(Editor's note: The following was an email sent to Seattle City Council members and copied to Robinson Newspapers.)

Dear Council members, 

Yesterday, the city's lobbyist forwarded (a) letter from (Mayor Greg Nickels) to many legislators calling for amendments to the Transit Oriented Development Bill now circulating in Olympia Second Sub. SB 5687 (House version Sub HB 1490).  The mayor's letter calls for changes that would essentially gut the provisions of the bill in Section 8 of Senate version designed to mitigate gentrification and impacts on existing low income and very low income housing.

We sincerely hope this is not the position of the (Seattle) City Council.  If I am correct, I don't believe you have even seen the letter let alone had a chance to discuss it in a briefing or council session.  Yet, the Mayor obviously is sending this letter and representing this as the City's position.  

Below are our comments and thoughts regarding the bill and the mayor's letter which we just forwarded to our legislators:

What Tim Ceis and the mayor's office are proposing effectively would gut the anti-displacement language that now is contained in the substitute bill (still circulating in Senate as Sub5687). Further, their position has not even been discussed by the city council and does not represent the official city position. It is their own.

On the contrary, this anti-displacement language in Section 8 needs to be strengthened not removed. Respectively these applicable para's are Section 8 Subsection (1) (d) and (e) related to no net loss and 1 for 1 replacement. This language is absolutely essential if we are to in any way mitigate/minimize the displacement already occurring in SE Seattle and that may be further stimulated as a result of this bill.

Further, we recommend improvements to this language to ensure that the language in these para's achieve their intended objectives.  Here are our suggested improvements to the language but again whatever you do please don't support removal or gutting them as Ceis proposes. 

1. Improved language for Section 8. Subsection (1) (d) - currrent language with our suggested changes underlined
(d) Provide for a net gain in housing units that are affordable to very low income households whose incomes are at or below 30% of that areas AMI, low income households with incomes between 30 and 50% of AMI, and low-moderate income households between 50 and 80% of AMI;

2. Improved language for Section 8. Subsection (1) (e) - currrent language with our suggested changes underlined
(e) Require one-for-one replacement of demolished or converted housing units that are affordable to the income level of the displaced residents. The replacement units are in addition to other affordable units required by this section. This subsection (1)(e) applies if the following are demolished or converted: (i) Rental housing units that are affordable to households earning below 40% of adjusted median income must be replaced 1 for 1 at the same income level and households earning between 40 and sixty percent or less of the adjusted county median income must be replaced at the same income level; and (ii) ownership housing that is affordable to households earning eighty percent of the adjusted county median income

We also call for other changes including improvements to other parts of the bill such as

* The paragraph that requires jurisdictions to waive parking requirements for all new developments should be dropped and replaced with language that only 'encourages's jurisdictions to seek reductions in minimum parking requirements within TOD areas.

March 3, 20009

To: Representative Sharon Nelson

From: Tim Ceis, City of Seattle

Re: Transit Oriented Communities Bill (SHB 1490)

We appreciate the changes you have made to HB 1490 that address our concerns. However, we continue to have concerns, especially relating to the no net loss of affordable housing section in the proposed New Section 8 (3)(d)(i) and with the existing language in section 12 concerning surplus properties. We strongly believe that high capacity transit areas need to be vibrant centers where there are opportunities for job growth and for affordable and market rate housing.

No Net Loss of Housing

We are proposing the following replacement language:

"Plan for no net loss of rental housing units affordable to households earning 80 percent or less of the adjusted county median income. When existing affordable rental housing is anticipated to be demolished or redeveloped, the plan shall provide for affordable replacement housing units in the same station planning area."

This language:
1) Removes the requirement to provide replacement housing units for housing that is no longer affordable due to market price increases. Station area plans should identify existing affordable housing that is zoned for more intensive uses that may be lost to demolition or redevelopment. It's not possible or appropriate, however, to predict increases in rents and home prices, and then estimate the number of additional affordable units that must be provided. This number could be large and resulti in potentially large increases in density to allow for replacement units, which in tum would cause additional redevelopment. In addition, rents and home prices go up and down with the economy and vacancy rates, so the loss of affordability might be temporary.

2) Removes the requirement to replace ownership housing units. When an ownership unit is lost due to demolition or redevelopment, the home owner will be paid market value, so this requirement is not needed. The impact of this provision is quite small, since few ownership units are affordable at below 80 percent AMI; at the same time, resources for affordable homeownership are quite limited and this requirement could draw resources away from affordable rental housing.

3) Provides flexibility in the affordability level of replacement units. The requirement to provide replacement housing at the same income level as the lost housing units is unnecessarily prescriptive. The income levels that can be served in the replacement units will be largely determined by the fund sources available, and may be lower than the rent levels of the lost units. In addition, the rent levels of the lost units change over time -- they may have recently jumped due to rising demand in the station area, or they may be artificially low due to deferred maintenance on a building about to be demolished.

Surplus Properties

Section 12 requires an authority that intends to dispose of land that is located within a station area to provide qualifying public or nonprofit entities an opportunity of first offer to develop the land.

In some instances, it may be appropriate for an authority to surplus land to a private developer who is planning a market rate or mixed income housing project or a commercial project that is a large job generator or is providing goods and services that is desirable to the surrounding community.

We recommend that you find a balance in the legislation that requires that there be some public benefit as part of the disposition of surplus properties, but that the properties do not have to go exclusively to public and nonprofit entities.

Additional areas of concern and suggested clean-up language

Sec 8(3)(d)(v): Where a comprehensive plan or development regulation would increase housing capacity within the station subarea, part of the increased capacity shall be affordable to low-and moderate-income households. Where a comprehensive plan or development regulation would increase employment capacity within the station subarea, part of the increased capacity should provide for housing that will be affordable to low and moderate-income households. Affordable housing may be constructed or preserved at alternative locations within the station area, consistent with the provisions of RCW 56.70A.540.

Sec. 8(4)(f) Sufficient locations are identified and strategies included so that 25 percent or more of the number of new housing units produced will be affordable, as follows:

(ii) Rental housing units affordable to people earning less than eighty percent of the adjusted county median income, with ten percent of the new rental housing units being affordable to people earning less than fifty percent of the adjusted county median imcome;

(iii) Ownership housing units affordable to people earning less than one hundred percent of the adjusted county median income, with 10 percent of the new ownership housing units being affordable to people earning less than 80 percent of the adjusted county median income;

(iii) Affordable housing may be constructed or preserved at alternative locations within the station area, consistent with the provisions of RCW 56.70A.540. Rationale: The station area plan will establish zoning densities and implement regulation to provide affordable housing. The housing will be identified as rental or ownership when individual projects are developed. Therefore, the statute should establish the threshold amount of affordable housing as a percentage of total increased residential capacity, not rental and ownership separately.

The reference to 56.70A.540 will help with program implementation, especially use of commercial bonus programs.
When it comes producing affordable housing, preservation of existing affordable housing should count.

Tim Cels
City of Seattle
Deputy Mayor
CC: