>>> GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU
EVERYONE FOR JOINING US FOR THE
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MARCH 6,
2019 MEETING FOR THE LAND USE
AND ZONING COMMITTEE.
IS 9:30 IN THE MORNING.
SOON TO BE JOINED BY MY
COLLEAGUES O'BRIEN AND HERBOLD.
WE HAVE AN ITEM ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
IT'S A BRIEF DISCUSSION ON
COUNSEL BILL 119469.
IT WILL BE TO ESTABLISH
DEBARMENT POLICIES TO MITIGATE
THE IMPACT OF THE NEW
RESIDENTIAL THE DEVELOPMENT ON
DISPLACEMENT OF LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS IN THE AREA WITH A
HIGH RISK OF DISBURSEMENT.
WE WILL START WITH COMMENT AND
YOU WILL BE GIVEN TWO MINUTES
AND THEN WE WILL START WITH
DISCUSSION ON HER OWN.
THE FIRST PERSON IS ALEX
ZIMMERMAN FOLLOWED BY JOHN
LUMBAR AND THEN DENNIS SAXON.
>> HELLO.
MY BEST AND LIVELY COUNSEL.
MISTER JOHNSON, MY NAME IS ALEX
ZIMMERMAN AND I TOTALLY
DISAGREE WITH THIS. I CAN
EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY.
IT'S TOO EARLY TO MAKE THIS
ECISION.
A COUPLE OF POINTS I WANT TO
DELIVER IT TO YOU.
NUMBER ONE, NEXT YEAR WILL BE
TOTALLY DIFFERENT WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF THE COUNCIL.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW.
THE DECISION RIGHT NOW, IT MAY
NOT EVEN EXIST IN A COUPLE OF
MONTHS FROM NOW.
THAT IS NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, ALL-AMERICA DENIES
THE NEWSPAPER FROM EAST COAST
TO WEST COAST, THERE IS
OFFICIALLY NO NEWSPAPER.
THIS IS ANOTHER REASON WHY I
THINK THE DECISION WILL BE NOT
SO GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE.
NUMBER THREE, WHAT IS
ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE, VIEW COUNSEL
HAVE THE CONSTITUTION AND OPEN
PUBLIC MEETING LIKE GONZALES
WHO HAS THIS FIVE TIMES.
FIVE TIMES.
THIS IS THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETING
AND SHE POSTED WE MOVE OUT. SHE
DID THIS AND IT IS A VERY BIG
DIFFERENCE.
RIGHT NOW I SPEAK TO ANYONE
THAT WILL LISTEN TO ME.
MRS. NUMBER ONE FOR THE CITY.
AND THE SITUATION, I THINK YOU
SHOULD STAND UP. THANK YOU.
>> JOHN LUMBAR, YOU WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY DENNIS SAXON.
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I AM JOHN LUMBAR.
I AM FROM DISTRICT 5 AND I'M
HERE TO SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD'S ORDINANCE AND IN
FACT, I BELIEVE IT DOES NOT GO
FAR ENOUGH.
WHY NOT APPLY ALL URBAN
VILLAGES AT HIGH RISK BASEMENT
INCLUDING LAKE CITY AND
NORTHGATE IN DISTRICT 5. IF THE
LEGAL PRINCIPLE IS SOUND, WHY
NOT APPLY ACROSS THE CITY?
THE UNSUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS ENORMOUSLY VALUABLE
RESOURCES IN THIS TIME.
WITH THE ONE-FOR-ONE
REPLACEMENT RATIO, WHEN I HAVE
A SIZABLE PAYMENT WHEN HE
DESTROYS THIS RESOURCE?
IT CAN BE ON A SLIDING SCALE TO
PREVENT 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 MARKET
RATE UNITS.
IF THE LEGAL BASIS IS THEREFORE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD'S
ORDINANCE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT IT IS, I BELIEVE THE CITY
HAS AN OBLIGATION TO COUNTER
THIS THAT IS MANIFESTLY AGAINST
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
PLEASE DO ALL THAT YOU CAN TO
THIS INCENTIVIZE THE
DESTRUCTION OF A VERY PRECIOUS
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THIS IS CRUCIAL FOR MHA TO BE
THE POSITIVE FORCE FOR GOOD BUT
THE COUNSEL SEEMS TO BELIEVE
THAT IT IS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
DENNIS?
HE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY ADECEF
AND THEN JOHN FOX.
>> MY NAME IS DENNIS SAXON.
I LIVE ON AFFORDABLE COUNSEL
CAPITOL HILL.
I AM SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS
BELOW THE LOW INCOME LEVEL.
I SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION BUT
I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO FARTHER.
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY
NEED HOUSING ARE AT 50% AND
BELOW OF INCOME AND NOT 80% OF
AREA MEANING INCOME. IS $2720
AND THAT IS $609,000 A MONTH.
TRULY OF THOSE PEOPLE NEED
ASSISTANCE, PEOPLE FAR BELOW
THAT EVEN MORE.
I REGRET THE CUBS MEMBER,
MISTER JOHNSON DOES NOT FEEL
LIKE COMMENTS ARE SIGNIFICANT
ENOUGH TO LISTEN TO THEM.
I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE BOARD
ROLLING AND THAT 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 AND SYSTEMS AND
OTHER ANTI-DISPLACEMENT IN LAW.
I AM WONDERING WHAT DOES THAT
REALLY MEAN?
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO GET THIS ENTIRE
ORDINANCE.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN COMING
HERE FOR YEARS AND I HAVE HEARD
THIS.
I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXACT
REFERENCE, IT IS 25.
675.ONE OR I. 1B3 PROVIDED IN
SECTION 675 --
>> THANK YOU .
>> CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO
THE HOUSING ORDINATION AND
CONVERSION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT CONCERNS ME.
>> YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
JOHN FOX AND DAVID BLOOM.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS ADECEF.
I'M AN ORGANIZER ARE NOT
ORGANIZED THE COALITION OF THE
20 COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
THAT HAVE COME TOGETHER TO BE
UNIFIED FOR COMMUNITY CONTROL.
WE HAVE HERBOLD'S PROPOSAL
WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT TO
DEMOLISH HOUSING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WITH 80% OF AMI AND
BELOW AND TO REPLACE THE UNITS
DEMOLISHED IN ADDITION TO COMPLY
WITH REQUIREMENTS.
WE THINK THIS POLICY COULD BE
EXPANDED BY INCREASING THE
AFFORDABILITY OF THE NEW UNITS
TO MATCH THE REQUIREMENTS AT
60%.
AND TO EXPAND TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WITH HIGH
DISPLACEMENT RISK AND HIGH
ACCESS OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE
HAVE THE MASS-MARKET AFFORDABLE
UNITS.
WE HAVE SEEN THE IMPACT OF
DISPLACEMENT FIRSTHAND WITH THE
ARRIVAL OF THE LIVELIHOOD AND
INCREASING TO LIVE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO LOW
INCOME PEOPLE AND PEOPLE OF
COLOR.
WE HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE FAMILIES
TURNED DOWN AND INCREASING
RATES ACROSS THE BOARD.
LANDLORDS ARE ATTRACTING HIGH
INCOME TENANTS.
WE BELIEVE THIS POLICY BY
EXPANDING TO THE HIGH
DISPLACEMENT AND HIGH ACCESS
OPPORTUNITY WITH AFFORDABLE
UNITS FROM BEING DISPLACED.
THANK YOU.
>> JOHN FOX FOLLOWED BY DAVID
BLOOM AND THEN STEVENSVILLE
AND.
>> FOR 2016 TO 2018, THE CITY
OF SEATTLE EXPERIENCED A RECORD
NUMBER OF DEMOLITIONS OF
EXISTING HOUSING OVER 200 --
EXCUSE ME, 2600 90 UNITS WERE
LOST TO DEMOLITION.
WE HAVE SURVEYED TENANTS AND
RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THOSE
BUILDINGS AND MORE THAN 70% OF
THOSE THAT LIVED IN THOSE UNITS
WERE PEOPLE WITH INCOMES BELOW
50% OF MEDIAN.
THAT MEANS OVER 1800 AND 80
UNITS WERE DESTROYED SERVING
THOSE MOST IN NEED 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 2500
AND 60 UNITS BUT ONLY 1434
THOSE SERVES THOSE THAT ARE
BELOW THE 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 FROM REMOVAL OF
ANOTHER 910 UNITS OF THE
HOUSING STOCK.
WE COULD ALSO ADD OVER THOUSAND
UNITS OF EXISTING LOW INCOME
HOUSING IN THOSE AREAS THAT
HAVE BEEN UP SOUND AND RECENTLY
IN THE LAST TWO TO THREE YEARS
HAVE BEEN LOST WITH THE BUYING
AND SELLING OF PROPERTIES
DRIVING RENTS UP.
YOU CAN'T SAY IT WOULD NOT HAVE
HAPPENED WITHOUT THE UP SOUND.
THE DISTRICT WAS UP SOUND AND
THE DEMOLITION BUT THE AD THAT
DOES NOT INCLUDE, THERE HAS
BEEN NO DEMOLITION OF THE 200
UNITS.
SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD'S
PROPOSAL . IT MUST BE
STRENGTHENED TO REQUIRE ONE AND
IT SHOULD APPLY TO ALL
NEIGHBORHOODS AND REPLACEMENT
UNIT SHOULD BE AT 50%.
PLEASE, STRENGTHEN THIS LAW.
THANK YOU LISA HERBOLD FOR
MOVING THIS CRITICAL PIECE OF
LEGISLATION FORWARD.
>> MISTER BLOOM YOU WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY STEVE RIBSTELLO AND
THEN DAVE BARKER.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS DAVID BLOOM.
I AM A PART OF THE DISPLACEMENT
COALITION AND I WANT TO ECHO
THE REMARKS OF PREVIOUS
SPEAKERS WITH COUNCILMEMBER
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 WITH
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
COUNSEL INTENDS TO CONSIDER
WHETHER TO INCLUDE HIGHER
PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT AMOUNTS
SUBJECT TO STATUTORY LIMITS FOR
THOSE AREAS WHERE THE INCREASE
AND DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE LIKELY
TO INCREASE DISPLACEMENT RISKS.
THE COUNSEL INTENDS TO CONSIDER
A RANGE OF STRATEGIES TO
INCREASE AFFORDABLE UNITS
SUFFICIENT TO SET THE INFORMAL
UNITS I RISK OF DEMOLITION TO
NEW DEVELOPMENT.
IF THAT IS THE CASE, IF THE
COUNSEL IS SERIOUS ABOUT THIS,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD'S
AMENDMENT NOT IS ONLY TO BE
PASSED BUT TO BE STRENGTHENED.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ONLY TO
LIMIT A DEVELOPERS
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 HAVE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE
OTHERS ACRES THIS MORNING, WE
CONTINU TO LOSE MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THEN 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.
>> THANKYOU.
>> 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 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 ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
FACT THAT THERE IS NOT
HOMELESSNESS OR HAS BEEN FOR A
LONG TIME.
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 MIGHT ADD OF THE
FULL COUNSEL.
SO, LET'S GO THE OTHER WAY
AROUND AND THAT TAKE A LOOK AT
THE WHOLE CITY.
WHEN YOU UPSELL WITH THE BEST
USE, YOU RAISE THE TAXES AND
MAKE MANY OF THE PROPERTIES
WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE NO LONGER
ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND THAT IS
WHY WE KEEP LOSING AFFORDABLE
UNITS.
NOW, ARE YOU GOING TO DO
ANYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE THAT
ARE DISPLACED? IT'S NOT JUST
PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO ARE
DISPLACED.
IT'S JUST NOT AN ESSENTIAL AREA
. IT'S JUST NOT IN THE SOUTH
END.
I SEE IT IN THE NORTH END AND I
SEE IT ALL TO THE CITY.
BUT, WHEN YOU REPLACE A WHITE
PERSON WITH ANOTHER WHITE
PERSON, IT IS MUCH HARDER TO
PROVE.
IT'S SO VISUAL IN PART OF THE
CITY THAT IT IS HAPPENING
EVERYWHERE.
IT'S SO VISUAL AND YET YOU
IGNORE IT.
YOU ACT LIKE THIS PACKAGE TO
THE DEVELOPERS AND THIS SEEMS
TO BE TO RAISE THE PROFITS AND
THIS COULD BE DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND YOU
CONTINUE TO GIVE THEM MORE AND
MAKE THE CITY LESS AND LESS HOME
FOR A DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE.
>> DEB BARKER.
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY BILL
BRADFORD.
>> I REALLY DON'T WANT THIS
SIGNED BEHIND.
>> THAT'S OKAY.
WE RESTART HER TIME, PLEASE?
>> THANKS.
I SUPPORT IS A MEMBER HERBOLD'S
DISPLACEMENT MEASURE.
IT IS A VITAL STEP TO HAVING
REALISTICALLY SHARE IN THE COST
OF REPLACING THE LOW COST
HOUSING THAT THEY REMOVE
WITHOUT THIS MEASURE, YOU ARE
DOOMING MANY, MANY, MANY LOW-
COST UNITS THAT COULD BE IN HIS
WORK BUILDINGS THAT HAVE MANY
SMALL BUSINESSES. YOU ARE
DOOMING THEM TO THE WRECKING
BALL.
I URGE THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE
THE GUTS TO STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-
DISPLACEMENT MEASURE BY
INCREASING THE DEVELOPERS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
AND EXPANDING THIS MEASURE
CITYWIDE.
MY URBAN VILLAGE JUNCTION HAS
MORE THAN A DOZEN EXISTING LOW
COST HOUSING COMPLEXES THAT CAN
NEVER BE REPLICATED.
THE HIGH RISK AREAS OF SOUTH
PARK, BRING BREECH AND WAS WHEN
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. PARK . BILL
BRADFORD, YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY DAVID WARD AND THE NATALIE
WILLIAMS.
>> HI.
I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF TODAY
OF THE CENTRAL AREA LAND-USE
REVIEW COMMITTEE AND I WILL
SKIP THE BOILER PLATE.
IT'S A LETTER TO SUBMIT WITH
WHAT WE DO.
THERE HAVE BEEN HIGH RATES OF
DISPLACEMENT.
THIS HAS EXPERIENCED FAR BEYOND
IN PRIOR YEARS IN THE CITY
PLANNING DOCUMENTS.
WE EXPECT THIS PATTERN AND
GROWTH TO CONTINU AND
THEREFORE WE NEED TO SEE THE
CITY IMPLEMENT STRONGER POLICIES
TO HAVE THE ONGOING
DISPLACEMENT IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS STOPPED.
WE ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT THE
INTENT OF COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD'S INFLATION, 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 THE
COMMUNITIES NEED TO BE INCLUDED
. IT'S A HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREA
THAT IS IN THE GREATEST AMOUNT
OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE
CORRELATED DISPLACEMENT THAT
COMES WITH THAT.
THE 23rd AREA AVENUE URBAN
VILLAGES ARE AMONG THOSE
IDENTIFIED AS HIGH RISK THIS
PLACEMENT AND HIGH ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY.
AS SUCH, THERE'S A STRONG
DEMAND FOR HOUSING AND RENT IS
HIGHER THAN AVERAGE.
YET, MHA FOR THE EIS 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 THE
LEGISLATION.
SECOND, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE
STRONGER REPLACEMENT POLICIES.
SAN FRANCISCO HAS A REPLACEMENT
POLICY AS TO MANY OTHER MAJOR
AMERICAN CITIES.
NOTABLY, WE SEE THE CADENCE
APARTMENT THAT ARE BEING
REPLACED 21 SECTION 8 WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS THAT
ARE BEING REPLACED WAS 73 MICRO
UNITS.
THAT IS NOT HELPING OUR STOCK
IN THE CENTRAL AREA.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE-FOR-
ONE ON-SITE REPLACEMENT OF LOSS
UNITS IN ADDITION TO THE MHA
CONTRIBUTION.
THIRD, THIS IS GENERALLY TOO
HIGH FOR THE AREA.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE
DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION POLICY
APPLY TO PROJECTS WITH AS FEW
AS 20 UNITS.
FINALLY, WE BELIEVE THAT MORE
FINE-GRAINED ANALYSIS NEEDS TO
BE MADE IN THE UNDERLYING
EQUITY UNDER MHA.
THAT ANALYSIS WHICH IS THE
BASIS OF ALL OF THIS IS
CLEARLY STATING ITS OWN
LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF ITS
ACCURACY OF WHAT IT IS SAYING
AND SO ON.
>> THANK YOU.
YOUR TIME IS UP .
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST FIND IT IRONIC THAT NO
ONE HERE --
>> THANK YOU . YOUR TIME IS UP.
DAVID WARD FOLLOWED BY NATALIE
WILLIAMS.
>> IS EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS
SPOKEN HERE TODAY, THEY HAVE
SAID THEY SUPPORT COUNTS MEMBER
HERBOLD'S AMENDMENT AND WOULD
LIKE TO STRENGTHEN IT
THROUGHOUT THE CITY?
AS THE DISPLACEMENT SAID, WE
ARE LOSING MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND WE ARE GAINING
WHICH IS WHY IT IS ESSENTIAL TO
HAVE ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT.
WE NEED MUCH STRONGER ONE-FOR-
ONE REPLACEMENT POLICIES SO
THAT IT IS CITYWIDE AND SO THAT
EVERYONE WHO IS BEEN DISPLACED
AND LOW INCOME PEOPLE OF COLOR
ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THEIR
HOUSING.
IN THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS STATEMENT SHOWED THAT
60% OF THE REDEVELOPING
PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SOUTH END
WHICH HAS THE HIGHEST
PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE OF COLOR.
85% OF THE LARGEST PROPERTIES
ARE ALSO IN THE SOUTH AND THOSE
ARE THE PROPER USE THAT
DEVELOPERS WILL MOST LIKELY
DEVELOP BECAUSE IT HAS THE
LARGEST PART READY AND MOST
POTENTIAL FOR PROFIT.
AGAIN, MOST IMPACTING IN TERMS
OF DISPLACEMENT.
SOUTHEAST SEATTLE ALSO HAD THE
HIGHEST PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN
PERCENTAGE IN RENTS DURING THAT
TIME WHICH IS ALSO IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND ALSO THE HIGHEST VACANCY
RATE SO PEOPLE ARE ALREADY
BEING REMOVED FROM THE SOUTH END
WITH THE HIGHEST VACANCY RATE
OF ANY PLACE OUTSIDE OF
DOWNTOWN AND SOUTH LAKE UNION
WHICH HAD THE HIGHEST RENT
INCREASE BECAUSE THEY HAD THE
MOST NEW BUILDINGS WHICH
CREATED THE HIGHEST RENT.
AGAIN, I WOULD SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD'S
AMENDMENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO
SEE IT STRENGTH AND AND I HOPE
THE COUNCIL PASSES COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD'S AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
NATALIE WILLIAMS.
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JULIA
BISHOP.
>> HI, I'M NATALIE WILLIAMS AND
I SUPPORT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD SUPPLEMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I
WISH YOU WENT FARTHER AND
SPEAKING AS A RESIDENT OF
SEATTLE BUT DOES NOT LIVE IN AN
ARM VILLAGE BUT IS HIGHLY
IMPACTED BY WHAT HAPPENS IN THE
URBAN VILLAGES THAT I LIVE
BETWEEN, I HAVE WATCHED A LOT
OF DISPLACEMENT HAPPENED OVER
THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND A
LOT OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BETWEEN ALASKA AND OREGON
JUNCTION HAS BEEN MOWED DOWN
AND REPLACED BY HIGH-RISE
CONDOS.
THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LEFT MY
AREA INCLUDE MY FAVORITE
BARISTA AND BAKERY ASSISTANT AT
LITTLE PRAGUE AND THE CHILD
CARE WORKERS.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT
MAKE ENOUGH TO RENT IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT
REMEDIED.
SO, THANK YOU AGAIN AND IF YOU
CAN MAKE IT STRONGER, THAT
WOULD BE BETTER.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU , MS. WILLIAMS.
MS. BISHOP.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I WILL BE SHORT AND SWEET .
IT'S VERY CLEAR FROM HERVC'S
TESTIMONY TODAY AND THE
EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE HAD
ORGANIZING WITH COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE VALLEY AS
SOUNDSTAGE THAT DISPLACEMENT IS
HAPPENING AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE
FULL TUESDAY TO ADDRESS
DISPLACEMENT.
WE ARE WORKING 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, COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD'S PROPOSAL GETS
THE GOALS OF BOTH PREVENTING
DISPLACEMENT AND FULLY
REPLACING UNITS LOST TO DIRECT
DISPLACEMENT.
AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID EARLIER
TODAY, WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE
THIS STRENGTHENED TO APPLY
ACROSS ALL HIGH DISPLACEMENT
RISK AREAS BECAUSE WE THINK
FOLKS LOW OPPORTUNITY AND HIGH
OPPORTUNITY NEIGHBORHOODS COULD
BENEFIT FROM SOMETHING LIKE
THIS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT INCLUDES THE FOLKS THAT
SIGNED UP TO GET PUBLIC
TESTIMONY SO WE WILL CLOSE
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TODAY.
WE HAVE ONE ITEM OF BUSINESS.
WHILE YOU READ THE ABBREVIATED
TITLE INTO THE RECORD, PLEASE?
>> AND ANNETTE ITEM 1194691
AMENDING THE SIENA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ESTABLISH
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES TO
MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF NEW
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON
DISPLACEMENT AND LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS IN AREAS WITH A HIGH
RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
>> HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND
BEFORE WE DO INTRODUCTIONS.
THERE IS SOMEONE WAITING FROM
THE CROWD.
DID YOU WANT TO GIVE PUBLIC,
PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE
YOUR NAME TO THE RECORD AND WE
WILL ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST.
>> I MOVED TO SEATTLE IN 1952
FROM NEW YORK AT THE AGE OF
TWO.
I LIVED HERE MOST OF THAT TIME
CENTS.
I AM 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 THEY GET TO
HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE.
ALSO, FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL, 65
TO 68 WAS WONDERFULLY
INTEGRATED.
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 HAS HAPPENED.
I GET MY HEALTHCARE AND I WAS
WALKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND
TERRENCE IS THERE.
THERE EVIDENTLY IN THE PROCESS
OF BEING TORN DOWN AND WHAT IS
REPLACING IT?
HIGH-RISES APARTMENTS WITH
APARTMENTS THAT ARE IN THE 1700
TO 2500 A MONTH RANGE.
RIDICULOUS PRICES WHICH NOBODY
CAN AFFORD UNLESS THEY WORK FOR
AMAZON OR HIGH UP IN BOEING.
YOU KNOW THE STORY.
THIS IS NOT OKAY.
THIS IS NOT MY TOWN ANYMORE.
I REALLY WANT TO FIGHT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE LET THIS BE A TOWN
WHERE EVERYBODY CAN LIVE AND
NOT JUST THE UPPER-CLASS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE
CENTRAL STAFF MEMO.
WITH THIS BILL, KETIL FREEMAN,
PLEASE START THE INTRODUCTIONS.
>> SURE . KETIL FREEMAN .
>> TODAY WE WILL BE DOING
DISCUSSION ON THIS BILL.
MISTER FREEMAN, YOU HAVE
PRESENTED TO COUNSEL CENTRAL
STAFF MEMO WITH THIS AND IF YOU
WOULDN'T MIND, WHY DON'T YOU
WALK US THROUGH THE MEMO AND
THE CONTENTS OF THE BILL.
>> SURE.
THE COMMITTEE WILL HAVE AN
INITIAL BRIEFING AS COUNSELOR
JOHNSON MENTIONED FOR BILL
NUMBER 1194691 AS BROUGHT BY
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
THIS IS WITH THE POLICY ACT TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION TO MITIGATE
DISPLACEMENT OF LOWER INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS DUE TO DEMOLITION
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
I WILL DESCRIBE WHAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE AND TALK
ABOUT TWO KEY ASPECTS OF THE
BILL WHICH ARE THE MITIGATION
AREAS AND OPTIONS.
THEN, THERE ARE SOME NEXT STEPS
THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD MAY
HAVE IN MIND THAT COULD BE
DISCUSSED BRIEFLY.
>> CAN YOU INCLUDE IN YOUR
OVERVIEW A REVIEW OF THE
FINDINGS IN THE BILL?
I THINK THEY SERVE AS A REALLY
IMPORTANT FOUNDATION FOR WHY
THIS IS NECESSARY.
>> SURE.
I WILL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW
THIS BILL WOULD APPLY AND THEN
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE FINDINGS.
THE FINDINGS ARE TO INFORM THE
MITIGATION AREA.
SO, THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE
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 POLICY
ACT AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
LEVELS IN THE AREAS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATED ARE
RELATIVELY LOW FROM THE TABLE
CHAPTER 2505.
THEY RANGE MORE OR LESS FROM 4
TO 8 UNITS AND UP TO 20 FOR
CERTAIN TYPES OF ZONES
INCLUDING SEATTLE MAKE SOUNDS
AND MIDRISE ZONES.
>> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME
HEARING YOU.
>> SURE.
I WILL TALK A LITTLE LOUDER.
THE THRESHOLD LEVEL AT WHICH IS
ADDITIONAL MITIGATION AUTHORITY
COULD APPLY WOULD BE FOR
PROJECTS THAT EXCEED THE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT WITH
THE EXEMPTION LEVEL.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY A PROJECT THAT
WOULD BUILD BETWEEN 4 TO 8
UNITS DEPENDING ON HIS OWN.
THE PROJECTS HAVE TO BE LOCATED
IN URBAN THOUGH IT IS
IDENTIFIED AS HAVING A HIGH
RISK OF DISPLACEMENT AND THE
PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO INVOLVE
THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
UNITS ARE RENTED AT RENT THAT
IS AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS
THAT COMES 80% OF THE EIGHT
INCOME.
>> THE APPLICABILITY IS NOT
ONLY RELATED TO THE THRESHOLDS
INSTATE, CORRECT? IT IS ALSO
FR THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE
NOT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT WHICH
I THINK INCLUDES LOW-INCOME
HOUSING AND SENIOR HOUSING.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I
CANNOT RECALL IF THERE ARE
DIFFERENT EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR
CERTAIN TYPES OF PROJECTS.
WE DIFFERENTIATE BASED ON
GEOGRAPHY AND URBAN CENTERS FOR
EXAMPLE ARE MUCH HIGHER WITH
THE CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
LEVELS.
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I CANNOT
RECALL IF WE HAVE DIFFERENT
CATEGORICAL ASSUMPTION LEVELS.
JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, 80%
OF THE INCOME IS ABOUT $56,200
FOR A ONE PERSON HOUSEHOLD AND
72,000 43 PERSON HOUSEHOLD.
>> YOU SAID THAT WAS 80%?
>> 80% OF INCOME.
THAT IS 2018, NOT 2019.
SO, I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE FINDINGS HERE AND
THEN WE CAN 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
WITH THE MHA PROPOSAL AND ALSO
THE SEATTLE 2035.
THIS GROWTH AND EQUITY ANALYSIS
WAS PREPARED FOR THE UPDATE TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT SETS DISPLACEMENT RISK AND
THE OPPORTUNITY.
THE FINDINGS ALSO REFERENCE THE
2017 CITY OF SEATTLE UNCIAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY. THAT WAS
SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE AS PART
OF THE COMPLIANCE AND IS
NECESSARY FOR US TO GET
COMMUNITY DEVELOP FUNDING FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT STUDY
IDENTIFIES AREAS THAT ARE
RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY PARTS OF
POVERTY AND THERE IS OVERLAP
BETWEEN THE AREAS AND THE
MITIGATION AREAS AND THIS BILL
AND THOSE AREAS IN THE RECAP
IDENTIFIED IN THE 2017 JOINT
ASSESSMENT.
MOVING ON HERE, IT ALSO
REFERENCES A FEW REPORTS THAT
WERE DONE FOR THE REGIONAL
COUNCIL AND I'M INCLUDING
EQUITY OPPORTUNITIES WITH
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE REGION
AND GEOGRAPHY OF OPPORTUNITY
AND THE FAIR HOUSING EQUITY
ASSESSMENT FOR THE CENTRAL
REGION TO THE 2014 DOCUMENT AND
HOUSING BACK AROUND FOR 2050.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THOSE
REPORTS IDENTIFY MIGRATION OF
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND LOW-
INCOME PEOPLE TO THE PARTS OF
KING COUNTY.
>> SPECIFICALLY LOWER
OPPORTUNITY.
>> FINALLY , ONE OF THE
FINDINGS REFERENCES THE SEATTLE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION
STUDY THAT WAS PREPARED FOR THE
COUNCIL BY DAVID ROSEN AND
ASSOCIATES IN 2016 WHICH
ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM FEE UNDER
THE LINKAGE PROGRAM THAT WAS
ONE TIME CONSIDERED BY THE
COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU KETIL FREEDMAN.
ONE OF THE ANALYSIS THAT I
CONTINUE TO LOOK AT IS THE
CITY'S OWN ESI ANALYSIS AND
EIS, SORRY. I AM WONDERING,
DOES THIS ORDINANCE ACCOUNT TO
THE FACT THAT THE STUDY SHOW
THAT THERE WAS A STRONG
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE NUMBER
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING
DISPLACED AND ACTUALLY HAVING
MORE LIKELIHOOD TO BE DISPLACED
BECAUSE THEY WERE RENT
BURDENED?
NOT BECAUSE OF DEMOLITION?
>> THIS ACTION MIGHT BE THE
TIME TO TRANSITION TO THE MAP.
SO, THIS IS A MAP THAT IS IN
THE MEMO AND THIS IS FROM THE
EIS.
THIS IS APPENDIX M WHICH HAS A
HOST OF RESULTS FROM DIFFERENT
REGRESSION MODELS THAT BURKE
AND ASSOCIATES RAN USING THE
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY.
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, MANY OF
THOSE REGRESSION MODELS
INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DEVELOPMENT AND CERTAIN TYPES
OF DISPLACEMENT BUT NOT ALL
THOSE MODELS SHOW THE
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND I
CAN'T NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY
HEAD WHICH DO AND WHICH DON'T
BUT SOME DO AND SOME DON'T AND
THAT IS A PART OF THE NEXT
DISCUSSION WE CAN HIGHLIGHT FOR
YOU.
>> JUST FOR MY NOTES AND THE
RECORD, THE CITY DISSUASION
SHOWED A SHRUNK RELATION
BETWEEN NEW HOMES BEING BUILT
IN LOWER NUMBERS OF LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS AND RESIDENTS OF
COLOR MOVING OUT.
THAT THE DIRECT DISPLACEMENT
FROM DEMOLITIONS HAD A
RELATIVELY SMALL IMPACT ON
CHANGES IN POPULATIONS.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT AS WE
FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT PUZZLE
PIECES TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
IF MOST FOLKS ARE BEING
DISPLACED BECAUSE OF THE HOUSE
AND THE COST OF HOUSING, THAT
IS NOT NECESSARILY DEMOLITION
AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT
FINDING FOR US TO CONTINUE TO
KNOW.
>> I AM HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOU
MORE OFF-LINE ABOUT THIS BUT
THAT ANALYSIS GROSSLY
UNDERESTIMATES THE NUMBER OF
DEMOLITIONS THAT OCCUR IN THE
CITY AND THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE
WHO ARE DISPLACED BECAUSE OF
THOSE DEMOLITIONS.
THAT ANALYSIS RELIED ON THE
TENANT RELOCATION SYSTEMS AND
THE HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE
DETERMINED OUT.
THAT WAS THE PROXY FOR PEOPLE
DISPLACED BECAUSE OF DEMOLITION.
THE ORDINANCE, PEOPLE WHO ARE
BETWEEN 50 AND 80% OF AMI DO
NOT QUALIFY FOR SO THOSE PEOPLE
THAT ARE DISPLACED FROM THE
CITY WERE NOT COUNTED.
ALSO, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GROUP
HOUSES AND THEIR INCOME IS
PULLED, THEY PERHAPS HAVE A
ROOMMATE SITUATION AND THEY
ALSO DON'T QUALIFY.
THOSE PEOPLE WERE NOT COUNTED.
FURTHER, THIS ORDINANCE DOES
NOT RELY ON WHAT THE CONS FOR
DISPLACEMENT IS.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT SAYS THAT
BECAUSE OF OUR OBLIGATION UNDER
FAIR HOUSING ACT, WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO STOP DISPLACEMENT
AND ADDRESS IT WITH THEIR OWN
REGULATORY MEASURES REGARDLESS
OF WHAT IS CAUSING IT.
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS AN
ECONOMIC IMPACT OR AN IMPACT
COMING FROM DEMOLITIONS, WE
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TRY TO
CORRECT THOSE WRONGS.
>> [ APPLAUSE ]
>> THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF
THIS.
>> I AM HAPPY TO TALK TO THAT
COUNCILMEMBER OFF-LINE.
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 AND WHAT IS THE
ROOT CAUSE OF ON AFFORDABILITY.
IT IS ALSO IMPERATIVE OF US TO
MAKE SURE THAT AS WE LOOK AT
SOLUTIONS, WE ARE HELPING TO
MITIGATE ANY CAUSE OF
DISPLACEMENT.
I AGREE WITH YOU TO THE DEGREE
THAT WE ARE CALLED TO ACT.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
AS WE LOOK AT FINDINGS, THE EIS
ANALYSIS IS FULLY REFLECTED AND
THAT WAS ONE BIG TAKE AWAY FOR
ME SO I AM HAPPY TO TALK WITH
YOU OFF-LINE AND I WANT TO
REITERATE THAT MY QUESTIONS ARE
TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO ADD TO A RECIPE OF
HOW TO ADDRESS ALL OF THIS
BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE
SOLUTION OR INGREDIENT SO MY
QUESTIONS WILL BE FOCUSED ON
HOW THIS AS AN INGREDIENT TO
THE BIGGER PICTURE THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO SOLVE IS GOING TO
HELP US ADDRESS THIS ISSUE
WHICH IS THE FIRST POINT YOU
MADE.
>> THE MAJORITY OF THE FINDINGS
ARE RECOGNIZING THAT
DISPLACEMENT IS OCCURRING.
>> ARE THERE ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS YOU WOULD LIKE TO
COVER MISTER FREEMAN?
>> I THINK A RECOGNITION OF
THIS COUNCILS PRIOR STATEMENTS
ON OUR INTENT TO ADDRESS THIS
ISSUE.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE.
THERE WERE TWO PRIOR ACTIONS OF
THIS COUNSEL BOTH IN THE
FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION IN 2016
WHERE THE ORDINANCE ITSELF AND
THE FRAMEWORK ORDINANCE STATED
THAT THE COUNCIL WAS GOING TO
CONSIDER WHETHER TO HAVE HIGHER
PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT AMOUNTS
FOR THOSE AREAS WHERE THE
INCREASE DEVELOPMENT MAY
INCREASE DISPLACEMENT RISK AND
THEN FURTHER IN RESOLUTION 31733
, THIS WAS A RESOLUTION THAT
THE COUNCIL PASSED AFTER THE
DRAFT EIS DIRECTING OPC NEED TO
GO BACK AND DO ADDITIONAL WORK
BECAUSE OF THE EFFICIENCIES
THAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED IN THE
DRAFT EIS AS RELATES TO
DISPLACEMENT AND IN THE
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
DEMOLITION DUE TO NEW
DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGIES TO
ADDRESS CHANGING THE
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS THAT
MAY POTENTIALLY DISPLACE
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS.
FINALLY, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
THIS A LITTLE BIT BEFORE.
WE HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE WORK
THAT OPC D HAS DONE ABOUT
DISPLACEMENT RISK.
THERE ARE SOME RESULTS THAT
DON'T REALLY 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
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SENSE THE
PASSAGE OF MHA IS NEARLY 100
UNITS TO BE DEMOLISHED IN AN
AREA THAT OPC D HAD GIVEN A
RANGE ON THE LOW END.
60 IN IT UNITS AND IN THE HIGH,
100, WE HAVE ALREADY REACHED
THE MIDWAY POINT OF THE HIGH-
END AND ONE YEAR AND THEN WE
HAVE THE INCIDENTS THAT IS IN
THE NEWS TODAY OR THIS WEEK
WITH THE CADENCE PROPERTY IN
THE CENTRAL AREA.
THERE ARE 21 UNITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT PEOPLE
HAVE LIVED IN FOR DECADES.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED
AND REPLACED WITH 73 UNITS AND
ONLY FIVE OF THEM ARE
AFFORDABLE.
SO, 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
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 HAVE 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 AND LOW ACCESS
TO OPPORTUNITY AREAS TO
ACTUALLY INCLUDE THE HIGH
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY AREAS.
KETIL FREEDMAN, I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU ARE PREPARED TO DO SO NOW
BUT IF YOU HAVE A LITTLE
BACKGROUND ABOUT HOW OPCD DID
THAT ANALYSIS, I THINK THAT
MIGHT BE HELPFUL AS WELL.
>> SURE.
I WILL TAKE THAT AS A SEGUE
INTO TALK ABOUT WHERE THIS
BILL WOULD APPLY.
I CAN TALK AT A HIGH LEVEL
ABOUT THE EMBASSIES THAT
INFORMED THE EQUITY BUT I WILL
NOT GET IT PERFECTLY.
THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT
VARIABLES THAT WE USED TO
IDENTIFY DISPLACEMENT RISK.
SO, BY RETURNING TO THE BILL
HERE, IT WOULD APPLY THEM FIVE
PERMANENT VILLAGES AND ONLY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THOSE
URBAN VILLAGES.
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THOSE
URBAN VILLAGES AS DRAFTED,
THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL
AUTHORITY AND THOSE URBAN
VILLAGES ARE WITHIN AREAS THAT
ARE RAN ON THE MAP. RED AREAS
ARE AREAS THAT HAVE A HIGH
DISPLACEMENT RISK AND LOW
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY.
PURPLE AREAS ARE AREAS THAT
HAVE HAD DISSUASIVE RISK WITH
HIGH OPPORTUNITY AND BLUE AREAS
ARE AREAS THAT HAVE LEGISLATION
RISK AND HIGH ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY AND BROWN AREAS ARE
THE AREAS THAT HAVE LOTUS
PLACEMENT RISK AND LOW ACCESS.
AS DRAFTED, THE BILL WOULD APPLY
TO THE BEACH EVERY VILLAGE IN
THE SOUTHPARK URBAN VILLAGE IN
THE WESTERN HIGHLAND PARK AND
THE BITTER LAKE URBAN VILLAGE.
>> IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THE
SOUTH END OF THE CITY AND THE
NORTH END ARE FIT WITHIN THAT
CATEGORY AND THEY ARE NOT
APPLIED AS A PART OF THE BILL,
DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY?
>> YES.
THIS IS A MAP AND BURKE TOOK
THE DISPLACEMENT TYPOLOGY AND
APPLIED IT.
IT IS AN ONGOING, NOT
NECESSARILY A PROBLEM BUT THE
FACT THAT OUR PLANNING GEOGRAPHY
DOES NOT NECESSARILY CORRESPOND
SO THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THEY
DO NOT OVERLAP AND WHERE THERE
IS SOME MISMATCH.
I THINK THIS IS REFLECTED IN
SOME WAYS AND THE DESIGNATION
OF MHA IMPLEMENTATION.
YOU WILL NOTICE THAT CROWN HILL
IS IN BOTH THE LOTUS PLACEMENT
HIGH RISK AND LOW DISSUASIVE
RISK AND LOW ACCESS AREA.
THAT IS A LOW AREA FOR THE
PURPOSES OF MHA SO JUDGMENT
CALLS HAVE TO BE MADE OF WHAT
WILL APPLY WHERE.
THERE ARE SOME PLACES THAT MAY
BE INDICATED AS HAVING A HEIGHT
DISSUASIVE GRIDS THAT ARE NOT
INCLUDED IN THIS BILL SUCH AS
LAKE CITY.
>> IS THAT JUST A POLICY
DECISION AS FAR AS WHAT TO
INCLUDE OR NOT?
OR IS THERE AN ALGORITHM THAT
WAS APPLIED TO HOW MANY SQUARE
FOOTAGE THAT WAS INSIDE OR
OUTSIDE THE CENSUS TRACT VERSUS
THE URBAN VILLAGE?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
THERE IS THE INDEX THAT OPCD
DEVELOPED AND THAT INDEX IS
APPLIED ON A CENSUS TRACT
LEVEL SO THAT IS THE INDEX AND
THE ALGORITHM THAT APPLIES.
>> THANKS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, YOU
ASKED ME TO TALK ABOUT THE
GROWTH ANALYSIS AND THERE ARE
VARIABLES THAT GO INTO THE
DISPLACEMENT RISK INDEX. RACE
IS ONE OF THEM AND COST BURDEN
IS ANOTHER.
% OF NUMBER OF PARCELS THAT ARE
REDEVELOPED IS ANOTHER.
I WILL NOT NAME ON THEM BUT I
WILL GET THEM OFF THE TOP OF MY
HEAD.
THERE ARE ABOUT 20 OR SO.
HOUSING TENURE IS ANOTHER.
THOSE ARE ALL VARIABLES THAT GO
INTO IDENTIFICATION OF THE
BEING EITHER A HIGH RISK AREA
OR LOW RISK AREA.
>> CAN YOU ALSO TALK A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT HOW IN PRACTICE THIS
MITIGATION PROGRAM WOULD WORK?
>> SURE.
IT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL
AUTHORITY SO IF THERE'S A
PRODUCT THAT IS SUBJECT TO
REVIEW, THE LINE USE PLANNER
THAT IS REVIEWING THE PROJECT
WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THERE ARE ANY UNITS THAT ARE
AFFORDABLE ABOUT 80% OF AMI AND
THERE'S A PORTION OF THE BILL
IN DIRECT ACCESS TO BEGIN
COLLECTING THE INFORMATION.
I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING
THAT IS CURRENTLY COLLECTED BUT
THIS IS A BILL AND PRESUMABLY
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THROUGH
THE CHECKLIST AS PART OF A
REVIEW AND IF THERE IS A
PROJECT THAT MEETS THE
THRESHOLDS FOR REVIEW UNDER
THIS, THE PLANNER COULD REQUIRE
EITHER ADDITIONAL REPLACEMENT OR
A HIGHER OBLIGATION AND IT IS
THE LESSER OF THOSE TWO.
IT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT IS
LEAST TO THE DEVELOPER IN SOME
WAYS.
THAT DECISION IF IT IS COMBINED
WITH ANOTHER TYPE TO DECISION,
WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE ARCHAIC
BUT IT WOULD BE APPEALABLE SO IF
THEY CHOSE NOT TO USE THIS
MITIGATION, THAT COULD BE A
SUBJECT OF APPEAL OR IF THEY
DID CHOOSE TO USE THE
MITIGATION AND THE DEVELOPER
DIDN'T THINK, THEY COULD HAVE
THE APPEAL.
>> I WANTED TO TURN OVER TO
SUSIE AND ALEX TO GO THROUGH
THE SHORT PRESENTATION THAT
THEY ARE GIVEN.
>> HOLD ON FOR A SECOND.
I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEGISLATION.
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE DEFERRING
TO ME TO MOVE IN ON.
>> NO, I WANT TO STATE THAT IT
IS NOT MY INTENTION TO
ACTUALLY HAVE THE PRESENTATION
BE GIVEN TODAY.
WE ALL HAVE DISCRETION TO RUN
THE COMMITTEES THAT WE HAVE
OWNERSHIP OVER IN A WAY THAT WE
CHOOSE.
AND HAS LONG BEEN MY PRACTICE
THAT WE DON'T HAVE EXTERNAL
PRESENTATIONS EITHER FOR OR
AGAINST A PARTICULAR BILL OR
SET OF POLICIES SO WHILE I WAS
NICE THAT THERE IS GOOD WORK
THAT IS HAPPENING, 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 CLEARLY
SAID THAT IT IS NOT THE
PRACTICE TO ALLOW FOLKS
EXTERNALLY TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE
A PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO MAKE
A PRESENTATION.
THAT HAS BEEN A LONG PRACTICE
WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
INDIVIDUAL ZONING CHANGES OR
ABOUT THE DESIGN REVIEW PROGRAM
WITH THE RENTALS.
WE HAD SEVERAL COME LOCATED
PIECES OF LEGISLATION WERE
INDIVIDUALS EXTERNAL TO THE
CITY HAVE REQUESTED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SET UP
THE TABLE AND HAVE A LONGER
CONVERSATION AND MAKE A
PRESENTATION OF FACTS AND
FIGURES EITHER FOR OR AGAINST
THE LEGISLATION THAT WE HAVE
LONG SAID IS NOT PART OF THE
POLICIES OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE
OTHER COMMITTEES THAT OPERATE
DIFFERENTLY BUT THAT HAS LONG
BEEN MY PROCESS AND PROTOCOL
AND I AM 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 5:00 THAT IT
WAS NOT OKAY WHEN YOU TOLD ME
THIS MORNING THAT PUGET SOUND
SAGE COULD NOT HAVE THAT
REPRESENTATIVE BE AT THE TABLE,
I DID NOT REALIZE THAT YOU ALSO
MEANT THAT THE PRESENTATION
COULD NOT BE PRESENTED BY OUR
OWN STAFF.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION.
SO, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS
RELATED TO THE UNDERLYING PIECE
OF LEGISLATION.
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?
>> I THINK WHAT YOU ARE
REFERRING TO ARE THE HOUSING
PRESERVATION ORDINANCES AND I
AM NOT TOO FAMILIAR WITH WHAT
WAS EXACTLY IN THAT BILL BUT I
THINK MOST FOLKS ARE AT LEAST
SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH IT.
THERE WAS A TIME AND I BELIEVE
IT WAS THE MID-1980S OR 1990S
WHERE THE THEY HAD AN ORDINANCE
BILL THAT REQUIRED REPLACEMENT
OF DEMOLISHING AND HAD AN
OPTION IF UNITS WERE NOT
REPLACED AND THE ORDINANCE WAS
SUBJECT TO A LEGAL CHALLENGE
AND WAS DETERMINED TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>> SO, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR
ME AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO
UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THIS APPROACH AND THE
ORDINANCE APPROACH SO THAT WE
CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE
DIFFERENCES MAY BE MET IN ORDER
TO PRESERVE THAT WE ARE NOT
WALKING DOWN THE SAME PATHWAY OF
LEGAL FRAUD.
>> SURE . I THINK COUNCIL
MEMBERS HAVE GOTTEN ADVICE FROM
THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT ON THIS
AND THERE IS A POINT TO WHICH I
WILL BE VERY CONSERVATIVE HERE
úABOUT DESCRIBING DIFFERENCES
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CROSS
INTO A TERRITORY OF TALKING
ABOUT THINGS THAT COULD BE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND
YOU ALL CAN BREAK THE POLITICAL
YOU HAVE TO DECIDE TO DO THAT
IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IS THAT
THIS IS BASED ON OUR POLICY ACT
AUTHORITY THAT THE CITY HAS.
AS OPPOSED TO THE AUTHORITY
THAT IT IS BASED ON.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAD
BROUGHT UP EARLIER DATA
ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESTIMATES
IN THE U DISTRICT ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION.
DO WE HAVE HARD DATA FROM
EITHER AS TCI OR OPCD ON THE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS POST MHA
EITHER IN THE U DISTRICT OR
OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE
HAVE APPLIED MHA?
DO YOU HAVE A GOOD SENSE ABOUT
THAT?
>> MY COLLEAGUE DID THE
ASSESSMENT AND I DON'T KNOW
WHAT SHE LOOKED AT.
I THINK SHE WAS LOOKING AT
PERMIT DATA SO IT'S KIND OF,
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU
MEAN BY HARD DATA.
I CANNOT RECALL IF IT WAS
BUILDING PERMIT DATA BUT THERE
IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO.
IF SOMEONE HAS APPLIED FOR A
BUILDING PERMIT, THAT IS PRETTY
FIRM AND THERE ARE EXPENSIVE
PERMITS THAT ARE SOMETIMES
SPECULATIVE.
SOMEONE MAY NOT KNOW WHETHER
THEY WILL GET FINANCING FOR
THEIR PROJECT SO I ACTUALLY
DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS BUILDING
PERMIT DATA.
>> I AM HAPPY TO SHARE THE
MATERIAL THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER
WITH YOU AS WELL.
COULD I JUST REAL QUICKLY TOUCH
ON THE SEPA AUTHORITY ON STATE
LAW?
I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
IDENTIFY SORT OF WHERE THIS
POLICY IS DERIVED FROM IN THE
GROUNDING FOR IT.
OUR CW 2346 .60 SPECIFICLLY
SAYS THAT ACTIONS MAY BE
CONDITIONED TO MITIGATE
SPECIFIC ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED IN
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
PREPARED UNDER THIS CHAPTER
WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THAT
MUST BE REASONABLE AND FURTHER
SPECIFICALLY 197 .11 444
IDENTIFIES THE HOUSING AS AN
ELEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
SO, THIS ORDINANCE RELIES BOTH
ON SEPA AUTHORITY AS WELL AS
USING THE OBLIGATION TO PROMOTE
FAIR HOUSING AS DEFENSE FOR ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
AUTHORITY UNDER THE LAW.
>> CONTINUING BACK ON THE DATA
QUESTIONS , I THINK IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING BOTH IN THE U
DISTRICT AND THE OTHER FIVE
NEIGHBORHOODS AND FURTHER I
THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
UNDERSTAND IF WE DO COLLECT
THAT INFORMATION BASED ON A
BUILDING PERMIT ABOUT THE
DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE BUILDING IT
SELF.
DO WE HAVE A SENSE ABOUT WHO
LIVES IN THE UNIT THAT ARE
PROPOSED TO NO LONGER EXIST OR
WHAT RENT THEY MIGHT PAY? TO
UNDERSTAND EXACTLY THE PROBLEM
THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE
AND WHO WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE
IT FOR WOULD BE HELPFUL AND TO
HAVE IT INFORMED BY DATA IF IT
IS AVAILABLE.
THE OTHER QUESTION FOR ME IS
THE QUESTION AROUND MHA WITH
THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS
PROGRAM AND THE
INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
PROGRAM WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO
ME.
DO WE HAVE ANY ANALYSIS ABOUT
WHAT IMPACT THIS MIGHT HAVE ON
EITHER PROPOSED PROJECTS WITHIN
THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE
BEING PROPOSED AND CLEARLY
THERE IS AN ENTRANCE FROM THE
COMMUNITY AND COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AROUND APPLYING THIS
TO A BROADER RANGE THAN WHAT IS
ASSIGNED.
I WOULD BE CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT
SORT OF ANALYSIS MIGHT HAVE
BEEN DON AROUND THE IMPACT
THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF EITHER NEW UNITS
OR BOTH.
>> SO, THE SHORT ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION IS THAT WE HAVE
NOT DONE THESE.
I DID LOOK AT THE 2016
COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTES WITH
FEASIBILITY UNDER MHA AND AS
PROPOSED, CURRENTLY THE
MITIGATION WOULD APPLY WITH LOW
AREAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF MHA.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE ONE THING
THAT THE COUNCIL HAS INDICATED
AND TENDS TO DO TO THE
LEGISLATION IS TO REVISIT THE
BOUNDARIES OF THOSE AREAS
SOMETIME THIS SUMMER BUT AT
LEAST USING THE CURRENT
BOUNDARIES AND THE CIA ANALYSIS
, MOST PROJECTS AND LOW AREAS
ARE DETERMINED BY CAI TO BE
UNFEASIBLE ASIDE FROM A FEW
PROJECT TYPES.
SOME TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS AND
LOW RISE ZONES HAD A POSITIVE
END VALUE MEANING THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT IS FEASIBLE WHEREAS
MOST OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WERE
NOT FEASIBLE.
AT LEAST AT A FACIAL LEVEL,
PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN
FEASIBLE WILL CONTINUE TO BE
INFEASIBLE EVEN WITH THE
OBLIGATION BUT THERE ARE SOME
PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE VISIBLE
UNDER 2016 RENTS AND THIS CAN
PRESENTLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON
THIS.
ANOTHER IMPACT ON THE PROJECTS
AND OUTCOME POTENTIALLY, WE
DON'T REALLY KNOW IS HOW THIS
MIGHT AFFECT BEHAVIOR AND
DEVELOPERS MAY CHOOSE TO
DEVELOP SITES THAT DON'T HAVE
SO-CALLED AFFORDABLE UNITS ON
THEM.
>> DO WE HAVE A SENSE
PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE ARE
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,
INTENDING TO THIS BILL TO HAVE
A SIMILAR APPROACH ABOUT
PAYMENT VERSUS PERFORMANCE.
ARE WE TRYING TO CALIBRATE IT
SO WE HAVE A SIMILAR OUTCOME OF
A 50-50 APPROACH?
>> THAT HIS FUTURE WORK . IT IS
CURRENTLY CALIBRATED WITHOUT
THIS ADDITIONAL MITIGATION
OPTION AND THE DEVELOPER SHOULD
BE INDIFFERENT AS THE PAYING
AND PERFORMING.
THERE IS A THEORETICAL
DISINCENTIVE WITH A 10% PREMIUM
THAT IS ADDED ONTO THE FEES
UNDER WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY
DEVELOPED.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS THAT
THERE IS AN OPTION HERE TO
PERFORM AT 80% OF AMI.
THAT MIGHT BE CLOSE TO MARKET
RENTS IN SOME OF THESE AREAS
AND WE DON'T HAVE INFORMATION
BUT WE MAY HAVE BETTER
INFORMATION BY THE TIME WE
UPDATE THIS SUMMER.
WITHOUT KNOWING THAT, IT COULD
BE THAT THIS IS A DISINCENTIVE
OR COULD ALSO BE THAT IT IS NOT
TOO BURDENSOME.
>> ON A SIMILAR LINE, DO WE
HAVE ANYTHING IN THE BILL THAT
WOULD ALLOW WHAT HSA HAS DONE
WITH A REFUSAL FOR FOLKS THAT
ARE LIVING ON THE PROPERTY? I
KNOW MANY IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE
TESTIFIED ABOUT THIS TOPIC AND
SUGGESTED THAT FOLKS THAT ARE
LIVING IN THE BUILDING THAT IS
BEING REPLACED SHOULD BE GIVEN
THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.
IS THAT INCLUDED AND ARE WE
LEGALLY ALLOWED THE RIGHT TO
RETURN?
>> THAT IS NOT PART OF THE
LEGISLATION . IT PROBABLY WOULD
NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD
FIND EXPRESSION IN THE
ORDINANCE AND THE REGULATION.
THE MAYOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER
WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY JUST
READING --
>> THE FUNCTION OF THE
REPLACEMENT UNITS, IT DOES NOT
LINK IT TO THE PERSON BUT IT
DOES LINK IT TO AN INCOME OR A
RENT RANGE THAT THAT PERSON WAS
PAYING.
>> YEAH.
IT'S ASSUMING THAT SOMEBODY
PERFORMS OR EVEN PAYS AND THE
REPLACEMENT UNITS ARE BUILT IN
THE AREA THAT ORIGINATED THE
PAYMENT AND IT MAY MAKE IT
SOMEWHAT MORE LIKELY THAT
SOMEBODY COULD RETURN TO THE
AREA. THE COMMUNITY PREFERENCE
POLICY AND THE MAYOR'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER MIGHT BE A
BETTER TOOL TO ALLOW SOMEBODY
THAT IS DISPLACED FROM AN AREA
TO RETURN TO THAT AREA.
THAT IS SORT OF MORE IN THE
NATURE OF THE POLICY AS OPPOSED
TO REGULATION.
>> THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING
THAT.
I KNOW THAT THE COMMUNITY
PREFERENCE POLICY IS SOMETHING
THAT ALL OF US I BELIEVE SUPPORT
. IT'S SOMETHING UP OFFICE OF
HOUSING IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON
AND FOLKS WILL BE TAKING UP THAT
PREFERENCE POLICY AND THE PLAN
DISCUSSIONS COMING UP THIS
SPRING.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IN
ADDITION, AS ONE ADDITIONAL
INGREDIENT INTO THE CAKE THAT
WE ARE TRYING TO MIX HERE, TO
CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
ALL THAT THOSE THAT ARE TRULY
GETTING DISPLACED FROM ANY NEW
DEVELOPMENT AND ACTUALLY THOSE
INDIVIDUALS ARE ABLE TO COME
BACK. SO, IT'S A LITTLE BIT
MORE TIME ONE-FOR-ONE IN TERMS
OF MAKING SURE THAT THOSE
INDIVIDUALS OR THAT FAMILY UNIT
IS ABLE TO COME BACK.
I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT
NOTE FOR THIS CONVERSATION THAT
IT IS A CRITICAL TOOL AND WE
WILL BE BRINGING THAT UP. ALSO,
I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD STEP BACK
A QUICK SECOND AND SAY I REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE HAVING A
CONVERSATION AROUND MITIGATION
DISPLACEMENT AND THE FOLKS AT
PUGET SOUND SAGE AND OTHERS
HAVE BEEN CLEAR IN REMINDING US
THAT THERE ARE MANY TOOLS TO
ADDRESS DISPLACEMENT AND JUST
LOOKING AT SOME THE MATERIALS
THEY HAVE CREATED WITH THE
PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE
UNITS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE IN
THE BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP OF
LAND AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS
AGREEMENT.
IT FEELS LIKE THAT IS A NICE
BEGINNIN OF A LIST THAT WE ARE
ALL INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT.
TIMMY, THE QUESTION IS REALLY
ARE WE ADDING TO THE RIGHT
BALANCE OF THOSE TOOLS?
I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE SPENT A LOT
OF TIME WITH MHA TALKING ABOUT
BUILDING MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS DESPITE THE LEGAL
DELAYS THAT WE HAVE HAD TO GO
THROUGH AND THE DELAYS ON
ADDITIVES THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY
FACING.
WE HAVE 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 WILL BE ADDING TO
THAT LIST MAKING SURE THAT THE
COMMUNITIES THAT WERE DIRECTLY
WITH THE 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.
THEN, WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT
COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT
AND MAKING SURE THE COMMUNITY
IS GETTING ACCESS TO GOOD
LIVING WAGE JOBS.
IN MY MIND, THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION THAT WE
ARE HAVING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
WE CAN ADD TO THE LIST OF TOOLS
TO HELP DISPLACE AND MITIGATE
DISPLACEMENT.
I ALSO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR THE VIEWING AUDIENCE TO
REMEMBER WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
DO IS DISRUPT THE MARKET.
THE PRIVATE MARKET AND THE
MARKET AS IS HAS NOT DEVELOPED
ENOUGH HOUSING OR ENOUGH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY HAVE NOT PRIOR TERRORIST
THE LOWEST WAGE WORKERS AND
MAKING SURE THAT FOLKS ARE ABLE
TO GET BACK THE DOOR.
FOR ME, THIS IS ABOUT MAKING
SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT MIX
AND TO YOUR POINT, I THINK YOU
MENTIONED THAT WE WANT THERE TO
BE A NET BENEFIT.
THE QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL
MEMBER JOHNSON ASKED ABOUT HOW
THIS IMPACTS MHA WILL BE
CRITICAL FOR ME TO HAVE A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND
CIRCLING BACK TO SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS AND THE FUTURE
IF YOU CAN HELP US WITH A FEW
SCENARIOS AND HOW THIS WOULD
IMPACT THE VELVET IF A MHA
PROJECT WAS TO NOT MOVE
FORWARD BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING
TO, FOR EXAMPLE, PROJECT A 12
UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND
LET'S SAY THAT APARTMENT
BUILDING THAT HAD 12 UNITS WAS
TO BE TORN DOWN IN A 50 UNIT
BUILDING AT MARKET RATE AND WAS
TO BE CREATED WITH X NUMBER OF
AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE OF
MHA, HOW WOULD THIS HAVE AN
IMPACT ON THE END WE GET A
BETTER SENSE OF EITHER THE
DOLLAR IMPACT OR THE UNIT IMPACT
, THAT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL
FOR ME TO HEAR AND ALSO JUST A
BETTER AND I AGREE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
I DON'T AGREE THAT THIS IS A
MITIGATION TOOL.
I THINK MHA HAS AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TOOL AND AS WE THINK
ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL
POLICIES, I ALSO DON'T WANT TO
DO ANYTHING UNINTENTIONALLY
THAT WOULD HARM OUR ABILITY TO
BUILD THOSE HOUSING UNITS THAT
I THINK MHA WAS ATTEMPTING TO
DO.
TO ME, HAVING SOME SCENARIOS
ABOUT WHERE AND IF THERE ARE
UNITS THAT WOULD NOT BE BILLED
IF WE WERE TO DO THE
DISPLACEMENT AND LIEU OF, THAT
WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO
FIGURE OUT AND IF THAT WERE THE
CASE, ARE THERE OTHER TOOLS
THAT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT.
WE TALKED ABOUT COMMUNITY
PREFERENCE AND ONE OF THE OTHER
THINGS WE'RE DOING IN THE SPRING
IS A TENANT OPPORTUNITY
PROTECTION ACT SO IF UNITS COME
UP FOR SALE AND THEY ARE
AFFORDABLE, CHANGING THE
EXISTING POLICY SO THAT TENANTS
GET FIRST NOTICE OF THAT SO
THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS
CAN GET NOTICE OF THAT AND
PROTECT THOSE UNITS IF THE
FOLKS IN THAT WANT TO CREATE A
CO-OP.
IT'S REALLY EXCITING BUT AGAIN
EACH ONE OF THESE ITEMS IS NOT
THE ANSWER.
I AM 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 MISTER
FREEMAN IS, WE BUILT THE MHA
PROGRAM OFF OF SIMILAR PROGRAMS
THAT HAVE EXISTED IN PURE
JURISDICTIONS WHETHER THAT WAS
REDMOND ZONING PROPOSALS THAT
REQUIRE CERTAIN PERCENTAGES OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENTS OR
OTHER SIMILAR PROPOSITIONS THAT
ARE IN THE LOCAL JURISDICTION
THAT THE STATE IMPLEMENTED.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW IF
WE ARE BASING THIS REQUIREMENT
OFF OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS
EITHER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL OR
NATIONAL LEVEL AND IF SO, TO
HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT HOW THOSE PROGRAMS WORK
AND WHAT IMPACT THEY HAVE BEEN
SHOWN TO HAVE ON EITHER THE
CREATION OF NEW UNITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE
RELATIONSHIP AROUND DISPLACEMENT
AND OTHER INTENDED CONSEQUENCES
OF THE LEGISLATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS AN
ANSWER THAT YOU HAVE OFF THE
TOP OF YOUR HEAD BUT IF NOT, I
WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
BASING THIS OFF OF IN TERMS OF
YOUR SECTIONS.
>> OKAY.
I CAN COMPARE THE INFORMATION.
>> I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S POSSIBLE
TO LINK THE EXISTING OPTION IN
THE BILL THAT INCLUDES
REPLACEMENT HOUSING TO ALSO
INCLUDE A RIGHT FOR A TENANT
THAT WAS DISPLACED FROM THE
PREVIOUS BUILDING TO RETURN TO
THAT REPLACEMENT UNIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE BUT
I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
ALSO, I AM INTERESTED TO KNOW
HOW IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS AUTHORITY, HOW DOES AS TCI
DETERMINED WHICH IS LESS?
BECAUSE, IS THERE 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.
AND MAY NOT REALLY BE A COSTLY
REQUIREMENT AND I DON'T KNOW
HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE WEIGHED
IN EACH SITE-SPECIFIC CASE.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE EASY TO
MAKE A COMPARISON ACROSS THE
BOARD ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TOTAL
RESTRICTED UNITS.
IF A DEVELOPER IS REQUIRED TO
PERFORM AT THE HIGHER MHA
LEVEL, THAT WOULD BE 9% OF
TOTAL UNITS AND SO YOU CAN
COMPARE THE 5% AND REPLACE
THOSE UNITS AND IT WOULD BE
EASY TO DO A PERCENTAGE
COMPARISON IN THE BUILDING
ALTHOUGH SOME OF THOSE UNITS,
THE 80% WOULD BE RIGHT AT A
HIGHER LEVEL THAN THE 60% AMI
AND MHA UNITS.
ESSENTIALLY, THERE IS AN
INCENTIVE FOR THE DEVELOPER TO
SELF SELECT THE LEAST COSTLY
OPTION FOR THEM. SOME OF IT MAY
DEPEND ON WHAT TYPE OF
DEVELOPER THEY ARE.
IF THEY ARE A PORTFOLIO
DEVELOPER AND ARE COMFORTABLE
HOLDING ONTO 80% UNITS FOR SOME
LUMP READ OF TIME, AND BECAUSE
OF THAT REFINANCING OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT MIGHT
BE A BETTER OPTION FOR THEM BUT
THERE IS THE CHOICE,
ESSENTIALLY.
>> SO, IT IS NOT IMPOSED ON
THE DEVELOPER BUT IT'S A CHOICE
.
>> ESSENTIALLY, YES.
WHATEVER IS THE LESSER.
>> WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE WAY
THAT WE APPROACH PAYMENT
PERFORMANCE.
EXCEPT FOR THE LESSER PIECE.
IT'S JUST A CHOICE OPTION.
>> SO, THANK YOU FOR GETTING
BACK TO US ON THE FEE VERSUS
DIRECTING REPLACEMENT OPTIONS.
I LIKE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD 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 ARE AT
RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE
IF A UNIT WERE TO BE PRESERVED
OR IF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX
WERE TO BE PRESERVED THAT THERE
IS 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 IN AN AFFORDABLE
AMOUNT EITHER IF AN APARTMENT
COMPLEX WERE MAINTAINED OR IN
THE CREATION OF A NEW UNIT?
>> NOT THROUGH THESE
MECHANISMS.
THIS IS A PROJECT SPECIFIC
MECHANISM.
IF THIS ADDITIONAL MITIGATION
AUTHORITY WERE APPLIED, IT WILL
BE BECAUSE THE PROJECT WOULD BE
DEMOLISHING 40% OF AMI.
I THINK THERE ARE SOME
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
THAT THE COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED
IN THE PAST AND THERE ARE SOME
LIMITATIONS BUT THERE MAY ALSO
BE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE BUT
IN THE INCENTIVES AND RELEASES
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, ONE
IS CHANGING STATE LAW AROUND
THE MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION
WITH THE PRESERVATION OF
AFFORDABLE UNITS AND I THINK
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE CHANGE
OF STATE LAW SO THAT IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT IS CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE BUT SOMETHING THE
CITY COULD ADVOCATE FOR.
OTHERS MIGHT BE LOOKING AT THE
MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION TO
SEE IF THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES
WHEN THERE IS THE VELTMAN ON A
SITE THAT INCLUDES A BUILDING
THAT HAS AFFORDABLE OR
NATURALLY OCCURRING HOUSING ON
IT TO SOMEHOW HAVE AN INCENTIVE
FOR PRESERVING THAT IN EXCHANGE
FOR SOME TAX EVASION OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THOSE ARE SORT OF BLUE SKY IDEAS
BUT WHAT WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE
OF STATE LAW.
>> I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE
THE CONVERSATION THAT IS
HAPPENING HERE AND I APPRECIATE
THE FORUM FOR IT.
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD, I KNOW
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE
WORKED ON FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS
AND I THINK IT'S TRICKY GIVEN
STATE LAW BUT IT IS CRITICAL TO
DO MORE THAN WE ARE DOING TODAY.
I LOOK AT THE DISPLACEMENT THAT
IS HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITY
AND FOR MY FRAMEWORK, I THINK
IT'S LARGELY DRIVEN BY GROWING
INCOME INEQUALITY IN THE WORLD
WHERE THERE IS A CHUNK OF
PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING MORE AND
MORE MONEY EVERY DAY AND A
CHUNK OF PEOPLE WHOSE WAGES
DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITIES AND THE HOUSING
MARKET WE ARE ALL COMPETING FOR
IS THE SAME HOUSING MARKET.
THE PRESSURE THAT THE FOLKS ARE
MAKING A LOT OF MONEY PUT ON THE
MARKET MEANS THAT A LOT OF
FOLKS ARE LEFT BEHIND AND WE
ARE FEELING THAT.
THE DRIVERS FOR THAT ARE
LARGELY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE
POLICIES AND LAWS THAT WE SET
IT CITY COUNCIL AND YET THERE
IS AN OBLIGATION ON US THAT WE
FEEL TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY
STRONGER AND UNDO SOME OF THESE
DAMAGING IMPACTS.
SO, WE OFTEN CAN'T GO TO THE
ROOT OF THAT PROBLEM BUT
INSTEAD WE HAVE TO WORK AROUND
THE EDGES OF THE THINGS THAT WE
DO CONTROL TO TRY TO UNDO SOME
OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS WE ARE
SEEING ON THESE POLICIES THAT
ARE DRIVING THESE PROBLEMS IN
OUR COMMUNITY AND THAT LEAVES
US WITH THINGS LIKE THIS THAT
ARE MESSY AND COMPLICATED AND
EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY AND
EACH POLICY WILL PLAY OUT
DIFFERENTLY AND TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IS REALLY
COMPLICATED.
WE HAVE TO DO THE WORK.
WE WILL HAVE TO DIG INTO THAT
MESSINESS AND FIGURE IT OUT.
I WANTED TO SAY THAT AS WE
CONTINUE TO DO THIS, I WILL BE
LOOKING TO ORGANIZATIONS LIKE
PUGET SOUND SAGE AND COALITIONS
LIKE SOFTCORE WHO ARE MADE UP
AND RUN BY AND REPRESENT THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST IMPACTED BY
THESE POLICIES.
I HAVE A SENSE OF HOW THE
ECONOMICS WORK AND HOW THE
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. THEY UNDERSTAND
THE COMPLEXITIES AND THE TRADE
OFFS AS WELL AS I DO THAT THEY
GET TO SEE HOW THESE DIFFERENT
SOLUTIONS MAY IMPACT AND
DIRECTLY MAY NOT.
THEIR LEADERSHIP WILL BE REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR ME AS WE WORK
THROUGH WHAT I THINK IS A
SHARED OBJECTIVE BUT COMPLEXITY
IS ABOUT WHAT ARE THE TRADE-
OFFS AND HOW THIS PLAYS OUT.
SO, I JUST THANK THE FOLKS AND
I APPRECIATE THE FOLKS FROM
SOUTH CORE WHO HAVE BEEN
THINKING ABOUT THIS AND FRANKLY
INFORMED MY THINKING ABOUT
DISPLACEMENT OF THE NUMBER OF
YEARS BASED ON THE GREAT
ANALYTICAL REPORTS THEY HAVE
DONE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK WITH THEM
AS WE CONTINUE TO REFINE THIS.
>> ANYTHING TO ADD?
MISTER FREEMAN, WE HAVE GIVEN
YOU A LOT OF ADDITIONAL WORK TO
DO. OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING
IS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 20.
IF THAT WORK IS COMPLETED
BETWEEN NOW AND THE 20th, I
WOULD LOVE TO HAVE AN UPDATE
ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED.
IF THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE, WE
WILL LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING US
BACK AT A TIME WHEN YOU HAVE A
CHANCE TO DO THE ANALYSIS
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ANSWER
SOME THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU
HAVE ASKED.
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I HAD A HARD TIME HEARING AND
I HAVEN'T REALLY GOTTEN OVER
BEING SICK BUT I JUST HAVE A
FEW FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS.
ONE THING THAT I THINK FOLKS
MENTIONED IS A WORK THAT IS
GOING ON AROUND FTE AND I WOULD
LOVE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT SOME OF
THE OTHER MFT OPTIONS THAT WE
ARE CONSIDERING IN THE CITY.
>> I THINK THE MFT UPDATE WILL
BE COMING TO THE COUNCIL AND I
THINK IN LATE SPRING BUT I CAN
CHECK WITH THAT.
>> OKAY, THAT CONCLUDES OUR
MEETING FOR TODAY.
WE WILL SEE BACK YOUR ON THE
MORNING OF MARCH 20.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.