985. These were presented to Council in June, 2025 for review, modification and approval.
The following contains a fairly detailed record of the process City Council used in August and September, 2025. The final two sections of this webpage describe some of the changes that Phase 1 legislation will make to Seattle’s Neighborhood Residential (NR) zone, and to the newly created Neighborhood Centers. It represents our best understanding of the bills and amendments, but may contain errors. Also, some of the amendments overlap or contradict other amendments.
Amendments to the two council bills
In early August, 2025, the Select Committee on the Comprehensive Plan (which is made up of all nine City Council members) introduced 110 amendments that modify CB 120993 and 120985. The Select Committee accepted written input from the public on the amendments through September 5, and a public hearing on the amendments was held on September 12, 2025. Some minor changes were made to the original amendments based on public feedback and committee negotiations, and four new amendments (111 through 114) were introduced after the public hearing.
Input to Select Committee on the amendments
On August 19, members of the Montlake Rezoning Task Force (MRTF) met with District 3 Council Representative and Select Committee Chair, Joy Hollingsworth, and her staff to discuss the amendments. Chair Hollingsworth requested written input by August 29 or earlier. On August 28, the MRTF provided input to Council on the amendment package, based on extensive feedback received from the Montlake community beginning in January. Emails were sent to each Councilmember, along with a list of recommended modifications to some of the amendments.
Links to MRTF input:
MRTF input on the amendments sent to Joy Hollingsworth and her staff (versions of this email went to all 9 Council Members)
MRTF recommended modifications to several of the amendments (this was attached to the email linked above)
It is difficult to know if the input provided by the MRTF had any influence on the process, but it’s clear that none of the recommended amendment modifications were implemented. A summary of results is shown in this file.
Voting on the amendments and council bills
Council Central Staff divided the amendments into four packages and released them on September 16, 2025. Each of the two CBs had a package of “consent amendments” and a package of amendments proposed for individual voting. The amendments in the consent packages were voted on as a group, and those passed unanimously for both CBs. (Note: three of the amendments were removed from the CB 120993 consent package for individual voting.) Several of the original amendments were not found in any of the four packages, so presumably those were pulled by the sponsoring Councilmember prior to voting.
The four 9/16/2025 Central Staff packages of amendments are linked below:
CB 120985 Individual-Vote Package (contains new amendments 111 and 114)
CB 120993 Individual-Vote Package (contains new amendments 112 and 113)
After the Central Staff packages were released, several of the amendments were modified. The following are links to those modified amendments: 41, 58, 66, 70, 76, 91, 92, 99, 102.
Another part of the process relates to Council Resolution 32183. This contains items that the Select Committee would like the mayor’s office (meaning OPCD and other of the mayor’s departments) to study in 2026 and make recommendations for further changes to Seattle’s municipal code. Some of the amendments were withdrawn or rescinded during the voting process and moved to the resolution. Some amendments failed during voting, but were included in the resolution. And confusingly, some of the amendments were adopted (passed) during the voting process, but also put in the resolution. And some of the original resolutions were never voted on, but are included in the resolution. It’s difficult to know how that will all get sorted out.
Voting on the amendments, the two CBs, and the resolution was conducted on September 17 through 19. The voting results are summarized in this file, and the voting tally for each Councilmember is found in this file.
Final steps for Phase 1
CB 120985, CB 120993, and Resolution 32183, as modified by the amendments that were adopted by the Select Committee, require further review before they can be voted on by the full City Council, and that vote is expected to happen in late October or early November, 2025. With that vote, and final approval by Mayor Harrell, Phase 1 of the rezoning process will be complete.
Impacts of Phase 1 on Neighborhood Residential (NR) zoning
Commercial Uses
While the original vision was for ‘corner stores’, the new legislation allows ground-floor commercial uses on all Neighborhood Residential lots. Allowed uses include not only stores, but restaurants, food processing (think: meat smoking, butchering), and craft work.
Structure Size, Setbacks, and Lot Coverage
The basic maximum residential building height increased from 30 to 32 feet.
Height can be 42 feet (4 stories plus a daylight basement) by taking advantage of some of the ‘bonus’ scenarios, described below.
Heights can be increased another 5 feet if a pitched roof is used.
Front setbacks have been reduced from 20 feet to a nominal 10 feet, but there are important exceptions. If certain trees are retained on the lot, the setbacks can go to as low as zero feet.
Front porches can extend 5 feet into the front setback.
If the first floor is for commercial use, the basic front setback is 2 feet.
Rear setbacks are nominally 10 feet, or zero feet abutting an alley, but as with front setbacks, can go as low as zero feet to retain trees.
Side setbacks are reduced from 5 feet to 3 feet on lots smaller than 5,000 sq ft and located in a Frequent Transit Service Area (which covers about two thirds of Seattle).
Maximum lot coverage increased from 35% to 50%, but it can increase to 60% with various bonus scenarios.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is also greatly increased in many instances. This is the maximum amount of floor space a building can have as a function of the lot size. Max floor area = lot area x FAR.
Density
There are very-high maximum density limits, as measured by the number of dwelling units per lot. Let’s take a 4,000 sq foot lot as an example.
On a 4,000 sq. ft. lot, nominally, four dwelling units are allowed. With the popular configuration of “stacked flats”, six units are allowed. At a height of 32’ feet, this could be configured with two units per floor, each with about 1,000 sq. ft. Or utilizing a daylight basement, some mix of larger and smaller units can be built.
With bonuses bringing the height to 42 feet, there are four floors plus possibly a daylight basement to work with for a total of five floors.
With additional bonuses, up to 10 dwelling units could be built. This may not be achievable when stairwells and hallways are taken into account.
Bonuses
There are a number of bonuses to incentivize developers. Depending on the particular bonus, the results include increased height, FAR, lot coverage, and maximum density; smaller setbacks and amenity areas; and elimination of parking requirements.
Low-income / Affordable housing: Renters or buyers have to meet income thresholds, and typically but not in every case the owner has a 50-year commitment to maintaining low-income rates.
Build stacked-dwelling units (aka stacked flats), in lieu of tall, skinny separate structures.
Provide social housing
A popular incentive is to be within a “Frequent Transit Area”; most of Montlake meets this criterion.
Be within ¼ mile of a school and 25% of the units must have 3-bedrooms and be larger than 1,050 square feet. This incentive is to increase the number of families in neighborhoods and increase the number of students in our schools.
Trees and Tree Canopy
There are complex rules to incentivize preserving mature trees and the resulting canopy, and if not preserved, to require planting of trees that, once mature, will create additional canopy. In the One Seattle Plan, there are goals and policies supporting the Urban Forest and Tree Canopy element. Policy CE 12.1 in particular aims to achieve an overall tree canopy coverage of 30% by 2037. Of course, only retained trees will contribute canopy in this timeframe; hence tree retention is weighted more favorably over tree planting.
There are two overall concepts to maintain and grow canopy. One is the requirement with incentives to retain existing trees, with a focus on Tier 2 trees (24” diameter or larger). The other is the requirement to meet an overall tree score, which is achieved by a mix of retaining trees and planting new trees.
Existing trees are retained by defining a Tree Protection Area (TPA). However, trees can be removed if the new structure cannot be built at maximum lot coverage without encroaching into the TPA.
Incentives to avoid tree removal include a 42’ height bonus if a Tier 2 tree is preserved; reduced setbacks all the way to zero feet, among others.
Newly-planted trees must be planted a specified distance from the structure, and the owner must ensure they remain healthy for at least five years.
The overall tree score can be met in one of three ways: (a) Using a “Tree Point System”, which assigns points to each size and type (deciduous or evergreen) of tree with retention being worth more than newly-planted to encourage preservation; (b) a “Green Factor” score which includes non-tree elements such as green roofs; (c) Plant new trees to result in more trees than the tree point system yields.
Street trees must also be planted in accordance with SDOT standards.
Parking
State law is guiding our parking requirements, but at least one of the amendments goes further in reducing required off-street parking. Also, there is a fundamental tradeoff between providing parking and the associated driveway, versus reducing hardscape and retaining trees and green space.
The basic requirement is to provide one parking space for every two dwelling units that are 1,200 sq. ft. or larger.
This means that on a 4,000 sq. ft. lot, with a stacked flat configuration with six 1,000 sq. ft. units, no parking is required for these six units.
No parking is required for ADUs.
In certain tree-retention scenarios, no parking is required. This is to incentivize saving trees over providing parking.
One of the items in the Council resolution recommends studying the elimination of parking requirements citywide.
ADUs and DADUs
Accessory Dwelling Units can be attached, detached or stacked.
In addition to the main structure discussed above, two ADUs can be built on any property. This is already allowed in the current code.
If an ADU has up to two bedrooms, the size is limited to 1,000 sq. ft. This increases to 1,200 sq ft. if there are three or more bedrooms.
Impacts of Phase 1 Legislation on Neighborhood Centers
30 new Neighborhood Centers (NCs) were created with the adoption of the One Seattle plan, and the amended CB 120993 also makes changes that affect NCs. The boundary of Montlake’s NC is shown in this map.
The zoning within the NC is part of Phase 2 legislation, to be worked in 2026.
MRTF has a meeting scheduled for early December with CM Hollingsworth’s staff to present suggested alternative zoning/heights for Montlake’s Neighborhood Center that are more in scale with the neighborhood.
Zoning will likely allow a mix of Neighborhood Commercial (commercial on the first floor, residential above), and low-rise (LR) residential buildings (primarily condos, townhouses, and apartments).
Neighborhood Commercial buildings will likely be 40 to 55 feet in height.
Low-rise multi-family buildings will likely be 3 to 5 stories, with bonuses for additional height.
Buildings with low-income housing, or ones that retain certain mature trees, can now be up to 65-feet tall.
The tallest buildings will likely be along 24th Ave E and at the site of the old Hop In Market, then taper down in height farther into the NC.
There does not appear to be a limit on the amount of lot coverage in Neighborhood Center zones. It seems that maximum building volume is determined by FAR, setbacks, and possibly required amenity area.
Front setbacks start at 7 feet average but bonuses reduce this to as low as zero feet.
It is not clear if any off-street parking will be required in Neighborhood Centers.
Eight or nine more Neighborhood Centers have been proposed by the Select Committee and are included in the Council resolution for further study.
The Council resolution also recommends studying even taller heights in NCs.