As an intern with Smart Growth Seattle over the past couple of months I have been charged with several duties. One of which was digging into each of HALA’s 65 (really 74) recommendations. The process involved uncovering who is responsible, who benefits, and what, if anything, has been done with the report’s many contentious recommendations and some encouraging but overlooked recommendations. I also compiled a snapshot of the document’s Highest Impact Recommendation. This is the first of three blog posts reflecting on HALA recommendations I found to be the most interesting, the confusing, and finally the most promising.

By reducing the incentive for making a profit, a City ordinance that requires a certain percentage of new housing to be affordable (MIZ) could actually slow the development of new housing. On the other hand, drastic upzoning recommendations have brought strong disapproval and pushback from neighborhood coalitions claiming the character of their neighborhood is threatened. So how about advocating for a middle ground that preserves neighborhood character? How about relaxing existing ordinances on two-thirds of the City’s land to help address the housing crisis?

Recommendation SF1 Increase Supply of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Backyard Cottages is deservedly gaining attention here in Seattle. Built either behind homes, attached to homes, or above garages, these units increase density without jeopardizing the true character of their neighborhood. Moreover, because ADUs and Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) could be built as infill across the City’s 120,000 single-family lots. It’s suggested that as many as 83,000 lots (~70%) are eligible for this.

However, as explained by the Seattle Times report last year, there are obvious affordability issues in building these units. Developers of these kinds of unit were being slapped with a $10,000 sewage fee, and development estimates range from $55,000 – $200,000. Here are the code barriers HALA recommends removing:

• Remove the parking requirement. Currently, an off-street parking space must be created for an additional ADU or DADU. •
• Remove the ownership requirement. Allow both the accessory and principal unit to be rented [independently]. Currently, the owner must live in one of the two. The ownership requirement is a barrier to securing financing to build an ADU/DADU. Explore the opportunities and implications of Unit Lot Subdivision which would allow separate ownership of the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling.
• Allow a single lot to have both an ADU and a DADU. Currently only one is allowed.
• Make minor modifications to existing development standards that remove barriers for DADUs, such as height limits, setbacks, maximum square footage, and minimum lot size to ensure constructability.

It’s difficult to say yet whether these easements are enough to spur ADU and DADU development. By the HALA’s forecast a 5% participation rate would serve 4,000 new moderate income peoples over the next 10 years and add welcomed community diversity in areas zoned for Single Family. Young hip couples who don’t want to live in an apartment complex, elder parents who want to live close to their children (granny flats), or single adults are all perfect candidates for ADUs and DADUs.

And, interestingly, Councilmember O’Brien is not proposing removal of the ownership requirement but a year long requirement. Having this barrier at all is likely to create the same issues that have limited households from building a DADU which is perfectly legal today. Removing this requirement makes sense. It’s unclear why O’Brien isn’t following through with the full recommendation which the Council has been hearing for well over a year.

By developing a catalogue of pre-approved plans for backyard cottages, Seattle could remove the “legal stumbling blocks” that San Francisco encountered when pursuing a similar policy and it would expedite, and thereby reduce the cost of, the permit and development processes. Guaranteed charges for utilities and services during the development period would also facilitate this kind of development.   If the City adopts SF1 it could substantially increase the size of the housing pool and, ultimately, tax base while distributing the concomitant increase in population over a wide area.