Washblog

What has been cooked up basically means that Seattle (and King County) taxpayers will not only pay for light rail, but will only recoup a minor public benefit of a few units for people who make 80% of median income.   The reality is that the market provides an incredible number of units priced affordably to those who make 80% of median income.  And, while home ownership is always a laudable goal for many, the reality is that one-half of Seattle rents.

I want more for the tax dollars I spend.  I think the fact of a light rail station is a taxpayer-funded amenity of incalculable value,  and that developers will and should build as much and as many units as they can.  The market around light rail stations will be quite lucrative.   I get the idea that we do not just merely upzone, as that action creates a boondoggle for landowners mostly.   So, some action to create density around stations is desirable.

But wait - there is more.  This law is also targeted at other areas with salivating developers and salivating `low' income non-profit housing providers: Dravus, Lake City, and ANY multifamily zone.  The non-profit housing providers are increasingly targeting units to 80% of median using the `Workforce' Tax Abatement Program passed earlier this year, so it is no surprise that they are supporting this plan.

We have spent the last few weeks boosting a revolt by average people against the Wall Street Bailout scheme, where we may have created a tipping point in citizen understanding that we should not have to pay for big business's private interests.  There is much more work yet to do on that level.  But, I think it's time to reassert the peoples' priorities locally.

Here are the details.  If you don't live in Seattle, you might wish to cut to the end for ideas regarding a regional and statewide agenda.

I have been following the development of this atrocity in the Seattle City Council's Planning, Land Use and Neighborhoods Committee for months. It's been REALLY scary.  If you are a glutton for punishment, you can pick up the pod casts at: http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/watchVideos.asp?program=plunc just use the find on page feature and look for `incentive'.

Rather than rewriting everything I have seen and heard, I will include the text of the most recent information which is put together better than I could.

Last week, I received this document from the city:

WORKFORCE HOUSING INCENTIVE ZONING
Schedule and Summary of Key Provisions
October 1, 2008

Schedule:

• October 2007:  Mayor sends Resolution to City Council
• January--September 2008:  Council's Planning, Land Use, Neighborhoods Committee (PLUNC) discuss proposal; Executive and Council agree to add new chapter to Land Use Code and to draft ordinance
• September 16:  Mayor sends Ordinance to City Council
• September 24:  PLUNC Meeting
• October 7:  Public Hearing (5:30pm, City Council Chambers)
• October 8:  PLUNC Meeting---opportunity for public comment at the beginning of the meeting
• November 19th:  PLUNC Meeting--opportunity for public comment at beginning of meeting

Key Points:

• Important for Council to act this year
• Requires developers to dedicate affordable housing units if they choose to construct larger buildings when allowed under applicable rezones
• Affordable housing options are consistent with downtown housing incentive programs
• Focus is on increasing supply of workforce housing; up to 80% of median income for rental, up to 100% for median income for ownership; workforce housing rents fill the gap between subsidized housing program rent levels and market rents typical in new construction projects
• Units will be rent restricted for 50 years
• Create incentive for units to be created on-site; private market can produce units faster and less expensive than public/not-for-profit sectors
• Legislation doesn't upzone any property but will apply when future rezones allow additional development capacity; Dravus, South Downtown, South Lake Union, Northgate, some multifamily zones, significant quasi-judicial rezones
• Complements existing programs for low-moderate income (Housing Levy)

Requirements for Commercial Buildings

Patterned after downtown program

Requirements for Residential Buildings (see chart on page 2):

• For rezones up to 85', 100% of public benefit "amount" goes to workforce housing
• For rezones over 85', minimum of 60% and up to 100% of public benefit amount goes to workforce housing; maximum of 40% can go to neighborhood amenities such as open space or landmark TDRs.  City will seek input from neighborhoods on amenities and Mayor will make recommendation on amenities as part of neighborhood rezone legislation.
• Developer can provide housing units on-site, on a nearby site or pay into a City fund.


• Housing performance on-site:  Assumes 100% of benefit is workforce housing, 11% of the square footage of shaded area must be workforce housing (can be located anywhere in building).  In example below, existing zoning is 85', and shaded area is rezone. Assuming 60% of benefit is workforce housing, housing requirement would be 11% of 60% of the shaded area.  40% would go to neighborhood amenities.

OR

• Housing fee:  See $ amounts below that would be applied per square foot, assuming 100% of benefit is workforce housing.  If 60% of benefit is workforce housing, housing requirement would be 60% of the total $ amount.  40% of total $ amount would go to neighborhood amenities.

240'
$  25                               23     
$  25                               22   
$  25                               21   
$  25                               20   
$  20                               19     
$  20                               18   
$  20                               17   
$  20                               16   
$  15                               15   
$  15                               14   
$  15                               13   
$  10                               12     
$  10                               11   
$  10                               10   
$  10                                 9   
                                         8  85'
                                         7
                                         6
                                         5
                                         4
                                         3
                                         2
                                         1

I had questions and I asked nicely in aid of our Neighborhood Planning group:

I have a couple of pretty basic questions.  I notice there is a statement:

Legislation doesn't upzone any property but will apply when future rezones allow additional development capacity; Dravus, South Downtown, South Lake Union, Northgate, some multifamily zones, significant quasi-judicial rezones

I wonder if I could get clarification?  Does this mean that the communities and the planning will be able to designate (or choose not to designate) this program as a condition of rezoning for a certain area?  Is the specific area rezoned with this program applied?  

Or, would the future land use map have a color or pattern that indicate X zone with this law's conditions as an overlay?  Does it mean for example, that an area that is zoned a certain way will still be zoned that way unless a builder wants to take advantage of the program?  

I was also wondering where exactly the 'some multifamily zones' are?  Are these specific areas that are now defined to have this law applied, or is this a generic statement that 'some multifamily zones' are eligible?  I have the same question regarding 'quasi-judicial rezones'.  Is that a statement that any significant rezone is subject to this law, or may be subject to it?  Would that be citywide, or just for certain areas?

Generally, I am happy to capture housing for lower income people (I wish the income levels were lower or more of a range established) when the value of land is increased based on rezoning.  Or, I guess the land value does not increase, it's up the builder to share the benefit of being able to build higher... However, whether to go higher or denser needs to be taken up as part of the community's vision regarding our Neighborhood Plan Land Use component.  If it's targeted to areas that will naturally go higher that is one thing.  If it's targeted at areas that will continue to remain less dense, we might see a hodge podge of really tall mixed in with really short buildings -- even though some of that kind of variety is what makes Seattle interesting!

I appreciate any clarification!

I received the following response from Laura Hewitt Walker of the Seattle Office of Housing:

The legislation before Council would establish workforce housing incentive programs that go into effect at the time of any upzones in the City. Seattle already has incentive zoning Downtown, but not anywhere else. This would change that, if height or density increases are adopted in other neighborhoods. Dravus, South Downtown, South Lake Union, Northgate and multifamily zones are all areas where current neighborhood planning includes evaluating how zoning could help achieve specific neighborhood goals.

DPD has some information on the web about most of the areas where zoning studies are underway:

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Dravus_Commercial_Area_Zoning_Study/Overview/

http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Planning/Multifamily_Code_Update/Overview/

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/South_Downtown/Overview/

http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Planning/Northgate_Revitalization/Overview/

The Multifamily Zoning is scattered throughout the city. I think about 7% of the city is zoned Multifamily. DPD probably has online maps where you can see where it is, maybe at the website identified above. The Multifamily Zoning includes the zones called Lowrise, Midrise, and Highrise. First Hill is the only place with Highrise zoning though.

 Here is the link to DPD's Workforce Incentives webpage:
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Incentive_Zoning_Program/Overview/

Then the Seattle Displacement Coalition sent me the following.  The details under the links are particularly instructive:

This is your only chance - Tuesday 530PM Oct 7th Council Public Hearing - to testify against the Mayor's "Incentive Zoning Scheme"

New numbers just released: 553 housing units removed this year already - 3500 lost since Jan '05

Mayor's plan would pave the way for still more density in our neighborhoods with no regard to its impact on our stock of low income housing and no regard to its impact on our city's dwindling stock of open space and tree canopy

Where and When: Tues 530pm (get there a bit early to sign-in), Oct 7th at Council Chambers (5th and Cherry downtown)

"Developers benefiting from this plan will there Tuesday in force.  That's why we hope you can attend - the Council needs to hear from folks in the nabe's - this likely will be your only chance formally to testify against this incentive zoning plan"

In an attempt to minimize the effects of this incentive zoning scheme (which rewards developers with lucrative height and density bonuses), the Mayor's office has argued it will only ensure that when growth does occur we'll get a few of the new units in each development "set-aside" affordable to workers.  Turns out only 11% of the new units would be set aside at 80% of median - at rent levels hundreds of dollars above what most workers can afford. Click here for more details on our website showing that the great majority of workers need housing renting at less than 60% of median and especially below 40%.

A majority of workers according to Employment Security earn less than 52% of median - click our website for this breakout showing all occupations including what they earn.  Our data also shows that 92% of all rental stock is available at 80% of median including many units built within the last five years - so why would we subsidize and reward developers to do what they are already doing....it's just a giveaway!

In reality, this proposed incentive zoning scheme would pave the way for still more density in our neighborhoods with no regard to its impact on our stock of low income housing and no regard to its impact on our city's dwindling stock of open space, tree canopy and other physical characteristics that make this city liveable!  We've already lost this year over 550 housing units since Jan. '08 (on pace to lose 830 by the end of the year) with over 3500 lost to demolition and expensive redevelopment since January '05.  

Most of our neighborhoods currently are exceeding their growth targets and we've got 3 times the zoning capacity that we need as it is - yet the Mayor (and many on our city council) are determined to cram still more density into these areas without first putting into place mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of that growth on our city - without first ensuring that adequate infrastructure is in place (paid for by developers who benefit) that is needed to accommodate these runaway levels of growth.

In areas where incentive zoning would be used (and plans call for implementing it eventually in every nabe in the city), it would nearly double densities and heights.  For more details on how outrageous this scheme is click on our website and our most recent bulletins and headlines.

Read more on our website and then please PLEASE PLAN ON ATTENDING and speaking out.  If four some reason you cannot come please call or email each councilmember and tell them to shelve incentive zoning and instead ask them to start placing limits on the levels of growth we are seeing.  No more runaway growth and certainly not until tools are in place to protect existing low income housing, open space, trees, and our nabe's liveability.  It's time for a MORATORIUM ON GROWTH instead!  (for a more nuanced look at incentive zoning and to help you prepare testimony again please click on our website).
- John V. Fox for the Coalition

City Council Contact Info:

Nick Licata 206-684-8803
nick.licata@seattle.gov

Jean Godden 206-684-8807
jean.godden@seattle.gov

Tom Rasmussen 206-684-8808
tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov

Bruce Harrell 684-8804
mailto:bruce.harrell@seattle.gov

Richard McIver (206) 684-8800
richard.mciver@seattle.gov

Sally Clark (206) 684-8802
sally.clark@seattle.gov

Richard Conlin 206) 684-8805
richard.conlin@seattle.gov

Jan Drago (206) 684-8801
jan.drago@seattle.gov

Tim Burgess  684-8806
tim.burgess@seattle.gov

So, here is my letter to the Chair of the Committee.  I will be sending the same to the rest of City Councilmembers in the next few days.

Dear Councilmember Clark:

I have grave concerns about the current citywide incentive zoning proposal.

My first concern is that I do not believe that this is targeted at the real workforce of Seattle.  It does not target the huge numbers of workers who make 30-65% of median income, the people that keep the machine of the city running.  Instead, it targets rents to people who already can afford rentals available on the open market.

My second concern has to do with how we target growth.  I believe that growth should be targeted at light rail station areas.  The land use map is antiquated.  Implementing a plan that includes all multifamily areas, will naturally result in growth in areas that are only served by road-based transit.  We would not be able to run enough busses on some of the existing roads to support the population supported by this plan.  A plan for station areas is not appropriate for the Central Area, Lake City, or possibly even Dravus.

My third concern is that Light Rail is a public amenity, paid for by taxpayers like me.  Regionally, we have a right as property owners and taxpayers to recapture every bit of public benefit that we provide.  Believe me, the market around light rail stations will be some of the most desirable land in the region within a few years.  Not much incentive will be required for developers and landlords.

My suggestions are:

First, The City of Seattle, and King County in general, recognize that the taxpayers are providing the benefits of light rail and aggressively pursue standards that we shall build densely around the station and provide for a mix of incomes that include all levels that objectively reflect the distribution of incomes in a given jurisdiction.  Although it has become a truism that services follow housing, that is in the context of sprawling road based development, not true when we consider fixed planned rail based development where the fact of the infrastructure creates a tax payer subsidy to developers.

Second, focus on the station areas, and hold off on a citywide `one size fits all' proposal.  But, if you must offer this program citywide, consider including lower income bands and less radical upzoning.

Finally I would note that events of the past few weeks, and the efforts of many of us to change the governance of this country, have highlighted in stark relief that the people believe that we deserve the public benefits of what we are paying for. Please provide leadership that asserts the public interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Keller

Madison Valley

Whatever tack you take on this issue, this is a call to you to take action.  Even the telephone numbers and email addresses are nicely listed for you!

---

As promised, here are the regional and statewide considerations for you who do not live in Seattle:

---

We have to move out of auto based growth and into mass transit (ideally rail) based density.

Consider establishing criteria for ALL development in station areas that create housing targeted at incomes, proportionally identical to the income distribution of residents who currently live within 4 miles of the future station.  Consider targeting economic support for small businesses equal to the receipts of the small business currently within .5 miles of the station.  Offer relocation support to move light industrial and other inappropriate businesses to a light industrial part of town.

Build dense towns around all rail-based transit which is geographically constrained, but which has the mix of housing, institutional and commercial development such that people can live, work, attend school, shop, etc. within the walking distance of stations.

In other words, consider PLANNING and returning the public investment in infrastructure back to the public.