The reason why MHA isn’t the law of the land in most of Seattle’s urban villages and commercial districts is because homeowner advocates, under the umbrella group SCALE, brought an appeal on just about every aspect of the program’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Getting through the 43 issues SCALE raised took the Hearing Examiner nearly a full calendar year.

A recent memo sent by the director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) to the City Council estimated that the delay on implementing the program across the city has resulted in a loss of 653-717 units of affordable housing.

After sifting through SCALE’s scattershot nitpicking, Hearing Examiner Vancil sided with the City, but he did instruct the City to come back with a bit more analysis about impact to historical sites. He also offered the City some free political advice.

“While the level of analysis for most of the FEIS satisfies the rule of reason and requirements under SEPA, the more ‘granular’ level of analysis called for and debated at the hearing may have averted at least some of the deeply felt community concern expressed in nearly four weeks of hearing and in a hearing process that has taken the better part of a year,” Vancil said.

People who have closely followed Seattle’s housing debates may disagree that housing opponents can be so easily appeased. Was there somehow a number of hoops the City could have jumped through to win the support of SCALE groups without comprising the program? It seems doubtful.

Note that Queen Anne Community Council continues to block the backyard cottage proposal even after more than a year of further analysis (after the homeowner group appealed and convinced the Hearing Examiner to block an earlier Determination of Non-Significance that hoped to avoid a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process in that case). The EIS found that wealthy homeowners would gain substantially from the backyard cottage proposal, but nonetheless they persisted in obstruction.

The ruling builds on a earlier pre-hearing ruling that also went largely in the City’s favor.

Councilmember Rob Johnson, who chairs the Planning, Land Use, and Zoning Committee and has taken responsibility for shepherding through the MHA rezones, struck a triumphant tone in his press release, but lamented the delay.

“I am glad that after one year and one of the longest appeals in Seattle’s history, the Hearing Examiner has allowed the City to move forward with its work on the Citywide MHA proposal,” Councilmember Johnson said. “While there is more analysis to be done, today’s decision means that after a long delay, the City Council will be able to continue consideration of this important proposal to create more affordable housing during our housing crisis. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to allow for more desperately needed housing in Urban Village neighborhoods across our city, while requiring that all new development in those areas provide affordable housing.”

Councilmember Johnson also pointed out that MHA, which is already in effect in the University District, Downtown, South Lake Union, Uptown, and a portion of 23rd Avenue, is already contributing vast sums to affordable housing.

“In the neighborhoods where MHA has already been implemented, it is working,” Councilmember Johnson said. “This month, Mayor Durkan announced that MHA brought in more than $13 million to create affordable housing this year.”

The MHA appeal news broke the same week Johnson announced he would not be seeking reelection next year. Even without a second term, it appears he will be able to see MHA passed in all urban villages before leaving office. Some are predicted it will pass in the summer. Mayor Durkan vowed the City would take action in “early 2019” in her press release. Councilmember Johnson said the council’s Selection Committee on MHA will meet December 3rd to lay MHA’s path forward now that the appeal challenge has been met.

That said, SCALE still has one more opportunity to appeal the Hearing Examiner ruling via a judicial appeal, which they have until December 12th to make.

While MHA is off the Hearing Examiner’s desk, still on it and delayed is the second backyard cottage appeal and an appeal of Fort Lawton affordable housing. That timetable had been slowed so homeowner activist Elizabeth Campbell could still take her European vacation.

The post Mandatory Housing Affordability Rules the Day in Hearing Examiner Decision first appeared on The Urbanist.

Of course, nearly all areas eliminated were zoned single-family, which will see a nominal uptick with Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Program rezones. The inequitable aspect here is that Wallingford is majority renter with a median age of 33. Per a colleague, the proposed gerrymander wasn’t even put to a vote (oops), unsurprisingly the WCC board’s demographics are the complete inverse of the neighborhood. This gerrymander would have increased development pressure on existing buildings in the urban village, placing existing businesses and multifamily housing at greater risk for redevelopment — all the while removing a sizeable chunk in future MHA units or in lieu fees.

The city council summarily rejected the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and I kind of assumed classist tactics like that wouldn’t be tried again. So I was a little surprised to see that the Phinney Ridge Community Council put out a survey to test the waters about removing a significant portion of the (already inequitably gerrymandered) Phinney/Greenwood Urban Village. The survey is titled, ‘Should we change the boundaries of the Greenwood-Phinney Urban Village If doing so means developers would provide more on-site parking in the future?’

Ah yes. Parking. I should have guessed it.

A handful of residents spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to kill the Phinney Flats project in this part of the urban village. This project will provide homes for those that can’t afford million dollar homes. It also won’t provide parking. Local homeowners appealed the project to kill it by requiring parking. The path they used was on a technicality, which the city council courageously and righteously modified in a package of sweeping reforms, so that car-free buildings could continue to be built near transit. In the midst of worsening housing and climate crises — the city council action was a step in the right direction.

With the city council modification, the homeowners opposed to the project could no longer kill/delay it, and so they agreed to dismiss their suit. In the most recent update, the residents wrote, “We hope you will stay involved as we move on to the next steps of restoring parking sanity in Phinney Ridge and throughout the City.”

The path the Phinney Ridge Community Council (PRCC) is proposing would be to remove over a quarter of the Phinney/Greenwood Urban Village. New development located outside the gerrymandered border would only be eligible for a 50% reduction in required parking, instead of the current 100% reduction.

The result of such an inequitable action would be an increase in rents and development pressure on existing properties within the urban village. It would also raise the cost of development for those projects along the Greenwood Ave N between N 65th St and N 75th St — a highly bikeable, walkable, and transit accessible location where parking should not be required. Furthermore, it would reduce MHA units produced on site, or in lieu fees collected. They also suggest the boundary could maybe be moved up to N 80th St.

This isn’t really surprising. The ‘neighborhood planning’ for Greenwood was dominated by homeowners (because zoning). The city proposed a sizeable boundary for the urban village, but homeowners were having none of it. They gerrymandered 32 blocks out of the urban village, and all of the open space at the time. Seems pretty democratic and equitable, right?

Unfortunately, Wallingford and Phinney/Greenwood Urban Villages aren’t unique in this aspect. The history of the ’90s neighborhood planning in Seattle is one of inequitable outcomes and those opposed to new housing dictating where new housing could go, and how expensive it would have to be. There was no Race and Social Justice Initiative — if there had been, the outcomes would have likely looked incredibly different. Furthermore, according to Shelterforce, just 12,000 people participated in Seattle’s neighborhood planning process, just over 2% of the population then (and just 1.6% today). The neighborhood planning process was neither equitable nor democratic.

Seattle’s land use and zoning both need a major re-boot, and maybe one day we’ll see it. Until then, I hope the city council continues to ignore these undemocratic, classist, anti-tenant proposals which will only exacerbate our housing crisis. Given how broad and deep it is — we should be expanding urban village boundaries (bigly). If you’ve got a moment, click the PRCC survey and let them know you support housing sans parking, and increasing urban village boundaries.

This is a cross-post from Mike Eliason’s blog on Medium.

Bring on the Clusterwohnungen

The post Urban Village Boundary Contractions? No Thanks. first appeared on The Urbanist.

The appeal of Seattle’s marquee housing affordability program that would enact inclusionary zoning as it rezones the city’s urban villages is far from over with several days of testimony slotted for the summer and a ruling expected in the fall. However, the rest of proceedings will be focused on smaller set of topics rather than the longer rambling list the homeowner groups original brought. SCC Insight broke down the case highlighting the following seven issues that are still in dispute:

• “whether the FEIS alternatives analysis is adequate (the city asked for summary judgment on this issue, but lost);
• whether the analysis concerning historic resources is adequate;
• whether the analysis concerning the tree canopy is adequate;
• whether the analysis concerning the impacts of zoning changes outside urban villages is adequate;
• whether the analysis of the proposal’s consistency with all Comprehensive Plan policies is adequate;
• whether the analysis concerning open space and recreation is adequate;
• whether significant impacts would result from the expansion of the Roosevelt Village into the Ravenna neighborhood. The Friends of Ravenna-Cowen argued that there would be impacts, but failed to explain what those impacts would be.”

The City of Seattle filed numerous pre-hearing motions for summary judgment that convinced the Hearing Examiner to close the book on several of the challenges. Areas where the the City prevailed include the following, again explained by SCC Insight:

• “The Hearing Examiner agreed with the city that prior environmental reviews are not relevant for judging the adequacy of this FEIS.”

• “He also agreed with the city that amendments to the city’s Comprehensive Plan may be considered as part of the proposal studied by the FEIS.”
• “He agreed with the city that the FEIS doesn’t need to study the adequacy of mitigation measures–though it does need to provide adequate analysis of those mitigation proposals.”
• “He agreed with the city that the FEIS does not need to address impacts not directly attributable to the proposed action. The Beacon Hill Council had argued that the high noise level in their community due to being on the Sea-Tac Airport flight path was an issue that needed to be addressed in the FEIS if the city intended to increase housing density there; the Hearing Examiner disagreed.”
• “The Hearing Examiner found that it was acceptable for the city to use a “phased review” approach to the FEIS, and that the city correctly followed the requirements for doing so.”
• “He ruled that as a matter of law, the FEIS is not flawed because the city wrote a “programmatic” instead of a “project-based” EIS.”

• “He also ruled that the city met its public notice requirements under the law. The appellants argued that the notice process could have been better and more inclusive, but failed to show that it was not legally compliant. The law requires that notices be published in the “official city newspaper,” which is the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, not the Seattle Times.”

Three weeks of hearings are scheduled in late June, late July, and late August, respectively. Likely, the Hearing Examiner’s ruling will come in September at the earliest. The Seattle City Council appears poised to move fairly quick to pass the MHA rezones once the appeal is settled, since the City has been carrying out the public hearing process unabated.

The featured image is a low-rise development example by the City of Seattle from the MHA FEIS Appendix F.

Homeowner Group Coalition Sues to Block MHA Rezone

The post City Scores Early Victory Against MHA Appeal Brought by Homeowner Groups first appeared on The Urbanist.

“The proposed approach would increase the bulk and scale in residential and neighborhood commercial areas; reduce access to light and air; increase traffic; exacerbate parking problems; reduce tree canopy; and otherwise reduce the livability of Seattle’s neighborhoods. Such impacts would make Seattle less attractive for development and, ironically, reduce the ability of HALA to provide funding for more low income housing,” SCALE’s Notice of Appeal states.

The Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) has been three years in the making with MHA the crown jewel in an armada of 65 policy suggestions produced by a 28-member stakeholder group of housing advocates and developers. The Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) attempted a multiyear community engagement process to implement the MHA framework, which pairs upzones with inclusionary zoning requirements. OPCD published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for MHA in June and followed up with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) earlier this month.

“An appeals process is an important part of upholding the values of rigor and transparency of our government,” Councilmember Rob Johnson said in a statement. “It’s what ensures we have good information and affords everyone the opportunity to ‘check our work’. There has been a tremendous amount of attention given to the analysis within the FEIS, and a responsiveness to additional analysis, especially around displacement and school enrollment, between the draft and FEIS. It will now be the Hearing Examiner’s role to determine the merits of the appeal.”

Councilmember Johnson, who chairs Planning and Land Use and Zoning committee, anticipates the process will continue as scheduled while the City sorts out the appeal.

“Every day, I hear about Seattle’s urgent need for more housing choices for people of all incomes and family sizes, which is the goal of the MHA program,” Councilmember Johnson said. “Though Council is prohibited from taking final action during the appeal process, we will continue our planned eight-month outreach and deliberation process so that when the appeal is resolved, we can act quickly to implement a critical strategy that will result in more income and rent-restricted housing and more housing options across our city for people of all incomes.”

In typical Seattle fashion, SCALE seeks to drown the proposal in process, not to mention debate aesthetics as many people are being priced out of the city. The Notice of Appeal lists the 43 issues with the FEIS. Here’s a taste of the first 13 things SCALE says the MHA FEIS didn’t adequately consider:

1. Neighborhood-specific impacts.
2. Description of changes was too vague.
3. Doesn’t describe the existing land use environment for each neighborhood or what would change. Didn’t compare to existing neighborhood plans.
4. Mitigation of land use impacts.
5. Aesthetic impacts.
6. Mitigation of aesthetic impacts.
7. Transportation impacts.
8. Mitigation of transportation impacts.
9. Tree canopy impacts (supposedly runs afoul of segmentation rule by using 2035 Comprehensive Plan EIS).
10. Mitigation of tree canopy impacts.
11. Noise impacts, such as from traffic or construction sites.
12. Air quality impacts.
13. Mitigation of air quality impacts.

It’s hardly surprising to see Seattle Fair Growth and other choice community councils leading the charge against MHA. These homeowner groups have been engaging–sometimes to derail the various meeting and hearings the City has hosted. Additionally, SCALE members have advocated for contradictory policies. Groups like Seattle Fair Growth and Wallingford Community Council have campaigned to put more zoning capacity along SR-99 even while their appeal bemoans the air quality impacts of putting housing too close to highways. It’s hard to see how they can have it both ways.

It seems a reasonable Hearing Examiner would see SCALE’s voluminous complaints for what they are: concern trolling and desperate delay tactics. Much like a sports team that calls a bunch of timeouts at the end of the game even when the outcome is clear, SCALE is seeking only more time until it faces its inevitable loss.

The members of SCALE are as follows:

Baker Street Community Group ● Beacon Hill Council of Seattle ● Cherry Hill Community Council ● Citizens for Architectural Diversity ● Eastlake Community Council ● Fremont Neighborhood Council ● Friends of the North Rainier Neighborhood Plan ● Friends of Ravenna-Cowen ● Georgetown, Duwamish Valley Neighborhood Preservation Coalition ● Jackson Place Community Council ● Madison-Miller Park Community●  Magnolia Community Council ● Morgan Community Association (MoCA) ● Save Madison Valley ● Seattle Displacement Coalition ● Seattle Fair Growth ● Seniors United for Neighborhoods ● South Park, Duwamish Valley Neighborhood Preservation Coalition ● TreePAC ● U District Small Businesses ● University District Community Council ● Wallingford Community Council ● West Seattle Junction Neighborhood Organization (JuNO) ● Westwood Roxhill Arbor Heights Community Coalition

The whole appeal is available online for those looking to subject themselves to it.

The featured image is from the video SCALE posted on its website and features Toby Thaler with other SCALE members behind him at their Monday press conference .

OPCD Releases Final MHA EIS and Zoning Maps

The post Homeowner Group Coalition Sues to Block MHA Rezone first appeared on The Urbanist.

Granting larger magnitude upzones could have generated more instances of “M1” zones with requirements between 8% and 10% and especially large increases that generate “M2” zones with 9% to 11% requirements. The anti-displacement Alternative 3 could have conceivably meant M2 upzones in wealthy North Seattle urban villages (with low displacement risk and high opportunity) in order to lessen zoning changes in high displacement risk neighborhoods. In practice, the preferred alternative–though keeping some aspects of Alternative 3–keeps M2 upzones few and far between.

“High Access to Opportunity” neighborhoods that see no M2 zones include Capitol Hill, Upper Queen Anne, Interbay, Fremont, Northgate, Green Lake, Ravenna, Columbia City, Admiral, and West Seattle Junction. Capitol Hill, you may have noticed, just got a subway station last year. Northgate will get light rail by 2021, and West Seattle Junction will get its own $2 billion line by 2030.

The lack of M2 zoning seems to relate by a shyness to implement highrise zoning in any neighborhoods that didn’t already have it, as I and many others had suggested. Neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and Ballard already had generous enough zoning that the only way to get to an M2 upzone mathematically would have been to go beyond midrise to implement a highrise zoning like Neighborhood Commercial 125 (NC-125) or NC-165. OPCD didn’t appear interested in taking that step this time around–even in Capitol Hill.

Other neighborhoods like Ballard, Madison-Miller, Crown Hill, Greenwood, East Lake, Morgan Junction, and Wallingford saw a block or two of M2 zones while mostly getting M upzones and a smattering of M1. Lake City, albeit a high displacement risk neighborhood, doesn’t even get an M1 upzone, let alone an M2. Same for Bitter Lake. While less intense zoning changes may mean less physical displacement, economic displacement (i.e., being priced out) is anybody’s guess. Neighborhoods forgoing M2 and M1 may miss the higher affordability requirements they bring.

This isn’t to paint too dour of a picture. M1 zoning were relatively more prevalent than M2 and its MHA requirement is just a 1% step lower at each level. For many, there was hope that High Opportunity Low Displacement Risk urban villages would relate more directly to M2 zoning in practice rather than mainly in theory. Reaching M2 from midrise might have meant following the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda recommendation in Appendix E to merging NC-85 zoning into NC-125 in order to get to a more useful zoning that actually gets built out more frequently. Instead, we’re stuck with a lot of NC-95, which forces more concrete floors without providing much height to recuperate the greater costs associated.

We can certainly hope that as the opening of West Seattle Link and Ballard Link nears enough, OPCD will revisit zoning plans and do more to take advantage of these transit investments and guarantee more housing and affordability near the stations. For now, urbanists will have to content themselves with the framework for bigger changes being in place, even if M2 was used sparingly this time around. The M1 and M2 framework should come in handy down the line.

OPCD Releases Final MHA EIS and Zoning Maps

The post MHA Preferred Alternative Shies Away From Highrise first appeared on The Urbanist.

It is with this history in mind that our 31-member MHA working group reviewed the 462-page draft DEIS report. We provide the following comments on several aspects of the DEIS, including zoning alternative choices for our neighborhood, the zoning alternative philosophy citywide, the housing and socioeconomics analysis, and other areas where we feel the impacts analysis can be improved.  We hope you will consider these comments when completing the final environmental impact statement (FEIS).

Zoning Alternatives in Capitol Hill and Adjacent Urban Villages

Below we provide fine-grained feedback on zoning proposals for the urban villages where we live including Capitol Hill, Pike Pine, Madison-Miller, and 12^th Avenue.  This feedback reflects personal and collective knowledge of the intimate details of our neighborhood, which we hope will be of use in the EIS process.

Capitol Hill Urban Village

For the Capitol Hill Urban Village, we generally prefer the zoning changes proposed in Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 is distinguished by a larger upzoned area, from lowrise to midrise, east of Broadway.  This upzone would lead to a higher level of affordability requirements, M2, that would help preserve the economic diversity that we love about our neighborhood.  Across the entire Capitol Hill-First Hill Urban Center, Alternative 2 would result in 1,267 new affordable units, rather than only 819 new affordable units under Alternative 3.  Alternative 2 will also have the benefit of allowing more housing overall in the Capitol Hill Urban Village.

We believe that the area east of Broadway is an appropriate place for growth with access to light rail and frequent bus service, walkable streets with stores and services, and proximity to jobs in Downtown and South Lake Union.  The urban village includes great schools from elementary (Lowell) to college (Seattle Central) and great community open spaces from Cal Anderson to our many new pocket parks.  These are just some of the many factors that led the City to designate this urban village “high opportunity.”

Our neighborhood has ample experience with midrise as a zoning category and we like how it has performed west of Broadway. Contrary to the perception of some unfamiliar with midrise zoning, on Capitol Hill the area currently zoned midrise is notable for big beautiful trees and a human-scaled, granular development pattern.  Midrise zoning allows for lots of apartment buildings for renters to live in and maximizes our building codes capacity for low cost wood frame construction that can contribute to affordability as acknowledged in the Housing and Socioeconomics section.

While the Capitol Hill Urban Village is designated as high displacement risk, the area being upzoned is relatively high income with a median income of $63,419 (US Census Tract 75, ACS 2011-15). The higher displacement risk parts of the Capitol Hill Urban Village are already zoned midrise.  Adding more capacity in the eastern portion of the neighborhood will help relieve development pressure on other parts of our neighborhood and the city, areas where the residents are more genuinely at high risk of displacement.

We are disappointed that the urban village boundaries cannot be extended further north to Volunteer Park and east to Madison-Miller.  We believe this could allow for a more gradual step down in heights and greater economic and social integration of the wealthy mansion blocks immediately outside of the urban village boundaries.  It could also give more people access to great amenities such as Volunteer Park, Interlaken, and Lowell and Stevens Elementary.

While we support the changes to midrise in Alternative 2, we also believe the city should accompany them with increased investments in quality of life in this area.  Investments such as pocket parks, street trees, and walkability improvements will help the neighborhood accommodate the projected growth while mitigating the biological and open space impacts.

Pike Pine Urban Village

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 generally treat Pike Pine the same.  Our main concern for Pike Pine is in regard to the impact on the Pike Pine Conservation Overlay.

The Conservation Overlay has been a successful tool for accommodating growth while preserving and enhancing human-scale neighborhood character among pre-World War II commercial and mixed-use buildings.  This success includes the retention of character structures as well as a unique set of zoning and design guidelines that incentivize smaller building footprints and storefronts.  We believe that similar regulations could help mitigate concerns discussed in the historical resources section, especially regarding business corridors, not just on Capitol Hill, but around the city, such as the Ave.

Despite its success as a voluntary incentive program, the Overlay is at risk from the Mandatory Housing Affordability zoning changes.  When the base zoning in most of the Pike Pine Urban Village moves from 65 feet to 75 feet, the value of an additional 10 feet of height will be reduced.  Without other actions, in many cases the incentive will no longer be sufficient to cover the cost of character structure preservation.

We believe that a solution can be found that both preserves the effectiveness of the Overlay and incorporates MHA in Pike Pine.  We hope that the City of Seattle will continue to work with the Pike Pine Urban Neighborhood Council’s process to refine the base zoning and incentives in Pike Pine so that both programs can work effectively together.  We also support proposed changes to building code requirements that would reduce the cost of construction at 85 feet by allowing 6 stories of type IIIA wood frame construction over two stories of type I concrete construction.

12^th Avenue Urban Village

Alternatives 2 and 3 are almost identical for the 12^th Avenue Urban Village.  We believe both alternatives miss a valuable opportunity to increase heights and ground floor retail adjacent to the Madison Bus Rapid Transit Corridor.

In particular, we believe that M1 affordability requirements and zoning change from LR3 to NC3-75 would be most appropriate in the area south of Union Street between 13^th and 14^th Avenues, an already high foot traffic area with commercial uses on the north side of Union St.  This area also includes property owned by non-profit affordable housing providers such as Capitol Hill Housing and the First AME Church Housing Corporation that could use the added development capacity to produce more affordable units.  In addition to added housing capacity, NC3-75 zoning would allow these non-profits to provide affordable space for culturally relevant businesses and social service providers.

Madison-Miller Urban Village

We are generally more supportive of the zoning changes proposed in Alternative 3 for the Madison-Miller Urban Village.

As identified in the DEIS, Madison-Miller is a very high opportunity Urban Village.  It has great transit service to jobs in Downtown (bus routes 11 and 12), South Lake Union (8) and the U District (48).  Madison-Miller is close to great schools (Meany, Stevens, St Joes, Holy Names), parks and open space (Miller Playfield, Volunteer Park, Interlaken, Washington Park Arboretum), and a fantastic community center.  This neighborhood provides a welcoming home for many families with kids and the added lowrise zoning will allow townhouses a more moderate-cost family housing option.  As fewer households have large yards, the city should mitigate the loss of these play spaces by finding ways to slow traffic and create more play streets.

Madison-Miller is already home to several affordable housing properties that help keep this part of our neighborhood economically and racially diverse.  These buildings are a great asset for our community because they protect their residents from the risk of displacement.  Alternative 3 would result in 177 new affordable units rather than only 133 under Alternative 2, and far more than Alternative 1.  This is true not only because increased development capacity will allow for more on-site performance of affordable housing, but also because it will create more zoning under which the Seattle Office of Housing can make cost-effective investments leveraging federal low income housing tax credits.

The arrival of new residents can spur concerns about insufficient parking.  We believe that Madison-Miller deserves its own restricted parking zone (RPZ) to better manage on-street parking.  We also hope that the Seattle Department of Transportation will continue to look at reforms to the RPZ system that address oversubscription, which can make the zones ineffective.

Finally, we do not support the M2 changes from single family to LR3 just east of Miller Park.  We believe an M1 change to LR2 would be more appropriate given the location adjacent to the edge of the urban village.  We are disappointed that an urban village boundary expansion is not being considered for the areas immediately north, west, and south.

Beyond the Existing Urban Village Boundaries

While we understand that none of the urban villages in our neighborhood is being considered for boundary expansion, we believe this is a mistake. The current boundaries, in light of the many changes since 1994, today feel restrictive, arbitrary and unfair in many cases. The boundaries create donut holes between our urban villages and leave out some of the wealthiest areas most equipped to accommodate growth without risk of displacement. In the long run, we hope the City will consider including upzones and mandatory housing affordability in these areas. If more areas had been included in the current process, the same housing production goals could have been accommodated with more modest changes within the existing urban village boundaries.

Zoning Alternatives Citywide

We generally prefer the zoning changes suggested in Alternative 3. We state this preference acknowledging that we prefer Alternative 2 for the Capitol Hill Urban Village itself, which we believe is somewhat miscategorized as high displacement risk, especially in the portion of the urban village designated for larger zoning changes. Even if the DEIS displacement analysis does not show that increased development results in increased displacement, we still think it is safer to focus more growth in areas with lower risk of displacement. Our one overriding disagreement with the Alternative 3 framework relates to the urban village boundary expansions. We believe that such boundary expansions are an unmitigated good and that the maximum boundary expansions, with zoning changes to at least residential small lot, should be included in the Preferred Alternative of the FEIS.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Impacts

We believe that the DEIS understates the climate change benefits of Alternatives 2 and 3 relative to Alternative 1.  As the analysis notes on page 448:

“While the variation among the alternatives’ projected emissions in Seattle is minor, the same amount of growth in other jurisdictions in the area would result in very different results…. VMT per population/job is nearly 55 percent higher outside of Seattle [] than inside Seattle. This suggests that the same amount of development outside Seattle would result in substantially higher emissions since 2035 fuel economy would remain equivalent across jurisdictions.”

We expect that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person and job is even lower in Seattle’s urban villages, where MHA will add the most capacity, than in the rest of the city.  Furthermore, we know that in some cases, added density in urban villages can lead, not just to relatively fewer emissions, but also to absolute reductions in transportation emissions, as frequent transit service becomes more viable and more goods and services locate within walking and biking distance of more people.

Seattle enjoys similar climate benefits with regards to energy use in buildings relative to our suburban neighbors.  The additional multi-family buildings allowed through MHA, by their geometry, have a lower surface area to volume ratio than suburban single family homes, making them easier to insulate, heat, and cool. People living closer together are also more likely to share resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from consumer goods. Overall, the FEIS should better reflect the full climate change benefits of citywide MHA.

Housing and Socioeconomics

Of all the issues addressed in the Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigation Measures section of the DEIS, we believe the Housing and Socioeconomics analysis is the most important and deserves special attention in our comments. MHA should be designed to maximize affordability and minimize displacement. The DEIS analysis can help the City determine the best Preferred Alternative for achieving these goals. We believe there are several areas in which this analysis could be significantly improved.

Getting the Subsidized Affordable Housing Data Right

This section conducts a regression of housing production relative to loss of low income households and finds that increased production in a neighborhood reduces the loss in that neighborhood. However, as noted in the analysis, the DEIS lacks comprehensive, comparable data on subsidized affordable housing (page 150). The inadequacy of data on affordable housing investments and lack of adjustments for the impacts of those investments undermines the credibility of the connection between housing production and preventing displacement. For example, South Lake Union is highlighted as an example of a neighborhood that both produced large quantities of new housing and increased the number of low income households (page 153). This ignores the massive investments in affordable housing made in South Lake Union by the Office of Housing over the last decade to achieve this outcome. Not only will including subsidized affordable housing data make the analysis more credible, it will also make the analysis more relevant to MHA. The true question the DEIS should be asking is what will the impacts be of increased housing development and increased investment in subsidized housing.

The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data that was used does not include low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) funded projects unless the LIHTC projects also received direct HUD subsidies (page 150).  To correct this, the FEIS should, at a minimum, include HUD’s LIHTC database as well. Addresses should be tracked in each dataset to prevent double counting of projects with both LIHTC and direct HUD funding. Preferably, these HUD data sources should be replaced by more comprehensive Seattle Office of Housing data that are already available and presented for 2016. MFTE units, which do not receive either HUD or LIHTC funding, should also be included. Additionally, Hope VI sites should be excluded from the regression analysis. Many of the outliers in the regression analysis appear to be Hope VI sites that have unique affordability and development trajectories during the study period.

Addressing Race and Racial Displacement

The displacement analysis also fails to look at displacement by race. Racial displacement, regardless of the connection to income, should be a concern for the City given the history of racially biased land use policy in Seattle and the US generally. People of color have too often been displaced and excluded from many parts of our city, including Capitol Hill. Furthermore, race, unlike income, does not change for a person over time. A neighborhood can lose low income households because previously low income people achieved greater economic success. In contrast, the loss of a particular racial group can mean only the loss of people from that group. An analysis of racial displacement should be added to the FEIS.

The Displacement Risk Index and Double Counting

Much of the DEIS displacement analysis relies on the Displacement Risk Index.  The Displacement Risk Index, developed for the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan update, assumes that neighborhoods with more zoning capacity for new housing are at greater risk.  The DEIS then finds that more zoning capacity does not increase displacement risk, while simultaneously relying on an index with a contradictory assumption.  This leads to circular conclusions such as the finding that higher displacement risk urban villages are more likely to experience more development (page 149).  They are more likely to experience more development because development capacity is part of the criteria for being high displacement risk.  While we do not believe that the FEIS should be required to develop a new displacement risk index, we do think it should acknowledge the inherent contradiction in assumptions.  Eventually, the displacement risk index should be updated to be agnostic regarding the displacement impacts of zoning.

We appreciate that the displacement analysis was conducted separately for the different urban villages by the displacement risk and opportunity access categories.  However, the DEIS should look at the displacement risk of these urban villages at the beginning of the study period, in 2000, not today.  These urban villages are categorized as high displacement risk today in part because they have more low income people.  It is therefore not surprising that low income people were more likely to move to these urban villages over the past 10 years.  Again, this logic is circular and undermines the credibility of the findings.  While a new displacement risk index for the year 2000 should also be outside the scope of the FEIS, the causation problems in this analysis should at least be acknowledged. (page 155)

The Benefits of a Coordinated Citywide Upzone

The citywide MHA process is unique in Seattle’s recent history.  It has been a long time since Seattle has made zoning changes that affect so many parts of the city.  Instead, Seattle has tended to upzone individual neighborhoods one-at-a-time.  Some of the most consistent findings connecting increased development capacity to lower housing prices, referenced in the appendices, are based on findings at the regional level.  When an individual neighborhood receives an upzone, the regional capacity implications are generally small and the benefits of increased supply are less likely to be felt.  Instead, the main effects come from the increase in new housing, which is generally more expensive.  By changing this pattern and upzoning citywide, the benefits of the regional increase in housing capacity are likely to be more tangible. The FEIS should take this benefit into account and distinguish between the affordability and displacement impacts of changes in one neighborhood and the impacts of simultaneous changes in many neighborhoods.

This distinction can be seen in the impact on land values.  The DEIS notes that upzoning a particular parcel can increase that parcel’s land value (though also decrease the land costs per housing unit).  What the DEIS does not acknowledge is that upzoning many parcels at one time can diminish the increase in land value of each individual parcel by making the increase less rare.  A broad citywide upzone, therefore, is likely to increase land values less than a small neighborhood upzone. (page 162)

Types of Buildings

We appreciate that the DEIS acknowledges that certain construction types are more expensive than others and estimates which alternatives will allow more construction of each type by looking at the capacity within zoning categories. Alternatives 2 and 3 allow significantly more development of low cost wood frame construction in residential small lot and lowrise zones, a component of these alternatives that should contribute to affordability.  This analysis would benefit from breaking apart midrise and highrise capacity. While both require construction costs higher than lowrise projects, midrise construction is still mostly wood frame, while highrise construction is entirely concrete and steel.  (pages 160-163)

Tenant Relocation Assistance

As renters, we know the burden of being forced to move.  As rents go up on Capitol Hill, many of us are on the brink of being priced out of the neighborhood.  The tenant relocation assistance data shows the limitations of the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO) and indicates the greater need to address economic displacement.  Only 698 households were eligible for assistance between 2013 and 2016 (page 145). The increased development under Alternatives 2 and 3 is expected to result in, at maximum, 76 additional households displaced by demolition (page 172).  Partially, this data reflects the unfairly strict income and household thresholds of the TRAO.  However, this data also reflects the small scale of direct displacement from demolition relative to economic displacement.  Economic displacement appears to be much more widespread with fewer remedies.  Low income households experiencing economic displacement deserve access to relocation assistance as well as more focus in the DEIS.

Direct displacement from demolition and economic displacement are also distinguished by where people go after they are displaced. Demolition or renovation does not inherently imply that a household can no longer find housing in that neighborhood.  In contrast, when a household must move because of rent increases, other rents in that neighborhood are also likely to have increased, resulting in displacement not just from a particular unit, but from an entire area of the city.  Unfortunately, the DEIS displacement analysis acknowledges that it does not look at where people go after they are displaced, an important component of fully understanding the problem.

Regional Data and More Recent Data

The economic displacement analysis compares the City of Seattle to the Rest of King County.  A comparison to the metropolitan region would be more appropriate.  Anecdotally, we hear that middle and working class people are getting pushed out of all of King County and moving increasingly to Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties.  Looking at household data at this regional scale would provide a better understanding of where lower income households are going when they leave Seattle.  (page 148)

The data comparison in this section is for 2000 to 2009-2013 (effectively 2011).  This period is one of remarkable stability in rental housing cost relative to the following period 2011-16, when rents spiked upwards.  More recent data, such as the 2011-15 American Community Survey and city and county-wide data from the 2015 American Community Survey would be more relevant to our current affordability challenges. (pages 148-151)

Conclusion

Seattle’s affordable housing crisis requires rapid responses including speedy implementation of citywide mandatory housing affordability.  Our comments are not intended to delay the DEIS process.  In fact, we have taken care to identify several of our criticism as beyond the scope of the EIS in order to prevent unnecessary delays.  We hope that our comments on the DEIS will help inform an effective FEIS and Preferred Alternative, as well as future thinking about how we analyze the impacts of land use decisions in our city.  We look forward to engaging with the remaining final steps towards implementation.

Sincerely,

The Capitol Hill Renter Initiative

The Capitol Hill Renter Initiative is a group of community members committed to addressing the neighborhood’s affordability and mobility challenges and advancing the voice of renters at City Hall. People interested in getting involved with the Renter Initiative can check out the “Capitol Hill Renter Initiative” on Facebook or by visiting this page.

The Renter Initiative is a project of the Capitol Hill Eco District and staffed by Capitol Hill Housing. The views expressed represent those of Initiative members and not necessarily Capitol Hill Housing or the EcoDistrict.

The post Capitol Hill Renter Initiative’s Comments on Citywide MHA Legislation first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Urbanist covered the DEIS and its three studied alternatives when they were released in an overview piece and a takeaway piece. The Office of Planning and Community Development has advised that a hybrid of the alternatives is likely to be the preferred alternative. This is how I recommend mixing and matching to create the best plan:

• Alternative 2 for Northgate would provide greater zoning capacity at the County-owned parking lot where a large affordable housing complex is planned right outside Northgate station. Alternative 3 scaled down the upzones in Northgate to reduce displacement risk, but parking lots have no displacement risk.
• Alternative 2 for Capitol Hill would provide more housing capacity to help absorb the neighborhood’s incredible housing demand, which is spilling into neighboring areas like Central District. With light rail already in Capitol Hill, we need zoning that unlocks a virtuous cycle of transit-oriented development.
• Alternative 3 for Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard, and Crown Hill. The displacement analysis found low displacement risk and high opportunity in these North Seattle neighborhoods. It’s a no-brainer to funnel more growth here with M2 upzones (which come with a higher affordability requirement) and with urban village expansions.
• Alternative 3 for West Seattle Junction and Morgan Junction would better capitalize on light rail investments to West Seattle thanks to a larger urban village boundary expansion and more M1 and M2 zoning.
• Follow the Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan, which encouraged mid-rise multifamily development near Rainier Beach Station and recommended an 85-foot height limit for commercial and mixed-use areas there–similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 undercuts the neighborhood plan near the station area, but may well be appropriate in other parts of the neighborhood in order to reduce displacement pressures.

• Hybrid approach in Othello? In Othello some of the most pronounced differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 emerge. The Othello urban village expansion is much bigger in Alternative 2. Moreover, Alternative 2 includes significantly more LR3 east of Othello Station whereas those areas are RSL or unchanged in Alternative 3.

Perhaps the best solution is somewhere in the middle? Expanding the urban village boundary would ensure more development within the walkshed of Othello Station contributes to affordability, but more measured changes (perhaps LR2 instead of LR3) might lessen the displacement pressure. Additionally, part of the Othello urban village expansion could be delayed until a bigger batch of urban village expansions down the road. Just when would that be? We have to fight urban villages additions and expansions onto the Comp Plan docket in 2018 and through the Comp Plan process in 2019, and from there through its own EIS. That way, there could be a whole batch of urban village expansions (here’s the ones we’ve recommended) in 2020ish. The Seattle Process at work!

Anyway, please take the time to comment on the web form this weekend to help give the City of Seattle some direction. The next round of MHA rezones could become law in early 2018 if the process goes smoothly. Let’s help it go smoothly.

Here's a walkthru of the #MHADEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a necessary step to do MHA upzones citywide. https://t.co/LIRJx50ATB

— The Urbanist (@UrbanistOrg) August 4, 2017

Four Exciting Urbanist Data Points From Seattle’s MHA Study

The post MHA DEIS Comments Are Due Monday first appeared on The Urbanist.

There Are Big Changes To Some Single-Family Residential Zoning

The City is upzoning single-family residential areas within all the urban villages and urban centers. In addition, the alternatives indicate a few areas zoned for single-family residential that could be upzoned outside urban villages and centers as well as some opportunities to expand urban villages and centers. Overall, this is a huge win for urbanists who generally think upzoning single family areas can create huge benefits. It’s a key reason many of them supported the policy to begin with. Below are the changes to the Ballard Urban Village.

More Than 17,000 More Households And 27 Times More Rent-Restricted Units

At the heart of this strategy is a proposition. The city can upzone neighborhoods and capture the value from upzones for the public benefit. Urbanists tend to think density in itself adds value to neighborhoods. For that reason, the increase in expected households is probably enough all by itself to support the program.

Additionally, both alternatives will see much larger growth in rent-restricted units, which have a number of benefits. People can access neighborhoods with high base rents due to the bid-rent curve. People also have way more housing stability akin to rent controlled units. How is it possible we can create so many rent-restricted units? Again, the city is capturing the value from upzones to create public benefits. Since it’s an election season, it’s also worth noting that opposition to HALA and the grand bargain has been widespread. These talking points ignore the benefits when framed simply as opposition rather than needing to do HALA and more. Developer lobbyists and their sympathizers feared it would kill development. NIMBYs said the policy was being pushed by developers and the rich. They also said it would destroy neighborhoood character and displace people.

The City Found Development Correlates With Increasing Low-Income Households

Regarding displacement, Senior planner Geoff Wendtland indicated, “This was a key concern with MHA implementation.” A lot of the study is focused on how the alternatives will affect displacement because that was what residents have been focusing on. Perhaps the most interesting take-away regarding the relationship between displacement and development comes from this graph:

It shows that areas with more development correlated with an increase in households below 50% of the area median income (AMI). This is similar to a study from California that indicated neighborhoods with development saw less displacement. Urbanists should use some caution though with this data for a few reasons. The California study was later addressed by UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project as being a simplification. In Seattle’s example, it’s easy to see how this graph alone doesn’t include all the necessary nuance.

Some details are worth noting. First, the correlation is significant but small. Second, Seattle’s AMI has changed dramatically since 2000 and it’s unclear how the methodology accounted for this. Third, cities are extremely dynamic and interconnected–the same thing that causes a decreases in low-income households in one neighborhood could cause increases in another. Overall though, this is a good evidence that development doesn’t necessitate or equal displacement and might even counter displacement in some situations.

Emissions and Air Quality Impact

It’s a commonly held (and factual) belief that density is good for the environment. However, adding people to the city does mean we’ll be increasing emissions within the city. Of course, the increase in the city is likely much smaller than if people lived outside the city, but there will still be an impact on air quality.

There’s a lot more analysis in the report that deserves attention, too, but overall it paints a clear picture. Growth has impacts on our city. We need plan to plan and mitigate those impacts. The MHA implementation in the urban villages and urban centers will go a long way towards mitigating a big part of the impacts.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Shows Big Possibilities for MHA Rezones

The post Four Exciting Urbanist Data Points From Seattle’s MHA Study first appeared on The Urbanist.

Three alternatives were studied:

1. Change nothing;
2. MHA rezones without a “displacement analysis;” and
3. MHA rezones with a “displacement analysis.”

“The study isn’t presupposing an answer,” OPCD senior planner Geoff Wendlandt said in a phone interview. “Neither of these alternatives have to be the final alternative.”

Wendlandt added that policymakers could pick and choose the best attributes of both alternatives, which appears to be the best course of action since each plan has its own strengths and weaknesses. Generally speaking, Alternative 2 seems to make best use of high-rise zoning, maximizing future station areas in Northgate and places along SR-522 BRT in Lake City. Meanwhile, Alternative 3 does a great job of maximizing mid-rise zoning in low displacement risk neighborhoods in North Seattle. Choosing the best features of Alternative 2 and 3 could result in an excellent land use plan. To peruse the Draft EIS zoning maps, click this link.

The summary suggests that Alternative 2 presents both the greatest capacity for growth and rent-restricted affordable units.

That said, the targeted approach in Alternative 3 does offer some advantages. Splitting neighborhoods into four categories with “high displacement risk and low access to opportunity” getting the slightest upzones and “low displacement risk and high access to opportunity” getting the biggest upzones–with apparently the most emphasis on adding the highest capacity M2 upzones that also provide the highest affordability requirements. For details, see the table below:

The result of that targeted approach is that upzones are scaled back in places like the Rainier Valley, Bitter Lake, and South Park while they are scaled up in places like Ballard, Fremont, Greenwood, Eastlake, and West Seattle Junction. Places with high displacement risk but high access to opportunity like 23rd & Union-Jackson, Columbia City, and North Beacon Hill would see “medium development capacity increases” in an effort to decrease displacement while also taking advantage of the high access to opportunity and amenities in these areas.

In theory Alternative 3 would not only increase the instances of bigger M1 and M2 upzones (with corresponding higher requirements), it would also lead to expanding urban village boundaries in neighborhoods with low displacement risk and high opportunity. In practice, the magnitude of the changes still appears below what some urbanists hoped. For example, it doesn’t appear anything beyond 95-foot NC-95 zoning is planned in Ballard, keeping everything mid-rise or lower. Plus Wendlandt said the only urban village expansions would be in areas already identified in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, such as Crown Hill, East Ballard, Roosevelt, and West Seattle Junction. These expansions are denoted by the dotted boundary lines in the map.

In Fremont, Alternative 3’s M2 rezones are focused between Aurora Avenue and Stone Way–incidentally the area I highlighted as the growth center for both Fremont and Wallingford and playfully labeled Frelingford. Below N 39th St that swath will see NC-75 zoning, which is a healthy increase from today’s C-40 and LR3 zoning in these areas.

Meanwhile, Wallingford’s M2 zones will be focused in the northwest portion, although a triangle between Aurora Avenue, Green Lake Way, and N 50th St will be excluded. This portion has some of the best transit access in the neighborhood with the Rapid Ride E stop at N 45th St and the frequent Route 44 also nearby. Perhaps, the most remarkable thing about the Wallingford map is the M1 upzones replacing single family zoning with LR1 within the urban village boundaries. That expansion stretches low rise zoning from N 50th St to N 40th St west of Wallingford Ave N. The pronounced tapering of the urban village still exists to the east as it draw near the University District.

Roosevelt saw stepped up changes according to the Alternative 3 framework, but, like Ballard, saw nothing above 95 feet despite being next on deck for a light rail station, which should open by 2021. The worry, as we have covered before, is that NC-95 is not particularly enticing or buildable to zoned capacity since it requires a switch to steel or concrete construction without enough height to make the increased costs associated with those building types worth it. The Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) committee report advised the city to use NC-125 zoning or greater instead of NC-85 (and rather than NC-95) to deal with this problem, but that has not materialized in many places so far. Following this HALA recommendation seems a wise move, particularly in high opportunity, low displacement risk neighborhoods.

One downside of Alternative 3 is that it scales back high-rise zoning in Northgate near the light rail station currently under construction. A large plot near the station would receive 240-foot zoning in Alternative 2 and it’s a publicly-owned lot with big plans for an affordable housing development. Despite being a high displacement risk neighborhood, there is no displacement risk on this particular parcel since it’s currently a parking lot. That site needs to be high-rise to support the County’s transit-oriented development plans. Alternative 2 clearly charts the better course of action here.

The displacement analysis dances around a thorny question for policymakers. Does development reduce the risk of economic displacement and thereby help at-risk neighborhood if it’s done in a smart way? A UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project study re-analyzed and trumpeted by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) suggests this is the case. Additionally, if we want to increase affordable housing production in these neighborhoods, should we use more M2 upzones in order to get higher affordable requirements? Would more targeted instances of high-rise be better for displacement in at-risk neighborhood rather than wide patches of mid-rise? The displacement question is an article of its own; so expect a follow-up article next week.

For now, it’s just good to see the wheels in motion. Here is OPCD Director Sam Assefa’s statement:

Implementing MHA is one of many actions the City is proposing to address housing affordability. We look forward to community input on the DEIS, especially on our analysis of impacts resulting from MHA implementation. Your feedback will help us finalize our recommendation on how to guide growth with additional affordable housing, while working to reduce displacement risks.

As for commenting on the plan, the Draft EIS is open to public feedback through July 23rd. Later this month, OPCD will host an open house and a public hearing. That happens on the evening of June 29th at Seattle City Hall. The open house kicks off at 5.30pm in the Bertha Knight Landes Room. During the open house portion, the public will able to review the alternatives and speak directly with City staff to learn more and provide feedback.

The post Draft Environmental Impact Statement Shows Big Possibilities for MHA Rezones first appeared on The Urbanist.