The fire marshals claim these narrow pathways make access by first responders with gurneys or fire ladders more difficult. But developers and housing advocates say increasing the standard won’t necessarily increase safety and will result in higher housing costs.

The Washington State Legislature enacted statewide ADU reform in a 2023 bill that recently went into effect for many jurisdictions, including Seattle. The reform generally requires that urban jurisdictions allow two ADUs per lot, and it bars a number of onerous building requirements, including off-street parking mandates within a quarter mile of a major transit stop. The lawmakers’ intent was clearly to encourage homebuilding in single family zones — which could be at odds with the recent fire marshals’ push.

The fire marshals’ association filed for an emergency change to the state’s building code that would mandate a five-foot wide pathway to any dwelling that doesn’t face a street, alley, or parking lot. 

After listening to debate from both sides of the issue, the building code council voted in August against the emergency rule change, but instead referred the issue to a subcommittee that will investigate the issue further and make a decision at a later date. 

Dave Kokot, former president of Washington State Association of Fire Marshals, who filed the request and spoke during the council debate, said that his organization is concerned about an increasing number of properties with three-foot-wide access paths, especially those with detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) or backyard cottages, in common parlance.

“What concerns us is our access for both medical and for fire response,” Kokot said. “If we have that three-foot width, it’s not wide enough to properly get a gurney out. If there is a medical issue, having to do compressions or some other medical services, what we found is we need at least four feet of width.”

In the amendment proposal submitted to the council, the fire marshals proposed that the five-foot-wide access could be reduced to four feet if an ADU is equipped with a sprinkler system. 

“Emergency responders are seeing a problem with one section of the Fire Code that has not been an issue until the recent ‘housing crisis’ has pushed development of more than 2 dwelling units on a single family residential parcel,” the fire marshals wrote in their proposal.

Patrick Hanks, code and policy manager for the Building Industry Association Washington (BIAW) said developers are concerned about the proposed code changes. “We’re not opposed to fire safety measures, but we try to find a balance of what’s the most cost effective fire safety thing we can do to address a particular problem while still allowing for affordable construction.”

In a state that needs one million more homes in the next 20 years to address its affordability crisis, Hanks says that the proposed changes won’t make a significant difference in safety but will continue to contribute to rising housing costs. 

“As I’ve spoken with builders, the feedback on the ground is that affordable housing faces a death by a thousand cuts with every little rule, regulation, and fee that can be used by local jurisdictions that are anti-growth to stop or discourage building more homes,” Hanks said.

Kokot insists the five-foot passage is necessary, not only for stretchers and first responders but as a space to prop up fire ladders. 

“We have to get a ladder up to that rooftop,” Kokot said. “And with a three foot width, with a tall ladder coming up there, it gets to the point where we actually cannot climb the ladder safely without somebody holding the ladder to be able to get something up onto the roof.”

“Often when new things are introduced, whether that’s ADUs or single-stair buildings, there’s a higher level of scrutiny against them compared to the base code,” said Stephen Smith, director of the Center for Building in North America, which conducts research on how building codes impact housing construction and affordability. Smith questions why Washington’s fire marshals are insisting they need five feet of access to ADUs when code allows for three-foot wide hallways and stairways for townhouses and apartment buildings.

“Firefighters will tell you: well, actually three feet isn’t enough. We need more,” Smith said. “But if you take a step back, you realize, well, you don’t get five feet in other situations.”

Michael Eliason, a Seattle architect who has advocated for reforming outdated building codes that require features such as second staircases that don’t actually increase fire safety, said that the proposed changes seem like overkill. 

“Our [state’s] building codes are incredibly lengthy and complex,” Eliason said. “Our building costs are some of the highest in the country, and I think that this does a real disservice to trying to address housing affordability.”

Asked for evidence that three-foot access paths to ADUs increase fire risk or decrease safety, Kokot said he has no firm data on the difference. 

“Nothing has been tracked on that. What I hear is hearsay. I’ve heard that we have run into issues on site-specific cases,” he said.

Kokot, who once worked as a fire protection engineer for the Spokane Fire Department, said that in Spokane, the Tri-Cities, and in some Western Washington cities, houses built in the 1940s and 1950s were constructed closer together than previously, and getting ladders up to the roof in those narrow spaces is difficult. “There’s a recommended dimension for the ladders, and we’re already going past that. And that does delay and hamper our efforts as a fire service to be able to respond to a fire.”

A cost analysis that Kokot provided to the building code council asserts that the cost of the new regulations would be minimal. The fire marshal organization claims that an additional 200 square-foot paved sidewalk on any property with an ADU or DADU would only cost from $1,600 to $2,400 — or less than 1% of the budget on most developments.

“What I did was assume that we had a three-foot width for basic concrete,” Kokot said, “and the cost analysis was based on the average length that you would have on a walkway of going from three feet to five feet for concrete. It really isn’t very much of a cost.”

Hanks, with BIAW, disagrees with this analysis.

“If it requires you to have a five-foot concrete pathway, then yeah, that’s going to have a lot of cost,” he said. “And if, in order to meet the lower size requirement [of four foot width] and then put in a fire sprinkler, that’s going to increase cost. But a lot of the cost comes from indirect consequences. It may make it less suitable, you might not be able to fit it in the property.”

Eliason agrees that an indirect impact might be that fewer ADUs or DADUs will be built because of the more stringent pathway requirements. “Construction is one thing, feasibility is another,” he said. “Maybe they can’t do an ADU, or it becomes smaller and it doesn’t become cost-effective at some point.”

Smith notes that many jurisdictions across North America allow three-foot access pathways in their ADU code requirements, including San Francisco. He feels the fire marshals’ approach is often based on conjecture rather than evidence. “I would question, if you have sprinklers, for example, why is the requirement four feet, and not three feet, like an apartment building?”

Kokot said that he’s skeptical, in general, of efforts to add ADUs and DADUs in cities like Spokane, where the city is adjusting its code to allow for more units on a lot and to comply with a 2023 state law requiring cities to allow ADUs.

“We’re trying to cram an awful lot into a single family lot that was originally plotted and laid out to be for a single home,” Kokot said. “Another thing that’s a concern for us is that they no longer require parking on these lots as well. So that means there are more cars out on the street and we can’t get our fire trucks to the buildings as well.”

The idea of requiring excessive off-street parking in order to maybe present a clearer path for fire trucks in the case of emergency is likely to rub urbanists the wrong way. Smith thinks such thinking is typical of an outdated approach by many fire safety officials. 

“There’s a general discomfort in the fire and building code worlds with density,” Smith said. “And some of it is rooted specifically in technical issues. But I think some of it is a general cultural gulf between the building and fire safety worlds.”

Matt Hutchins, a Seattle-based architect who does a lot of work designing ADUs and DADUs, said the proposed state code changes won’t impact Seattle very much because it already effectively requires a five-foot wide buffer around them – though not completely paved. Seattle is also unique in that it’s the only city in the state with a completely separate building code, though it relies heavily on recommendations from the state.

“It’s somewhat superfluous in that we already require, for the most part, that a detached accessory unit going in has to be five feet away from other buildings,” Hutchins said. “And they also can’t be within five feet of a side yard setback. So, you’re kind of already guaranteed access on at least two sides.”

The Urbanist reached out to Seattle Fire Department spokesperson Kristin Hanson, who declined to comment on the specifics of proposed rule changes.

“The Seattle Fire Department is aware that a special committee will most likely be stood up by the State Building Code Council to review this proposal,” Hanson said. “We can’t comment on that work and any resulting code amendments until proposals are developed. The Seattle Fire Department will, as always, monitor and provide input to ensure adequate access and egress is maintained for life safety purposes.”

Hutchins laments that fire safety officials in the U.S. tend to err on the side of being overly cautious, even if there’s no evidence showing their approach actually increases safety or reduces response times. He notes that in Europe, for instance, elevators are sized to fit a wheelchair rather than a full gurney as is required by code in the U.S. 

“European apartment elevators and others all around the world can be much smaller because they allow for somebody to sit in a wheelchair,” Hutchins said. “And so this little building code wrinkle, to accommodate for extremely rare events, is driving the entire industry towards a less-efficient use of space.”

Smith concurs, noting that “fire and building officials don’t want to hear anything about another country. It’s of zero interest to them. They write it off very quickly.”

If fewer new units are permitted and built because of restrictions, that leaves most residents living in older buildings with lower safety standards, Smith pointed out.

“We’re not always great at balancing the various kinds of benefits,” he said. “Because new buildings are much safer than old buildings. So if you make it harder to build a new building, you are actually decreasing fire safety.”

Correction: The initial draft said the change would apply to single family lots with more than two dwellings. Actually it appears to apply to all single family lots with multiple dwellings. This was corrected at 1pm Tuesday.

The post Fire Marshals Target Backyard Cottages with Proposal for Wider Pathway Requirements first appeared on The Urbanist.

Mayor Bruce Harrell called ADUs a key element of his agenda addressing “urgent” housing affordability issues as he rolled out his legislation in September.

“Making progress on Seattle’s urgent housing affordability needs requires not only increasing overall production, but increasing the diversity of housing available,” Harrell said in a statement. “ADUs are a key element of our One Seattle Housing Agenda as an efficient, sustainable option to address the housing shortage while also creating new opportunities for first-time homebuyers, multigenerational living, age-friendly housing, and financial stability for homeowners while also preventing displacement.”

In the fall, Harrell’s Office said they had hoped to enact the changes well ahead of the state deadline, but passing the proposal ended up taking another eight months. As a result, the provisions went into effect on the last day before the state deadline hit at the end of June.

Passed as part of a series of statewide housing reforms in 2023, House Bill 1337 pushes cities to relax ADU regulations, with most Puget Sound cities facing the same deadline as Seattle. In most cases, the state bans parking mandates for new ADUs within a quarter mile of a major transit stop. Seattle had already done away with off-street parking requirements for ADUs in 2019, but many other jurisdictions will need to revise their regulations to comply.

What’s in the new ADU reform

Under Seattle’s new provisions, attached and detached accessory dwelling units will be permitted in all zones where single-family residences are allowed and allow for up to two ADUs on the same lot as a principal residence — which doesn’t necessarily have to be a single-family residence. That’s a marginal increase in the number of ADUs allowed outside of Neighborhood Residential (NR) zones.

Most ADU regulations have been consolidated to a single section in the City’s Land Use Code rather than being spread across chapters. The new legislation provides for a spate of provisions that will encourage ADU construction:

• The configuration of ADUs on lots will be more flexible than ever before, allowing ADUs to be attached, detached individually, or even in a detached structure when two detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) form a de facto duplex.
• Unit lot subdivisions will now be possible when a DADU is present on a parent lot, provided that the DADU is located on the same unit lot as its related principal residence.
• The height limit for ADUs will increase to 32 feet in the NR and Residential Small Lot (RSL) zones — a significant increase above the current highest limit of 18 feet in those zones — as well as 32 feet in multifamily zones, up from a 20-foot height limit. In other zones, the height limit for ADUs will generally be 40 feet or more.
• The maximum floor area above ground for ADUs will be 1,000 square feet, as is already the case in NR and RSL zones. For multifamily zones, this increases the maximum allowed floor area by 350 square feet. Additionally, the maximum floor area limit may be exceeded in all zones when converting space in an existing principal residence, as currently allowed in NR and RSL zones.
• Limitations on entrance locations to ADUs and exterior stairs will no longer apply.
• Favorable conversion provisions that exist in NR and RSL zones will apply to all zones, allowing for easier conversion of existing accessory structures that may be nonconforming to development standards to be converted to and expanded as ADUs.
• Street improvement requirements will not apply to the creation of ADUs, except when a project necessitates repair or replacement of the street (e.g., tearing up an existing paved street or sidewalk for site construction).

Middle housing reform could amend changes

However, interim middle housing legislation did make some changes to the new ADU regulation. Under the adopted legislation, ADUs will count as dwelling units for density purposes in NR and RSL zones and become subject to lighter-touch amenity area and design standards in multifamily zones.

Seattle’s interim middle housing legislation came about after the City struggled to meet the state deadline, due to external legal appeals and internal delays hashing out the plan within the Harrell Administration. The state deadline for middle housing reform, which also loomed at the end of June, was set in 2023’s House Bill 1110.

The City has pledged to come back quickly and pass permanent legislation to give builders more certainty about what housing they can build in Neighborhood Residential zones. Some blocks today zoned NR are set to become “Neighborhood Centers” with denser zoning designations to go along, sometime next year.

Permanent legislation proposed for middle housing — slated for adoption this fall — would make further changes to ADU laws in the city. Key changes could limit the number of ADUs allowed on all lots to just two, regardless of how many principal residences exist on a lot, and counting ADUs as dwelling units in all zones with density limits.

Another proposed change would strike reduced building separation requirements, which could mean setting DADUs further away from principal residences. 

However, the permanent legislation would simplify ADU regulations by largely applying basic development standards within zones that regular principal residences are subject to, such as height limits, lot coverage, floor-area ratio (FAR), and setbacks. That mostly keeps or adds favorable regulations for ADUs, but may not necessarily make them more attractive than other middle housing types.

The draft legislation keeps the ADU size limit at 1,000 square feet of floor area above ground, despite Harrell’s Office previously floating the idea of increasing it. Following the statewide reform, 1,000 square feet is the smallest ADU size limit that cities are allowed to set.

ADU reforms and remaining obstacles

The reform is the latest chapter in the longer saga of Seattle’s attempts to spur ADU production.

In 2019, the Seattle City Council passed sweeping ADU legislation allowing ADUs on nearly all lots in NR zones, including new allowances for larger DADUs and up to two ADUs per lot. The process to enact the legislation took several years after former Councilmember Mike O’Brien first proposed it in 2016. Legal appeals by homeowner groups delayed enactment, but ironically led to broader reforms to ADU regulations than initially contemplated.

In 2020, the City followed up the ADU reform by launching a webpage with pre-approved designs called ADUniverse that was intended to make it easier and more enticing for homeowners to add a cottage in their backyard. Unique site conditions (trees, slopes, etc.) limit the extent to which generic designs negate the need to hire an architect.

Seattle’s 2019 ADU reform succeeded in boosting permitting and production, but it hasn’t been a panacea. The City noted headwinds, pointing to high interest rates as a culprit in slowing momentum.

“A recent analysis from the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) found that the City issued 987 permits for ADUs in 2023, a fourfold increase over 2018 permitting levels,” the Mayor’s Office noted in September. “However, ADU permit applications have fallen this year by nearly 40% compared to the same period in 2023, as interest rates hit a 20-year peak. The new incentives will remove regulatory barriers to help make the construction of ADUs more feasible for homeowners, while remaining consistent with Seattle’s building code, short-term rental code, and tree code.

Even if the path to a building permit is clearer, high regulatory costs remain a major obstacle. While the new ADU ordinance seeks to reduce costs related to transportation improvements, high utility hook-up fees have remained an obstacle. Such fees are much harder for small-scale builders to bear compared to well-capitalized large-scale builders, and can kill project feasibility.

Rising costs and unexpected fees appear to be contributing to a trend of homeowners sitting on ADU permits rather than moving forward. Only 37% of ADU permits submitted to Seattle between 2017 and 2021 resulted in a completed building, Alex Czarnecki, founder of Cottage, a platform that assists with ADU construction, reported in 2023.

The Mayor’s Office has presented a proposal to lessen water hook-up fees by providing a pot of public money for cost-sharing for water main system upgrades. However, some in the development community — including civil engineer Donna Breske in an Urbanist op-ed — have criticized the move as not going far enough and falling short in addressing the cost issue.

Overall, the vast majority of Seattle’s housing growth continues to be provided by large apartment buildings. That said, ADUs offer a safety valve, albeit a small one, thus far, with the latest reform hoping to continue to build on that fledgling momentum.

The post Seattle Eases Accessory Dwelling Restrictions Just Ahead of State Deadline first appeared on The Urbanist.

In 2021, the county council made sweeping changes to encourage ADUs in urban areas. Snohomish County includes several unincorporated communities that are relatively dense and fast-growing, including areas around future light rail stations planned at Mariner and Ash Way Park and Ride. Overall, 376,700 residents live in unincorporated Snohomish County — 43% of the county’s population.

Ahead of the county council’s unanimous vote earlier this month, Councilmember Megan Dunn, who was a sponsor of the legislation last year, expressed her support for the ordinance. “I just want to appreciate all the staff and all the input and working on this for a number of years, actually,” Dunn said. “We’re excited for this, for improving home ownership, affordability, and accessibility.”

Part of the impetus for the county’s ADU reform are new state mandates to reduce barriers to ADUs and encourage their creation, which are due on June 30. The scope of the state mandates is broad, touching on the quantity, type, and configuration of ADUs that must be allowed, as well as size and bulk limitations on ADUs.

Under previous regulations, Snohomish County only permitted ADUs when proposed on a lot with a single-family home. Up to two ADUs could be formed on such lots, provided that one is an attached accessory dwelling unit (AADU) and one is a detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU). Two of the same type — two AADUs or two DADUs — were not permitted under the 2021 rules.

The new regulations will provide more flexibility by allowing ADUs on lots with single-family homes, regardless whether they are in a detached or attached form, and on lots with duplex homes. These housing types are allowed in all low- to high-density urban residential zones (R-9,600, R-8,400, R-7,200, T, LDMR, and MR). The configuration and quantity of ADUs that will be allowed for these housing types differs as follows:

The new legislation modifies bulk regulations to support the creation of ADUs. This includes increased lot coverage to a maximum of 55%, reduced setbacks from private roads to five feet for principal units and ADUs, and reduced setbacks from most public roads to five feet for ADUs. As a further incentive for ADUs, the regulations grant land use administrators leeway to permit conversion of existing nonconforming structures into ADUs even when doing so would contravene setback and lot coverage standards.

Architectural standards that had required similar aesthetics and design to a principal unit will no longer apply. That removes a small but discretionary barrier for developers and homeowners to design ADUs as they wish, offering more creativity, flexibility, and certainty.

While the county eliminated owner-occupancy requirements for ADUs or their related principal units in 2021, the ADU definition required the ADUs be under the same ownership as their related principal unit. The adopted ordinance strikes this text, allowing for ADUs to be converted to condominiums and sold separately. 

ADUs will still be subject to other existing development regulations, however. Key examples include:

• A size limitation of 1,200 square feet of floor area (not inclusive of garages, porches, unfinished basements, and unheated storage areas) for each ADU;
• Setbacks of at least 5 feet from side and rear lot lines, and potentially greater depending upon the zoning circumstances;
• A height limit of at least 30 feet, and potentially greater depending upon the zone; 
• No off-street parking requirements; and
• Documentation that there is sufficient legal water availability and flow and sewage or septic system capacity.

Natalie Reber, a government affairs manager for the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, lauded the ADU reforms ahead of the county council’s final adoption of the ordinance. 

“These proposed changes align with the Growth Management Act. They support housing affordability and promote sustainable land use policies that benefit all of the residents of Snohomish County,” Reber said. “So we think this is an important first step towards making middle housing a reality in Snohomish County, and we’re very supportive of the ordinance.”

The post Snohomish County Relaxes Urban Accessory Dwelling Rules Ahead of State Deadlines first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Mayor also announced a forthcoming companion piece of legislation, slated to be released next year that will build upon proposed reforms.

“Making progress on Seattle’s urgent housing affordability needs requires not only increasing overall production, but increasing the diversity of housing available,” Harrell said in a public statement. “ADUs are a key element of our One Seattle Housing Agenda as an efficient, sustainable option to address the housing shortage while also creating new opportunities for first-time homebuyers, multigenerational living, age-friendly housing, and financial stability for homeowners while also preventing displacement.”

Harrell staked a claim to national leadership with his ordinance: “Seattle’s ADU ordinance is one of the most progressive in the country, and this forward-thinking proposal will enhance it to create more flexible living options and inclusive, vibrant communities throughout our city.”

ADUs are categorized in two broad ways in Seattle: attached accessory dwelling units (AADUs), when attached to a principal dwelling unit; and detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs), when located in a separate structure on a lot from the principal dwelling unit. Seattle currently allows ADUs in all zones where single-family dwelling units are permitted, but the regulations diverge by zone and are highly specific in Neighborhood Residential (NR) zones where they are most commonly established.

Brief history of ADU reform

In 2019, the Seattle City Council passed sweeping ADU legislation allowing ADUs on nearly all lots in NR zones, including new allowances for larger DADUs and up to two ADUs per lot. The process to enact the legislation took several years after former Councilmember Mike O’Brien first proposed it in 2016. Appeals by homeowners opposed to more ADUs delayed enactment, but ironically led to broader reforms to ADU regulations than initially contemplated.

Since then, the Washington State Legislature has taken up the mantle in pursuing creation of ADUs statewide in urban areas. That culminated in the latest substantive state laws enacted in 2023 through House Bill 1337, which collectively push cities to further relax local ADU regulations. Seattle has until July 2025 to comply with those laws; the proposed legislation is designed to satisfy those laws and go further in some ways.

The Mayor’s Office has said they’d like to implement the ADU reforms ahead of the deadline to boost housing creation sooner. This is not the approach Harrell has taken to implementing the state’s missing middle requirement, a project which has fallen behind schedule along with the rest of the Seattle Comprehensive Plan. The state requirement for large cities to allow fourplexes citywide and sixplexes near major transit will need to be implemented by July 2025 or the state model code will supersede Seattle’s zoning and implement the standard for them.

Seattle’s 2019 cottage reform has largely been a success, with ADU production up significantly, but the City noted headwinds and a slowing of momentum, pointing to high interest rates.

“A recent analysis from the Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) found that the City issued 987 permits for ADUs in 2023, a fourfold increase over 2018 permitting levels,” the Mayor’s office noted. “However, ADU permit applications have fallen this year by nearly 40% compared to the same period in 2023, as interest rates hit a 20-year peak. The new incentives will remove regulatory barriers to help make the construction of ADUs more feasible for homeowners, while remaining consistent with Seattle’s building code, short-term rental code, and tree code.”

The first batch of ADU reforms

The Mayor’s proposed legislation would accomplish the following:

• Two ADUs per lot citywide. Up to two ADUs per principal dwelling unit on a lot would be explicitly allowed. Current provisions allowing two ADUs are specific to Seattle’s NR zones. The state-required reform allows two ADUs per lot in Residential Small Lot (a subtype of NR zones) and Lowrise zones, where currently only one ADU is allowed per principal dwelling unit.
• Combination of ADUs. ADUs would be allowed in any combination, whether two AADUs, one AADU and one DADU, or two DADUs. Current provisions, which allow up to two ADUs per lot in NR zones, do not allow a configuration with two DADUs.
• Boosting living space allowance to 1,000 square feet. The maximum gross floor area for ADUs would be set at 1,000 square feet, with exemptions for any underground floor area, up to 250 square feet for an attached garage, and certain storage areas, and allowance for larger AADUs in structures existing as of July 23, 2023. Current provisions limit ADUs to no more than 650 square feet — with some exceptions — in Lowrise zones.
• Raising height limit to 30 feet or more. The height limit for all ADUs would be raised to the height limit of principal dwelling units in NR zones (generally 30 feet), townhouses and rowhouses in Lowrise zones (generally 30 to 50 feet), 40 feet in all other zones that have a height limit of 40 feet, and 50 feet in all other zones with height limit above 40 feet. On top of this, ADUs would be able to use any applicable rooftop and pitched roof exceptions for additional height. Currently, height limits affect DADUs, limiting them to 14 to 18 feet plus three- to seven-foot roof bonuses in NR zones and 20 feet plus a three-foot pitched roof bonus in Lowrise zones.
• Required yards and setbacks. The rear yards and setbacks for DADUs will be zero feet from alleys and five feet in all other circumstances, with specific exceptions for certain architectural features like eaves and bay windows which may be closer to lot lines. Current regulations are more restrictive in Lowrise zones.
• Conversion of existing accessory structures. In all zones, accessory structures existing as of July 23, 2023 would be eligible to be converted to DADUs even if non-conforming to many development standards, except for height, density, and size limits. The provision further allows for replacement of such structures and additions, provided that any additions conform to development standards. A similar provision currently exists for NR zones, but not in other zones including Lowrise zones. 
• Easing lot eligibility for DADUs. Lot eligibility requirements for DADUs, such as minimum lot area and dimensions, would no longer be required in NR zones.
• Waiving location of entry requirements. Prescriptive location of entry standards for ADUs would no longer be required in any zone.
• Eliminating car parking mandates. No car parking would be required for any ADU. This is already current law in NR and Lowrise zones, but the proposed provision would apply in all zones.
• Street improvements. Beyond repair or replacement of public streets necessitated by construction work related to an ADU (e.g., installation of a new sewer line in the street), regular street improvements would not be required in connection to construction of an ADU.

Builders and housing advocates have pointed to high utility hookup fees and other sewer upgrade requirements as a significant barrier to construction of ADUs and other forms of “missing middle” housing that lack the economic scale to weather high regulatory fees. It’s unclear how much relief the street improvements provision can offer, with Seattle Public Utilities and the Seattle Department of Transportation appearing to have a central role in determining how broadly this measure is interpreted and implemented.

Second round of reforms

Next year, the Harrell Administration will release a companion piece of legislation for ADU reform. Details are still relatively high level at this time, but the Mayor outlined four primary objectives for the legislation:

1. Encourage more family-sized homes by increasing the maximum ADU size to 1,500 square feet, to promote the creation of more three-bedroom ADUs.
2. Simplify ownership paths for ADUs, by reducing the need to establish homeowners’ associations. This presumably means allowing each ADU to exist on its own fee simple lot, which would be created through unit lot subdivisions commonly found in townhouse and rowhouse developments.
3. Seek to retain existing homes on lots by allowing additional exceptions to design standards and not counting ADU construction as a substantial alteration.
4. Make placement of second ADU on lots easier through alternative building separation and attachment options, such as permitting AADUs when only attached to a principal dwelling unit by breezeways.

While acknowledging the need for family-sized three-bedroom homes, critics have pointed out increasing ADU size would tend to increase prices, decreasing their direct applicability as a solution for working class affordability. As recently as the 1970s, the median size of new primary homes was around 1,500 square feet, but average home sizes have climbed steadily in the decades since, contributing to the housing affordability crisis.

Looking ahead

The Seattle City Council is not expected to take up the first batch of reforms until after the busy fall budget season. The legislation will start in the Land Use Committee, where Chair Tammy Morales has pledged support for the idea.

“This legislation is an important step towards making Seattle a more affordable city. By streamlining the permitting process for ADUs and creating more family-sized, flexible housing options, we are giving homeowners the tools to contribute to a more diverse housing stock,” Morales said in a statement. “I’m happy to bring this legislation forward as Chair of the Land Use Committee so we can expand access to affordable housing, homeownership, and intergenerational living opportunities while growing our toolkit to stem displacement across the City.”

The post Harrell Proposal Would Relax Accessory Dwelling Unit Rules, Implement State Law first appeared on The Urbanist.

Washington is no exception. Last year, the state house took action to make building ADUs in urban areas easier, too. HB 1337 took effect in July 2023 and aims to make it easier for residents to convert units like garages into ADUs across the state. These plans were consequently followed up by Rep. Jessica Bateman’s HB 1110, which sought to expand the concentration of duplexes to sixplexes, stacked apartments, and the like. 

These bills aren’t only a way to address population density and housing in Washington; they will protect the environment as well. ADUs support sustainable development plans as they typically require fewer resources during construction, are energy-efficient, and minimize urban sprawl. 

ADUs and resource efficiency 

Building a new home is a resource-intensive process with high carbon costs. Newly built homes create 50 million tons of carbon per year in the U.S. alone, which is an obstacle to achieving state and national climate action goals that have been set.

ADUs in cities can help cut back on carbon emissions in several ways. In Washington, transportation emissions are a huge culprit because many, especially suburban and rural residents, have long commutes for work and errands. When it comes to emissions from suburban homes versus urban homes, people who live in suburbia are responsible for more transportation emissions than city dwellers. Building affordable ADUs in cities allows people to live closer to employers, cultural attractions, amenities, and public transit.

ADUs that serve as small homes have the potential to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and improve energy efficiency. This claim is backed by state-sponsored research completed in neighboring Oregon, which found that extra-small homes produce 20% to 40% less construction emissions than medium standard homes per year. ADUs also lower heating and cooling costs than larger homes, and, in urban settings, fewer transportation emissions than comparable homes built farther into suburbs.

However, rural DADUs may not have the associated benefit of reducing transportation emissions as compared to urban infill housing. And they don’t have the same water-saving properties as urban ADUs. This is a serious issue in the Evergreen State, which experiences high levels of water stress. 

Homeowners who do decide to convert existing structures into ADUs can also use the funds they generate from rent or guest accommodation to fund energy-efficient installations like solar panels. Solar panels offer long-term savings and increase the resale value of a home. Some homeowners may be eligible for federal solar credits, one-time rebates, and low-interest loans. 

ADUs, which tend to be smaller than most homes, are perfect candidates for electric heat pumps. New rules, which come into place in March 2024, make it easier for homeowners to install energy-efficient heat pumps. This would aid in making ADUs even more sustainable, as heat pumps produce less pollution than gas furnaces. Homes that utilize heat pumps, which run solely on electricity, embolden efforts to move away from gas heating and lend support to calls for a greener grid.

Challenges facing ADUs

Despite legislative changes designed to make building ADUs easier, to increase urban infill development, and to help city-dwelling Washingtonians live more energy-efficient lives, ADUs still face some serious hurdles before they become the norm across the state. Parking requirements, in particular, are one of the most serious impediments to ADUs. For example, if an ADU is planned more than a half mile from a major transit stop, a Washington city or county may cite off-street parking requirements as a reason to withhold permitting for the project. There are challenges to ADUs in less densely populated areas, too. This spring, lawmakers battled over rural ADUs and whether they are aligned with the state’s housing and environmental protection goals. 

Washington’s lawmakers and citizens are rightfully concerned about urban sprawl. Urban sprawl, which occurs when a town or city starts to creep into rural land, is a major issue for the environment on multiple fronts. Not only does it turn green spaces into city-like zones, but it also infringes on farms and undermines our ability to support resilient, regenerative food systems. 

Allowing more housing in already built-up areas is key to slowing sprawl. Dr. Mitch Hunter, Senior Research Fellow with the American Farmland Trust, explains that a metropolis is “like an accordion,” and that building denser suburbs is akin to squeezing an accordion. Building and converting more existing structures into ADUs helps urban areas reduce sprawl, but denser multifamily housing is needed, too.

Lawmakers should also address the potential inequalities that ADUs can fuel, too. Currently, wealthy White homeowners disproportionately benefit from ADUs. This could cause income disparities and entrench racial inequalities if left unchecked. Natalie Bicknell Argerious notes that this is largely due to income inequality and the fact that White households “are significantly more likely to live in a single-family home than households of color.” Clearly, much must be done if the state is to meet its affordability, equity, and sustainability goals. 

Legislative moves that promote ADUs can free up funds for residents who choose to convert existing structures. Converted garages add plenty of value to a home in the form of rental space and guest accommodation. This is key, as eco-friendly home modifications to improve energy efficiency can be costly. By raising funds through rent and guest accommodation, folks can justify the investment in solar panels, heating pumps, and more energy-efficient HVAC systems.

Scaling urban ADUs

Of chief concern is the number of ADUs that Washingtonians can and will build in urban areas. For these structures to be most effective, it’s best for them to exist in cities where they will not contribute to sprawl and will add housing for those who need it. 

MRSC reports that Growth Management Act (GMA) counties, which must plan according to Washington’s GMA statutes, are required to allow two ADUs per qualifying lot. A total of 28 counties, making up 95% of Washington’s population, are GMA counties, which places cities like Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, and Olympia within the ADU provisions.

There’s huge potential for ADUs to scale up, given that local authorities can’t limit the units’ size to less than 1,000 square feet. According to the Cato Institute, ADU construction increased by 253% from 2019 to 2022 in Seattle alone, outpacing the production of single-family homes. However, the actual numbers might seem like a drop in the bucket. 

In 2022, the city issued 988 ADU building permits, while Seattle’s greater metro area saw 2,254 ADU applications. This might not seem like a lot, but Axios reports that the growth rate per capita for Seattle’s ADUs is more than two times faster than it is in any metro in California, where about 16% of new builds are ADUs. Overall, Seattle permitted about 8,200 homes in 2022.

Conclusion 

ADUs offer cost-effective living for residents in urban areas. They’re also great for the environment, as smaller spaces reduce urban sprawl, are less energy intensive, and have significantly lower carbon costs during the construction process. Residents who do decide to build ADUs can further reduce their footprint by utilizing energy-efficient heat pumps and installing solar panels. 

What remains to be seen in 2024 is whether ADUs will be able to put a real dent in the housing crisis. It’s not unreasonable to gather that ADU construction will continue to increase, and every little bit helps. However, cities can’t rely on ADUs alone to solve a housing problem that requires large-scale investment and a concerted effort from federal, state, and local governments to encourage homebuilding in the private, nonprofit, and public sectors.

The post Op-Ed: The Case for Accessory Dwelling Units first appeared on The Urbanist.

The gauntlet created by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) for access to the public water system is taking a toll on new housing, including accessory dwelling units (ADU) infill projects. Only 37% of ADU permits submitted to Seattle between 2017 and 2021 resulted in a completed building, according to Alex Czarnecki, founder of Cottage, a platform that assists with ADU construction.

A factor contributing to the dismal permit success rate are restrictions for access to existing water mains in the City. This is due to two project-crushing definitions tucked away in a SPU administrative document under the innocuous sounding terms “No Taps Water Main” and “Obsolete Distribution Water Main.” The document dates back to 2021, but it is being revised this year to be even more limiting.

Under SPU’s revised Director’s Rule WTR-440, the definition of “no-tap“ includes “any water main designated with a “No Tap” restriction by SPU.” This is incredibly nondescript. It can randomly be applied to any water main at will by SPU.

The other “obsolete” definition is similarly vague and can be used by SPU to conclude any given water main within the City as “no tap water main.” Terms include inadequate diameter, excessive corrosion, inadequate material, and compromised structural properties. The meanings of each of these leads to capricious and arbitrary determinations by SPU that restrict connection to the existing water main system in Seattle. Moreover, if the city has distribution pipes with excessive corrosion and substandard materials, it seems immediate maintenance to correct these conditions is required rather than penalizing new projects for these deficiencies.

Director’s Rules are administrative rules adopted according to the Administrative Code (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 3.02). The purpose of Director’s Rules is to aid in the implementation of the Seattle Municipal Code. Director’s Rules are not a vehicle to create mandates and definitions that are not supported by code. However, that is what these two definitions did with requirements not supported by City code.

SPU is treading into the territory of the City Council via the “on-the-fly” creation of these broad definitions. The vetting and procedural steps required within the City Council legislative process have been bypassed, thus resulting in these insidious definitions.  These definitions are being used by SPU to issue Water Availability Certificates that deny water service to new housing projects. Ironically, the Water Availability Certificate (WAC) issued by SPU has effectively become a Water Unavailability Certificate.

Furthermore, the definitions are in opposition to SPU’s own “SPU Cares Principles” affordability and accountability “to ensure utility services are available to everyone.”

As a practicing civil engineer with over 25 years of water system design experience for new housing projects, outside of Seattle I have never encountered a requirement for a capital improvement water system upgrade where there is no direct nexus between the demands of the project and the upgrade being required. Water purveyors in cities like Mukilteo and Alderwood routinely provide Water Availability Certificates with fewer hoops to jump through and no mandates for improvements to the public system as a condition of access to existing water mains.

However, a typical Seattle Water Availability Certificate comes with a condition that a costly and significant water system upgrade is required in order to have access to domestic water. SPU reverts to their created restrictive mandates in their administrative document WTR-440 to assert their position. By asserting a water main is a “no-tap main” SPU can then use another created condition found within WTR-440 that states, “A water main extension or other water system improvement is required in order to receive an Approved WAC.”

Decisions are made based upon the interest of the utility

A very troubling statement within the WTR-440 conveys a one-sided, self-serving position that is contrary to SPU’s duty to protect the interests of the public. Clearly stated is that decisions are made based upon the best interests of the utility. 

This is a “tail-wagging-the-dog” scenario, and is the complete opposite of the reason public water purveyors exist in the first place. Their very existence is to serve the public interest, not the interests of the agency. This sentence speaks volumes to the biased nature and one-sided groupthink that seems to have permeated the culture within SPU.

How SPU crushes housing projects

One example of how SPU strings-along a permit applicant through their unsavory web is demonstrated by an abandoned project I worked on at 2322 21^st Avenue S, as I laid out in a previous article. Located within the North Rainier Urban Village and west of Rainier Avenue S, the proposed project would have removed one house to construct six total dwelling units using the 2019 ADU/DADU update to the City of Seattle code.

The initial Water Availability Certificate (WAC) Issued from SPU stated that new water service to the project was not available because the water line in the street fronting the project was determined to be not suitable for tapping.  

After the applicant asked if there were any solutions, SPU then acted as the benevolent savior of the project, by responding with a condition for access to the public water system. A tap into the 24-inch main would be allowed after all, if the applicant paid for the design, procurement, and installation of a made-to-order fabricated 24-inch water valve.  

The valve had no effect on the integrity of the pipe for tapping. Why the initial WAC was issued stating the water main was unsuitable for tapping has not been explained. It is suitable and can be tapped for new domestic water service.

At this point the project proponent abandoned the project. The inconsistency of SPU designating the pipe as no-tap and then back-tracking and saying it can be tapped after all if a costly (maybe $100,000 plus) water valve is paid for and installed is troublesome and inconsistent. Plus, SPU’s lack of transparency makes it very difficult for developers to anticipate costs and proceed with investments, especially small developers with little margin for error or unexpected costs.

What’s changed: Prior water availability director’s rule

Water availability forms are to provide evidence of adequate water supply in accordance with Washington State law RCW 19.27.097(1)(a), which requires water purveyors to provide said evidence. Accordingly, a previous Director’s Rule CS-101 stated the purpose of a Water Availability Certificate is to provide information on the SPU water system only. Evidence of the water supply was conveyed by providing pressure zones and fire hydrant fire flows. 

However, SPU’s current Director’s rule WTR-440 includes verbiage that drifts from the limited purpose of a Water Availability Certificate. Instead this newer rule states that system improvements are required for a development project to receive water from SPU’s distribution system. Furthermore, the transparency of information previously provided, i.e., fire hydrant flow and pressure zone are no longer included within WTR-440.

Access to water is a right per Washington State Law (RCW 35.92.025). It is not a condition that one must pass muster via a gauntlet of unsubstantiated conditions created by an overzealous agency. Only charges proportional to the impact of the new development can be made to offset the cost of providing new water services. These charges must be established by ordinance per RCW 82.02.050(1)(b).  

Accordingly connection charges have been established by the Seattle City Council via ordinance and are provided in the below schedule. The greater the needs of the project, the greater the charge. Based upon the needs of the project and via this graduated fee schedule, each project pays an equitable share for new water service.

There are several RCW’s that protect the interest of person(s) seeking new water service.  However, none of these applicable RCW’s are harmonized into or referenced within WTR-440. Per RCW 35.02.025 and RCW 82.02.050(1)(b), an equitable or proportionate share can be charged based upon the impact the project has on the water system, not a random requirement of some overall participation via unrelated public system upgrades. Again, SPU actions are aimed at protecting the interest of the agency as opposed to ensuring the rights and interests of the public are protected.

Requiring payment via a capital system improvement is defined as an indirect fee and is specifically prohibited per RCW 82.02.020. Charging both connection fees and payment of system upgrades is “double-dipping,” i.e. collection of duplicate fees. Collection of duplicate fees is specifically prohibited per RCW 82.02.050(1)(c).

Another mandate for an unnecessary water system installation

Below is another example of how egregious SPU has become by ignoring the limitations of our RCW’s and instead asserting these Director’s Rules are the controlling documents. A two-lot short plat project that needs one new water meter, is being required to install $350,000 of new water main as a condition of access to the public water system. This despite the fact that there is an existing water main available within SW Elmgrove Street.

The applicant for the two-lot short plat has pursued the Utility System Dispute process to no avail. The Utility System Dispute Process is administered by SPU, typically making it a no-win situation for a project proponent.

The response from SPU included two reason to deny service from the water main in Elmgrove Street

• “The flag lot configuration has the effect of avoiding the water main extension”.  
• “WTR-440, Section VI.C.3.c applies when parcels are divided or adjusted in a way that has the effect of avoiding a water main installation or other appurtenance requirement. There is no discretion in the application of this rule.”

To assert anything about the geometry of lots within a water system administrative document conveys a blatant disregard for the limitations per the Seattle Municipal Code. Lot configurations and any limitations thereof are included in the Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 23. Any restrictions about lot geometry must be included within the SMC, not hidden within an administrative document. Again, SPU has placed absurd requirements within an administrative document and has circumvented the due process of the legislative review via the City Council.

SPU has no authority to place limitations for access to a public water main based upon a lot configuration and assert the lot configuration is a reason to deny access to water service. It is simply one more of many non-code supported assertions SPU has created to deny access to public water in an attempt to extract a disproportionately costly and unnecessary public water system installation as a condition of access to water.

SDCI, who, among other services, oversees sanitary sewer and storm water services, suggested the flag-lot configuration as means of access to existing sewer and storm water for the new lot. The flag lot configuration is intended to provide a means to access all public utilities in Elmgrove. 

These insidious Director’s Rules undermine the trust expected of an agency responsible for development services and permitting. It is the duty of a public water purveyor to provide service to everyone in accordance with the law, thus protecting the interests of the public. Whether a customer is a developer seeking new water service or an existing water service customer, any person has the right to access water without being required to provide disproportionally costly upgrades. The net effect of doing so is a drag on housing, particularly smaller “missing middle” type projects that cannot shoulder the burden and spread it across more homes.

SPU has created their own policy within Director’s Rules with no accountability and ignored the overarching rules-of-law to ensure that utility services are available to everyone. They have created a system that preys upon homebuilders to extract capital improvement system upgrades as a condition of access to public water. 

SPU policies and the permitting hurdles have resulted in chewing through and spitting out many contractors and developers trying to build housing in Seattle. A 37% success rate for new ADU building permits from 2017 to 2021 is shockingly low. Seattle relies upon contractors and developers to build much needed new housing.  The two developers for the two projects I included in this article do not intend to return to Seattle. They have already been burned and don’t desire to repeat the experience. One is in litigation with SPU over these costly water main requirements.

Director’s Rule WTR-440 does not demonstrate compliance with the overarching state laws or the limitations of the Seattle Municipal Code.  It must be immediately rescinded if there is any hope at providing middle-income housing that was celebrated as the outcome we would see from the heralded 2019 ADU reform legislation.

Editor’s note: A spokesperson for Seattle Public Utilities provided the following statement: “Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) disagrees with Ms. Breske’s characterizations. SPU will not comment further at this time as one of her clients has a pending lawsuit challenging the City’s water main extension requirements.” 

The post Op-Ed: Excessive Water Hook-up Fees Stunt Seattle’s ADU Building Boom first appeared on The Urbanist.

Back in July, the body advanced planning work to encourage micro-housing (apartments less than 400 square feet), reduce permit fees for affordable housing, and increase the allowed floor-area ratio (FAR) for residential developments. Council progressives voiced concerns that these actions would have limited impact on housing affordability and could divert staff time away from other more impactful initiatives.

At the recommendation of a consultant present at the meeting, Council directed city staff to perform a capacity analysis to understand what other proposals could be advanced by the planning department and in what time frame. Tuesday’s meeting represents the outcome of that work, with staff stating that work around middle housing and streamlining the permitting process for new housing could be completed without impacts to other projects.

As presented by staff, the middle housing Land Use Code Amendment (LUCA) would proceed in multiple phases. Phase 1 would seek to remove barriers to ADU construction, such as owner-occupancy requirements or off-street parking codes, and could proceed through the city’s Planning Commission without amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan. However, work to allow denser housing types (up to quadplexes) in more neighborhoods would require changes to Bellevue’s foundational policy document, which does not currently envision diverse housing types for the city’s single-family zones.

Therefore, staff intend to time Phase 2 around the city’s Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update process so as to eliminate the need for additional code amendments down the line. With the adoption of Bellevue’s new Comprehensive Plan envisioned for the second quarter of 2024, staff expect the missing middle LUCA to be approved by Council shortly thereafter.

With Washington’s Legislative session in full swing however, there’s a substantial chance that this planning work will be superseded by state bills. The Senate’s SB 5235 and its partner in the House HB 1276 — sponsored by Senator Sharon Shewmake (D-Bellingham) and Representive Gerry Pollet (D-Seattle), respectively — would address many elements planned for the scope of Bellevue’s ADU LUCA process. In their current forms, the bills would require a mechanism for separate ownership of an ADU, prohibit owner-occupancy requirements, and allow all single-family lots greater than 4,500 square feet to house both an attached and detached ADU (i.e. three dwelling units in total).

And just a few hours before Council’s vote Tuesday evening, the much-hyped HB 1110 from Representative Jessica Bateman (D-Olympia) received its first hearing in the House Housing Committee with significant public support. By allowing quadplexes on all residential lots and sixplexes on lots with two affordable homes or within half a mile of frequent transit, the bill (and its companion SB 5190 from Tacoma’s Senator Yasmin Trudeau) would actually go beyond the intended scope for Bellevue’s LUCA — forcing staff and Council to modify their plans if the bills pass as-is.

Councilmembers seemed well-aware of that possibility during Tuesday’s meeting, with Mayor Robinson remarking, “I’d love to be moving on this and show that we can do it and not have the state do it for us. I’d like to be a good example of what cities can do.” Longtime Councilmember Conrad Lee said, “The state is trying to do something [on housing], and we are doing something that I believe is much better and much more responsive. We don’t want to have them preempt us…Our definition of affordable housing has to address [neighborhood] character and the Bellevue way.”

Councilmember Jeremy Barksdale, who was the only Bellevue elected official to sign in support of HB 1110 in advance of its hearing Tuesday afternoon, emphasized the importance of allowing diverse housing types to meet diverse needs in the community. “There are people who serve our community in the retail sector and in other capacities who can’t afford to live here… There’s the potential for positive impact and not just negative impact [on neighborhood character].” Barksdale also advised his colleagues to think about a neighborhood’s aesthetics rather than its “character,” a concept which staff noted is hard to define.

Whether through state action or through local planning initiatives, Bellevue is positioned to eventually allow more middle housing in its borders. And with each process having just kicked off this month, there is still ample time for details and circumstances to change. However, with a rapidly-advancing legislative session, ample public support for state action, and real-world results not expected from the city’s LUCA process until mid-2024, time may not be on Bellevue’s side.

The post Bellevue Initiates Middle Housing Planning, but State May Beat Them to It first appeared on The Urbanist.

The City of Seattle permitting process for new housing is riddled with impediments that disproportionately challenge the small business owner seeking to acquire permits to build much needed smaller housing projects.

In 2019, the Seattle City Council amended the zoning code to add flexible allowances for the installation of attached or detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs and DADUs). Builders have demonstrated the potential of this code to address middle income housing with infill redevelopment of single-family lots with three-story side-by-side dwelling units.

With the exception of the streamlined system for backyard cottage permits, the permitting process is plagued with unanticipated curveballs, time-consuming procedures, and project-crushing mandates from the various departments including the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI), Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU).

The Seattle permitting process, like that of many jurisdictions, starts with a preliminary meeting prior to a formal permit submittal. In Seattle, this meeting results in the issuance of a PAR (Preliminary Assessment Report). Within the PAR, the objective is stated — to help the applicant create a complete submittal package and reduce the need for corrections once the application is submitted.

The objective is woefully underachieved based upon the numerous PARs I have viewed in my capacity as a civil engineer. Anecdotally, I have also heard from other professional civil engineers who agree that PARs issued by the City of Seattle do not provide project specific information required for an efficient and successful initial design.  

Instead, the PARs are filled with procedural and administrative requirements, boilerplate sentences, hyperlinks to checklists, and include little or no substantive design information. Without applicable project specific information disclosed, it is not possible to achieve the goal of helping the permit applicant to create a complete submittal package and reduce the need for corrections.

One specific project for which I was the civil engineer of record, was a project to use the ADU/DADU code to construct six new dwelling units. The project was located on 21st Avenue S within the North Rainier Urban Village. The architect provided a design that would result in removal of an older house on a single lot and construction of six new units. The rendering below submitted to the City of Seattle, includes two buildings, each with side-by-side units and the front units each having a basement ADU.

Before the actual building permit application is accepted by SDCI, the applicant must navigate the SDOT permitting labyrinth to determine the street frontage improvement requirements. This starts with a permit application for the Street Improvement Plan (SIP). The civil engineer, which was me, was tasked with providing a design of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk street frontage improvements. However, the PAR did not include the street type nor the required width of the planter strip or sidewalk. 

Additionally, SDOT’s Seattle Streets Illustrated Design Manual would lead one to believe that the design standards are already determined for specific types of streets. However, this is not the case. I have completed several designs in Seattle and was curious as to why it was such a rollercoaster to get through a simple street frontage design process. I received my answer during a July 2021 virtual meeting with an SDOT employee who informed me that all applications for frontage improvements of curb, gutter, sidewalk and planter strip are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.   

Why the City has published a Complete Streets/Seattle Streets Illustrated Design Manual and wastes the time of civil engineers as well as other design professionals, to somehow think there are pre-approved geometries for different street types, has not been explained to me.  

Because the required design information is not provided within the PAR, and the City’s procedure is to react to permit submittals on a case-by-case basis and I, as the civil engineer, am placed in the uncomfortable position of making an educated guess for the width of both the sidewalk and planter strip in order to prepare the initial design plan for the SIP.  For this project, my professional engineering conclusion was to use the Urban Village Neighborhood template for a residential street frontage design, and my initial design depicted a six-foot planter strip next to a six-foot sidewalk.

An application for the SIP was submitted in early 2020 with the design geometry I proposed. Then began the uncharted territory of comments from SDOT permit review staff and the subsequent absurdity of the undecidedness from SDOT that was revealed as the case-by-case review process played out. Initial comments required that the planter strip width be changed from six feet to an excessive 13 feet. Then upon submitting the 13-foot design, it was returned with a comment to change the planter strip to 11.5 feet. Then upon submitting the 11.5-foot design, SDOT staff responded with a comment to change it to 10.5 feet. This process used by SDOT took an arduous eight months to complete.  

Having extracted the design information from SDOT via the cumbersome and time-consuming process, the frontage design geometry was approved. It seemed the project had overcome the hurdles within the SDOT permitting process and there was a sense of relief that the challenges of the SDOT process were behind us. However, this perceived jubilation was short-lived.  

The SDOT review and SDCI review do not occur simultaneously. In fact, the SDOT frontage geometry must be approved before submittal of the architectural building permit plan can be submitted to SDCI. Having attained the SDOT approval, the project proponent was able to submit the architectural building permit plan set.

Thereafter, project-crushing information was released from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). In December 2020, a full year after the PAR was released, SPU revealed that the water main fronting the property and within 21st Avenue S was not suitable for connection of any new water meters. Without domestic water service, the project was clearly impossible.

According to standard procedures, water review should have happened in early 2020. However, the project was the victim of a glitch as the City transitioned to a new permit software which failed to inform SPU and trigger their review process. The City become aware of this glitch and sought to manually triggered water reviews, but some projects slipped between the cracks. The fact it was not manually marked was explained by a SDCI permit tech in an e-mail from December 16, 2022: “When the City transitioned to the new permit software, the water review had to be manually triggered. The system has since been updated so that the water review is automatic.” Thus, the update was after this project had suffered from the fact it was not manually marked, and a water availability certificate was not issued in a timely manner.

Permit fees were paid in good faith, design services were acquired from the surveyor, architect, structural engineer, and myself the civil engineer. However, all the hours of effort, and the use of monetary resources, were completed in vain, and the small business construction company owner who was the project proponent, had no choice but to abandon the project and cut his losses. (Editor’s note: Instead of being converted to six modestly-sized homes, the single-family home was renovated and sold for $1,130,000 in 2021 according to property records. Since single-family home renovations aren’t required to add sidewalks or planting strips, none were added on a street that lacks them.)

By virtue of the combined actions and procedures of the permitting departments of SDOT, SPU, and SDCI, a state of duress had been created. There is no accountability between departments and it leaves the applicant to try to harmonize a design when the permit systems of Seattle are fragmented and split among different departments with no cohesive master permit system in place.

The project proponents were recoiling from the fact that no new water meters could be connected to the existing water line, when SPU suddenly had a solution to the problem they had created. If the project proponent agreed to pay for the design and construction costs for installation of a new water valve in an undisclosed location, then connection to the water service would be allowed after all. This was a bait, switch, and attempt to hook a small construction business owner into paying for a systemwide upgrade to install a new valve.  

This was no normal eight-inch water valve. A unique valve would have to be fabricated for the specific application and a specialized contractor needed for installation, which apparently is due to a non-standard 24-inch water main underneath 21st Avenue S.

Numerous other factors including the fact the SPU had not made a specific determination of exactly where the valve was to be located, and that the project proponent would pay for analysis required and determination thereof. No detailed information or costs would be provided until after the project proponent signed the SPU contract.

The unproportioned burden of systemwide upgrades should not be placed on small projects when there is no direct nexus between the project and the system upgrade. Connection to the water line was determined to be allowed after all. The installation of a valve has nothing to do with a connection for new water meters. 

Design and installation of system wide upgrades such as an installation of a valve, are to be borne by the entity who manages the water system, in this case SPU. Mitigation fees are charged for water connection of new meters and this is the system already in place. Each individual project pays for the impact that project has on the system via fees charged for new water meter service installation. These fees charged are to be pooled into a monetary resource to address overall system upgrades.   

For one-inch water meters, which are commonly installed for a new housing unit, the fee is $7,980. For large apartment complexes, the fees can be in the hundreds of thousands.

In my professional opinion, the actions of SPU are defined as extraction, and are not supported by the rule-of-law and the concept of direct nexus and proportionality. Since SPU is a separate permitting department, with no checks-and-balances built in for accountability, they were able to withhold information from the PAR, allow permit fees to be paid, allow the applicant to be strung along, creates a state of duress, and then offer a solution that is actually a form of extraction.

The insidious solution offered by SPU was too much burden to be placed on a small six-dwelling unit project — there is no economy of scale to carry the costs. In reality, per the rules used by SPU, the project was infeasible from the day of issuance of the PAR, though the project proponent was unaware, since substantive information was withheld. A full year of efforts by the design team and the small business contractor was for naught.

These combined actions by the permitting departments takes its toll, creates a state of duress and results in knocking-out small business contractors from doing business in Seattle. The small business contractors using private sector funding sources, are essential to the redevelopment of underutilized single-family lots to create much needed additional middle-income housing. 

I don’t think the City of Seattle charter says they are incorporated to put small businesses out of business. However, the permitting practices of the City not only crush housing projects, they can crush the small construction business owner who is speculating that successful permit issuance can be achieved in a reasonable time and without burdensome requirements. 

The small business contractors are needed to fuel the construction of middle-income infill housing in Seattle. Instead, they are being pushed out of Seattle by unjustified mandates and time-consuming procedures and policies inherent to the City of Seattle permitting processes.

Editor’s note: The Urbanist reached out to Seattle Public Utilities seeking their response, and public information officer Sabrina Register said “We reviewed our records for this project and determined we followed our standard processes for working with and communicating with the project representatives.” She added, “SPU always provides a complete cost estimate before asking a developer to sign a contract.” Provided this response, Breske replied: “It is unfortunate that the SPU standard process is to withhold significant project-crushing information from the Preliminary Assessment Report… Furthermore, in response to the SPU response that developer costs are determined before any contract is executed, below is the information that was provided within a 12-11-2020 e-mail from an SPU staff member:

• Our Water Line of Business has noted the preliminary approximate location within the intersection of 21st Avenue S & S Bayview Street. The exact location would be determined during plan review within the contract process.
• Typically, in these instances, due to the complexities of the site having a 24” inch main, SPU would be completing the design. At this stage I cannot concretely state whether SPU would for sure be doing that in this instance. This would be determined as well during review with your assigned project coordinator.
• We’re unable to find a recent example that would align with your project needs at this time. It’s difficult without have a drawing from our Water Line of Business which typically doesn’t occur until the contracting process.

The SPU response provided to The Urbanist is listed in full below:

“Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) partners with developers to efficiently connect them to Seattle’s water, wastewater and drainage utilities in a manner that preserves the integrity and reliability of the existing systems. SPU understands that Seattle needs more residential development and that utility connections are an important component of making that happen. We reviewed our records for this project and determined we followed our standard processes for working with and communicating with the project representatives. 

New segments of water main and conversions of feeder mains to distribution mains through the addition of one or more valves are the two most common system improvements required by SPU.  This process is part of a citywide “growth pays for growth” model which is outlined in Seattle Municipal Code and SPU policy.  

SPU received a Water Availability Certificate (WAC) application for this address on 11/20/2020. Because the existing main the developer requested to connect to was built in 1915 and no longer meets SPU requirements for tapping, we responded to the WAC application by requiring a valve as a system improvement to convert a feeder main to a distribution main. A new segment of water main would have been the standard requirement, but SPU exercised the flexibility available in policy to offer the valve installation as a cheaper alternative to the developer.  

Developer costs are determined before any contract is executed. SPU always provides a complete cost estimate before asking a developer to sign a contract.

SPU appreciates feedback from developers and evaluates ways to continuously improve communications with them.

We remain happy to discuss these issues directly with the developer or their legal representatives.  The requirement for a system improvement was outlined in the Preliminary Assessment Report.”

Sabrina Register, PIO for Seattle Public Utilities

Finally we’ll close on Breske’s rebuttal:

“This lack of acknowledgement of the rules-of-law within the permitting department of SPU is a major contributing factor to absurd and project-crushing conditions placed on projects as a condition of permit issuance,” Breske said. “How can a permitting departments not engage and harmonize into its decision-making process the rules of law relative to what is allowed as a permitting condition? It is past due time for permitting departments to also be trained to understand and execute the rules of law applicable to permitting and stop the systems of extractions to require more than that which is legally allowed.”

The post How to Crush a Housing Project The Seattle Way first appeared on The Urbanist.

Missing middle housing still missing

After a more sweeping statewide missing middle bill (HB 1782) failed to make it out of either chamber, HB 1660 took on greater significance as the last remaining hope for a step forward this year on lifting statewide zoning restrictions. But sponsors couldn’t whip enough votes in the Senate, and it failed to pass before Friday’s deadline. HB 1782 sponsor Jessica Bateman (D-Olympia) noted how big of a missed opportunity this represented.

“We have yet to address the underlying problem of supply and we can’t solve this crisis without it,” Bateman tweeted.

Housing is a growing concern for voters and top of mind, as polls have confirmed, but State Democrats have yet to step up with large-scale reforms. Even the modest tweak of allowing ADUs such as backyard cottages and basement apartments in single family zones in high-growth areas across the state was too much for them.

HB 1660 passed the House on a very close 50-48 vote with seven Democrats dissenting and no Republican support, but the bill failed to eke through the Senate, where the Democratic advantage is smaller at 28-21. Four Democrat senators are enough to sink any legislation where Republicans are in lock-step opposition — and they often are. The House Democrats who voted against the accessory dwelling unit bill were Tana Senn (Mercer Island, 41st Legislative District), Larry Springer (Kirkland, 45th LD), Lisa Callan (Issaquah, 5th LD), Steve Kirby (Tacoma, 29th LD), Bill Ramos (Issaquah, 5th LD), Amy Walen (Kirkland, 48th LD), and Alicia Rule (Blaine, 42nd LD).

Similar legislation has been in play for several sessions, but ADU reform has long eluded the state legislature.

Last year, the House was the stumbling block and Rep. Gerry Pollet (D-Seattle, 46th LD) overwrote much of a bill passed by the Senate, causing many backers to withdraw their support. A whole slew of organizations spanning labor, business, and environmental groups, including Sightline Institute, 350 Seattle, Sierra Club, the Washington State Labor Council, SEIU 775, Amazon, and AARP (which advocates for elders and retired people), urged the Governor to veto the heavily amended bill. These groups had backed the Senate version, but argued the House version actually made building an ADU more difficult, not less. And the Governor agreed and vetoed three sections of the bill.

While the legislative chamber that killed the bill was different in 2022, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) again lobbied hard against the policy and seems to have influential in turning legislators against it. The AWC has clung to the idea of local control to argue against statewide zoning standards, but local jurisdictions have largely avoided adding density in single-family zones, casting doubt on their arguments that municipalities can solve this problem themselves. Perhaps, zoning reformers will have better luck in 2023, but in the meantime tenants and prospective homebuyers continue to pay a steep price.

Sound Transit funding bill

One area where the state legislature did make progress, however, was rapid transit funding. SB 5528 authored by Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle, 43rd LD) provides more options to fund Sound Transit projects outside of votes across the whole Sound Transit Taxing District, which spans from Dupont in Pierce County to Everett in Snohomish County. Cities can pass an increase to the progressively-scaled motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) or the commercial parking tax to fund the improvements, which are defined to include speed, reliability, and safety enhancements.

The last regional measure, ST3, passed with 54% of the vote in 2016, but support was much stronger in Seattle and King County compared to the rest of the district. The ballot measure was underwater in Pierce County and ran about even in Snohomish County. Subsequently, cost escalations and pandemic disruptions have delayed ST3 timelines, which has led some to propose another funding package as a way to speed up project delivery and add additional extensions. Transit support continues to be very strong in Seattle, as recent polling has verified.

Seattle would be the likeliest candidate to pass a local measure, but other cities could be interested as well.

Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) backed the bill and noted that Republicans uniformly opposed the bill, joined by a small group of Democrats: “Democratic members voting nay on SB 5528 were April Berg and Brandi Donaghy of the 44th District (Snohomish County), Dave Paul of the 10th District (part of which is in Snohomish County), Mari Leavitt and Dan Bronoske of the 28th District (Pierce County), and Alicia Rule and Sharon Shewmake of the 42nd District (which is located in Whatcom County, a county outside of ST’s jurisdiction).”

The amendment passed in the House forced the bill to return to the Senate, but the Senate concurred with the House changes on Monday. NPI’s Andrew Villenueve described the House tweak.

“Prior to the final vote, the House approved one amendment, offered by Representative Debra Entenman (D-South King County, 47th), which explicitly ‘prohibits system improvements financed by enhanced service zones from delaying the estimated completion date of high-capacity transportation system improvements contained in an existing voter-approved regional transit plan by more than six months,’ as summarized by nonpartisan staff,” Villenueve wrote.

With the Senate’s concurrence, SB 5528 heads to the Governor’s desk for a signature. Had the Senate not concurred, a conference committee would have been required to negotiate a final version.

Besides standard Sound Transit concern trolling from conservatives, the major argument against the bill is that the Sound Transit Taxing District should stick together rather than split up into lesser factions. Pierce County Councilmember Derek Young came out against the bill, arguing it’d leave his county behind and increase disparities in transit service levels.

“Seattle wants to push every working class person to the outskirts of the region with bad land use and then abandon their transit needs. Just absolutely rancid environmental and social justice policy,” Young tweeted.

However, contrary to Young’s argument, the funding an enhanced service zone would provide is likely to be supplemental and not large enough to forestall a regionwide ST4 package down the road. Moreover, better service in Seattle or other key transit nodes helps the whole region’s mobility. It’s not a zero-sum game.

Climate action in growth management hangs in limbo, but Growth Management sprawl loophole passes

Meanwhile, HB 1099 remains in limbo after key climate element in the Growth Management Act (GMA) reform bill was gutted before the Senate passed the bill. Futurewise, a sustainable land use nonprofit that has campaigned for the bill, is hoping that the bill can be fixed in conference committee so the more ambitious House version prevails.

There’s one last win to celebrate this legislative session. SB 5042, which closes a loophole within the GMA that allowed for growth in rural landscapes creating urban sprawl, was finally passed by both chambers, a whole fourteen years after having first been introduced. Advocates like Futurewise are celebrating this major victory while still urging Washingtonians to reach out to their legislators on behalf ensuring climate action provisions are included in the final version of HB 1099.

This article was updated Monday afternoon with news of the State Senate’s concurrence on SB 5528.

The post Legislature Passes Sound Transit Enhanced Funding Bill, but Fails to Lift Backyard Cottage Ban first appeared on The Urbanist.

So, how does the RHS fit into the catalog of planning policies that the Puget Sound region’s jurisdictions use? This document primarily acts as support and a resource for the region’s many housing actors and future housing planning actions. The strategy is meant to support Washington’s Growth Management Act and PSRC’s (King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties) Vision 2050 that both help direct the four-county region’s growth. It also provides a coordinated, data informed, and ambitious framework that supports all levels of government to meet current and future market-rate and affordable housing needs.

The problem the strategy aims to ameliorate involves the current affordability and supply challenges, and the historic housing wrongs and their reverberations that include housing discrimination and today’s displacement dilemma. The issues are amplified by the region being two years behind in housing production and deficient in affordable housing. The strategy details the use of housing as a way to create great inequities in wealth, ownership, and opportunity and as a way to start repairs on the historical and continuing racial/income divide. PSRC aims to provide this redress with a litany of measures that can be categorized into three pillars: supply, stability, and subsidy.

Supply

The Regional Housing Strategy’s call for more supply is only natural in a region with both a fast-growing population and a severe housing shortage. To accommodate an estimated population of 5.8 million people by 2050, the four-county Puget Sound region will need over 800,000 new housing units, based on PRSC projections. To meet this demand, the PSRC is calling for a major reexamination of the region’s zoning. The recommendations fall in line with the calls of a typical housing advocate, urging localities to upend or further liberalize existing zoning.

First, the RHS emphasizes the role they want to see transit-oriented development (TOD) playing in the region’s housing inventory. The strategy wants 65% of residential growth to be located near high-capacity transit stations with increased opportunity for moderate and high-density housing. That’s roughly 526,500 new housing units by King, Pierce, and Snohomish County’s bus rapid transit, light rail, and other capacity transit stations.

Less intensive upzoning measures include increasing moderate “missing middle” housing density areas and reforming single-family zones. These two changes are thought to be the best for affordability and supply. Moderate density zoning supports a more diverse catalog of housing options for residents, and also tends to be more affordable compared to low- or high-density housing options. Since large-lot single-family zoning is dominant throughout the region, changes to the strict low-intensity zoning could yield significant regional impact. Though the RHS only mentions reforms to possibly increase opportunity for small lots, zero-lot-lines, accessory dwelling units, and duplexes.

While transportation is not the domain of the RHS, the focus on TOD could prove as a way to shield much of the low-density single-family housing in the region. When considering the slow pace and potentially even slower pace that our high-capacity transit is being built, it’s slightly disconcerting to see the separation of missing middle legalization and single-family zone reform in the strategy document. Accessory dwelling units and duplexes are not the bold reforms that we need to see to combat the region’s supply and affordability crisis.

Outside of zoning, the RHS also wants to help lower construction costs to boost housing construction rates and improve affordability. Already mentioned measures like reduced minimum lot size, increased density, and reduced or eliminated parking requirements all make it less costly to build. The strategy also details increased development predictability by way of increased regulatory consistency and reduced complexity, as a way to lower costs. This would require cross-jurisdiction and agency cooperation, but the PSRC has found that developers report complexity of varying regulations, increasing costs for housing

Stability

The stabilizing prong of the RHS focuses on allowing people to remain in their communities and also improve their quality of life. The category aims to protect tenants and potentially turn them into homeowners. The first measure for stability that the RHS calls for is strengthening tenant assistance and protections by providing tenant counseling, assistance, and landlord education for fair, safe, and healthy housing. It wants cities and agencies to provide assistance and education, and to ensure affordable housing meets basic health and safety standards.

To increase access to homeownership, the RHS wants to see advocacy for a bill to support equitable homeownership assistance for tenants seeking to buy a home in their community with down payment assistance programs. The PSRC finds that often renters are able to afford the monthly costs of a mortgage, but are unable to make a down payment at the region’s current housing costs. The strategy points toward past success of low-cost mortgages and low-interest loans at increasing homeownership. The agency would like to see these tools in a modern federal program.

Stability through opportunity is also called for by the RHS. The strategy hopes to achieve this with increased services and amenities in low opportunity areas, and the creation and preservation of long-term affordable units near transit and higher opportunity areas. It calls for local bodies to incentivize early childhood education, medical care, and other community commercial use in mixed-used development. These services are also under threat of displacement, so development of more commercial spaces via mixed-use buildings are called for.

Additionally, as the opportunity of high-capacity transit does attract development and the PSRC calls for most of the region’s residential growth in high-capacity transit areas, residents in those areas are more susceptible to displacement. The strategy calls for voluntary or mandatory incentives to include affordable housing in all new development in proximity to transit and other high opportunity areas. One incentive is multifamily tax exemptions, which have been a major factor in creating housing for those earning less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). For example, much of Shoreline’s more affordable developments have used the city’s multifamily tax exemption program.

Subsidy

When discussing subsidy as the last prong of the RHS, market-rate housing is acknowledged as the largest source of new housing. The increasing market-rate housing supply does help slow the worsening housing affordability crisis in our region, as housing supply studies have supported. However, it is clear from the research and PSRC’s understanding of housing supply that the private market can’t provide housing or much relief to those with the lowest incomes. The housing strategy notes that the region can’t fully address its affordability crisis until housing needs of extremely low-income (less than 30% AMI) households are met.

To meet those needs, PSRC calls for intervention by the region’s public bodies to identify public, private, and philanthropic funding to increase affordable housing inventory and access. The strategy calls for advocacy and expansion of funding from all levels of government. Rental assistance for very low-income households and building more affordable housing would be top of mind for federal and state funding advocacy. Locally, the RHS does point out that a housing levy or increasing general funds toward housing may be challenging. However, it also states that local funds have played a major role in getting “matching” funds from other sources. For small jurisdictions that can’t raise significant funds of their own, the RHS proposes raising housing funding with a multi-jurisdictional housing body.

Mention of private financing and philanthropy is also included in the RHS, as there is a moral and even economic responsibility of private firms to spend on affordable housing. Housing options, affordability, and even a moral facade can help firms recruit in an increasing competitive environment. Private financing and funds for affordable homes have already been committed recently, but this largely has come in the form of below-market loans. Combined, roughly 8,900 affordable units in the region will be made available from Microsoft and Amazon’s loans. Local jurisdictions and housing organizations are also called to facilitate continued corporate involvement.

Implementation, Monitoring, and Outlook

To implement this strategy, PSRC needs responsible local governments to act. Both capacity and accountability are needed to meet our housing needs, as jurisdictions are typically either incapable or unwilling to meet development needs when they can or do not meet GMA requirements. However, there are no excuses for not meeting housing needs. Regional housing agencies have been used to help cities with less resources in each county implement the RHS. Accountability is outside the realm of the PSRC’s power for housing, but the regional council can provide incentives for cities to implement the RHS.

PSRC also put together a chart of what each level of government can do to meet the region’s housing and affordability needs. The chart follows:

PSRC is also taking steps to measure the changes in our housing inventory to help keep track of their goals. The regional council has committed to developing a framework to track performance and identify challenges. This monitoring will also be made shareable for the region’s many jurisdictions. It will also hopefully find that we’re on our way to over 810,000 new units, of which 89,000 new units would be affordable to those earning 0% to 30% AMI, to avoid continuing the current crisis. Getting there will be a slog, but it’s critically important for the region to at least keep pace with its housing needs.

The draft puts it best when concluding with the stakes of our housing crisis:

Housing is critical for every resident, and every community plays a role in addressing this collective responsibility. The complexity of addressing the full range of housing needs and challenges requires a coordinated regional-local approach and will require action from cities, counties, residents, businesses, and other agencies and stakeholders to work together to meet the needs. A coordinated, regionwide effort to build and preserve housing accessible to all residents is not just about housing. It is also about building healthy, complete, and welcoming communities where all families and people, regardless of income, race, family size or need, are able to live near good schools, transit, employment opportunities, and open space.

Draft RHS conclusion (Courtesy of PSRC)

Optimism aside, this strategy only works if every single measure is taken upon by most of the local governments in the Puget Sound. Increased market-rate housing supply alone begets displacement and affordability issues for those with the lowest incomes. Non-compliant local governments can push the burden on others and keep the region in a housing shortage. Even fully executed, the strategy preserves much of the low-density sprawl that is responsible for much of the region’s emissions. Additionally, the state could’ve undershot the 2050 population estimate, keeping the region in the housing crisis it finds itself in right now.

Ideally, the Puget Sound region could have much more liberalized zoning laws, robust tenant rights, and a large pool of public funds for social housing. That way both private market developers and public authorities could swiftly react to demand increases in either market-rate or affordable housing. Maybe displacement could be voluntary. Perhaps the region could even have surplus housing to increase affordability and cushion Puget Sound from demand spikes. But region doesn’t live in that kind of political environment yet, so keep pushing for the pro-housing docket.

A list of upcoming pro-housing opportunities by Share The Cities details what you could participate in soon.

The post PSRC Housing Strategy Seeks to Galvanize Region to Action first appeared on The Urbanist.