Burgess: New Housing Not Meaningful?
- He is a strong proponent of the City’s concentrated density strategy, which focuses our development efforts on designated urban centers, urban villages and transit station areas.
LU67 Permit exceptions to minimum lot size requirements to recognize building sites created in the public records under previous codes, to allow the consolidation of very small lots into larger lots, to adjust lot lines to permit more orderly development patterns, and to provide housing opportunity through the creation of additional buildable sites which are compatible with surrounding lots and do not result in the demolition of existing housing.
- Single family zones are not the most efficient zones to target for new development to achieve greater density and affordability. The number of additional development sites created through the proposed exception is not likely to meaningfully add to the overall supply of housing in the City.
We agree. That’s why we proposed the 80 Percent Rule which would have created as many as 1000 developable lots all over the city. However, we compromised to the 100 percent rule. If Councilmember Burgess truly wants to “meaningfully add to the overall supply of housing in the city,” perhaps he’ll propose the 80 percent rule as an amendment. If not, why would he opposed 250 more homes. We think for the 250 families that won’t have that opportunity to live in Seattle the loss will be, contrary to Councilmember Burgess’ rationale, meaningful.
- Adding a new exception to minimum lot sizes in single family zones runs counter to the original goals of this legislation, which were to limit the use of lesser-known provisions in the land use code to build development often out-of-scale with the neighborhood.
Seattle’s entire land use code is a spaghetti of confusing rules and amendment by reference. We would agree that this legislation doesn’t meet the goal of making things more understandable. But does Councilmember Burgess understand that the code is riven with exceptions, including the underlying legislation he voted for in committee? Without exceptions virtually no building would go on in the city. If the Councilmember is willing to take on a major revision of the code to make it easy and clear to understand for everyone, we’re on board. Until then, the 100 percent exception is a helpful if modest improvement that makes small-lot development more predictable and scalable.
- New homes created through the exception are not likely to further other Comprehensive Plan goals, such as providing housing affordable to middle and lower income households.
This is simply false. In fact, small homes are far more affordable and energy efficient than larger, older homes. Dwell Development, for example, is building new passivhaus single-family homes for $500,000 to $600,000 right near light rail in the Rainier Valley.
- Making this change gives neighborhoods a sour taste of density when they could be allies in supporting smart, concentrated density.
This is like saying seeing an ugly car would lead me to be against driving. We’ve heard this argument before and I think that someone who is opposed to these homes is likely opposed to these homes because they’re worried about change. Denying people the opportunity to find a new home or a builder to create new jobs because a few people (remember the Councilmember points out there aren’t that many new homes being created) seems like a misallocation of utility in favor of the few over the many.
- New land use code provisions often come with unintended consequences; the effects of this new provision are still too unclear to be fully understood.
The effects are pretty clear: 250 new buildable lots that will create at least that many homes. The only thing we don’t have an exact number for is how many jobs and sales tax revenue will be created by the new housing being built. Perhaps these might be “unintended consequences” but it’s hard to argue that 250 new homes, with height limits, set backs, and a minimum lot size requirement would be a bad thing.
