Rasmussen: Another Downzone of Existing Single-Family Homes?

It’s starting to look like the unintended consequence first pointed out by Matt Gangemi in his post called Seattle’s Biggest Downzone was not entirely averted by the City Council. Councilmember Tom Rasmussen’s amendment in response to his angry neighbors upset about the Benchview Project will actually limit additions to some existing single family homes. Not only that, the strange average height calculation could result in roof heights that can be much taller than neighbors would want. This doesn’t even consider that many new additions would be allowed heights up to 30 feet and new houses on lots between 3200 and 5000 square feet aren’t governed by this new legislation. It’s the worst of both worlds, more complicated and confusing code but the building will continue, which will incite angry neighbors to agitate and appeal, which will result in more rules and constraints.

Here’s the Rasmussen language as it passed:

23.44.012 Height (( Limits )) limits

A. Maximum (( Height Established )) height established (( . )) The provisions of this Section 23.42.012 apply, except as provided elsewhere in the Land Use Code for specific types of structures or structures in particular locations.

1. Except (( as permitted in Section 23.44.041.B, and )) as provided in (( subsection )) subsections23.44.012.A.2 and (( A.3 )) 23.44.012.A.3 , the maximum permitted height for any structure not located in a required yard is 30 feet.

2. The maximum permitted height for any structure on a lot 30 feet or less in width is 25 feet.

3. For a lot or unit lot of any width, if the area of the largest rectangle or other quadrilateral that can be drawn within the lot lines of the lot or unit lot (( The maximum permitted height for any structure on a lot of any width that ))is less than (( 3,750 )) 3,200 square feet (( that qualifies for separate development according to the provisions in section 23.44.010.B.1.d )) the maximum permitted height for any structure on that lot (( is )) shall be (( 22 )) 18 feet(( , )) (( unless the structure’s height is further restricted by other code provisions )). Additional height shall be allowed, subject to the limit that would otherwise apply under subsections 23.44.012.A.1 and 23.44.012.A.2, provided that the elevation at the top of the exterior walls of the structure, exclusive of pitched roofs, does not exceed the average of the elevations at the tops of the walls of single-family residences on abutting lots within the same zone. The limit of this subsection 23.44.012.A.3 shall not apply to additions to single-family residences existing as of February 1, 2013 that do not exceed the greater of 1,000 square feet of new gross floor area or the amount of gross floor area on any one floor of the existing house.

Sally Bagshaw: Yesterday Not Tomorrow

Small-lot legislation passed yesterday with two amendments that made the underlying legislation worse. In many ways the underlying legislation that passed out of the Planning Land Use and Sustainability (PLUS) Committee was positive. Some issues about adjacent lots and lot boundary adjustments were clarified. And, in the end, many new single-family homes will still be built in the city. There are many lots that can still be turned into housing for families who want to live in Seattle. But three Councilmembers stand out as having chosen the angry, entitled people who showed up over people who aren’t here yet.

These three Councilmembers were key in supporting  two amendments  that make things worse. Councilmember Burgess was successful in his efforts to eliminate 250 new potential homes, and Councilmember Rasmussen amended the legislation in a way that complicates and confuses what was a clear height of 22 feet. Neither of these amendments could have happened without other Councilmembers supporting these changes. Angry neighbors claimed a victory, but, in the end, the code remains a confused mess, and more new homes will be built. They’ll be back, just as bitter as before, when someone builds a new home in their neighborhood. What they really wanted was an end to any new housing. To be clear, Councilmember Burgess voted against Councilmember Rasmussen’s amendment which was worse than his own.

Why the Council continues to waste everyone’s time on these incremental steps toward a toward a total moratorium on growth in single-family neighborhoods is an interesting question; more homes will get built, which will incite more angry neighbors and more legislation. If they really want a ban on single-family development why not just do it? Councilmember Clark, wisely, said that wasn’t on the table, even though she heard that desire from many angry neighbors.

Councilmember Rasmussen’s actions are particularly embarrassing. Not only did he propose an amendment that was considered and dismissed by Councilmembers O’Brien and Clark, but he stood up and lectured the Council about how neighbors weren’t listened to and how they were ignored. That’s odd considering that they carried the day with his amendment. Obviously his hearing aid was dialed up to 10. Rasmussen’s amendment assures years of arguing over calculation of heights all over the city. It’s as if he has a side consulting business in selling height measuring tools.

It’s unfortunate that almost 2 years of discussion and dialogue resulted in a more confusing code thanks to Councilmember Rasmussen and 250 fewer homes thanks to Councilmember Burgess.

Real thanks are due for Councilmembers O’Brien and Clark, both of whom I have locked horns with over the years for, ironically, indulging neighborhood concerns too often. Also Councilmember Harrell helped behind the scenes trying to make the case for a common sense solution. Interestingly, it was O’Brien, Clark, and Harrell, who seemed to see through the haze of bitter, well-heeled, single-family advocates who want to shut down development in single-family neighborhoods.

The biggest disappointment was Sally Bagshaw who verbally gesticulated about protecting single-family neighborhoods (oddly she mentioned David Neiman, who thrashed the legislation here, only to say, as he and I have joked, “when David Neiman speaks, I don’t listen”). Bagshaw made it clear she favors wealthy single-family neighbors who want no more development in single-family zones.

Bagshaw never engaged with us or returned multiple phone calls asking for her position on the issue. She also expressed enthusiasm for notice requirements that will cost the City thousands of dollars and further hobble development of single-family homes. As an attorney, you’d think she’d understand that the City of Seattle is the party who has to defend an appeal; evidently she left her legal training behind when elected to Council. I had hoped better from her. I guess I was wrong. In the end it will be voters, next year, who will decide her future and Councilmember Rasmussen’s the way they dispatched with the jobs, homes, and futures of people who want to live in Seattle. It may not be fair, but that’s politics.

 

The Kitchen Sink:Micromanaging Microhousing

Here is the public comments I gave tonight at the Seattle City Council’s hearing on microhousing. I also added the point that design review will increase rents by as much as $100 per month.

According to the comprehensive plan the City of Seattle expects 120,000 new residents and 115,000 new jobs by 2035.

The Puget Sound Regional Council says that 1.4 million people are expected In the region between 2012 and 2042 an increase of 39 percent.

And the Seattle City Council is contemplating legislation regulating the number of sinks in microhousing.

Here’s a verbatim concern voiced in opposition to microhousing based on there being one sink:

“Have you seen the health stats for number of people who don’t wash their hands?”

Microhousing is a safe, lower-cost, housing option for many people coming to our city. We need to stop the micromanagement of microhousing and allow it to continue as a innovative housing solution and choice.

Please don’t add needless cost and process that will drive up rents.

Small-Lot Legislation: The Final Decision

This is the testimony I plan to give at the meeting of the full Council around 2:30PM. There are no guarantees I’ll be heard since there is only 15 minutes for public comment and that only allows about about 6 or 7 people to speak at 2 minutes each. However, I’m posting this now, just ahead of the meeting so we’re on record. There are two amendments that will be offered, one from Councilmember Tim Burgess eliminating the 100 percent exception and another from Councilmember Tom Rasmussen changing the heights to a complicated calculation rather than 22 feet. We’ve asked Councilmembers to reject both of these amendments. I’ll be posting later about the outcome of the vote on small-lot legislation we’ve been working on for two years. 

Smaller single-family homes are more energy efficient and less expensive than large older homes. This legislation –a compromise two years in the making– ensures that more smaller homes can be built in a predictable way and to an appropriate scale. Please support this legislation without amendment.

The amendment removing the 100 percent rule takes 250 of these new homes away, eliminating not just goods homes for some families that need them, but the jobs and and additional tax revenue that would come with new construction. Why walk away from a good thing — even if it’s a smaller amount of a good thing?

And the amendment changing the height of new homes simply adds more confusion, unpredictability, and  something else for City staff, neighbors, and builders to interpret and argue about. Why make things worse when we’ve just made them a little but better?

This legislation is a compromise that makes modest improvements to the code, will create some new single-family homes that scale to existing houses; it’s everything you set out to do two years ago.

Those Lots in Laurelhurst are Too Big!

The correspondence on microhousing is flowing hot and heavy these days. I got an e-mail from someone not happy with our support of microhousing. I responded by reminding the person that microhousing is a really good way of addressing increasing housing demand for people who don’t drive, want less space, and who want to live in neighborhoods that have lots of amenities within walking distance. But one thing I find so odd about the microhousing debate is the degree to which opponents don’t like it because the rooms are too small. So in my response I said this:

The idea that some people should decide where other people can and should live (provided it is safe and healthy) is strange to me. I could just as easily drive through Laurelhurst and blast an old couple working in the garden of their 9600 square foot lot and say, “that’s inhuman, those two people consuming all that space while other people are struggling to find a place to live for the next six months.”

It’s time to turn our expectations and our policies around; the health of our environment and our economy depends on it.

If we get our measuring tape and start asking what’s too small we can do the same in many neighborhoods, questioning the lifestyle choices people make their and the impacts those choices make. Microhousing is a low-impact, low-cost housing choice. Microhousing residents typically live in their units for more than a year and they choose to live their because it meets their needs. The idea that we should interfere with their choices make about as much sense as demanding that people in Laurelhurst give up their gardens and yards.