I’ve been getting the calls for weeks now about projects that are being adversely impacted by a Hearing Examiner Decision back in December that changed the way frequent transit service is calculated. The Hearing Examiner ruled that the GIS map and averaging the gaps between the arrival and departure of buses could no longer be used to establish that a housing project is in an area with frequent transit service, with gaps no greater than 15 minutes between buses. In response to the ruling, the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has issued a new rule, and new housing must be no further than 1320 feet from a bus stop and meet a different requirement. While this new rule preserves the exemption to new projects that would otherwise have to build expensive parking, it still doesn’t go far enough. Here’s why.

The proposed new rule would provide exemption for projects within 1320 feet of a bus stop.

a. Multiple routes at the same stop may be included; and b. Multiple transit stops within 1,320 feet walking distance may be included provided the transit is going in the same direction.

2) Identify on the plans submitted with the permit application, copies of the transit schedules indicating the service headways (“headways” are the amounts of time between scheduled bus service at a given location) for the transit stop(s) identified in Step 1:

a. For a minimum of 12 hours, 6 days per week, transit service headways must be 15 minutes or less; andDirector’s Rule __-2015 Page 3 of 3

b. For a minimum of 18 hours per each day of the week, headways must be 30 minutes or less.

I’ve already heard from one builder who has a Small Efficiency Dwelling Unit (SEDU) proposal  on about 5000 square feet in what would have neatly fit onto the GIS maps frequent transit service area. And this project would have easily qualified under the averaging method which the Hearing Examiner explicitly threw out for the project subject to her ruling, a ruling DPD has chosen to interpret as applying broadly, to all projects already in permitting.

But what about using the new rule? The project still falls short because it can’t count bus routes on both sides of the street within the 1320 foot range. That means under the new rule’s strict “one direction” provision the project can’t count the many routes going back and forth in various directions within 1320 feet.

OK, well, why not just include parking as required? The site is too small. Adding the required 1 spot per unit requirement would be impossible and make the project technically and financially infeasible. So instead of getting 25 to 30 SEDU apartments priced for people who around 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), the site will have just one, single-family home. And keep in mind recent legislation changing the requirements for SEDUs to be included in the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program and unit reducing low-rise legislation, what would have been an ideal low-rise project has been stamped out of housing production. This doesn’t even take into account Councilmember O’Brien’s tax on new housing which would have  added more costs.

Instead of a compact, transit oriented, affordable, pedestrian friendly housing project for as many as 30 or 40 people, the city will now have one big single-family house. But maybe that’s the way City leaders and neighborhoods want it. If that’s the case, why bother holding endless meetings about housing affordability. It won’t happen if we keep piling on with more and more bad policy and regulations. Legislation putting the word “average” in the ordinance would fix this problem. Does the City Council have the courage to do that?