Good morning.
Thank you, everybody, for joining us here for the regularly scheduled March 6, 2019 meeting of the Seattle Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee.
It's 930 in the morning.
I'm Rob Johnson, chair of the committee.
I'm soon to be joined by my colleagues, council members O'Brien and Herbold.
We have one item on today's agenda.
It's a briefing and discussion on Council Bill 119469, which establishes environmental requirements to mitigate the impact of development on displacement.
We will not be taking a vote on this item today, but just hearing a little bit more about the topic itself.
We're going to start with public comment.
There are nine people who've signed up to give public comment today.
You'll each be given two minutes, and then we'll move into a discussion of our only agenda item.
The first person is Alex Zimmerman, followed by John Lombard, and then Dennis Saxman.
Hello, my best and lovely council.
Mr. Johnson, my name is Alex Zimmerman, and I totally disagree with this ordinance.
And I have explained to you why I think it's too bad and too early to make this decision.
So a couple points I want to deliver to you.
Number one, Because next year it will be totally different, this chamber, and possibility all council will be out, all nine, maybe all nine.
So it's very important right now.
So all decision right now, what is you make, you never will be exist few months from now.
Don't have sense.
It's number one.
Number two, right now all America recognize in this newspaper from east coast to west coast, so Seattle is number one fascist city in America.
It's officially in all newspaper.
So there's another reason what is I think your decision will be not so good for the people.
And number three, what is absolutely unique, it's no analogy in American history.
Few council have violation of US Constitution and Open Public Meeting Act.
And exactly like Gonzalez, who violates this five times, five times, five times.
This is all newspaper too.
So if you violate Constitution and Open Public Meeting Act five times, she possibly move out right now.
She did this for Murray, but Murray violate only one.
law, she violate five.
It's a very big difference.
So right now I speak to everybody who listen to me, because Seattle right now is number one fascist city in more consulate right now, pure criminal, supposed to be in jail.
She not alone.
She supposed to be handled with another couple consul.
So in this situation, I thinking it's too early make this decision.
Stand up Seattle.
Stand up America.
Thank you.
John Lombard, you're going to be followed by Dennis Saxman and then Abdi Youssef.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, council members.
I'm John Lombard.
I'm a candidate for City Council from District 5, and I'm here to support Council Member Herbold's ordinance.
In fact, I believe it doesn't go far enough.
Why not apply in all urban villages at high risk of displacement, including Lake City and Northgate in District 5?
If the legal principle is sound, why not apply across the city?
The stock of unsubsidized affordable housing in Seattle is an enormously valuable resource in these times.
If a one-for-one replacement ratio is too rigid, why not have a very sizable payment required of a developer when he destroys this resource?
It could be on a sliding scale to provide greater compensation for the loss of more affordable units.
The market does the exact opposite.
It incentivizes the destruction of the most affordable units since they provide the biggest jump in rents for the nice new market rate units.
If the legal basis is there for Councilmember Herbold's ordinance, and my understanding is that it is, then I believe that the City has an obligation to counter this incentive of the market that is manifestly against the public interest.
please do all that you can to disincentivize the destruction of our very precious affordable housing.
This is crucial for MHA to be the positive force for good that the council seems to believe that it is.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Dennis, you're going to be followed by Abdi Youssef and then John Fox.
My name is Dennis Saxman.
I live in affordable housing on Capitol Hill.
I am several thousand dollars below the extremely low income level of HUD.
I think I support this legislation, but I think it needs to go farther.
And because the people who really need housing are at 50% and below of income, not 80% of area median income.
80% of area median income is $82,720.
That's $6,983 a month.
Surely if those people need assistance, then people far below that need even more.
I regret the council member, Mr. Johnson, does not feel my comments are significant enough to listen to them.
I'm familiar with the Growth Management Board ruling that we have a right to comment, but we have no right to be paid attention to.
But it's pretty rude.
What concerns me in this bill is the section where it says that compliance with this ordinance will be compliance with all the displacement relocation assistance and other anti-displacement features in Seattle law.
And I'm wondering, like, what does that really mean?
It seems to me to have the potential to gut this entire ordinance.
And, you know, it's been, I've been coming here for years and I've heard this.
Well, I'll give you an exact reference there.
It is 25.05.6751, or I, 1B.
3. Acceptance otherwise provided in section 25.0675-3.
Compliance with legally valid city ordinance provisions relating to housing relocation, demolition, and conversion.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Saxman.
That concerns me.
Mr. Yusuf, you're going to be followed by John Fox and then David Bloom.
Good morning, council members.
My name is Abdi Youssef.
I am a coalition organizer for Butcherson SAGE and I organize our South Core Coalition.
Over 20 community-based organizations, we come together to be a unified voice for community control and inspire development in the Rainier Valley.
SAGE supports Councilwoman Lisa Harbaugh's proposal to adequately mitigate the impact of new development that will demolish affordable households earning 80% of AMI and below by requiring those developers to replace the units demolished in addition to comply with MHA requirements.
We think this policy could be strengthened by increasing the affordability of the new units to match the MHA requirements at 60%.
AMI and expand to the neighborhoods with both high displacement risk and high access to opportunity where we are losing the mass market provided affordable units.
We have seen the impact of displacement firsthand in the Rainier Valley with the arrival of the light rail cam and increasing desirability to live in the neighborhood.
Rents for housing and commercial space are rising and new development is not accessible to low income people and people of color.
We have seen multiple family properties torn down.
To make way for luxury developments, landlords are increasing rents across the board.
And landlords are renovating buildings to attract higher income tenants.
We believe that this policy, further strengthened by the expanding to high displacement risk and high access to opportunity, will help keep households living in affordable units from being displaced.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yusuf.
John Fox, followed by David Bloom, and then Steve Rubstello.
John Fox, coordinator of the Seattle Displacement Coalition.
From 2016 through 2018, the city of Seattle experienced a record number of demolitions of existing housing.
Over 2,690 units were lost to demolition.
We've surveyed residents who live in those buildings, and more than 70% of those who lived in those units were people with incomes below 50% of median, that means over 1,880 units were destroyed, serving those most in need in our city over three years.
By comparison, let's look at the city's housing production figures over the last three years.
The city spent $175 million in public dollars to produce 2,560 units, but only 1,434 of those served those at or below 50% of median.
That is a net loss over that three years of 455 low-income units, $175 million, all to come out at the other end with a net loss of the stock we most desperately need in the city.
There are applications pending right now for removal of another 910 units of that housing stock.
We could also add over 1,000 units of existing low-income housing in those areas that have been upzoned recently in the last two to three years, have been lost due to speculative activity, the buying and selling of properties driving rents up.
And you can't say it wouldn't have happened without these up zones.
The U District was up zoned.
There are projects resulting in demolition, but the ave that was not, does not include, there's been no demolition of those 200 units.
We support Council Member Herbold's proposal.
It must be strengthened to require one for one, and it should apply to all neighborhoods.
And replacement units should be at 50% of median.
Please strengthen this law.
Thank you, Lisa Herbold for moving.
this critical piece of legislation forward.
Good morning, council members.
My name is David Bloom.
I'm a founder and board president of the Seattle Displacement Coalition.
And I want to echo the remarks of previous speakers to support council member Herbold's amendment and to strengthen it.
In stating her purpose in presenting the amendment, she writes, this ordinance would use authority granted under the State Environmental Policy Act to create a requirement for developers to mitigate the impacts resulting from the loss of affordable housing.
The MHA framework legislation passed in 2016 states the council intends to consider whether to include higher performance and payment amounts subject to statutory limits for those areas where the increase in development capacity would be likely to increase displacement risk.
The council intends to consider a range of strategies to increase affordable units sufficient to offset the affordable units at risk of demolition.
demolition to new development.
If that is the case, if the council is serious about this, then Councilmember Herbold's amendment needs not only to be passed, but to be strengthened.
The current proposal only to limit a developer's responsibility to 5% of replacement of low-income units to 11% is good as far as it goes.
It should be higher.
But more importantly, as we are aware and as we heard from some of the other speakers this morning, we continue to lose more affordable housing than we replace.
There should be a strong one-for-one replacement requirement in any legislation guiding the development of our city in the future.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Rubstello followed by Deb Barker and then Bill Bradford.
Well here we go again.
The city continues to move towards making this a more and more difficult place for people who make less than $80,000 or $100,000 to live.
You do a great job of adding to the homeless problem.
When you have your emergency, what you have done now is almost claim you're not responsible for the fact that there is some homelessness, there has been for a long time, but you are pouring gas on the fire.
It's time to take a look at what you do.
This committee has done more to promote homelessness than almost any other committee with the help I'm going to add of the full council.
So let's go the other way around and let's take a look at the whole city.
When you up zone in a highest and best use, you raise the taxes, you make many of the properties which are affordable no longer economically viable and that's why we keep losing affordable units.
Now, Are you going to do anything for the people that are displaced?
And it's not just people of color who are displaced.
It's just not in the central area.
It's just not in the south end.
I see it in the north end.
I see it all through the city.
But when you replace a white person with another white person, it's much harder to prove.
It's so visual in part of the city that that's happening everywhere.
But it's so visual, and yet you ignore it.
You act like this package to the developers, which is, you know, the main purpose of this seems to be to raise their profits since there's reluctance for clawback, even if this is declared unconstitutional that they should have to pay.
then you continue to give them more and you make the city less and less home for a diverse group of people.
Deb Barker.
Deb, you're going to be followed by Bill Bradberg.
I really don't want his sign behind me.
I'm going to go over here, okay?
That's fine.
Noah, will you restart her time, please?
Thanks.
I support Councilmember Herbold's anti-displacement measure.
It's a vital step.
to having developers realistically share in the cost of replacing the low-cost housing that they remove without this measure.
You are dooming many, many, many existing low-cost units that could be in historic buildings that have many small businesses.
You're dooming them to the wrecking ball.
I urge the committee to have the guts to strengthen the anti-displacement measure by increasing the developer's affordable housing requirements and expanding this measure citywide.
My urban village of Morgan Junction has over a dozen existing low-cost housing complex that can never be replicated.
The high-risk areas of Othello, South Park, Rainier Beach, Bitter Lake, and definitely Westwood Highland Park are critical to be sure, but the anti-displacement measure that you should support needs to make up for a devastating impact to the city's affordable housing units.
Please support and strengthen this important measure.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Parker.
Bill Bradburn, you are going to be followed by David Ward and then Natalie Williams.
Hi.
Hi, I'm speaking on behalf today of the Central Area Land Use Review Committee.
I'll skip the boilerplate.
It's a letter I will submit to you about who we are and what we do.
But as you know, the Central Area has had, in the last couple of decades, extremely high rates of displacement and has gentrified significantly.
It has experienced growth far beyond that contemplated in prior years' city planning documents.
We expect this pattern of growth and change to continue and therefore we need to see the city implement stronger policies to prevent the ongoing displacement in our neighborhoods.
While we enthusiastically support the intent of Council Member Herbold's displacement mitigation legislation, we would like to see it amended in a way that helps address the impacts that are directly impacting our community.
First, all high risk of displacement communities need to be included.
It is the high opportunity areas that are seeing the greatest amount of development and the correlated displacement that comes with that.
The 23rd Avenue urban village is among those identified as being high risk of displacement, high access to opportunity.
As such, there is strong demand for housing and rents are higher than average.
Yet MHA, per the EIS, FES, only produces 268 affordable units in 20 years.
for the whole urban village.
We do not believe that this will stem the tide of displacement, and we want to see added protections of this legislation.
Second, we would like to see stronger one-for-one and replacement policies.
San Francisco has a one-for-one replacement policy, as do many other major American cities.
Notably, we see the Cadence Apartments, that are being replaced, 21 Section 8 affordable housing units are being replaced with 73 CDUs, that's micro units, that is not helping our affordable housing stock in the central area.
We would like to see one for one on-site replacement of lost units in addition to the base MHA contribution.
Third, SEPA thresholds are generally too high for most projects in the central area.
We would like to see the displacement mitigation policy applied to projects with as few as 20 units.
Finally, we believe that more fine-grained analysis needs to be made in the underlying equity analysis that underpins MHA.
That analysis, which is the basis of all of this clearly states its own limitations in terms of the accuracy of what it is saying and so on, its analysis.
Thank you.
I just find it ironic that no one here from Seattle for Everyone and all the housing affordability groups are here.
David Ward followed by Natalie Williams.
As everyone else who has spoken here today has said, I support Councilmember Herbold's amendment and would like to see it strengthened throughout the city.
As John Fox from the Displacement Coalition said, we are losing more affordable housing than we're gaining, which is why it's essential to have one-for-one replacement.
We need much stronger one for one replacement policy so that it's city wide.
So that everyone who is being displaced, who is low income, people of color, are able to maintain their housing.
In the city's environmental impact statement, it showed that 60% of the redevelopable properties are in the south end, which has the highest percentage of people of color.
And 85% of the largest properties are also in the south end.
And those are the properties that the developers are most likely to want to develop because it's got the largest property and most potential for profit.
So again, most impacting the south end in terms of displacement.
Southeast Seattle also had the highest percentage increase in rents during that time, which was also in the environmental impact statement, and also the highest vacancy rate.
So people are already being removed from the south end.
have the highest vacancy rate of any place outside of downtown and South Lake Union, which had the highest rent increases because they had the most new buildings, which created the highest rents.
So again, I would support Councilmember Herbold's amendment.
I would like to see it strengthened, and I hope the Council passes Councilmember Herbold's amendment.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Natalie Williams, you're going to be followed by Julia Picciuto.
Hi, I'm Natalie Williams.
I am a resident of District 1 and I support Councilperson Herbold's amendment.
I would like to add that I wish it went farther and speaking as a resident of Seattle that does not live in an urban village but is highly impacted by what happens in the two urban villages that I live between.
I've watched a lot of displacement happen over the last couple years.
The last few years, a lot of the affordable housing between Alaska and Morgan Junction has been mowed down and replaced by high-rise condos.
And the people who have left my area include my favorite barista and bakery assistant at Little Prague, and the childcare workers at Belamente.
These are people who do not make enough to rent in my neighborhood.
And I would like to see that remedied.
So thank you again, and if you can make it stronger, that would be even better.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Williams.
Ms. Pichino?
Good morning, Councilmembers.
I'll be short and sweet.
It's very clear from everybody's testimony today and the experience that we've had organizing with community-based organizations in the Rainier Valley as Puget Sound SAGE.
that displacement is happening and that we don't have a full suite of tools to address displacement.
We're working kind of on many different strategies, but one that we have not been able to crack yet is preservation of low-income housing.
We believe that at its core, Councilmember Herbold's proposal gets at the dual goals of both preventing displacement and fully replacing units lost to direct displacement.
As my colleague Abdi said earlier today, we'd love to see this strengthened to apply across all high displacement risk areas because we think that both low opportunity and high opportunity neighborhoods could benefit from something like this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Pachuto.
That concludes the folks that signed up to give public testimony, so we'll close public comment for today.
We have one item of business.
While Mr. Freeman joins us at the table, Noah, will you read the abbreviated title into the record, please?
Agenda item one, Council Bill 119469, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning amending the Seattle Municipal Code to establish environmental policies to mitigate the impact of new residential development on displacement of lower-income households in areas with a high risk of displacement.
Hold on for one second before we do introductions.
There was somebody waving from the crowd.
I'm sorry.
Would you want to give public?
Please come forward and state your name for the record, and we'll add you to the list.
Either mic?
Either one.
OK.
I'm Ayla Etlinger.
I moved to Seattle in 1952 from New York at the age of two, and I lived here most of that time since.
I'm shocked to see how Seattle has changed.
I went to Madrona Elementary when it was about 65% black, 10% Asian and the rest white.
I was usually the only white girl in my class.
That was a great experience for me.
I don't think there are any children in Seattle that get to have that experience.
Also, Franklin High School, 65 to 68, was wonderfully integrated.
And a lot of us were politically active then in terms of the Civil Rights Movement and the beginning of the Vietnam War protests.
So Seattle used to be a great place to live, and now it's just disgusting what's happened.
And I get my health care at Harborview.
I was walking in the neighborhood.
Yesler Terrace is there.
Yesler Terrace is evidently in the process of being torn down.
And what's replacing it?
High rises, apartments with apartments that are in the, you know, $1,700 to $2,500 a month range.
Ridiculous prices which nobody can afford unless they work for Amazon or high up in Boeing or, well, you know the story.
This is not okay.
This is not my town anymore.
And I really want to fight to make sure that we let this be a town where everybody can live and not just the upper crust.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll now move on to the Central Staff Memo associated with this bill.
Ketel Freeman, please start the introduction.
Sure.
Ketel Freeman, Council of Central Staff.
I'm Susie Levy with Council Member O'Brien's office.
Alex Coyte with Council Member Herbold's office.
So today we're just going to be doing a discussion on this bill.
Mr. Freeman, you've presented to Council Central a Council Central staff memo associated with this.
And if you wouldn't mind, why don't you walk us through the memo and the contents of the bill?
Sure.
So today the committee will have an initial briefing, as Council Member Johnson mentioned, of Council Bill 119469, which is sponsored by Council Member Herbold.
This bill would amend the city's SEPA ordinance, which essentially codifies our version of the State Environmental Policy Act, to provide additional authority to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to mitigate displacement of lower income households due to demolition under certain circumstances.
So I'll describe what those circumstances are and then talk about two key aspects of the bill, which are the mitigation areas and the mitigation options.
And then I think there are some next steps that Council Member Hobold may have in mind that are discussed briefly at the end of the bill, and I think that is discussion for the committee.
And Kito, can you include in your overview a review of the findings in the bill?
Because I think they serve as a really important foundation for why this is necessary.
Sure, I'll do that.
Maybe I'll first just briefly describe kind of how this bill would apply, and then we can talk about the findings and go to the mitigation area.
So I think the findings in part inform the mitigation area, so I think that's a good segue onto that part of the committee's discussion.
So this bill would provide STCI with additional mitigation authority that it would be applicable to projects that are subject to the mandatory housing affordability residential program.
that are not categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act.
And categorical exemption levels in the areas that are currently contemplated are relatively low for, I brought here the table from Chapter 2505. It's, it is, they range more or less from four to eight units, up to 20 for certain types of zones, including Seattle mixed zones.
and mid-rise zones, and there are a few of those in the areas where this would apply.
I'm having a hard time hearing you.
Sure, yeah.
Talk a little louder here.
So the threshold level at which this additional mitigation authority could apply would be for projects that exceed the State Environmental Policy Act categorical exemption level.
So it's essentially a project that would build somewhere between four to eight units depending on the zone.
Now the projects have to be located And urban villages identified as having a high risk of displacement and low access to opportunity, at least as currently drafted.
And the project would have to involve the demolition of existing units that are rented at rents affordable to households with incomes at 80% of area median income.
Please go ahead.
But the applicability is not only related to the thresholds in state SEPA, correct?
for those properties that are not categorically exempt under city SIPA, which I think includes low-income housing, some senior housing.
Is that right?
I can't, off the top of my head, I can't recall if there are different exemption levels for certain types of projects.
We differentiate based on geography, so in say urban centers, for example, there are much higher categorical exemption levels than outside of urban centers.
But off the top of my head, I can't recall if we have different categorical exemption levels for affordable housing projects.
Just to refresh your memories here, 80% of area median income is about $56,200 for a one-person household and $72,250 for a three-person household.
And you said that was 80% of area median income?
80% of area median income, yeah.
Those are 2018, so not 2019. So I'll talk a little bit about the findings here, and then we'll talk about some of the mitigation areas where this additional authority could apply.
So the findings reference a few different reports, including the growth and equity analysis that informs somewhat the MHA proposal and also the Seattle 2035. This growth and equity analysis was prepared for the 20-year update to the comprehensive plan.
And it sets out a typology of urban villages based on displacement risk and access to opportunity.
The findings also reference the 2017 City of Seattle and Seattle Housing Authority joint assessment of fair housing.
That was something that was done as part of our compliance, our HUD compliance, and is necessary for us to get community development block grant funding from the federal government.
And among other things, that study identifies areas that are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty.
There is some overlap between the areas, the mitigation areas in this bill, and those areas, and the recaps identified in the 2017 joint assessment.
moving on here.
It also references a few reports that were done for the PSRC, Puget Sound Regional Council, including equity, opportunity, sustainability in the central Puget Sound region, geography of opportunity in the central Puget Sound region, the fair housing equity assessment for the central Puget Sound region, It's a 2014 document and a housing background paper for Vision 2050. Among other things, those reports identify out-migration of communities of color and low-income people from Seattle to other parts of King County.
Specifically, lower opportunity parts of King County.
And finally, one of the findings references the Seattle Residential Affordable Housing Impact Mitigation Study.
That was a nexus study prepared for the council by David Rosen and Associates in 2016, which establishes a maximum supportable fee under the linkage fee program the council was at one time considering.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Ketel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the analysis that I continue to look at is the city's own ESI analysis and EIS, sorry, analysis, alphabet soup here.
I'm wondering, does this ordinance account that the fact that the studies showed that there was a strong correlation between the number of people who were being displaced actually having more likelihood to be displaced because they were rent burdened, not because of demolition?
This actually might be a good time to transition to that map.
So this is a map that's in the memo, and this is actually from the EIS.
This is from Appendix M to the EIS, which has a host of results from different regression models that Burke and associates ran using the access to opportunity displacement risk typology.
Councilmember Mosqueda off the top of my head.
I cannot there there many of those regression models indicated that there was There is a statistically significant relationship between Development and certain types of displacement but not all of those regression models showed that Statistical significance and I can't remember off the top of my head which do and which don't but some do and some don't and as part of the next committee discussion we can highlight for you a which of those models indicated a higher risk of displacement.
Okay, just from my notes and for the record, the city's analysis of displacement showed a strong correlation between new homes being built and lower numbers of low-income residents and residents of color moving out, and that the direct displacement from demolitions had a relatively small impact on changes in populations.
I think that's important as we try to figure out the right puzzle pieces to address all of these issues.
If most folks are being displaced because of the cost of housing, the fact that we don't have enough housing stock, not necessarily demolition, And I think that's an important finding for us to continue to note.
And I'm happy to talk with you more offline about this, Council Member Mosqueda, but that analysis grossly underestimates the number of demolitions that occur in this city.
and the numbers of people who are displaced because of those demolitions.
That analysis relied on the tenant relocation assistance and the households that are determined eligible.
That was their proxy for people displaced because of demolition.
The tenant relocation assistance ordinance, people who are between 50 and 80% of AMI do not qualify for it.
So those people who are displaced from the city were not counted.
Also, people who live in group houses and their income is pooled, they perhaps have a roommate situation, they also don't qualify.
So those people weren't counted.
Further, this ordinance does not rely on on what the cause for displacement is.
What it does is it says that because of our obligations under the Fair Housing Act, we have an obligation to act to stop displacement.
and to address it with our own regulatory measures regardless of what's causing it.
So whether or not it's an economic impact or an impact coming from demolitions, we have an obligation to try to correct those wrongs.
That's the foundation of the legislation.
I am happy to talk to the good Councilmember offline.
I think part of our analysis over the last year plus has been to try to figure out what is the root cause of displacement?
What is the root cause of unaffordability?
It is also imperative of us to make sure as we look at solutions we are helping to mitigate Cause of displacement.
So I agree with you to the degree that we are called to act I also just want to make sure that as we look at findings the EIS analysis is fully reflected and that was one big takeaway for me So happy to talk with you offline And again, I want to reiterate that my questions are really just to get to a better understanding of what it is that we're trying to add to our, what should we say, a recipe for how we're going to address all this because there is no one solution.
There's no one ingredient to address this.
So my questions are going to be focused on how this as an ingredient to the bigger picture that we're all trying to solve is going to help us address this issue, which is the first point you made.
And the majority of the findings are just recognizing that displacement is occurring.
Are there additional findings you'd like to cover, Mr. Freeman?
I think a recognition of this council's prior statements on our intent to address this issue, I think are important to recognize.
There were two prior actions of this council, both in the framework legislation in 2016, where the ordinance itself, the framework ordinance, stated that the council was going to consider whether to include higher performance and payment amounts for those areas where the increase in development capacity may increase displacement risk.
And then further in Resolution 31733, This was a resolution that the council passed after the draft EIS directing OPCD to go back and do additional work because of the deficiencies that we had identified in the draft EIS as relates to displacement.
And in that resolution, it said that the council indicated its intent to consider a range of strategies.
to increase affordable units sufficient to offset the affordable units at risk of demolition due to new development and strategies to address displacement resulting from changing socioeconomic conditions that may potentially displace vulnerable populations.
And then finally, you know, we've talked about this a little bit before, we have seen some of the work that OPCD has done about displacement risk bear some results that don't really I think it is important for us to comport with what is actually happening on the ground.
The number of units in the university district that are slated for demolition in just a year and a half in the nearly 100 units to be demolished in an area that OPCD had given a range of, on the low end, 60 units, and on the high end, 200 units.
And that was over a 20-year planning period.
And so we've already reached the midway point of the high end in just one year.
And then we also, of course, have the instance that is in the news today, or this week, with the Cadence property in the central area, where there are 21 units of affordable housing, housing that people have lived in for decades, that are going to be demolished and replaced with 73 units and only five of them affordable.
Relying on MHA as a displacement mitigation alone is not sufficient, and we really need to look at those areas where we already have naturally occurring affordable housing and make sure that this program, MHA, allows us to produce a net increase of affordable housing.
I think it would also, be useful to talk a little bit more about moving forward.
We've heard folks in the community say that they feel that we should discuss expanding the scope of the ordinance from only high risk of displacement, low access to opportunity areas, to actually include the high access to opportunity areas.
And Kito, I don't know if you're prepared to do so now, but if you have a little bit of background about how OPCD did that analysis, I think that might be helpful as well.
Sure.
I'll take that as a segue into talking about sort of where this bill would apply.
And I can talk sort of at a high level about the indices that inform the growth and equity report as part of Seattle 2035. but I'm not going to get it perfectly.
There are a lot of different variables that we use to identify displacement risk.
So, but returning to the bill here, so the bill would apply in five urban villages, so only within the boundaries of those urban villages.
So, if it's development that is subject to mitigation and within the boundaries of those urban villages as drafted, there'd be additional authority to STCI.
And those urban villages are within areas that are red up here on the map.
Red areas are areas that have high displacement risk, low access to opportunity.
Purple areas are areas that have high displacement risk, high access to opportunity.
Blue areas are areas that have low displacement risk, high access to opportunity.
And brown areas are areas that have low displacement risk, low access to opportunity.
So as drafted, the bill would apply to Rainier Beach, the Rainier Beach urban village.
the Othello urban village, the South Park urban village, the Westwood Highland Park urban village, and the Bitter Lake urban village.
And it appears as though the south end of the Columbia City and the north end of the Lake City urban villages are fit within that category, but they are not applied as part of the bill.
Do I understand that correctly?
Yeah, and a little bit about what this map does.
This is a map that is from the FEIS, and Burke took the displacement typology and applied it to census tracts.
And it is an ongoing sort of not problem necessarily, but it is a fact that our urban, our planning geographies don't necessarily correspond with census tract boundaries.
And so there are places where they don't neatly overlap or where there is some mismatch.
And I think so you, and this is I think reflected in some ways in the designation of high, medium, and low areas for the purposes of MHA implementation.
You'll notice, for example, that Crown Hill is in both a low-displacement-risk, high-access-to-opportunity, and low-displacement-risk, low-access-to-opportunity area.
That's a medium area for the purposes of MHA, so there are ways in which judgment calls have to be made about what would apply where.
But you're right, there are some places that may be indicated as having a high-displacement risk that are not included in this bill, such as Aurora, such as Alove or Lake City.
Is that just a kind of policy decision as far as what to include or not?
Or is there like an algorithm was applied to how many square footage was inside or outside the census tract versus the urban village?
I don't know.
I mean, there is the index that OPCD developed that informs that complaint.
That index was applied on a census tract level.
So I mean, it is the index.
I guess that is the algorithm that applies.
Thanks.
Councilmember Herbold, I think you asked me to talk a little bit about the growth and equity analysis, and there are a variety of variables that go into the displacement risk index.
Race is one of them.
Cost burden is another.
Percent of number of parcels that are redevelopable is another.
I'm not going to name all of them here because I probably won't get them off the top of my head, but they're about 20 or so.
Housing tenure is another.
So those are all variables that go into identification of an area as being either a high-risk area or a low-risk area.
And can you also talk a little bit about how, in practice, this mitigation program would work?
Sure, yeah, so it would be additional authority to SDCI.
So if there's a project that is subject to SEPA review, the land use planner at SDCI who is reviewing the project would determine whether or not there are any units that are affordable at rents above 80% of AMI.
And there's actually a portion of the bill that directs SDCI to begin collecting that information.
I don't think it's actually something that is currently collected, but this is a SEPA-based bill, and so presumably that collection would happen through the checklist that applicants would have to submit to SDCI as part of the CEPA review for their project.
And so if there is a project that meets the different thresholds for review under this, then the SDCI planner could require either additional replacement of units that are demolished at 80% of AMI or a higher MHA obligation.
It's the lesser of those two.
So it would be the one that is, I guess, least onerous to the developer in some ways.
And that decision, if it's combined with another type two decision, we're getting a little bit arcane here, but say a design review decision or something like that, would be an appealable decision to the hearing examiner.
So if STCI chose not to use this mitigation, that could be a subject of an appeal, or if STCI did choose to use this mitigation and a developer didn't think it was warranted, that could also be subject to an appeal.
I just I wanted to turn it over to Susie and Alex to go through the short presentation that they're giving on behalf of Julia Pescudo with Puget Sound Sage.
Well hold on for a second related to that you know I had a couple of questions associated with the legislation.
And.
That's what you were deferring to me.
I thought you were deferring me to move it on.
No.
I have a couple of questions related to this.
And I want to state that it is not my intention for us to actually have the presentation be given today.
We all have discretion to run the committees that we have ownership over in the way that we choose.
It has long been my practice that we don't have external presentations either for or against a particular bill or set of policies.
And so I don't, while I recognize that there is good work that has been happening in the community associated with this, I will say that it is not my intention to offend anyone.
However, no one approached me and asked for the ability to give this presentation.
And if they had, I would have very clearly said that it is not the practice of the committee to allow folks externally who either support or oppose an individual piece of legislation to get the opportunity to make a presentation.
That's been a long practice, whether we were talking about individual zoning changes in neighborhoods, whether that was about the design review program, short-term rentals.
We've had several complicated pieces of legislation where individuals external to the city have requested the opportunity to come and sit at the table and have a longer conversation and make a presentation facts and figures either for or against any of those pieces of legislation and we've long said that is not part of the policies of this committee.
Now I recognize that there are other committees that operate differently but that has long been sort of my process and protocol and I'm reluctant to change it at this point.
I just want to say for the record that when you told me this morning I did let you know yesterday afternoon of the fact that I was inviting this presentation and I did not hear back until after five o'clock that it was not okay.
When you told me this morning that Puget Sound SAGE could not have their representative be at the table, I did not realize that you also meant that the presentation could not be presented by our own staff, so.
Understood.
I apologize for the confusion.
So mr. Freeman just a couple of questions related to the underlying piece of legislation, so I Understand that the city used to have something similar Can you talk about the differences between this approach and a similar approach that we used to have on?
displacement mitigation issues Yeah, and I am NOT I don't have I think what you are referring to are the housing present is the housing preservation ordinance and I and I'm not too familiar with the what was exactly in that bill, but I think most folks are at least somewhat familiar with it.
But there was a time, I believe it was in the mid-1980s, perhaps early 1990s, where the city had a housing preservation ordinance bill, which required replacement of demolished units and had an in-lieu fee option if units were not replaced.
That ordinance was subject to a legal challenge and was determined to be unconstitutional.
And so it would be helpful for me as we move forward to understand the differences between this approach and that housing preservation ordinance approach so that we could understand how those differences may be met in order to preserve that we're not walking down the same pathway of legal fraud.
Sure.
And of course, I think Council members have gotten advice from the legal department on this and there's there's a point at which I will there's I'm gonna be very conservative here about describing differences because I think I don't want to sort of cross into a Territory of talking about things which could be attorney-client privileged and you all of course could could waive that privilege But I think you have to decide to do that and an executive session But the difference the primary difference here is that is that this is based on the State Environmental Policy Act authority that the city has as opposed to the authority that the HPO ordinance was based in.
Councilmember Herbold had brought up earlier data associated with estimates in the U District around MHA implementation.
Do we have hard data from either SDCI or OPCD on the development patterns post-MHA, either in the U District or in other neighborhoods where we've applied MHA?
Do you have a good sense about that?
My colleague, Ali Panucci, did the analysis for Councilmember Herbold, and I don't know exactly what she looked at.
I think she was looking, though, at permit data, so it is kind of, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by hard data.
I don't, it was, I think it was, I actually can't recall if it was building permit information or master use permit information.
Obviously, there's a little bit of a difference between the two.
If somebody has applied for a building permit, then it's pretty firm that they will build because those are expensive permits, a master use permits are sometimes speculative.
So somebody may not know whether they'll get financing for their project.
So I can't, I actually don't know if it was master use permit or building permit data.
I'm happy to share the material that you put together with you as well.
Could I just real quickly touch on the SEPA authority in state law?
Sure, of course.
And I just think it's important to identify sort of where this policy is derived from and the grounding for it.
RCW 43216.060 specifically says that actions may be conditioned to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the environmental documents prepared under This chapter mitigation measures must be reasonable and capable of being accomplished.
And then further, the WAC, specifically 19711444, specifically identifies housing as an element of the environment.
And so, you know, again, this ordinance relies both on SEPA authority as well as using the obligation to affirmatively promote fair housing as a defense for any other questions about the authority under the law.
I think it would be helpful to have a little better understanding both in the U district and in the other five neighborhoods that apply to MHA.
And further, I think it would be helpful to understand if we do collect that information based on you know, whether it's a building permit or a master use permit, about the demographics of the building itself, you know, do we have a sense about who lives in the units that are proposed to no longer exist, what rents they might pay, you know, Councilor Misketta's earlier point to understand exactly the problem that we're trying to solve here and who we're trying to solve it for would be helpful to have informed by data if it's available.
The other question for me is the layering question around MAJ. The applicability of this program and the interrelationship between the proposed program and MAJ is important to me.
Do we have any analysis about what kind of impact that this might have on either proposed projects within the neighborhoods that are being proposed?
And clearly there's an interest both from community and also I think from you, Council Member Herbold, around applying this to a broader range of geographies than what's assigned in the bill now.
So I'd be curious about what sort of analysis might have been done around the impact that this might have on the development of either new units, new MAJ units, or the both.
Yeah, so I looked at, the short answer to that question is that we haven't done any sort of economic analysis.
I did look at The 2016 Community Attributes Report, which looked at feasibility under MHA, and as proposed, currently most of the initial mitigation authority would apply in what are called, what are considered low areas for the purposes of MHA.
As you all know, one thing that the council has indicated to do through the MHA legislation is to revisit the boundaries of those high, medium, and low areas sometime this summer.
But at least using the current boundaries and CAI's analysis.
Most projects and low areas are determined by CAI to be infeasible, except for a few different project types.
So some townhouse development and low rise zones and cottage development and RSL zones.
had a positive residual land value, meaning that development is feasible on those sites, whereas most other developments, at least in 2016, using 2016 data, were not feasible.
So, at least at a facial level, using the somewhat dated information, Projects that are currently infeasible in those areas would continue to be infeasible even with this added obligation.
But there are some projects that would be feasible under 2016 rents and this could presumably have an impact on those projects.
Another, or financial impact on those projects.
Another outcome potentially we don't really know is how this might affect developer behavior.
Developers may just choose to develop sites that don't have so-called market rate affordable units on them.
And do we have a sense, particularly because we're giving people a choice here based on the analysis that you might have done based on the CIA data about the council's intention with MHA units to get about a 50-50 split between payment and performance, we're intending through this bill to have a similar approach about payment versus performance, are we trying to calibrate it so that we get a similar outcome of a 50-50 approach?
So that is future work that at least is currently calibrated.
Without this additional mitigation option, developers should be indifferent as between paying and performing.
In fact, there's a little bit least a theoretical disincentive to payment and that there's kind of a 10% premium that is added on to the fees under the way the fees are currently developed.
What we don't know is that there's an option here to perform at 80% of AMI.
That may be close to market rents in some of these areas.
We don't have that information.
We may have better information by the time we do the update to the boundaries this summer.
So without knowing that, it could be that this is a disincentive, this is a financial disincentive, or it could also be that it is not too burdensome to perform under the obligation.
And on that similar line, do we have anything in the bill that would I'll allow, like what SHA has done at Yes Loterra, sort of a right of first refusal for folks who are living on the property.
I know many in the audience who testified about this topic suggested that folks who are living in a building that is being replaced should be given the right of first refusal.
Is that included in the legislation?
Are we legally allowed to do that?
Right to return?
Right to return, yeah.
So, that's not part of the legislation.
It would be, it probably wouldn't be something that would find expression in the CEPA ordinance or in land use regulation.
And the mayor's executive order, which I was actually just reading.
Function of the replacement units, though, in essence, I mean, it doesn't link it to the person, but it does link it to an income, a rent range that that person was paying.
Yeah, assuming somebody performs or even pays and the replacement units are built in the area that originated the payment, then it may make it somewhat more likely that somebody could return to that area.
The community preference policy and the mayor's executive order might be a better tool at sort of allowing somebody who is displaced from an area to return to that area.
But that's sort of more in the nature of a policy as opposed to a regulation.
Well, thank you for mentioning that.
And I know that community preference policy is something that all of us, I believe, support.
It's something that the Office of Housing is currently working on.
And I just want to flag for folks, we are going to be taking up that community preference policy in the ANF plan discussions coming up this spring.
We want to make sure, in addition, as one additional ingredient into our cake that we're trying to mix here to create affordable housing for all, that those who are truly getting displaced from any new development Actually, those individuals are able to come back in the door.
So it is a little bit more tying one for one in terms of making sure that those individuals or that family unit is able to come back.
And so I think that's an important note for this conversation, that that is a critical tool and we're gonna be bringing that up this spring.
I also just feel like I maybe should step back a quick second and say, I really appreciate that we're having a conversation around mitigation displacement and the folks at Puget Sound SAGE and others have been really clear in reminding us there's many tools to address displacement and just looking at some of the materials they've created.
tenant protections, rent stabilization, preservation of affordable units and commercial space, building affordable housing and commercial space, community stewardship of land, community benefits agreement.
It feels like that is a nice beginning of a list that we all are interested in looking at and to me the question is really are we adding to the right balance of those tools?
I feel like we've spent a lot of time obviously with MHA talking about building more affordable housing units despite the legal predatory delays that we've had to go through and the delays on ADUs that we're currently facing.
We've now moved forward on our land disposition policy to make sure that the city is prioritizing using affordable land to build housing.
And this spring, we'll also be adding to that list, making sure those communities that work directly with communities that are at risk of displacement are first in line to get access to have site control and build affordable housing and commercial space or health clinics and childcare.
And then we've also talked a lot about community benefits agreement, making sure that the community is actually getting access to good living wage jobs as we create more tools.
So in my mind, this is an important conversation that we're having about whether or not we can add to the list of tools to help displace displace to mitigate displacement and I also think it's important for For the viewing audience to remember what we're trying to do is disrupt the market, right?
Because the private market the market as is has not developed enough housing.
They have not developed enough affordable housing.
They haven't prioritized our lowest wage workers, and making sure that folks are able to get back in the door.
So for me, this is really about making sure that we do have the right mix.
And to your point, I think you mentioned earlier, I think it was actually you, Council Member Hurrell, we also want there to be a net benefit.
And so the questions that Council Member Johnson asked about how this impacts MHA are gonna be really critical for me to have a better understanding of.
So circling back to some of those questions in your future research, I'm wondering, Ketel, if you could help us understand a few scenario examples.
How would this impact potential development if a MHA project was to not move forward because we were trying to, for example, I think it's important to understand that the budget was created to protect a 12-unit apartment building.
Let's say that apartment building that had 12 units was to be torn down in a 50-unit how would this have an impact on that?
Could we get a better sense of either the dollar impact or the unit impact?
That would be super helpful for me to hear.
And then also, just to better, you know, want to underscore more clearly for folks, I also agree with Council Member Herbold, MHA I don't think is a mitigation, displacement mitigation tool.
I think MHA is a building affordable housing tool.
And so as we think about adding additional policies, I also don't want to do anything unintentionally that would harm our ability to build those additional housing units that I think MHA was attempting to do.
So to me, having some scenarios about where and if there are MHA units that would not be built if we were to I'm not going to do the displacement in lieu of.
That would be helpful for me to figure out.
And then if that were the case, are there other tools that we're thinking about?
We talked about community preference.
One of the other things that we're doing this spring is sort of a tenant opportunity protection act.
Changing the existing policy so that tenants get first notice of that so that our also community developers can get notice of that so we can protect those units if the folks in that apartment building instead want to create a co-op.
So it's really exciting, but again, it's not, you know, each one of these items is not the answer.
I'm just trying to figure out a better picture of how all these pieces add up.
One additional question that I would love to understand a little bit better, Mr. Freeman, is, you know, we built the MHA program off of similar programs that have existed in peer jurisdictions around the Puget Sound, whether that was Redmond's, you know, zoning proposals that require a certain percentage of affordable housing payments or other similar propositions that other local jurisdictions in Washington state have implemented.
It'd be helpful to know if we're basing this requirement off of other jurisdictions, either at the local level or at the national level.
And if so, to have a better understanding about how those programs work and what impact that they've been shown to have on either the creation of new units of affordable housing, relationship around displacement and other intended consequences of the legislation.
I don't know if there's an answer that you have off the top of your head, but if not, I'd love to know what we might be basing this off of in terms of other jurisdictions.
Okay, I can come up with some comparative information.
Okay.
Yeah, please, Council Member Herbold.
Thank you.
I would be interested in whether or not it is possible to link the existing option in the bill that includes replacement housing to also include a right for a tenant who was displaced from that previous building to return to that replacement unit.
I don't know if that's something that could be done, but I think that's a great idea.
Also, I'm interested to know how In the implementation of this authority, how does the, how does SDCI determine which is less?
Because is there like a financial calculation that they would do?
The obligation to do replacement units at under 80% AMI, as you mentioned, may not be in some cases, depending on the market in a particular neighborhood, may not really be a costly requirement.
And I don't know how that is going to be weighed in each site-specific case.
So I think it would be easy to make a comparison sort of across the board about number of total unrestricted units, right?
So if a developer is required to perform at the higher MHA level in low-cost areas, that would be 9% of total units.
And so you could compare if it was, say, a 5% if it's an M1 zone and they replace those units, then it would be easy to do a percentage comparison in that building.
Some of those units, the 80% units, would be rented at a higher level than the 60% AMI MHA units.
But essentially, there's an incentive here for the developer to self-select the least costly option for them.
And some of it may depend on what type of a developer they are.
You know, if they are a portfolio developer and are comfortable holding on to 80% units for some long period of time, maybe because of the financing in their project or something else like that, then that might be a better option for them.
But there is the choice, essentially.
So it's not, it is not imposed on the developer by SDCI as a choice of the developer?
Essentially, yeah.
It's then, whichever is the lesser.
Which is similar to the way we approach payment and performance and imaging.
Except for the lesser piece, right?
Right.
It's just a choice option.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you so much, so so thank you for getting back to us on the feet the fee versus direct unit replacement options I like what councilmember herbal and asked about what options exist regarding Actually ensuring that the same tenants that were displaced have access to the creation of any new building Also, given where we're at right now, it doesn't seem like if a unit were to be preserved, or I'm sorry, if an apartment complex, for example, were to be preserved, that there's a guarantee that they would continue to be maintained at a certain affordability rate.
Is there any way for us, I know we have, rent Control limitations on us right now, but is there any tools?
Currently that would allow us to ensure that those rents could be maintained at an affordable amount either if a apartment complex were maintained or in the creation of a new unit
Not through this mechanism.
So this is a project specific mechanism.
So if somebody is, if this additional mitigation authority were applied to a project, it would be because a project is, would be demolishing and it's affordable at 80% of AMI.
I think that there are some, this is sort of harkens back to other affordable housing incentives that the council has discussed in the past, and which there are some limitations in state law, but there may be also some opportunities available to the council.
But the, in sort of the suite of incentives, at least those that have been identified, and I'm probably not gonna remember all of them, one is changing state law around the multifamily tax exemption program to allow preservation tax abatement for preservation of affordable units.
I think that would require a change to state law, so it's not something that's currently available to the council, but something that the city could advocate at the state level for.
Others might be looking at, again, at the multifamily tax exemption program to see if there are opportunities when there is development on a site that includes a building that has naturally affordable or naturally occurring affordable housing on it to somehow have a Incentive for preserving that I'm an exchange for some tax abatement or something like that Those are just kind of those are sort of blue sky ideas, but one would require a change of state law I want to Well when I just really appreciate the conversation that's happening here, and I appreciate the form for it councilmember her bold I know this is something that
that you've worked on for a number of years, and I think that it's tricky given state law, but it's critical to do more than we're doing today.
I look at the displacement that's happening in our community, and from my framework, I think it's largely driven by growing income inequality.
and a world where there's a chunk of people that are making more and more money every day and a chunk of people whose wages are stagnant or don't have access to opportunities.
And the housing market we're all competing for is the same housing market.
And the pressure that folks that are making a lot of money put on that market means that a lot of folks are left behind, and we're feeling that.
And the drivers for that income inequality are largely beyond the scope the policies and laws we set here at City Council.
And yet there's an obligation on us that we feel to make our community strong and undo some of these damaging impacts.
And so we often can't go to the root of that problem.
Instead, we have to work around the edges of the things we do control to try to undo some of the negative impacts we're seeing from these policies that are driving these problems in our community.
And that leaves us at things like this that are messy and complicated and You know, each individual property and each policy is going to play out differently.
And trying to understand what the unintended consequences are going to be is really complicated.
And we have to do the work.
So we're going to have to dig into that messiness and figure it out.
I wanted to say that as we continue to do this, I am going to be looking to organizations like Puget Sound SAGE and coalitions like SouthCore who are made up and run by and represent the people who are most impacted by these policies.
And I have a sense of how the economics work.
I have a sense of how our policies work.
But I am not directly impacted in the same way that lower income communities of color are impacted by this.
And the fact that we have organizations in our town and coalitions built to help us do this, I'm really grateful for.
And they understand the complexities and the trade-offs as well as I do.
But they get to see how these different solutions may impact them directly and may not.
And so their leadership is going to be really important for me. as we work through the, what I think is a shared objective, but complexities about what are the tradeoffs and how we think this plays out.
And so, I just, I thank the folks from Puget Sound SAGE.
I really appreciate the folks from South Core who have been thinking about this and frankly informed my thinking about displacement and gentrification over the number of years based on the great analytical reports they've done.
And look forward to opportunities to work with them as we continue to refine this going forward.
Anything to add?
Mr. Freeman, we've given you a lot of additional work to do.
Our next committee meeting is scheduled for March the 20th.
If that work is completed between now and the 20th, I'd love to have an update about what you've learned.
If that's not possible, then we'll look forward to having this back at a time when you've had a chance to do the analysis necessary in order to answer some of the questions that we've asked so far today.
Yeah, please.
Thank you so much.
Um, I'm sorry.
I'm just having a hard time started hearing you Just getting over being sick, but um, may I Follow up with some questions because you may have answered them and I may have just missed absolutely Yeah, one other thing that I think folks mentioned is the work that's going around around various other incentives especially MFTE and would love to hear more about some of the other MFTE options that we are potentially considering as well in this city
Yeah, so I think actually the MFT update will be coming to the council this year.
I'm not exactly sure when.
I think probably late spring, but I can check in with my colleague, Tracy, about that.
But yeah.
Okay, that concludes our meeting for today.
We'll see you back here on the morning of March 20th.
We're adjourned.