Good morning.
This is a special meeting of the Select Committee on Citywide Mandatory Housing Affordability, MHA.
The date is May 28, 2019, and the time is 10.30 a.m.
I'm Councilmember Gonzalez, the co-chair of the committee, and joining me this morning thus far is Councilmember Juarez and Council President Harrell.
Thank you so much for being here today.
We do expect that others will join us.
We're going to go ahead and start the meeting, so if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.
Really quickly, on a chair's report, today I wanted to let you all know that today Ali Panucci from Council Central Staff will brief the committee on Council Bill 119500, which is the second agenda item.
This piece of legislation is available to the public online and in hard copy.
Following the staff briefing, I will open up a public hearing on Council Bill 119500. Again, as a reminder, that's the second item on the agenda.
This will be an opportunity for the public to voice their input, ideas, and concerns with regard to the technical amendments being made to Council Bill 119500. And for any of those folks who are here to testify in that particular bill, that public hearing will occur after the ordinary public testimony at the top of today's agenda.
So following the public hearing, I will suspend the council rules to allow this committee to vote on Council Bill 119500 with a final recommendation to the full City Council and we are now joined by my co-chair Councilmember Pacheco and by Councilmember Mosqueda.
Thank you for being here.
Okay, so as I mentioned, we'll start the public hearing, excuse me, we'll start today's meeting with public comment on the items other than Council Bill 119500. As a reminder, again, a public hearing on Council Bill 119500, which is the second agenda item will be held following public comment period and following discussion of the first agenda item.
So we'll go ahead and look Sign and sheet.
Okay, so I have six folks signed up for public comment.
And again, if I call your name and you're actually here to provide us testimony on the second agenda item, if you could just let me know, then I can sort of put your testimony to the side when we open up the public hearing.
So just make sure you let me know if you're here for the second agenda item instead of the first.
Okay.
So again, we have six folks signed up when I call your name Please come to one of the microphones at the front of the room You will have up to two minutes to address the items that appear on the agenda before beginning your comments I'd ask that you remind us of your name I will call each speaker in the order that they signed in and once again We thank you so much for showing up today and providing us public comment also before we go ahead and start public comment Just want to recognize that we have now been joined by council member savant and council member herbal.
Thank you for being here this morning Okay, so the first person on the sign-up sheet is Ruby Holland.
My name is Ruby Holland.
Today I'm asking Seattle's LGBTQ community to denounce the racist and bigoted policies of one of your own, Mayor Jenny Durkan.
Even as the Trump administration wants to reverse LGBTQ anti-discrimination protections, Jenny Durkan is participating in housing discrimination against people of color in Seattle.
We feel that both policies are wrong and that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
And yet, it is common knowledge that the Durkin machine intends to force all people of color out of Seattle.
The signing of the overtly discriminatory MHA is confirmation of that fact.
The redlining map used against people of color in Seattle's past is strikingly similar to the MHA upzone map being used today.
It is shameful and absolutely appalling that racism in Seattle City Government is alive and well.
But times have changed.
During redlining, you had what we wanted, access to housing.
Today, we have what you want, housing.
The best way to mitigate displacement is to keep us in our homes.
And so we reject your vision of an all-white Seattle and your vision to encourage homeownership development on city-owned surplus property.
This is an insult, taking away our dignity and our right to live and own property in Seattle.
We also call out your community preference policy as the lie that's told year after year to those facing residential displacement, inviting them back into the community to accept the crumbs of whatever is left of housing.
Your executive order has many words but very little substance.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Holland.
The next person signed up for public comment is David Ward.
I wanted to say that I am strongly opposed to upzoning in the University District, the additional upzones.
It's been the poorest of all the neighborhoods in Seattle for a long time.
Heartland report in 2012 when it was working for the city, looked at developing the university district.
And in that report, a developer from the U district said that it would take an income of 80k a year to live in one of the high rise apartments in the U district.
That same report also said that 69% of the people living in the U district make under $50,000 a year.
So to live in an apartment there would require $30,000 more than 70% of the people in the U District make.
And also with what's happened so far with MHA, there has been more displacement of affordable housing than there has been housing that's going to be more affordable.
So if you take a 20 unit apartment building that's affordable because it's very old, which there's a lot of in the U District and there is in what you're trying to upzone.
If you take a 20 unit apartment and get rid of it, and you build a 40 unit apartment with three affordable units, that's not an increase of three units, that's a displacement of 17 units.
So please do not increase displacement in the U district and eliminate affordable housing under the pretense of providing more affordable housing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next person who has signed up is Rick McLaughlin.
And I'd also like to acknowledge that we've been joined by Council Member Bagshaw and Council Member O'Brien.
Thank you for being here this morning.
Good morning, Council.
I've been working for the U District Small Business Association for a long time now.
I've been the President for four years.
Back in February 2017, I worked with you guys and we did a study and there was a resolution that was approved that you guys said that you would work with us and work with us on the seven different key points in the resolution.
They have not been done yet.
The fact that you're bringing forward another upzone in the U District before even completing the resolution It's kind of sad.
Please work with us.
Don't just try to push up zones and then try to work with us afterwards.
Come to us, talk to us, and fully support, if it's about affordable housing, fully support Lisa Herbold's one-for-one replacement program.
Go after a historic avenue.
and go after, you know, every historic building that's there for, you know, keeping affordable units.
I don't understand why this keeps coming up, gets us a little fired up, but we want to work with you.
We want to make this happen.
I just don't understand why you would try to pass on their ups on the district when we are already going to grow so drastically.
I just don't see the need for it.
We're going to be paying into affordable housing more than any other neighborhood.
and I just don't see how it's justified.
So please contact us, please work with us and support Lisa Herbold's One for One program.
Thank you.
Okay, our next speaker is Corey Crocker followed by John Fox.
I think Corey's missing here.
Okay, why don't you go ahead John.
Thank you.
And if Corey comes back we'll
sounds good.
John Fox, Seattle Displacement Coalition.
In February of 2017, after an exhaustive three to four year process, the city approved massive changes in zoning that cover nearly two-thirds of the U District.
Areas containing over a thousand low-rise, low-income, and affordable apartments were rezoned for 40 to 320 foot towers.
No neighborhood was hit with such a significant change in increased density.
The plan assumed the district would add 3,900 to 5,000 units by 2035, but that plan zoned for a capacity of over 10,000 units, nearly double what we are expecting in growth and targeted for the neighborhood by 2035. And despite what developers were saying that the MHA requirement would discourage new construction, there are now 27 new projects moving forward under MHA rules that would add over 2,800 mostly expensive and market rate units in the neighborhood.
Eight of those projects result in the loss, the demolition of 110 units.
a number greater than the 88 MHA units required of these projects.
Taken in this light, and I know I echo the sentiments of the community, what in the heck are we doing, even considering still more upzones for our neighborhood, when our neighborhood already has been zoned and is facing uncontrolled and unmanaged growth?
And we have more than enough capacity to meet through 2035 our growth needs.
There are an existing 200 units of low-cost housing along the ave and another 500 existing low-cost units north of 52nd.
These are areas that now are planned for these new up zones.
And there are over 200 small businesses along the ave that are at risk of being displaced.
And I want to reiterate and I'll close by saying meet your obligations under the resolution committing first to addressing the needs of small businesses, preventing displacement and helping us preserve the historic buildings and the character of our community.
Let's move first in that regard.
Then we can return.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Steve Robstello is our last speaker signed up for today.
We don't have a shortage of housing, we have a shortage of affordable housing.
And MHA and all your actions are making it worse.
You're talking down right now, soon, up front, the affordable housing, and someday you will have housing for people who make a lot more money than the people who live there.
Maybe you should think about the people who currently live in Seattle.
The maddest that Rob Johnson ever got at me is when I pointed out that the central area used to be 80 percent black and now we're looking at possibly 20, 25 percent.
We'll see what the next census says.
And we can see rather easily how you've been pushing people out of the city.
And it's not because of their color they were pushed out.
They were pushed out because of economic reasons.
You're doing the same thing to the entire city.
It doesn't matter how long you lived here, you're very welcoming to new people.
But I can tell you to people of moderate income, whatever their color, you are not very helpful.
It's harder for people of moderate and less income to move than it is for rich people.
And you're doing a very good job of taking people on the upper end of the scale and doing very good.
The people who are on the absolute bottom, there are programs that have.
They don't take care of nearly enough and there's, wouldn't want to have discrimination at that level for people who have lived in the city all their lives because, you know, they may not be quite as needy as someone who just came here.
And so, therefore, there's a war on the middle class, the middle end, the tweeners, you know, not the bottom few percent, not the top of percent, but those in the middle.
And there's a lot of people, especially as we age out, as you would put it, who are not going to have rising incomes.
Thank you, Steve.
All right, that was the last person I have on this sign-up sheet.
Jodi, is there anybody else signed up?
Okay, thank you so much.
We'll go ahead and close out the period of public comment, and we'll go ahead and begin with the items of business on our agenda.
I would ask that the clerk read the first item into the record, and while she does so, I would invite those who are here to present on that item to please make their way up to the table.
Agenda item one, update on MHA implementation in portions of the university district.
Thank you, Jody.
All right, so we now have our presenters at the table here, and if you can please begin by introducing yourself for the record, I would appreciate that.
Ally Canucci, Council Central staff.
Jeff Wentland, Office of Planning and Community Development.
Well, thank you both for being here with us this morning.
I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Ali.
I think you're going to kick us off on this conversation, and then we will open it up for questions and further discussion once we make it through the presentation.
Thank you.
Good morning, Councilmembers.
In February of 2017, the Council adopted Ordinance 125267 that made zoning changes to increase height and floor area.
and implemented MHA, the Mandatory Housing Affordability Program, in portions of the university district.
At that time, council made a policy decision to delay zoning changes along University Way Northeast, also known or referred to as the Ave, with an expectation that the proposal would be revisited during discussions of the citywide MHA bill that was recently passed by this council.
During the discussions of the citywide bill, staff determined that some of the proposed changes in the U-District study area were potentially not adequately covered by the environmental work for that bill, and so that area, the U-District study area, was removed from the citywide proposal and included in a separate bill, which is Council Bill 119483. Action on that bill is awaiting completion of the additional environmental work that Jeff from the Office of Planning and Community Development will describe now.
Thank you.
Jeff.
Okay.
Thank you, Allie.
So the update is that the Office of Planning and Community Development is taking steps to complete the environmental review for potential MHA implementation in the U District.
We looked at past environmental documents, the EIS for the U District and the EIS for MHA citywide.
and had a conference with the law department and looked at what the appropriate SEPA process was for this action and determined that the appropriate process is a supplemental environmental impact statement.
And that process would supplement the U District EIS.
And it provides an opportunity for public comment at a couple stages of the SEIS process.
The steps are very similar to a full EIS.
So on Thursday of this week, OPCD will publish the notice and call for scoping.
And that will open a scoping period and members of the public are welcome to comment on the scope of the EIS, what should be included.
There will be a scoping meeting on June 12th here at City Hall in the evening.
And following scoping, the next step in the process is to complete the analysis and issue a draft supplemental environmental impact statement.
We would expect that to be completed in late summer, August, maybe early September timeframe.
The public also has a chance to comment on that draft.
And the city responds to all the comments that are received and follows that with a final environmental impact statement that would occur in the fall sometime around October.
And following completion of the final environmental impact statement, council can take action if it chooses to implement MHA in the U District at that time.
So this will primarily focus in on the lands that were removed from previous MHA implementation actions, but it will technically be a study area that is the same as the original 2015 U District EIS.
Thank you.
Any questions or comments, colleagues?
Council Member Herbold.
Thank you.
Less about the process for moving forward in the scoping, but more would love to hear from OPCD's perspective how the city has fulfilled the commitments in the resolution that accompanied the University District MHA legislation back in 2017 and whether or not you agree with folks that we heard from in public comment that there's still some work to be done.
I think we would agree there's still work to be done and we hope that we can do some of that work as a part of this process.
We know that the issues of potential commercial displacement are really important and I think we can study them to a certain extent as part of the EIS.
But we will also study them kind of in parallel because they're not all kind of within impacts to the built or natural environment.
Office of Economic Development has also done work with the community and we hope that that will continue in parallel with this process.
I think it's worth noting that the companion resolution that was adopted with the university district, just like the companion resolution that was adopted with the citywide MHA, represented additional work that the council was asking the executive to do and work with the community that was both part of and in addition to potential land use code changes.
So my recollection of that resolution and council's intent was not that all of that work essentially that you've solved all of the challenges any neighborhood is facing prior to following through with implementing MHA in this area.
The idea was, in delaying that decision at that time, was really focused on what are the right development standards to try to include incentives and opportunities to retain small locally owned businesses in new development, retain historic buildings, both that have already been designated or that are potentially eligible, And so the proposal in the U District that was implemented in some areas and would apply on the ABB includes opportunities for transfer of development rights for historic buildings.
It also looks at adopting requirements that new development includes smaller commercial spaces that are likely to be more affordable to smaller businesses.
Whereas right now, I think, along the ab in particular, redevelopment can occur and it can occur up to 65 feet without any of those requirements in place or incentives to sort of maintain those buildings.
So it is a little bit of a challenge in terms of getting all the pieces to come together at just the right moment.
But the land use proposal, to the extent that land use code regulations can address some of those concerns, does have some of those pieces built into it.
Thank you.
It looks like, I just pulled it up, it looks like section 5 of the resolution is speaking specifically to the AAV.
Perhaps we could get some additional information about what we have done and what we are working, continuing to work on as it relates to that section 5 actions A through G.
Sure.
Thanks.
I think that's a great suggestion.
Council Member Herbold was going to offer it myself, so I'm glad that you did it first.
I think getting a written response of a better sense of how the executive has complied with or been responsive to the sections in the resolution that are applicable to this particular body of work would be extremely helpful.
Council Member Juarez.
Thank you.
First of all, Jeff, thank you.
I had an opportunity to read your May memo, your May 24th memo, and on page 2, where you talk about the SEIS content, about the three alternatives.
One will be to consider zoning changes as proposed.
A second alternative to consider more intensive height.
Then the third is no action, no action alternative at all.
So let me ask you this.
One of the, your last sentence is what I was more intrigued by.
The SEIS will also add information from the UW Campus Master Plan which was not completed at the time of the 2015 U District Urban Design Alternatives EIS.
So my two questions are when did the plan come out and how do you foresee OPCD responding to that or how will that be helpful in our analysis going forward?
The way that that information will be used is the, there was an environmental impact statement on the UW's campus master plan, and so it has some good estimates for growth in that area, and growth in that area would affect what we're studying in the area of this proposal.
That information wasn't available when we did the U District EIS, and it also wasn't available for the MHA EIS, so it's a lot about just updating the background information to have good information on things like traffic, trip generation, demand for services.
for the growth that's anticipated and projected in that UW study area and incorporating that in this review.
So, it's sort of updating the background information.
Madam Chair, may I ask a follow-up?
Of course.
So, will you be working with the University of Washington and the folks that put together their campus master plan?
I hope so, yeah.
Oh, okay.
Yes.
Let's make that a yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right, any other questions or comments?
Council Member Pacheco.
Allie, is it safe that this process will result in a slower process for consideration of the full MHA implementation in the U District than we had previously anticipated when the council removed this area?
By doing this process?
So at the time that the council removed the area, it wasn't clear, we weren't certain which environmental review process would be required because that requires sort of analyzing what was studied previously and identifying the correct procedural path.
I think at the time there was an assumption that it was likely to be an addendum, which would be issued, could be issued, and doesn't have all of the steps involved in a supplemental, nor is there an opportunity for an administrative appeal.
So it will delay the time under which council can take action on the changes in the U District.
Follow-up?
Of course.
And can you remind us of how many units will be lost if MHA is not implemented in the U District?
That is an excellent question.
I don't have that number in my head, but I can follow up after the meeting with the analysis we did during the MHA discussions on what that number is, unless you happen to have it in front of you, if I did it previously.
But if not, I'll follow up to the full committee.
Thank you.
Okay, no other questions from my colleagues.
I don't see anybody else raising their hands or waving me down, so I'm going to assume that there are no other questions.
Oh, well, one last one.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you very much.
I apologize if you've already commented on this, but as we look at the memo and we see in the second to last paragraph here, It says that the final EIS could be issued approximately October 2019. What assurances do we have that this date will not slip?
I ideally would love for us to be able to have a concrete plan in hand by the, before the end of the year and late fall would be ideal.
So how, what assurances do we have that this date will not slip?
We'd love to be able to give you assurances but I don't think that, it would be possible to give a specific date.
There are uncertainties related to the amount of comments on the draft EIS, issues that, technical issues that might complicate analysis, and also whether or not there's appeal.
Those are things that, you know, are difficult to anticipate and probably outside of our control.
So, it would be hard to give a specific assurance.
There are also other priorities The office and the city has to fit this work in amongst, so it would be difficult for us to give a specific hard date.
Okay, Madam Chair, on the former, not knowing what external realities may present themselves, I understand that answer.
On the latter, if this is a matter of staffing or priorities or resources, I would expect this council to get a far heads up on what those restrictions are.
Because as Council Member Pacheco or Co-Chair Pacheco had just mentioned, every month that we delay this process is loss of housing and I would like for us to count these months in terms of lost units versus actual days if There is any indication that this somehow is going to be delayed due to lack of resources or staff Please give us a heads up and let us know I think if you can do the analysis and let us know far in advance of the budget that would be ideal because Given where we're at, the latter cannot be a factor in this situation for us after budget given that we have budget coming up and the opportunity to enhance resources there.
So please let us know as soon as possible if that's the reality.
Okay, I would just conclude by saying that maybe a little bit more forcefully than Council Member Mosqueda just articulated, but it would be my expectation that this issue be resolved in full by the end of this year and certainly before at the end of the year and before we go on recess for winter break.
So we will keep a close eye on the timelines and One of the things that I'd like to see is have this text turned into a little clearer of a timeline in terms of what actions we can expect by when, so that this council and the public has a better sense of when we can expect work product or when there might be decision points in the coming months.
And so I would ask that that document be pulled together so that we have a clear sense of exactly what those decision points and associated timeline is going to be.
With the assumption that the final EIS will be completed in approximately October of 2019, I would again signal that it's my expectation as one of the co-chairs of this committee that that actually that date be met and that there be an opportunity for this city council to consider a legislative process and or final package of legislation before the council recesses for winter break, which is sometime in December.
So that would be my expectation as one of the co-chairs here, and we'll stay close in contact with my colleagues to make sure that we continue to stay on track as it relates to this.
I really do feel that We have a sense of urgency and a sense of priority on this council to ensure that the full suite of MHA opportunities are dealt with before the end of the year.
Any other comments or questions?
All right, we will go ahead and close out this agenda item and we will move into the second agenda item.
So we'll go ahead and have the clerk read the second agenda item into the record.
Agenda item two, council bill 119500, an ordinance related to land use and zoning, amending ordinance 125791 to correct map errors contained in map A for 23.58B.050, section 94, and map A for 23.58C.050, section 97, and attachment one to ordinance 125791.
Thank you, Jodi.
Okay, Ali, take it away.
Thank you.
Council Bill 119500 would correct mapping errors that staff identified after adoption of Ordinance 125791, the legislation that implemented the MHA program citywide by amending the land use code and amending the official land use map to make zoning changes across the city.
These technical corrections are necessary to correctly reflect the policy decisions the council made previously and does not reflect any changes in that previous policy direction.
Specifically, the bill amends map A for sections 2358B.050 and 2358C.050.
that those maps identify the MHA payment level of high, medium, or low that is used to determine fees that a project is required to pay or the number of rent and income-restricted housing units that a project is required to include.
When Ordinance 125791 was adopted, staff inadvertently incorporated the incorrect versions of those maps that identified the North Beacon Hill residential urban village as a high area.
That area has...
Medium there were no council amendments or direction to make changes to that map and so this corrects that and in addition map a for 2358 C05 a was not updated to reflect the amended urban village boundaries that were Adopted by this council.
So these really are just essentially typographical errors and In addition, the bill amends Maps 8, 32, 33, and 37 that were included in Attachment 1 to Ordinance 125-791.
Again, these are typographical errors on the labels to those maps.
In some cases, the incorrect existing zoning designation was listed or the wrong high, medium, or low MHA suffix.
So this is just correcting those errors.
So this is an opportunity for staff to have their errors discussed publicly.
Well, sorry to put you through the paces, Allie, but thank you so much for being gracious and highlighting those errors and giving us an opportunity to correct them.
Are there any questions or concerns about the amendments to Council Bill 119500 before I open this up for public comment?
Okay, hearing none, we will, as required by law, open up the period of a public hearing on Council Bill 119500. We have one person signed up for public comment on Council Bill 119500. Once again, when your name is called, please come to either of the two podiums.
to one of the microphones, and you will have two minutes to address this specific item.
And as usual, before you begin your comments, I'd ask that you state your name.
So the one individual who has signed up for public comment is Steve Rubstello.
Only in Fantasyland do you talk about how this is improving.
Now, the map changes that you have up our up zones there Now to you they're minor things to the people who live in those areas.
I said that it's probably not minor what we should be taking a look at is The full impact of what's happening.
We're having a city where if you believe what you're saying is that we should have more and more and more affordable housing and I can tell you out in the city we're seeing less and less and less affordable housing and these map changes will affect probably a relatively small amount of people but they will affect what's happening all over the city.
You probably keep saying that you're opposed to homelessness and maybe only 10% of the people that are displaced will be homeless.
And if that's an acceptable number, that's fine for you.
But I think we need to take a look at how many legacy and heritage trees we're losing.
Look at the cost.
And you never want to talk about how many times the population of the city of Seattle were already zoned for.
Primarily what I see here is a movement to make construction and development very, very profitable for the most large.
The smaller developers don't seem to be on board as much as the larger developers are.
And we continue not to count the displacement.
We count, as was pointed out earlier, you have 20 unit apartment houses affordable.
You replace with three subsidized units somewhere at some time and you call it an improvement.
Okay, that was the one and only person signed up for the public hearing, so I will go ahead and close out the public hearing on Council Bill 119500, and we will go ahead and move through the rest of the business on the agenda.
In order for this committee to vote on a final recommendation to the full council, we first need to suspend the council rule relating to voting on legislation on the same day a public hearing is held.
So with that, if there is no objection, the council rule relating to final committee recommendations on legislation on the same day A public hearing is held, is suspended.
Okay, hearing no objection, the council rule is suspended and we will now proceed with a vote on the underlying bill.
I move that the committee recommend passage of council bill 119500. Okay, the bill has been moved and there has been a second.
Are there any comments?
Seeing no comments, all those in favor of the recommendation that the committee pass Council Bill 119500, vote aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Any abstentions?
The motion carries, and Council Bill 119500 will be forwarded to the June 3rd City Council meeting for full council action.
That is the last item on our agenda, and with that, we are adjourned.
Thank you, Ali.