5:38 PM: Click into that stream and you’ll be watching the event we’re at City Hall to cover – the City Council’s last big public hearing before its vote next month on HALA Mandatory Housing Affordability upzoning. (You can follow along with the agenda, and its relevant materials, here.) It’s been eight months since the council’s hearing in West Seattle; this one is for the entire city, and the chambers are full – with five of the 9 councilmembers here (Lorena González is chairing in the absence of vacationing committee chair Rob Johnson; also here are Lisa Herbold, Debora Juarez, Teresa Mosqueda, Kshama Sawant). We’ll be chronicling highlights as they happen.

First to speak is a representative from the SEIU. “Middle- and low-income workers will continue to be priced out of the city” if there’s not more housing stock, she says, expressing support for HALA MHA.

Second is also a HALA MHA supporter who says the process has taken too long. “Working families are struggling,” she says. “… More people need housing, and this is the chance to mitigate that need.”

Third and fourth are two members of 350 Seattle’s “housing team.” They say “housing is a climate issue” and express relief that “MHA is so close to the finish line.” They express opposition to some proposed amendments including the ones that would reduce the level of upzoning in some areas (including part of West Seattle).

Fifth is another MHA supporter who says, “We’ve been working on getting to the Grand Bargain [with developers] since the Nickels administration.” (That former mayor left office in 2009.)

Sixth, a representative of the city Planning Commission, in favor of MHA, who says they’re excited about its potential to “distribute more development capacity” to neighborhoods that could use it.

Seventh, the first opponent to speak, who says “tech bros” who are “strip-mining the city” and “venture capitalists” among others will continue to “pour in” and redevelop the city. She says that she and her husband feel they are being “pushed out of Seattle” so it’s “time to leave.” She draws a smattering of boos.

Eighth, an opponent who calls MHA “fundamentally flawed.” She also says she supports Councilmember Herbold’s anti-displacement proposal (announced yesterday). She wants to see neighborhood planning restored.

6 PM: Ninth, a speaker who says that MHA will lead to more displacement. So she wants the 23rd/Jackson urban village to not be upzoned. She specifically appeals to CM Sawant, saying her district, 3, has had “sacrificial lambs” already displaced. She draws strong applause (we should note that the pro-MHA speakers had drawn some applause too).

Tenth, a man who says that the City Council shouldn’t be voting on March 18th because the city had published a notice saying the comment period is open until March 29th. He also mentions something that former Mayor Ed Murray had said regarding MHA having to be inclusionary, but, the speaker says, it’s exclusionary.

11th, representatives of a preservation group on Beacon Hill. (We should also note, a sixth councilmember is now here, Sally Bagshaw.) They are advocating specifically for that focus.

12th, a woman who says “there is no livability or affordability in HALA.” She says MHA would provide “pseudo-crumbs” of affordable housing, and calls the “last-minute amendments” just bones thrown to constituents by councilmembers who want to be re-elected. She says it’s “false” to claim that “we can build our way out of” the housing crisis.

13th, a Wallingford resident who says “we are a neighborhood, not a housing-production zone.” He says HALA MHA “does nothing for first-time home buyers” and contends it will do “more harm than good,” saying that the city expects current residents to “get out,” calling that effect “the new redlining.”

14th, a Central Area resident who calls HALA MHA “fundamentally flawed.” But she also advocates for amending it, and adds “leave South Park … alone.” She is the first to mention a concern for tree canopy. She says it will produce only a “small amount of affordable housing.”

15th, an opponent who criticizes MHA’s option for developers/builders to pay a fee to have affordable housing built somewhere else. She voices concern about displacement.

16th, a person describing herself as a “climate activist” and saying she’s concerned about the city’s trees and the potential loss of what they do. “When you cut down trees, you have more heat islands, and people are going to die.” She voices appreciation for an amendment that addresses the tree situation, as well as for Herbold’s anti-displacement proposal.

17th is West Seattle’s Deb Barker who begins, “you’re going to hear from a lot of paid speakers tonight … I’m not one of them.” She mentions having been part of the coalition that appealed the HALA MHA EIS, because of opposition to a “one size fits all” for the proposal. She also mentions that Morgan Junction – where she leads the community council – is strongly interested in neighborhood planning.

18th, also from West Seattle, is Cindi Barker, who suggests the city should have noticed a variety of red flags along the way. She also supports Herbold’s anti-displacement proposal. She also voiced concern about a last-minute change in some of the zoning proposals.

19th speaker says MHA is actually a “small step” and she hopes to see more in the future. She says she’s an immigrant and a tech worker – saying she doesn’t always feel welcome (referring to an earlier opposition speaker who used the term “tech trash”). She says “a lot of people are here because” they couldn’t get off work early enough to sign up to speak. (Signups started at 5 pm.)

20th speaker is a Madison resident who says she had been involved with the appeal coalition and says it’s unfortunate that some believe this will make more neighborhoods accessible. She says developers will instead be building to the highest market rate they can because of the fees they will have to pay to create affordable housing elsewhere.

21st speaker is a North Seattle resident who supports MHA and wants to see more homes and “more diverse homes,” seeing it as a “once in a generation opportunity.” Without HALA MHA upzoning, she says, the city will become a “de-facto gated community” full of houses worth $1 million or more.

22nd speaker, Natalie Williams of West Seattle, who says it’s important to change HALA MHA to require developers to build affordable housing on site.

23rd speaker says “MHA is flawed and doesn’t meet the SEPA requirements.” He also says he supports “the strongest possible displacement legislation” and criticizes MHA for creating very little affordable housing.

6:30 PM: 24th speaker is a group who said they’re from the Sierra Club. The first speaker of the group said she is a homeowner who supports MHA. “Having more housing and more housing types …. will make it easier for more neighbors to move in.” Another group speaker elaborates on the stated contention that density is pro-environment. In conclusion, they ‘support the most robust” version of the legislation.

25th speaker – González has just announced 140 people are signed up – is a Queen Anne resident who says priorities should include impact fees, infrastructure, and “includ(ing) community councils in neighborhood planning.” She says a proposed 75-foot-high development near her is “completely out of character” with the neighborhood. The “suppression of neighborhood voices …is a gift to developers,” she says.

26th speaker is the notorious Alex Tsimerman (who is running for City Council). He looks at people in the audience and says they look “happy” but should “wake up” and “stand up.”

27th speaker is from Seattle-King County Realtors and urges “swift” action to approve HALA MHA because more housing is needed. He offers a history lesson in growth decisions made a quarter-century ago but “from the beginning we failed to be realistic about the supply of housing we needed” in urban areas. “Your work on MHA is critical … it’ll help.”

28th speaker is from North Capitol Hill and wants a vote against an amendment that he says would increase zoning in a part of Eastlake.

29th speaker is concerned about threats to historic resources in Wallingford.

30th speaker says he’s representing his family’s rental business on Aurora and is concerned about a zoning change in that area, which he says is significantly affected by pollution from trucks already. The street can’t support thousands more apartments – it has narrow sidewalks and will be a “pedestrian nightmare,” he says.

31st speaker says she’s an “enthusiastic yes (for) MHA” and is also from an affordable-housing provider that benefits from city funding. Her organization has “shovel-ready projects” that are being delayed because of a lack of funding.

32nd speaker is a group, Friends of Ravenna-Cowen, voicing support of two proposed amendments that remove historic districts from rezone areas. He says they worked exhaustively to create a historic district that includes more than 400 houses built early in the 20th century. The district is “a legacy for all” and while they understand the need for affordable housing, they don’t believe the district’s historical integrity should be damaged or destroyed.

33rd speaker says she lives in a 720-square-foot house on a 4,000-square-foot lot in a neighborhood with no sidewalks. She says she wants to create an additional housing unit on her lot. She supports an amendment that would make her block RSL instead of LR1 – upzoned, but to a lesser degree.

34th speaker is an MHA supporter who tells stories about a friend who said he’d be moving out because he can’t afford to own a house here – rent is so high that he can’t save to buy one – and about other friends who are having difficulty affording housing. “The status quo is causing displacement. This legislation is needed. … Please pass this legislation and go as big as you can.”

35th speaker is a Crown Hill resident who recounts comments in the process and support for Councilmember Mike O’Brien’s RSL amendments. “Come visit us,” she concludes.

7:03 PM: 36th speaker says he’s representing an organization that’s part of the advocacy group Seattle For Everyone. He says the area needs a lot of new housing and MHA will help it get there. “The laws of supply and demand apply to housing,” and people will want to move here no matter what, so if there isn’t more housing, prices will continue going up, he says.
.
37th speaker is a Wallingford resident who urges approval as soon as possible because he believes the “Seattle process” has already dragged it out too long.

38th speaker is a group wearing T-shirts declaring that they are Architects for Affordable Housing. One representative says single-family zoning is “irresponsible” and “ignore(s) the housing crisis.” She is against some of the proposed amendments, as is the next person; another group member talks about a small business facing displacement and says that’s the result of past bad land-use decisions.

39th speaker says that she’s a “Seattle lifer” who urges the council to pass MHA because tens of thousands of workers are moving here every year and need housing. “On behalf of the labor movement, we welcome all workers to our city,” she concludes.

40th speaker is another Crown Hill resident supporting the aforementioned O’Brien amendments, including zoning some areas RSL instead of Lowrise.

41st speaker says he is a new homeowner in District 1 but he’s against Herbold’s amendments. He says nothing gives him the right to “deny housing” to others. “There are more people who want to live in my neighborhood than there is housing for them. … We cannot build a wall around the incredible neighborhoods that make up the city.”

42nd speaker is Doug from West Seattle, saying he is representing Friends of Dakota Place Park. “We all want the city to be better … but we have to have parks …and as our city becomes more dense, we need parks.” He says Dakota Place Park, despite being landmarked, isn’t addressed at all, it’s just “a dot on the map” and so he wants to see more work to protect the area around parks like that.

43rd speaker says he’s from the “41st SW Truncated Lot Association,” drawing some laughter. He is not in favor of the amendments “reducing the upzones” and notes that he and most of his neighbors “want to redevelop someday”; he also says he enjoys the fact that so many people are moving here.

44th speaker voices specific concern about a mentioned-earlier amendment that would upzone part of Eastlake to midrise. She says it will encourage demolition. She also voices concern about “the noise and safety issue.”

45th speaker talks about herons breeding in Discovery Park and voices concerns including construction noise that can scare the birds.

46th speaker is a U-District resident who said he’s a “tech worker who makes $19/hour.” He said he came here to live more sustainably and to get a job. The shortage of affordable housing makes it hard for him to do more than to be “holding on.” He supports the “strongest form” of MHA.

47th speaker said that restricting the ability to build housing in some areas is closing them off to some people, while she believes “all parts of the city should be open to everyone.” She also expressed concern about creating a “risky environment …for affordable-housing developrs.”

48th speaker described herself as a supporter of affordable housing but an opponent of MHA. She said studies show that increased density does not necessarily increase affordable housing. She brings up the topic of affordable business rent and says that many businesses and artists have moved into affordable rental housing. “You can’t have a band practice in a microapartment.”

7:39 PM: 49th speaker says he supports tree and anti-displacement amendments and is concerned about trees not being protected from removal during development. He singles out “exceptional trees” and laments that they are not protected. “This is an urban tree sacrifice zone bill,” he concludes.

50th speaker, a Wallingford resident who says the upzones are not needed because “there’s plenty of capacity” to develop already. He says MHA is happening because the “super-rich” are investing in real estate. “You’re basically saying, we need to get rid of families, they’re bad … Why are you intending to get rid of families? Why are you intending to de-forest the city?”

51st speaker is Port Commissioner Stephanie Bowman who says she is a resident of Beacon Hill, where the upzoning proposal is a “blunt instrument” that will be wrong for the area.

52nd speaker says that Seattle is “facing an ever-increasing battle between the haves and the have-nots” and is concerned about possible reductions in the upzone proposals. She says she is a renter living in Wallingford and doesn’t feel like its community council represents her.

53rd speaker says she came here ready to give full support to MHA but was swayed by an earlier speaker who voiced concerns about its effects on the Central Area.

54th speaker wants to focus on the “last word in the MHA title, affordability,” and is concerned that upzoning single-family properties will increase their property taxes. “As soon as developers start buying into a neighborhood,” property values and taxes will increase, he says, which makes it a “land grab by the city, and developers waiting to swoop in and purchase … properties.”

55th speaker describes himself as a housing case manager for a nonprofit and says the city needs a lot more affordable housing. He says it’s tough to do his job because no matter how well he or his clients know the system, there is simply not enough housing – “we need more.”

56th speaker, a “longtime Capitol Hill resident,” observes that wealthier neighborhoods “are not impacted by this legislation.” She believes HALA MHA will raise the risk of displacement in the Madison-Miller Urban Village.

57th speaker, from Wallingford, talks about historic sites that were “once threatened by developers until the city of Seattle demanded that they be protected for the future.” She repeats a concern others voiced about HALA MHA being a “one size fits all” plan. She calls for more neighborhood-focused planning.

58th speaker, a renter from Madison Valley, says he supports passing MHA in its “strongest form.” He adds, “Zoning is a generational issue” and says that having a majority of the city zoned single-family is an issue that affects younger people more. After passing MHA, the city needs to examine zoning laws, he suggests.

59th speaker, a District 4 resident, voiced support for changing some proposed Lowrise areas to Residential Small Lot. She says that “effective neighborhood planning” would have put this process in a better place.

8:02 PM: 60th speaker wonders, “could we actually build more housing if there were upzones?” and suggests “it’s not a zoning problem.” He moves on to comment on the amendments and says the tree issue should have been “a hearing all its own.”

61st speaker says he supports passing MHA “as soon as possible” but opposes the amendments for districts 1, 2, 4, and 6, calling them a “last-minute attempt to water (MHA) down.”

“If you take away affordable housing, you have to replace it.” That’s how one community member at tonight’s Delridge Neighborhoods District Council meeting summarized their take on the goal of proposed city legislation announced earlier in the day by West Seattle/South Park Councilmember Lisa Herbold, who wants to bundle it with consideration of HALA Mandatory Housing Affordability, the subject of a council public hearing tomorrow night. Here’s the announcement sent by Herbold’s office:

Councilmember Lisa Herbold (District 1, West Seattle, South Park) will introduce an anti-displacement ordinance that would authorize additional displacement mitigations for housing projects located in South Park, Rainier Beach, Othello, Bitter Lake, and Westwood-Highland Park. These neighborhoods have been identified as having a high risk of displacement and low access to opportunity, according to Growth and Equity: Analyzing Impacts on Displacement and Opportunity Related to Seattle’s Growth Strategy, in the Comprehensive Plan Seattle 2035, an analysis conducted by the Office of Planning and Community Development.

“I appreciate Mayor Durkan’s efforts to address the displacement impacts of development by proposing to introduce legislation that the Council requested in 2017 by Resolution 31754. As described in the March 2018 status report to the Council, a community preferences policy will be useful for our non-profit developers. Nevertheless, we also desperately need a tool to address the displacement that occurs when for-profit developers build. Displacement is a challenging issue and we need many tools to address it,” said Herbold.

Councilmember Herbold will this week send the proposed bill to the Council’s Introduction and Referral Calendar. Councilmember Herbold has requested that the Council hear this bill concurrently with the MHA Citywide legislation.

“This ordinance would use authority granted under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) to create a requirement for developers to mitigate the impacts resulting from the loss of affordable housing in those areas of the city that, if we didn’t do so, the result would be a failure to fulfill our obligation to ‘affirmatively promote fair housing’ — in other words, in areas where disproportionate displacement of communities of color and other protected classes is likely to occur,” Herbold said. (See upper left-hand corner of this image.)

“MHA Framework legislation, passed in 2016, Section 2.A.2.a, stated: The Council intends to consider whether to include higher performance and payment amounts, subject to statutory limits, for those areas where the increase in development capacity would be likely to increase displacement risk. Resolution 31733, passed in 2017, stated: The Council intends to consider a range of strategies to increase affordable units sufficient to offset the affordable units at risk of demolition due to new development.”

“I’m proud that the Council has a long legislative record of its commitment to address displacement. Now it’s time to act again,” Herbold continued.

“I have, over the years, expressed my great concern that the City describes MHA as ‘housing displacement mitigation tool,’ but has badly analyzed how development removes more affordable housing than the resources from MHA are sufficient to replace.

“For example, in the case of the University District MHA upzone in 2017, the City estimated that only 40-275 units of existing affordable units of housing would be demolished over 20 years. The EIS estimated likely demolition by identifying specific redevelopable parcels and quantifying their existing housing (zero, for parking lots and commercial buildings). The “full build out” scenario wherein construction occurs on all redevelopable parcels to the full capacity of the proposed rezone was estimated to result in the demolition of 275 homes over 20 years. In less than 2 years, based upon a Council Central Staff analysis of new development projects that are currently in some stage of having their Master Use Permit issued or Early Design Guidance reviewed and that are subject to the new zoning put in place in 2017, 96 units of affordable units are already planned for demolition.

“Using the same approach used in the University District in 2017, the City estimates that over 20 years 574 units of housing will be demolished in MHA rezone areas. My concerns about displacement today are heightened, especially considering how far afield the University District estimate has proven to be.”

This announcement comes on the eve of the council’s HALA MHA public hearing, 5:30 pm Thursday at City Hall downtown (600 4th Ave.), as previewed here Monday.