>>> GOOD MORNING.
RISE AND SHINE, EVERYONE.
THE MARCH 28th, 2025,
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 9:37 A.M.
I'M JOY HOLLINGSWORTH.
I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL?
[ CLERK CALLING ROLL ]
>> CHAIR HOLLINGSWORTH.
>> HERE.
>> CHAIR, THERE ARE SIX MEMBERS
PRESENT.
>> AWESOME.
JUST FOR THE
RECORD, COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE AND
STRAUSS ARE BOTH EXCUSED TODAY.
WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE AGENDA.
IF THERE ARE NO
OBJECTIONS, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED.
AWESOME.
TODAY WE WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTING
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT.
PLEASE DROOP OFF YOUR
COMMENTS AT THE FRONT OF
CHAMBERS AND
SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS ON
THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. AFTER THIS MEETING, WE
WILL
BE ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT BUT
WE WANTED TO GET THROUGH A LOT
OF
THE LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN
PASSED DOWN AND WANTED TO MAKE
SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME,
BECAUSE WE HAVE
A FULL, PACKED, WONDERFUL
AGENDA.
OKAY.
SO A COUPLE THINGS.
REFRAMING ON THE SITUATION THAT
WE'RE IN, WE ARE REQUIRED
TO PASS HOUSE BILL 1110
THROUGH INTERIM LEGISLATION.
WII MADE THIS PIVOT
BECAUSE THERE ARE SIX APPEALS
MADE
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT.
SO WE CANNOT TE ON
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
THE HEARING EXAMINER RESOLVES
THESE
CHALLENGES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT.
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND OFFICER
OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ARE HERE TODAY TO
BRIEF US ON THE EXECUTIVE'S
PROPOSED INTERIM LEGISLATION
TO HOUSE BILL 1110.
THE EXECUTIVE HAS SENT -- THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE HAS SENT DOWN
THE LEGISLATION, SO THIS IS
THEIR
PROPOSAL. TODAY WE'LL LEARN
MORE
ABOUT WHAT THE EXECUTIVE'S
INTERIM LEGISLATION INCLUDES,
HOW
IT WILL BE SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT
TO
THE EVENTUAL
PERMANENT LEGISLATION AND FOR
HOW
LONG THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE IN
PLACE.
WE'LL ALSO HEAR FROM THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE ON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF HOW THE CITY
IMPLEMENTS MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY,
ALSO KNOWN AS MHA.
ADDITIONALLY WE'LL HEAR
FROM CONSULTANTS ON THE
EXECUTIVE'S
FIVE- YEAR VALUATION REPORT OF
MHA.
OVER THE NEXT FEW MEETINGS
UNTIL MAY 30th, WE'LL LEARN
ABOUT INTERIM LEGISLATION.
WE WILL IMPLEMENT THIS BY
JUNE 30th IF ALL GOES WELL.
IT WILL COME INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE
MANDATE, BECAUSE
WE ARE ON THE CLOCK WITH
THE STATE DEADLINE.
HOUSE BILL 1110 IS A
STATE- MANDATED LEGISLATION TO
CREATE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE
IN PLACE UNTIL WE PASS
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
CAN WORK ON PERMANENT
LEGISLATION
TO IMPLEMENT HOUSE BILL 1110.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT THE MOST
IDEAL SITUATION WHEN
YOU'RE DOING INTERIM
LEGISLATION, BUT
IT'S THE POSITION THAT WE'RE
IN.
COUNCIL IS ON A TIGHT TIMELINE,
AND HONESTLY WE'RE DOING THE
BEST WE CAN.
SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.
AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING WE HAD
ON FEBRUARY 5th DUE TO SEVERE
WEATHER, OUR OFFICE MADE
A PROMISE TO HONOR THE
SPEAKING ORDER OF THOSE WHO WERE
NOT
ABLE TO SPEAK AT THE END OF THAT
MEETING.
THAT PROMISE WILL CONTINUE TO BE
KEPT. WE'VE BEEN GETTING E-
MAILS FROM
300 PLUS FOLKS WHO SIGNED UP.
WE WILL HONOR THAT REQUEST TO
MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT
GET TO SPEAK DURING FEBRUARY 5th
WILL BE HEARD, AND YOU WILL
BE PRIORITIZED FIRST.
PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE PRIOR
TO MAY 30th, AND WE'LL BE
ANNOUNCING THAT DATE SOON.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ
ITEM ONE INTO THE AGENDA?
>> AGENDA ITEM 1 OVER VIEW
OF INTERIM LEGISLATION TO
IMPLEMENT HOUSE BILL 1110 FOR
BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION.
PRESENTERS ARE BRENNON STALEY
AND CHRISTA VALLES FROM THE
MAYOR'S
OFFICE.
>> LET ME STATE FOR THE RECORD
WE HAVE COULD REMEMBER
RIVERA JOINING US ONLINE.
WELCOME.
PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES FOR
THE RECORD AS WELL.
AND YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR
PRESENTATION.
WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT
AND YOUR SMILING FACES.
THANK
YOU.
>> BRENNON STALEY OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
>> CHRISTA
VALLES.
>> JEFF WENTLANDT OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
OVERVIEW, COULD REMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH.
THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD
DESCRIPTION OF THE THINGS
THAT ARE IN PLAY RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE THREE PRESENTATIONS
FOR YOU TODAY.
THE FIRST ONE WILL BE GOING OVER
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION THAT
WE NEED TO PASS TO IMPLEMENT HB
1110 BY THE STATE DEADLINE.
THE NEXT PRESENTATION IS
GOING TO BE ON THE CITY'S
MANDATORY
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.
THE REASON WHY THAT IS GETTING
TEED UP TODAY IS BECAUSE IT HAS
RELEVANCE TO THE
DECISIONS YOU'RE MAKING WITH
REGARDS
TO THE INTERIM LEGISLATION.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE
OUR CONSULTANTS WHO RECENTLY
CONDUCTED AN MHA EVALUATION
FOR OUR OFFICE HERE AS WELL.
WHILE THE EVALUATION THEY
COMPLETED WAS DONE FOR BROADER
PURPOSES, WE THINK
THE INFORMATION IS
INDIRECTLY HELPFUL FOR YOU TO
TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT AS YOU ARE MAKING
YOUR DECISIONS WITH THIS
LEGISLATION.
SO I ALSO JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT YESTERDAY WE DID TRANSMIT
THE
ACTUAL COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LEGISLATION DOWN TO THE
CITY
COUNCIL.
AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO WORK ON
FINALIZING THE PERMANENT HB 1110
LEGISLATION ALONG WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
AND CORRIDORS LEGISLATION.
AND WHILE THAT HAS BEEN
SLOWED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN
PART BECAUSE WE HAD TO PIVOT
TO CREATING THE INTERIM AND OUR
LAW
DEPARTMENT IS VERY BUSY
WORKING THROUGH THE APPEAL
PROCESS, WE ARE STILL PLANNING
TO
BRING THOSE DOWN AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE IN THE EVENT WE'RE
ABLE
TO CLEAR THOSE APPEALS QUICKLY.
SO I'LL GO TO BRENNON TO GO
THROUGH THE INTERIM LEGISLATION.
>> GREAT.
SO I'M GOING TO GIVE A
VERY BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE NEW
STATE REQUIREMENTS AND OVERVIEW
OF THE INTERIM LEGISLATION
AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE
TOPICS
EMITTED FROM THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION.
TO BELIEVE PRIMARY PURPOSE
OF THIS INTERIM LEGISLATION IS
TO COMPLY WITH HOUSE BILL 1110.
IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING
THAT IT WOULD ALSO IMPLEMENT
CHANGES
TO COMPLY WITH A NUMBER OF
OTHER STATE LAWS THAT HAVE
SIMILAR
DEADLINES.
1293, WHICH REQUIRES CLEAR AND
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS.
6015, WHICH LIMITS HOW
CITIES REGULATE OFF- STREET
PARKING.
THEN 1287, WHICH HAS
STANDARDS FOR ELECTRICAL VEHICLE
CHARGING
IN NEW DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, VERY BRIEFLY, THE KEY
PROVISIONS OF HB 1110, A LOT
OF PEOPLE FOCUS ON THE DENSITY
PROVISION, WHICH IS
IMPORTANT, BUT THERE ARE
ACTUALLY A LOT
OF THINGS WE HAVE TO COMPLY
WITH.
THE FIRST IS WE'RE REQUIRED
TO ALLOW SIX OF NINE DIFFERENT
HOUSING TYPES ON ALL
RESIDENTIAL LOTS ZONED FOR
RESIDENTIAL USE.
THOSE GO FROM DUPLEXES TO
SIXPLEXES, BUT ALSO
COURTYARD APARTMENTS AND
TOWNHOUSES.
WE'RE REQUIRED TO
ALLOW AT LEAST FOUR UNITS ON ALL
LOTS OR SIX
UNITS IF IN A QUARTER-
MILE WALKING DISTANCE OF A MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP.
DESIGN REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING MAY ONLY BE
ADMINISTRATIVE.
MIDDLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND PERMIT
REVIEW PROCESSES THAT MAY NOT BE
--
THAN THOSE FOR SINGLE- FAMILY
HOMES.
PARKING MAY NOT BE
REQUIRED WITHIN A HALF MILE OF A
MAJOR TRANSIT STOP.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT THINGS WE HAVE TO
COMPLY
IN ADDITION TO THOSE OTHER BILLS
WE'RE TRYING TO COMPLY WITH AS
WELL. IF THESE CHANGES ARE NOT
ADOPTED BY JUNE 30th, THE
STATE'S
MODEL ORDINANCE WILL GO INTO
EFFECT.
TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THE GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE, OBVIOUSLY
THE PRIMARY ZONES AFFECTED ARE
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES
INCLUDING NR 1, 2 AND 3
IN RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
THOSE REPRESENT ABOUT TWO-
THIRDS
OF THE CITY.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT WE ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF
THIS
LEGISLATION TO CHANGE --
REGULATIONS AS WELL.
THERE ARE A VARIETY OF THINGS WE
HAVE TO DO TO SUPPORT
MIDDLE HOUSING REGARDLESS OF
WHAT
ZONE IT OCCURS IN ACROSS THE
CITY.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, AGAIN, THE
REMINDER OF HB
1110 IS INTENDED TO CREATE MORE
SUPPLY OF
HOUSING BUT ALSO TO CREATE A
WIDER VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES.
HERE'S PICTURES OF THE
NINE DIFFERENT
HOUSING TYPES THEY SPECIFICALLY
HAD IN MIND.
SO THE PROPOSED INTERIM
LEGISLATION IS MUCH MORE
NARROW IN SCOPE THAN THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION THAT WE'LL
BE
TRANSMITTING SOON.
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION ONLY
THOSE STANDARDS
THAT ARE EITHER ADDRESSED IN HB
1110'S MODEL ORDINANCE
SPECIFICALLY OR ARE NECESSARY
TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.
WHERE THE STATE'S
MODEL ORDINANCE IS SIMILAR TO
THE
PROPOSED PERMANENT
LEGISLATION, WE ARE USING THE
STANDARDS IN THE PROPOSED
PERMANENT
LEGISLATION.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION CREATES
A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY FOR HOME
BUILDERS. IT TAKES A LONG TIME
TO FIND A
SITE, SECURE IT, DESIGN
PROPERTY, GET THE FINANCING,
GET THE PERMIT APPLICATION IN.
WHILE A LOT OF BIG DEVELOPERS OF
AFFORD TO
WAIT OUT THIS PERIOD, THE SMALL
ONES
REALLY CANNOT.
THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO STOP
MAKING MONEY FOR A WHILE.
SO THERE'S LOTS OF
PROJECTS BEING DESIGNED BY
PEOPLE
WHO DON'T KNOW IF THAT
PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE
INTERIM
OR PERMANENT LEGISLATION.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO WHERE
POSSIBLE ALIGN THE PERMANENT
AND INTERIM LEGISLATION TO KIND
OF
MINIMIZE THAT CONFUSION BOTH
FOR
HOME BUILDERS AND ALSO FOR CITY
STAFF.
LASTLY, THE INTERIM LEGISLATION
HAS A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS
THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL
INTERIM
LEGISLATION, INCLUDING A
CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR WHY
WE'RE ADOPTING INTERIM
LEGISLATION,
THE LENGTH OF TIME THE
INTERIM WOULD BE IN EFFECT.
THAT COULD BE FROM SIX MONTHS
TO A YEAR.
CURRENTLY IT SAYS ONE YEAR.
THEN A WORK
PLAN TO PREPARE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION.
SO AS YOU MENTIONED, THE
BIGGEST CHANGES ARE IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
AND ARE
ONE, TWO AND THREE.
THIS SLIDE SUMMARIZES WHAT
IS IN THE PROPOSED INTERIM
LEGISLATION AND HOW THAT
COMPARES TO THE
PROPOSED PERMANENT LEGISLATION.
ON THE FIRST TOPIC, THE
NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED ON A
LOT, THIS IS THE ONE AREA WHERE
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION IS
VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE
PERMANENT
LEGISLATION.
UNDER THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION, LOTS WOULD BE
ALLOWED TO HAVE
UP TO FOUR UNITS PER LOT OR SIX
IF
THEY'RE NEAR MAJOR TRANSIT OR
AFFORDABLE CONSISTENT WITH HB
1110.
THAT WOULD ONLY APPLY
TO EXISTING LOTS.
IF YOU HAVEA 5,000 SQUARE FOOT
LOT, YOU'D BE ALLOWED TO
HAVE FOUR OR SIX UNITS.
IF YOU HAVE A
500,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT YOU'D
BE
ALLOWED TO HAVE FOUR OR SIX
UNITS. IF YOU CHOOSE TO
SUBDIVIDE
THOSE LOTS, THAT WOULDN'T GO
AWAY.
YOU'D BE ALLOWED TO HAVE FOUR
OR
SIX ON THOSE SUBDIVIDED LOTS.
THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM
TO COMPLY WITH STATE
LAW. THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE A DENSITY
LIMIT, SO
LARGER LOTS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE
MORE
UNITS.
JUST BASED ON THE LOT SIZES
TODAY.
THE NEXT TOPIC IS THE FLOOR AREA
RATIO.
THAT'S THE RATIO OF THE AMOUNT
OF SQUARE FOOT YOU CAN HAVE
IN YOUR BUILDING TO WHAT'S ON
THE
LOT.
TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH
BUILDING YOU CAN HAVE ON YOUR
LOT,
YOU TAKE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO
AND
MULTIPLY IT BY THE LOT
SIZE. THAT BASICALLY SAYS HOW
BIG CAN
BUILDINGS
BE. SO THE INTERIM LEGISLATION,
THE
F.A.R. WOULD VARY BASED ON
THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE LOT.
IT WOULD START AT F.I.R. OF . 6
AND GO UP TO 1. 2 F.I.R.
IF YOU HAVE FOUR OR MORE UNITS
ON A
LOT.
IF YOU HAVE A ,000 SQUARE FOOT
LOT AND YOU HAVE FOUR UNITS YOU
MULTIPLY THAT BY THE LOT SIZE.
THAT WOULD BE FOUR UNITS
THAT ARE EACH 1500 SQUARE FEET.
THESE ARE TWO OR THREE BEDROOM
UNITS IF YOU'RE MAXIMIZING
YOUR FLOOR AREA ON A SMALL LOT.
THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION IS THE
SAME AS THE INTERIM, EXCEPT
THAT IT WOULD ALSO HAVE
ADDITIONAL BONUSES FOR
STACKED FLATS AND LOW INCOME
HOUSING.
THE REMAINING ONES ARE THE SAME
FOR INTERIM AND THE PERMANENT.
SO THE HIGH LIMIT WOULD BE 32
FEET PLUS PITCHED ROOFS.
AGAIN, THREE STORIES GENERALLY.
THE AMOUNT OF THE LOT
THAT COULD BE COVERED BY
BUILDINGS IS 50%.
THEN THE SETBACKS, THAT'S THE
DISTANCE THAT
BUILDINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE SET
BACK FROM A LOT
LINE, WOULD BE TEN FEET FOR
FRONT YARDS, TEN FEET FOR
REAR YARDS OR ZERO IF THEY HAVE
AN
ALLEY AND THEN FIVE- FOOT
SETBACKS IN THE SIDE YARD OR
ZERO IF THEY'RE ON AN ALLEY.
I DO WANT TO CLARIFY FOR
PEOPLE EVEN IF YOU HAVE ZERO
SETBACK
ON AN ALLEY, THAT
DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU
CAN
PUT A BUILDING RIGHT ON AN
ALLEY.
GARAGES ARE STILL SUBJECT TO
TURN RADIUSES.
GARAGES EVEN WITH A ZERO TURN
SETBACK HAVE TO BE SET BACK FOUR
TO EIGHT FEET TO ALLOW FOR
THAT TURNING INTO THE GARAGE
BASED ON
THE SIZE OF THE LOT.
SO THOSE ARE THE CHANGES TO THE
NR ZONES.
THERE WOULD BE IMPORTANT
BUT MORE MINOR CHANGES TO THE
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT ZONES.
WE ARE E ING TO HAVE
THAT SAME INCREASE FROM 30 FEET
TO
32 FEET THAT IS IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
WE WOULD ALSO INCREASE THE
FLOOR AREA RATIO SO IT WOULD BE
EQUAL
TO WHAT'S PROPOSED IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES AS WELL.
THERE ARE THEN A VOOIRT ARIETY
OF OTHER SMALLER CHANGES
REQUIRED
AS WELL.
WE HAVE TO UPDATE
VARIOUS STANDARDS IN LOW- RISE
ZONES
TO COMPLY WITH HB 1110 AND
ALSO REQUIREMENTS THAT
DESIGN STANDARDS BE CLEAR AND
OBJECTIVE IN 1293.
WE WOULD REMOVE
RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
THROUGHOUT
THE CITY IF IT'S WITHIN A
HALF MILE OF MAJOR TRANSIT
AS REQUIRED BY HB 1110.
WE'D HAVE TO MODIFY
CERTAIN PARKING SIZE AND TANDEM
PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH 6015.
MODIFYING STANDARDS FOR PE
PEDESTRIAN -- WE WOULD
EXEMPT MIDDLE HOUSING FROM
PARKING REQUIREMENTS CONSISTENT
WITH
1110 AND THEN UPDATE THE
EV CHARGING REQUIREMENTS AS
WELL.
SO IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THERE'S A
WIDE VARIETY OF
THINGS THAT ARE IN THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION THAT ARE
NOT
PROPOSED TO BE IN THE INTERIM.
THE IDEA IS WE WANTED TO DO
SOMETHING TO ADDRESS
THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY
TO COMPLY WITH HB 1110 AND NOT
NECESSARILY KIND OF FILL ALL
THE OTHER THINGS WE WANT TO
ACCOMPLISH.
I WON'T READ ALL THESE
THINGS, BUT AT A HIGH LEVEL
THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION
INCLUDES
A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE
OF NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE
THAT SINCE 1987.
SO THERE'S A WIDE VARIETY OF
THINGS WE'D LIKE TO IMPROVE.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS,
AGAIN, NOT PART OF THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION THAT WILL BE
TALKING ABOUT AS PART OF THE
PERMANENT. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY
PRESENTATION.
SO I'LL TURN IT OVER AND SEE
IF THERE ARE
QUESTIONS.
>> I ALSO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY
THAT THE THINGS THAT WE LEFT
OUT, IT'S PARTLY DUE
TO CONSTRAINT IN TERMS OF WHAT
WE CAN INCLUDE SINCE OUR EIS IS
UNDER APPEAL.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR
THAT'S -- YOU
KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE MADE OTHER
CHOICES HAD
THAT NOT BEEN THE
CASE.
>> AWESOME.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION FROM OUR WONDERFUL
EXECUTIVE.
I WANT TO PAUSE HERE AND FIND
OUT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
THAT'S THE FIRST SMILE YOU
ALL POPPED WHEN I SAID WE SHOULD
SMILE, ALL OF Y'ALL LOOKED AT
ME
SCATHINGLY.
I'M JUST PLAYING.
JUST A JOKE.
SO I'M GOING TO PAUSE HERE
TO SEE IF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE
NE
ANY QUESTIONS.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU FOR THIS
PRESENTATION.
I HAVE A QUESTION.
IT COMES UP OVER AND OVER
AGAIN SO I'M ASKING IT NOW.
HOW IS FREQUENT TRANSIT DEFINED?
>> YEAH.
SO FREQUENT TRANSIT IS ALREADY
A DEFINITION THAT'S IN
OUR CODE. WE'VE BEEN USING IT
FOR A
WHILE FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
IT IS A LITTLE BIT DETAILED,
BUT AT A HIGH LEVEL IT MEANS
THOSE STOPS THAT HAVE SERVICE
THAT
IS EVERY 15 MINUTES DURING THE
WEEKDAY AND KIND OF A TEN-
HOUR PERIOD DURING THE WEEKDAY.
THEN THERE ALSO ARE
SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
WEEKEND AS
WELL.
>> OKAY.
SO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
IT'S BASICALLY IF YOU'RE
THERE FOR 15 MINUTES YOU'RE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET ON
SOMETHING.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THANKS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL LD
REMEMBER
MOORE FOLLOWED BY COULD REMEMBER
SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
LOOKING AT SLIDE 12, CHANGES
TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE
THINKING?
I SEE THE TWO TOP COLUMNS
BETWEEN INTERIM AND
PERMANENT LEGISLATION THERE'S
SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE. I'M MOST
PARTICULARLY
INTERESTED IN THE F.A.R. ,
BECAUSE I HAVE
BEEN MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF
STACKED FLATS LIKE MATT HUTCHINS
AND OTHERS TO MEET EVEN MORE
F.A.R. THAN THAT.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY
A DECISION WAS MADE IN THE
INTERIM
LEGISLATION WHAT I THINK ARE
GOOD ADDITIONAL BONUSES
FOR STACKED FLATS AND LOW INCOME
HOUSING.
>> SIMPLY WITH THE OF
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION WAS TO
TRY TO COMPLY WITH 1110 SO WE
KIND OF LIMITED IT TO THOSE
THINGS THAT WERE KIND OF
NECESSARY TO
APPLY.
STACKED FLAT AND LOW INCOME
HOUSING BONUSES ARE
NOT NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH HB
1110.
>> AGAIN, THE CONSTRAINT IS OUR
EIS IS UNDER APPEAL.
SO THE SUBSTANCE OF
WHAT'S IN THE EIS ADDRESSES THE
IMPACTS
OF DEVELOPMENT.
SO WE ARE NOT ABLE TO TAKE A
FORMAL VOTE ON THE PERMANENT
LEGISLATION RIGHT NOW WHILE OUR
EIS IS UNDER APPEAL.
SO IT'S ON ADVICE OF OUR
ATTORNEYS WE ARE STAYING
CLOSE TO THE MODEL CODE
ORDINANCE AS
LONG AS OUR EIS IS UNDER APPEAL.
>> LET ME JUST CLARIFY.
YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE THE EIS
IS UNDER APPEAL, WE ARE
LEGALLY PROHIBITED FROM
INCLUDING IN
THE INTERIM LEGISLATION
ADDITIONAL
F.A.R. AND BONUSES FOR
LOW- INCOME HOUSING?
>> THAT'S -- I
WOULDN'T NECESSARILY PUT IT
THAT WAY.
BUT I THINK WE CAN ALSO
MAYBE TAKE THIS CONVERSATION
OFFLINE IF WE'RE GOING TO START
GETTING INTO ATTORNEY/CLIENT
PRIVILEGE
INFORMATION.
BUT THE SHORT ANSWER IS, YES,
THE FACT THAT OUR EIS IS UNDER
APPEAL IS LIMITING OUR
ABILITY TO PUT ADDITIONAL THINGS
INTO THE INTERIM LEGISLATION
THAT
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE
PERMANENT.
>> OKAY.
YEAH.
I WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER
THE DIFFERENCES ON F.A.R. AND
NUMBER OF UNITS IS RELATED
BETWEEN THE
INTERIM AND PERMANENT IS BECAUSE
OF LEGAL CONSTRAINTS VERSUS JUST
A POLICY DECISION THAT WE DON'T
WANT TO TAKE THAT STEP AT THIS
TIME.
SO THAT CLARIFICATION WOULD BE
HELPFUL.
>> YEAH.
THERE WAS SOME JUDGMENT USED IN
THIS.
AND I DO THINK THERE'S SOME
GRAY AREA.
SO WELCOME TO HAVE
THAT CONVERSATION WITH
YOU.
>> OKAY.
ANOTHER THING THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL IS IF YOU COULD IN
THE CHART -- CAN YOU SPECIFY --
LET
ME GO BACK
TO LOOKING AT MY QUESTIONS.
SAME THING.
I GUESS WITH THE THINKING OF ONE
UNIT PER 1250 SQUARE FEET.
WHAT IS THE RANGE OF LOT SIZES
IN SEATTLE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES
AT THISTHIS
AND NUMBER OF UNITS IMPLIED?
>> YEAH.
I MEAN, THERE'S A HUGE RANGE
OF LOT SIZE IN SEATTLE.
YOU SEE LOTS AS SMALL AS
3,000 SQUARE FEET AND ONES AS
BIG
AS, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN
100,000, MULTIPLE BLOCK SIZES.
SO IT'S A HUGE RANGE
OF DIFFERENT SIZES.
WAS THERE A SECOND QUESTION?
>> MM-HM.
>> WHAT WAS THE OTHER QUESTION
THEN?
>> NO.
THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU.
MY LAST QUESTION AT THIS POINT
IS, SO IF -- BECAUSE WE
HAVE THIS APPEAL PROCESS, IF
THE APPEAL GETS RESOLVED BEFORE
WE
IMPLEMENT OR PASS THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION, IS WHAT WE WOULD
BE PASSING THEN CONSIDERED
THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION?
>>
NO. REGARDLESS OF THE
APPEALS THIS
IS INTERIM LEGISLATION. ON THE
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR IT
IT'S IN THE LEGISLATION ITSELF
THAT IT WILL EXPIRE AFTER A
CERTAIN TIME UNLESS IT'S
RENEWED
OR PERMANENT LEGISLATION IS
PASSED.
>> COULD YOU GO TO SLIDE 11,
PLEASE, THE STUFF THAT'S NOT
INCLUDED INTERIM LEGISLATION.
I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO TAKE IT
OFFLINE, BUT SOME OF THOSE --
AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG -- ARE POTENTIALLY
BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES.
SOME MIGHT BE A POLICY CHOICE,
BUT IT'S A MIXTURE ON THIS
SLIDE.
IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?
>> WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT
THE APPROACH -- TO TRY AND HUE
TO
WHAT IS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH
HB 1110.
IF IT'S POLICY VERSUS LEGAL, I
THINK THAT IS A QUESTION FOR
THE LAWYERS THAT WE DON'T WANT
TO
EXPOUND ON THEIR JUDGMENTS
HERE.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
>> YEAH.
>> NO.
GOOD.
I LIKE THIS SLIDE BECAUSE
I THINK IT HELPS US SEE WHAT
IS NOT INCLUDED, BUT THAT WOULD
BE POTENTIALLY ADDRESSED IN
THE PERMANENT LEGISLATION OF
HOUSE BILL 1110 AND THEN WHAT
YOU
JUST SAID, BRENNON.
SO THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> THANK YOU.
THE PROPOSED INTERIM
LEGISLATION I UNDERSTAND IS
INTENDED TO
SURVIVE AND TERMINATE AFTER ONE
YEAR.
HELP ME BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
TIMELINE, THE ANTICIPATED
TIMELINE, OF THE PROPOSED
PERMANENT LEGISLATION.
I KNOW IT ALL HINGES UPON THE
VARIOUS CHALLENGES.
HELP ME BETTER UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S CURRENTLY ANTICIPATED
FOR
TIMELINE FOR PROPOSAL.
>> WE WERE PLANNING ON
SENDING THE PERMANENT DOWN IN
MARCH.
WHEN THE APPEALS CAME IN --
>> I UNDERSTAND.
>> YEAH.
SO WE ARE HOPING TO SEND
THAT DOWN IN MAY.
SO YOU WILL HAVE THAT IN HAND
BY MAY HOPEFULLY.
OUR LAW DEPARTMENT IS
PRETTY OVERWHELMED RIGHT NOW, SO
THAT
IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE
ISSUES WITH GETTING A QUICK
TURNAROUND
REVIEW.
THEN THE SECOND PIECE,
THE CORRIDORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS LEGISLATION, MIGHT
TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER AFTER I
HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE LAW
DEPARTMENT YESTERDAY.
AGAIN, THE APPEALS PROCESS IS
TAKING UP A LOT OF THEIR
TIME RIGHT NOW.
BUT WE ARE ALSO DRIVING
TOWARDS A MAY/JUNE TRANSMITTAL
FOR THAT
AS WELL, FINGERS CROSSED.
>> SO MAY FOR THE FIRST
PART, AND THEN FOR SOME OF
THE CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTING
LEGISLATION, JUNE.
BY
JUNE.
>> YES.
THEN THE THIRD PIECE WE
DID TRANSMIT YESTERDAY, WHICH IS
THE ACTUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN
IT.
>> THANK YOU.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MADAM
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA.
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR.
THANK YOU TODAY FOR THIS
PRESENTATION.
OUR OFFICE IS HAPPY THAT THE
1110 INTERIM LEGISLATION
ALIGNS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO
THE
PROPOSAL WHERE WE REALLY
PROMOTE STABILITY.
A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR TODAY.
ON SLIDE EIGHT, YOU'RE
PROPOSING FROM ONE UNIT PER 1250
SQUARE
FEET, A BLANKET FOUR TO
SIX UNITS PER LOT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT
THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS
COULD
BE?
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, WHAT IS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
INTERIM
LEGISLATION AND THE
PERMANENT LEGISLATION IN TERMS
OF
OUTCOMES ON SITE?
>>
YES.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU.
YEAH.
SO THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE
LEGISLATION WOULD
APPLY A NUMBER -- A CERTAIN
ALLOWANCE
FOR A NUMBER OF UNITS THAT'S
BASED ON WHAT LOTS EXIST TODAY.
SO IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE
100,000 SQUARE FEET OF AREA, IF
IT HAPPENS TO BE ONE LOT, YOU
GET FOUR UNITS.
IF IT HAPPENS TO BE BROKEN
INTO 20 DIFFERENT LOTS,
THEN YOU WOULD GET 100 UNITS.
IT ALSO WOULD
DISCOURAGE SUBDIVISION BECAUSE
ONCE
YOU SUBDIVIDED THOSE INTO
MULTIPLE
LOTS, THEN YOU WOULD LOSE
THE ABILITY TO HAVE FOUR LOTS ON
EACH OF THOSE.
INSTEAD YOU'D HAVE THE
CURRENT ALLOWANCE OF ONE UNIT
PLUS
TWO ACCESSORY UNITS.
THE DIFFERENCE IN
PERMANENT LEGISLATION IS THEY
WOULD
SCALE BASED ON MORE UNITS,
LARGER LOT.
YOU WOULD SUBDIVIDE IT SO
IT WOULD BE EASIER TO CHANGE
THINGS AROUND.
THERE WOULD BE A LOT
MORE FLEXIBILITY AND IT WOULD
BE BASED ON -- WOULDN'T BE
BASED
SO MUCH ON WHAT THIS LOT SIZE
HAPPENS TO BE
TODAY.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND WOULD THE INTERIM
LEGISLATION AS IS ALLOW FOR ALL
NINE FORMS OF HOUSING?
>> IT WOULD,
YES.
>> HOW CAN WE WORK TO
MAKE STACKED FLATS PENCIL
AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES?
IS THE STATE'S LEGISLATION TO
REFORM CONDO LIABILITY LAWS
A POTENTIAL FIX TO THIS PROBLEM?
>> YEAH.
THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE
HELPFUL, BUT THE OTHER FACTOR
IS THAT OUR COMMERCIAL BUILDING
CODE KICKS
IN, I THINK, AFTER TWO UNITS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
SO THAT'S ANOTHER FACTOR.
IT'S JUST A REALLY HARD
PRODUCT TO MAKE PENCIL AND
NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL.
THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY WE ARE PROPOSING
NEIGHBOR CENTERS AND UP ZONES
ALONG
CORRIDORS, BECAUSE THOSE
WILL ALLOW FOR BIGGER
MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT ARE
MORE FEASIBLE
TO BE BUILT.
SO THERE MIGHT BE A PATH FORWARD
WITH STACKED FLATS AS
MARKET CONDITIONS CHANGE.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT LOOKING
LIKE WE'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT
OF STACKED FLATS IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES,
UNLESS WE
INCREASED THE
ZONING SIGNIFICANTLY TO WHAT IS
BEING
PROPOSED.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
TWO MORE QUESTIONS.
FIRST, WHAT CAN WE DO TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARCELS
THAT APPEAR TO BE
POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR
REDEVELOPMENT
TO ABOVE 19%, AS REFERENCED IN
THE
ECO- NORTHWEST STUDY?
>> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD
QUESTION.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE MAYOR
IS
REALLY FOCUSED ON IN TERMS OF
LOOKING AT THOSE LEVERS THAT
THE CITY HAS CONTROL OVER TO
REDUCE THE COST OF BUILDING
HOUSING IN THE CITY.
AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE
INTO OUR NEXT
PRESENTATION, STARTING WITH OUR
RECOMMENDATION TO NOT EXTEND THE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
PROGRAM INTO NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL,
AS THAT WILL ADD COST.
AND WE ARE SEEING THROUGH
THE ECO- NORTHWEST REPORT.
I HAVE ANOTHER ONE IN FRONT
OF ME FROM UC BERKELEY'S CENTER
FOR HOUSING AND INNOVATION THAT
ALSO
CONCLUDES THAT MENTAL HOUSING IS
A REALLY DIFFICULT TYPE OF
SMALL- SCALE DEVELOPMENT THAT
IS DIFFICULT TO PENCIL FOR
A VARIETY OF REASONS.
I WOULD RECOMMEND EVERYONE
PICK THAT UP AND READ IT.
BUT IT ECHOES A LOT OF WHAT
WE HAVE IN THE ECO- NORTHWEST
STUDY
ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF MAKING
MIDDLE HOUSING PENCIL.
SO TODAY WE'RE GOING TO
TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE
WOULD RECOMMEND TO MAKE IT
MORE FEASIBLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
I WILL ALSO SAY THAT WE WENT OUT
WITH OUR FIRST DRAFT WITH
A SMALLER F.A.R.
OPCD'S THINKING ON THAT WAS
THAT SMALLER UNITS WOULD BE MORE
AFFORDABLE. SO THERE WAS GOOD
INTENT BEHIND
OPCD'S RECOMMENDATION.
BUT WE GOT A LOT OF
FEEDBACK ASKING TO INCREASE THE
F.A.R.
THE POSITIVE ABOUT
INCREASING THE F.A.R. IS A LOT
MORE PROJECTS PENCILLED UNDER
THE
LARGER F.A.R. AS WELL.
SO WE WERE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT
CHANGE, BUT THERE'S OF THESE
DECISIONS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.
I'M GOING TO HOLD THE REST OF
MY
QUESTIONS UNTIL AFTER THE
PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> AWESOME.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
WE SEE A HAND FROM
COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE.
YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
FLOOR IS
YOURS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A REQUEST
THAT MAYBE WE COULD HAVE SOME
OF THE STACKED FLAT BUILDERS
COME TO THE COUNCIL TABLE,
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF -- YOU
KNOW,
HEARING ONE THING FROM THIS
TABLE.
I'M HEARING ANOTHER THING WHEN
I MEET WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE
DEVELOPING STACKED FLATS
LIKE MATT HUTCHINS IN SPOKANE
ABOUT WHAT THE OBSTACLES ARE AND
AA
OF IT REVOLVES AROUND F.A.R. AND
ALSO NEEDING TO HAVE
THAT ADDITIONAL DENSITY BONUS OF
FOUR FLOORS FOR IT TO BEGIN TO
PENCIL.
SO I JUST -- IT SEEMS TO
ME THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST
IN STACKED FLATS.
THERE'S A LOT OF
MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT
DOES AND DOESN'T WORK
FOR INCENTIVIZING IT.
I THINK WE'RE AT A JUNCTURE
HERE
WHERE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO REALLY DO SOMETHING KIND OF
BOLD.
SIMILARLY AROUND THE ISSUE OF
COURTYARD COTTAGES.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT
WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE -- WE
CAN ZONE -- WE CAN UP ZONE
WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING
NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS.
SO WE CAN BUILD -- WE CAN
HAVE THE LEVEL OF DENSITY --
EXCUSE ME -- THE LEVEL OF F.A.R.
AND HEIGHT THAT WE NEED
THROUGHOUT THE CITY WITHOUT
NECESSARILY HAVING TO PLACE THEM
IN
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS.
SO IT'S NOT AN EITHER/OR.
I JUST WANT THAT TO BE CLEAR.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE.
CAN WE GO TO SLIDE TEN ON THAT
NOTE?
OR MAYBE IT'S SLIDE SIX THAT
SHOWS ALL THE OPTIONS FOR --
>> THIS ONE OR --
>> NO. IT'S THE ONE THAT HAS
ALL
THE OPTIONS POTENTIALLY.
I THINK IT'S NUMBER SIX, SLIDE
SIX.
>> YES.
>> SO THIS IS THE GOAL,
AND THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.
AND I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF
COUNCILMEMBERS TALK ABOUT FLATS
AND HOW CAN WE BE
ABLE TO PROMOTE THAT TYPE
OF STYLE AND BUILDING AND THE
CODE
CHANGES. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT
OF
THIS AND THAT.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE BRING IT UP.
HAVING PEOPLE ON THE
GROUND BUILDING THESE THINGS TO
COME AND EXPLAIN HERE ARE SOME
OF
THE BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES
THEY'RE
HAVING.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO SEE THAT
PHOTO, BECAUSE IF YOU GO TO
EAST LAKE IN OUR CITY, EAST LAKE
IS FULL OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS,
DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES,
FOURPLEXES, SIXPLEXES,
COURTYARDS, STACKED
FLATS.
THEY HAVE
A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT OPTION
OPTIONS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
SINGLE- FAMILY HOUSING IN EAST
LAKE.
IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF REALLY
COOL
OPTIONS AND GREAT DENSITY.
I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE
REALLY WANT THAT.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE
REALLY EXCITED ABOUT DIFFERENT
HOUSING OPTIONS AND DENSITY IN
OUR
CITY THAT MAKE SENSE,
ESPECIALLY ACCESSIBLE FOR FOLKS.
THAT'S THE ENERGY WE'RE
GETTING, THAT'S THE VIBE.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
ABLE TO PUSH THAT ALONG AS BEST
AS
POSSIBLE.
AWESOME.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SO FAR.
SEEING NONE, HEARING NONE,
I GUESS WE WILL MOVE
ONTO THE NEXT
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.
OH, I HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE
THE CLERK READ THE ITEM IN THE
AGENDA.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM
TWO INTO THE
RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM TWO, MANDATORY
HOUSING E ING AFFORDABILITY OR
MHA.
PRESENTERS ARE JEFF
WENTLANDT AND CHRISTA VALLES
FROM THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE.
I HAVE A READING DISABILITY.
I'M GETTING OVER THAT.
I JUST WANT TO THANK THEM
FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK.
THEY'RE IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT
FOR THE RECORD.
YOU MAY BEGIN.
THANK
YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCILMEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TO GIVE
YOU AN OVERVIEW OF
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
THIS
MORNING.
WE'RE GOING TO DO KIND OF A
ONE-ON- ONE LEVEL RECAP OF HOW
MHA WORKS.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO TALK
ABOUT HOW MHA IS PROPOSED TO
BE APPLIED UNDER THE NEW
SEATTLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PROPOSAL.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO TALK
ABOUT SOME IDEAS FOR HOW MHA
COULD BE
IMPROVED IN THE FUTURE.
WE'LL START WITH THE BACKGROUND
HERE.
WHAT IS MHA?
SO MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY.
IT'S A REQUIREMENT IN SEATTLE
THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IN DEVELOPMENT OR PAYS AN IN
LIEU FEE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT.
CURRENTLY MHA APPLIES IN
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CITY'S
MULTIFAMILY AND
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
MHA IS IMPLEMENTED WHEN
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
OR AN
UP ZONE IS GIVEN WITH THE
PREMISE THAT THAT ADDITIONAL
VALUE OFFSETS THE COST OF
AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENT.
AND MHA IS AUTHORIZED BY A
STATE- APPROVED
INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAM
UNDER THE
STATE'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT.
A BRIEF HISTORY FOR YOU.
THIS GOES BACK ROUGHLY TEN
YEARS
NOW. IT WAS ONE OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF A PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION'S
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND
LIVABILITY TASK FORCE IN 2016.
IT WAS THEN IMPLEMENTED
IN SEVERAL AREAS INITIALLY
WHERE THERE WAS AN EXISTING
INCENTIVE PROGRAM OR AN
ONGOING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING
PROCESS.
SO THE FIRST AREAS WERE
DOWNTOWN, U DISTRICT,
CENTRAL AREA AND THE CHINATOWN
ID AND
UPTOWN.
IN 2019 IT WAS LATER
IMPLEMENTED CITY WIDE IN THE
REMAINING
URBAN VILLAGES AND MULTIFAMILY
AND COMMERCIAL AREAS OF THE
CITY.
WE'LL SHOW YOU A MAP IN A
MOMENT.
SINCE THEN, IT HAS CONTINUED TO
BE IMPLEMENTED ED WHENEVER THE
CITY DOES AN AREA SPECIFIC UP
ZONE LIKE IN GEORGETOWN,
BALLARD, RAINIER AVENUE.
THE CURRENT PRACTICE IS AS
THE CITY MAKES UP ZONES, WE
CONTINUE
TO EXPAND WHERE MHA APPLIES.
JUST EMPHASIZING THIS, HOW
DOES IT WORK?
JUST, AGAIN, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENT IS ADDED
WHEN
WE'RE PAIRING IT WITH AN UP
ZONE THAT
INCREASES DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY.
AND THE BIGGER THE UP ZONE,
THE HIGHER THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
REQUIREMENT, GENERALLY SPEAKING.
SO THE IMAGE IS JUST SHOWING
YOU THAT ON THE LEFT BEFORE MHA
IS IN PLACE, MAYBE A
DEVELOPER COULD BUILD A MAXIMUM
OF A
FOUR- STORY BUILDING WITH ABOUT
40 UNITS. THE CITY PROVIDES AN
UP ZONE.
NOW THAT DEVELOPER CAN BUILD A
FIVE- STORY BUILDING WITH THE
ADDED CANDIDACY IN BLUE, AND
NOW THEY CAN BUILD 52 APARTMENTS
AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO INCLUDE
A PORTION OF THAT AS AFFORDABLE.
SO THIS IS THE MAP. SHOWING
YOU WHERE MHA CURRENTLY
APPLIES IN THE TEAL COLOR.
YOU'LL SEE THAT'S GENERALLY
UNDER THE EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, URBAN
CENTERS AND URBAN
VILLAGES.
YOU CAN SEE THOSE OUTLINES IN
BLACK.
OUTSIDE OF THOSE AREAS,
THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY
ZONED LAND THAT IS OUTSIDE OF
THOSE GROWTH AREAS.
MHA DOES NOT CURRENTLY APPLY
IN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND
SHORELINE
AREAS.
THOSE ARE PLACES WHERE
WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO OR DONE
UP
ZONES.
IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT
APPLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL FORMERLY SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONED
AREAS, NOR DOES IT APPLY
IN INDUSTRIALLY ZONED AREAS.
I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE JUST
TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE
PROGRAM'S AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENTS.
SO REMEMBER THAT DEVELOPERS
HAVE THE CHOICE OF PERFORMING
WHERE THEY BUILD THE UNITS ON
SITE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OR
MAKING AN IN LIEU PAYMENT.
IF THE DEVELOPER CHOOSES
THE PERFORMANCE OPTION,
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MUST BE
PROVIDED AND UNITS MAINTAINED
FOR 75 YEARS.
THE IN LIEU PAYMENT OPTION IS
INTENDED TO APPROXIMATE THE COST
OF THAT ON- SITE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THE REQUIREMENTS ARE
CALIBRATED BY A FEW FACTORS.
ONE OF THEM IS THE
MARKET STRENGTH AREA OF THE
CITY.
SO IN HIGHER MARKET STRENGTH
AREAS, ON THIS FIGURE THE
HIGHEST, YOU KNOW, COST OR
MARKET STRENGTH AREAS ARE IN
PINK.
YOU HAVE A HIGHER AFFORDABLE
HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
IN THE MEDIUM AREAS IT'S A
LITTLE LESS, AND IN THE
LOW MARKET STRENGTH AREAS IT'S
A LITTLE LESS.
THE PERCENTAGES OF HOMES
A DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO
INCLUDE
RANGE FROM 5% IN THE CHART
ON THE LOW END TO A MAXIMUM OF
11% ON THE HIGH END.
THE OTHER FACTOR THAT VARIES THE
REQUIREMENT IS HOW BIG THE
UP ZONE WAS.
THAT'S INDICATED BY AN M, M1 OR
M2 SUFFIX AFTER THE ZONE.
IT BASICALLY MEANS IF AN
AREA GOT SORT OF A ONE NOTCH UP
STONE, LIKE A ONE- STORY
ADDITION, IT WOULD BE AN M
LEVEL REQUIREMENT.
IF THE AREA GOT A BIGGER, SAY A
TWO- STEP UP ZONE, IT WOULD BE
AN M1 LEVEL REQUIREMENT.
AND IF THE AREA GOT A REALLY
BIG UP ZONE, YOU WOULD APPLY THE
HIGHEST M2 TIER REQUIREMENT.
SO YOU CAN SEE THOSE AMOUNTS
IN THE CHART.
OOPS.
YOU MAY ASK,
WELL, HOW DOES THE CITY PRODUCE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WITH THOSE PROCEEDS. THOSE
DOLLARS GO TO THE
CITY'S OFFICE OF HOUSING.
AND EVERY YEAR THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING COMBINES THOSE
REVENUES WITH OTHER SOURCES, AND
THEY GIVE AWARDS TO NONPROFIT
HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO
BUILD WHOLE BUILDINGS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
TO DATE, MHA HAS YIELDED 4,702
OF THOSE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THE IMAGE IS AN EXAMPLE OF
THE TYPE OF
BUILDING THAT THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING FUNDS.
THIS ONE IS IN THE UNIVERSITY
DISTRICT.
YOU'LL SEE A BUILDING LIKE THAT
IN PRETTY MUCH
EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN SEATTLE
THAT
O.H. HAS FUNDED.
WHILE MOST DEVELOPERS
HAVE CHOSEN TO DO THE PAYMENT
OPTION, DEVELOPERS HAVE ALSO
PROVIDED
404 AFFORDABLE UNITS ON
SITE THROUGH MHA.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING
BY THE MHA
PROCEEDS THAT THE CITY RECEIVES.
OKAY.
I'M GOING TO PIVOT NOW TO
HOUSE THE EXECUTIVE IS PROPOSING
TO
EXPAND MHA UNDER THE ONE SEATTLE
PLAN.
YOU'VE SEEN THIS MAP ONCE
BEFORE.
WHAT IT'S SHOWING YOU IS,
WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO BASICALLY
COSMOPOLITAN
CONTINUE THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF
EXTENDING MHA TO NEW AREAS
THAT ARE UP ZONED FOR
MULTIFAMILY
AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS.
SO UNDER THE PROPOSED ONE
SEATTLE PLAN, THOSE ARE
GOING TO BE THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER
AREAS, WALKABLE,
LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS.
THERE WILL BE 30 OR MORE AROUND
THE CITY.
AS WELL AS EXPANDED URBAN AND
REGIONAL CENTERS, AND
THE FREQUENT TRANSIT
CORRIDORS. THOSE AREAS ARE
INDICATED
IN ORANGE ON THE MAP.
WE'RE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE
TO APPLY MHA IN THOSE PLACES.
THAT WOULD INCREASE THE
ACREAGE OF MHA IN THE CITY BY
21%.
YOU CAN SEE THE ACREAGES LISTED
IN THE TABLE BELOW.
WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING
TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING
AND CURRENT PRACTICE OF NOT
APPLYING MHA IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
>> BEFORE YOU GO TO THE NEXT
SLIDE, I WANT TO
RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA
HAS
JOINED US IN PERSON.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON
THE CREATION OF THOSE 4700
UNITS.
YOU SAID TO DATE.
DOES THAT MEAN SINCE 2017?
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.
>> WELL, SINCE THE PROGRAM
WAS IMPLEMENTED IN PHASES, THE
FIRST OF WHICH WAS 2017 AND THEN
LATER
IN 2019.
AND THOSE NUMBERS ARE RUN
THROUGH, I THINK, THE END OF
2024.
SO WHEN I SAY TO DATE, IT'S THE
BEST NUMBERS WE'VE GOT.
>> FROM 2017 TO 2024?
>> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YEAH.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR,
THOSE NUMBERS ARE COMBINED
REVENUE
SOURCES TO CREATE THOSE UNITS.
IT'S NOT MHA ALONE THAT CREATED
THAT MANY UNITS.
>> SO THIS IS IMPORTANT.
WE WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO TELL
YOU WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING
THAT WE EXEMPT THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL AREAS FROM MHA
REQUIREMENTS.
THE FIRST REASON IS THAT HB
1110, AS MANDATED BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURE, ALREADY
REQUIRES THAT THE NR ZONES
INCLUDE A
BUILT- IN DENSITY BONUS
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO THERE'S A REQUIREMENT
IN THERE THAT COMES WITH THAT
LEGISLATION. IF AT LEAST TWO OF
THE UNITS ARE
PROVIDERS OF AFFORDABLE, YOU
GET TO GO UP TO SIX UNITS
INSTEAD OF
FOUR ON A TYPICAL LOT.
THAT'S REASON NUMBER ONE.
THE NEXT SEVERAL REASONS
ARE BECAUSE WE REALLY WANT
TO PRIORITIZE SEEING THE
PRODUCTION OF MIDDLE HOUSING IN
THE
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONES.
EVERYONE AGREES THAT MIDDLE
HOUSING IS IS A HIGH
PRIORITY, AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE IT
COMES TO FRUITION.
WE KNOW THAT CURRENT
MARKET CONDITIONS FOR HOUSING
ARE ALREADY QUITE CHALLENGING.
AND YOU'LL HEAR TODAY FROM
EXPERTS ABOUT THAT FACT.
THE REPORT COMMISSIONED
AND PREPARED BY ECO- NORTHWEST
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES FOUND THAT 80%
OF THE PARCELS IN
THE NEW NR AREAS
WILL NOT SUPPORT A MIDDLE
HOUSING PROJECT
THAT CAN PENCIL ECONOMICALLY.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT MHA
PROVIDES SOME PARTICULAR AND
UNIQUE
CHALLENGES TO SMALL- SCALE
DEVELOPERS.
SO THE BURKE AND HEARTLAND
REPORT FOUND WHEN THEY
WERE LOOKING BACK AT THE 2019 UP
ZONES, THE UP ZONES THAT
WERE PROVIDED IN THE LOW- RISE
ZONES CREATED SOMEWHAT
LIMITED DEVELOPMENT VALUE FOR
SMALL- SCALE AND TOWN HOME-
SCALE
DEVELOPERS. THE CHANGES TO THE
NR
ZONE WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THOSE.
THE TYPES OF -- SMALL-
SCALE DEVELOPERS JUST SORT OF --
THEY HAVE MORE DIFFICULTY
ADDRESSING THE MHA
REQUIREMENT THAN BIG
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPERS IN
DOWNTOWN OR, YOU KNOW, A VERY
HIGH- DENSITY, LARGE- SCALE
DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE SOME UNIQUE CHALLENGES
THERE.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THE NL
ZONES IS PRETTY MODEST IN TERMS
OF THE SCALE OF THE UP ZONE.
SOME OF THE UP ZONES THAT WERE
APPLIED TO PUT MHA IN PLACE
IN OTHER AREAS WERE
SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGING THE SCALE
OF
DEVELOPMENT, ADDING MULTIPLE
STORIES THAT YOU COULD BUILD,
YOU KNOW, REALLY LARGE-
SCALE CHANGES TO THE FORM
THAT COULD BE BUILT.
THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE
WITH WHAT WOULD BE DONE HERE
IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL.
SO WE'RE SKEPTICAL THAT
THE SCALE OF THOSE UP ZONES ARE
IN
THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO APPLY MHA.
AND WE DO WANT TO TELL YOU THAT
MANY CITIES WITH
INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAMS
LIKE MHA
NOTING THAT THERE'S
PARTICULAR CHALLENGES FOR SMALL-
SCALE
DEVELOPERS, THEY EXEMPT
LOW NUMBERS OF UNITS FROM
AN INCLUSIONARY
REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS TYPICALLY
IN THE FIVE TO
30- UNIT RANGE.
THAT'S QUITE COMMON FOR
PEER CITIES THAT HAVE SIMILAR
PROGRAMS.
SO IN SUM, WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THAT PRODUCTION OF
MIDDLE HOUSING IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE IT
HAPPENS, WE ARE REMMING
NOT APPLYING THE MHA
REQUIREMENTS IN THOSE AREAS.
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO
CHRISTA, WHO'S GOING TO TELL
YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME
IDEAS FOR HOW MHA COULD BE
IMPROVED
IN GENERAL.
>> BEFORE WE PIVOT, ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE JUST
COVERED?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> HOW MUCH WAS MHA GENERATE
RIGHT NOW?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I DON'T HAVE THE FIGURE OFF THE
HEAD, BUT
THE CONSULTANTS HAVE IN THEIR
SLIDE
DECK A REALLY NICE SLIDE ABOUT
ALL THE REVENUES THAT HAVE
BEEN GENERATED ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS,
SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK
AT
THAT. IN PAST YEARS, IT HAS BEEN
SUBSTANTIAL, NOT SO MUCH
IN RECENT YEARS DUE TO
THE CHALLENGING HOUSING MARKET
CONDITIONS.
AGAIN, MHA WORKS ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT NEW HOUSING ACTUALLY
GETS
BUILT.
>> OKAY.
IT'S IN THEIR REPORT, THOUGH?
>> CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO LET'S SEE.
THE FIRST ISSUE HERE IS THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
UP ZONES IN 2019, LOW- RISE UP
ZONES MAY NOT BE OF SIMILAR
SCALE.
SO I THINK SUGGESTING THAT
THE EVALUATION FINDINGS FOR LOW-
RISE UP ZONES, THEY ARE NOT
GOING TO BE NECESSARILY FULLY
APPLICABLE TO NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL UP
ZONES. I THINK YOU MADE THE CASE
THAT THIS REPORT FOUND THAT THEY
WERE OF LIMITED VALUE TO TOWN
HOME
DEVELOPERS.
BUT THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL UP
ZONES ARE GOING TO
ALLOW SIGNIFICANTLY MORE UNITS
THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED,
BECAUSE
WE'RE GOING TO BE
INCREASING DENSITY TO ONE UNIT
PER 1250
SQUARE FEET.
SO I GUESS I JUST THINK THAT
WE'RE NOT REALLY COMPARING
APPLES TO APPLES WHEN WE SAY
IT DIDN'T WORK FOR
LOW-RISE, THEREFORE, IT
WOULDN'T
NECESSARILY WORK IN AN UP ZONE
RESIDENTIAL.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY EVALUATION OF
HOW NHA -- MHA -- WHAT ARE
OTHER HOUSING TYPES CONTEMPLATED
BY HB
1110 LIKE STACKED FLATS
THAT PENCIL OUT AT FOUR, FIVE,
SIX
STORIES.
WE TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS.
THEY'RE LOCATED IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL RIGHT
NOW.
THEY REAR THEY'RE NOT SUDDENLY
IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE.
WE'RE JUST ALLOWING A
PARTICULAR AREA TO GO HIGH.
AND YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO OPEN
THAT UP.
CAN YOU JUST ANSWER THAT
QUESTION?
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE
ARE RECOMMENDING EXPANDING MHA
INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
AND
ALONG THE CORRIDORS WHERE THERE
WILL BE HIGHER DENSITY PROPOSED
THERE.
>> RIGHT.
BUT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT
IT BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER.
MY POINT IS NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS ARE LOCATED IN
NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO I GUESS IT DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE TO ME TO SAY THAT MHA
ISN'T GOING TO WORK IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL WHEN,
IN
FACT, YOU'RE INCLUDING IT
IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL.
YOU'RE JUST DESIGNATING A SMALL
PIECE OF THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER.
>> YEAH.
I THINK THE KEY DIFFERENCE
THERE IS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTERS WOULD HAVE HIGHER ZONING
AND UP
ZONES THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A
PLEASANT, WALKABLE COMMUNITY
OF, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY
BUILDINGS WITH FOUR, FIVE, SIX
STORIES, WHEREAS RESIDENTIAL
ZONES ARE A
LOWER SCALE AND DOESN'T HAVE AS
MUCH OF A ZONING
INCREASE.
>> BUT YOU COULD DO A STORY
BONUS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL FOR
MHA, RIGHT?
YOU COULD ZONE IT SO THEY
COULD GET -- IF THEY WENT FOUR
STORIES, THEY WOULD GET -- THEY
DID -- THEY COULD GET FOUR
OR FIVE STORY BONUS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL.
CORRECT?
>> I MEAN, THAT'S A
POLICY CHOICE YOU COULD MAKE.
THAT'S NOT HOW OUR PROGRAM IS
CURRENTLY STRUCTURED.
WE ARE PROPOSING A STACKED
FLAT BONUS IN HB 1110 AREAS AS
PART OF OUR PERMANENT HB 1110
LEGISLATION.
BUT THAT ECO- NORTHWEST
STUDY SHOWED THAT THOSE ARE
VERY DIFFICULT TO PENCIL.
SO WOULD NOT RECOMMEND LAYERING
ON ADDITIONAL FEES TO THOSE
PROJECTS GIVEN THE DIFFICULTY
OF MAKING STACKED FLAT PENCIL.
>> WELL, AGAIN, AND THAT
GOES BACK TO MY POINT ABOUT WE
NEED
PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING
STACKED FLATS AT THE TABLE TO
ACTUALLY TALK TO US ABOUT THAT.
BUT THE OTHER PIECE TO THIS --
AND NOBODY'S EVER ANSWERED THE
QUESTION. WHAT'S THE RETURN ON
INVESTMENT
THAT MOST OF THE PRIVATE
DEVELOPERS ARE GETTING?
MY EXPERIENCE IS IN THE
PAST THEY EXPECTED 15 TO 20%
RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND THEY'RE
STILL SEEKING THOSE KIND OF
HIGH-
LEVEL
INVESTMENTS. IF YOU TALK TO SOME
OF
THE SMALLER FOR- PROFIT
DEVELOPERS, LIKE PEOPLE ARE
DOING REALLY
INNOVATIVE WORK WITH CO- OPS
THEY'RE NOT LOOKING TO MAKE
MORE THAN 10% RETURN ON
INVESTMENT, SO THINGS DO
ACTUALLY PENCIL
OUT.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PENCILLING
OUT, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE
PENCILLING OUT AT 15% PROFIT,
OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT
PENCILLING OUT AT 10% PROFIT?
NOBODY'S REALLY ANSWERED
THAT QUESTION WHAT DOES IT TRULY
MEAN TO PENCIL OUT.
>> YOU KNOW, THERE'S
AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION ABOUT
RETURNS ON INVESTMENT IN THE
BERKELEY STUDY THAT I CITED.
AND THERE CAN BE A WIDE RANGE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS ITS DEPENDS
-- IT DEPENDS ON HOW
YOU GET YOUR FINANCING.
SMALL- SCALE DEVELOPMENT DO NOT
TYPICALLY HAVE THE FINANCING
OPTIONS THAT LARGER DEVELOPMENTS
GET.
WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERTISE IN
HOUSING FEASIBILITY AND
ECONOMICS AND THEY WENT INTO
A LOT OF THAT IN THEIR VALUATION
REPORT.
IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE WANTED
TO CONSIDER THIS
DISCUSSION, THAT WE TAP OUR
EXPERTS WHILE
THEY'RE HERE FOR THAT.
>> WE NEED TO DO A LOT MORE DEEP
DIVE.
AND I ALSO HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO DID THE
STUDY AND
KIND OF WHERE THEY'RE COMING
FROM.
AND I GUESS THE OTHER POINT I
WANT TO MAKE IS THAT HB 1110
DOESN'T MANDATE TWO AFFORDABLE
UNITS IN EVERY DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU PUT TWO
ADDITIONAL, YOU CAN GET SIX IF
TWO ARE
AFFORDABLE.
SO THERE'S NO MANDATE.
SO I JUST WANT TO CORRECT
THE RECORD THAT THERE'S NO
MANDATE FOR AFFORDABILITY
THROUGH HB
1110 AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE
TRYING TO LOOK AT THROUGH
THE INTERIM AND EVEN PERMANENT
LEGISLATION.
AND ALSO THE OTHER POINT, WE
DO HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT
FUNDING
SOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, BUT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING
AT
THE JUMP START TAX.
AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THE
JUMP START TAX HAS COME
IN SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN WE
ANTICIPATED IT TO COME IN.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT LAST YEAR
TO COVER SOME OF OUR BUDGET WE
PULLED FROM THE JUMP START,
THE HOUSING MONEY THAT WAS SET
ASIDE IN JUMP START TO COVER
SOME
OF OUR GENERAL FUND DEFICITS.
SO WE JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT
WE DON'T HAVE A HUGE POT
OF MONEY OVER HERE
THAT'S NECESSARILY GOING TO
REPLACE
MHA.
IT IS, AS THEY SAY, A
BRAIDED APPROACH TO FUNDING, AND
WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE KEEPING
ALL
OUR OPTIONS AVAILABLE. THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE.
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
YOU MAY BE GETTING TO THIS
LATER ON, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF
THERE
WAS A THRESHOLD FOR MHA
APPLICABILITY, ESPECIALLY
WHEN IT COMES TO SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR ADUs.
SAY I'VE GOT A LOT, I WANT
TO PUT THREE ADUs ON THAT LOT.
DOES MHA KICK IN FOR THAT?
>> MHA DOES NOT APPLY
TO ACCESSORY
UNITS.
>>
OKAY.
>> IN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WHERE
MHA APPLIES TO THE ZONE,
ANY TIME YOU'RE ADDING ONE OR
MORE NEW HOUSING UNITS, THE
PROGRAM
APPLIES.
>> OKAY.
YOU'RE SAYING IT DOES APPLY?
>> SO SORRY TO BE CONFUSING.
MHA DOES NOT APPLY TO ACCESSORY
UNITS.
>> OKAY.
SAY I'VE GOT A LARGE LOT.
I WANT TO SPLIT THE LOT
AND I WANT TO PUT UP COUPLE
MORE HOUSES ON THAT LOT BECAUSE
I
CAN.
THEN DOES MHA KICK IN IF
THEY'RE NOT ADUs?
>> THAT IS
CORRECT.
>> AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO BE
CLEAR ABOUT THAT FOR
OUR INDIVIDUAL SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
OWNERS
OUT THERE WHO MAY BE LOOKING
INTO
DOING SOME DEVELOPMENT,
THAT THIS COULD IMPACT
THEM.
>> YEAH.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL
ON THE SAME PAGE THAT IF IT'S
AN
MHA AREA WHERE MHA IS APPLIED
BY THE ZONE --
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
>> YEAH.
WHEN I SAID YES, IT'S IF
MHA WERE APPLIED TO THAT ZONE,
IF YOU'RE ADDING NEW HOMES,
THEN IT
APPLIES. BUT
IN TODAY'S NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL OR AS WE'RE
PROPOSING THE
FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL,
WE'RE
PROPOSING THAT MHA WOULD NOT
APPLY TO THOSE
AREAS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU
FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I SEE
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I WAS GOING TO SAVE MY
QUESTIONS UNTIL THE END OF THE
PRESENTATION, BUT GIVEN
THE DISCUSSION HERE I WANTED
TO CHIME IN WITH SOMETHING I
WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON.
JUST TO BE CLEAR,
WOULD MANDATING A NUMBER OF
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THE SPIRIT
OF HB
1110 AND WOULD THAT TECHNICALLY
GO
UNDER STATE LAW?
>> THE HB
1110 BILL AS I UNDERSTAND IT
DOES ALLOW
FOR PROGRAMS LIKE THIS TO BE
APPLIED.
I THINK THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE
IN
THERE THAT ALLOWS IT TO
OCCUR. YOU ASKED IF WOULD BE IN
THE SPIRIT OF HB 1110.
THE VIEWPOINT FROM THE
EXECUTIVE IS THAT THE PRIMARY
GOAL OF HBHB
1110 IS TO PRIORITIZE MIDDLE
HOUSING.
THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING
FROM, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE TO
PRIORITIZE PRODUCTION OF MIDDLE
HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT
IN LOOKING AT APPLYING MHA
TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL THAT
I APPRECIATE THAT DOESN'T APPLY
TO ADUs AND WE'VE SEEN A FAIR
AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE
OF THAT.
I THINK ANY CONSIDERATION
WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT
CARVING OUT AN EXEMPTION FOR
FAMILIES WHO
ARE WANTING TO DEVELOP THEIR
TS, SO BASICALLY AS AN ATTEMPT
TO CREATE MULTIGENERATIONAL
HOUSING ON THEIR LOT AND ALSO AN
ATTEMPT
TO CREATE GENERATIONAL
WEALTH BUILDING ON THE LOT.
SO IT'S NOT ABOUT A BLANKET
APPLICATION.
IT'S ABOUT BEING STRATEGIC,
BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS
WE REALLY DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE
WITH
THIS IS INCREASED HOMEOWNER
SHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND
INCREASED AFFORDABILITY OF
VIS-A- VIS
HOMEOWNER SHIP.
SHIP HOMEOWNERSHIP.
SO VERY MUCH MINDFUL OF THAT
CONCERN AND WANTING TO
CREATE SOME SORT OF EXEMPTION TO
FOSTER THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE.
I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T SEE
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
CONTINUE.
>> SO WE WANT TO TELL YOU A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME IDEAS FOR
IMPROVEMENT. THEN WE ALSO HAVE
THE TECHNICAL
CONSULTANTS TO HEAR FROM TODAY.
SO WE'LL MOVE
FORWARD.
>> YEAH.
I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO
THE SLIDE VERY QUICKLY, BECAUSE
THE
CONSULTANTS ARE ALSO HOPING
TO COVER A LOT OF THIS.
BUT LAST WEEK THE MAYOR SENT ALL
OF YOU A LETTER WHEN WE
RELEASED THE MHA VALUATION
DISCUSSING
NEXT STEPS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE SOME
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
VALUATION.
THEY'RE LISTED OUT HERE.
AND WE THINK THESE WILL HELP
MAKE THE PROGRAM STRONGER
WHILE ALSO ENSURING IT'S NOT
HAVING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON
HOUSING
PRODUCTION.
SO I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF
THESE.
I JUST WANTED TO FLAG FOR
YOU THAT WE ARE INTERESTED
IN PURSUING THESE, AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE CITY
COUNCIL
ON THE NEXT STEPS ASSOCIATED
WITH
THAT.
BUT AT THIS POINT, I'D
LIKE TO HAVE THE CONSULTANTS
COME
UP, AND THEY CAN EXPLAIN MORE
ABOUT WHERE THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CAME FROM AND WHY THEY'RE
MAKING
THEM AND JUST THEIR WORK IN
GENERAL ON THE EVALUATION FOR
MHA.
>> IS THIS ITEM THREE?
BECAUSE I'LL HAVE TO READ IT
INTO THE RECORD.
THIS IS ITEM THREE.
AWESOME.
THANK YOU.
SORRY.
APPRECIATE THAT.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
I FOLLOW THE RULES.
ALL RIGHT.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ
ITEM NUMBER THREE INTO THE
RECORD?
>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
THREE, MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY
PANEL FOR BRIEFING AND
DISCUSSION.
PRESENTERS
TODAY ARE KEVIN RAMSEY, LEE
STRIAR AND CHRISTA
VALLES FROM THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE.
>> THANK YOU.
WHILE WE'RE WAITING, IF THE SUN
BLEW UP RIGHT NOW, WE
WOULDN'T KNOW FOR EIGHT
MINUTES.
THAT'S HOW LONG IT TAKES
FOR LIGHT FROM THE SUN TO GET
HERE
TO THE EARTH.
SO YOU
HAVE EIGHT MINUTES WE WOULDN'T
KNOW.
COOL INTERESTING FACT.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT THE
SUN TO BLOW UP, BUT IF IT DID,
WE
WOULDN'T KNOW FOR EIGHT
MINUTES.
I THINK IT'S KIND OF COOL.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO
WITH
THAT.
>> I DON'T THINK SEATTLE WOULD
KNOW, BECAUSE WE NEVER GET SUN,
RIGHT?
SO WE WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE
THE SUN IS,
RIGHT? ALL RIGHT.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE
RECORD.
THANK
YOU.
>> KEVIN RAMSEY WITH BERK
CONSULTING.
>> I'M LEE STRIAR WITH
HEARTLAND.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US
TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THIS WORK.
SO AS GEOFF AND CHRISTA HAVE
MENTIONED, BERK AND
HEARTLAND WERE CONTACTED TO
JOINTLY CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT
EVALUATION.
THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF
SEATTLE --
[ INDISCERNIBLE ] -- PROGRAM.
STILL LOOKING AT
HISTORIC OUTCOMES OF THE
PROGRAM, HOW
HAS IT BEEN PERFORMING.
I JUST WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT
OF INFORMATION ABOUT OUR
FIRMS AND OUR BACKGROUND, AND
THEN WE'LL GET INTO THE
EVALUATION.
I WORK FOR BERK CONSULTING.
WE'RE LOCATED HERE IN SEATTLE.
WE'VE BEEN AROUND FOR OVER
35 YEARS NOW.
WE'RE AN INTERDISCIPLINARY
FIRM.
WE DO OF PUBLIC SECTOR CON
CONSULTING.
MY OWN AREA OF EXPERTISE
IS HOUSING AND LAND USE
POLICY ANALYSIS AS WELL AS
PROGRAM
EVALUATION.
>> WE ARE ALSO A SEATTLE-
BASED ADVISORY FIRM.
WE'VE BEEN AROUND A LITTLE
MORE THAN 40 YEARS NOW.
WE WORK WITH PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE CLIENTS, BOTH
NONPROFIT AND
FOR PROFIT ON THE PRIVATE SIDE.
WE PRIMARILY WORK
WITH REAL ESTATE ADVISORY LAND
DEVELOPMENT, BUILDING
DEVELOPMENT, ALSO IN
BROKERAGE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT
FOR
EXISTING ASSETS.
SO WE COVER A WIDE RANGE
OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY
ACTIVITIES.
>> AWESOME.
BEFORE YOU CONTINUE, I
APOLOGIZE.
I JUST WANT TO LET MY
COLLEAGUES KNOW PLEASE RAISE
YOUR
ND THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION.
I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF CONTENT
AND
VERY HEAVY.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND
I'LL RECOGNIZE
YOU.
>> SO GEOFF DID A GREAT
OVERVIEW OF THE MHA PROGRAM AS
IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, SO I WON'T
GO INTO THOSE DETAILS AGAIN.
I DID WANT TO EMPHASIZE
ONE POINT THOUGH.
WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS CREATED
A BIG GOAL THAT THEY HAD WAS FOR
MHA TO HAVE A NEUTRAL
OR POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE
TOTAL HOUSING PRODUCTION IN
SEATTLE.
SO TRYING TO BALANCE OUT
LIKE THE COSTS OF COMPLYING WITH
MHA AND PROVIDING AFFORDABLE
UNITS
WITH THE BENEFITS OF THE
INCREASED DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
WITH THE GOAL OF NOT
IMPACTING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
OR
EVEN MARKET RACE HOUSING
PRODUCTION AT ALL OR EVEN
INCREASING IT
OVER TIME.
WHEN WE WERE HIRED FOR THIS
WORK, THE CITY STAFF DEVELOPED
A LONG LIST OF EVALUATION
QUESTIONS.
I WON'T READ THROUGH ALL OF
THESE, BUT THESE CAME
FROM VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS
THAT HAD AN INTEREST IN THIS
EVALUATION.
SO THE REPORT IS VERY
COMPREHENSIVE.
IT LOOKS AT A WIDE VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO
GET
INTO ALL OF THEM TODAY.
BUT I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THREE KIND OF OVERARCHING
QUESTIONS THAT ARE A BIG PART OF
OUR
FOCUS IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AND IN THE PRESENTATION TODAY.
ONE, DOES MHA IMPACT THE RATE
OF MARKET RATE HOUSING
PRODUCTION?
TWO, HOW SHOULD THE CITY
WEIGH THE BENEFITS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S
GENERATED THROUGH
MHA AGAINST ANY
POSSIBLE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON
MARKET-
RATE HOUSING PRODUCTION.
AND LASTLY, WHAT POLICIES
SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER TO
BALANCE THESE TRADEOFFS?
SO WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THESE
THEMES TODAY.
AND WE'LL START BY LOOKING
AT OUR FINDINGS AND
SPECIFICALLY THE IMPACTS TO
MARKET RATE
PRODUCTION.
I'LL HAND IT OVER TO LEE
HERE.
>> THANKS, KEVIN.
IF YOU IF YOU RECALL BACK IN
2019 WE
WERE IN A STRONG DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENT.
AT MHA SINCE THEN THERE'S
ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL FACTORS THAT
HAVE NEGATIVELY IMPACTS MARKET
CONDITIONS.
I SAY NEGATIVELY IN TERMS
OF IT IS AN EXTRA FEE.
IF YOU'RE ONLY THINKING
OF IT FROM A MARKET BASED PROFIT
PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULD HAVE
A NEGATIVE IMPACT WHEN
YOU CHARGE A FEE.
IT'S NOT A POLICY STATEMENT.
IT'S AN ECONOMIC
STATEMENT. BUT THERE HAVE BEEN
VERAL OTHER FACTORS SINCE 2019
THAT HAVE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED
MARKET
CONDITIONS.
SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE WITHIN
CITY CONTROL AND OTHERS ARE
BEYOND.
OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE ITEMS
IN OUR RESPONSES TO THE COVID
PANDEMIC.
THAT'S CLEARLY BEYOND ANYONE'S
CONTROL. A SIGNIFICANT RISE
IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS BOTH
RELATED
TO INFLATION AS WELL
AS SUPCETERA.
OBVIOUSLY THOSE ARE BEYOND CITY
CONTROL.
MHA IS A CITY POLICY THAT WAS
ADOPTED IN 2017 AND 2019 ALONG
WITH THE CEMENT A.D.U.
REFORM AND THE NR R ZONES WE
TALKED
ABOUT.
ALSO IN 2019 CHANGES TO
THE SEATTLE ENERGY CODE OVER
THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT
HAVE IMPACTED COURSE AND DESIGN.
THERE'S ALSO STATE FUNDS THAT
HAVE BEEN ADDED IN.
PRETTY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE
INTEREST RATES WHICH
IMPACT BORROWING COSTS.
THAT'S THE SHORT- TERM RATE,
WHICH IS TYPICALLY
WHAT CONSTRUCTION LOANS ARE
PEGGED
TO.
SO ANOTHER INCREASE
IN DEVELOPMENT BUDGET COSTS.
SO A LOT OF THINGS COMBINED THAT
JUST HAPPEN TO COINCIDE
WITH WHEN MHA TOOK PLACE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT CYCLE TO NEGATIVELY
IMPACT THE PRODUCTION OF
HOUSING,
NOT JUST IN SEATTLE BUT
NATIONALLY.
AND ONE OTHER POINT
THAT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE HERE.
THE LAST BULLET IS RENT
INCREASES.
WHILE RENT HAS GONE UP IN
THE SEVERAL YEARS SINCE 2019,
THEY HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH A LOT
OF THESE
OTHER INFLATIONARY IMPACTS ON
DEVELOPMENT.
THIS SLIDE HAS A LOT OF CHARTS
IN IT, SO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
I'LL TRY TO WALK THROUGH THIS
KIND OF AT A HIGH LEVEL.
THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT
SECTIONS HERE.
THERE'S LOW FEE
AREAS, MEDIUM FEE AREAS AND HIGH
FEE AREAS.
AND WITHIN EACH OF THOSE FEE
AREAS YOU HAVE DIFFERENT
DESIGNATIONS ON THE UPSIDE, M
1 AND M 2.
THIS IS LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT
TIME PERIODS.
YOU HAVE 2019 AND 2024.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS
A TYPICAL MID- RISE PROJECT.
THERE'S ALSO OBVIOUSLY LOW-
RISE PROJECTS AND HIGH- RISE
PROJECTS.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
SLIDE, WE FOCUSED ON A TYPICAL
MID-
RISE PROJECT.
YOU MIGHT ASK WHAT IS TYPICAL.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY
PROPERTIES WHERE DUE TO LOCATION
OR
LOT CHARACTERISTICS THE
ECONOMICS COULD BE WORSE OR
BETTER THAN
THIS.
WE'VE USED MEDIAN RENTS AND
COSTS AND LAND COSTS TO
ASSESS THE TYPICAL MID RANGE
PRODUCT IN
2019 AND 2024.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY INVESTORS
AND DEVELOPERS THAT MIGHT
ACCEPT LOWER RETURNS.
THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE
LIMITED IN NUMBER, BUT
WE FOCUSED ON THIS KIND OF
MORE GENERALLY MARKET PREVAILING
15
TO 20% INVESTMENT TARGET
FOR PENCILLING AS WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT BEFORE.
GENERALLY DEVELOPERS WILL NOT
PROCEED WITH A PROJECT UP FRONT
UNLESS THEY'RE PENCILLING
IT OUT OF THE A MINIMUM RATE OF
RETURN.
WHAT YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THAT
IN 2019, IN LOW FEE, MEDIUM
FEE, HIGH FEE, ALL THE DIFFERENT
RANGES, A PROJECT WOULD
PENCIL IF YOU -- THEN YOU LOOK
AT 2024
AND YOU SAY THE SAME
TYPICAL PROJECT IS NOT FEASIBLE
EVEN WITHOUT MHA.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF --
YOU MIGHT ASKED, WELL, WHAT
DOES THIS MEAN.
THAT'S A ROBUST DISCUSSION THAT
CAN OCCUR.
WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN GREAT
TIMES IN A VERY BOOMING
DEVELOPMENT MARKET AND WHEN A
LOT OF STUDIES
WERE DONE THAT INFORMED THE
FEE RATE SETTING IT MADE SENSE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT LATER ON
WHEN WE SHOW THE REVENUES THAT
WERE
GENERATED. RIGHT NOW EVEN IF YOU
REMOVED
MHA, THE DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONS STILL MAKE IT
DIFFICULT FOR
MANY OR MOST PROJECTS TO PENCIL
OUT.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE ALSO
LIKELY TO BE TIME PERIODS IN
BETWEEN BOOM AND BUST WHERE THE
FEE
COULD PROVIDE KIND OF A GO/NO-
GO
FACTOR OF DECISION MAKING.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE HIGH- FEE
AREA
IN 2019, YOU HAVE AN
8% DIFFERENCE IN I.R.R.
SAY YOU HAD NO MHA VERSUS THE
M2.
YOU COULD BE IN A PARADIGM WHERE
RETURNS ARE CLOSER TO THAT 15 TO
20% THRESHOLD WHERE A FEE MIGHT
IMPACT GO/NO-GO.
THE LARGER SIZE OF THE MHA
FEE WOULD INHIBIT THE PRODUCTION
OF
MARKET RATE HOUSING.
BUT IT'S CONSTANTLY IN FLUX.
I IMAGINE THERE'S A LOTLOT OF
ON HERE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER
THOSE.
>> I THINK WE'RE JUST TAKING IT
ALL IN.
YEAH.
BUT WE WILL PAUSE.
I DON'T KNOW IN ANYONE HAS
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, BUT
I THINK AS WE'RE MOVING THROUGH
THE
SLIDES, PROBABLY PEOPLE WILL
HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. STHOONK
YOU.
.
>> THIS IS JUST THE MHA
FEE AS WELL AS OTHER DEVELOPMENT
COSTS.
THEY MAKE UP KIND OF THE
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST OF A
PROJECT. TO TO CUT YOU
OFF.
I'M SO SORRY.
THERE IS SOME QUESTIONS FOR
THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
I APOLOGIZE.
THERE ARE.
I SAW COUNCILMEMBER MOORE -- I
DON'T
KNOW IF IT WAS COUNCILMEMBER --
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE
I'M TRACKING THIS ON THIS
SLIDE.
CAN YOU REMIND US WHAT THE LOW
FEE, MEDIUM FEE, HIGH FEE AREA
MEANS?
>> THOSE WERE OUTLINED IN THE
MAP SHOWN BEFORE, THE
LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH.
YOU'RE MORE THE EXPERTS ON THE
DEFINITIONS, BUT THEY'RE
DEFINED BASED ON MARKET
CONDITIONS.
SO A HIGH FEE AREA IS WHEN
RENTS WERE HIGHER AND
DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONS WERE THE MOST RIPE
AND LOW FEE AREAS MIGHT BE
WHERE THE ECONOMICS ARE NOT AS
ROBUST.
WHEN THEY CREATED THESE MAPS,
THEY WERE BASED ON
DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AT THE
TIME.
A LOT OF THOUGHT WAS PUT INTO
WHAT LEVELS OF FEE MIGHT
IMPACT DEVELOPMENT SO THAT
YOU'RE NOT
IMPEDING THE CREATION OF
MARKET HOUSING TOO MUCH BY DOING
IT.
>> BASICALLY THAT JUST
MEANS THROUGHOUT THIS CITY THERE
ARE SOME AREAS WHERE IT'S
GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO
BUILD THAN
OTHERS?
>> AND THE FEE THAT'S HIGHER --
CHARGED FOR MHA.
YOU NEED TO INCLUDE
ADDITIONAL UNITS AS GEOFF WAS
TALKING
ABOUT BEFORE.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOW AND
THE
MEDIUM AND THE FEE IN THIS
CHART,
BECAUSE THE COSTS IN A HIGH FEE
AREA ARE HIGHER COSTS TO THE
DEVELOPER THAN IN A LOW FEE
AREA.
HIGHER ADDITIONAL COSTS DUE TO
MHA.
>> SO IT'S NOT A DEVELOPMENT
COST.
THEY'RE THE SAME THROUGHOUT THE
CITY, JUST CERTAIN AREAS ARE
MORE DESIRABLE AREAS OR
SOMETHING.
WHAT'S IT BASED ON?
.
>> A LOT OF IT WAS DRIVEN
BY MARKET RENTS.
CAPITAL HILL AND QUEEN ANN ARE
HIGHER.
>> OKAY.
>> THE IDEA WOULD BE MORE
POTENTIAL FOR RETURNS
BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING HIGHER
RENTS
IN CAPITOL HILL FOR EXAMPLE
BUT THERE'S ALSO HIGHER COSTS
DUE
TO MHA.
THIS IS LOOKING AT THE
IMPACTS OF THOSE .
>> DOWNTOWN AND SOUTH LAKE UNION
ARE NOT INCLUDED.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT
ECONOMICS AND OFTEN DIFFERENT
BUILDING
TYPOLOGY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> THANKS.
DO WE HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS
US WHERE THESE VARIOUS AREAS ARE
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL?
>> THERE WAS ONE INCLUDED IN
THE PRIOR MHA
PRESENTATION.
>> I'M SORRY?
>> THERE WAS A MAP
INCLUDED IN THE PRIOR MHA
SENTATION THAT
WE
DID.
>> NOT THAT
ONE.
>> IT'S THE
MHA.
>> IS THIS THE PAGE 24?
IS THIS IT?
>> THAT'S IT.
>> OH, OKAY.
[ INDISCERNIBLE ]
>> THIS ONE IS THE WINNER.
>> YES.
APPARENTLY
WE HAD MULTIPLE MAPS IN OUR
PRESENTATION.
>> I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION,
THOUGH, IS HOW MUCH BUILDING
WAS GOING ON IN THE LOW- FEE
AREAS?
>> YOU CAN SEE VISUALLY WHAT THE
DISPERSION OF DEVELOPMENT
OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS WAS
ACROSS THE DIFFERENT AREAS.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY
CHARTS IN THIS PARTICULAR
PRESENTATION
THAT BREAKS IT DOWN.
THERE IS LESS IN THE LOW- FEE
AREAS.
THERE WAS MORE IN THE MEDIUM AND
HIGHER AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO
SEE THAT IN THE MAP COMING UP.
>> SO I GUESS PART OF
MY QUESTION WOULD BE, DID
THE VOLUME CREATE A
CHANGE IN THE FEE AS WELL, THE
VOLUME OF
DEVELOPMENT?
>> THE FEES WERE SET ONCE AT THE
BEGINNING OF MHA, AND THEY HAVE
NOT BEEN RECALIBRATED TO VOLUME
OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT.
>> THEY INCREASE WITH A COST
OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT EACH YEAR.
THAT'S BEEN SET SINCE
THE LEGISLATION WAS
PASSED.
>> OKAY.
THANKS.
>> SORRY,
CHAIR, ONE MORE QUESTION IF I
MAY.
>> MY APOLOGIES.
YES, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE AND I ARE KIND OF GOING
BACK AND
FORTH.
THE LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH IS
IMPACTED BY THE COST OF THE
DEVELOPMENT, THE RENT AND
THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
THEMSELVES.
SO ARE YOU SAYING IF
THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHERE
IT'S HIGHER RENTS, YOU'RE
GOING
TO SEE HIGHER MHA FEES?
>> IF YOU BUILD A PROJECT IN A
HIGH- FEE AREA, YOU ARE CHARGED
A HIGHER PAYMENT FEE FOR MHA
THAN IF YOU BUILD ONE IN A LOW-
FEE
AREA.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION IS
WHAT DETERMINES THE HIGH- FEE
AREA VERSUS THE LOW?
>> IT'S MAPPED OUT.
IT'S PER THE ZONING
CODE.
>> IT WAS PREDETERMINED AS
PART OF --
>> ACTUALLY IT'S THE MAP, THE
MAP THAT'S IN YOUR
PRESENTATION.
IF YOU'RE IN A HIGH- FEE AREA
ON THAT MAP, YOU PAY THE HIGHER
AMOUNT.
>> SO WE ZONED IT?
THIS REA IS HIGH.
IN AREA IS LOW.
THIS AREA IS MEDIUM, AS PER THE
MAP.
>> THOSE WERE MADE BASED ON THE
HIGH RENT OR HIGHER
MARKET STRENGTH AREAS OF THE
CITY BASED
ON SOME DATA.
ONCE THE MAP WAS SET, IT IS
WHAT IT IS FOR THOSE
BOUNDARIES.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THEN BACK TO THIS BAR GRAPH.
[ IN 2024, FOR INSTANCE.
>> NOTHING IS PENCILING IN 2024.
YOU CAN SEE THE GRAY BAR THAT
GOES ALL THE WAY ACROSS, THAT IS
THE THRESHOLD.
>> THAT IS THE MINIMUM.
>> 2019 YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING
ABOVE THAT BAR. THAT MEANS THEY
ARE -- IT MEANS THE MEDIUM FEE
AREAS ARE DOING BETTER THAN THE
OTHERS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS NOT
NOTHING BEING BUILT. THERE ARE
THINGS THAT CAN BE BUILT BUT
TYPICAL PROJECTS, THE MEDIAN
PROJECT IS NOT BEING BUILT. IF
YOU REMOVED AND HA AND SAID
THERE IS NO MORE FEES, THAT MAY
NOT EVEN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.
ALSO, THESE ARE 2024 NUMBERS.
>> THE RATE OF RETURN THAT IS
THE MINIMUM LOOKS TO BE 2015 AND
20%.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> YOU ARE GOOD.
>> THAT TRACKS TO OUR PERMITS
GOING WILDLY DOWNWARDS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> I KEEP THINKING TO MYSELF, I
MUST BE READING THIS WRONG
BECAUSE IT IS STAGGERING. IT IS
A WONDER THAT ANYTHING GETS
BUILT AT ALL, RIGHT, WITH OR
WITHOUT MHA. NOTHING IS HITTING
THE TYPICAL PROJECT FEASIBILITY
THRESHOLD, CORRECT?
>> YEP. THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THAT IS WHAT I'M READING
HERE. THIS MAP THAT WAS IN THE
OTHER PRESENTATION SHOWS ME THE
LOW, MEDIUM, AND HIGH. THAT IS
BASICALLY, DESIRABILITY TO
BUILD, RIGHT? WITHIN EACH --
TAKING AWAY THOSE COLORS, IS MHA
DIFFERENT FOR A LOW RISE ZONE
THAN A HIGH-RISE ZONE PER SQUARE
FOOT?
>> IS IT DIFFERENT?
>> IS THE FEE CHARGE PER SQUARE
FOOT DIFFERENT?
>> YES, VERY MUCH.
>> THE FEE IS DIFFERENT
ACCORDING TO THE AREA OF THE
CITY AND PARTICULARLY THE ZONE,
LOW RISE VERSUS 160 FOOT TOWERS,
RIGHT?
>> THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING DOES
NOT IMPACT THE FEE. A HIGH-RISE
AND LOWRISE IS BASED ON WHERE
YOU ARE LOCATED IN THOSE MAPS.
>> RIGHT.
>> IT IS A PER SQUARE FOOT
NUMBER.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE THAT A
TALLER BUILDING CAN BETTER
AFFORD AND HA THEN A SMALLER
BUILDING BECAUSE YOU ARE
ABSORBING THAT COST FOR THE
WHOLE BUILDING, BASICALLY, EVEN
THOUGH IT IS SQUARE FOOT OR SO.
IT JUST MAKES IT MAKES SENSE
THAT MHA WOULD BE -- IT IS A
COST THAT IS HARDER TO BEAR FOR
THE SMALLER BUILDING WITH FEWER
UNITS. IT IS GOING TO PROVIDE A
RETURN ON INVESTMENT,
ULTIMATELY.
>> EXCUSE ME. I AM GETTING OVER
A COLD I HAD LAST WEEK BUT NO
LONGER, NO WORRIES. IF YOU ARE
ABLE TO PENCIL OUT A HIGH-RISE,
IN THEORY, IT IS A MUCH MORE
EXPENSIVE TYPE TO BUILD ANYWAY.
THAT IS IF IT IS BUILDING UP. IT
WOULD BE ABLE TO BEAR MORE
SQUARE FOOT THAN A LOWRISE
BUILDING JUST BECAUSE OF THE
ECONOMY AND THE REASON WHY YOU
ARE BUILDING SUCH A HIGH-RISE
DEVELOPMENT TO BEGIN WITH.
>> GOT IT.
>> WE ARE NOT EVEN SHOWING
HIGH-RISE HERE. THAT IS A
DIFFERENT SITUATION TO PENCIL
OUT.
>> YOU ARE SAYING YOU ARE NOT
EVEN SHOWING HIGH-RISE. YOU ARE
SHOWING LOWRISE ONLY HERE?
>> THIS IS FOR ATYPICAL MIDRISE
PROJECT . IN THE LONGER REPORT,
WE DID ANALYZE MANY DIFFERENT
BUILDINGS -- BACK HOW MANY
STORIES IS A TYPICAL MIDRISE?
>> SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT --
>> GOT IT.
>> TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH
ONE WE JUST SHOWED YOU.
>> THAT IS WHERE MOST OF OUR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BUILT?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. NEXT SLIDE. THANK
YOU.
>> THIS SLIDE HAS A SIMILAR
CHART AND IT IS A GRAPH SHOWING
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST. ONCE
AGAIN, THE COST HERE IN THE
MIDDLE, THE SOFT COST IS
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN. THE HARD
COSTS ARE ELEMENTS THAT YOU ARE
GOING TO SEE NOT JUST IN SEATTLE
BUT THROUGHOUT THE REGION, KANE
COUNTY, ET CETERA. THE LAND AND
THE FEE ARE WHAT IS MORE TYPICAL
TO THE LOT OR SEATTLE ITSELF AND
YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS A PRETTY
SMALL SHARE . THE MHA FEE WAS
$22 OF SQUARE FOOT -- OF BUILT
SQUARE FOOT, NOT OF LAND IN
2024. IF YOU THINK OF IT AS A
FEASIBILITY QUESTION WHEN THE
DEVELOPER IS LOOKING AT
IDENTIFYING PROJECTS, THEY
CAN'T REALLY CONTROL THOSE
THREE MIDDLE PORTIONS. HOW MUCH
CAN THEY PAY FOR THE LAND? THAT
IS THEIR NEGOTIATION WITH THE
LANDOWNER AND THEN THERE IS HOW
MUCH WILL THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR
THE MHA FEE? YOU CAN COMBINE
THOSE FEES, THE LAND COSTS AND
THAT MHA FEE INTO, WILL THIS
PROJECT PENCIL GIVEN THE MORE
CERTAIN -- IF YOU WANT TO CALL
IT CERTAIN -- DEVELOPMENT COSTS
IN THE MIDDLE. ON THE MARGIN,
ESPECIALLY IF YOUR FEE IS
HIGHER, YOU ARE IN A LOW FEE
ZONE. THAT IS GOING TO MAKE MUCH
MORE OF AN IMPACT ON THE 15 TO
20% THRESHOLD AREA.
>> ONE KEY POINT HERE, THIS
CHART REALLY DRIVES HOME HOW THE
MARKET CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED
FOR DEVELOPERS AND THAT THERE
HAS BEEN A 35% INCREASE IN TOTAL
PROJECT COSTS. AS WE WERE
SAYING, MOST OF THAT IS NOT DUE
TO MHA. THE COST WENT UP A
LITTLE BIT DURING THE PERIOD AS
WELL BUT THE OTHER COSTS -- IT
REALLY RAISED THE COSTS BUT THE
REVENUES HAVE NOT RAISED THE
SAME WAY.
>> I SEE WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. WHAT IS
INCLUDED IN THE HARD
CONSTRUCTION COSTS? TWO
QUESTIONS. ONE, THE MHA FEE WAS
4.9% OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
OF 2024. WHAT WAS IT IN 2019?
ALSO, THE SLIDE, SEVEN OR 39,
CONDITIONS THAT HAVE CHANGED
SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE 2019 ARE NEW
BUILDING CODES FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND INCREASED COSTS.
MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT
WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF AND HA FOR
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST IN 2019?
WHAT ARE THESE HARD COST
CONSTRUCTION? WHAT ARE THE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND HOW MUCH
DO THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
INCREASED COSTS ADD TO THIS
PICTURE AS WELL?
>> HARD COST CONSTRUCTION
INCLUDES ALL COSTS OF MATERIALS,
LABOR, IT INCLUDES WASHINGTON
STATE SALES TAX AS WELL.
BASICALLY, EVERYTHING YOU ARE
TAKING -- PAYING TO THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR TO BUILD A BUILDING.
OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU MENTIONED,
THAT IS IMPACTED BY THE ENERGY
CODE. IT REALLY WOULD DEPEND ON
THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. WE
DIDN'T NECESSARILY STUDY
EXACTLY HOW MUCH THE ENERGY CODE
HAS TO DO WITH IT BECAUSE IT IS
NOT TO SEATTLE CITY CODE. THERE
IS ALSO STATE CODE AND YOU HAVE
FIVE DIFFERENT GENERAL
CONTRACTORS WHO WILL GIVE YOU
FIVE DIFFERENT ANSWERS AND THAT
IS NOT ON THE LINE ITEM. EVERY
PROJECT IS DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY.
EVERY PROJECT HAS DIFFERENT
NEEDS. HOW MANY BEDROOMS, HOW
MANY BATHROOMS ON A PER SQUARE
FOOT BASIS. SORRY TO SOUND LIKE
I AM HEDGING BUT IT IS A BIT OF
A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER.
GENERAL CONTRACTORS WOULD GIVE A
BETTER QUESTION ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AS YOU SAW ON THE CHART
EARLIER ON, OUTSIDE OF ENERGY
CODES, IT WENT UP 70% BETWEEN
2015 AND 2024. A LOT OF IT IS
NONENERGY RELATED CODE INCREASES
OF ENERGY COST.
>> IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE
THAT BREAKDOWN BECAUSE
BASICALLY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
A DIFFERENCE OF $6 FOR MHA WHICH
IS A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF HOW WE
WERE ABLE TO BUILD AND PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE
UNDERLYING ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT
$6 IS WHAT IS TIPPING US AND
LEADING THE CITY TO BACK AWAY
FROM ITS COMMITMENT TO MHA. I
THINK WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT,
WHAT ARE THE OTHER COSTS THAT
ARE CONTRIBUTING? THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING -- I AM SURE IN THE
OPINION OF MY COLLEAGUES, IS AS
HE BE AS IMPORTANT AS ENSURING
WE HAVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY. YET,
WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IS A COST THAT WE
WILL REQUIRE OUR DEVELOPERS TO
ABSORB. I THINK WE NEED A POLICY
DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE
THINK $6 TO ENSURE THAT WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN THE CITY IS A COST
THAT WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR
DEVELOPERS TO ABSORB AND REDUCE
THEIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT A
LITTLE BIT. I GUESS I AM
UNCONVINCED THAT THE SIX DOLLARS
IS ACROSS THE BOARD GOING TO BE
THE THING THAT PREVENTS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY
WHEN YOU LOOK AT -- ON THE NEXT
SLIDE, THERE IS NO CLEAR
EVIDENCE THAT HOUSING PRODUCTION
COMPARED TO NEIGHBORING CITIES.
>> CHAIR, DO YOU MIND IF I
ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS?
>> PLEASE DO.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO BE REALLY
CLEAR THAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER
OUR POSITION ON THIS AS BACKING
AWAY FROM MHA . AS WE EXPLAINED
EARLIER, WE ARE PROPOSING TO
EXPAND MHA AREA BY 21% WITH THE
UP ZONES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER AND ALONG THE CORRIDOR .
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH PAST
PRACTICES AND POLICIES. WHAT WE
ARE NOT RECOMMENDING IS TO APPLY
MHA IN NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
RUNS FOR A VARIETY OF THE
REASONS THAT JEFF WALKED THROUGH
EARLIER BUT SOME OF THOSE ARE,
WE ARE SEEING A REALLY DIFFICULT
ENVIRONMENT RIGHT NOW FOR
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT INTEL THAT WE
HOPE TO SEE UNDER HB 1110 HAS
THE SUPPORT THAT IT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN. WE SEE FROM THE
ECO-NORTHWEST REPORT THAT ONLY
19% OF PARCELS IN NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES WILL ACTUALLY
BE FEASIBLE FOR HB 1110 TYPE
DEVELOPMENTS. WE REALLY DON'T
THINK ADDING ON ADDITIONAL FEES
LIKE AND HA MAKE A LOT OF SENSE
IN A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENTS.
THIS LEAD UP IN HERE IS THE
EVALUATION AND WAS NOT ACTUALLY
PART OF OUR REASONING OR
RATIONALE. THE LAST COUPLE OF
SLIDES WE HAVE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT, THE POINT BROKE IS TRYING
TO MAKE HERE IS THAT OVERALL,
AND HA HAS NOT HAD A NEGATIVE
IMPACT IN AREAS WHERE IT HAS
BEEN APPLIED AND I THINK THAT IS
THEIR CENTRAL POINT. THEY WILL
GET MORE INTO THE IMPACTS ON LOW
RISE AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME
NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO LOW RISE
FROM MHA WHICH IS OF CONCERN TO
US BECAUSE THAT VERY CLOSELY
TRACKS TO THE KIND OF
DEVELOPMENT WE ARE GOING TO SEE
IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> DO YOU MIND IF I ADDRESS THE
$6 A SQUARE FOOT JUST TO CLARIFY
THAT? IT IS PRESENTED A LITTLE
CONFUSINGLY. WE ARE NOT SAYING
THAT THAT DOLLARS AND 6 IS
HAVING A DRAMATIC IMPACT. WE ARE
HAVING A FEE IN GENERAL BE A
$22, $28 , ON THE MARGINS, COULD
HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
DEVELOPMENT MAKING A DECISION IN
THE CURRENT MARKET DYNAMIC. THAT
THESE WERE SET IN DIFFERENT
DYNAMIC IN 2017 THROUGH 2019 AND
NOW WE HAVE A DIFFERENT ONE. IF
YOU LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT WERE MENTIONED EARLIER AND
WHICH WE WILL GET YOU LATER, IS
TO MAYBE REVISIT AS CONDITIONS
EVOLVE, HOW TO SET THAT FEE SO
AS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THE MHA
FEE BUT NOT INHIBIT THE CREATION
OF HOUSING THAT IS NEEDED TO
GENERATE EIGHT.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
>> ONE SECOND, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON. DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE?
>> I JUST THINK WE HAVE A
DISAGREEMENT HERE. I THINK WE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND
MHA THOUGHTFULLY TO NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL. I DO THINK -- I DO
FEEL THAT THERE IS A BACKING
AWAY FROM MHA. THERE IS A
TALKING ABOUT RECALIBRATING THE
FEE ACROSS THE BOARD, NOT JUST
TO A SMALLER PROJECT. I AM
PLEASED TO HEAR THAT THE
EXECUTIVE IS FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF
MHA AND IS NOT BACKING AWAY AND
IS LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO
EXPAND IT AND I JUST THINK WE
NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO LOOK AT
HOW WE CAN -- WE ARE GOING TO
OPEN UP THE CITY TO TREMENDOUS
DEVELOPMENT AND DENSITY, WHICH
IS GOOD, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE UTILIZING ALL OF OUR
TOOLS AND MHA IS A POWERFUL
TOOL. IT CAN BE TWEAKED BUT TO
SIMPLY SAY I SHOULDN'T APPLY
ACROSS THE BOARD, IN PARTICULAR
NEIGHBORHOODS, IS A MISSED
OPPORTUNITY. AGAIN, IT IS A
CALIBRATION OF, WHAT ARE THE
COSTS THAT WE CONSIDER VALUABLE
IN THIS SOCIETY? THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE. COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> THE ORIGINAL FEE WAS BETWEEN
2017 AND 2019 WAS $22 AND THEN
WENT UP TO $28 AND HAS NOT BEEN
CHANGED. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS ON AVERAGE. AS YOU
SAW, THERE ARE LOW P ZONES AND
HIGH FEES OWNED BY THE AVERAGE
IN 2019 WAS $22 A SQUARE FOOT.
IT HAS GONE UP AND THAT HAS NOT
BEEN A CHANGE IN LEGISLATION.
THAT IS JUST IN -- INFLATION
INHERENT IN THE FEE SETTING. IT
CHANGES EVERY YEAR FROM 2019 TO
2024 BASED ON THE INFLATIONARY
INDEX THAT WAS SET IN THE
LEGISLATION.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. NEXT SLIDE.
>> I WILL TAKE THIS ONE. WHEN WE
REFER TO THIS, ONE THING THAT WE
DID WAS LOOK AT HOLDING PERMIT
ACTIVITY OVER TIME IN SEATTLE
COMPARED TO A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS AROUND
THE UNITED STATES AND WE LOOKED
AT DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT
HAD INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROBLEMS
LIKE MHA EMPLOYEES AND SOME THAT
DID NOT HAVE THOSE PROGRAMS IN
PLACE. WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT
MARKET CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED
EVERYWHERE AND YOU ARE SEEING
FLUCTUATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS NOT CLEAR
EVIDENCE THAT SEATTLE WAS
RESPONDING IN A FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT WAY THAN THE PEER
JURISDICTIONS WITH A FEW
ISOLATED EXCEPTIONS LIKE, IN
GENERAL, THE WAY PERMIT ACTIVITY
WAS FLUCTUATING IN SEATTLE WAS
SIMILAR TO OTHER CITIES,
REGARDLESS OF IF THEY HAD
INCLUSIONARY OR NOT. THIS CHART
HERE, ANOTHER THING WE DID WAS
WE LOOKED AT SEATTLE AND
COMPARED IT TO THE REMAINDER OF
THE KING COUNTY REGION. THAT WAS
A HYPOTHESIS THAT IF THE FEES IN
SEATTLE WERE A HUGE DISINCENTIVE
TO DEVELOPMENT OVER THIS PERIOD
OF TIME, THEN YOU MIGHT EXPECT
TO SEE SOME OF THE LOCAL AND
REGIONAL -- REGIONAL DEVELOPERS
PERHAPS MOVING AT BUILDING MORE
IN BELLEVUE OR REDMOND OR
SOMEWHERE ELSE. THIS CHART HERE
JUST SHOWS OVERTIME, UNITS
ISSUED IN MULTIFAMILY BUILDING
PERMITS, COMPARING SEATTLE,
WHICH IS THAT PINK LINE -- WHICH
TURNS INTO ORANGE OVERTIME AS
THE FEES SET IN, TO INDICATE
WHEN THE NEW MHA WAS PUT IN
PLACE. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE
TIMELINE. THEN, THAT BLUE OR
BLACK LINE IS THE REMAINDER OF
KING COUNTY. AS YOU CAN SEE,
THERE IS NOT A REALLY CLEAR
TREND. THEY ARE MOVING IN
PARALLEL THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT
AN INDIVIDUAL YEAR, YOU MIGHT BE
ABLE TO SEE SOME DIFFERENCES BUT
IN GENERAL, WE ARE NOT SEEING
CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A
BIG SHIFT. ALL OF THE SUDDEN,
THERE IS MORE DEVELOPMENT
COMPARED TO SEATTLE. IT IS NOT,
LIKE, POSITIVE EVIDENCE THAT MHA
HAS HAD NO IMPACT IN SEATTLE. IT
IS JUST SHOWING THAT WE ARE NOT
SEEING CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THERE
WAS A SHIFT IN OTHER AREAS OR
THAT SEATTLE RESPONDED VERY
DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHERS . DOES
THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> I WILL START WITH THIS ONE
AND THEN CHIME IN. THIS IS
TALKING ABOUT LOW RISE, YOU HAVE
TWO DIFFERENT HOUSING TOPOLOGY.
IT STARTS TO GET CLOSER TO THAT
DISCUSSION . THE LOW RISE
HOUSING PRODUCTION HAS SHIFTED
TO A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
ZONE FOLLOWING THE OPTION OF MHA
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. WE DID
NOTE THAT THERE WAS REFORM IN
2019 THAT PASSED ALMOST AROUND
THE SAME TIME AND THAT HAD AN
IMPACT BUT PRIOR TO MHA,
TOWNHOMES WERE THE DOMINANT
FORM. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO
STOCK FLATS OF CERTAIN HEIGHTS,
APARTMENT BUILDINGS, STRONG --
TOWNHOMES WERE THE PREDOMINANT
HIS OWN. THE OF ZONE IN YELLOW
PRESENTED LIMITED GUIDANCE FOR
TOWNHOME DEVELOPERS. THERE IS
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD
BUILD A FOUR STORY TOWNHOME. THE
TREND TOWARD -- MHA INCREASED
COSTS. THEY ARE VERY BUILDING
CODE SPECIFIC AS WELL THAT HAVE
NEGATIVELY IMPACTED THAT. WE
WANTED TO NOTE THAT. ON A
LOWRISE PROJECT, BUT MHA T,
WHILE IT IS THE SAME SQUARE FOOT
LOW FEE OR HIGH FEE, AS WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, ON A
SQUARE FOOT BASIS, IT HAS MORE
OF A DEVELOPMENT . AS NOTED, IN
2016, SEATTLE ADOPTED THE 80 YOU
FORM. THAT MADE THE NEW FORMS
WHERE MHA IS NOT IMPOSED. WHILE
THERE IS A DIFFERENT PRODUCT
TYPE, THEY ARE DISPATCHED IN
THOSE HOMES AND NOT SAY
TOWNHOUSE, PER SE. A LOT OF THE
BUILDERS ARE THE SAME. BEARING A
CHOICE. TO OR WANT TO BUILD IN
THE LR ZONE OR THE MR ZONE? THEY
HAVE BUDGETED TO GO TO THE MR
ZONE WITH THEIR PROJECTS. THE
COMBINED IMPACT WOULD BE
CHANGES. IT HAS PROMPTED THAT TO
HAPPEN.
>> THE IDEA IS THAT THERE IS A
COHORT OF DEVELOPERS, OF
TOWNHOMES THAT SPECIALIZE IN A
PRODUCT IN 2019. THERE WAS NEW
FEES IN THE LOWER INTERIORS AND
NO FEES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL AND THERE WAS A
CHANGE IN REGULATIONS AROUND A
SIMILAR PROJECT TYPE. WHAT WE
ARE SEEING IN THE DATA, IN THE
CHARTS HERE, IS THAT THERE WAS A
SHIFT. ROOM -- FROM LOWRISE
DEVELOPMENT IN SEATTLE TO THE
MAJORITY OF IT BEING IN MHA
ZONES WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY
TURNED MHA. IF YOU LOOK AT THE
TOP CHART THERE, THE BLACK LINE
, THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN LOWRISE
PROJECT THAT WERE IN THE ZONES
THAT BECAME MHA ZONES AS WE
PASSED MHA. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT
IS TRUCKING ALONG PRETTY WELL
AND THEN THROUGH 2019, WHEN MHA
STARTS KICKING IN, IT STARTS
GOING DOWN PRETTY PRECIPITOUSLY
IN TERMS OF THE UNITS PERMITTED
EACH YEAR. THE BLUE LINE THERE,
THOSE ARE LOWRISE PROJECTS
OUTSIDE OF MHA. THEY ARE
PREDOMINANTLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES. IT IS MUCH
LESS IN TERMS OF THE FULL UNIT
COUNT OVERTIME BUT THEN STARTING
IN 2019, IT STARTS LAUNCHING UP.
YOU ARE SEEING THE SHIFT WHERE
THE LINES CROSS. THE NUMBERS GO
DOWN HERE. THESE CONDITIONS HAVE
DECLINED IN SEATTLE AS WELL.
THESE TAKE A WHILE TO GET
THROUGH THE PERMIT PIPELINE AS
THESE SHOW UP IN THE DATA. THE
BOTTOM CHART THERE BREAKS DOWN
JUST THE NET NEW UNITS IN THESE
LOWRISE PROJECTS THAT ARE
OUTSIDE OF MHA AREAS, WHERE MHA
DOES NOT APPLY. IT IS JUST
SHOWING WHAT TYPES OF UNITS WERE
BEING BUILT. THIS JUST
REINFORCES THE POINT. THE ORANGE
IN THE PEAK ONES THERE, THOSE
ARE PROJECTS WITH A/D USE,
PRIMARILY A NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND WE ARE
SEEING A BIG EXPLOSION IN THAT
TYPE OF THING COMPARED TO
HISTORIC TRENDS. MORE EVIDENCE
THAT THERE WAS THIS SHIFT TO
THAT NEW BUILDING TYPE. THE
DIFFERENTIAL, PARTICULARLY ACUTE
IN THE ZONE WHICH IS BIGGER THAN
WHAT YOU CAN BUILD THEM IN
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, WITH
THE CHANGES TO HB 1110 IN THE
FUTURE, THAT DIFFERENTIAL WILL
BE EVEN LESS. THERE WOULD BE
EVEN MORE INCENTIVE TO SEE THIS
TYPE OF SHIFTING NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL
>> NOW WE ARE GOING TO SHIFT TO
IMPACTS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WHAT DID MHA GET US OVER THE
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS? FIRST,
THIS IS REVENUES. MHA GENERATED
SIGNIFICANT REVENUE FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT WE
EXPECTED IT TO BE A SMALLER
SHARE OF SEATTLE'S FUTURE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS AS
OTHER FUNDS INCREASE. WE ARE
SEEING -- THIS IS DATA FROM THE
OFFICE OF BUDGET HERE AND YOU
WILL SEE, VERY QUICKLY IN 2021,
MHA WAS THE DOMINANT SOURCE OF
FUNDING FOR FORMAL HOUSING --
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YOU CAN
START TO SEE IT DECLINING AND
THE PROJECTIONS MOVING FORWARD
FROM THE BUDGET OFFICE IS WHAT
YOU ARE SEEING THAT IT WILL BE A
MUCH SMALLER SHARE. DURING THE
SAME PERIOD, THESE OTHER SOURCES
OF FUNDING, THE JUMPSTART, WHICH
IS PAYROLL SUNSET TYPE OF THING,
AS WELL AS THE LEVY, THE
INCREASE IN THE LEVY PROVIDING
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE RESTRICTION.
MOVING FORWARD, MHA IS EXPECTED
TO PROVIDE A MUCH SMALLER SHARE
OF THE TOTAL REVENUE PORTFOLIO.
>> IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED
EARLIER, THE PAYMENT REVENUE.
SO, DEVELOPERS THAT PAY THE FEE,
THAT MONEY GOES TO THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING AND THEN THEY LEVERAGE
IT BY CONTRIBUTING TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS ACROSS THE CITY
AND AS WE HEARD EARLIER, THOSE
CONTRIBUTIONS, THE BUILDINGS
THAT HAVE RECEIVED THOSE
CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE INCLUDED OVER
4700 UNITS. I THINK IT WAS 2017
OR 2023. DURING THAT FIVE-YEAR
PERIOD, THERE WAS 4700 UNITS IN
THOSE BUILDINGS BUT AS THIS
CHART SHOWS, WHAT THIS
LEVERAGING MEANS -- THIS IS JUST
ONE EXAMPLE OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS IN SEATTLE AND
YOU CAN SEE THE VARIOUS -- IN
THIS CASE, MHA PROVIDED OVER 11
MILLION , CLOSE TO 100 MILLION
TOTAL. IT IS PARTICULARLY
LEVERAGE. IT SPREADS AN
IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION BUT THERE
ARE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES THAT
GO INTO THE PRODUCT IS THAT MAKE
UP THE WHOLE 4700 UNITS THAT MHA
HAS BEEN LEVERAGED TO HELP
CREATE OVERTIME.
>> THIS SLIDE GETS INTO, WHAT
ARE DEVELOPERS SELECTING PAYMENT
FOR? AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, 95%
OF THE PROJECTS ARE SELECTING
THE PAYMENT OPTION RATHER THAN
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON
SITE. WE DID A LOT OF DEVELOPER
INTERVIEWS AS WELL AS DOING OUR
OWN MODELING BASED ON INPUT AND
THE DEVELOPERS REPORTED
CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH
FINANCING, MARKETING, MANAGEMENT
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERFORMANCE
OPTIONS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THIS IS FEEDBACK FROM THOSE
WHO ACTUALLY CHOSE TO PERFORM,
RATHER THAN THOSE WHO WERE
AFRAID TO PERFORM AND WANTED TO
GET INPUT FROM THOSE WHO HAD
GONE THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE. IT
IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THE
VARIATION IN OUTCOMES BY PRODUCT
TYPE. WITHIN THE MIDRISE
PROJECTS, CLOSE TO A QUARTER OF
THE PROJECTS HAD EXCESS
PERFORMANCE OPTION. WITHIN THE
MIDSIZE, PERFORMANCE HAS BEEN A
MORE VIABLE OPTION FOR MANY
REASONS. NEARLY ALL OF THE
LOWRISE AND HIGH-RISE PROJECTS
ARE SUBJECT TO PAY THOSE FEE
MODES. OFTEN, HIGH-RISE PROJECTS
OR HIGHER-END BUILDINGS IN THE
CITY SO THE DELTA IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RENT AND
THEIR PERFORMANCE TREND WOULD BE
GREATER. THE UPSIDE TO INVESTOR
WOULD BE SMALLER WITH THE
PERFORMANCE. THAT IS LIKELY THE
REASON THERE. WITH LAURA --
LOWRISE, THOSE ARE PREDOMINANTLY
TOWNHOMES.
>> THE TOTAL, 404 NEW AFFORDABLE
RENTAL UNITS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED
BY THE DEVELOPER THAT SELECTED
THE PERFORMANCE OPTION.
>> THIS IS A MAP THAT I REFERRED
TO EARLIER THAT MAPS OUT EVERY
PROJECT THAT WAS SUBJECT TO MHA.
ALL OF THE MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING IN THESE
ZONES WHERE MHA WAS IN EFFECT
OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS. THE
LITTLE WHITE DOTS ARE THE ONES
THAT HAVE SELECTED THE PAYMENT
OPTION. THE BLUE DOTS ARE WHERE
THEY SELECTED PERFORMANCE AND
THE GREEN TRIANGLES ARE PROJECTS
THAT WERE FUNDED WITH PAYMENTS
FUNDED IN PART WITH MHA
PAYMENTS, CONTRIBUTION FROM THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING USING MHA
FEES. THE MAP SHOWS THAT THERE
HAS BEEN A BIG DISPERSION ACROSS
THE CITY. AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER, THERE IS A LOT LESS OF
THEM AT THE PERIPHERY OF THE
LOW-KEY AREAS. THE COLORS DON'T
REFER TO THE FEE AREAS. THE
COLORS ACTUALLY REFER TO
SEATTLE'S ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
INDEX FROM THE PREVIOUS
CONFERENCE A PLAN , LOOKING AT
AREAS WHERE THERE IS MORE
RESOURCES. IT WAS A WAY OF
LOOKING AT EQUITY OUTCOMES
ACROSS THE CITY AND AREAS WHERE
THERE IS MORE ACCESS TO
RESOURCES TO HELP PEOPLE THRIVE.
THERE IS HIGH, MEDIUM AND LOW.
ONE THING WE DID IN THE REPORT
WAS LOOK AT, WAS THERE SOME
PATTERN IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE
UNITS BEING MORE LIKELY TO BE
BUILT IN HIGHER OPPORTUNITY
AREAS OR LOWER OPPORTUNITY
AREAS. THE PAYMENT FUNDS, WERE
THEY GOING TO PROJECTS AT LOWER
OPPORTUNITY AREAS? WHAT WE ARE
SEEING, WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT
THE PAYMENT UNITS THAT WERE
BUILT WITH THESE FUNDS WERE JUST
AS LIKELY OR MORE LIKELY TO BE
PUT IN THE HIGH OPPORTUNITY
AREAS COMPARED TO MARKET RATE
DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS COMPARED
TO THE PERFORMANCE PROJECT.
>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE A QUESTION
FROM COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M SORRY,
IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE PRIOR
SLIDE. YOU SAID THE DEVELOPERS
REPORT CHALLENGE IS ASSOCIATED
WITH FINANCE MARKETING
MANAGEMENT. CAN YOU -- DO YOU
HAVE MORE SPECIFICS ABOUT EACH
OF THOSE ISSUES? WHAT WAS THE
PARTICULAR PROBLEM? DO YOU HAVE
RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT HOW THOSE
PARTICULAR PROBLEMS COULD BE
ADDRESSED?
>> I CAN ADDRESS -- I WILL START
-- FINANCING. IT IS NOT ALL
DEVELOPERS BUT FINANCING
INCLUDES THE INVESTORS WHO ARE
LOOKING TO INVEST IN THE PROJECT
AND YOU ARE LIMITING A CERTAIN
UPSIDE OF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN INVESTORS THAT
DON'T WANT THAT. THEY WILL WANT
THE HIGHER RETURNS ASSOCIATED
WITH, WHAT IF WE GET A 10% RATE
INCREASE? WHAT IF WE GET ALL OF
THESE THINGS. IT JUST LIMITS THE
NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS INTERESTED
IN DOING THAT. THAT BEING SAID,
INVESTORS ARE ONES WHO WOULD
WANT TO PERFORM. MARKETING AND
MANAGEMENT, THAT IS TIED
TOGETHER. THIS IS FEEDBACK, NOT
NECESSARILY OUR OPINIONS BUT THE
MARKETING AND THE MANAGEMENT OR
EXPERTISE TO OPERATE A BUILDING.
IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
MANAGING A BUILDING
PREDOMINANTLY LOW TO LOW INCOME
RENTERS AND THOSE SEEKING THE
HIGH LUXURY RENT AMENITIES AND
IT HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE TO
SUCCESSFULLY LEAVE OUT EACH OF
THOSE INDEPENDENTLY AND MAKE THE
BUILDING WORK FOR ALL. THEY
FOUND IT LOGISTICALLY
CHALLENGING.
>> WE HEAR FROM DEVELOPERS WHERE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE PERFORMANCE
OPTION, THEY PROVIDE SOME OF THE
CHALLENGES -- SOME OF THEM SAY
WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THAT
OPTION ANYMORE.
>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
MANAGEMENT, ARE THERE CHALLENGES
RELATING TO LANDLORD TENANT
LAWS, WHAT THEY WERE SEEING FROM
THE TENANTS? PROBLEMATIC
BEHAVIORS THERE THAT THEY HAD TO
MANAGE?
>> SUM OF ALL THAT. IN GENERAL,
THE PROPERTY MANAGERS -- THEY
ARE VERY USED TO THE PARADIGM OF
THE RENTER AND THERE IS A
DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT
MIGHT BE REQUIRED FOR FOLKS WHO
ARE MOVING INTO HOUSING THAT
MAYBE HAD NOT COME FROM AS MUCH
OF A STABLE INCOME BACKGROUND
VERSUS THOSE LOOKING FOR THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF FINISHES AND
HIGHEST QUALITY AMENITIES. THE
PROPERTY MANAGERS -- THERE ARE
DIFFERENT SPECIALTIES IN THE
MARKETING FOR FOLKS IN ALL
INCOME BANDS WHO WANT TO LIVE IN
A BUILDING AND THAT IS A
CHALLENGE.
>> LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.
IT IS VERY INTERESTING. FOR THE
NEXT SLIDE, YOU SAID THE
LOCATION , AFFORDABLE UNITS ARE
JUST AS LIKELY TO BE IN HIGH
OPPORTUNITY AREAS COMPARED TO
HIGH MARKET UNITS BUT LOOKING AT
DISTRICT 5, THAT DOES NOT SEEM
TO HOLD TRUE. A LOT OF THEM ARE
IN LOW AND MEDIUM OPPORTUNITY
AREAS. THAT IS AS OPPOSED TO
WHEN YOU GET DOWN HERE TO
DOWNTOWN AND PARTS OF CAPITOL
HILL DISTRICT. I JUST WANTED TO
POINT OUT THAT IN DISTRICT 5
WHERE WE ARE GETTING A LOT OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT, IT IS
SORT OF BEING -- WHAT IS THE
WORD -- CONCENTRATED IN AREAS
THAT ARE NOT AS ACCESSIBLE TO
THE COMMUNITY.
>> WE WERE LOOKING OVERALL
CITYWIDE AT WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS
OR POLICIES ? I THINK DISTRICT 5
HAS MORE AREAS THAT ARE LOWER
OPPORTUNITY JUST BASED ON HOW IT
WAS CALCULATED. THAT IS PART OF
WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT.
>> YEAH.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT IT
HIGH OVER HERE.
>> DISTRICT 5 IS MORE
CHALLENGED.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE US
ALONG HERE. QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE
WERE ALSO ASKED TO LOOK AT
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS IS
A BACKWARD LOOKING REPORT,
LOOKING AT THE OUTCOMES OF THE
PROGRAM OVER TIME. WE WERE
TRYING TO PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS ON EXACTLY HOW
TO TWEAK IT MOVING FORWARD BUT
THERE ARE FINDINGS FROM THE
REPORT THAT WE THOUGHT WERE
RELEVANT TO THE CITY AS THEY
LOOK AT WAYS TO IMPROVE THE
PERFORMANCE OF MHA IN TERMS OF
MEETING ITS GOAL, GENERATED
REVENUE , NOT IMPACTING THE
PRODUCTION OF HOUSING OVERALL.
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT MHA
IS ONLY EFFECTIVE IF SEATTLE
CONTINUES TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE
MARKET RATE ENVIRONMENT. IT ONLY
GENERATES AFFORDABLE HOUSING IF
DEVELOPERS ARE BUILDING HOUSING
OVERALL . SO, ENSURING THE CITY
CONTINUES TO HAVE THE CONDITIONS
THAT ARE ENCOURAGING OF MARKET
RATE HOUSING WILL CREATE MORE
REVENUE FOR MHA. THAT IS HOW THE
PROGRAM IS DESIGNED . WE HAVE A
SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE
LOOKING TO CREATE THOSE
FINISHES.
>> WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IS THE
REGULARLY CALIBRATED THE
REQUIREMENTS TO ALIGN WITH
MARKET CONDITIONS, THERE WAS A
LOT OF THOUGHT AND STUDY AND
WHAT WE ARE PUTTING INTO
STUDYING THOSE FEES UPFRONT AND
THERE IS AN ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF
THOSE FEES NOW SINCE 2019. THERE
HAS NOT BEEN A NEW STUDY TO
RESET THEM OR RECALIBRATE THEM.
ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO
CONSIDER REPLACING THAT WITH
REGULAR STUDIES, RECALIBRATE
THOSE FEES BASED ON MARKET
CONDITIONS. THEN, THOSE STUDIES
COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR
PREVAILING HOUSING TYPES IN
DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY.
THERE IS A LOT OF NUANCE TO IT.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
LOWRISE AND HIGH-RISE AND
MIDRISE AND THE PARADIGMS ARE
CONSTANTLY CHANGING.
>> THIS SECOND ONE IS TO ADJUST
THE TIMELINE OF MHA COMPLIANCE
TO LESSEN THE IMPACT OF
FEASIBILITY. CURRENTLY, MHA
LEGISLATION REQUIRES THAT THE
REPAYMENT OCCURS EARLY IN THE
DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE AND THAT IS
BEFORE A LOT OF THE PROJECT
TIMELINE HAS BEEN SECURED. MAYBE
SOME OF THE EQUITY THAT HAS
ALLOWED THEM TO BUILD THE
PROJECT. THIS IS MORE HARMFUL
AND IMPACTFUL TO SMALLER
DEVELOPERS WHO DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE THAT EQUITY TO
PAY THAT FEE. FOR EXAMPLE ,
THERE WAS ONE DEVELOPER WE HAD
SPOKEN TO AND THEY WERE
DEVELOPING A HIGH-RISE PROJECT
THAT HAD CERTAIN PROGRAMMATIC
REQUIREMENTS SO THEY COULDN'T
CHOOSE PERFORMANCE AND THIS WAS
NOT A LARGE DEVELOPER THAT JUST
ROLLS THROUGH PROJECTS. THE FEE
WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO $10
MILLION AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
A YEAR AWAY FROM WHEN THEY WOULD
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE
CONSTRUCTION LOAN. THAT IS A
REAL CHALLENGE FOR THEM. THEY
HAD TO JUMP THROUGH A LOT OF
HOOPS. THAT MIGHT BE AN OUTLIER
BUT THAT APPLIES FOR THE FEE. IF
YOU MOVE THAT FEE TO SOMETHING
CLOSER TO WHEN REVENUE WAS
GENERATED OR WHEN TYPICAL DEBT
OR EQUITY COMES IN, THAT IS
LIKELY TO ATTRACT MORE
DEVELOPERS TO BE INTERESTED IN
PAYING THE FEE. WITH SOME OF THE
SUGGESTIONS, YOU COULD TIE IT TO
ANOTHER MILESTONE SUCH AS A
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR THE
ACTUAL BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
WHICH IS A LOT OF TIMES, THE
LAST STEP NEEDED.
>> I BELIEVE WE HAVE A QUESTION
FROM COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON.
>> IT IS AN AFFIRMATION,
ACTUALLY. I HEAR ABOUT WHEN THE
FEE IS DUE OFTEN AND BASICALLY,
YOU ARE ASKED TO PAY IT BEFORE
YOU HAVE ANY MONEY. I BELIEVE
THAT THE PERMIT ISSUANCE WOULD
BE FAIR, NOT NECESSARILY WITH
MOVING IN AND PAYING RENT BUT
PERHAPS THAT COULD BETTER ALIGN
ALL OF OUR POLICY GOALS TO
ACCELERATE WHEN WE MIGHT GET
THAT CHECK, PERMITTING IT RUNS
SMOOTHLY.
>> THE THIRD RECOMMENDATION IS
TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE OPTIONS
FOR COMPLYING WITH REQUIREMENTS
TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT
FEASIBILITY. AS WE NOTED, NEARLY
ALL DEVELOPMENTS DUE PAYMENT
OVER PERFORMANCE. THE HEARTLAND
MODELING SHOWS PERFORMANCE
TYPICALLY RESULTS IN A LOWER IR
ACROSS PRODUCT TYPES. WE
DISCUSSED THIS QUALITATIVE
FACTOR THAT DEVELOPERS ARE
DISCOURAGING THE SELECTION OF
THEIR PERFORMANCE. THERE ARE
ACTIONS TO DISCOURAGE
OVERPAYMENT SUCH AS RAISING FEES
WOULD HAVE LIKELY -- IF YOU
RAISE FEES, TO BRING IT MORE TO
CAR, THAT WOULD PRODUCE
DEVELOPMENT OVERALL.
>> WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT.
>> THIS LAST RECOMMENDATION --
BACK BEFORE YOU GO TO THAT
SLIDE, I APOLOGIZE. I GOT TO BE
QUICKER WHEN I SEE SOMEONE'S
HAND GOES UP. I AM ASSUMING YOUR
QUESTION IS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS
SLIDE.
>> NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION BUT A
STATEMENT. I GUESS I WOULD PUSH
BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THIS
CONCLUSION THAT WHEN YOU SAY
POTENTIAL ACTIONS BY THE CITY TO
ENCOURAGE PERFORMANCE
OVERPAYMENT, THEY LIKELY HAVE
THE IMPACT OF REDUCING
DEVELOPMENT OVERALL. I THINK YOU
YOURSELF HAVE IDENTIFIED A LOT
OF OTHER CHALLENGES THAT GO INTO
WHY PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING IN LIEU
OVER PERFORMANCE AND AGAINST
FINANCING MARKETING, THE CITY
ACROSS THE BOARD IS UNDERGOING
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND I
THINK SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU TALKED
ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS AND
WHEN WE HEAR THAT FROM ALL
PROVIDERS, THERE IS TOO MANY
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS -- ALSO,
THE PERFORMANCE IS NOT ABOUT
RAISING FEES, IT IS ABOUT
REQUIRING THAT WE HAVE MORE
UNITS BE AFFORDABLE WITHIN 60%
OR 80% OR EVEN HIGHER. I JUST
THINK THAT WE NEED TO -- I WILL
PUSH BACK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT
AND SAY THERE IS A BROADER SET
OF FACTORS THAT ARE GOING INTO
CONSIDERATION AROUND PERFORMANCE
AND I THINK IT WOULD BE --
BEHOOVE US TO HAVE A MORE
DETAILED PERFORMANCE ABOUT THE
OTHER PIECES THAT DISCOURAGE
PERFORMANCE ASIDE FROM THE
MONETARY PIECE AND HOW DO WE
WORK WITH FINANCING TOO TO
PROVIDE THE ASSURANCES THAT SOME
OF THE OTHER BANKS MIGHT NEED TO
HAVE . THAT IS PART OF WHY WE
ARE DUMPING THE MONEY AND THE
FRONT END SO THAT THE CITY IS
BEHIND THIS PROJECT AND WE ARE
GOING TO SUPPORT IT. MAYBE WE
CAN DO A SIMILAR SORT OF
OUTREACH FOR PERFORMANCE. THANK
YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. I WILL RUN THE
LAST RECOMMENDATION HERE. WE
NEED TO EVALUATE OTHER OPTIONS
FOR INCENTIVIZING MULTI-HOUSING
PRODUCTION IN THE SEATTLE. OUR
ACTIONS THE CITY CAN TAKE TO TRY
TO MAKE IT EASIER TO DEVELOP,
PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE MORE
DIFFICULT MARKET CONDITIONS. ONE
IS TO ELIMINATE DESIGN REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS AND STREAMLINE
PERMITTING PROJECTS SUBJECT TO
MHA. I BELIEVE WE DO THIS FOR
PERFORMANCE UNITS. OUR
RECOMMENDATION IS TO EXTEND IT.
WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT ARE
SUBJECTED TO MHA PAYMENT AS
WELL. THAT PROVIDES MORE
PREDICTABILITY FOR DEVELOPERS
AND REDUCES RISK AND REDUCES THE
COST. IMPLEMENT IN FUTURE ZONES
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL MHA FEES OR
REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOWING
DEVELOPERS TO COUNT THE
PERFORMANCE UNITS FOR THOSE WHO
ARE CHOOSING TO PERFORM UNDER
MHA, USING THOSE TO COUNT TOWARD
WHERE MHA REQUIREMENTS ARE, TO
GET THAT INCENTIVE OF THE
PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ON THAT
PART OF THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO
-- TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, THAT WOULD
BE ONE GOOD WAY , ONE THING THE
CITY COULD DO TO ENCOURAGE
PERFORMANCE OVERPAYMENT BY
ALLOWING THE PERFORMANCE UNITS
TO HIT THE REQUIREMENTS.
>> WE DID NOT MODEL A LOT OF
THOSE OUT. WE DID REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL EVALUATION.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT IS AN IDEA.
THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT
THE MAYOR MENTIONED AND THAT WE
FLAGGED ON THE SLIDE THAT WE
WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING
AT BUT, AGAIN, SOME OF THESE
THINGS WE WERE INTERESTED IN
LOOKING AT WHERE EXPLORATORY.
OTHERS ARE THAT WE THINK ARE A
GOOD IDEA LIKE MORE REGULARLY
CALIBRATING THE FEES TO ALIGN
WITH MARKET CONDITIONS AS THE
PRESENTATION SHOWED. MARKET
CONDITIONS WERE REALLY GREAT FOR
HOUSING AT THE START OF THE
INCEPTION AND NOW, THE MARKET
HAS REALLY BECOME MUCH MORE
HOSTILE TO BUILDING AND WE
REALLY WANT TO DO WHATEVER WE
CAN TO SUPPORT MORE HOUSING IN
THE CITY AND THOSE LEVERS WHICH
ARE WITHIN THE CITY'S CONTROL,
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE
ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE HOUSING
PRODUCTION. I WILL JUST CLOSE MY
COMMENTS BY SAYING THE STATE
GROWTH TARGETS THAT WE RECEIVE
SHOW WE NEEDED HOUSING AT ALL
LEVELS OF INCOME AND THE LARGEST
SINGLE CATEGORY IS FOR HOUSING
AT 125% AMI AND ABOVE. WE NEED
MORE MARKET-RATE HOUSING AND WE
NEED MORE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
BUT, IN GENERAL, OUR POSITION IS
TO BE AS SUPPORTIVE AS WE CAN
AND ZONING ALONE WILL NOT GET US
THERE. ZONING IS THE START OF
WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO SUPPORT
MORE HOUSING IN THE CITY. THAT
IS OUR PITCH FOR HOW WE WOULD
RECOMMEND APPROACHING THE
EXPANSION OF MHA.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
PRESENTATION. I WOULD NOW LOVE
TO OPEN IT UP FOR MORE
QUESTIONS. IC VICE CHAIR
SOLOMON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU. LOOKING AT THE
FOURTH RECOMMENDATION IN
ILLUMINATING DESIGN REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS, I HAVE NO PROBLEM
WITH STREAMLINING THE TIMELINE
TO ACCELERATE BRINGING THOSE
UNITS ONLINE AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE . TELL ME ABOUT
ELIMINATING THE DESIGN REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS. THE REASON I AM
ASKING IS , IN MY PREVIOUS ROLL,
I WOULD HAVE DEVELOPERS COME TO
ME, SHOW ME THE PLAN AND SAY,
CAN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THESE
FROM THE SAFETY AND SECURITY
STANDPOINT AND I WOULD PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ELIMINATE
SAFETY AND SECURITY PROBLEMS
BEFORE THEY HAPPEN JUST BY
MAKING TWEAKS IN THE DESIGN,
WHETHER IT IS MAKING SURE THAT
THE PLAN AND THE VEGETATION PLAN
DID NOT CONFLICT WITH EACH
OTHER, TALKING ABOUT ACCESS
CONTROL THINGS, LINES OF SIGHT .
IF THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW THE DESIGN OF THE
PROJECT, HOW CAN WE WORK TO
ENSURE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY
ISSUES DON'T CROP UP? AM I
GETTING SOMETHING MESSED UP
HERE?
>> THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT
WILL NEED TO BE EVALUATED. A LOT
OF THE REASONS ARE FROM AN
ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE WHICH IS
WHAT A LOT OF WHAT THEY ARE
LOOKING AT, THE LENGTH OF TIME
IN THE DESIGN REVIEW AND THE
UNCERTAINTY OF THAT. IT IS
IMPACTFUL AND SOMETHING THAT IS
WITHIN YOUR CONTROL. OBVIOUSLY,
WE WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER THAT
THERE ARE MORE QUALITY ELEMENTS
YOU ARE DISCUSSING.
>> TO BE CLEAR, ELIMINATING THE
DESIGN REVIEW WOULD NOT --
DEVELOPERS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO
BUILD TO THE STANDARDS -- DESIGN
REVIEW IS A MORE QUALITATIVE
PROCESS.
>> AGAIN, THE REASON I BRING
THIS UP IS, THERE ARE MANY
CITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AS
WELL AS MANY JURISDICTIONS IN
WASHINGTON STATE THAT HAVE CRIME
PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN'S BAKED INTO THE CODE.
SEATTLE IS NOT ONE OF THEM. THAT
IS SOMETHING PERSONALLY I WANT
TO TAKE, TO HAVE SOMEBODY
LOOKING AT THE PLANS BEFORE THEY
BREAK GROUND SO THAT WE CAN
DESIGN THE PROBLEMS BEFORE THEY
BEGIN, RIGHT? THAT IS WHY I WAS
ASKING ABOUT THE DESIGN REVIEW
BECAUSE I LOOK AT THAT AS THE
MECHANISM BY WHICH TO HAVE THAT
LENS LOOKING AT THE PLANS. THINK
ABOUT TAMPA, FOR EXAMPLE? ALL OF
THE DIFFERENT REVIEWERS, THERE
IS A GUY THAT IS PART OF THAT
REVIEW PANEL AND LOOKING AT
THOSE PLANS AND THAT IS MY
VISION FOR WHAT WE COULD
POSSIBLY ACCOMPLISH HERE. THAT
WAS IT. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE ONE QUICK TOPIC ON
THIS DESIGN REVIEW. ONE OF THE
STATE LAWS THAT PASS REQUIRES
CITIES TO HAVE CLEAR AND
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR THE
DESIGN REVIEW AND THAT IS ONE OF
THE UP DATES THAT IS COMING
FORWARD WITH THIS BROAD PACKAGE
OF CHANGES. IT IS SUPER
IMPORTANT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT
THAT COULD BE INTEGRATED INTO
CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN
STANDARDS. OR, IN ANOTHER WAY,
IN THE REVIEW OF THE PROCESS,
OUTSIDE OF THE DESIGN REVIEW
FRAMEWORK.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. I AM
WONDERING IF THERE ARE A HANDFUL
OF OTHER CITIES WHO HAVE
MANDATORY INCLUSION PROGRAMS.
DID YOU COMPARE? DID YOU LOOK AT
THOSE OTHER CITIES TO SEE HOW WE
COMPARE WITH THOSE CITIES AND
HOW WELL THEIR PROGRAMS ARE
WORKING TO LOOK AT BEST
PRACTICES? ARE THEY DOING BETTER
THAN WE ARE? IF SO, WHY?
>> WE DID NOT DO A DETAILED LOOK
AT HOW THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING
-- A MORE DETAILED LOOK THE WAY
WE DID FOR SEATTLE BUT IF YOU
RECALL EARLY ON, WE DID TALK
ABOUT A COMPARISON OF BUILDING
TRENDS OVER TIME IN SEATTLE WITH
A NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONS. THERE
IS MORE MATERIAL TO LOOK AT
THERE BUT WE DID LOOK AT SEVERAL
PEERS CITIES THAT HAD
INCLUSIONARY ZONING PROGRAMS
THAT CAME ONLINE DURING THIS
PROGRAM AND WE COMPARED THOSE
BUILDING TRENDS IN THOSE CITIES
TO SEATTLE. WE HAD OTHERS THAT
HAD NO INCLUSIONARY ZONING
REQUIREMENTS AT ALL, ARE WE
SEEING ANYTHING FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF PERMITTING
TRENDS OVER TIME?
>> WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE
COMPARISON CHARTS. DO YOU HAVE
THEM?
>> THEY ARE NOT IN THIS
PRESENTATION.
>> I WILL LOOK FOR THOSE.
>> I DO THINK THAT PART OF THIS
EVALUATION, I THINK IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO HAVE A LOOK
AT THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS AND, HOW
DO THEY DIFFER FROM OURS AND
WERE THERE, OFF THE TOP OF YOUR
HEAD, ANY ON THE PRODUCTION SIDE
THAT ARE DOING BETTER THAN THEY
WERE?
>> I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS
A CITY WITH INCLUSIONARY ZONING
THAT WAS DOING SIGNIFICANTLY
BETTER THAN SEATTLE. I DID NOT
SEE THAT HAPPENING. TALK ABOUT
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
PROGRAM, ONE THING WE DID LOOK
AT WAS, DO OTHER PROGRAMS HAVE
ANY SORTS OF THRESHOLDS WITH
REGARD -- IN PORTLAND, AND HE
BUILT UNDER 20 UNITS DOES NOT
HAVE INCLUSIONARY ZONING
REQUIREMENTS. THAT IS AN EXAMPLE
OF A CITY THAT HAS A SIMILAR
PROGRAM, ONE THAT HAS ONE REALLY
IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE . THAT HAS
AN IMPACT ON PRODUCTION TRENDS
THERE. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES
LIKE THAT. WE TALK ABOUT IT
BRIEFLY IN THE REFORM.
>> THAT IS ONE OF OUR KEY
EVALUATION QUESTIONS COME TO
LOOK AT OTHER CITIES AND STUFF.
WHAT IS FRUSTRATING ABOUT THAT
EXERCISE IS THE DEVIL IS IN THE
DETAILS AND THE PROGRAMS ARE SO
TECHNICAL AND SO DIFFERENTIALLY
CREATED THAT IT IS HARD TO DO AN
APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. FOR
US, THE THRESHOLD QUESTION
CERTAINLY STOOD OUT, SEEING A
LOT OF CITIES JUST APPLY RATHER
THAN DOING IT AROUND CERTAIN
ZONING. THEY JUST APPLY IT
CITYWIDE AND THEN THEY HAVE A
THRESHOLD EXEMPTION FOR LOW
SCALE DEVELOPMENT BELOW A
CERTAIN LEVEL.
>> THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE, IT SOUNDS LIKE, IN
TERMS OF THEIR PRODUCTION.
>> ALL OF THE CITIES HAVE
DIFFERENT MARKET PRODUCTION AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. WHEN LOOKING
AT THE IMPACT OF MHA ALONG WITH
OTHER FACTORS, DID YOU ALL TALK
TO ANY OF THOSE CITIES TO SEE,
IN THEIR EVALUATIONS OF THEIR
OWN PROGRAMS WHAT THEY THOUGHT?
>> YOU POINTED OUT SOME THINGS
TO LOOK AT TO CONSIDER FOR
TWEAKS TO MAKE IT WORK BETTER.
DID YOU TALK TO THOSE OTHER
CITIES TO SEE IF THEY HAVE
EVALUATED THOSE AND WHAT THEY
FOUND IN THEIR EVALUATIONS?
>> NO. WE DID NOT DO INTERVIEWS
WITH OTHER CITIES.
>> THANK YOU. I DO THINK THERE
WOULD BE SOME BENEFIT TO THAT
ANYWAY. THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU. THEN WE
HAVE COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
I DOES WANT TO CLARIFY THAT
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON AND
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA ARE OLD
HANDS.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON
FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>> YOU MENTIONED BUILDING CODE.
THAT WAS IN THE CONSTRUCTION
COSTS. WE REALLY DO NEED TO LOOK
AT BUILDING CODE CHANGES AS
WELL. THIS IS OFF TOPIC BUT WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT INCENTIVIZING
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND THAT IS
A CRUCIAL AREA AND IT WOULD NOT
NECESSARILY FIT INTO THIS
LEGISLATION BUT BECAUSE YOU
MENTIONED IT, I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW OFF-LINE WHAT WELDING CODE
CHANGES WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT
COULD BE MADE THAT DON'T RUN US
DOWN THE SAFETY STANDARD BOARD,
OR WHOEVER. USED TO TALK ABOUT
MICRO UNITS IN A POD BACK IN THE
DAY. DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHY THOSE
ARE NOT BEING CONSTRUCTED AS
MUCH? I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IT
IS PARTLY BECAUSE OF A VERY
OBSCURE RULE THAT WAS IMPOSED .
IT IS ABOUT HOW THE ACTUAL ROOMS
HAVE TO BE CONFIGURED AND I WAS
TOLD THAT THAT IS A HUGE BARRIER
BECAUSE OF THE NECESSARY
IRREGULARITIES IN THESE HOUSING
UNITS. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE NOT THIS INCENTIVIZING
ANY MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TYPES.
IF THERE ARE BUILDING CODE
CHANGES THAT WE COULD CONSIDER,
PLEASE JUST LET MY OFFICE NO.
THANK YOU.
>> AWESOME. THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT AND THEN,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>> WONDERFUL.
>> A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE OF
THEM RELATED TO WHAT I ASKED .
MY STAFF NOTIFIED ME THAT
SENATOR BATEMAN WHO WAS THE
ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF HOUSE BILL
1110 PRESENTED A STATEMENT
CITING -- IF THE RESTRICTIONS
ARE MORE ONEROUS THAN WHAT WAS
REQUIRED ON SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES,
WOULD THIS PROHIBIT THE CITY
FROM APPLYING OTHER
AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS ON
MIDDLE HOUSING?
>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. WE
CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT,
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. WE ARE NOT
RECOMMENDING THAT BUT WE WILL
TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I WILL
FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
>> WHAT ACTIONS CAN WE TAKE TO
MITIGATE THE FACT THAT WHEN
MARKET RATE DEVELOPERS HAVE TO
PAY INTO FEES, THEY THEN HAVE TO
PASS THE COST OFF ON NEW HOUSING
THEY ARE BUILDING? THAT MAKES IT
MORE THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
WITHOUT MHA ?
>> I'M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT
THE QUESTION?
>> WHAT KIND OF MITIGATING
ACTIONS CAN WE TAKE WHEN WE ARE
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHEN MARKET
RATE DEVELOPERS ARE PAYING MHA
FEES, THEY CAN PASS THIS COST
OFF ONTO THE NEW HOUSING THEY
ARE BUILDING WHICH CAN BRING UP
THE COST OF HOUSING IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN WITHOUT?
>> I CAN'T THINK OF ANY WAY
WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET AT
THAT.
>> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. ONE
STRATEGY THAT THE CITY IS DOING
WITH THAT ONE SEATTLE PLAN
UPDATE IS TO EXPAND THE HOUSING
OVERALL. THAT IS THE OVERARCHING
NORTHSTAR WITH PLACES WHERE WE
CAN BUILD MORE HOUSING AND
INCREASE SUPPLY. THAT IS NOT
GOING TO CAUSE PRICES TO GO DOWN
BUT INCREASED SUPPLY MODERATES
RENT INCREASES AND ATTENUATES
THOSE SO IF WE INCREASE THE
SUPPLY OVERALL , THERE ARE SOME
FACTORS ON MULTIPLE SIDES OF THE
LEVER THERE. IF YOU ARE
INCREASING THE HOUSING SUPPLY
DRAMATICALLY, THERE ARE
DIFFERENT EFFECT ON THE OVERALL
BUT, UNDERSCORING THAT OVERALL
INCREASES ARE IMPORTANT.
>> CERTAINLY. OUR OFFICE SHARES
THAT VIEW AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR
THAT. MY OFFICE ALSO HEARING
ABOUT MH ONE -- MHA FEES HAVING
TO COVER THE PAYMENT. MY OFFICE
HAS ALSO BEEN INFORMED THAT THIS
TYPICALLY ADDS 18 MONTHS OF
INTEREST FEES OFF THE LOANS AND
CAN IMPOSE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
WHICH CAN BE PASSED ON TO THE
CONSUMER. ANY OTHER IDEA ABOUT
HOW WE CAN MITIGATE THIS?
>> THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS WE
WANT TO LOOK AT THAT WAS FLAGGED
IN THE NEWSLETTER. WE ARE
DEFINITELY INTERESTED IN TRYING
TO REDUCE THE COST OF FINANCING
NEGOTIATED WITH THE FEES FOR YO
THANK YOU FOR FIELDING MY
QUESTIONS AND I WILL CLOSE WITH
A STATEMENT. AS WAS NOTED IN THE
1110 MIDDLE HOUSING REPORT, IT
IS IMPORTANT TO OUR OFFICE. WE
FIND IT ESSENTIAL ABOUT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE CITY
SHOULD NOT EXTEND MHA INTO NR
ZONES. THIS WOULD BE MIDDLE
HOUSING. IT WOULD RAISE THE
PRICE OF NEW MARKET-RATE HOUSING
ABOVE THE AFFORDABLE LEVEL FOR
THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD. WITH THAT,
THANK YOU FOR THAT TIME, THANK
YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. I DO SEE ANOTHER HAND.
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. THE FLOOR IS
YOURS.
>> WE JUST NEED TO KEEP GOING
BACK TO WHAT WAS CONCLUDED HERE
IN WHICH MHA IS ONE OF THE ONLY
FACTORS THAT HAVE NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED CONDITIONS. OTHER
MARKETS HAVE HAD BIGGER IMPACTS,
NOTING AGAIN THAT WHAT IS
HAPPENING IN SEATTLE, EVEN
THOUGH WE HAVE MHA IS DIFFERENT
THAN WHAT IS OBSERVED IN OTHER
JURISDICTIONS. AGAIN, THE IDEA
THAT THIS BUILDING WILL INCREASE
AFFORDABILITY, I THINK WE HAVE
TO CONTINUE TO REMAIN CLEAR THAT
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF
AFFORDABILITY WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BIG
AFFORDABILITY WHICH REALLY DOES
REQUIRE SOME SORT OF GOVERNMENT
FUNDING, EITHER THROUGH BONDING
OR THROUGH AN MHA PROGRAM AND
THE SMALLER AFFORDABILITY WHICH
IS FROM WHAT YOU DO GET WHEN YOU
HAVE MORE DENSITY AND GREATER
SUPPLY, LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE MORE
TOWNHOUSES OR ADUs, YOU ARE
PAYING 750,000. ALSO, PART OF
THAT IS UTILIZING THAT MONEY TO
BE THE WAY THAT WE HELP FUND THE
NEED FOR THE AFFORDABILITY AND I
JUST WANT THIS FIGURE TO BE OUT
HERE BECAUSE I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT IN THIS DISCUSSION
WHICH IS, THAT -- EXCUSE ME.
WHERE DID IT GO HERE? THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, SEATTLE IS EXPECTED TO
NEED 62,000 UNITS AFFORDABLE TO
HOUSEHOLDS AT OR BELOW 50% AMI
BY 2044. 62,000 UNITS OUT OF THE
LOW 50% AMI. WE HAVE PET, THE
HOUSING LEVEE. EVEN WITH THOSE,
WE WILL NOT COME CLOSE TO
MEETING OUR NEED. IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO
KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE ARE
BUILDING. WE CAN ZONE FOR ALL
SORTS OF SUPPLY BUT FIGURES SHOW
THAT EVEN WHEN WE ZONE, THE
BUILDING ISN'T HAPPENING AND
THEY ARE BUILDING IN TWO
DIFFERENT PLACES . WE ARE NOT
GOING TO GET WHAT WE NEED FOR
THE 62,000 UNITS AT 50% AMI BY
SIMPLY CLOSING OUT MHA THE
OPPORTUNITY TO UTILIZE MHA AS A
TOOL IN THESE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD
RESIDENTIAL ZONES BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT BUILDING -- YES WE NEED
MARKET-RATE HOUSING. YES WE NEED
TO LOOK AT 120 AND ABOVE BUT WE
ARE THE GREATEST NEED WHEN YOU
TALK ABOUT HUMAN NEED FOR
HOUSING. THAT IS AT 60%, 50% AND
BELOW FOR THE HUMAN NEED FOR
HOUSING. I JUST THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO BE
MINDFUL ABOUT WHAT ARE THE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF AFFORDABILITY
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. HOW ARE WE
BUILDING TO MEET THOSE DIFFERENT
NEEDS AND UTILIZING ALL OF THE
TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AND NOT
CUTTING OURSELVES OFF. WE TALKED
ABOUT THIS IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY
ARENA ALL THE TIME ABOUT HAVING
AS BIG A TOOL BAG AS POSSIBLE. I
THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THE SAME
ANALOGY FOR OUR HOUSING NEEDS AS
WELL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE ARE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM OUR
PRESENTERS.
>> YOU ALL ARE LOOKING AT ME
LIKE NO, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.
>> I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF
INFORMATION TODAY. IT WAS VERY
WELL RECEIVED FOR US TO RECEIVE
THIS SO WE CAN GET INFORMATION
AND UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE IN
THE PROCESS. I MENTIONED THIS
BEFORE. I KNOW WE ARE HEAVILY
TALKING ABOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT
AND DEVELOPERS BUT ONE OF THE
OPTIONS -- PEOPLE HAVE OPTIONS
TODAY BUT ONE OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE WITH
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TOO IS TO
TALK ABOUT CONVERGENCE FOR FOLKS
AND FOR US TO STREAMLINE THAT
PROCESS FOR PERMITS TO GIVE
BETTER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, TO
IMPROVE OUR WATER AND
ELECTRICITY HOOKUPS AND THE TIME
IT TAKES FOR THAT TO HAPPEN WITH
UTILITIES AND JUST DO A DEEP
DIVE IN ALL THE COSTS THAT IT
TAKES FOR A PERSON TO CONVERT
THEIR HOME. I ALSO NOTE -- IS
THERE AN OLD HAND? NO WORRIES. I
THOUGHT YOU HAD MORE,
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. ALSO, WE
ALSO KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO
BE A BIG ANTI-DISPLACEMENT TOOL
FOR PEOPLE WHEN CONVERTING THEIR
HOMES AND ADDING MORE DENSITY TO
THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND
GENERATIONAL WEALTH AND
CONTINUING TO KEEP
MULTI-GENERATIONS IN THIS CITY
FOR FOLKS. THERE ARE A LOT OF
FOLKS THAT WANT TO AGE IN PLACE
AND I CAN'T BEGIN TO TELL YOU
HOW THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS WE
ARE HAVING WITH MY PARENTS AND
THEY ARE GOING TO AGE IN PLACE
AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AND
MY MOTHER HAVING A PHYSICAL
DISABILITY AND PROVIDING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR HER TO STAY IN
HER HOME. THESE ARE QUESTIONS
THAT ARE BEING ASKED RIGHT NOW,
ESPECIALLY TO OUR COMMUNITY, OUR
FAMILIES. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO
LIVE IN REDLINE AREAS WHEN THEY
ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP THEIR
PROPERTIES. THEY HAVE MHA FEES,
POTENTIALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ANYMORE.
THEY ARE IN DIFFERENT ZONES .
THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS THAT WE
CAN ADDRESS DURING THE
CONFERENCE A PLAN TO MAKE
BUILDING EASIER FOR EVERYONE IN
OUR CITY, NOT JUST DEVELOPERS
BUT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONVERT
THEIR HOMES AND THAT IS THE ONE
THING I AM REALLY HAPPY ABOUT US
BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS AS A
COUNCIL, NOT JUST NEW ZONING BUT
FOR OTHER PEOPLE DOING THOSE
CONVERSIONS BECAUSE THAT IS ONE
OF THE COOLEST WAYS FOR PEOPLE
TO ADD DENSITY TO NEIGHBORHOOD,
STAY IN THEIR HOME AND PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OTHER FAMILIES
AS WELL. I ALWAYS CALL THEM SOME
OF THE ORIGINAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROVIDERS THAT JUST
WANTED SOMEONE GREAT IN THEIR
BACKYARD OR THEIR HOME AND THEY
WOULD KEEP RENTS LOW ALL THE
TIME BECAUSE THEY WERE LIVING
THERE. ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO
THROW THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE I
THINK IT IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT. IS THERE ANY OTHER
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO COME
BEFORE THE COUNCIL? NO? NO MORE
INTERESTING FACTS? I KNOW THE
LAST ONE, THIS IS A TRICK
QUESTION. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW
MANY STARS ARE IN OUR SOLAR
SYSTEM? THIS IS A GOOD ONE. HOW
MANY STARS? CAN ANYONE GUESS?
>> ONE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS ONE
STAR IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU GOOGLE THAT
REALLY FAST BUT IN OUR UNIVERSE,
THERE ARE 20 BILLION TRILLION
STARS IN OUR UNIVERSE. JUST
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.
OKAY. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. WITH
THAT, WE HAVE NO OTHER ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA TODAY. MY COLLEAGUES,
DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE ITEMS OF
BUSINESS? SEEING THEM, HEARING
THEM, THIS CONCLUDES OUR MARCH
20 MEETING FOR THE SELECT
MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE A
PLAN. IT IS 12:08 P.M. JUST FOR
EVERYONE TO KNOW, OUR NEXT
SELECT COMMITTEE MEETING IS
GOING TO BE SCHEDULED FOR
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16 AT 2:00 P.M.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS,
THIS MEETING WILL