Evanston committee approves equity-priority building goals after debate over landlord-finance clause

The Evanston Equity Priority Buildings Committee voted to approve a three-part set of goal statements for designating “equity-priority buildings,” striking a final clause from the first goal after members said it could be read as conflicting with promised landlord support.

Committee members approved goals that aim to ensure occupants of priority buildings share benefits such as reduced carbon emissions and improved indoor air quality; to establish alternative compliance pathways and prioritize technical or financial assistance for low-income and historically marginalized communities; and to implement requirements in ways intended not to drive displacement or be a primary cause of higher housing costs.

The edit adopted by the committee removed language beginning with the word “regardless” in goal 1 after several members, including a remote participant, said the clause could be interpreted as requiring upgrades without regard to a building owner’s ability to finance them. One committee member said the clause’s removal still keeps the intent of not leaving people behind because the goal already begins with the word “all.” The motion to vote on the goals with that edit was moved by a committee member and seconded by Bob; members responded with multiple “ayes” and the motion carried.

Public comment preceding the vote highlighted affordability concerns. Eric Passett, who identified himself as the owner of North Shore Apartments and Condos and an Evanston resident, said he had been a vocal opponent of the healthy-building ordinance and warned of practical and financial burdens if older, gas-heated buildings must convert to electric systems. "All our buildings are powered by natural gas," Passett said during public comment, adding that radiator-heated vintage buildings would face costly electrical upgrades and possible tenant displacement. He estimated conversion costs “about $1,000,000 per building” and suggested that costs could raise rents by roughly "$400 a month," saying the change was not practical for many small or older affordable buildings.

In the meeting’s presentations, staff and committee researchers reviewed how other cities handle similar programs. Presenters summarized Denver’s approach: its building performance standard (BPS) covers multifamily buildings 25,000 square feet and larger; Denver treats a building as affordable in some programs if two-thirds of units are restricted or if units are affordable at 80% of area median income (AMI). Other jurisdictions cited included St. Louis and Washington, D.C. (using majority-affordable/80% AMI thresholds) and Seattle (which uses deeper affordability levels and often requires affordability covenants). Presenters also noted that Denver considered but ultimately avoided an equity index tied to geography and demographic measures because of legal concerns raised by recent Supreme Court decisions.

Committee members requested additional local data and staff support before finalizing detailed criteria. Specific requests included a more robust covered-buildings list with affordability indicators, maps by census tract/TIF/ward, and a presentation from city housing staff about the strategic housing plan to help the committee assess potential impacts on low-income and middle-income renters. The chair also asked the city legal team to review what criteria the committee can legally use, particularly the question of geography or demographic measures in eligibility criteria.

Members discussed next steps: further drafting of detailed guidance by a small subgroup (Bob and Jessica agreed to do background work), compiling a prioritized spreadsheet of possible criteria for an anonymous preference exercise, convening focus groups and broader engagement with building owners and tenants, and scheduling a presentation from housing staff. A committee member volunteered to draft a community engagement plan to outline how to vet candidates for the equity-priority designation and test potential unintended consequences.

The committee also received a brief technical-committee update noting work on interim performance values toward 2050 targets, renewable-energy pathways, and reporting compliance; presenters said the local covered-buildings list currently includes roughly 500 buildings and that about one-third are not reporting. With no further business, a motion to adjourn was seconded and the meeting ended at 11:31 a.m.

What happens next: staff will pursue the requested mapping and data work, coordinate a legal review about allowable criteria, and the committee will develop a community engagement plan and more-detailed guidance for how to identify and support equity-priority buildings.