Smart Growth Member and sponsor Scott Shapiro sent this letter to the Mayor and Seattle City Council. It makes a good summation for why the City Council needs to act in a responsible way that will keep microhousing as a viable choice for people who want to live in our city. You can echo Scott’s views or convey your own by e-mailing the City Council.

Dear Councilmembers:

As you consider legislation to further regulate micro-housing and congregate residences, please consider each specific policy decision as many have a negative effect on the availability and affordability of this workforce housing type.  Together, they could effectively kill this housing type altogether.  For those of you who were not in attendance at the beginning of last Friday’s PLUS hearing, attached are my public comments that highlight my specific concerns.  Based on the discussion at the hearing, I’d like to further address the following:

Minimum Average Net Square Foot Requirement – The proposed 220 sf requirement is totally unnecessary from a policy standpoint as it will produce less housing at higher cost per unit.  The SBC (Section 1208.3) requires that every dwelling unit have at least one room of not less than 120 sf.  However, a sleeping room need only to be 70 sf so when you add all of the other required provisions (e.g., bathroom, closet, food prep areas), it ends up being over 120 sf as currently written in the code.  That model has worked well for some customers who have chosen to live in less space and pay less.  Please continue to give the public that choice by eliminating the arbitrary minimum average 220 sf provision in DPD Director’s Rule 6-2004 and this proposed legislation.

Sink Requirement – There is no credible public policy or health policy reason to require two sinks in such a small unit (one in the bathroom and one in the sleeping/living room).  Currently, hotels, dorms, and other apartments don’t have this requirement.  Why would you impose it on this small unit?  One sink in the amenity area is enough.

Design Review – As indicated in my testimony, the proposed new requirements for this flawed process are too low.  Streamlined Design Review shouldn’t be implemented until a 12,000 sf building and full Design Review shouldn’t be implemented until 40,000 sf.  The cost, timing, and risk otherwise makes creating micro-housing more difficult and less likely.

Congregate Food Preparation Prohibition – Why can only 25% of the congregate residences have a food prep area?  Why create two classes of tenants: those with food prep areas and those without?  Why can only certain classes of owners (e.g. public and nonprofit entities) create this?  Most development is done by the private sector.  Why limit who can create what is needed?  I’m currently in early discussions with a nonprofit to build congregate housing that would be privately owned but will provide housing for this nonprofit.  Based on this legislation, I would be prohibited in providing a food prep area in each sleeping room.  That hurts the nonprofit and its customer.  All congregate residence should be allowed to have food prep areas in the sleeping rooms regardless of who builds it or owns it.

Bicycle Parking – Based on my experience, one bicycle stall per four sleeping rooms is more than adequate.  Requiring more than that – and having to put it indoors – takes away space for sleeping rooms and adds unnecessary costs that many tenants don’t need and wouldn’t want to pay.

RPZ Parking Permit – In addition to one parking permit per Small Efficiency Dwelling Unit (SEDU), each SEDU should also be allowed one guest pass.  Two people may live in a SEDU.  At the very least, a tenant should be able to allow a guest to park when visiting.  These two are still just half of the four allowed for a unit over 400 sf.

Car Parking – No additional parking should be required.  Changing the environmentally forward policy created over half a dozen years ago to not require parking in Urban Centers or Urban Villages with frequent transit was the right long-term public policy decision from a financial, environmental, health, and social perspective.  It takes years to change the built environment let alone peoples’ mindset to accept and embrace this change in an increasing dense urban environment.  If there are not enough buses then fund more buses.  That is a lot less expensive than incentivizing and building the infrastructure for more single driver cars.  We need more density so more citizens take the public transit (e.g., Link Light Rail, Streetcar, Metro buses) that the City and region has heavily invested in.  Don’t walk away from that commitment based on the reality of more people living in Seattle.

I’m happy to talk with you in greater detail at any time.  Please consider enacting the best long-term public policy for our community irrespective of electoral politics.

Thanks,
Scott