>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.
WELCOME TO THE SUSTAINABILITY
AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
IT'S WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2019,
2:0 3 PM.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL BRIAN.
I AM JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT AND KELLY REFER.
THANK YOU FOR STOPPING ME.
TODAY'S AGENDA IS A BRIEFING ON
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
LEGISLATION.
WE WILL GET TO THAT AFTER WE DO
PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE WILL GO INTO PUBLIC COMMENT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE
PROBABLY ABOUT A DOZEN FOLKS
SIGNED UP, SO WE WILL DO TWO
MINUTES EACH.
IF YOU DON'T MIND BRINGING ME
THE LIST, WE WILL SET THE TIMER.
YOU CAN SPEAK UP TO TWO MINUTES.
WHEN YOU'RE DONE WITH THAT, WE
WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAFT
LEGISLATION.
I HAVE 12 FOLKS SIGNED UP RUDY
REYES FOLLOWED BY EMILY JOHNSON
AND THEN ALICE LOCKHART.
RUDY, TAKE IT AWAY.
>> I LIVE IN THE UNIVERSITY
PARK NEIGHBORHOOD JUST SOUTH AT
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.
WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE
LEGISLATION AS FAR AS THE
OWNERSHIP OWNER OCCUPANCY ROLL
IS CONCERNED.
IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DO NOT
HAVE THIS PROBLEM THAT HOUSES
GET DESTROYED AND REPLACED BY
MANSIONS, BUT WE DO HAVE THE
PROBLEM THAT INVESTORS BUY OUR
PROPERTIES, SOMETIMES PUSHING
OUT FAMILIES THAT LIVE IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEN WHAT
THEY DO IS THEY CHOP THE HOUSE
APART, TURN IT INTO A ROOMING
HOUSE, WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT
REGULATED IN SEATTLE.
BUT THEY MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFIT
BY PUTTING AS MANY UNITS AS
THEY CAN INTO THIS HOUSE.
THIS IS NOT HAPPENING IF THIS
HOME IS OWNER OCCUPIED.
THEY MIGHT STILL READ, BUT THEY
DON'T CHOP IT UP.
SO FREQUENTLY, THESE
CONVERSIONS ARE HAPPENING AT
PERMIT AND THEN THE NEIGHBORS
HAVE TO COMPLAIN.
IT'S THE WHOLE EXERCISE, AND WE
HAD MULTIPLE EXAMPLES LIKE
THIS.
THIS IS NOT A SCENARIO
CONSIDERED IN THE EIS.
I KNOW THERE IS MANY THINGS YOU
HAVE IN YOUR MODEL, BUT IT IS
CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT
INVESTORS LIKE TO SEE, AND SO
THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE FAIL TO SEE HOW TURNING OUR
CITY OVER TO INVESTORS IS GOING
TO HELP US WITH THESE MANY REAL
SOCIAL PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE,
AND SO WE WOULD REALLY URGE YOU
NOT TO DROP THE OWNER OCCUPANY
ROLL.
>> THANKS, BRUDIE.
EMILY?
WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH FOR DOING
THIS.
AS YOU KNOW, I AM WITH 350
SEATTLE.
WE APPROACH THE HOUSING CRISIS
NOT JUST AS A MORAL CRISIS,
WHICH IT IS, BUT ALSO PART OF
THE CLIMATE CRISIS BECAUSE WE
KNOW EVERY TIME WE PUSH FOLKS
OUT OF THE CITY, THEIR
FOOTPRINTS FOR CARBON DOUBLE OR
QUADRUPLE.
WE CAN'T DO THAT AND MEET OUR
CLIMATE GOALS.
FOR 13 YEARS NOW, SINCE I'VE
OWNED MY HOUSE, I WANTED TO
BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
OVER A LARGER HOUSE AND I CAN
HAVE WITH MULTIPLE UNITS OR
SOMETHING.
MY HOUSE IS 790 SQUARE FEET.
I WORK AT HOME, SO I CAN'T
REALLY HAVE A ROOMMATE WITHOUT
-- I SPEND TOO MUCH TIME THERE,
I THINK AND BASICALLY I NEED
TOO MUCH SPACE, BUT IT'S
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS THAT A
MILE FROM DOWNTOWN, A SINGLE
PERSON IS LIVING ON A 4500
SQUARE FOOT LOFT.
I HAD FAMILY WHO WERE WILLING
TO LOAN ME THE MONEY, BUT I
COULDN'T DO IT BECAUSE OF THE
PARKING RESTRICTIONS.
IT'S JUST CRAZY THAT WE ARE
FACING THE KIND OF HOUSING
CRISIS WE ARE FACING, AND WE'RE
PUTTING INCREASING NUMBERS OF
WHILE NOT INCREASING ANYMORE,
BUT ALL THESE RESTRICTIONS ON
SOMETHING THAT IS A SIMPLE
SOLUTION LIKE ACCESSORY
DRILLING UNIT.
AND AS LONG AS CARING ANY
HOUSING DOWN IS LEGAL, WE
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO
BUILD AS MUCH AS THEY CAN ON
THIS BASE WHERE THEY HAVE TORN
SOMETHING DOWN.
AS IT IS NOW, WE KNOW A LOT OF
MODESTLY PRICED RENTALS ARE
BEING TORN DOWN FOR MANSIONS
AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CRAZY.
BY DEFINITION, WHEN WE HAVE
MORE HOUSING, IT IS GOING TO
RELEASE MORE OF THE PRESSURE,
EVEN IF A DEVELOPER CAME IN AND
TORE DOWN A HOUSE KIND INSTEAD
OF ROLLING A MANSION, THEY BUILT
A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH TWO
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS INSIDE.
THAT'S STILL TWO EXTRA FAMILIES
OR INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL NOT BE
COMPETING FOR OTHER HOUSING,
AND SO YEAH.
WE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE
BUSINESS OF RESTRICTING HOUSING.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT THE
BUILDERS BE ABLE TO BUILD THEM
ALL AT ONCE BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY
HAS TO WAIT A YEAR TO DO IT,
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS
RATIONAL.
IT'S GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE
AND THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO DO
IT.
AS LONG AS WE ARE ALLOWING
ANYONE TO TEAR DOWN HOUSING, WE
SHOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO
REPLACE IT WITH AS MUCH HOUSING
AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN.
>> ALICE IS NEXT FOLLOWED BY
DOUG BENBROOK AND MARGUERITE
RESHARD.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, OR
AT LEAST THE THREE OF YOU.
EMILY SAID IT ALL WITH RESPECT
TO CLIMATE, SO I WILL TELL MY
PERSONAL STORY.
LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, I'VE ALSO
BEEN WAITING FOR THIS
LEGISLATION TO BE ABLE TO
UPGRADE MY PROPERTY AND BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE A BIT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, RELATIVELY.
MY PARTNER AND I MOVED TO NORTH
SEATTLE IN 1994, MOVED INTO A
WONDERFUL HOUSE WITH A
WONDERFUL YARD, WITH TWO BIG
PINE TREES AND A FEW LITTLE
TREES.
WE RAISED TWO GREAT KID.
BECAUSE WE NEVER CUT DOWN A
TREE THAT CAME UP ON OUR
PROPERTY, WE KNOW HOW, YOU
KNOW, MAYBE 30+ TREES, AND IN
ADDITION WE PHRASED COUNTLESS
BROODS OF CHICKADEES AND BLUE
JAYS, AND CROWS, AND ROBBINS,
AND OTHER BIRDS WITH WHOM WE
LOVE.
OUR OWN NEST IS NOW EMPTY AND
WE ARE READY TO MAKE A CHANGE.
THIS LEGISLATION HAS THREE
THINGS FOR US THAT WE REALLY
APPRECIATE.
THE SMALL INCREASE IN HEIGHT
LIMIT WILL ENABLE OUR ATTIC TO
BECOME AN ACTUAL LIVING BASE
FOR ANOTHER HOMEOWNER.
AND I'M SORRY, THE POSSIBILITY
OF BUILDING TWO E.D.
USE MAKES THE MATH WORK FOR OUR
FAMILY.
THAT WE CAN DO THIS.
AND THE PARKING RESTRICTION
AGAIN, THE BIRDS, THE TREES.
NO MORE PARKING.
WE CAN PUT TWO CARS IN THE
DRIVEWAY AS IT IS.
AND THIS IS GOING TO ENABLE US
TO PRESERVE THE LOVELY OLD HOUSE
ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT,
PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK
AND FEEL THAT SO MANY ARE FOND
OF IN THIS CITY, AND DO THE
RIGHT THING FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND AS I'M ALWAYS
TALKING ABOUT FOR THE CLIMATE.
SO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
CARE YOU PUT INTO THE DETAILS
OF THIS LEGISLATION THAT MATTER
SO MUCH, AND FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY.
>> THANKS, ALICE.
DOUG?
>> IS THIS THE RIGHT ONE?
I AM DOG BEN BRIDGE.
I AM SPEAKING ON MY BEHALF VERY
BRIEFLY.
I CAME HERE MOSTLY TO LEARN.
I JUST HEARD ABOUT THIS IN THE
SEATTLE TIMES THIS MORNING AND
MY FIRST CONCERN, AND I ECHO
SOME OF THE COMMENTS BEFORE ME.
I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE A NET
REDUCTION IN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT
THERE IS CURRENTLY A LACK OF
SUPPLYING IN FOUR BEDROOM, TWO
BATHROOM HOUSING IN THE CITY
FOR FAMILIES.
EXTENDED FAMILIES.
MAYBE, THE KIDS WANT TO STAY AT
HOME.
THE TERM
McMANSION I BELIEVE APPLIES TO
A LARGE HOUSE ON A SMALL YARD.
IT JUST IS WHAT IT IS.
IT'S THE RESULT OF OUR CURRENT
ZONING.
IF YOU LIMIT THAT TO 2500
SQUARE FEET, I'M JUST THINKING,
WE ARE GOING TO LIMIT THE
AMOUNT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION TO
FOUR BEDROOM, TWO BATHROOM NEW
CONSTRUCTION.
IF YOU TAKE AWAY THAT SUPPLY,
THE RESULTS WILL BE AN
ARTIFICIAL INFLATION OF EXISTING
PROPERTY, SO I DON'T LIKE THAT.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM.
THAT'S KIND OF TOUGH ON
FAMILIES THAT ARE TRYING TO
FIND HOUSING IN THE CITY, AND
THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THE BIG
HOUSES, TOWNHOUSES WITH NO
YARDS.
IF YOU TAKE THAT AWAY, IT
SHOULD BE FOR A REAL PUBLIC GOOD
. IF WE NEED MORE SMALLER UNITS,
I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT
WE'VE DONE THAT.
WE'VE INCREASED A LOT OF
SUPPLY.
DO WE NEED TO REALLY IMPACT
FAMILIES TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY
MORE SO?
IF WE DO THAT, I SURE HOPE
THERE IS NOT A REDUCTION IN A
4500 SQUARE-FOOT LOT.
WHAT CAN YOU BUILD TODAY, ONCE
THIS ZONING IS DONE, IF IT GETS
DONE?
WILL THERE BE A REDUCTION IN
BUILDABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE?
IF THERE IS, THAT VIOLATES THE
BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF
ECONOMICS.
THAT WOULD BE AN OBVIOUS,
FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE.
I HATE TO DO THAT.
>> TIME IS UP, SO IF YOU COULD
JUST WRAP UP.
>> I WILL WRAP IT UP.
I JUST CAME TO LEARN ABOUT
THIS.
THAT'S JUST MY FIRST
OBSERVATION.
>> HAPPY TO CHAT MORE, TOO.
MISTER SHARD IS FOLLOWED BY
ERIC AT HER AND SHERRY NEWBOLD.
>> MISS SHARD HERE.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT DWELLING
UNITS.
ARE THOSE SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE
SLAVE QUARTERS?
I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT GET
IN CONTACT WITH SOME LAWRENCE,
AND THEY ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE
DWELLING UNIT THAT THEY ARE IN,
AND I DON'T FEEL OR SEE ANY
PROVISIONS.
I THINK I WROTE SAWANT ABOUT A
WOMAN IN HER 90s WHO SAID SHE
DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A MANAGER
THERE AT THE TIME WHEN THE
ELEVATOR WENT OUT.
AND SHE HAD TO CALL THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT, AND THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT HAD TO ESCORT HER UP
THE STAIRS, CARRYING HER, SO I
AM VERY MUCH CONCERNED WHEN YOU
USE THE WORD DWELLING UNITS,
AND PEOPLE USING DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES, AND THEN YOU SAY YOU
HAVE A RACE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
TOOLKIT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THESE PROVISIONS ARE ALL ABOUT,
ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE ARE
GETTING THROWN OUT OF THE
CHAMBERS FOR JUST HAVING FREE
SPEECH AND WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT
IS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OATH.
FIVE TIMES.
EVERYBODY IS CLOSED MOUTH ABOUT
THAT, BUT OTHER PEOPLE CAN HAVE
THEIR LIVES THROWN AMOK BY JUST
COMING UP IN HERE, JUST HAVING
A PERSONAL CONVERSATION WITH
THE COUNCIL.
I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYTHING
IN WRITING TO TELL ME HOW
ANYBODY CAN TRAVEL THIS COUNTRY
AND USE FREE SPEECH, BUT IT
CAN'T BE USED IN THIS DOMAIN.
IT IS BEYOND MY MENTAL
COMPREHENSION AND IT SHOULD BE
BEYOND ANYBODY ELSE'S THAT
AGREES WITH FREE SPEECH.
IT'S JUST DEPLORABLE,
DESPICABLE, AND IT MUST COME TO
AN END.
JUST LIKE TYRANNY.
IT MUST COME TO AN END, A STOP,
A HALT.
IF YOU DON'T SEE IT THROUGH ME,
GOD FORBID IF ANYBODY ELSE COME
UP IN HERE CHALLENGING YOU IN
TERMS OF WHAT THE LAW SAYS
VERSUS WHAT YOU ARE INVOLVED
IN.
>> THANK YOU.
ERIC?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE AND FOR
LISTENING.
I AM A HOMEOWNER NEAR GREEN
LAKE.
>> IF YOU WANT TO JUST LIFT THE
MICROPHONE UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> I AM A NO HOMEOWNER NEAR
GEEN LAKE.
ABOUT MY HOUSE TWO YEARS AGO
AND I'VE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD
TO THIS LEGISLATION EVER SINCE.
I LOVE THE IDEA OF BUILDING A
BACK YARD COTTAGE FOR MY WIFE
AND I TO RETIRE INTO AFTER OUR
KIDS MOVE OUT AND WE DON'T NEED
SO MANY BEDROOMS ANYMORE, JUST
HAVE SOMETHING NICE AND SIMPLE,
AND EFFICIENT, AT THAT POINT,
SO THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS IN
THIS LEGISLATION THAT MAKE IT
MORE APPEALING OF AN OPTION FOR
US, BUT ONE I SPECIFICALLY WANT
TO TALK ABOUT TODAY IS THE
OWNER OCCUPANCY THING.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
OPPONENTS SAYING THIS IS ABOUT
ENABLING INVESTORS TO TEAR DOWN
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND PUT UP
RENTAL MULTIPLEXES, BUT EVEN IF
YOU THINK A RENTAL TRIPLEX IS
BAD, WHICH I DON'T.
I LIVE NEXT TO TWO RENTAL
PROPERTIES AND THEY ARE GREAT
NEIGHBORS, BUT IT'S ABOUT
FLEXIBILITY FOR HOMEOWNERS LIKE
ME BECAUSE I HAVE EVERY
INTENTION OF LIVING ON MY
PROPERTY INDEFINITELY.
IF ALL GOES WELL, I WILL BE
THERE IN 50 YEARS, BUT LIFE
HAPPENS.
MAYBE, I GET A JOB OPPORTUNITY
THAT TAKES ME OUT OF TOWN FOR A
COUPLE OF YEARS.
RIGHT NOW, I CAN DO THAT, AND
RENT OUT MY HOUSE.
IT WILL STILL BE THERE WHEN I
MOVED BACK.
AND I WANT TO MOVE BACK, BUT
RIGHT NOW'S OWNER OCCUPANCY, I
CAN'T DO THAT.
I WOULD HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE A
DU OR SOMETHING OR SELL MY
HOUSE.
I DON'T KNOW.
BUT I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF
HAVING TO GIVE UP THAT AMOUNT
OF FLEXIBILITY JUST TO PUT
ANOTHER HOUSE ON MY PROPERTY.
PLEASE, CONSIDER PASSING THIS
WHOLE LEGISLATION OWNER
OCCUPANCY AND ALL.
>> THANKS.
SHERRY IS NEXT FOLLOWED BY
MEGHAN MURPHY AND THEN MARTIN
KAPLAN.
>> HELLO.
THANKS FOR LETTING ME SPEAK
TODAY, AND I AM WEARING MY AI
SEATTLE HAT.
I'M ON THE HOUSING TASK FORCE
AND JUST WANTED TO LET THE
COMMITTEE KNOW THAT THE
COMMITTEE FULLY SUPPORTS THE
CHANGES IN THE DRAFT
LEGISLATION, AND WE ARE EXCITED
ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE FLEXIBILITY
IT WILL GIVE TO HOMEOWNERS AND
OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO CREATE
ADUs AND DD USE, AND HOW IT WILL
GIVE MORE OPTIONS FOR
MULTIGENERATIONAL HOUSING.
WEARING MY OWN PERSONAL HAT AS
A RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECT, I'VE
HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE ASKING WHEN
THESE CHANGES WILL COME INTO
EFFECT, AND MAKE IT MORE
POSSIBLE FOR MORE PEOPLE TO
BUILD THE A DU AND WE WOULD
LIKE TO BUILD ONE IN OUR
BASEMENT.
UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, WE
CAN'T.
WE WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT IN THE
FUTURE.
>> MEGHAN?
>> I HAVE BEEN ATTENDING FRED
MAE IN SEATTLE.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
POLICIES OF THE STATE AND
PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I THINK ADUs ADDRESS THAT THE
STATE, PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
THAT OWN CAPITAL, ARE CONSUMING
LARGE AMOUNTS OF RENTAL
PROPERTY AND THEN THEY MAKE A
LARGE AMOUNT OF PROFIT AT THE
TOP, AND THEN THE PEOPLE ON THE
BOTTOM OF THE PYRAMID ARE BEING
TRAINED OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
SO I THINK ADUs ARE A GOOD WAY
TO OFFSET A MORE CONDENSED
SEATTLE.
WHERE I'M FROM, I ALWAYS
COMPARE AND CONTRAST IOWA AND
WASHINGTON STATE.
WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN
KING WHO I TOLD THE CITY
COUNCIL LAST WEEK THEY SHOULD
URGE HIM TO RESIGN, AND HE SAYS
THAT WE IN AMERICA, ARE ON THE
FOREFRONT OF WESTERN
CIVILIZATION, AND WERE
PRESERVING IT, AND PEOPLE FROM
MEXICO FOR IMMIGRANTS ARE IN
THE SHADOWS, AND THEY NEED TO
STAY IN THE SHADOWS.
HE WAS ASKED TO RESIGN FROM ALL
OF HIS COMMITTEES AT THE SENATE,
SO I AGREE THAT HE SHOULD
DEFINITELY RESIGN, AND THE
THING I LIKE ABOUT WASHINGTON
STATE POLICY IS WE ARE IN A
DIFFERENT WAY.
WE ARE MIXING WESTERN AND
EASTERN CIVILIZATION.
WE ARE CROSS POLLINATING, USING
TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE LIKE TO
MAKE A LAST WEEK AT THE LUNCH
AND LEARN.
WE ARE GOING TO THE COMMUNITY
STAKEHOLDERS, AND ASKING THEM
HOW THEY ENVISION THEIR
COMMUNITY, AND IT'S I HAVE A
PLACE TO LIVE PERMANENTLY, AND
A PLACE WHEN IT GETS HOT OUT TO
PLAY AND WATER, AND I CAN AFFORD
FOOD, AND I HAVE A JOB THAT IS
NOT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT.
THEY HAVE WORKING CONDITIONS
THAT ARE SUSTAINABLE, AND
THAT'S WHY I LIKE ADUs BECAUSE
WE ARE ENVISIONING A NEW WAY TO
ORGANIZE A CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, MEGHAN.
MARTIN FOLLOWED BY DAVID SUTURE
AND THEN DON MILES.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS MARTIN KAPLAN.
I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE
QUEEN ANNE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
LAND-USE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
I JUST WANT TO SPEAK FOR A
SECOND ON THE LEGISLATION.
AS YOU KNOW, WE APPEALED THE A
DU EIS.
I JUST WANT TO TRY AND
ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK OUTSIDE
THE BOX WHEN IT COMES TO
FORWARDING THIS LEGISLATION.
IN 2006, I WAS ON THE SEATTLE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND WORKED
HARD WITH MY COLLEAGUES TO
ADVANCE THE ORIGINAL, AND THE
EXISTING A DU REGULATIONS AS
THEY EXIST RIGHT NOW.
DID A LOT OF STUDYING IN 2010,
CITYWIDE, AND I'VE BEEN WORKING
ON THAT EVER SINCE.
I WAS A BIG ADVOCATE OF THAT.
QUEEN ANNE IS ALWAYS SUPPORTING
INCREASED DENSITIES.
WE HAVE INCREASED OUR DENSITIES
ABOVE THE PS RC.
SO, WHY DID WE APPEAL THIS EIS
WHEN WE ACTUALLY AGREE THAT
DENSITY IS GOOD, AND WHEN DONE
RIGHT, IT CAN MAKE ROOM FOR
OTHERS AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEM
WITH THAT?
I WANT TO REMIND YOU AND ASK
YOU TO REREAD THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION.
THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE IN HER
CONCLUSION, IN HER DECISION
READS LIKE THIS.
"GIVEN THE GROUNDBREAKING
NATURE OF SOME OF THE FEATURES
OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER
NONE, SOME, OR ALL OF THE
EFFECTS OF THE APPELLANT
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT WILL
COME TO PASS.
THAT'S WHY WE APPEALED THIS IS
BECAUSE AN EIS SHOULD BE ABLE
TO INFORM YOU, THE DECISION-
MAKERS, AND IN WARM THE PUBLIC
OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND
VOTIVE MEDICATIONS, SO I WOULD
ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THERE
ARE MANY AMENDMENTS THAT CAN BE
ADVANCED, PURSUANT TO THIS
LEGISLATION.
THEY COULD REALLY BENEFIT THE
ENTIRE CITY, AND RESPECT THE
CONSTITUENTS A LOT MORE THAN IT
HAS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, MARTIN.
DAVID?
>> MY NAME IS DAVID SUTURE.
I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS
LEGISLATION.
IT'S GREAT.
THE THING I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
IS I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A
CARRIAGE HOUSE ADU.
AND THE RULES HAVEN'T YET
CHANGED ENOUGH.
I STILL COULDN'T BUILD IT UNDER
THE CURRENT CODE, AND I CAN'T
BUILD IT UNDER THE PROPOSED
CODE, SO I HAVE SUBMITTED A
VERY TECHNICAL SUGGESTION.
IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT WITHOUT
DRAWINGS AND PICTURES, AND
GETTING REALLY INTO THE WEEDS,
BUT I WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER
POINT ABOUT THE OWNER OCCUPANCY
REQUIREMENT.
I AM HAPPY TO SEE IT CHANGED,
BUT I WANT TO PUT OUT THE IDEA
THAT IT'S NOT EVEN
CONSTITUTIONAL TO EVEN REQUIRE
OWNER OCCUPANCY.
I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING YOU
MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER.
IT'S A REQUIREMENT WE'VE LIVED
WITH, BUT I THINK IT IS
SUSPECT, AND SO JUST AN IDEA TO
THINK ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID.
I WILL MAKE SURE TO HAVE STAFF
LOOK AT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS
OF YOUR EMAIL, AND WE CAN HAVE
SOME BACK-AND-FORTH ON THAT TOO.
DON FOLLOWED BY DAVID HAYNES,
AND I KNOW SOME FOLKS HAVE
SIGNED UP ON AN ADDITIONAL
LIST.
>> I AM A QUEEN ANNE HOME OWNER.
WE PURCHASED OUR HOME IN 1976
AND WE PURCHASED A RENTAL HOUSE
IN WEST SEATTLE, IN 1985.
OUR GOAL WITH THE RENTAL HOUSE
WAS TO KEEP IT AFFORDABLE.
OUR RENT IS ALWAYS BELOW MARKET
VALUE.
WE HAVE TWO METRO BUS DRIVERS
THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 10
YEARS.
OUR OWN HOME WAS BUILT IN THE
BACK YARD OF THE MOTHER OF THE
WOMAN WHO BUILT THE HOME.
WE HAVE NO SPACE.
FOR A DETACHED COOLING UNIT OF
ANY KIND.
AND VERY LITTLE SPACE ON THE
STREET FOR PARKING OFF-SITE.
I THINK IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE
THINK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
TERMS OF OUR OWN COMMUNITY
MEMBERS, AND THERE ARE NO
INCENTIVES TO PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR
RENTAL PROPERTY, OR NO
BENEFITS.
WE ARE CERTIFIED.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE
PROCESSES, BUT THERE ARE NO
INCENTIVES.
I WOULD THINK IN TERMS OF ADUs,
AND DETACHED DWELLING UNITS,
THAT IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE
OWNERS.
IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE OWNERS
ACCOMMODATING HOUSING WITHIN
THEIR PROPERTY.
EVERY OTHER WEEK, WE GET A
LETTER AND IN SOME CASES,
COMPLETED REAL ESTATE AGREEMENTS
FROM CORPORATIONS TO BUY OUR
RENTAL HOUSE IN WEST SEATTLE.
THAT'S THE KIND OF PRESSURE THE
CITY IS EXPERIENCING.
EVERY MEASURE SHOULD BE TAKEN
TO AVOID ANY OF THESE LAND-USE
CHANGES.
SOMETHING THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE
SPECULATION AND TURN OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS OVER TO THE
CORPORATIONS THAT ARE SEEKING
TO HAVE THEM.
>> ARE YOU DONE?
DAVID, YOU ARE UP.
>> DID CITY COUNCIL SELL US
OUT?
DID CITY COUNCIL SABOTAGE THE
GREAT AMERICAN HOUSING BUILDOUT
TO APPEASE LONGTIME RESIDENTS
ARE TREADED ON AND SOLD OUT THE
YOUNGER GENERATION AND THE
NATIVE LOCALS?
IF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE
SEATTLE TIMES IS CORRECT, THE
COUNCIL NEEDS AN AMENDMENT TO
ENSURE A MORE ROBUST USE OF
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR LIVING
SPACE.
IF PROGRESSIVE WANTS CREDIT FOR
INCREASING GREEN SPACE BY
DENYING THE STILL NEEDED LAND
TO BUILD HOUSING, THIS WILL
PROVE THAT SOCIALISM THAT SEEMS
TO MAKE IT FAIR, EVERYONE HAS A
MALL LIVING SPACE STILL ON THE
SIDE OF THE ROAD.
IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEMS.
STOP CATERING TO DOUBLE, TRIPLE
MORTGAGE SPECULATORS WORRIED
THE YOUNGER GENERATION WILL
HAVE A NEW, AFFORDABLE, BETTER
OPTION OF A NEW HOME TO OWN,
TRENT.
EVER SEEN THE BRAND-NEW, SO-
CALLED QUAD PLEX OFF OF LEARY
AVENUE ON THE RIGHT CORNER OF
SIXTH AVENUE BEFORE THE BUS
STOP AND THE LIGHT?
THE ENTIRE GROUND FLOOR IS
SPECIFICALLY USED ONLY BY AUTO
TRAFFIC FROM THE NEIGHBORS
DRIVING BY THE BEDROOM,
BOTHERING EVERYBODY WITH YOUR
HEADLIGHTS, AND THE NOISE FROM
THE CAR.
GIVING RUNDOWN HOUSING A SMALL
GUESTHOUSE IS A McMANSION WANT
TO BE.
THERE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T LAZY,
WHO DON'T HAVE CARS AND WANT
TO LIVE A HIKE AND A BIKE AWAY
FROM EVERYWHERE.
PLEASE DON'T TAKE AWAY THE CORE
VALUE OF ROBUST SQUARE FOOTAGE
ACCOMMODATION.
SPECULATION LEADERS ALREADY
TIPPED THE SCALE OF HUMANITY
MORTGAGING OTHER PEOPLE'S
FUTURES.
GIVE US THE REAL QUAD PLEX WITH
MORE LIVING SPACE, MORE SQUARE
FOOTAGE, HIGHER UP AWAY FROM
THE STREET AMBIENCE WITH A
POTENTIAL FUEL AND TEAR DOWN
ALL THESE RUNDOWN HOMES THAT
KEEP HOLDING UP PROGRESS AND
CLAIMING THEY ARE STILL
ENTITLED.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID.
I THINK I SAW SOME FOLKS WHO
SIGNED UP?
COME ON FORWARD.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS RICHARD ELLISON.
I AM REPRESENTING MYSELF AND
TREE PACK.
THE PROPOSED A DU LEGISLATION
WILL NOT PROTECT EXCEPTIONAL
TREES.
THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
IS SO CRITICAL TO US RIGHT NOW
WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, WE ARE
HAVING RECORD HEAT, RECORD
DROUGHTS, A CONTINUED WINTER
RAIN, WHERE ARE THE KIDS GOING
TO PLAY?
WHERE THE BACK YARDS GOING TO
BE IF YOU ARE BUILDING LOTS OF
ADUs IN THE BACK YARDS?
IT'S GOING TO BE NO PLACE FOR
BIG TREES.
THERE MUST BE SOME MEANS OF
ALLOWING BOTH BIG TREES AND
MORE A DU UNITS, WHICH MEANS
VERY SELECTIVELY BUILDING THESE
STRUCTURES.
IF WE JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY
BUILD WHEREVER YOU WANT, WE ARE
GOING TO LOSE THE GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CITY.
YOU ARE A LEADER IN CLIMATE
CHANGE LEGISLATION FOR THE CITY
OF SEATTLE.
HOW CAN YOU PROPOSE THIS BILL
WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING TO
PROTECT THE BIG, EXCEPTIONAL,
HERITAGE TREES?
THE EXISTING CODE IS NOT
WORKING.
IT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED AND IT
IS NOT WORKING.
IF YOU REALLY CARED ABOUT
BUILDING MORE HOMES AND ALSO
SAVING THE TREES, YOU WOULD PUT
IT IN THE LEGISLATION.
YOU WOULD NOT KICK THE CAN DOWN
THE ROAD.
THIS IS AN A DU EXCEPTIONAL
TREE SACRIFICE ORDINANCE.
DO THE RIGHT THING AND PUT SOME
CLAUSES IN THERE TO NOT ALLOW
THE REMOVAL OF HERITAGE TREES.
THERE ARE LESS THAN 200 HERITAGE
TREES IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE,
BUT YOU WON'T PASS LEGISLATION
TO PROTECT THEM.
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL TREES
THAT ARE 36 INCHES IN DIAMETER,
WHICH PROVIDE TREMENDOUS SHADE,
TAKE STORM WATER RUNOFF,
PROVIDE TREMENDOUS HABITAT.
YOU NEED TO STAND UP TO
DEVELOPERS AND SO YOU CAN BUILD
YOUR ADUs BUT NOT IN CERTAIN
PLACES.
PLEASE, HELP PROTECT SEATTLE'S
INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE.
THANK YOU.
ú>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC
COMMENT TODAY?
SEEING IN, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC
COMMENT AND I WILL INVITE THE
PRESENTER FORWARD.
ONCE YOU'VE SETTLED, IF YOU
WOULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> ALY PENNUCCI, COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> AND THEN, I WILL READ AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER ONE, BRIEFING ON
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS,
LEGISLATION.
JUST A REALLY QUICK HISTORY
HERE.
I SEE MISTER KAPLAN NOTED THIS
WORK HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A
COUPLE OF DECADES, AND I THINK
WHEN WE GO TO NY UNITS, EVEN
LONGER THAN THAT.
MY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS STARTED
A LITTLE OVER 3 1/2 YEARS AGO
WHEN WE ASKED FOR AND RECEIVED
A REPORT BACK FROM THE TIME THE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT ABOUT HOW MANY FOLKS
WERE BUILDING THESE UNITS.
ARE WE SEEING IT AS A HOUSING
OPTION, AND STARTED A PROCESS
BY WHICH WE DID A COUPLE OF
COMMUNITY MEETINGS THAT HAD
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE ATTEND AND
HEARD A LOT OF WHAT WE HEARD
TODAY.
MY INTENTION AT THE TIME WAS TO
PASS LEGISLATION THAT SUMMER.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SUMMER
OF 2016, AND BECAUSE OF SOME OF
THE LEGAL CHALLENGES, WE HAVE
BEEN FORCED TO DO AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
WHICH WE DID.
WE LEARNED MORE ABOUT THE
PROCESS.
THERE WAS ALSO A CHALLENGE
LEGALLY, BUT RECENTLY WE GOT
WORD THAT WE ARE CLEAR TO
PROCEED ON THAT, SO WE'RE BACK
TO WHERE WE WERE, BUT WITH NEW
INFORMATION AND A NEW PIECE OF
LEGISLATION FROM 2016, SO MY
GOAL TODAY IS TO HAVE ALY WALK
THROUGH THE DRAFT LEGISLATION,
GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF
BACKGROUND ON SOME OF THE
CONDITIONS WE ARE SEEING ON THE
GROUND.
REALLY HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE
CHANGES WE AND PROPOSING TO
MAKE BETWEEN CURRENT REGULATION
AND THE PROPOSALS, AND ALSO
WHERE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO
TALK ABOUT IF THERE ARE
DIFFERENT OPTIONS WE CAN BE
CONSIDERING.
AND THEN COLLEAGUES ARE LOOKING
FOR THOUGHTS AND FEEDBACK ON
THESE.
FOR THE TIMELINE REALLY QUICK,
WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
ON THE EVENING OF TUESDAY, JUNE
11.
THAT'S AT 5:30 HERE IN CANCEL
COUNCIL.
BACK IN COMMITTEE JUNE 18 AT
2:00 P.M.
AND MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE
WILL BE READY TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENTS AND VOTING OUT FINAL
LEGISLATION ON JUNE 18, BUT ALY
WILL NEED TO HERE ON DIFFERENT
DIRECTIONS WE WANT TO CONSIDER,
SO WE WILL START THAT
DISCUSSION TODAY, AND HAVE MORE
DISCUSSION ON JUNE 18.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU.
TODAY WILL BE THE SECOND IN A
SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS FOR
CHANGES TO MAKE IT EASIER TO
BUILD ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
I WILL SPEND A FEW MINUTES
GOING OVER BACKGROUND AND THEN
I WILL WALK THROUGH THE DRAFT
PROPOSAL.
FIRST, YOU'VE SEEN THIS SLIDE
BEFORE.
WE OFTEN START WITH IT.
I WANT TO CONFIRM TERMINOLOGY.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ACCESSORY DRILLING UNITS, THERE
ARE SEVERAL TERMS THAT GET
THROWN AROUND AND I WILL
SOMETIMES FLIP BETWEEN THEM,
BUT WHEN WE USED DETACHED ADUs
ARE DADUS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ATTACH STRUCTURE, BACK YARD
COTTAGE, OR CARRIAGE HOUSE, AND
ATTACHED A VIEW, GARDEN,
APARTMENT, BASEMENT SUITE.
WHY ENCOURAGE ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS?
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON AS ONE
OF THE STRATEGIES TO THINK
ABOUT HOW TO INCREASE HOUSING
OPTIONS IN THE CITY AND
PRIMARILY IN THIS CASE, IT'S
REALLY LOOKING AT INCREASING
THE NUMBER AND VARIETY OF
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES, AND
LOOKING AT WAYS TO HAVE MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS
OTHER THAN A TYPICAL SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME AND PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMEOWNERS TO
GENERATE INCOME OR ADOPT
CHANGING HOUSEHOLD NEEDS.
IN LOOKING AT SOME OF THE
BARRIERS TO A DU PRODUCTION,
THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT
MAY BE HOLDING BACK.
IT'S PRIMARILY THE USE OF THE
LAND CODE USES TODAY.
ANOTHER COST IN FINANCING
CHALLENGES AND THE COMPLEX
PROCESS HOMEOWNERS HAVE TO GO
TO.
WHEN WE OVERLAY ALL THESE
BARRIERS, IT'S A SMALL NERVE
PEOPLE WERE ALL OF THOSE THINGS
LINE UP, WHERE THE LOT MEETS
THE REQUIREMENTS.
THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE CAPITAL
NEEDED TO DEVELOP IT AND THEY
HAVE INTEREST IN THE ABILITY TO
GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
BUILDING AN ADU.
SO LOOKING AT THE PRODUCTION OF
ADUs IN SEATTLE OVER TIME, YOU
CAN SEE IN RECENT YEARS, WE
HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE AS THE
MARKET HAS PICKED UP AND AN
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ADUs
BUILT, BUT IT IS STILL
RELATIVELY LOW AND IF YOU LOOK
AT SOME OF THE SURROUNDING
CITIES THAT HAVE REGULATIONS
THAT ARE MORE SIMILAR TO WHAT
úWE ARE LOOKING AT IN THE
PROPOSED CHANGES AND YOU LOOK
AT THE AVERAGE NUMBER PRODUCED,
PORTLAND IS ON AVERAGE ABOUT
270 PER YEAR.
WHAT I HEARD TODAY IS THEY ARE
ON TRACK TO LOOK AT ONE PER
DAY.
ON AVERAGE, THAT'S INCREASING.
IN VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA,
ABOUT 732.
VANCOUVER ALLOWS TWO ADUs OR
WHAT THEY CALL A LANEWAY HOUSE,
AS WELL AS AN ATTACHED.
>> WHAT DO THEY CALL THEM?
>> LANE WAY HOUSES.
IN TERMS OF WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO
BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT AND WHO BENEFITS, RIGHT
NOW IT TENDS TO BE PEOPLE WHO
OWN HOMES.
IN OUR CURRENT MARKET, FEWER
AND FEWER HOUSEHOLDS CAN AFFORD
TO BUY HOMES.
THIS IS LOOKING OUT OVER TIME
WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY A SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME IN SEATTLE.
THERE IS A DECLINING SHARE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SHARES THAT
A PERSON CAN AFFORD BASED ON
THEIR INCOME.
IN THE LAST COLUMN FOR 2018,
LESS THAN A QUARTER OF HOMES
SOLD HAVE BEEN AFFORDABLE TO A
FOUR PERSON HOUSEHOLD EARNING
THE MEDIAN INCOME.
WHICH IS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
$100,000 AND $120,000 PER YEAR.
AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHO
OWNS HOMES, THE INFORMATION WE
HAVE AVAILABLE ILLUSTRATES
HOMEOWNERSHIP VARIES VARIES BY
RACE.
KNOWING THAT 80% OF HOMES ARE
OWNER-OCCUPIED ACCESS TO
RENTING AND IN SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONES AS WELL AS HAVING ACCESS
TO THE WEALTH BUILDING
OPPORTUNITY THAT ADUs AND
HOMEOWNERSHIP CAN OFFER ISN'T
LIKELY TO BENEFIT EVERYONE
EQUALLY ABSENT ADDITIONAL
INTERVENTION.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
STRATEGIES LOOKING AT TRYING TO
FIND WAYS TO HELP LOWER INCOME
HOMEOWNERS ACCESS FINANCING TO
BUILD THESE HOMES, AS WELL AS
LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES TO
BUILD, RENT AND CREATE INCOME
RESTRICTED UNITS.
THIS IS ON THE FIVE YEAR ACs
SURVEY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> ON THAT LAST SLIDE SO I CAN
GET A SENSE OF THE SCALE, THE
30% OF HOMEOWNERS UNDER 100%
AMI, WHAT ROUGHLY NUMBER OF
HOMES IS THAT?
>> HOW MANY HOME CELLS DOES
THAT REPRESENT?
>> IT'S NOT 30.
IS 23.
>> THAT'S PERCENTAGE OF SALES,
NOT PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE.
>> RIGHT, SO WHAT NUMBER OF
HOMES IS THAT ROUGHLY?
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER OFF
THE TOP OF MY HEAD BUT I WILL
FOLLOW UP.
>> TO BE CLEAR, ALY WAS TRYING
TO GUESS WHICH QUESTIONS WE
WOULD ASK THAT YOU CAME UP WITH
ONE.
>> YOU ALWAYS SURPRISE ME.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
WILL YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE
OVER SO PEOPLE CAN HEAR YOU?
THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANTED TO REMARK UPON
THE DRAMATIC SHIFT THAT HAS
HAPPENED
IN ACCESS TO HOMEOWNERSHIP BY
INCOME.
I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT
WE'RE LOOKING AT A GRAPH JUST
OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD, AND
THIS IS A DRAMATIC SHIFT.
IF YOU LOOK AT LIVABILITY
EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF HOUSING
COSTS, WE CORRECTLY, OF COURSE
TALK MAINLY ABOUT FRIENDS
BECAUSE YOUR NEXT GRAPH
INDICATES ITS A MAJORITY OF
RENTERS.
THAT KIND OF SHIFT IS HAPPENING
IN MOST METROPOLITAN AREAS, BUT
THIS IS ALSO A VERY STRONG
INDICATOR OF HOUSING COSTS, AS
WELL.
IT'S NEARLY HALF IN 2008.
WERE ACCESSIBLE TO -- 80% OF
AMI.
LOOK AT 2018.
JUST 11% OF HOME SALES.
>> YEAH.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION AS YOU ARE THINKING
ABOUT HOW THESE CHANGES IMPACT
THE COST OF ACCESSING HOUSING
IN THESE AREAS AND THEN OFFER A
DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPE.
IT'S SORT OF A COMPLICATED
QUESTION AND A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT IN AREAS WHERE WE'VE
BEEN ADDING DENSITY VERSUS MANY
AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED
SINGLE-FAMILY.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN A
DECREASE IN POPULATION DESPITE
OVERALL SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN
THE CITY.
THE CHAPTER 3 AND CHAPTER 4.1
PROVIDES A LOT MORE DETAILED
DISCUSSION OF SORT OF HISTORIC
ZONING PATTERNS.
SOME OF THESE TRENDS, AS WELL
AS WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE IN THE
FUTURE.
THIS SLIDE IS INFORMATION FROM
A SURVEY THAT WAS CONDUCTED OF
A DU OWNERS, AND OCCUPANTS IN
THE PORTLAND AREA, AND IT IS
JUST DEMONSTRATING HOW MOST
PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT
AND FINANCE AN ADU.
NOT ONLY THAT YOU ON YOUR HOME
BUT YOU HAVE EQUITY, SO IT'S
ANOTHER WAY OF SORT OF LOOKING
AT WHO IS BENEFITING AND AT
AGAINST TEND TO BE WEALTHIER,
WHITE HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE
ENOUGH CASH OR EQUITY IN THEIR
HOME BECAUSE OF ACCESSING A
TRADITIONAL LOAN BEING
DIFFICULT.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS
ABOUT HOW HOMEOWNERS FINANCE
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ACCESSORY UNIT ON THEIR LOT,
CORRECT?
I'M GLAD YOU HAVE THIS SLIDE
BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK A
QUESTION ABOUT IT AT SOME POINT.
WE HAVE HEARD FROM A LOT OF
HOMEOWNERS OF COLOR, ESPECIALLY
THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT, WHO ARE SOME
OF THE MORE FORTUNATE ONES WHO
HAVEN'T BEEN COMPLETELY PUSHED
OUT AND HAVE LIVED THEIR
INTERGENERATIONAL HE.
THEY THEMSELVES ARE NOW
RETIREES AND THEY WANT TO BUILD
AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON
THEIR LOT BECAUSE IT ALSO
REPRESENTS SOME SORT OF STABLE
INCOME OR WOULD REPRESENT SOME
SORT OF STABLE INCOME FOR THEM
IF THEY RENTED IT OUT, BUT
OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST BARRIER
THEY ARE GOING TO RUN INTO IS
FINANCING.
ARE THERE EXAMPLES FROM OTHER
CITIES IN TERMS OF THE
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT PROVIDING
PUBLIC FINANCING FOR
HOMEOWNERS, ESPECIALLY
HOMEOWNERS OF LOWER INCOMES AND
SO ON?
>> THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF
PROGRAMS IN THE VERY EARLY
STAGES.
THEY'VE PRIMARILY BEEN DRIVEN
BY A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
PARTNERING WITH THE CITY OR
OTHER NONPROFITS TO TRY TO
FIGURE OUT A FINANCING PLAN,
AND SO THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES,
AND WE WENT THROUGH SOME OF THEM
WHEN WE PRESENTED ON THE RACIAL
EQUITY TOOLKIT THAT WAS
CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE EIS
WORK, SO I CAN SEND YOU THOSE
EXAMPLES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A
LOT OF GOOD EXAMPLES OF WHAT'S
WORKING ON THE GROUND.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE
TRYING HERE IS SOMETHING
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN SPONSORED
DURING BUDGET LAST YEAR,
EXPANDING THE CITY'S HOME
REPAIR LOAN PROGRAM.
TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO ACCESS LOW
INTEREST OR NO-INTEREST LOANS
TO CREATE MORE HABITABLE SPACE.
THOSE ON AMOUNTS ARE PROBABLY
NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO BUILD
A DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT, BUT IT'S AN INITIAL STEP,
AND THEN THERE'S OTHER WORK I
AM INVOLVED WITH AN
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TEAM LOOKING
AT OUTAGES PARTNERING WITH
NONPROFIT LENDERS OR OTHER WAYS
THAT WE COULD HELP SUPPORT THE
FINANCING OPTIONS, AND NOT PUT
PEOPLE WHO MAY ALREADY BE SORT
OF ABLE TO AFFORD THEIR HOME
BUT DON'T WANT TO TAKE ON
SIGNIFICANT MORE DEBT THAT
MIGHT PUT THEM AT RISK OF
FORECLOSURE IN THE FUTURE, SO
WE ARE EXPLORING STRATEGIES, AS
WELL AS TRYING TO REDUCE THE
COST OF CONSTRUCTING ADUs THAT
WOULD HELP SORT OF BRING HOW
MUCH POTENTIALLY THE CITY COULD
LOAN IN LINE WITH WHAT IT
ACTUALLY COSTS TO CONSTRUCT.
>> ANOTHER THING -- THERE'S A
STARTUP IN PORTLAND THAT IS A
DIFFERENT MODEL WHERE THEY
ACTUALLY BUILT A MODULAR HOME
AND DELIVER IT TO THE SITE.
THEY WORK WITH HOMEOWNERS.
THERE IS A COUPLE OF WAYS THEY
CAN DO IT, BUT ONE IS THE
COMPANY WOULD OWN THE HOME AND
ESSENTIALLY LEASE THE LAND FROM
THE HOMEOWNER, AND THAT LEASE
PAYMENT WOULD BE A PERCENTAGE
OF THE RENT, AND I THINK THEY
SIGN A 20 YEAR DEAL.
AT THE END OF 20 YEARS, THE
HOMEOWNER GETS TO OWN THE BACK
YARD COTTAGE.
THEY DO ALL THE WORK AND PUT IT
IN THERE.
THERE IS NO FINANCING.
THEY HANDLE ALL THE FINANCING.
SO THERE IS TOOLS OUT THERE
THAT ARE DEVELOPING HOW THEY
PAN OUT AND HOW THEY MAKE SENSE.
>> YES.
I WOULD, OF COURSE, THE PRESENT,
THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS
TO FIGURE OUT SOME SORT OF
PUBLIC FINANCING OPTION THAT IS
FUNDED THROUGH PROGRESSIVE
REVENUES BECAUSE EVEN THE
OPTION YOU TALKED ABOUT, OF
COURSE THAT MAKES IT
IMMEDIATELY VIABLE.
THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
SOME CORPORATION IS MAKING A
PROFIT OFF THE INTEREST
PAYMENTS.
>> I AM GUESSING NOT AT THE
START BUT AT SOME POINT THEY
WILL.
>> EXACTLY, YEAH.
>> YEP.
>> OKAY, SO NOW I'M GOING TO
WALK THROUGH THE MAIN
COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION AND WHAT IS GOING
TO BE DESCRIBED TODAY IS WHAT
IS IN THE DRAFT LEGISLATION
THAT WAS POSTED WITH THE AGENDA
TODAY.
I WILL ALSO HIGHLIGHT SOME
POLICY OPTIONS OR CHOICES
COUNCILMEMBERS COULD CONSIDER.
THIS IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO BE
AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF EVERY
POLICY OPTION YOU COULD
CONSIDER, BUT IF THERE'S A
PARTICULAR AREA YOU ARE
INTERESTED IN EXPLORING, LET ME
KNOW AND WE WILL WORK ON WHAT
THOSE OPTIONS COULD BE.
>> COLLEAGUES, AS WE WORK
THROUGH THESE, PLEASE FEEL FREE
TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
HURRICANE THE INTENT OF TODAY'S
DISCUSSION IS TO HEAR WHETHER
THERE IS INTEREST WORTH
PURSUING AND WHERE THERE IS NOT
INTEREST, WE WILL FOCUS
ELSEWHERE.
>> ACTUALLY, I HAD A QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS AN
INTERRUPTION IN YOUR FLOW, BUT
LET ME GO AHEAD AND ASK.
WHAT DATA ARE WE SEEING FROM
OTHER CITIES OR EVEN HERE, EVEN
WITH THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE
HAVE IN PLACE, IN TERMS OF THE
RENTS AT WHICH THE ACCESSORY
UNITS ARE BEING RENTED OUT
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, ONE THING
THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
THAT IS OF INTEREST TO US IS
MAKING IT AFFORDABLE FOR
HOMEOWNERS TO BUILD THE UNITS
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE OTHER SIDE, OF COURSE, IS
THE RENTERS, AND OUR PRIMARY
INTEREST IN ALL OF THIS -- I
MEAN THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY
INTERESTS.
ONE IS TO REDUCE THE CARBON
FOOTPRINT AS EMILY AND OTHERS
WERE SAYING IN PUBLIC COMMENT,
BUT THEN THE OTHER IMPORTANT
THING IS AFFORDABILITY, WHICH
IS VERY MUCH RELATED TO THE
CARBON FOOTPRINT.
OTHER EVENTS GENERALLY
AFFORDABLE?
WHAT PATTERN IS IT FOLLOWING IN
TERMS OF THE MARKET ITSELF
HAVING VERY HIGH RENTS?
>> IN GENERAL, WHAT WE LOOKED
AT, IN SEATTLE IT'S HARD TO
PARSE OUT EXACTLY WHAT IS RENT
FOR AN A DU VERSUS OTHER TYPES
OF UNIT, BUT WE DID LOOK AT
SORT OF RENT IN SINGLE-FAMILY
SOUNDS, AND TRIED TO GET SOME
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT ADUs ARE
RENTING FOR, AND IN GENERAL
COMPARED TO AVERAGE SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONE RENTS, BECAUSE
THOSE HOMES TEND TO BE LARGER,
IT RENTS AT A LOWER COST, BUT
THAT IS SOMEWHAT THE RESULT OF
THE PER SQUARE FOOTAGE COST,
AND THEN WE HAVE NOT DRILLED
DOWN TO SORT OF GETTING MORE
DETAILED INFORMATION YET.
THERE SOMETHING IN THE DRAFT
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD TRY TO
DO A SURVEY TO GET MORE DETAILS
ON EXACTLY WHAT THESE TYPES OF
UNITS ARE RENTING FOR.
HAT WE'VE SEEN IN O
IS ANYWHERE FROM 15 TO 45% OF
ADUs ARE BEING RENTED AT OR
BELOW MARKET RATE, SO ONE OF
THE KEY THINGS THAT WE LEARNED
FROM THE PORTLAND SURVEY IS
THAT HOMEOWNERS REALLY ARE
LOOKING FOR FLEXIBILITY,
OFTENTIMES BUILDING THEM
INITIALLY TO HELP PAY THEIR
MORTGAGE, BUT THEY AND OPPOSING
A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER, AND
TYPICALLY, THEY ARE RENTING OUT
RATES AT LOWER THAN MARKET
VALUE.
SO THERE IS THREE STUDIES IN
CITIES, IN EDMONTON, ALBERTA,
CANADA, THE EAST BAY AND IN
PORTLAND.
ALL FOUND THAT YOU SEE A MUCH
HIGHER NUMBER OF UNITS BEING
RENTED AT MORE AFFORDABLE RENTS.
IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THAT
INFORMATION IS WHO THEY ARE
BEING RENTED AND WHETHER THEY
ARE BEING RENTED AT LOWER RATES
TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOWER
INCOMES.
>> WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE?
>> I USED A RANGE OF 15% TO 45%.
I THINK THE PORTLAND SURVEY,
WAY DOWN THE LINE, BUT I THINK
IT'S AROUND 44% OF ADUs IN
PORTLAND ARE BEING RENTED AT OR
BELOW MARKET RATE.
AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE
THREE STUDIES, I THINK IT'S
ABOUT 18% OF ADUs ARE AT OR
BELOW MARKET VALUE, SO IF YOU
COMPARE THAT TO OUR MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S A HIGHER
RATE THAN WHAT WOULD BE
REQUIRED UNDER THAT MANDATORY
PROGRAM.
ONE OF THE FIRST CHANGES IS TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
ALLOWED ON A LOT TODAY.
YOU CAN HOW ONE ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT, AND THOSE
ASTERISKS SHOULD READ THE LOT
MUST HAVE AT LEAST 4000 SQUARE
FEET OF LOT AREA TO ALLOW A
DADU.
THIS IS MY WEEK OF
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, BUT UNDER
CURRENT EXISTING, YOU CAN HAVE
ONE ATTACHED OR ONE DETACHED.
OF ITS DETACHED, YOU HAVE TO
HAVE A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 4000
SQUARE FEET THE PROPOSAL WOULD
BE ALLOWING TWO ADUs, EITHER
TWO ATTACHED OR ONE ATTACHED
AND ONE DETACHED.
THE CURRENT DRAFT WOULD REQUIRE
THAT IF THE SECOND A DU IS IN A
NEW STRUCTURE, IT MUST MEET A
GREEN BUILDING STANDARD.
SO, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
OPTIONS COUNCILMEMBERS COULD
CONSIDER.
THIS INCLUDES NO ACTION, SO DO
NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ADUs
TO ADOPT AS PROPOSED, OR YOU
COULD MODIFY SORT OF THE MIX OF
ONLY ALLOWING TWO ATTACHED OR
ONLY ONE ATTACHED AND ONE
DETACHED.
WHAT WAS STUDIED IN THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IS
REQUIRING THAT THE PROPERTY IS
OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON FOR AT
LEAST ONE YEAR PRIOR TO ADDING
A SECOND ADU.
THAT'S NOT IN THE CURRENT DRAFT.
ANOTHER OPTION THAT HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED THAT COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN HAS RAISED HIS ADOPTING
A ZONING APPROACH THAT WOULD
ONLY ALLOW A SECOND A DU IF ONE
OF THE UNITS IS RENT AND INCOME
RESTRICTED.
THIS WOULD BE A LAND USE CODE
INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND IN
WASHINGTON STATE, IT WOULD
REQUIRE AT LEAST A 50-YEAR TERM
OF AFFORDABILITY.
AT THE CURRENT COST OF
CONSTRUCTING ADUs AND WHAT THE
RENT WOULD BE IF IT WAS RENTED
TO SOMEONE AT 80% AMI, WHICH
WOULD BE THE HIGHEST INCOME
LEVEL WE COULD HAVE, WITH THE
REQUIREMENT, IT JUST DOESN'T
REALLY PENCIL.
IT'S UNLIKELY THAT VERY MANY
PEOPLE WOULD TAKE UP THE
ADU. TUNITY TO ADD THE SECOND
IF THIS WAS REQUIRED.
THE INCENTIVE ZONING PROVISIONS
THAT ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER STATE
LAW I REALLY MEANT TO FOCUS ON
MULTIFAMILY, LARGER DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS WHERE THERE IS MORE OF
A MIX OF UNIT TYPES, WHERE THE
COSTS ARE SORT OF CALCULATED
DIFFERENTLY, SO WHILE THIS IS
AVAILABLE TO COUNCILMEMBERS, I
WILL NOTE IT MIGHT BE UNLIKELY
THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF BUILDING THE
SECOND ADU.
>> I WILL JUST COMMENT THAT I
REMAIN VERY INTERESTED IN
FIGURING OUT SOME WAY THAT WE
CAN TIE AFFORDABILITY TO THIS.
AS ALY MENTIONED, WHAT WE DO
SEE IS WE DON'T HAVE GREAT
DATA IN SEATTLE, BUT AT LEAST
BOTH INTUITIVELY AND FROM THE
ANECDOTES WE HEAR, SMALLER
UNITS IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS
WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE MORE
AFFORDABLE THAN THE OTHER
OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT THEN
THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHO ARE
THEY RENTED TO?
AND IF THEY ARE BEING RENTED TO
FOLKS THAT HAVE HIGH INCOMES,
THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A BAD
THING BUT IT'S NOT GOING DEEP
INTO THE PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING
TO SOLVE, SO SOME WAY OF HAVING
THESE RENT RESTRICTED, I THINK
STATE LOT TODAY AS WE
UNDERSTAND AT THE MOMENT, THE
RESTRICTIONS ARE PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT.
I HAVE SPOKEN TO AT LEAST ONE
STATE LEGISLATURE WHO HAS BEEN
WORKING ON A DU LEGISLATION AND
ASKED ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF
GIVING US MORE FLEXIBILITY
ABOUT THIS.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE ARE
GOING TO GET TODAY, BUT WHAT I
HEARD WAS INTEREST IN SOME
FLEXIBILITY GOING FORWARD TO
ALLOW THAT, SO IT IS SOMETHING
WE MAY WANT TO -- I'M
INTERESTED IN MAYBE CRAFTING
THIS IN A WAY THAT IF WE CAN'T
GET A RENT AND INCOME
RESTRICTED UNIT TODAY, THAT WE
CAN MAYBE SWITCH TO THAT IF THE
STATE LAW WERE TO GIVE US MORE
FLEXIBILITY.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> YEAH, THE STAT THAT OTHER
CITIES WERE SEEING, ONLY 40%
WOULD BE AT OR BELOW MARKET
VALUE.
I THINK IT'S CONCERNING BECAUSE
THE MARKET IS ALREADY REALLY
HIGH.
PARTICULARLY HERE IN SEATTLE,
SO IF THERE WAS A WAY TO COUPLE
THIS APPROACH WITH SOME SORT OF
PBLIC FUNDING THAT MIGHT HELP
IMPACT THAT CALCULATION, I
WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING
AT THAT, AND I MENTIONED WHEN
ALY AND I WERE TALKING, MY
RECOLLECTION, AND I HAVEN'T HAD
A CHANCE TO CHECK ON IT, OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED
FUNDING POLICIES TALKS ABOUT A
POTENTIAL PILOT FOR FINANCING
RENT RESTRICTED A DU UNITS.
>> THAT WAS A PERFECT SEGUE.
MATZIE PROGRAM COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN PROPOSED DURING BUDGET
AND IS BEING DISCUSSED AS PART
OF THE CHANGES TO THE HOUSING
POLICIES WHICH WOULD BE A LOAN
PROGRAM SO THERE WOULD BE AN
INCOME AND RENT RESTRICTION
THERE.
IF THERE IS A FINANCING OPTION
ATTACHED, IT IS SORT OF A
DIFFERENT -- WE CAN REQUIRE THE
RENT AND INCOME RESTRICTION.
IT'S NOT QUITE UNDER THE SAME
SORT OF RESTRICTIONS AS WHEN IT
IS A LAND USE CODE INCENTIVE,
SO ANY PROGRAMS I THINK THAT
THE CITY WOULD FOCUS ON, WOULD
LIKELY CLEARLY HEARING FROM US,
FROM ALL OF YOU, THAT SHOULD BE
FOCUSED ON PROVIDING LOWER
INCOME HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS.
>> MY POINT IS THAT ALTHOUGH
THE LOAN PROGRAM THEORETICALLY
DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TIED TO AN
INCENTIVE ZONING APPROACH, IT
COULD BE, RIGHT?
WE COULD, THEORETICALLY, SAY
SECOND UNIT, IF SECOND UNIT IS
AFFORDABLE, AND THIS IS THE
FUNDING UNDER THE CITY'S
POLICIES THAT COULD BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE
AND ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PENCIL
OUT.
>> YES, I GUESS YOU COULD TIE
THE TWO THINGS TOGETHER.
IF THE REQUIREMENT AND LAND USE
CODE WOULD ONLY BE A SECOND
UNIT, YOU COULD ONLY GET A
SECOND UNIT IF IT WAS
AFFORDABLE TO SOME RENT AND
INCOME RESTRICTION.
THE LOAN PROVISIONS WOULD BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO MAYBE
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
THIS PARTICULAR PILOT -- THERE
ARE TOO MANY NUMBERS IN MY HEAD
AND I OFTEN SAY THAT, BUT THERE
ARE A LOT OF NUMBERS HERE.
I THINK THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT IS
ABOUT $45,000.
IN MOST CASES, PROBABLY NOT
ENOUGH FOR SOMEONE TO BUILD A
SECOND ACCESSORY UNIT.
IT'S MORE LIKELY ENOUGH TO
FINISH A BASEMENT, AND MAKE A
LEGAL BUTTON, PERHAPS CREATE A
SEPARATE ATTACHED DRILLING UNIT.
IT'S SORT OF IN THE EARLY
TESTING PHASES, SO I DON'T KNOW
IF THOSE THINGS WOULD WORK.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE
ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR
THE SECOND UNIT.
>> SO IT WOULDN'T NEED TO HAVE
TO PAY FOR ALL OF THE SECOND
UNIT.
IT WOULD JUST NECESSARY TO MAKE
UP THAT GAP THAT IS MAKING THIS
PRO FORMA YOU'VE DEVELOPED NOT
PENCIL OUT, IS WHAT I WAS
THINKING IN MY HEAD.
>> SIMILAR APPROACH BUT
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STRATEGY, I
THINK THERE IS INTEREST BEYOND
JUST THIS LEGISLATION TO
CONTINUE TO TRY TO MAKE THIS
MORE ACCESSIBLE.
ONE OF THE IDEAS IS HAVING SOME
MORE LENDING TOLLS AND IF THE
CITY WANTED TO COME UP WITH
SOME SORT OF SUBSIDIZED LOAN
PROGRAM, ASSUMING WE COULD GET
AROUND, AND WE CAN AROUND SOME
OF THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS, WE WOULD HAVE THE
FLEXIBILITY TO SAY IF FOLKS
WANT TO PARTICIPATE, HERE IS
THE REQUIREMENT.
WE COULD DICTATE THE LENGTH AND
THE RENTAL TERMS OF THAT, SO I
THINK THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES
GOING FORWARD TO FIGURE OUT HOW
TO FIND THAT SWEET SPOT WHERE
WE CAN PROVIDE BENEFIT TO
HOMEOWNERS AND MAYBE THE
HOMEOWNER WAS PLANNING TO RENT
TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE ANYWAY, OR
THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO
REGARDLESS OR THERE IS ENOUGH
BENEFIT FOR IT TO MAKE SENSE.
>> THE NEXT CHANGE WE WILL GO
OVER IS THE INCREASE IN MAXIMUM
HOUSEHOLD SIZE.
UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS, HOW
MANY PEOPLE CAN LIVE IN A
DRILLING UNIT IS REGULATED IN
ALL DRILLING UNITS WITHIN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
TYPICALLY, YOU CAN HAVE UP TO
ANY NUMBER OF RELATED PERSONS,
AND NOT MORE THAN EIGHT
UNRELATED PEOPLE LIVING IN A
DWELLING UNIT.
IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES, THAT'S
A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT
IT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LAW.
UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS, IF
YOU HAVE A HOME OR A HOME AND
AN A DU, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO CAN LIVE ON THAT LOT
IS EIGHT UNRELATED PEOPLE.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD INCREASE
THAT TO 12 UNRELATED PEOPLE IF
THERE ARE TWO ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS ON THE LOT.
THAT'S JUST RECOGNIZING THERE
IS THE POTENTIAL FOR FOUR
HOUSEHOLDS OR THREE HOUSEHOLDS
LIVING ON THAT LOT AND
PROVIDING A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY.
I DO THINK IT IS WORTH NOTING
AS A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE LATCHED
ONTO THIS NUMBER OF 12, THE
AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN
SEATTLE IS ABOUT 2.12, AVERAGE
FAMILY SIZE ABOUT 2.9.
IT'S PRETTY RARE TO HAVE EIGHT
UNRELATED PEOPLE, OR AN EIGHT-
PERSON HOUSEHOLD IN A SINGLE
UNIT.
ALTHOUGH THIS WOULD PROVIDE
SOME FLEXIBILITY IF YOU HAVE A
FAMILY OF FOUR LIVING IN THE
MAIN HOUSE, IT WOULD ACTUALLY
ALLOW OTHER FAMILIES TO LIVE IN
THOSE UNITS.
IT'S UNLIKELY TO BE A COMMON
FEATURE WHERE YOU WOULD FIND 12
UNRELATED PEOPLE LIVING ON ONE
LOT.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE WOULD BE TO
TAKE NO ACTION, ADOPT AS
PROPOSED, OR YOU COULD MODIFY
THE PROPOSED INCREASE WITH A
HOUSEHOLD SIZE SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN EIGHT AND 12, OR
PROVIDE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
THE NEXT CHANGE IS RELATED TO
MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND THE
MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS TO
ADD A DETACHED ACCESSORY
DRILLING UNIT, YOU NEED A
MINIMUM OF 4000 SQUARE FEET OF
LOT AREA.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD REDUCE THAT
TO 3200 SQUARE FEET.
THAT WOULD MAKE LOTS IN SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES THAT ARE CURRENTLY
UNDER SINGLE-FAMILY USE.
IT WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
ELIGIBLE LOTS FROM ABOUT 87% TO
95% OF LOTS.
THIS DOESN'T CHANGE OTHER
REQUIREMENTS LIKE LOT COVERAGE
AND YARD REQUIREMENTS, SO IF
YOU HAVE A SMALLER LOT THAT IS
ALREADY EXCEEDING OR AT THOSE
LIMITS, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO
ADD A BACK YARD COTTAGE.
IN ADDITION, THE MAXIMUM SIZE
OF A DETACHED ACCESSORY
DRILLING UNIT RIGHT NOW IS 800
SQUARE FEET INCLUDING ANY
GARAGE OR STORAGE AREA, AND FOR
AN ATTACHED IT'S 1000 SQUARE
FEET.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW AN
INCREASE OF 1000 SQUARE FEET
INCLUDING EXCLUDING GARAGE AND
STORAGE AREA KEEPING THE A DU
AT 1000, THE ATTACHED AT 1000
SQUARE FEET, AND SO THIS WILL
JUST ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY BUT
WITHOUT CHANGES TO THE MAXIMUM
LOT SIZE AND OTHER STANDARDS,
IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE BULK
ALLOWED ON THE LOT.
IF YOU HAVE THE SPACE AND
FLEXIBILITY, YOU CAN
ACCOMMODATE A LARGER UNIT.
AND JUST REITERATING AT THE
BOTTOM THAT THERE ARE NO
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MINIMUM
LOT SIZE TO CREATE A NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY LOT.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
COMMENTS ABOUT INCREASING THE
NUMBER OF SUBDIVISIONS AND THAT
SORT OF AN.
YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET
MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS
TO CREATE A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE WITH THE TWO
NOT CHANGE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
OR INCREASE THE SIZE OF ADUs,
ADOPT AS PROPOSED OR YOU COULD
MODIFY THE PROPOSAL FOR THE LOT
SIZE OR THE MAXIMUM SIZE, AND
ALWAYS, YOU WOULD BE
CONSTRAINED BY WHAT WAS
CONTEMPLATED IN THE EIS, BUT
THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY TO
MOVE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 3200
SQUARE FEET AND 3500 SQUARE
FEET.
THAT'S THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE
OR LOOKING AT MODIFICATIONS TO
THE MAXIMUM SIZE.
THERE ARE ALSO SOME CHANGES
PROPOSED TO THE EXISTING
REGULATIONS FOR DETACHED
ACCESSORY DWELLING HEIGHT
LIMITS.
RIGHT NOW, THE HEIGHT LIMITS
VARY BY THE WIDTH OF YOUR LOT,
AND THE TYPE OF ROOF YOU HAVE
THAT WOULD CONTINUE WITH SOME
SIMPLIFICATION ALLOWING SOME
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THAT SHOULD
HELP ACCOMMODATE ALLOWING A
DADU OVER A GARAGE IN SOME
CASES.
THIS DIAGRAM JUST SHOWS THE
CHANGE IS RELATIVELY MODEST.
THE NO ACTION WOULD BE WHAT IS
ALLOWED UNDER EXISTING
CONDITIONS.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS TO ALLOW
AN INCREASE OF THE BASE HEIGHT
TO 16 AND AN INCREASE TO THE
PEAK OF THE ROOF.
THAT WOULD ALLOW A COUPLE FEET
OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IF YOU ARE
INCORPORATING GREEN BUILDING
FEATURES.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE, NO ACTION OR
ADOPT AS PROPOSED, OR DECREASE
THE PROPOSED HEIGHT CHANGES
AND/OR MODIFY THE GREEN
BUILDING.
REAR LOT COVERAGE.
UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS, A
MAXIMUM OF 40% OF THE REAR YARD
MAY BE COVERED BY ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES IN ANY PORTION OF
THE MAIN HOUSE.
THIS IS IN ADDITION TO AN
OVERALL LOT COVERAGE.
THE PROPOSAL, AND I WILL SLIP
TO AN IMAGE THAT'LL ILLUSTRATES
THIS BETTER THAN THE TEXT,
WOULD INCREASE REAR YARD
COVERAGE TO 60% FOR A DETACHED
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THAT IS
A SINGLE STORY AND IT WOULD
ONLY ALLOW THIS IF IT DOESN'T
RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF TREES
OVER A CERTAIN SIZE, SO THE
IDEA HERE IS TO ALLOW SOME
ADDITIONAL REAR YARD COVERAGE
IF IT IS ACCOMMODATING SORT OF
AN AGING IN PLACE, SINGLE-STORY
DADU THAT MAY BE BETTER FOR
MOBILITY ISSUES AND THOSE SORTS
OF THINGS.
THE IMAGE ON THE TOP, THE
DOTTED LINE SORT OF OUTLINES
WHERE YOU CAN BUILD THE MAIN
STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE, SO THAT
IS THE AREA OUTSIDE OF REQUIRED
YARDS.
THE DARKER GRAY IS THE
FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE AND THE
DARKER GREEN BOX IS A DETACHED
ACCESSORY DRILLING UNIT.
THE DARK GREEN AND THE DARKER
GRAY BOXES TOGETHER REPRESENT A
35% LOT COVERAGE, SO THE TOTAL
YOU CAN HAVE STRUCTURES
COVERING HIM A LOT IS NOT MORE
THAN 35% CAN BE COVERED BY
STRUCTURES.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU CAN'T
COVER MORE THAN 40% OF THE REAR
YARD, WHICH IS GENERALLY THE
REAR 25 FEET OF THE LOT, SO THE
DARK GREEN STRUCTURE ON THE TOP
OR THE DARK GREEN STRUCTURE ON
THE TOP REPRESENTS A 400 SQUARE
FOOT FOOTPRINT OF AN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE COVERING 40% OF THE
REAR YARD.
THE BOTTOM STRUCTURE SHOWS WHAT
CHANGES WHEN YOU ALLOW 60% REAR
YARD COVERAGE.
WHEN YOU ALLOW MORE OF THE REAR
YARD TO BE COVERED AND YOU HAVE
A LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE,
THE FOOTPRINT OF THE MAIN HOUSE
HAS TO GET A LITTLE BIT SMALLER
SO YOU ARE NOT EXCEEDING 35%
COVERAGE ON THE ENTIRE LOT AND
ALLOWING 60% COVERAGE ON THE
REAR.
MAKE SENSE?
YOU COULD AGAIN TAKE NO ACTION,
ADOPT AS PROPOSED, AND ONE OF
THE OPTIONS YOU COULD CONSIDER,
AND THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO SOME
COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED.
ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED
IT.
WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE INCREASED
REAR LOT COVERAGE REGARDLESS OF
HEIGHT IF IT'S TOO ACCOMMODATE
CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING
STRUCTURE TO ADD ON A BACK YARD
COTTAGE, SO THE IDEA WOULD BE
SOMEONE MAY HAVE AN EXISTING
TWO-STORY GARAGE OR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE, AND THEY WANT TO KEEP
THE PARKING SPOT AND ADD ON TO
ACCOMMODATE AN ACCESSORY
DRILLING UNIT, AND ALLOW THE
ADDITIONAL REAR YARD COVERAGE
TO INCENTIVIZE REUSING THAT
MEANS STRUCTURE, AND THAT COULD
BE COMBINED WITH OPTION B.
OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS.
ONE OFFSTREET PARKING SPACE IS
REQUIRED FOR AN ADU.
THERE ARE WAIVERS YOU CAN
REQUEST IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO
ELIMINATE AN EXISTING OFFSTREET
PARKING SPACE REQUIRED FOR THE
MAIN HOUSE.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD NOT REQUIRE
ANY OFFSTREET PARKING FOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE ONE
OFFSTREET PARKING UNIT FOR THE
MAIN HOUSE.
ONE OF THE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
IN THE EIS, IN ADDITION TO
TAKING NO ACTION, REQUIRING
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES ONLY
FOR THE SECOND ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT.
OVERALL, THE ANALYSIS AND THE
EIS DIDN'T FIND THAT WE WOULD
SEE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO
PARKING SUPPLIES BY REDUCING
THIS REQUIREMENT BUT THIS IS AN
OPTION AVAILABLE.
>> CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE ABOUT
THE EIS FINDINGS?
AND THE IMPACT ON PARKING?
>> SURE.
WE PICKED FOUR STUDY AREAS IN
FOUR QUADRANTS OF THE CITY AND
USED PARKING DATA, SOME OF
WHICH HAD BEEN COLLECTED
PREVIOUSLY FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND SOME WE
COLLECTED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS
EIS, AND USED THOSE SAMPLE
AREAS THAT REPRESENT A RANGE OF
CONDITIONS IN NEIGHBORHOODS
AROUND THE CITY TO UNDERSTAND
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF IF WE
ALLOW MORE ADUs, IF WE ALLOW
TWO ADUs ON A LOT, AND THEY ARE
ALL PARKING ON THE STREET, AND
WHAT DOES THAT DO TO PARKING
SUPPLY?
WE USED A TYPICAL THRESHOLD OF
IF THAT DEMAND WOULD INCREASE
SORT OF ON STREET PARKING USAGE
ABOVE AN 85% OCCUPANCY RATE, WE
IDENTIFIED THAT IT WOULD BE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
WE DIDN'T FIND THAT ACROSS THE
STUDY AREA, BUT WHAT WE DID
FIND WAS IN CERTAIN AREAS WHERE
THERE IS ALREADY PARKING
CONSTRAINTS, THIS COULD HAVE
SOME LOCALIZED, GEOGRAPHIC,
SPECIFIC IMPACTS, AND IN THOSE
CASES, WE DIDN'T IDENTIFY WHAT
SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIES THOSE
WOULD BE, BUT JUST ACKNOWLEDGING
THERE ARE SOME BLOCKS, CERTAIN
PARTS OF AREAS, PARTICULARLY
THOSE CLOSER TO MULTIFAMILY AND
COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT ALREADY
HAVE PARKING CONSTRAINTS.
THAT THOSE WOULD BE ADDRESSED
THROUGH OTHER PARKING
MITIGATION STRATEGIES THE CITY
ALREADY USES.
WHAT'S INTERESTING WHEN LOOKING
úAT THESE DIFFERENT AREAS OF TH
CITY IS WHERE YOU FIND THE MOST
PARKING CONSTRAINTS IS ALSO
WHERE YOU TEND TO FIND THE BEST
ACCESS TO TRANSIT BECAUSE THERE
IS ALREADY MORE DENSITY
EXISTING IN THOSE AREAS.
SO IT'S OFTEN WITHIN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THOSE MULTIFAMILY
AND COMMERCIAL ZONES, SO IT'S
SORT OF WHERE THERE ARE OTHER
POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
. NOT IN EVERY CASE AND
EXCLUSIVELY THERE TENDS TO BE
HIGHER PARKING CONSTRAINTS.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THERE
ARE AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ARE
ALREADY AT OR CLOSE TO BEING AT
85% CAPACITY, AND THAT THE EIS
SHOWS IMPACTS TO THOSE AREAS
BUT NOT GENERALIZED IMPACTS?
>> NOT GENERALIZED IMPACTS LIKE
SO IN THE FOUR SPECIFIC PARKING
STUDY LOCATIONS, WE FOUND SOME
BLOCKS WHERE CAPACITY WOULD BE
AT OR JUST OVER 85%, BUT IN THE
STUDY AREA AS A WHOLE, WE
DIDN'T FIND THE IMPACT
THRESHOLD, SO WE DIDN'T IDENTIFY
A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BUT WE
ACKNOWLEDGED SOME LOCALIZED
IMPACTS COULD OCCUR.
AN OPTION THAT IS NOT LISTED
HERE, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES
JUST LIKE WITH OUR OTHER
PARKING REQUIREMENTS, IF YOU
WANTED TO HAVE A GEOGRAPHIC
PARKING REQUIREMENT, YOU COULD
DO THAT.
IT'S JUST A LITTLE WHERE YOU
SEE PARKING CONSTRAINTS, THE
MITIGATION IS OFTEN BETTER
ACCESS TO TRANSIT, RESIDENTIAL
PARKING ZONES, AND A LOT OF
THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY
IN PLACE IN SOME OF THESE AREAS.
>> CERTAINLY, THERE ARE PLENTY
OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN SEATTLE
WERE ON STREET PARKING IS AT A
PREMIUM.
THOSE ARE LARGELY PLACES ZONED
MULTIFAMILY AND MORE COMMERCIAL
ZONING WHERE IT'S REALLY HARD
TO FIND, AND AS ALY SAID, I
THINK THE SINGLE-FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ABUTTED
THOSE ZONES THOSE FEW BLOCKS IS
WHERE YOU WILL SEE A SPILLOVER
EFFECT AS YOU GET DEEPER INTO
EXCLUSIVELY ZONED SINGLE
FAMILY.
WE TEND TO FIND PARKING IS
REALLY NOT A CONSTRAINT OF
THOSE AREAS.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST TO NOTE, MY COLLEAGUE
EMAILED ME ON YOUR QUESTION
EARLIER ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
HOMES THAT WOULD BE AFFORDABLE
TO PEOPLE MAKING ABOUT 100%
AMI.
IT WOULD BE ABOUT 23%.
THAT'S ABOUT 195 OF AN
ESTIMATED 145 HOME SALES.
>> THAT'S INCREDIBLE.
I THINK THAT REALLY SORT OF FOR
ME, AT LEAST, MAKES THAT
PERCENTAGE REAL ABOUT THE
AVAILABILITY OF HOMES IN OUR
CITY, AND SO WHAT THAT WOULD
MEAN IS HOW MANY ARE GOING TO
PEOPLE ABOVE -- 23%?
>> IS AT 895 HOMES.
THREE QUARTERS OF THE REST.
THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS.
WE SPENT SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT
THIS IN THE NEXT PIECE AT THE
LAST COMMITTEE MEETING UNDER
EXISTING REGULATIONS, A
PROPERTY OWNER MUST OCCUPY THE
MAIN HOUSE OR THE A DU FOR AT
LEAST SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR.
THE PROPOSED REMOVAL WOULD
REMOVE OWNER OCCUPANCY AND AN
OWNER COULD ADD AN A DU TO THE
RENTAL PROPERTY.
AS I NOTICED ON A PREVIOUS
SLIDE IN THE EIS, WHAT WE
CONTEMPLATED IS A ONE-YEAR
OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR
ADDING THE SECOND A DU, SO THAT
WAS DISCUSSED THERE.
THIS PROPOSAL WOULD JUST REMOVE
THE OWNER OCCUPANCY.
THERE ARE A FEW POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS.
ONE OF THE MAIN ONES IS LOOKING
AT EQUITY AND IN TERMS OF HOW
THIS REGULATION TREATS OWNERS
AND RENTERS DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT
ALSO PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY FOR
HOMEOWNERS.
WE HEARD IN TESTIMONY TODAY,
SOMEBODY WHO IS AN OWNER
OCCUPANT AND WANTS TO BUILD,
BUT JUST THE POTENTIAL CONCERN
OF WHAT IF THEY WANT TO MOVE
AWAY OR RENT IT IN THE FUTURE,
MAY PROVIDE REAL OR PERCEIVED
BARRIERS FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE
THAT SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT,
AND WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT
REMOVING THE OWNER OCCUPANCY
REQUIREMENT IN THE PORTLAND
SURVEY, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T
HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT, THEY
FOUND MORE THAN HALF OF POTTER
PROPERTIES ARE OWNER-OCCUPIED.
ABOUT 65% ARE OCCUPIED BY THE
OWNER EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T
HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT.
THIS IS THE SLIDE I WAS
REFERRING TO EARLIER THAT
SHOWED ABOUT 44% BELOW MARKET
VALUE AND 49% AT MARKET VALUE.
I DIDN'T QUITE RAISE THOSE
NUMBERS QUICKLY.
44% HELLO.
ALMOST 50% AT, AND ONLY 7%
ABOVE, SO I THINK THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION.
I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE
INDICATIONS -- AND I CAN
PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE
SURVEY LOOKING AT THE WAYS
PEOPLE HAVE CHANGED HOW THEY'VE
USED THE ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT OVER TIME AS A NEEDS HAVE
CHANGED OR THEIR FAMILY
SITUATION HAS CHANGED.
>> WHAT IS THE BASE NUMBER ON
YOUR PERCENTAGE?
HOW MANY WERE YOU LOOKING AT?
>> ON AVERAGE ABOUT 260 A YEAR
BEING BUILT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOTAL
NUMBER IS.
I DON'T HAVE THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF ADUs BUILT IN PORTLAND HERE,
BUT I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU.
>> WAS THAT NUMBER YOU JUST
SHOWED PORTLAND?
>> YES.
>> AND WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY
COUNCILMEMBER BAGHSAW.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I THINK IT'S ALSO WORTH
NOTING THAT REMOVING THE OWNER
OCCUPANCY WITH WIRE MINT IS ONE
OF THE KEY FACTORS THAT IS
REALLY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
ESTIMATED ADUs THAT WOULD BE
BUILT.
IF YOU LOOK AT EIS ANALYSIS,
ONE OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE THREE THAT
WAS CONTEMPLATED AND THE
PREFERRED WAS WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WAS AN OWNER OCCUPANCY
REQUIREMENT AND THERE IS ABOUT
A 1000 UNIT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ADUs
PRODUCED.
THAT IS BOTH DUE TO THE FACT
THAT ABOUT 20% OF PARCELS ARE
RENTAL OCCUPIED NOW, SO THOSE
ARE PROPERTIES WHERE THE
PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT ADD AN A
DU EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ALREADY
A LANDLORD, AND IT'S ALSO DUE
TO THE CHOICES PEOPLE MAKE DUE
TO CONCERNS ABOUT RENTING IT
OUT IN THE FUTURE AND THAT TYPE
OF THING.
SO, THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS
AVAILABLE.
ONE WOULD BE NO ACTIONS, SO NOT
ELIMINATING THE OWNER
OCCUPANCY, ADOPT AS PROPOSED,
AND RESTARTED TO GET COMMENTS
ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE.
ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO ONLY
ALLOW SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE ON
PROPERTIES WITH ADUs IF IT'S
OWNER-OCCUPIED.
THE REGULATIONS ON SHORT-TERM
RENTALS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL
ALMOST 2 YEARS AGO WOULD NEVER
ALLOW FOR A PROPERTY WITH TWO
ADUs TO BE ENTIRELY SHORT-TERM
RENTAL.
THE REGULATIONS ALLOW YOU TO
GET A LICENSE FOR YOUR OWN HOME
PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT, SO IF
YOU LIVE ON THE LOT, YOUR OWN
HOME AND ONE OF THE ADUs COULD
BE SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE.
IF YOU DON'T LIVE UNDER THE
LOT, ONLY ONE OF THE THREE
COULD BE USED FOR SHORT-TERM.
>> SO I UNDERSTAND THAT OPTION
IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE
OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT BUT
I AM ALSO INTERESTED IN JUST
GENERALLY LIMITING SHORT-TERM
RENTAL USE.
THIS LEGISLATION IN MY MIND AT
LEAST IS ABOUT INCREASING THE
CAPACITY OF RENTAL HOUSING AND
IN DOING SO, MAKING PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP MORE AFFORDABLE FOR
FOLKS WHO ARE ALREADY LIVING ON
THOSE PROPERTIES WHETHER OR NOT
THAT MEANS THAT THEY ARE
RENTING TO SOMEBODY AND USING
THAT REVENUE TO SUPPORT THEIR
COSTS, OR AS MENTIONED BEFORE,
ALLOWING A FAMILY MEMBER TO
LIVE ON THE PROPERTY AND SPREAD
OUT SORT OF THOSE SHARED
EXTENDED FAMILY COSTS, AND
INCREASING AFFORDABILITY THAT
WAY.
I AM CONCERNED THAT -- AGAIN,
WE WANT HOMEOWNERS TO BENEFIT
FROM THE REVENUE THAT THEY
GENERATE FROM AN A DU, BUT AS A
MATTER OF POLICY, WE HAVE THE
ABILITY TO SHOW A PREFERENCE
FOR THE TYPE OF TENURE THAT IS
GENERATED THAT REVENUE AND I
THINK RENTAL HOUSING IS WHAT WE
NEED RIGHT NOW.
>> ONE OF THE FINDINGS IN THE
EIS WAS IF YOU LOOK AT THE FULL
COST OF OPERATING A SHORT-TERM
RENTAL AND REALLY INCLUDING
YOUR TIME SPENT CLEANING AND
FLIPPING THE UNIT, AND ALL
THOSE THINGS IF YOU'RE NOT
HIRING SOMEONE, MAY ACTUALLY BE
LESS PROFITABLE, BUT YOUR SWEAT
EQUITY MEANS SOMETHING, SO I
THINK THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
WAYS THAT COULD BE CRAFTED.
THAT IS CERTAINLY AN OPTION
AVAILABLE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS,
SO I WILL WORK WITH YOU ON
THAT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO.
>> I HEAR CONCERNS FROM
CONSTITUENTS THAT REMOVING THE
OWNER OCCUPANCY WILL LEAD TO
REAL ESTATE SPECULATION AND
MORE TEARDOWN OF SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES.
CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THE EIS
FOUND TO THIS REGARD?
>> WE LOOKED AT THAT QUESTION
PRETTY SQUARELY.
IT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN FOCUSES
OF THE ANALYSIS AND IF ANYONE
IS REALLY INTERESTED, READ
APPENDIX A. WHAT WE FOUND IS IN
GENERAL, SPECULATION IS A THING
AND IT IS OCCURRING IN SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES, BUT AS WE HEARD
TODAY IN PUBLIC COMMENT, IT IS
SOMETHING WE ARE SEEING TODAY
BUT WE EXPECT TO SEE WITH A
COMBINATION OF CHANGES BEING
CONTEMPLATED IN THIS PROPOSAL
THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE MUCH IF
ANY IMPACT ON THE RESIDUAL LAND
VALUE, AND SO THE LIKELIHOOD --
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WHAT
CONTINUES TO BE THE MOST
PROFITABLE OUTCOME IS SELLING
THE BIGGEST HOUSE POSSIBLE, SO
THAT WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO BE
WHAT A DEVELOPER OR SPECULATOR
WOULD BE LOOKING TO DO.
RENTING OUT ALL THREE UNITS IS
NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE OPTION,
SO WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE SOME
OF THAT SWITCH IF THESE CHANGES
BY THEMSELVES WERE GOING TO
INCREASE SPECULATION, SO WHAT
IT DOESN'T BED, AND IT COMBINED
THE OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT
WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CHANGES
BUT PARTICULARLY OWNER
OCCUPANCY COMBINED WITH
INTRODUCING FLOOR AREA RATIO
LIMITS THAT REDUCE THE MAXIMUM
SIZE OF THE HOUSE AND SHOULD
HAVE A MODERATING EFFECT ON HOW
THESE CHANGES WILL IMPACT THE
SORT OF SPECULATIVE MARKET.
NEXT, FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITS.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST
COMMITTEE MEETING, AND THIS IS
PART OF THE PROPOSAL THAT MOST
OF IT IS FOCUSED SQUARELY ON
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, AND
REGULATIONS ABOUT THE SIZE AND
PLACEMENT OF ACCESSORY DRILLING
UNITS.
THE FLOOR AREA RATIO UNIT WOULD
AFFECT ANY DEVELOPMENT IN
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES.
THAT WERE DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY USE.
UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS,
THERE IS NO F.A.R.
LIMIT.
THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF STRUCTURES
ON LOTS AND SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES
ARE EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY
YARD REQUIREMENTS, HEIGHT
LIMITS AND LOT REQUIREMENTS,
WHICH RESULT IN EFFECTIVELY
BEING ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE LIKE
1.05 TIMES THE LOT AREA, SO
THAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP, THE
THE HOUSE, SO IF YOU HAVE A OF
5000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT AND THE
F.A.R.
LIMIT COULD BE 5000 SQUARE
FEET.
OF ITS .5, 2500 SQUARE FEET.
WHICH IS THE PROPOSED CHANGE,
TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF A
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME BUT
EXEMPT FROM THAT REGULATION ANY
FLOOR AREA BELOW GRADE AND ANY
FLOOR AREA IN AN A DU.
INCENTIVIZES ADDING ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS TO THE LOT, OR
IF YOU ARE TEARING DOWN THE
MAIN HOUSE, TEARING IT DOWN AND
REBUILDING IT WITH A NEW MAIN
HOME PLUS ONE OR TWO ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT, SO INSTEAD OF
REPLACING A SMALLER HOUSE WITH
A LARGER HOUSE, YOU REPLACE ONE
SMALLER HOUSE WITH THREE UNITS.
>> THERE WAS REPORTING TODAY
AND I'M SURE IT CAME FROM YOUR
ANALYSIS THAT SHOWED HOW MANY
FEWER HOUSES WOULD HAVE BEEN
BUILT WITH THIS IN PLACE?
>> ONLY ABOUT 10% OF HOMES
THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES THAT ARE CURRENTLY
BUILT WOULD EXCEED THE PROPOSED
LIMIT BUT ALMOST 50% OF HOMES
THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT SINCE 2010
WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER
THIS PROPOSED F.A.R.
LIMIT.
SEVERAL OF THE EXAMPLES IN THE
ARTICLE TODAY, NOT ALL OF THEM,
BUT SOME OF THEM, WOULD BE
ALLOWED IF IT WAS A MAIN HOUSE
PLUS ONE OR TWO ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS.
WILL FLIP TO THIS SLIDE.
THE HOUSE ON THE UPPER LEFT IS
AN OLDER, SMALLER HOUSE.
THAT WOULD BE BELOW THE LIMIT.
THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WOULD BE
EXACTLY AT THE LIMIT OF .5.
THE ONE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT
THAT IS 8.9 F.A.R.
IS ABOUT 4500 SQUARE FEET.
THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AS
A SINGLE UNIT, BUT IT COULD BE
AS ONE UNIT +2 ATTACHED
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IF THE
PROPOSAL WAS ADOPTED.
THE HOUSE ON THE BOTTOM LEFT
WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, BUT
THAT'S ABOUT A 5300 SQUARE FOOT
HOUSE ALMOST.
OPTIONS AVAILABLE WOULD BE TO
NOT IMPOSE AN F.A.R.
LIMIT TO ADOPT AS PROPOSED.
YOU COULD ADJUST.
THE F.A.R.
LIMIT IS HIGHER THAN .5.
I SHOULD NOT IT'S .5 OR 2500
SQUARE FEET, SO THERE ARE MANY
LOTS IN OUR 5000 ZONE THAT
DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE A MINIMUM
LOT SIZE OF 5000 SQUARE FEET,
SO THEY WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED
TO BUILD UP TO 2500 SQUARE FEET
AND YOU COULD EXPAND OR REDUCE
FLOOR AREA THAT WOULD BE EXEMPT
FROM THE F.A.R.
LIMIT.
THAT IS SORT OF THE MEAT OF THE
PROPOSAL.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS IN
THE DRAFT LEGISLATION WORTH
NOTING.
THIS INCLUDES ADOPTING A NEW
TREE REQUIREMENT WHEN
CONSTRUCTING AN ADU, SO IT
WOULD REQUIRE IF YOU'RE
BUILDING A NEW A DU AND YOUR
LOT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM
TREE REQUIREMENTS, TO ADD A
TREE, AS WELL AS INTRODUCING
FLEXIBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS TO FACILITATE
PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES.
FLEXIBILITY FOR CONVERSION OF
EXISTING STRUCTURES, SO LIKE IF
YOUR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS
BUILT IN THE SIDE, THEIR
SLICK'S ABILITY BUILT IN THERE,
FLEXIBILITY FOR ENTRANCES AND
THEN PROVIDING HEIGHT
LIMITATIONS FOR THINGS LIKE
DORMER SET AND SOME INTERIOR
LIVING SPACE.
ALSO WORTH NOTING IN THE
PROPOSAL, WHICH I DIDN'T MUCH
IN HERE, THERE IS A REQUEST
THAT SDCI REPORT ANNUALLY TO
THE COUNCIL ON A DU PRODUCTION,
LOOKING AT HOW MANY LOTS THEIR
BILLING, HOW MANY OF THOSE LOTS
RESULTED FROM A DEMOLITION AND
COMPLETE REDEVELOPMENT AS WELL
AS A REQUEST TO CONDUCT A
SURVEY OF A DU OWNERS AND
OCCUPANTS SO WE CAN COMPARE
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN SEATTLE TO
OTHER CITIES.
IN ADDITION, SOME OF THE OTHER
ISSUES THAT ARE STARTING TO
COME UP, HIS QUESTIONS ABOUT
HOW MANY, IF A LOT OF
HOMEOWNERS TAKE THIS UP, HOW
MANY NEW LANDLORDS ARE
INTRODUCING TO THE MARKET AND
HOW FAMILIAR ARE THEY WITH THE
LOCAL LANDLORD-TENANT LAWS IN
THE STATE.
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION & INSPECTIONS
OFTEN OFFERS TRAININGS AND
MATERIALS FOR LANDLORDS, SO ONE
THING COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD
CONSIDER IS A REQUEST TO THINK
ABOUT A TAILORED TRAINING FOR
NEW HOMEOWNERS OR NEW LANDLORDS
THAT REALLY ARE JUST GOING TO
BE RENTING ONE OR TWO
PROPERTIES AND THINKING ABOUT A
FOCUSED SORT OF TRAINING THAT
WOULD HELP THAT EMERGING
LANDLORD MARKET.
>> HAVE ANY OF THE CITIES
MANDATED TRAININGS?
FOR SMALL LANDLORDS OF THIS
KIND?
>> NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.
SOME CITIES, INCLUDING OUR OWN,
CERTAIN LANDLORD-TENANT LAWS
EXEMPT ADUs, SO IT DOESN'T
APPLY TO ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS.
IN SOME CASES, THAT'S DUE TO
FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS ABOUT
EXEMPTIONS, IF IT'S IN YOUR
STRUCTURE AND YOU LIVE ON THE
SITE BUT IN OTHER CASES IT'S
JUST BEEN A POLICY CHOICE TO
NOT REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH
CERTAIN LANDLORD-TENANT LAWS,
BUT I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYBODY
REQUIRING IT, BUT I HAVE SEEN
SOME PARTICULARLY NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS, WHO OFFER IT.
>> A QUESTION AS IT RELATES TO
THE TREE REQUIREMENT.
HOW DOES THIS TREE REQUIREMENT
RELATED TO PRESERVING EXISTING
TREES RELATES TO OUR ONGOING
DISCUSSIONS AROUND NEW TREE
ORDINANCES, WHICH I'M NOT
REALLY QUITE SURE WHERE THAT
LEGISLATION IS.
IS THIS TRYING TO MIRROR SOME
OF THE CONCEPTS IN THAT
CITYWIDE BILL TO APPLY THEM FOR
THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT?
>> THE LAST VERSION OF THE BILL
I WOULD SAY IS AN OPEN QUESTION
OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS
CONSENSUS ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE
PROPOSAL AND WHETHER OR NOT IT
REPRESENTS THE VARIOUS
INTERESTS IN MAKING REGULATIONS.
>> THERE IS THREE OF US HERE.
>> YEAH, HOWEVER IT BORROWS
SOME OF THAT AND SOME OF SORT
OF THE INCREMENTAL CHANGE
ADOPTED IN THE MHA LEGISLATION,
SO IT'S NOT TAKING A BROAD LOOK
AT ALL OF TREE REGULATIONS, BUT
IT IS SORT OF ADDING
FLEXIBILITY TO INCENTIVIZE
PRESERVING EXISTING TREES, AND
THE REQUIREMENT TO ADD NEW
TREES IF YOUR LOT DOESN'T MEET
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NOW.
AS WELL AS ONLY ALLOWING THE
ADDITIONAL REAR YARD COVERAGE
IF IT DOES NOT RESULT IN LOSS
OF A TREE, SO IT'S BRINGING IN
SOME OF THE CONCEPTS.
IT'S ALSO STATING MORE CLEARLY
WITHIN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT SECTION, YOU KNOW, THIS
EXPECTATION THAT YOU NEED TO BE
CLEAR ON YOUR PLANS ABOUT WHERE
TREES ARE, SO THE PERMIT
REVIEWERS NOWHERE THERE ARE
TREES, WITH THE SIZE IS, AND
HOW THE CURRENT REGULATIONS
APPLY BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS
NOTED WE HAVE EXISTING
PROTECTIONS FOR TREES, SOME OF
WHICH ARE NOT ALWAYS
IMPLEMENTED IN THE WAY IT WAS
INTENDED.
>> SO IF WE ENDED UP PASSING
STRONGER TREE REGULATIONS,
SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, IN THAT
CITYWIDE BILL, HOW WOULD THAT
INTERACT WITH THE TREE
REGULATIONS IN THIS BILL?
>> WE WOULD LOOK AT ALL TREE
REGULATIONS IN THE CITY, SO
WHEN MAKING BROADER CHANGES, WE
WOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS TO SEE
IF THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OR
NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED TO BE IN
LINE WITH THE PROPOSAL, SO FOR
EXAMPLE, IN THE RSL CHANGES AS
PART OF THE MHA LEGISLATION
THERE IS A POINT SYSTEM ADOPTED
FOR FIGURING OUT HOW MUCH TREE
IS REQUIRED ON A LOT BUT IS NOT
CURRENTLY IN PLACE.
THIS LEGISLATION DOESN'T PROPOSE
TO DO THAT BUT THAT MAY MAKE
SENSE TO APPLY IN ALL ZONES IN
THE FUTURE.
IN SOME CASES, THERE HAS BEEN A
DESIRE TO CREATE A PAYMENT IN
LIEU OPTION, AND IF THAT WAS IN
PLACE AT SOME POINT IN THE
FUTURE, WE WOULD WANT TO
CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THAT
SHOULD APPLY IN SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONES.
THE LARGER BODY OF WORK THAT
WOULD ADDRESS THIS AREA, YOU
KNOW.
IF YOU I DROPPED CHANGES NOW
THEY MIGHT BE MODIFIED IN THE
FUTURE IF WE TAKE A DIFFERENT
APPROACH.
>> AND IF I MAY SAY, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN MY
COMMITTEE CURRENTLY, SO I HAVE
MET WITH THE URBAN FORESTRY
COMMISSION, DAN STRAUSS, WHO IS
HOLDING UP THE BACK WALL.
ALY HAS BEEN FABULOUS IN
LOOKING AT WHERE WE WERE A YEAR
AGO.
THERE IS A LOT OF INTEREST IN
RESURRECTING THAT.
I HAD HOPED WE CAN GET IT IN
FRONT OF THE COUNCIL BEFORE
BUDGET, BUT I'VE ALSO BEEN TOLD
I MAY BE SMOKING SOMETHING.
AND IT PROBABLY ISN'T GOING TO
HAPPEN, BUT THERE IS BIG
INTEREST IN MORE TREE CANOPY.
AND OF COURSE THE EQUITY ISSUES
ABOUT SOME NEIGHBORHOODS,
INCLUDING BEACON HILL, FOR
EXAMPLE.
WE HEARD FROM ESTELLA ORTEGA
THIS MORNING.
SHE WAS VERY INTERESTED IN THIS
MOVING FORWARD WITH A REAL
ASSESSMENT.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE
TREES AND THEY WOULD LIKE HELP
GETTING THOSE TREES PLANTED AND
MAINTAINED.
THAT IS SOMETHING I WOULD ALSO
LIKE TO SEE, SO WE HAVE GOT A
LOT MORE WORK TO DO ON THIS,
BUT I THINK BEING A TREE
ADVOCATE, THIS IS SOMETHING I
THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I
MAY HAVE TO PASS IT OFF TO MISS
HERBOLD.
WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.
>> YOU HEARD IT HERE.
I THINK I SHARE AN INTEREST
WITH YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW, IN DOING WHATEVER WE
CAN TO GET AN ORDINANCE IN
PLACE THIS YEAR.
MY INTENTION WITH THIS
LEGISLATION IS TO NOT PRECLUDE
WHAT'S COMING THERE, BUT A
LITTLE BIT TO ANTICIPATE, BUT I
THINK WHAT I HEARD ALY SAY IS
WHAT'S COMING, YOU KNOW?
I THINK THERE IS AGREEMENT THAT
THE HIGH LEVEL.
WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE
LANGUAGE, I THINK FOLKS START
TO QUESTION WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN, SO THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT
OF WORK TO DO.
>> IT'S A BIG OPPORTUNITY TO
BRING THE COMMUNITY TOGETHER
BECAUSE THERE ARE FOLKS WHO SAY
WE WANT MORE TREES.
OF COURSE, WE ALL WANT TO DO
THAT.
AND THEN YOU COME UP AGAINST
PRINCIPLES THAT MAY BE OPPOSING
EACH OTHER.
SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD AN 80-
YEAR OR DADU IN THEIR BACK YARD
FOR A FAMILY MEMBER AND THE
ONLY THING THAT'S STOPPING THEM
IS ONE LUNCH DOUGLAS FIR TREE,
HOW DO YOU MANAGE THAT?
PAYMENT IN LIEU IS SOMETHING WE
TALKED ABOUT.
I AM THANKFUL YOU ARE
INTERESTED IN THIS.
WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO BY
THE END OF THE SUMMER.
>> THIS SLIDE, YOU'VE ALSO SEEN
BEFORE, BUT THIS JUST SHOWS
WHAT WAS ESTIMATED IN THE EIS
ON HOW MANY ADUs WOULD BE
PRODUCED UNDER EXISTING
CONDITIONS.
ALMOST 2000 VERSUS THE SUITE OF
PROPOSED CHANGES JUST OVER 4400,
AND THE PROPOSAL IS ALSO
ESTIMATED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF DEMOLITIONS OF SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONES, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE
F.A.R.
LIMIT INTRODUCTIONS TO REDUCE
THE POTENTIAL DEMOLITIONS OVER
10 YEARS BY ABOUT 500 UNITS.
>> NEXT STEPS WILL BE TO
INTRODUCE LEGISLATION.
I PUT JUNE 3 BUT GIVEN SOME OF
THE TECHNICAL TWEAKS, THAT MAY
MOVE TO JUNE 10, BUT A DRAFT OF
THE LEGISLATION IS AVAILABLE ON
THE COMMITTEE WEBSITE, AND IT
IS UNLIKELY TO CHANGE
SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEPT FOR SOME
OF THE COMPONENTS THAT WERE
DISCUSSED TODAY POTENTIALLY AS
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN MENTIONED.
A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 11,
AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON PROPOSED
LEGISLATION ON JUNE 18.
>> ALY, THAT WAS VERY THOROUGH.
IT'S A MUST AS IF YOU HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON THIS FOR YEARS.
COLLEAGUES, SERIOUSLY THANK YOU
FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK ON THIS.
YOU'RE CAPABLE OF HOLDING AN
AMAZING AMOUNT OF INFORMATION
IN THE NUMBERS AND I WON'T HOLD
IT AGAINST YOU IF COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD IS ABLE TO STOMP YOU ON
ONE QUESTION.
YOU HAVE A GOOD TEAM.
COLLEAGUES, I APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION AND PARTICIPATION,
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING
HERE.
I HEARD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT
SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION, I
THINK, ABOUT AFFORDABILITY.
NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE THAT
GOES WITH THIS LEGISLATION ON
EITHER OF THOSE AS FAR AS
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THIS,
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT FOLKS
HAVE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS YOU
WANT TO GO WITH THIS, I WOULD
LOVE TO HEAR THAT IF YOU HAVE
THAT NOW.
ALY WILL WANT TO KNOW THAT AS
SOON AS YOU COME UP WITH THAT,
SO WE CAN START WORKING
ALTERNATIVES.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WILL HEAR FROM
THE PUBLIC.
I IMAGINE THERE WILL BE A
DECENT TURNOUT ON JUNE 11.
I WILL BE LISTENING TO HEAR
WHAT I'VE MISSED AFTER THREE
YEARS OF WORKING ON THIS.
BUT IF THERE ARE CONCEPTS YOU
WANT TO CONSIDER THAT ARE
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAS BEEN
TALKED ABOUT FOR SOME OF THESE
ALTERNATIVES, THEY ARE JUST
CONCEPTS AT THIS POINT.
IF FOLKS WANT THOSE FLUSHED OUT
ABOUT HOW THERE WOULD BE AN
AMENDMENT PROPOSED, THAT WOULD
BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME TO
KNOW THAT.
IF YOU WANT TO WORK DIRECTLY
WITH ALY, THAT'S FINE, TOO.
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW.
>> WE'VE ACTUALLY SPOKEN ABOUT
THIS.
WHEN ISSUED THAT COMES UP WHEN
YOU HAVE TROUBLE OFFSTREET
PARKING, I'M INTERESTED IN
LOOKING AT THE RPCS.
IN PARTICULAR, I UNDERSTAND ON
CAPITOL HILL THAT A HOME CAN
HAVE AS MANY AS THREE PARKING
STICKERS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY
HOME, AND I'M WONDERING WHETHER
WE COULD LOOK AT THAT AS AN
ENTIRE LOT SO LOTS GET THREE OR
WHATEVER THE NUMBERS MIGHT BE
AS DETERMINED IN THE FUTURE, BUT
TO SAY OKAY, THIS LOT GETS
THREE PARKING STICKERS AND IF
YOU WANT TO GIVE ONE TO THE
PERSON LIVING IN YOUR DADU, A
GREAT, WHICH MEANS YOU GOT TWO
LEFT IN THE HOME, OR IF THE
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS COMING INTO
THE SMALL HOME DOESN'T HAVE A
CAR, THEN IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE
NEIGHBORHOODS AS THEY ARE, SO I
WOULD LOVE TO LOOK AT THAT.
THE SECOND IS ONE OF THE THINGS
I LOVED ABOUT PORTLAND'S MODEL
FIVE OR SEVEN YEARS AGO WHEN WE
FIRST LOOK AT THIS WAS WHEN
THEY HAD SOME PREAPPROVED
DESIGNS.
IT MADE IT EASY FOR NEIGHBORS
TO SAY I WANT DESIGN NUMBER TWO
BECAUSE IT FITS THE SIZE AND
SCALE OF MY BACK YARD.
I'M REALLY INTERESTED AS WE
MAKE THESE DECISIONS THAT THEY
HAVE AS LITTLE IMPACT ON
NEIGHBORS AS POSSIBLE, SO FOR
EXAMPLE IF IT'S A TALL HOUSE,
YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A TALL
DADU LOOKING INTO SOMEONE'S
WINDOWS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DEAL WITH
THAT OR ASSESS IT, BUT AS A
PRINCIPAL, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT
FORWARD THAT WE WANT TO MAKE
THEM REASONABLE, SO WHOEVER IS
LIVING IN IT HAS A RESPECTABLE
PLACE TO LIVE.
AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T WANT
IT TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE
NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS.
I WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO YOU
MORE ABOUT THAT.
JUST AS A PRINCIPAL.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT GETS
DEFINED IN LEGISLATION.
BUT YEAH.
ONE POTENTIAL OPTION TO THINK
ABOUT IS THE EXECUTIVE HAS BEEN
WORKING ON DEVELOPING A
PREAPPROVED PLAN OR DESIGN
COMPETITION, AND SO IT MAY BE
AS SIMPLE AS PROVIDING SOME
DIRECTION ABOUT SOME OF THE
EXPECTATIONS AND WHAT THOSE
DESIGNS SHOULD BE THINKING
ABOUT INCLUDING THE CONTEXT OF
WHERE THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IS,
AND THE ALIGNMENT OF WINDOWS TO
ADDRESS PRIVACY CONCERNS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR O'BRIEN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE
PRESENTATION.
IT'S ALWAYS ENJOYABLE ANY SORT
OF MATHEMATICAL KIND OF WAY.
IT WAS REALLY ENJOYABLE TO GO
THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.
JUST ON THE QUESTION OF
AFFORDABILITY, AND AMENDMENTS,
TO YOUR POINT, I'M NOT SURE HOW
MUCH OF THAT COULD BE BUILT IN
CONCRETELY INTO THIS
LEGISLATION.
I THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS
IMPORTANT, BUT I ALSO THINK THE
CONVERSATION ON AFFORDABILITY
úIS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
AT THE END OF THE DAY, JUST
SIMPLY ADDING ZONING CHANGES IS
NOT GOING TO BRING ABOUT
AFFORDABILITY.
AFFORDABILITY HAS TO BE
CONSCIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED. IT HAS
TO BE CONSCIOUSLY IMPLEMENTED
IN DIFFERENT POLICIES,
INCLUDING THIS ONE.
I THINK REALLY, LOOKING INTO
WHAT KIND OF OPTIONS WE MIGHT
HAVE IN THE FUTURE FOR PUBLIC
FUNDING FOR HOMEOWNERS, WORKING-
CLASS AND MIDDLE-CLASS
HOMEOWNERS TO BUILD ACCESSORY
UNITS ON THEIR LOTS IS, I
THINK, EXTREMELY CRUCIAL
BECAUSE AGAIN, AS ALY SAYS THE
DATA IS INDICATING, IT'S
MOSTLY VERY WELL OFF HOMEOWNERS
WERE BUILDING THAT, AND EVEN IN
MY ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE, IT'S
WELL-OFF PEOPLE LIKE PHYSICIANS
WHO ARE ABLE TO BUILD IT AND
WELL-OFF PEOPLE WITH REALLY
GOOD SALARIES WHO ARE ABLE TO
RENT THOSE UNITS, AS WELL.
AND YES, SMALLER UNITS ARE MORE
AFFORDABLE, BUT IN TERMS OF HER
SQUARE FOOT COST, IT STILL IS A
LIMITING COMPONENT FOR MANY
WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
CONSCIOUSLY KEEP TALKING ABOUT
IT, AND I WONDER IF AS FAR AS
THE SPECIFIC THING YOU ARE
INTERESTED IN, COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN, IN TERMS OF MANDATING
THAT THE SECOND UNIT BE INCOME
RESTRICTED, I WONDER IF WE
COULD PUT IN SOME SORT OF
CLAUSE WHERE IT SAYS YOU KNOW,
OF COURSE, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO,
YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, BUT
OTHERWISE IT DOES COME INTO
EFFECT IN THE SENSE OF, I DON'T
KNOW WHEN THE STATE LAWS ARE
CHANGED.
THAT'S LEGAL TO DO, BUT MAY NOT
HELP AT THIS POINT.
THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTING.
>> YEAH, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO
THINK THROUGH THAT, TOO AND I
HAVEN'T COME TO A GOOD ANSWER
YET, BUT I THINK IF THE HIVE
OUT THERE CAN KEEP THINKING
ABOUT IDEAS AND MAYBE WE GET TO
SOMETHING OR AT LEAST FIGURE
OUT WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO
DO TO PRESERVE THAT
FLEXIBILITY.
>> I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED
IN THAT.
>> AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I AM
INTERESTED IN THE SECOND UNIT,
ALSO BEING A RENT RESTRICTED
UNIT, AND UTILIZING THE PILOT
PROJECT THAT IS IDENTIFIED IN
THE ANF PLAN TO MAKE THAT
SECOND UNIT AFFORDABILITY
PENCIL OUT FOR THE HOMEOWNER
WHO IS DEVELOPING IT.
AGAIN, IT WOULD BE PAYING TO
BUILD THE ENTIRE UNIT.
IT WOULD JUST BE FUNDING THAT
WOULD ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO
BASICALLY RECOUP THE COSTS OF
THE REDUCED RENT, SO THAT IT
WOULD STILL BE A DEVELOPMENT
THAT THEY COULD AFFORD TO BUILD.
>> THE CURRENT PILOT AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, IS THE ONLY
FOLKS ELIGIBLE ARE LOW INCOME
HOMEOWNERS.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS LOW INCOME
HOMEOWNERS OR PEOPLE WHO WERE
GOING TO MAKE THE UNIT
AVAILABLE TO A LOW-INCOME
PERSON.
>> IT'S LOW-INCOME HOMEOWNERS
WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE LOAN
AND THEN THEY WOULD MAKE IT
AVAILABLE TO LOW-INCOME.
THAT IS THE CURRENT PROGRAM.
LIKE WHO HAS ACCESS TO THOSE
LOANS TODAY.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR HOPE
THAT WE PUT IN THE BUDGET LAST
YEAR WE MIGHT GET 5 TO 10
HOMEOWNERS, SO IT'S BOTH MODEST
AND IN SIZE AND ALSO FAIRLY
RESTRICTIVE BASED ON WHO CAN
AFFORD HOMEOWNERSHIP.
>> IS THERE A REASON WHY WE
COULDN'T CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT?
SINCE WE HAVE THE ANF PLAN
BEFORE US.
TO SAY THAT NON-LOW-INCOME
PROPERTY OWNERS CAN ACCESS THE
FUNDING AS LONG AS THEY MAKE
THE UNIT AVAILABLE TO A LOW-
INCOME RENTER?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION, BUT WE CAN LOOK
INTO IT I THINK ONE OF THE
THINGS IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT
IS THIS AS AN ASSUMPTION THAT
WE CAN FIND THOSE HOMEOWNERS
WHO ARE READY TO BUILD A SECOND
ONE. I WILL TALK WITH MY
COLLEAGUE, WHO IS WORKING ON
THE ANF PLAN ABOUT THAT.
I AM NOT CERTAIN THAT WE CAN
OFFER THOSE LOANS IF IT'S NOT A
LOAN TO A LOWER INCOME
HOMEOWNERS.
>> WE HAVE THE WEATHERIZATION
PROGRAM THAT LANDLORDS
REGARDLESS OF INCOME CAN
ACCESS, PRIVATE LANDLORDS,
REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH WEALTH
THEY HAVE, BUT WHAT THEY HAVE
TO DO IN EXCHANGE IS MAKE SURE
THE UNITS IN THE BUILDING ARE
HELD AFFORDABLE, SO I DON'T
NOW WHY WE COULDN'T.
>> THE PRINCIPAL IT SEEMS LIKE
THERE IS CONSISTENCY THERE.
THE OTHER PIECE IS ONE OF THE
REASONS WE WERE ABLE TO DO THIS
PILOT IN THE BUDGET IS BECAUSE
IT WAS SO MODEST IN SCALE.
IT'S USING FUNDS THAT COULD BE
USED FOR OTHER USES, AND SO I
WOULD LOVE TO SEE A PROGRAM
THAT WOULD HELP, YOU KNOW, OVER
A DECADE, THOUSANDS OF UNITS,
LOW INCOME.
IT CAN BE DONE BUT THAT WOULD
BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT
THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY
RISK ON OTHER UNITS THAT MAY
NOT BE BUILT BECAUSE OF THAT.
INTERESTING TO FIND OUT WHAT WE
CAN DO NOW AND MAYBE PUT SOME
LANGUAGE IN THERE TO TALK ABOUT
WHAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE MAYBE IN
THE STUDY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
SORT OF OPPORTUNITIES MIGHT BE
AVAILABLE SO WE CAN, YOU KNOW,
FIGURE OUT BIGGER PICTURE HOW
WE ASSIGN OUR HOUSING
PRIORITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY,
AND OUR SUBSIDY DOLLARS ARE
BEST USED WITH THE RIGHT MIXES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW, I
JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN MY
WILLINGNESS AND DESIRE TO WORK
WITH YOU ON THE PARKING
CONVERSATION OFF LINE.
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
ONE QUESTION I FORGOT TO ASK IS
HOW DOES OUR F.A.R.
LIMIT COMPARED TO OTHER CITIES?
THE PROPOSED F.A.R.
LIMIT.
>> THE PROPOSED F.A.R.
LIMIT IS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH
OTHER CITIES AND HOW THEY
REGULATE THE SIZE OF THOSE WHO
HAVE F.A.R.
LIMITS.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF BOSTON
HAS A .5 F.A.R.
FOR THERE ARE FIVE ZONE THAT
HAS A THOUSAND SQUARE-FOOT LIMIT
. LOS ANGELES HAS A SIMILAR
REQUIREMENT.
THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS HAS A .5
WERE MEANT FOR THEIR SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES, AND PORTLAND IS
ALSO LOOKING AT INTRODUCING AN
F.A.R.
LIMIT.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT
BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING AT
BROADER CHANGES IN SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONES WHERE IT WOULD BE
.5 FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
WITH A LITTLE MORE F.A.R.
FOR A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX BUT
THIS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT
WITH SEVERAL OTHER MAJOR CITIES.
>> THANKS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
CALLINGS, IF THERE AREN'T ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE WILL WRAP
UP TODAY.
AGAIN, I ENCOURAGE FOLKS WHO
CAN BE AT THE HEARING ON JUNE
11 FOR THAT.
I IMAGINE WE WILL HEAR SOME
MORE INFORMATION AND MAYBE GET
SOME NEW IDEAS.
TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE
MORE IDEAS, LET'S CONTINUE TO
DISCUSS ABOUT THOSE AND
CERTAINLY MAKE SURE THE CENTRAL
STAFF HAS THAT, SO WE CAN WORK
TOWARDS THIS.
WE HEARD TODAY IN PUBLIC
COMMENT, A NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO
HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS TO
GET THIS DONE, SO THEY CAN
PROCEED WITH PERMITTING AND
BUILDING, AND I WANT TO GET
THIS RIGHT, SO I DON'T WANT TO
RUSH PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T WANT
TO DELETE IT MORE THAN
NECESSARY, IF POSSIBLE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, HOW MUCH
I APPRECIATE YOUR FORTITUDE ON
THIS.
I THINK FROM THE BEGINNING OF
OUR FIRST YEAR ON COUNCIL
TOGETHER 10 YEARS AGO NOW, THIS
HAS BEEN SOMETHING YOU HAVE
REALLY CHARGED.
I FEEL THAT WE HAVE MADE GREAT
PROGRESS.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
ALY, EXCELLENT MATERIALS.
THANK YOU.
>> WITH THAT, WE WILL BE
ADJOURNED.
THANKS, EVERYONE.