Why are options so necessary now?

1. Nickelsville residents have been camping outside on City-owned property on West Marginal Way for two years now.   Highland Park residents have an increasing number of concerns.

2.  Food Lifeline is seeking to acquire the property for their operations.  Food Lifeline has property conveyance agreements with both Washington State and the adjoining private property owner.  Both of these agreements are contingent upon the City selling the parcel it owns.

3.  An adjacent property owner is preparing a lawsuit, citing decreased land value.

4.  Questions have been raised recently about Nickelsville’s ability to govern itself and protect the health and safety of its residents.

The current situation is not sustainable.  For the City to address the health and safety of current residents, address the concerns of neighbors, and support the Food Lifeline project we must work together to find a way to facilitate the relocation of the residents of the Nickelsville encampment.  Here are the options discussed in HHSHC last week:

OPTION 1 – Pass C.B. 117791; do not pass 117792 — Facilitate Nickelsville move/Food Lifeline property acquisition.

The proposed C.B. 117791 creates a regulatory framework for the legal permitting of transitional one-year encampments in order to guide the operation of safe and healthy transitional encampments that are not hosted by a religious entity.  Encampments hosted by religious entities do not require a permit.  This  action would implement the Comprehensive Plan goal passed by the Council last year to “Guide the operation of safe and healthy transitional encampments to allow tempo­rary shelter for those who are homeless.” 

This option will also include new funding to assist those Nickelsville residents who want an alternative to living in outdoor encampments. The Mayor intends to transmit a supplemental budget request to Council to provide additional housing options and services.

Encampments can be permitted already under an existing temporary use permit process.  I am not seeking change the existing temporary use permit process, only to offer another new permitting option.  In many ways, my proposed C.B. 117791 is similar to the existing temporary use permit process with 4 significant areas of difference:

1. Length of stay: A permit could be granted for a year, not 6 months as is currently allowed under the existing temporary permit process.
2. Location limitations: Encampments with these one year permits would be restricted to land in Industrial zones, downtown zones, except for Downtown zones defined as residential, Seattle Mixed (SM) zones, Commercial 2 (C2), Commercial 1 (C1), Neighborhood Commercial 3 (NC3) and Neighborhood Commercial 2 (NC2) zones.   The current temporary use permit process allows for 6 month encampments in all zones.
3. Operations: Under this legislation, a written encampment operations plan is required between property owner and encampment operator.  A code of conduct and health and specific safety standards will be required of the permit holder. The existing temporary use permit process does not make these requirements.
4. Review Process:  The current temporary use permit is a “Type II” Master Use Permit review, with appeal opportunities, while the proposed legislation would establish the transitional encampment interim use as a “Type I” process that is non-appealable.  Outreach requirements of the permit holder to the surrounding area would be established by DPD Director’s Rule upon passage of this bill.

 Other requirements of the proposed legislation are as follows:

• The permit holder must be the City or a private party with demonstrated experience managing shelters, low-income housing, or homeless encampments.                                      
• Maximum number of occupants is 100.
  
• The minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet or larger and minimum of 100 square feet per encampment occupant.
• Encampment site lot line must be 25 feet from residentially-zoned lot or, less than 25 feet if encampment is at least 25 feet from residentially-zoned lot and screened

OPTION 2 – Pass CB 117792; do not pass 117791 – Explore use of current site for an on-going temporary encampment under existing temporary use permit/deny Food Lifeline property acquisition request.

This option would authorize the City to spend $150K to conduct an environmental assessment of the current Nickelsville site in order to inform decision-makers as to the site’s viability to house a City- sanctioned temporary homeless encampment and transitional services.  Under this option HSD would establish a relationship with a non-profit provider who can facilitate services on the site by contracting with a non-profit partner to oversee this encampment.  Council support of this option would mean that Food Lifeline would have to identify a new location for its expanded operations.

There were people at this meeting opposing option 1 – arguing that the Council would be “redlining the city,” by passing legislation that only allows these new special 1 year permits without potential for appeal in certain zones of the city.  This position ignores the fact that a. the existing temporary use permit process and b. the existing Religious Encampment Ordinance is available for use in every zone of the City, and will be continued to be available if CB 117791 passes .

A 3rd option was proposed in public comment, by individuals testifying on behalf of Nickelsville residents.   The option was to not pass either CB 117792; or CB 117791, but to instead facilitate Nickelsville move/Food Lifeline property acquisition under Seattle’s existing Religious Encampment Ordinance.  Again, under Seattle’s existing Religious Encampment Ordinance, no permit is required and Nickelsville would instead form a partnership with two different religious institutions, each of whom would rent 2 properties suitable for a Nickelsville Community of up to 100 participants, for a two year stay under Seattle’s existing Religious Encampment Ordinance.  Nickelsville would then sign a management agreement with the religious institution and property owner as well as a non-profit if necessary.

Before my next HHSHC Committee meeting, June 12, 2pm we will seek more info from Nickelsville and the other agencies proposing this option 3.  At this June 12, HHSHC committee meeting there will be no voting, but we will have a decision agenda that includes these 3 options and detail on what actions are necessary for each of the options as well as the likely outcomes and timeline for each option.  In order to fully develop Option 3, we need a full understanding of what the proposal from Nickelsville is – including expectations of City assistance and the timeline.

Last week, a new coalition seeking to help homeowners in foreclosure— kicked off their new campaign called Reset Seattle.  

On their website, they announce that, “With over 16,500 Seattle homes foreclosed on and over 42,000 homeowners underwater, Washington CAN! is working with faith, community and labor groups to launch a campaign calling on City Council to stop at nothing short of principal reduction to provide real relief to struggling families.” 

The timing is good for such an effort.  Last month, RealtyTrac reported that although foreclosure filings nationally saw a decre

ase of 1% from February and down 23% from the previous year, in Washington State they were up 154% over the previous year.  Similarly, property repossessions nationally saw a decrease of 3% from February and down 21%  from March 2012, in Washington State they were up 88% over the previous year. 

In March the City Council agreed to explore new local solutions for homeowners and communities impacted by the foreclosure crisis, when they passed Resolution 31434, for which I was the prime sponsor, joined by Councilmembers Bagshaw and Harrell.

Here are couple sobering facts: 

·         According to the 2012 2 ^nd Quarter Zillow report, 38% percent of all homeowners are underwater on their mortgages and the average amount of negative equity carried by the individual homeowner because of the loss of value in their homes is approximately $92,200

·         According to the Seattle Office of Housing, between 2008 and November 30, 2012, 9,491 Seattle families have lost their homes due to foreclosures stemming from the housing crisis and approximately 34 percent of those are concentrated in Southeast Seattle where 14% of the City’s homeowners live.

Nationally, homeowners owe $700 billion more on their mortgages than their homes are worth and banks have received more than $700 billion in bailout funds.  Yet, these tax payer dollars are only marginally used to help struggling homeowners, while the industry continues to be unwilling to renegotiate loans on any meaningful scale.  The result is that the increase in consumer spending that is so necessary to our economic recovery isn’t occurring.

I’m excited to begin our review of the circumstances and causes of foreclosures as well as the foreclosure methods and practices of lenders, not to mention the inequities people in Seattle face. We’re working with a prominent expert in this field who has experience consulting for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the International Monetary Fund, and a number of federal and state legislators and local governments. Together, the City Council, in collaboration with the Office of Housing will explore all legal options to assisthomeowners who continue to suffer from the housing crisis.

If you want to read more about the impact upon Seattle homeowners and communities from the foreclosure crisis, check out the new report Reset Seattle has released in conjunction with the United Black Clergy, entiled: “The Wall Street Wrecking Ball.”

The Levy Opportunity Fund is a $15 million fund within the 2008 $146 million 6-year Levy. The fund’s projects are proposed by neighborhood and community groups. After consideration and recommendation by the Oversight Committee, funding for these projects is approved by ordinance. The City Council approved a 1st round of Opportunity Fund projects totaling $9,758,000 in November of 2011. Their April 22nd hearing is for a 2nd round allocating up to an additional $8 million.

Flo Ware Park project Pro Parks Levy check presentation, 2002.

Back in 2000, I sponsored legislation sending the City’s 2000 Pro Parks Levy to the ballot. It was an eight-year $198.2 million Levy. As chair of the Culture, Arts, and Parks Committee, I had worked with then-Mayor Schell and Department of Parks and Recreation Superintendent Ken Bounds to create the citizen-based Pro-Parks Committee that proposed the measure to fund Seattle neighborhood parks, recreation and open space projects. That measure – Proposition No. 1, Parks, Green Spaces, Trails & Zoo Levy – passed with 54% approval, second only to the Monorail’s Proposition 2, which garnered a 56% yes vote.

This past January, Parks staff and the 2008 Levy Oversight Committee members heard more than forty 2nd round funding presentations.

Some of those presentations included a land purchase in South Park to build a future gateway park and connection to the Duwamish River; a Sensory Garden at Woodland Park Zoo designed for the disabled and all abilities to experience nature through imaginative, therapeutic, and educational ways; and a Northwest Native Canoe Center Carving Shed where the public is welcome to observe native carvers working on distinctive varieties of Native American culture.

Projects funded in the 1st round include the roof replacement at the Green Lake Bathhouse, home to Seattle Public Theatre; renovation of the Rainier Beach playfield play area; and renovation of the Madrona playground shelter restrooms.

The 16-member volunteer Citizen Oversight Committee advises the Parks Superintendent, the Mayor and the City Council on the Levy fund. Members serve staggered terms over the life of the current 2009-2014 levy. Members represent the community at large geographically. Half are appointed by the Mayor and half by the City Council.

 Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter.
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

INTRODUCTION

I begin this UP with a request. After you read this Urban Politics, consider sending a message to the Councilmembers asking them to dramatically increase the City’s plans for providing for more affordable housing in South Lake Union. My prior UP #322 provided background on how the City is developing SLU into a new and vibrant neighborhood, with expectations that in 18 years it will be the site of over 50,000 jobs and hopefully 15,000 housing units to accommodate those employees. Quite likely it will become one of Seattle’s densest urban centers. The question before the City is what kind of a new neighborhood will this be? Will it become a homogenous residential neighborhood, with employees car dependent on getting to work?

BE BOLD – TAKE THE LEAP

Before you is a strategy for creating an environmentally sustainable and an affordable neighborhood in the heart of our city. If you are in agreement, then email Councilmembers and put in the Subject Line: “BE BOLD – TAKE THE LEAP” In the body of the message use your own words for why you believe there should be more affordable housing in Seattle and South Lake Union in particular. Emails for the Councilmembers are:
Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov
Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov
Sally.Clark@seattle.gov
Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov
Jean.Godden@seattle.gov
Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov
Nick.Licata@seattle.gov
Mike.OBrien@seattle.gov
Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov

WHAT DOES “TAKE THE LEAP” MEAN?

In short it asks Councilmembers to dramatically increase the requirements on South Lake Union developers to provide affordable housing units when they build larger and higher buildings due to the upzoning of this area. My proposal, which was kindly referred to as the “Licata Leap” by Councilmember Burgess, would do three things. First, reduce carbon emissions from employees driving to work from long distances by creating a greater incentive to provide affordable housing in SLU and in the city. Second, significantly increase the number of affordable housing units beyond what the other plans are proposing. Third, it will begin to make those changes now, capturing the potential to build hundreds of new housing units that would otherwise be lost if we were to wait another year for more discussions.

COMPARISON OF SLU PROPOSALS FOR FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The performance requirement (i.e. the developer builds the affordable housing units on or offsite site) and the in-lieu payment amounts (i.e. the developer pays a fee to the city and the funds are used by someone else to build the units elsewhere) would significantly increase with the Leap Plan. Below is a table showing the differences.

This table applies only to new residential construction, not commercial construction, taking advantage of the SLU upzone. Commercial developments would also pay a fee, but their numbers would vary from those presented below.

Notes:

• *AMI is Average Median Income
• **Office of Housing suggests that non-profit developers may build an additional 300 units by 2031.
• *** This is the number of affordable housing units that the Office of Housing has determined that we’ll need by 2031 to meet our needs for the growth of jobs in SLU. Our consultants have confirmed this number and believe that it would be higher by 50% if we included the demand for affordable housing coming from the rest of the central business district.

The Council is moving in the right direction by increasing the amount of affordable housing from what the Mayor has proposed. One way that some Councilmembers have proposed is to increase the fees is by capturing inflation costs through applying the CPI index. This increase is one that could have been administratively applied, without legislation, any of the years since the 2007 passage of our first incentive zoning program.

I’m also glad to see that some Councilmembers are proposing a higher fee (referred to as an “in-lieu premium” of 20-25%) on developers who do not provide onsite affordable housing. I appreciate that Councilmember Burgess, who was the first to propose higher fees than what the Mayor proposed, acknowledges that even with this in-lieu premium, “the fee would be well below what is allowed by state law, RCW 36.70A.540 (h)”… well below the total cost to develop the workforce units.”

My objective is to encourage the development of affordable housing within projects and discourage the practice of developers writing a check to fulfill their incentive zoning obligations. Since its inception, San Francisco’s differential performance requirements and pay in-lieu options has succeeded in this objective, resulting in 80% of projects performing on-site units, 4% have performing offsite, and 16% making an in-lieu fee payment. My proposal is much more modest, but it will still increase the amount of on-site development than is currently being considered.

Here are some of the details of my proposal:

• For developers building affordable housing onsite: 10% of all residential floor area would be set aside as affordable for 60% and 80% average median income workers, which works out to about $60 gross square foot.
• For developers who don’t build affordable housing onsite, they make a “payment in lieu fee” which is equivalent to the cost of developing more units, instead 15% of units, or about $96 gross square foot.

IS THIS PROPOSAL REASONABLE?

The City Council’s consultant produced The Spectrum Report which concluded that an in lieu fee of even $104/gross square foot (mine is estimated as $96) would result in a 6.8% Return On Equity for developers and investors, the baseline threshold accepted by in the current market is 6%. In other words, developers could still make a healthy return on their projects.

Some have suggested that if we ask developers for too much in exchange for them using the upzones, they will not build in SLU if they can make larger profits elsewhere. While that is a possibility, there are other things to consider.

Although incentive zoning should be applied city wide, SLU is and will continue to be the hottest real estate location in the city for some time. The Mayor created a taskforce for considering how incentive zoning should be applied city-wide. It should move quickly and make a proposal by mid-summer, not at the end of the year as is currently planned. We do need city-wide consistency in applying incentive zoning. With a good portion of the Mayor’s appointees on the taskforce being for-profit developers, I expect that they will voice their hesitations about robust incentive programs. Consequently, I have low expectations that they will endorse anything that is bold enough to meet our city’s needs for more affordable housing. However, while the public deserves to hear their concerns, we should not use this taskforce as a barrier for tackling our affordable housing needs now. Rather, we should move forward before the end of the year to address the need city-wide.

Seattle is currently the sixth most active real estate market in the nation, and the risk factor for investors in this market is the second lowest in the nation as well. Both stats come from a report of Real Capital Analytics, a nationally respected firm, whose report received wide attention. However, San Francisco is even a “hotter” and they have a more aggressive affordable program than what I’m proposing (their “in-lieu” fee is over $300 a gross sq. ft. compared to mine of $96, or the Mayor’s at $15.) The requirements of their program applies even when there is no concurrent upzone and any time a builder is building more than 5 units of housing. And developers there have to provide housing units that are affordable to a lower income worker – 55% of Area Median Income, while all our proposals are at 80% of AMI (mine is half at 80% AMI, and half at 60%). Finally in San Francisco the affordable units are permanently affordable, for the life of the project. Our program guarantees affordability for only 50 years.

We need to build housing for our entire workforce, not just those at the highest wage scales. That is why we must have an incentive zoning program that also produces housing for workers earning 60% of the AMI. These are the security, clerical, maintenance, sales and hospitality workers. One proposed new building, just outside the SLU boundary, will be Seattle’s largest hotel employing over 400 people earning less than $25,000 a year. These are people who deserve the opportunity to walk or bike to work, rather than being forced to drive from Kent, Renton or beyond every day because they cannot find affordable housing in Seattle.

CONCLUSION

Council does recognize the opportunity of capturing additional public value for the private value we intend to create.  And, upzoning adds significant value to private property. The Department of Planning and Development has estimated that future growth due to upzoning SLU could result in over $12 billion worth of development over the next 25 years. Is it reasonable to expect that we should shape that development to be sensitive to our physical environment and our community values? I don’t want to see a downtown enclave created that can only house the most highly paid workers.

My vision is the creation of a functional and sustainable new downtown urban center that reflects the social diversity and environmental goals of our city. Can we do that by creating another 500 or even 700 affordable units when we expect there to be 15,000 housing units in SLU by 2031? I, for one, believe we can and must do better.

I welcome the Council’s continued resolve to grapple with these issues now, as well as the fact that we are also collectively rolling up our sleeves to do the same for incentive zoning throughout the City. But we need your guidance. What do you believe we should do?

The report covered the following areas:

• Reducing Crime including: a. Responding to Crime Trends and b. Major Case Investigations
• Employee Performance, Misconduct & Discipline, including: a. Results of 9-1-1 Caller Surveys and b. an update on OPA Complaint Classification and Handling
• Leadership and Training
• Building Public Confidence

You can read the report at the link above for yourself, but I’m going to take a moment now to share a bit about one of the Seattle Police Department’s newer programs covered in the report under the topic of “Building Public Confidence.”  The program is called: Living Room Conversations.  These conversations bring local community members and police officers together with the goal of addressing neighborhood safety concerns in a more comfortable and informal way.

Since their inception, more than 70 Living Room Conversations have been held throughout the City, with about 1000 neighborhood residents participating.  In the 3^rd Quarter 2012 alone, SPD organized 18 Living Room Conversations in North, South, East and Southwest Precincts.  Here is a four minute video that will give you a sense of what this program is all about and what you can expect if you choose to host one.

A recent evaluation of the Living Room Conversations confirmed that, from the perspective of those hosting, they are a good way to get to know the officers who serve their neighborhoods, and to learn about SPD services and procedures.

The Community Outreach Section of the precinct. If you are interested, contact your community outreach officer to get more information:

NORTH AND WEST PRECINCTS
Officer James Manning 206-423-9952 | james.manning@seattle.gov

SOUTH PRECINCTS
Officer Jojo Cambronero 206-293-2749 | robert.cambronero@seattle.gov

EAST AND WEST PRECINCTS
Officer Sina Ebinger 206-941-8457 | sina.ebinger@seattle.gov

SOUTHWEST PRECINCT
Officer Alex Chapackdee 206-255-8302 | alex.chapackdee@seattle.gov

Thanks to Seattle voters who passed the Libraries for All levy last August, all Seattle neighborhood branch libraries will now be open on Sundays from 1-5 p.m.

Having libraries open on Sunday was the highest priority in the 33,000 public comments received during levy planning.

15 neighborhood libraries will be adding Sunday hours: Columbia, High Point, Madrona-Sally Goldmark, NewHolly, Fremont, South Park, Queen Anne, International District/Chinatown, University, Wallingford, Green Lake, Magnolia, Montlake, Northgate, and Delridge.

Celebrations will take place on Sundays from January through May at each of the libraries with new Sunday hours, beginning with the Columbia Branch on Sunday, January 6.

In addition, library users may now place up to 50 holds, up from 25 before. The Library also has new library cards designs with local icons, as shown here and in the image above.

The Library has a brief online survey through February 1 asking how you would like to use the library on Sundays, available here.

Though there were supporters present, there is still much opposition.  The major concerns I heard on Monday night were:

• Many people believe that new low income housing for families will result in an inevitable increase in nuisance behavior such as public inebriation and urination, aggressive panhandling, drug dealing, shoplifting, etc.
• Many people believe that there is already a much too high concentration of low income housing in Lake City.
• Some people were worried that development now would interfere with an opportunity for another commercial/residential development that could contribute to Lake City’s growth and economic health.
• A few speakers said that low income people wouldn’t be able to support local businesses to help those businesses succeed.  In other words, they would be a dependent population not a contributing one.
• Some people thought that the Fire Station Levy Fund account would suffer, because the city would be use funds from the sale proceeds to support the project, instead of replenishing the Fire Station Levy Fund.
• Nearly everyone included in their testimony that the City should make more investments in infrastructure, particularly the community center.
• Many people said that they believe that the city is not listening to the community’s concerns

I believe that many of the concerns voiced on Monday night can be addressed. However, a strong perspective that I heard was that Lake City residents feel betrayed by the City; facts alone may not alter those kinds of perceptions.

A little bit of background on the proposal is important to understand how we got to where we are today.  On any given night in Seattle, there are more than 6,000 people in need of shelter. Most find their way into an emergency shelter or transitional housing, but there are still over 1,700 people in the Seattle area sleeping outdoors without shelter.  In the Spring of 2011, the Council passed legislation that created a work plan and timeline for analyzing alternatives and recommending actions to provide services in securing housing and to help meet the immediate survival and safety needs of individuals in our community who do not have access to safe shelter.  The City Council’s review was to include possible renovation of Fire Station 39 as a long term location for a new shelter or housing facility.

Then, about this time last year, the community convinced the Council to not support the proposal for a shelter at this location and instead look at possibly selling the property to someone who would develop permanent housing for this site and partner with the City to use the $950,000 earmarked for this site for some sort of a public community space.  And with that, the Seattle City Council changed course and voted for a Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI), requesting the Executive instead develop a proposal for the future redevelopment at the site of the old Fire Station 39 to include long-term housing for low-income or formerly homeless families.  The  Executive was requested by the Council to also involve community stakeholders in the development of that particular kind of proposal.  The Executive has not yet made a final recommendation to the Council and the Council will still have to – after a recommendation has been made – vote to support, reject, or amend that proposal.

So, in short – the Council heard the community a year ago when Lake City residents emailed and met with Councilmembers to say that Fire Station 39 should not be used as a shelter.  How do you know that the Council heard Lake City residents?  Because, Council voted to tell the Mayor to change the shelter proposal.  And the community will have still yet another opportunity to influence the Council, after the Mayor makes a final proposal and before the Council votes on the disposition of the Fire Station.

Back in June, after the City made a preliminary recommendation, there was a briefing on that recommendation and the next steps in my Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee.  If you are interested in the details of the preliminary recommendations, an assessment of the needs of Lake City residents, or information about the concentration of low income housing in different City neighborhoods, you may want to review the documents at this link, under agenda item #2. In December, the Executive will be making a final recommendation to the City Council.  My committee will hear that recommendation.  If you want to track the Council’s discussion in December about these issue, you may want to sign up to receive my committee agendas here.

Fast forward to this year, September 21st through October 21st, when Jon Ramer will present The Compassion Games: Survival of the Kindest.

Big Help Day event, October 21, 2000

In response to reports that many residents don’t feel connected in their communities or engaged with their neighbors, the Compassion Games are intended to help re-connect people with one another and their communities. Check out the related briefing Jon and others provided Councilmembers on September 10th.

The games evolved from discussions on how Seattle should respond to Louisville, Kentucky, which claims to be the most compassionate city in the nation. They’ve challenged Seattle to match them. Although over 80 cities are members of the Compassionate Action Network International, which is sponsoring the Seattle event, the Compassion Games are a Seattle invention that, if successful, can serve as a model for other cities.

The games include a scavenger hunt, a series of planned action projects, random acts of compassion and storytelling.

I encourage you to spread the word and play the games.

‘Compassion is the radicalism of our time,’ said the Dali Lama.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

The SEPA appeal period ends Monday, October 1.   Members of the public will have the opportunity to comment on these proposed regulations when the Council discusses this ordinance this December, in my Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee.  Councilmember Sally Clark and I will be visiting Neighborhood Council meetings through December to gather feedback on the proposal.  Additional information on these meetings will be available as they are scheduled.

The  purpose of this proposed ordinance is to limit the off-site impact of larger-scale cannabis-related activity in zones where they may have increased impacts on neighborhood character or security, specifically those zones with a predominately residential or historic character:

• Single family and multifamily residential zones
• Neighborhood Commercial 1 zones
• Pioneer Square Mixed, International District Mixed and Residential, Pike Place Mixed, Harborfront neighborhoods

In these zones, the growing, processing, or dispensing of cannabis would be limited to:

• 45 cannabis plants;
• 72 ounces of useable cannabis; and
• An amount of cannabis product that could reasonably be produced with 72 ounces of useable cannabis.

We want to create standards now so that we don’t repeat what is happening in Los Angeles, where law enforcement raids shut down operations of good and bad businesses alike and eventually City Council banned dispensaries altogether because there were few standards in LA to hold operators accountable.  For this reason, I hope access point operators and neighborhood residents will agree that they each can benefit from the consistency and accountability that these regulations will provide.

More information can be found in the Department of Planning and Development’s Land Use Information Bulletin.

On September 4, the City Council approved four pieces of legislation giving the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) the green light to move ahead with its 30 acre, $300 million redevelopment of Yesler Terrace.  Of the $30 million in City funds that SHA will request, approximately $11 million are committed with this agreement.

BACKGROUND

SHA has been working with the City and the Yesler Terrace Citizen’s Review Committee since 2006.  The establishment of the Review Committee was the result of a 2002 settlement secured by the Seattle Displacement Coalition in their fight against the redevelopment of Rainier Vista.  The City Council review of Yesler Terrace began this year in February and the Council’s Special Committee on Yesler Terrace Council began meeting on May 21, 2012 and, after 12 meetings and two public hearings, finished its deliberations on August 16th.  I would have preferred more time to address several issues that I believe would have benefited from additional discussion.  I proposed a one week delay on the passage of the Cooperative Agreement, in particular to address the request of the Little Saigon community that we add language committing SHA to work with them. Councilmembers declined out of concern that additional delay could lessen the likelihood of receiving up to $20 million in Federal funds for the project.

The Displacement Coalition sent the Council a letter, signed by nearly 30 individuals and organizations, notifying the Council of their disappointment in the direction of the redevelopment.  I understand their sentiment; in some areas, I share it.  But I believe that one Yesler Terrace resident leader said it best when she testified that the plan approved by the Council is the least bad option when we consider that the 70 year old units do need repair and there is no federal funding available for a renovation option.

Yesler Terrace is one of the most diverse as well as the most economically challenged communities in Seattle. The average, Yesler Terrace household earns about $14,000 a year. It is the oldest publicly subsidized housing in Seattle.  Its 561 housing units, according to SHA, have water, sewer and other key systems that are failing.  The Council’s role in supporting a redevelopment like this should be to preserve the existing community as much as possible.  Of course some families may decide not to return to Yesler Terrace but if we do not have as a goal sustaining a community, then all we are doing is building buildings.

TWO POLICIES TO PURSUE

The primary two community preservation policies that still need to be strengthened are:

1.  More Family Units

The difficulty producing larger family-sized units is not unique to SHA.   Recently I spoke with a group of immigrant youth, not living in SHA housing, who told me that they were members of 6 person families living in 2 bedroom homes.  Still, there should be more guarantees that Yesler Terrace will remain a child-friendly environment.  Although the legislation passed by the Council requires the redevelopment to provide more affordable units for low and moderate families with children than exist now, I still want a commitment from SHA that they will limit the time away for today’s Yesler Terrace families to not more than a single school year, particulaly if the children will have to change schools.  We did receive a commitment that of the 281 replacement housing units that will be available at all times to returning Yesler Terrace residents during the redevelopment project, 94 of them will be 2, 3, and 4 bedroom units.  Hopefully this will increase the number of families that will be able to return sooner.

2.  Provide Staffing for Assisting the Low Income Community

Though I am pleased that SHA has dedicated staff to work with the resident community, I wish they had included staff focused on advocating specifically for the unique needs of a low-income tenant community in what is planned to be a dense mixed-use neighborhood including office buildings and retail spaces, with a population expected to be 5,000 families, over half of whom will be living in more costly market-rate housing.

AMENDMENTS TO THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

I am, however, glad that I succeeded in having the Council adopt a number of amendments to SHA’s Cooperative Agreement with the City (I sponsored 12 of the 16 amendments.) So, what new commitments did we get?

• Many asked that we reevaluate the plan’s intention to sell 40% of the public land, as necessary to fund the project.  The legislation requires SHA to explore the benefits as well as the negative impacts of leasing rather than sale and requires SHA to provide a report to the Council prior to the sale of any property.  This report will start the conversation about sale of land, not end it. I personally prefer the land be kept in the public domain, even if it is leased out for a many years to come. I hope that this report will show how that can be accomplished without hindering SHA’s ability to provide a quality redevelopment of YT.

• SHA must use all proceeds from the sale, lease, or other disposition of property in the Yesler Terrace Redevelopment Area only for Yesler Terrace redevelopment activities. It came to my attention that the draft Cooperative Agreement made no mention of how the proceeds from the sale or lease of land, had to be applied to the Yesler Terrace project.  Consequently, I added language saying that if there are excess revenues, SHA is required to submit a proposal to the City Council for approval before expending them.  In the legislation, if capital and operating funding is available after SHA and development partners have completed all the Replacement Housing, SHA shall produce up to 100 units of extremely low income housing with a minimum term of affordability of 50 years.

• The Cooperative Agreement now increases the number of trees to be planted by 10% and requires maintenance of the trees that are planted.  Urban planners agree that landscaping with trees demonstrably contributes to more cohesive social communities. It was unfortunate that more mature trees could have been retained but extensive road work required their removal. With this new commitment, we should see a greater canopy in this neighborhood in the future.

• The legislation requires that the City and SHA work with the Friends of Little Saigon and other community members to explore the feasibility of developing a mixed-use project in Little Saigon that may include low-income housing, affordable commercial space, and a Vietnamese cultural center.

• The legislation requires new limits on screening policies and an appeal process for Yesler Terrace residents seeking to return after redevelopment.  Returning residents will not be denied their right to return unless they are ineligible for federally subsidized housing.

• I would have preferred legislation limiting the use of levy funds for the redevelopment of Terrace to the already $7.2 million in levy funds already committed. Instead, the legislation requires that if SHA requests future Housing Levy dollars for Yesler Terrace, they must compete for those funds through the regular, competitive Housing Levy process.

• Each year of the redevelopment SHA will provide an annual report to the Council that will include the status of all housing production by affordability and bedroom count as well as the number of public units still on site, taken out of service, and brought back into service through replacement housing production.  The report will also include an update on properties leased or sold, including purchase price.

• SHA must work with community organizations that assist women- and minority-owned businesses and economically disadvantaged individuals to obtain employment through Section 3 hiring, apprenticeship programs and equal opportunity programs.

GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO RETURN

Some feared that there would not be a guarantee of 100% replacement of the very low-income units on or offsite.  The legislation not only requires that all 561 current units will be replaced within the immediate neighborhood but it also controls the location and timing of replacement.  Of the 561 units being replaced, only 118 of those units are planned on property that is adjacent to Yesler Terrace, property that was actually once included within the Yesler Terrace boundaries.  Some critics were concerned that residents would not be granted a right to return to Yesler Terrace; however every Yesler Terrace resident has been given a certificate of return.  It’s true that it may take time for residents to be able to exercise that right because the construction of all 561 replacement units will happen over many years, but the legislation has granted residents that right should they choose to use it.  The focus has rightly been on the replacement of very low income units, but the plan is to build another 290 units of housing for low income residents earning up to 60% AMI and 950 units of 80% AMI housing.

SUMMARY

The scope and size of this project is unprecedented among other Federal Choice Neighborhood projects that the Federal government is currently funding.  Some have used the word “scary” to describe the project.  I don’t believe that I could have just voted “no” and let fear hold me back from working with other Councilmembers in seeking commitments from SHA to assure that this legislation promotes the principles of a culturally and economically diverse community while continuing to prioritize the provision of housing and services for those most in need. It is the Council’s duty to watchdog this legislation as it is implemented and to work with SHA and the community to assure that every requirement that is in this legislation is met.  In moving forward we cannot be slack in our diligence.