The latest chapter of the Department of Planning and Development’s (DPD) efforts to limit innovative housing solutions in response to angry neighbors is being drafted and will be presented at Friday’s meeting of the Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee. After a lengthy appeal the legislation is back and will be considered by the City Council. The chief problem with the new proposal is the DPD is pushing for microhousing to go through design review. This is a recipe for higher rents, and very possibly fewer microhousing projects, exactly what angry neighbors have been demanding.

Here’s what the hearing examiner’s decision said about design review based on what DPD staffers testified during the appeal process:

The evidence fails to show that the proposed legislation would spur new development of micro-housing or congregate residences, compared with what occurs under existing regulation of micro-housing. Clearly, the Appellants fear that this will occur but the record does not demonstrate that this impact would likely occur. If anything, as DPD notes, it would seem more likely that the proposal’s addition of new requirements, such as design review for certain projects which are currently not required to undergo design review, … would tend to discourage new development [emphasis is mine]

So there it is, straight from the authors of the legislation. Imposing design review would limit the production of new microhousing units, a housing option that has zero vacancy rates because the demand for them is so high.

And an informal review of the costs of microhousing shows that when the additional costs of lengthy design review process is finished, it could add as much as $100 a month to a microhousing resident’s rent. That’s $1200 per year, which would cover tuition for about 13 credits at the Seattle Central Community College or six months of health care costs. That number could vary, but why would we want to add costs to microhousing, a housing choice that DPD itself says would help its own guiding principle to “Preserve affordability – continue to support micro-housing and congregate residences as housing options in Seattle?”

And what would we get for this additional cost? Not one single thing that angry neighbors are demanding. Design review wouldn’t affect the height of projects, parking, unit size, or even the number of sinks or people in the units. Subjecting microhousing would respond to exactly zero of their concerns — except, according to DPD, it would result in fewer projects, which, I guess, was the opponents goal all along.

Now is the time to let Councilmember O’Brien know what you think. Send him an e-mail You can e-mail  atMike.Obrien@Seattle.gov or better yet, attend Friday’s hearing at City Hall at 2PM. Tell the Council to preserve microhousing as an innovative solution to meeting Seattle’s housing demand.

—————–

What follow is our detailed responses to some of DPD’s recommendations we offered last summer. The DPD recommendations are in bold followed by our response.

Define “Micro Dwelling Unit” as a subset of “Dwelling Unit” in the Land Use Code

Smart Growth Seattle supports the definition proposed by DPD with the exception of requiring a maximum size for micro dwelling unit. If the concern is that larger size will encourage more than one resident, the 8 person limit would prevent that.

If the concern is that some developers might be trying to create smaller apartments without full kitchens, we don’t see any reason to limit this if owners can fill units that are larger than 285 square feet and otherwise fit the micro dwelling unit definition proposed. Customers in search of housing should have every choice open to them and builders should be able to be innovative in responding to their choices.

Design Review. Apply Threshold for Micro Dwelling Units and Congregate Residences by Building Size

We appreciate DPD developing a threshold for design review that is based on building size not number of units. Building size is what is visible to the neighborhood, not individual units, and the size threshold is consistent with principle behind SEPA thresholds.

However, there is almost universal sentiment—not just among developers but residents, as well—that the current system of design review—including so-called Streamline Design Review—is broken. The process is open-ended, too costly, and has no impact on the concerns surfaced by neighbors. Design review has no effect on parking, for example.

Even City staff made the observation that after going through the design review process “projects showed little evidence of substantial modification” (see page 3 of the recent report written by DPD at http://clerk.seattle.gov/~public/meetingrecords/2013/plus20130628_4b.pdf).

We believe that before microhousing projects are subjected to this expensive, time consuming, and ineffective process it should be fixed so that design review becomes a useful, predictable, and more affordable process for all projects in the city. And if notice is an important issue to microhousing opponents, we think a mailed notification to residents within 800 feet of a project during permitting would make more sense than requiring design review.

SEPA Thresholds and Growth Targets

We agree with the DPDs proposals on SEPA thresholds for microhousing. We are concerned, however, that in areas that have reached their growth targets, microhousing and all other housing would be exposed to the costs and uncertainties of SEPA review. As we pointed out in our last memo, growth targets should be floors not ceilings for growth.

Prohibit new Micro Dwelling Unit development in single-family zones

We see this as a potential loss of housing supply and choice in Seattle’s single-family neighborhoods. Our view is that if there is demand for microhousing in single-family neighborhoods, it should be allowed.

Adjust refuse collection areas in Micro Dwelling Units and Congregate Residence developments

As we pointed out in our last memo, garbage is an issue in every neighborhood and for every housing type. Educating people and managing how they dispose of their garbage is an ongoing issue in cities of all sizes. However, we feel this proposal is a reasonable one and would allow an evolving solution based on interaction between staff at Seattle Public Utilities, developers, building managers, and customers.

Size minimums for Micro Dwelling Units and Congregate Residences

We agree with DPD that the existing building code and the housing market should set the size of Micro Dwelling Units. Imposing a size requirement is forcing microhousing customers to buy more housing than they want to buy, driving up their monthly housing costs. Customers and developers should be allowed to set the size based on the existing limits, costs, and what customers are able to pay for housing.

Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ): Clarify regulations or rules for Micro Dwelling Units and Congregate Residences

As we have pointed out (and has been reported in the media), microhousing is actually a parking solution, since most residents of microhousing don’t drive and microhousing buildings, because they have fewer qualifying units, actually use fewer RPZ permits. We welcome a closer look at how microhousing supports fewer cars and fewer parking problems in neighborhoods.