More on the Impacts of Proposed Microhousing Legislation
Dear City Councilmembers:
As you consider CB 118201 relating to the much-needed workforce housing type known as micro-housing and congregate housing, please consider the financial impacts this will have on your customers: the many citizens that rent this housing. In reviewing the City’s analysis of this legislation, it does not include the impact on future tenants, only the accretive revenue impact (of $210,000-$270,000) to the City’s Department of Planning & Development. Based on my financial analysis of CB 118201, I estimate that it would bring the monthly microhousing rent from $800 to $1,271, an increase of $471 or 59%! The amendments as passed by PLUS Committee would add an extra $105 per month, bringing the total to $1,376, which is an increase of $576/month or 72% versus the status quo today! Your stated goal when this process started was to regulate this housing type, not eliminate it, which is what the current legislation will simply do.
On a related topic, there is much confusion as from where the 120 sf vs 150 sf numbers come from. They both show up in different places:
120 nsf
SBC 1208.3 requires that ‘every dwelling unit shall have no fewer than one room that shall have not less than 120 sf of net floor area. Other habitable rooms shall have a net floor area of not less than 70sf’ This section applies to a typical dwelling unit, where you would have one room (typically the living room) that is bigger than the rest. The 2012 Building Code Commentary for this section reads ‘These minimums reflect the physiological requirements of light and ventilation and also preserve the individual’s perception of space and the elements necessary for a psychological sense of well-being.’
150 nsf
Director’s Rule 6-2004 is the source of the 150nsf floor area ‘a small efficiency dwelling unit shall have a living room of at least 150 net square feet of floor area. The floor area occupied by bathrooms, cabinets, appliances, structural features, and any closets shall not be included in calculating the net floor area.’ The introduction to the Director’s Rule states ‘Increases in the cost of housing, and the decrease in available low cost housing, are creating a need for more affordable options in Seattle. This rule allows for smaller efficiency units if other amenities are also provided.’
Based on the conflicting language above, no new minimum language should be included in any new legislation. There is already a 70 sf minimum sleeping room requirement in the code as well as a 120 nsf for one room in a unit. If you let the existing language stay – and get rid of the arbitrary Director’s Rule – the smallest sleeping room in a Congregate would be 70 nsf and the smallest in a Small Efficiency Dwelling Unit (SEDU) would be 120 nsf. Those existing minimums would continue to allow these housing types to be built in an affordable manner.
Let me know if you have any questions. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you and your staff at any time.
Thanks,
Scott Shapiro
Attachments
