>>> GOOD AFTERNOON FOLKS AND
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING TODAY'S
SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING THE
MANDATORY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
SPECIAL SELECT COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS ROB JOHNSON AND I AM
THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE
ENJOINED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD.
THIS IS THE 16th SELECT
COMMITTEE MEETING WE HAVE HELD
ON MANDATORY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IN ADDITION TO THE SEVERAL
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OPEN HOUSES
WE HAVE LAST YEAR.
THIS BRINGS THE COUNT TO 40
PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS TOPIC
SO FAR.
WE WILL HOLD MEETINGS
THROUGHOUT THE NEXT FEW MONTHS
AS WE CONTEMPLATE ADOPTION OF
THE CITYWIDE ZONING CHANGING.
TODAY WE WILL BE DISTRICT
FOCUSED.
WE WILL SPEND TIME AND ENERGY
TALKING ABOUT THREE OF OUR
SEVEN COUNCIL DISTRICTS.
TODAY WE WILL FOCUS ON
DISTRICTS 4, 6 AND 7. THIS
WEDNESDAY AT 9:30 AM WE WILL
CONTINUE THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH
THE FOCUS ON THE REMAINDER OF
THE OTHER 4 COUNCIL DISTRICTS.
DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, AND 5. AS
REMINDER TO MY COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES THERE IS A PUBLIC
HEARING WE HAVE SCHEDULED FOR
LATE FEBRUARY, FAIRBURY 21st.
IN ORDER FOR US TO ADEQUATELY
NOTICE ANY AMENDMENTS FOR THE
PUBLIC HEARING OUR COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF HAVE ASKED YOU TO
IDENTIFY ANY AMENDMENTS YOU
WOULD LIKE FOR CONSIDERATION,
TO BE NOTICED BY TOMORROW.
SO WE CAN HAVE THE FULL 30 DAY
NOTICE FOR THE FEBRUARY 21
PUBLIC HEARING.
JUST REMINDER TO MY COLLEAGUES
ABOUT THAT.
WE HAVE ONE AGENDA ITEM TODAY.
DISTRICTS FOUR, 6 AND SEVEN.
NOAH I WILL ASK YOU TO READ
THAT OFFICIAL ITEM INTO THE
RECORD.
>> ISSUE IDENTIFICATION TO
CITYWIDE MANDATORY
AFFORDABILITY HOUSING.
>> WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY MY
COLLEAGUES AND COUNCIL MEMBER
JUAREZ , BAGSHAW , SITTING
AT THIS TABLE ARE ALLIE
CANOOCHEE AND KETO FRAME IN.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE WILL BE
DOING A LITTLE BIT TODAY IS
WALKING THROUGH AMENDMENTS,
WHTHER THEY HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED BY INDIVIDUALS IN
THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE COME
FORWARD.
IDENTIFIED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THEMSELVES.
AND TALKING THROUGH A COUPLE OF
DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR
CONSIDERATIONS OF THESE
AMENDMENTS.
I TEND TO REFER TO THESE AS
THREE SEPARATE AREAS OF FOCUS.
OR THREE DIFFERENT BUCKETS
WORTH OF CONSIDERATION.
WHAT ALLIE AND KETO WILL WALK
US THROUGH, THOSE KINDS OF
OPTIONS.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE
TO STRESS FOR FOLKS IS WE MAY
LIKELY BE HEARING FROM
INDIVIDUALS IN THE PUBLIC, OR
WE ALL MAY HAVE IDEAS
OURSELVES.
OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT MAY NOT
NECESSARILY BE WITHIN THE FOUR
CORNERS SCOPE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT.
THOSE AMENDMENTS MAY NOT BE BY
ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION,
OR ARE WORTHY ABOUT DISCUSSION
AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THIS LEGISLATION OR
PART OF FUTURE LEGISLATION.
TO MODIFY AND CLEANUP THE
MANDATORY AFFORDABILITY HOUSING
LANGUAGE.
STAFFERS WILL SPEND TIME
CLARIFYING FOR YOU WHETHER OR
NOT SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TODAY ARE
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE IIS.
THERE ARE OTHER IDEAS THAT WILL
COME UP OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF
WEEKS THAT WILL NATURALLY BE
ALONGSIDE OUR ZONING
LEGISLATION.
DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PLACE
WITHIN THE CODE.
WE PUT THOSE INTO A COUNCIL
RESOLUTION.
WE CONTINUE TO PLAN TO
NTRODUCE A COUNCIL RESOLUTION
IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.
WE WILL THEN USE IT AS A
PLACEHOLDER FOR THOSE KINDS OF
PRIORITIES.
WHETHER THERE ABOUT
TRANSPORTATION OR SCHOOLS OR
HOUSING OR OTHER CONCURRENT
ISSUES THAT INDIVIDUALS ON THIS
DAIS ARE INTERESTED IN.
THOSE OF THE THREE CATEGORIES
OF DISCUSSIONS THAT I
ANTICIPATE WE WILL CONTINUE TO
HAVE.
OF COURSE THE COUNCIL
RESOLUTION OPTION.
THANK YOU TO THE REST OF YOU
FOR JOINING COUNCIL MEMBER
O'BRIEN.
WITHOUT FURTHER ADO WHY DON'T I
TURN IT OVER TO YOU ALLIE AND
KETO.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
TODAY THE COMMITTEE WILL
CONSIDER THE CONSIDERATION OF
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.
TO IMPLEMENT THE AFFORDABILITY
HOUSING PROGRAM.
I WILL REFER TO IT AS IT MHA
MOVING FORWARD.
AT THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE
MEETING TO ALLOW FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF MHA
INCREASING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
IN TWO WAYS.
THROUGH THE CHANGE OF THE
ZONING ON THE MAP OR TO
CHANGING OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR THE INCREASED
CAPACITY FOR THAT ZONE.
INCREASING THE ALLOWED HEIGHT
IN A PARTICULAR ZONE OR THE
ALLOWED FLOOR AREA.
AT THE MEETING ON JANUARY 7 THE
COMMITTEE FOCUSED ON AN INITIAL
LIST. THIS WEEK WE WILL FOCUS
ON CHANGES TO THE OFFICIAL LAND
USE MAP.
WITH TODAY'S FOCUS ON DISTRICTS
FOR SIX AND SEVEN.
WHAT WAS DISCUSSED LAST WEEK
AND THIS WEEK WILL NOT
NECESSARILY BE AN EXHAUSTIVE
LIST OF POTENTIAL CHANGES, NOR
DOES INCLUSION ON THIS LIST
IMPLY A COUNCIL MEMBER WILL
SPONSOR AN AMENDMENT OVER THE
NEXT WEEK OR TWO.
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF WILL WORK
WITH MEMBERS TO REFINE THE LIST
AND IDENTIFY THE AMENDMENTS
THEY WISH TO MOVE FORWARD.
THOSE AMENDMENTS ALONG WITH
CONTENT FOR COMPANION
RESOLUTION WILL BE DISCUSSED AT
THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS IN
FEBRUARY.
IT WILL BE A CONTINUED REFINING
OF THE LIST.
IN ADDITION TO THE POTENTIAL
MAP CHANGES THAT WILL BE
DISCUSSED TODAY WE PREPARED
RACK CHANGES COMPARISON TO THE
MHA BILL THAT WAS INTRODUCED
LAST JANUARY TO A REDRAFTED
BILL THAT HAS BEEN ANTICIPATED
TO BE INTRODUCED NEXT TUESDAY.
THIS IS INCLUDED AN ATTACHMENT
TO TO THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO.
THIS WILL SERVE AS THE BASE
BILL MOVING FORWARD FOR
AMENDMENTS, CHANGES IN THE BILL
THAT WILL BE INTRODUCED NEXT
WEEK, AND REFLECT CHANGES TO
THE MUNICIPAL CODE SINCE THE
BILL WAS INTRODUCED LAST
JANUARY.
TECHNICAL EDITS AND
CLARIFICATIONS IDENTIFIED BY
STAFF AND TWEAKING A PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
BEFORE DIVING INTO THE DISTRICT
SPECIFIC MAP DISCUSSION FOR
DISTRICTS FOR SIX AND SEVEN WE
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE
POTENTIAL TRADE-OFFS.
AS WE WORK WITH ALL OF YOU OVER
THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TO IDENTIFY
THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS YOU
WOULD LIKE TO SPONSOR.
WE WILL DISCUSS THE POLICY
TRADE-OFFS AND POTENTIAL
IMPACTS THAT THE CHANGES WOULD
HAVE ON THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
INCOMING RESTRICTED UNITS.
THE PROGRAM IS EXPECTED TO
PRODUCE.
ONE EXAMPLE IS OF THE POLICY
TRADE-OFFS IS THE STRATEGY THAT
WAS TRANSMITTED BY THE
EXECUTIVE AND TARGETS MORE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN
COMMUNITIES WHERE EXISTING
RESIDENTS ARE LESS VULNERABLE
TO DISPLACEMENT AND WHERE THERE
IS HIGHER ACCESS TO
OPPORTUNITY.
IN ADDITION TO TARGETING AREAS
NEAR TRANSIT.
SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WILL
BE COVERED TODAY WILL DIVERGE A
BIT FROM THAT STRATEGY AND
TRYING TO BALANCE OTHER
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS.
ALSO WE WANT TO KNOW IN
ADDITION TO THE POTENTIAL
MAPPING AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
SPECIFIC TO DISTRICTS THERE MAY
ALSO BE SOME DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OR OTHER TEXT CHANGES
TO THE CODE THAT APPLY
SPECIFICALLY TO DISTRICTS WE
WILL NOT BE COVERING TODAY BUT
WILL BE COVERING IN FUTURE
MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY.
THIS INCLUDES POTENTIAL
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
THAT MIGHT APPLY IN THE
UNIVERSITY DISTRICT A LONG
RELATED TO SMALL COMMERCIAL
SPACES.
SOME OF THOSE STANDARDS MAY
MAKE SENSE TO APPLY IN ALL
PEDESTRIAN ZONES THROUGHOUT THE
CITY OR MAY BE SPECIFIC TO THAT
DISTRICT.
MOVING ON TO THE FOCUS OF
TODAY'S DISCUSSION, WE FIRST
WANT TO KNOW THE COMPLETE SET
OF MAP CHANGES THAT WAS
PREPARED BY THE EXECUTIVE IS
AVAILABLE ONLINE AND LINK TO
THE MEMO.
TODAY'S DISCUSSION WILL FOCUS
ON AREAS WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAY WANT TO MODIFY THAT
PROPOSAL.
TO ORIENT EVERYONE I WILL BE
SPEAKING PRIMARILY TO THE
MATERIALS FOUND IN ATTACHMENT
1. IN THE MEMO.
WE ARE STARTING ON DISTRICT 4
CO.
FOR EACH SECTION, I WILL USE
DISTRICT 4 AS EXAMPLE AS WE
START THERE.
THERE IS A DISTRICTWIDE MAP
THAT INCLUDES THE MAP LEGEND
THAT IS USED FOR ALL THE MAP
PAGES FOLLOWING THIS MAP AND
SHOWS A NUMBER WERE ALL THE
POTENTIALS THAT WILL BE
DISCUSSED FOR THE DISTRICT.
ON THE SCREEN NOW IS THE
DISTRICTWIDE MAP FOR DISTRICT
4. THIS IS MEANT AS A COVER
PAGE AND TO PROVIDE THE LEGEND.
THE NEXT PAGE OR PAGES INCLUDES
A TABLE THAT LOCATES AND
DESCRIBES THE POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS.
IDENTIFIES THE CURRENT ZONE
DESIGNATION AND WHAT WAS
PROPOSED IN THE LEGISLATION
TRANSMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE.
AND IDENTIFYING THE RANGE OF
ZONE STUDY FOR THE SITE OR
AREA.
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT.
THE FINAL COLUMN TO THE RIGHT,
CATEGORIZES THE POTENTIAL
AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FINAL
EIS ANALYSIS.
IF THE NOTATION IS ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AS NEEDED
INDICATES THE POTENTIAL CHANGE
WAS LIKELY NOT CONTEMPLATED IN
THE FINAL EIS AND MAYBE A
BETTER CANDIDATE FOR THE
COMPANION RESOLUTION.
IN SOME CASES THEY REQUESTED
AMENDMENT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED
IN THE EIS.
AS WE WORK WITH MEMBERS OVER
THE COMING WEEKS WE WILL WORK
WITH YOU TO IDENTIFY THOSE
OPTIONS.
FOLLOWING THE TABLE ARE
INDIVIDUAL MAPS FOR EACH ROW
LISTED IN THE TABLE.
THAT IS WHAT WE WILL BE WALKING
THROUGH TODAY.
THE FIRST MAP RELATES TO A 36
N. EAST 69th STREET.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE
PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION
FROM WHAT WAS PROPOSED TO GO
FROM SINGLE-FAMILY TO LOW RISE.
WE WILL KEEP ROLLING THROUGH
THE MAPS UNLESS SOMEBODY PAUSES
ME WITH QUESTIONS.
>> THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE
EXPECTATION.
>> MAP FOR -- TO KNOWS THE AREA
OF ROSEDALE HIGH SCHOOL.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO RESULT FROM
SINGLE-FAMILY TO LOW RISE.
AND THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE
THAT TO AN RSL DESIGNATION.
THERE ARE TWO AREAS IN TWO
LEVELS OF LOW RISE PROPOSED
HERE.
THE REQUEST IS TO GO TO SINGLE-
FAMILY TO RSL.
THE MAP FOR -- THREE RELATES TO
A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES FOUND AT
6715 12th AVENUE NORTH EASTON
1029 N. EAST 68th STREET.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE
PROPOSED ZONE DESIGNATION FROM
THE PROPOSED MIDRISE, INSTEAD
OF A MULTI FAMILY ZONE TO A
MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONE.
THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT THE
OPTION WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED IN
THE EIS.
>>> AND REMIND DOCENTS WILL BE
GOING THROUGH THE LAND USE CODE
, HOW TALL DOES AMID RISE
DEVELOPMENT GET TO GO?
>> GENERALLY 80 FEET.
>> THE REAL DIFFERENCE IS ABOUT
THE EXTRA FIVE FEET? MAYBE MORE
IMPORTANTLY ABOUT THE
COMMERCIAL THAT IS LOUD ON THE
GROUND FLOOR AND WHETHER OR NOT
WE REQUIRE COMMERCIAL ON THE
GROUND FLOOR?
>> WHAT WASN'T CONTEMPLATED WAS
THE SLIGHTLY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
ALSO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE
FLOOR AREA AND RATIO
REQUIREMENTS WITH THOSE ZONES
AS WELL AS THE TYPES OF USES.
THAT WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE EIS.
MAP-45, THIS WOULD BE AN OPTION
TO CONTEMPLATE ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT IN AND AROUND THE
STATION AREA.
WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THE
EXECUTIVE'S PROPOSAL IS THE
MAXIMUM OF WHAT WAS STUDY IT IN
THE EIS.
GOING HIGHER THAN THAT WOULD
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
MAP 4-6 RELATES TO A BLOCK OF
12th AVENUE NORTHEAST AND 1012
TO 1032 NORTHEAST.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE
PROPOSED ZONE DESIGNATION TO
SINGLE-FAMILY TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL.
NOT NOTED IN THE TABLE THAT
REQUEST WOULD REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO
ACCOMPLISH.
THE NEXT MAP, 32 FIFTH AVENUE
NORTHEAST IS A REQUEST TO
REZONE AN AREA CURRENTLY ZONED
SINGLE-FAMILY.
THAT IS FILLING IN A GAP
BETWEEN TWO MULTI FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONES.
THIS AREA WAS NOT WITHIN THE
STUDY AREA FOR THE FINAL EIS.
IT WAS OUT THE SCOPE AND WOULD
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PLANNING
WORK.
>> THIS IS ONE WHERE WE CONFESS
TO FEELING FRUSTRATED.
THIS PARTIAL IS OWNED BY OWNED
BY A JEWISH SYNAGOGUE.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE EIS IT'S DIFFICULT
FOR US TO INCLUDE HERE ON THE
FINAL PROPOSAL.
THERE WILL BE TIMES LIKE THAT
WHEN WE HAVE GOOD IDEAS THAT
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
THAT UNFORTUNATELY WON'T BE
ABLE TO MAKE IT THIS TIME
AROUND.
>> MAP 4-8 IS NORTHEAST 65th.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO
CONSOLIDATE A PARCEL THAT IS
CURRENTLY A SPLIT ZONE.
THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL
IS CURRENTLY IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE
WHERE THE SOUTHERN HALF IS
CURRENTLY ZONED IN SINGLE-
FAMILY.
THE SINGLE-FAMILY PORTION WAS
NOT CONSIDERED IN THE STUDY
AREA FOR THE EIS.
THINK IT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL
WORK.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE
OF GUIDANCE IN A COMPANION
RESOLUTION THAT MAY REQUEST THE
EXECUTIVE LOOK AT CONDITIONS
AND WHERE THERE ARE SPLIT ZONE
PARTIALS AND COME BACK WITH A
PROPOSAL TO RESOLVE SOME OF
THOSE ISSUES.
MAP 4-9 RELATES TO THE
ROOSEVELT URBAN VILLAGE
BOUNDARY EXPANSION AREA.
THIS REQUEST WOULD SUGGEST NOT
EXPANDING THE URBAN VILLAGE
BOUNDARY.
OR REZONING PROPERTIES WHERE
THE NORTH HISTORIC DISTRICT
OVERLAPS WITH THE PROPOSED
URBAN ROOSEVELT URBAN
BOUNDARIES EXPANSION.
RATHER THAN REZONING THAT AREA,
TO LEAVING IT A SINGLE-FAMILY
AND NOT EXPANDING THE URBAN
VILLAGE BOUNDARY.
MAP 4-10 IS 4907 25th AVENUE
NORTHEAST.
THE REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE
HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONES.
TO GO FROM A COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL.
WITH A 55 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
THE REQUEST IS TO GO TO 75
FEET.
THIS WAS AN OPTION CONSIDERED
IN THE EIS.
MAP FOUR -- 11 IS A VACANT LOT
AT THE INTERSECTION OF 50th AND
NINTH AVENUE NORTHEAST.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE
LOW RISE TWO ZONING DESIGNATION
WITH THE ADDITION OF THE M
SUFFIX.
THE REQUEST IS TO GO TO NC TO
55 FEET.
THIS WAS NOT AN OPTION
CONTEMPLATED IN THE EIS.
IT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
STUDIES.
SIMILARLY MAP 4-1240 70 16 N.
AVENUE EAST, THE REQUEST IS TO
INCREASE THE PROPOSED LLR TO
WITH A M1 SUFFIX.
THAT WAS THE ONLY OPTION
CONTEMPLATED.
THE NEXT OPTION 4-13 UNION POINT
BAY PLACE.
TO INCREASE THE PROPOSAL THAT
WOULD GO FROM COMMERCIAL ZONE
WITH A 40 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT TO
A COMMERCIAL ZONE WITH THE 55
HEIGHT LIMIT.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD
MAKE THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONE WITH THE 70
FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
THAT'S NOT AN OPTION
CONTEMPLATED IN THE EIS.
MAP 4-14 HAVE A SIMILAR THEME.
I WILL DESCRIBE THOSE TOGETHER.
THIS RELATE TO THE URBAN
VILLAGE.
THERE ARE AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED
SINGLE-FAMILY WITHIN THE
EXISTING OR PROPOSED URBAN
VILLAGE BOUNDARY.
THAT ARE PROPOSED TO GO FROM
SINGLE-FAMILY TO LOW RISE ONE
OR TWO.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT IS TO
GO FROM SINGLE-FAMILY TO RSL.
THIS WOULD BE AN OPTION
CONTEMPLATED IN THE EIS.
THE FINAL MAP IN THE DISTRICT 4
SERIES, THIS RELATES TO THE
EASTERN EDGE OF THE URBAN
VILLAGE.
AND THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO
INCREASE THE PROPOSAL RATHER
THAN GOING FROM LOW RISE THREE
TO LOW RISE THREE WITH A M
SUFFIX.
IT IS CONTEMPLATED IN THE EIS.
IT WOULD STEP DOWN ON THE
PROPOSED HEIGHTS IN THE
EASTLAKE URBAN VILLAGE.
THE MOST HEIGHT WOULD BE ON THE
EASTERN EDGE.
STEPPING DOWN ON THE WESTERN
SHORELINE.
>> THIS CONCLUDES DISTRICT 4.
>> MAYBE A TYPO ON THE BOTTOM
OF THAT.
IT SAYS PROPOSING --
>> THAT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL
ERROR.
IT SHOULD BE LOW RISE THREE.
>>> CAN I ASK TO GO BACK TO
THAT ONE UNIQUE SPOT, WHERE YOU
MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE
SYNAGOGUES WANTED TO ASK FOR
SOME KIND OF AN AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
COULD DO THERE TO SAY IF THE
ADDITIONAL WORK IS DONE, OR
WHATEVER IT WOULD TAKE TO HELP
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT EXPANDED WE WOULD
CONSIDER THAT.
WHAT ARE OUR NEXT OPTIONS.
CLEARLY AROUND THE CITY WE ARE
TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN
TO EXPAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPTIONS.
CAN YOU HELP US?
>> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS
THE COUNCIL COULD APPROACH
PROVIDING THIS DIRECTION.
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO
ACCOMPLISH.
AS COUNCILMEMBERS ARE
CONTEMPLATING WHAT TO INCLUDE
IN THAT COMPANION RESOLUTION
AND HOW TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO
THE EXECUTIVE IT WILL BE
IMPORTANT TO PRIORITIZE THE
AREAS THAT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER
FIRST.
YOU WILL SEE AS WE ARE MOVING
THROUGH EACH DISTRICT THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE THERE
ARE POTENTIAL PROPOSALS FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS AND
THAT TYPE OF THING.
AND MAYBE WHAT THE COUNCIL'S
FIRST PRIORITY IS, IS PROVIDING
DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THOSE SET
OF CHANGES FIRST.
AND FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO
IDENTIFY THE FASTEST PATH TO
COMPLETE THE ADDITIONAL
PLANNING WORK.
AND DETERMINE WHAT THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING DESIGNATION
AREA IS FOR THE AREAS.
>> IN A FEW MOMENTS I WILL HAVE
A SIMILAR SITUATED PARCEL.
WE SHOULD TALK MORE ABOUT, I
HAVE BEEN CONVINCED I DON'T
THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO FORCE
IT THROUGH.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT WILL HOLD
UP.
IT IS A PRIORITY AND I WOULD
LOVE TO COLLECT ALL THE ONCE
AROUND THE CITY THAT FIT IN
THERE.
THEY ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY
ISOLATED.
I'M NOT SURE HOW TO STREAMLINE
THAT PROCESS.
>>> ONE OF THE THINGS WE
CONTEMPLATED IN THE RESOLUTION,
SOME ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP.
WE ALSO KNOW WE WILL HAVE A LOT
OF THINGS THAT CROSS CUT
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.
A SECTION THAT FOCUSES ON
ANALYSES FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, AND SETTING ASIDE
PARTICULAR PARCELS OR
PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHIES COULD
VERY WELL LEND ITSELF TO ITS
OWN SECTION OF COMPANION
RESOLUTION.
LET'S MOVE ALONG TO DISTRICT 6.
ANYTHING YOU LIKE TO SAY TO
KICK US OFF COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN?
>> THERE ARE 15 KNOWN
AMENDMENTS.
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS FOR
DISTRICT 6. I WILL WALK THROUGH
EACH OF THESE.
AS I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE
MAPS A MINUTE AGO I NOTICED
THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THE
NARRATIVE DOESN'T NECESSARILY
MATCH WHAT IS PROPOSED.
I WILL CORRECT THOSE ERRORS AS
WE GO ALONG.
MOVING ALONG TO THE VERY TOP OF
DISTRICT 6, THERE IS A PROPOSAL
FROM A PROPERTY OWNER, IT'S
NEAR WHERE HOME AND ROAD.
IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED AREA
THAT WAS NOT COVERED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
MOVING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER
SOUTH TO JUST OUTSIDE, THERE IS
A BLOCK IMMEDIATELY TO THE
NORTHEAST OF THE CROWN HILL
THAT IS NOT PROPOSED AS THE
CROWN HILL URBAN VILLAGE
EXPANSION AREA.
THERE ARE RESIDENTS WHO ARE
PROPONENTS FOR IT.
I WILL NOTE THERE IS A PLANNING
PROCESS THAT'S GOING ON FOR
CROWN HILL RIGHT NOW.
AT LEAST FOR CROWN HILL THERE
IS ON THE HORIZON ANOTHER
PROCESS THAT THESE NEIGHBORS.
MOVING INTO CROWN HILL ITSELF,
THERE ARE 12 POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED HERE.
THE FIRST HAS TO DO WITH AN
AREA THAT IS NORTH AND WEST OF
CROWN HILL PARK.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-
FAMILY 5000.
THE PROPOSAL IS FOR THE ENTIRE
AREA TO BE A LOW RISE ONE.
THERE HAVE BEEN FURTHER
THINKING ABOUT WHAT A POTENTIAL
AMENDMENT FOR THIS AREA COULD
LOOK LIKE.
ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO HAVE THE
EASTERN WESTERN BLOG GO TO RSL.
AND HAVE SOME PORTION OF THE
MIDDLE BLOCK GO TO LOW RISE.
AND POTENTIALLY HAVE PART OF
THE BLOCK FACE BE RSL, AND TO
MAINTAIN THE LOW RISE ZONING ON
THE FAR EASTERN BLOC THERE.
IN 6.3.
>> I DID A WALKING TOUR IN
CROWN HILL THIS PAST WEEKEND.
KEITA WAS THERE TOO.
ON THE CORNER ACROSS FROM CROWN
HILL PARK AND ADJACENT TO SOME
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
TO THE SOUTH.
I WOULD LIKELY BE INTERESTED IN
COMING IN THERE WITH A PENCIL,
AND DRYING A SECTION.
TO MAINTAIN AND THE REST GOING
TO RSL.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THAT.
THERE IS A HYBRID THERE AS KETO
MENTIONED.
AT THE MOMENT IT SEEMS TO HAVE
SUPPORT OF MOST OF THE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS THERE.
IT IS A SPLIT ZONING.
>>> MOVING ON TO POTENTIAL
CHANGE.
6-4. THIS IS A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONED AREA THAT IS JUST TO THE
EAST OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE
THERE ALONG 15th AND NORTHWEST
OF 85th.
THERE IS A PROPOSAL FOR THIS
AREA TO BE LOW RISE ONE.
A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT WOULD BE
TO LOWER THAT TO A RESIDENTIAL
SMALL LOT.
MOVING ON TO 6-5, SIMILARLY
THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS JUST
WEST OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE
THERE ALONG 15th AVENUE
NORTHWEST.
THIS WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO
STEP DOWN THE PROPOSED LOW RISE
ZONING FOR A HALF A BLOCK FROM
LOW RISE TO IN ONE TO LOW RISE
ONE AND ONE.
JUST TO THE WEST OF THAT THERE
IS ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF
DEPTH OF AN AREA THAT IS
PROPOSED TO GO TO LOW RISE TO.
UNDER THE MHA PROPOSAL.
CUDA RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT FOR
THIS AREA.
MOVING OUT TO THE EAST SIDE OF
THE CROWN HILL RESIDENTIAL
VILLAGE TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE
COMMERCIAL CORE, HERE'S A
PROPOSAL THAT IS SIMILAR TO
WHAT YOU SAW IN THE WEST.
WHICH IS TO REDUCE THE PROPOSED
ZONING.
YOU WILL NOTICE THERE IS A
THEME HERE OF STEPPING DOWN AT
THE EDGES OF THE CROWN.
AND ADJUST THE TRANSITIONS
ACCORDINGLY TO THE CENTER.
AREA 68 ON THE WEST SIDE, 15th
AVENUE NORTHWEST THIS WOULD BE
A CHANGE TO LOW RISE TO AND ONE.
A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TRANSITION.
AREA 6-10, SEVERAL PROPOSALS
GOING FROM LOW RISE 12
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOTS.
6-11 GOING FROM LOW RISE 2 TO
LOW RISE 1. BEFORE I MOVE ON
THEIRS PROPOSAL, A CHANGE THAT
IS NOT NOTED HERE.
THAT THE COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER
IT WAS DISCUSSED ON SATURDAY.
THAT WOULD BE TO GO HIGHER.
I HAST ASKED FOR THE PROPOSAL.
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO MORE
AT THAT INTERSECTION.
>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SEEMS
TO HAVE SUPPORT.
I CERTAINLY SUPPORTED.
INCONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL
TEACHING VALUES WE ARE TRYING
TO ACHIEVE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, JUST TO
THE WEST OF THAT ALONG 85th
THERE IS AN ORANGE SECTION THAT
IS CHANGING A BIG CHUNK TO 55.
>> LEAVING CROWN HILL AND
MOVING OVER TO GREENWOOD FINNEY
THERE IS A PROPOSAL EARLIER.
THIS IS WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN WAS TALKING ABOUT
EARLIER.
FROM THE BOERS BOYS AND GIRLS
CLUB.
THIS IS AN AREA THAT WAS NOT
STUDIED AS PART OF AN URBAN
VILLAGE EXPANSION.
NOR WAS IT STUDIED FOR
IMPLEMENTATION IN THE FBI US.
>>> SIMILAR, WHAT YOU SPOKE
ABOUT IN YOUR DISTRICT, THIS
PARCEL IS UNDER CONTRACT ARE
SOLD FROM THE BOYS AND GIRLS
CLUB TO BELLWETHER HOUSING.
THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO BUILD
HOUSING. IT IS A WIN-WIN OF
THESE PRELIMINARY OUTREACHES.
UNFORTUNATELY THE STUDY WASN'T
DONE TO INCLUDE THAT.
FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS I
WOULD BE ANXIOUS TO PUT THAT ON
THE ACCELERATED PATH.
>>> MOVING ON, CLOSE TO GREEN
LAKE.
THIS IS NOT PART OF ANY URBAN
VILLAGE.
TO CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION
FROM A LOW RISE AND TO -- THIS
IS AN AREA THAT WAS STUDIED
THROUGH THE MHA PROPOSAL.
3M TO WAS NOT STUDIED AS PART
OF THAT PROCESS.
IT'S NOT AN AVAILABLE OPTION.
GETTING INTO BALLARD THERE IS A
PROPOSAL BY A PROPERTY OWNER TO
REZONE A LOT OR TWO THAT IS
OUTSIDE OF THE BALLARD URBAN
VILLAGE EXPANSION AREA.
TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO A
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT OR LOW
RISE.
THIS IS NOT AN OPTION.
THE NEXT ONE HOWEVER, THIS IS A
BLOCK THAT IS PART OF THE
PROPOSED BALLARD URBAN VILLAGE
EXPANSION.
THIS WOULD GO TO LOW RISE ONE.
THAT IS IT FOR DISTRICT 6.
>> LET'S PROCEED TO YOUR
DISTRICT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM
THE EXPERTS.
>>> MOVING ON TO DISTRICT 7,
THIS IS A SHORTER LIST.
IN PART BECAUSE MUCH OF THIS
DISTRICT HAS GONE THROUGH
SEPARATE PROCESSES TO IMPLEMENT
MHA INCLUDING DOWNTOWN AND
OBTAIN UPTOWN AND THE
INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT.
I IS A SMALLER PORTION OF THE
DISTRICT THAT IS UNDER
CONSIDERATION IN THIS
LEGISLATION.
THE FIRST ONE, 7-1 IS NEAR AN
AREA NEAR THE PARK.
THE REQUEST IS TO NOT ABSORB
THIS AREA IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE LIGHT AND SHADOWING ON THE
PARK.
MAP 7-2 RELATES TO THE UPPER
QUEEN AND VILLAGE.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE
PROPOSED 75 FOOT HEIGHT IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE TO
MAINTAIN THE 40 FOOT HEIGHT
REQUIREMENT.
ADDING THE SUFFIX I WILL NOTE I
DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS A ZONE
AVAILABLE CURRENTLY IN THE
PROPOSAL.
AND ADDING THE SUFFIX TYPICALLY
DOES RESULT IN INCREASING THE
CAPACITY OF THAT ZONE.
MAP 7-3 IS THE AREA ALONG WEST
GAYLORD STREET IN THE UPPER
QUEEN AND URBAN VILLAGE.
THE REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THE
PROPOSED HEIGHTS.
255 OR 75 HEAT.
THE REQUEST IS TO STEP THOSE
DOWN.
ALL THESE REQUESTED CHANGES
WOULD BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE EIS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN HAS A
QUESTION.
>> ON THE PAGE THAT, I THINK
IT'S PAINT PAGE 90 --
>>> THE REQUEST IS TO NOT ALLOW
ANY INCREASE DEVELOPMENT
CAPACITY.
WHEN THE PROPOSAL IS TO KEEP
THE SAME ZONING DESIGNATION BUT
AT THE END SUFFIX THAT'S WHERE
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY IS
ACHIEVED THROUGH CHANGES TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD.
SO THE M SUFFIX ADDS MORE FLOOR
AREA THAT IS ALLOWED.
A LITTLE MORE HEIGHT THAN WHAT
WAS PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED.
TO NOT ALLOW THAT ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY MEANS IT
WOULD NOT BE UP ZONED AND MHA
WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE ON THAT
PROPERTY.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
OKAY.
IF I AM CORRECT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THE BROAD
INTENT ACROSS MHA IS THAT THE
LOW RISE ZONES WOULD ALL BE
CHANGED TO LOW RIDE ZONES M.
THIS REQUEST WOULD BE TO HANG
ON TO A RELIC IN A R 3 ZONE?
>> YES.
IT WOULD BE MAINTAINING THE
EXISTING PROVISIONS FOR THAT
ZONE AS WELL AS THE NEW
PROVISIONS WITH THE M SUFFIX.
IT WOULD BE ONE OF VERY FEW
PROPERTIES IN THE CITY THAT
HAVE A LOW RISE DESIGNATION
WITHOUT A M SUFFIX.
IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE FEW
PLACES IN THE CITY WHERE MULTI
FAMILY HOUSING IS PERMITTED.
THERE WOULD BE NO AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY
NEW DEVELOPMENT.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
THNK YOU.>> THAT CONCLUDES OUR
TOUR OF DISTRICTS 4, 6, AND
SEVEN.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ALLIE
OR KETO BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER
TO PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> ONE THING I WOULD JUST NOTE
, WHAT I SHOULD'VE MENTIONED
IN RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW 'S QUESTION.
OTHER OTHER OPTIONS WHERE
COUNCILMEMBERS MAY WANT TO HAVE
MADE AN AMENDMENT BUT IT WAS
OUTSIDE OF THE STUDY AREA,
THERE IS ALSO A CONTRACT REZONE
PATH THAT IS AVAILABLE TO
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS
WHERE THEY CAN PURSUE A ZONING
CHANGE ON A PROPERTY.
INDEPENDENT OF A LEGISLATIVE
ACTION.
IT COMES BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT
THAT IS AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO
PROPERTY OWNERS.
I WOULD ALSO REEMPHASIZE THAT
WE WILL BE WORKING TO GET THE
NOTICE OUT.
IF YOU HAVE GENERAL IDEAS ABOUT
THE TYPES OF AMENDMENTS THAT
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THROUGH
THIS PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE NOT
HEARD US TALKING ABOUT IT WOULD
BE GREAT IF YOU COULD GET IN
TOUCH WITH ANYONE OF THE LAND
USE TEAMS AND LET US KNOW.
SO WE MAKE SURE WE CAN COVER
THAT TOPIC IN THE NOTICE.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOUR
MIND MADE UP BUT YOU HAVE TO
HAVE YOUR IDEA IN NOW.
THANK YOU ALLIE AND KETO.
WE HAVE 25 PEOPLE WHO HAVE
SIGNED UP TO GIVE PUBLIC
COMMENTS.
YOU WILL EACH BE GIVEN TWO
MINUTES.
WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME PLEASE
COME FORWARD.
WE WILL START WITH RUTH DANNER
AND THEN DAVID MOODY AND DAVID
NUGENT'S.
RUTH, ARE YOU HERE?
OKAY HOW ABOUT DAVID MOODY?
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY DAVID
NUGENT AND THEN BRITTANY BOWE
LAY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL.
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN
COUNCILMAN O'BRIEN.
OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE LEFT.
I WAS GOING TO ASK THEM BRING
UP PAGE 87 OFF OF THE PROPOSAL.
PAGE 87 INCLUDES THE SECTION OF
WHITTIER HEIGHTS, CROWN HILL,
IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE
SAFEWAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF
15th NORTHEAST.
RIGHT NOW BETWEEN 80th AND 83rd
ON 15th NORTHEAST YOU HAVE TWO
LARGE APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
THE WHITTIER HEIGHTS TINY
VILLAGE AND THE HOME STREET
BANK.
AN ALLEY, AND ON THE OPPOSITE
SIDE OF THE BLOCK ARE 13
PARCELS.
ONE OF THOSE PARCELS IS
CURRENTLY LISTED.
ANOTHER 4 ARE BEING CHOPPED OFF
THE LIST.
WITH THE IMPACT OF THOSE FOUR
PARTIALS BEING CHOPPED OFF
LIST, ANOTHER THREE COULD BE
ADDED OR UNDER CONSIDERATION.
WE KNOW THAT IN THE 2025-30 WE
WILL HAVE TRANSIT.
THE URBAN VILLAGE WILL BE WELL
DEVELOPED.
AT THE MOMENT BAD HALF OF THE
BLOCK BETWEEN 80th AND 83rd IS
PART AND PARCEL.
IT'S CURRENTLY GOING TO BE
AMENDED.
THE PLAN IS TO LR TO M1.
I THINK LEAVING IT AS SUCH
WOULD BE A REAL LOSS FOR OUR
PLANS TO DEVELOP.
AND DEAL WITH HOUSING AS WE
PERCEIVE IT TO BE IN THAT AREA.
OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE VERY LARGE
DEVELOPMENTS GOING ON NORTH OF
85th.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW
IN LIGHT OF THESE 13 PARCELS TO
ADDRESS THOSE AND HAVE SOME
COHESIVE DEVELOPMENT AS THESE
CONVERSATIONS TAKE PLACE FOR
THESE PARCELS.
RATHER THAN HAVING DROP-IN'S,
AND REALLY HAVE THEM ADDRESSED
ONE AT A TIME.
IF WE ADDRESS THAT HALF BLOCK
THAT TAKES THE VISION THE
COUNCIL HAS.
IN LIGHT OF THE TRANSIT.
I THINK WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT
OPPORTUNITY.>> THANK YOU DAVID.
>> I'M DAVID NGUYEN.
I SUPPORT MHA AND ALSO HIGHER
DENSITY.
I BRIEFLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY,
TO MEET COUNCILMEMBER OR BRIAN
OVER THE WEEKEND.
HAVING TO STUMBLE ONTO THE
GROUP THAT WAS HAVING TO LOOK
AT OUR SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
ARE SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD IS
UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE MAP.
IT IS CURRENTLY, WE ARE 63.
WE ARE DESIGNATED AT LOW RISE 1.
THE SUGGESTION WAS TO GO TO
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
OUR NEIGHBORS GOT TOGETHER.
I'M REPRESENTING ABOUT FIVE OR
SIX NEIGHBORS WHO ALL GOT
TOGETHER AND CONTACTED
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S OFFICE
THIS WEEK TO KEEP OUR ZONING AT
LR ONE RATHER THAN GO TO SINGLE
RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT.
THAT PARTICULAR BLOCK, IT IS
VERY EXPOSED TO A LOT OF
COMMERCIAL. WE ARE RIGHT NEXT TO
DICKS AND McDONALD'S.
WE HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC WITH
THE CROWN HILL CENTER.
I THINK THAT BLOCK,
SPECIFICALLY I BELIEVE, THE
WHOLE BLOCK OF 14th AVENUE
BETWEEN 92nd AND 95th SHOULD BE
LR ONE.
ALONG WITH 92nd.
THAT IS MY FEELING.
>> BRITTANY YOU WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY MEGHAN.
>>
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M HERE THIS AFTERNOON AS A
RESIDENT OF DISTRICTS SEVEN.
SPECIFICALLY OF QUEEN ANNE.
I FEEL VERY FORTUNATE TO LIVE
WHERE I LIVE.
I LOVE MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LOVE WALKING TO THE GROCERY
STORE, I LOVE TRANSIT AND THE
PARKS AND THE RESTAURANTS.
I LOVE MY NEIGHBORS.
I WANT MORE OF THEM.
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE MY
NEIGHBORHOOD WITH MORE PEOPLE.
>> MEGHAN MURPHY YOU WILL BE A
LITTLE BIT LATER.
MEGHAN KROOS IS NEXT.
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY ALEC
ZIMMERMAN AND THEN JUDY.
>> I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT .3 OF
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S MANDATE,
WITH RESPECT TO MHA.
TO LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENT
IMPACTS., RESIDENT OF A
HISTORIC LANDMARK IN DOWNTOWN
SEATTLE.
WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF MHA.
WE ARE BEING THREATENED BY A
DEVELOPMENT THAT IS QUITE
OVERSIZE TO OUR BUILDING.
ACROSS A NARROW ALLEY.
IT IS TWO DIFFERENT ZONES, BACK
TO BACK.
WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESSES.
THE CODES AND LEGISLATION ON
THE BOOK ARE NOT BEING
ADDRESSED AT DESIGN REVIEW.
WE ARE ASKING THAT THIS
LEGISLATION ADDRESS THAT, AND
CREATE STRONG PROTECTIONS.
SO THE NEXT GENERATION OF
STEWART'S OF OLD BUILDINGS WILL
WANT TO TAKE THIS ON.
TWO SPECIFIC IMPACTS THAT I
HEARD ADDRESSED HERE EARLIER.
ONE IS LIGHT AND SHADOW.
THE BUILDING BEHIND US IS GOING
TO BLOCK TWO CODE PROTECTED --
IT WILL PLUNGE US INTO
DARKNESS.
THE SECOND IS SHARED ALLIE
RESOURCES.
OUR BUILDING DIDN'T COME WITH
PARKING.
WE RELY ON THAT ALLEY.
IN THE PROJECT BEHIND US.
THE STUDIO APARTMENTS THAT WILL
HAVE ROUGHLY 1200 CARS COURSING
THROUGH THE ALLEY.
THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT THEIR
MAIN ENTRANCE.
THAT WILL TOTALLY DESTROY OUR
ABILITY TO PUT OUT GARBAGE OR
MAINTAIN OUR BUILDING.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE BIG PICTURE.
WE WANT TO PRESERVE OUR HISTORY
WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTIVE STEPS.
>> I'M NOT SEEING ALEX
ZIMMERMAN.
WE ALL GET A REPRIEVE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M JUDITH. I
HEAR ON BEHALF OF FRIENDS OF --
I HAD HANDED IT TO EACH OF YOU
A PETITION THAT COMES FROM
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE NEW
HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WHICH IS CALLED RIVANNA, CALLUM
NORTH.
IT'S A NATIONAL HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
IT'S ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER
OF HISTORIC PLACES.
AS WELL AS THE STATE REGISTER
OF PLACES.
THIS IS A MAP.
I KNOW YOU CANNOT ALL SEE IT
CLOSELY.
THE PROPOSED OF ZONING WILL
TAKE OUT THE ENTIRE CALLAN
SECTION AND PART OF THE
EXPANSION AREA.
BASICALLY THE NAME WOULD BECOME
A NON-ENTITY.
PEOPLE HERE, WHO LIVE HERE, YOU
MAY NOT KNOW THIS, BUT THE
WHOLE DISTRICT HAS ABOUT 20
PERCENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
NOW.
PEOPLE HAVE REPURPOSED THEIR
HOMES AND THEIR MANY APARTMENTS
THRE.
THERE ARE SUBDIVISIONS IN THE
APARTMENTS AND DUPLEXES.
MANY OF THESE DADDIES ARE
REPLICAS OF THE HOMES
THEMSELVES.
PEOPLE WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT
ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE.
THE WHOLE AREA WAS ESTABLISHED
IN 1906 BY CHARLES CALLAN.
HE DEDICATED THE PARK. THIS
GOES ALONG THE RAVENNA
BOULEVARD.
IT HAS ENORMOUS POTENTIAL.
FOR MAKING MONEY.
THE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE
VISITORS COME HERE ALL OF THE
TIME. WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE
DACIAN -- WE WANT TO SEE THE
ENTIRE DISTRICT REMAINS INTACT
AND A HOLE.
I WAS PLEASED TO SEE SOME OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SAY
YOU CAN'T ABSORB.
MAYBE IT WASN'T STUDIED IN THE
MHA PROCESS.
THERE ARE AREAS WITHIN THE
URBAN VILLAGE WERE UP ZONING
MAKES MORE SENSE.
THIS DOESN'T.
I AM OUT OF TIME.
PLEASE READ THE PETITION.
AND INCORPORATES THE NATIONAL
LAW.
AND THE PRINCIPLES THAT APPLY.
AS WELL AS THE MEMBERS OF
PEOPLE WHO REALLY SUPPORT THIS.
>> RICK McGLOCKLIN IS SIGNED UP
NEXT.
I DON'T SEE HIM HERE ANYMORE.
COREY CROCKER YOU ARE NEXT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
I'M FROM THE U DISTRICT.
THAT WAS THE FIRST AREA OF THE
CITY OF ZONED INCLUDE IN MHA.
OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN AT 320
FEET.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONTRIBUTES
NINE PERCENT MHA.
SOUTH LAKE UNION CONTRIBUTES
TWO PERCENT.
THE U DISTRICT HAS DEMONSTRATED
ITS CONTRIBUTION TO MHA.
IT MUST HAVE A CONCURRENT
INVESTMENT AND PROTECTIONS TO
KEEP A SUSTAINABLE AND
EQUITABLE AND LIVABLE.
WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL THE U
DISTRICT THROUGH COMPANION
RESOLUTION 31732, THE CITY
AGREED TO A NUMBER OF
DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION
STRATEGIES.
TWO YEARS LATER WE START WAIT
FOR THAT HELP FROM THE CITY.
WE HAVE RAISED FUNDS AND WE
CONDUCTED A DOOR-TO-DOOR SURVEY
OF 123 SMALL BUSINESSES ALONG
THE AVENUE.
A MAJORITY ARE MINORITY OWNED.
THEY ARE SMALL AND EVEN MICRO-
IN SIZE.
OWNER OPERATED, AND THEY RENT
THEIR SPACES.
THEY ARE HIGHLY VULNERABLE IN
DISPLACEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT.
THE U DISTRICT HAS CONTRIBUTED
THE MOST SUPPORT.
THE CITY HAS STILL NOT STUDIED
THE IMPACTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES
AS PROMISED.
ARE SMALL BUSINESSES ARE IN
DANGER OF BEING DISPLACED WITH
DEVASTATING REPERCUSSIONS FOR
OUR COMMUNITY.
WE REQUEST A MEETING WITH OUR
COUNCILMEMBER.
TO COLLABORATE ON A COMPROMISE
SOLUTION.
TO HELP US KEEP OUR MAIN
SHOPPING STREET AT A HUMAN
SCALE.
PLEASE HELP US.
THANK YOU.
>> ESTHER YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY SUZANNE GRANT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS
ESTHER.
I LIVE IN THE AFFINITY RIDGE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I TESTIFIED LAST WEEK WITH
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
SCALING BACK MHA AND TO KEEP IT
MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE CALL
PLANNED IDEALS OF PRESERVING
DENSITY IN THE URBAN VILLAGES
AND PROTECTING TRANSITIONS
BETWEEN ZONES.
TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN
AND URGE YOU TO EXEMPT THE
CORRIDOR FROM MHA.
THIS IS THE ONE STREET OF
GREENWOOD AVENUE AND THE URBAN
VILLAGE.
SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT
PHINNEY RIDGE NOW IT CAN ABSORB
MORE THAN DOUBLE OF ITS CURRENT
CAPACITY.
IT'S JUST STARTING TO BE
REDEVELOPED.
THERE'S A LOT OF OLDER HOUSING
STOCK THAT HAS A LOT OF LARGER
AFFORDABLE UNITS.
MORE THAN WOULD BE PUT IN PLACE
OF THESE WERE REDEVELOPED UNDER
THE CURRENT MHA PROPOSALS.
NEXT A REAL CONSTRAINT IS THE
TRANSPORTATION CONSTRAINTS.
WE HAVE ONE BUS ROUTE THAT GOES
NORTH SOUTH.
THERE ARE NO CROSSTOWN BUSES.
THE NEAREST ONES ARE AT 80th
AND 45th.
THERE'S NO WAY TO HAVE ONE
INBETWEEN BECAUSE GREEN LAKE IS
IN THE WAY.
THE OTHER IS THE CURRENT
ZONING.
WE HAVE ALL OF THE IN SITU
PARCELS UP TO SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONES.
AND FOUR STORIES IS ENOUGH.
WE DON'T NEED TO OF ZONED THOSE
TO FIVE STORIES.
THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY MANY
PLACES IN THE CITY.
I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU NOT ALLOW
THAT ANYWHERE.
SPECIFICALLY NOT IN PHINNEY
RIDGE.
SOME OF THE LR THREE UNITS,
ALSO THE CURRENT CODE KEEPS
THOSE AT 30 FEET WHEN THEY BACK
UP TO SINGLE-FAMILY I WOULD
URGE YOU TO KEEP THAT.
I SENT IN DETAIL LETTERS AND
MAPS EARLIER TODAY SO I HOPE
YOU WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT
AND CONSIDER THAT IN MY OTHER
LETTER FROM LAST WEEK AS YOU
MOVE FORWARD.
>> SUZANNE?
>> I URGE YOU TO REPURPOSE AND
SEE IF THE OLDER HISTORIC HOMES
ADD MORE STRUCTURES.
AND LR TWO AND LR ONE.
WHEN YOU ADD THAT M SUFFIX YOU
ARE EFFECTIVELY REMOVING
PROTECTION FOR TREES.
WHY ISN'T THE CITY REQUIRING
THE SAME TREE CANOPY AS SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMES GET?
DON'T THE KIDS LIVING IN SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSING DESERVE A PLACE
TO PLAY?
WHERE IS THE MONEY IN YOUR
ORDINANCE FOR MORE BLOCKED
PLAYGROUNDS? WHERE DO PEOPLE GO
TO GARDEN AND WHAT IS LEFT FOR
THE BEES TO POLLINATE?
WHERE'S THE MONEY DESIGNATED IN
YOUR ORDINANCE FOR MORE
PATCHES?
THIS IS ON QUEEN ANNE HILL AND
IS IN IMMINENT DANGER.
THE CHANGES THAT YOU ARE
CONSIDERING WITH THE FLOOR WILL
DO MANY TREES LIKE THIS WHICH
THERE ARE A DWINDLING NUMBER IN
OUR CITY ONCE NAMED THE EMERALD
CITY AND NOW WHAT I THINK OF AS
A CONCRETE CITY.
REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR
TREE RETENTION AND ON-SITE
PLANNING DOES NOT HELP PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT DOES NOT HELP SOLVE OUR BIG
BIGGEST PROBLEM OF CLIMATE
CHANGE.
PLEASE KEEP THE EXISTING TREE
RETENTION OR REPLANTING
REQUIREMENTS.
SEATTLE MUST HAVE BOTH DENSITY
AND TREES.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO COMMENT.
I AM HERE AS A DISTRICT 7
RESIDENT.
AND ALSO AS RE-PRESENTING THE
HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT OF
SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY.
I AM GOING TO HIGHLIGHT TWO
THINGS.
WHICH IS A WATERED-DOWN VISION
OF THE MANDATORY HOUSING AND
AFFORDABILITY.
THAT WILL NOT HELP THE GROWING
COMMUNITY NEED.
AS YOU ALL KNOW.
ONE OF THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES
OF THE MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY IS TO ENSURE THAT
WE HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE
CITY.
THE CURRENT POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS AS WE ARE PRESENTED,
AND WERE DISCUSSED DO NOT
REPRESENT THE VOLUME.
WE ASK AS YOU MOVE FORWARD IN
ADOPTING THIS AMENDMENT YOU
PRIORITIZE MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE
HOUSING GOALS.
DISTRICT 4, 6 AND 7, LARGELY
HIGH OPPORTUNITY AREAS.
WE ASK THAT YOU ENSURE THERE
ARE MORE HOUSING OPTIONS IN
THOSE AREAS.
ONE THING WE REALLY WANT TO
URGE YOU TO DO IS TO TAKE A
LONG RANGE VIEW AS YOU MAKE
THIS DECISION.
NEW OPPORTUNITIES ARE COMING UP
WITH TRANSIT INVESTMENTS
THROUGH THE WEST SEATTLE
BALLARD EXTENSION AS WELL.
THOSE PROJECTS WILL BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MAKE SURE
WE ARE INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR MORE PEOPLE.
WE ASK AS YOU MAKE THIS
DECISION YOU PRIORITIZE ALL OF
SEATTLE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE
ARE IN INCLUSIVE CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> MARK YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
DAVE AND THEN CHRIS.
>> TWO RECOMMENDATIONS
PERTAINING TO AFFORDABILITY AND
LIVABILITY, FIRST THE CITY OF
SEATTLE SHOULD PAY FOR THE
ADDITIONAL INCREASE FROM
PROPERTY TAXES.
RESULTING IN THE OF ZONING OF
ALL URBAN VILLAGE PARCELS.
UNTIL THE SALE OR DEVELOPMENT
OF SUCH PARTIALS.
SECOND, HALF OF ALL PERMIT FEE
REVENUES COLLECTED FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN EACH URBAN
VILLAGE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE FOR
THE RESTORATION OF LIVABILITY
WITHIN THE PARTICULAR URBAN
VILLAGE FROM WHICH THE PERMIT
FEE ORIGINATES.
DIRECTING 50 PERCENT OF ALL
DEVELOPMENT FEES WILL HELP
SEATTLE DELIVER ON ITS PLEDGE
OF MAINTAINING LIVABILITY
WITHIN THE URBAN VILLAGES.
THE CITY SHOULD REMIT THESE
FUNDS TO THE URBAN VILLAGES OF
ORIGIN.
SO THAT ALL URBAN VILLAGERS CAN
VOTE DIRECTLY ON HOW THEY WISH
THE FUNDS TO BE INVESTED WITHIN
A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.
>> DAVID, ARE YOU HERE?
EVERYBODY IS SICK THIS TIME OF
YEAR.
CHRIS HUBBARD?
ARE YOU STILL HERE?
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY BONNIE
WILLIAMS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU
CONSIDER INCREASING THE HEIGHT
AND DENSITY CLOSER TO TRANSIT.
AND TO EASE UP FURTHER OUT.
AS SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS
DISCUSSED FOR TWO REASONS.
ONCE YOU APPROVE THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL, ANY ADDITIONAL
HOUSING THAT COULD'VE BEEN
CREATED IN THE UNBUILT UPPER
FLOORS WILL BE LOST FOREVER.
THOSE BUILDINGS WILL NOT BE
TORN DOWN WHEN YOU LATER UP
ZONE AND GO A LITTLE BIT
HIGHER.
WE HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
DENSITY AROUND TRANSIT.
IF WE DON'T DO IT RIGHT WE WILL
LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY.
THE SECOND ONE IS, ONCE YOU UP
ZONE WHAT IS CURRENTLY SINGLE-
FAMILY WITH THE CHARACTERS PUT
THE CHARACTERS OF THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD AT RISK.
THE POINT OF MHA IS TO CREATE
ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO DECLARE
OPEN SEASON ON HISTORIC HOUSES.
ONCE WE HAVE TOPPED OUT THE
POTENTIAL CAPACITY CLOSE TO
TRANSIT, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE
OPTION TO EXPAND THE AREA AND
TO CONTINUE TO UP ZONE FURTHER
AND FURTHER INTO WHAT IS
CURRENTLY IDYLLIC SINGLE-FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOODS.
ONCE YOU DO THAT, THE CHARACTER
IS GONE.
YOU WILL NEVER GET IT BACK.
WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH THIS
IMAGE IS GREAT.
WE NEED MORE HOUSING.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER
THE LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF
WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
IT WILL HAVE A HUGE IMPACT
POTENTIALLY ON THE CHARACTER OF
SEATTLE AND WHY WE LIVE HERE.
WE DON'T LIVE HERE TO LIVE IN
SEATTLE.
CELL HAS CHARACTER AND IT'S A
NICE PLACE AND YOU CAN WALK
AROUND.
IT'S PRETTY NOT JUST SOLID
APARTMENT BUILDINGS.
WE CAN HAVE BOTH, BUT THE WAY
YOU GO ABOUT IT YOU CAN POISON
THE WELL WHILE YOU ARE TRYING
TO ACHIEVE THE ADMIRABLE GOAL
OF TRYING TO CREATE MORE UNITS.
PLEASE BE CAREFUL.
>> BONNIE YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY FRANK AND THEN DOUG.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE
CHANGES THAT WERE UP ON THE
SCREEN TODAY.
COMMUNITY COUNCIL DID SUBMIT A
MAP COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IN
2017.
IT SORT OF GOT LOST.
WE RESUBMITTED IT.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ADVOCATED
VERY ACTIVELY FOR THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS.
THE UP ZONES ARE TWO HIGHLY
TARGETING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
THERE IS INVENTORIES THAT WE
HAVE DONE AND THERE IS A BIG
MIX OF MULTI FAMILY SMALL-SCALE
HOUSING UNITS.
TRIPLEX'S DUPLEXES ETC.
IN ADDITION TO SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES THAT WE HAVE COUNTED.
THERE IS AT LEAST 700 SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMES TARGETED FROM 40th
TO 50th FROM I-5 TO AURORA.
THAT TAKES IN A LOT OF
TERRITORY.
THAT WILL AFFECT AND DISPLACE
PEOPLE WHO NOW LIVE THERE.
THE BALANCE IS REALLY
IMPORTANT.
WE ARE NOT A HUB.
WE HAVE SOME SCHOOL ISSUES.
WE HAVE DIFFERENT ISSUES.
THE NEW INFORMATION THAT HAS
COME OUT BECAUSE OF THAT F EIS.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO
CONSIDER BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT
HAD THE INFORMATION THAT IS
PERTINENT TO UP ZONING TO THE
DEGREE THAT YOU ARE UP ZONING.
WALLING FORD IS KNOWN AS A
ESPECIALLY HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD
WITH A LOT OF CROSSMAN HOME AND
GREAT ARCHITECTURE.
I WAS IN ON THE APPEAL.
IT IS ISN'T A NEGATIVE THING
NECESSARILY.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THERE WERE
HISTORIC RESOURCES CITYWIDE
WERE BEING OVERLOOKED.
WE HAVE POINTED OUT A LOT OF
INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE
MADE PUBLIC.
YOU SAID YOU WILL DO AN
ADDENDUM AT THE END OF JANUARY.
YOU NEED THAT INFORMATION
BEFORE YOU DECIDE ON THE FINAL
DECISIONS ON THESE MAPS.
I HAVE ALL SORTS OF RED DOTS
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE URBAN
VILLAGE.
WE PREPARED THIS FROM SURVEYS
OF WALLING FORD.
DON'T DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
DO NOT DISPLACE THE SINGLE
FAMILIES THAT LIVE THERE WITH
TOO HIGH OF A TARGET.
SUB SOME URBAN VILLAGES, THERE
ARE VARIOUS INSTANCES DAY
>> THANK YOU.
>> I AM GOING TO PASS.
>> THAT IS LEADERSHIP.
DOUG?
YOU WILL BE FOLLOWED BY DAVID
AND CHARLES.
>> MY NAME IS DOUG CAMPBELL I'M
OWNER OF THE BULLDOG NEWS ON
UNIVERSITY WAY.
I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 35
YEARS.
I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF
REMOVING THE AVENUE FROM THE UP
ZONE.
IN DISTRICT 4. IN SUPPORT OF
THAT I HAVE ASKED US TO REFLECT
ON ROB JOHNSON'S REMARK.
WHERE HE SAID, MY GOD WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE A NEW TARGET
STORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE THREE
STORIES.
IN FACT IT'S GOING TO BE TWO
STORIES.
ISN'T THAT A SHAME IN TERMS OF
THE CAPTURING OF MHA. THAT WE
HAVE LOST BY NOT HAVING MHA IN
PLACE WHEN THAT DEVELOPMENT
HAPPENED.
IN FACT, SINCE THE U DISTRICT ,
THERE ARE NINE TOWERS, MOST
GOING TO 200 OR 320 FEET.
EITHER IN THE PERMIT PROCESS,
OR PROPOSED FOR OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
MANY MORE TOWERS ARE POSSIBLE
AND LIKELY.
THOSE ARE MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL
TOWERS.
I SUBMIT TO YOU ROB THOSE
RESIDENTS AND THE MANY
ADDITIONAL WORKERS WHO WILL BE
COMING TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WILL
APPRECIATE GETTING A LITTLE BIT
OF SUNLIGHT IN THE EVENING ON
THE MAIN COMMERCIAL STREET OF
OUR U DISTRICT.
THERE A LOT OF LOW INCOME
HOUSING ON THAT STREET.
THAT IF WE PUT DEVELOPMENT
PRESSURE ON THE STREET WILL BE
ERASED AND PERHAPS REPLACED BY
MHA UNITS AND A MUCH DIFFERENT
NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE WILL LOSE THOSE RESIDENTS
TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I SPEAK IN FAVOR OF REMOVING
THE UP ZONE.
IT HAS NOT BEEN STUDIED IN THE
OFFICIAL LIGHT.
OR THE EIS FOR THIS PROPOSAL.
THE AMENDMENT TO THAT EFFECT
WILL BE PROPOSED BY THE
DEADLINE.
THANK YOU.
>> DAVID?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF NOT UP ZONING THE
AVENUE. IT WAS NOT INCLUDED,
AND IT SHOULD NOT BE UP ZONED.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK THAT
80 PERCENT OF SEATTLE SENSELESS
TRACKS HAD 10 TO 15 PERCENT OF
COST BURDEN OR EXTREMELY COST
BURDEN HOUSEHOLDS.
THAT INCLUDES IN NORTH SEATTLE.
MUCH OF THE UP ZONE WILL BE
HAPPENING, REMOVING PEOPLE WHO
ARE DISPLACING PEOPLE WHO ARE A
COST BURDEN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'M CHARLIE.
I WANT TO OFFER MY SUPPORT FOR
THE OVERALL MHA UP ZONE.
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE
DONE ON IT TO DATE.
I ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET
THIS PAST EXPEDITIOUSLY.
LET'S NOT LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVIDED DURING THIS
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.
I AM ALSO REQUESTING THE
COUNCIL REJECT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT 7-2. AND PROCEED WITH
THE MHA PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
TO ZONE THE SITE.
THIS IS THE CENTER OF THE QUEEN
ANNE URBAN VILLAGE.
TO PROVIDE MORE DENSITY.
AND PROVIDE MUCH-NEEDED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT
THE CITY.
THANK YOU.
>> MARIA FOLLOWED BY MEGHAN.
>> HELLO, MY QUESTION IS WHY.
WHY IS COUNSEL CONSIDERING
REDUCING UP ZONES IN IMPORTANT
URBAN AREAS?
WHY CAN'T LOWER INCOME
RESIDENTS IN OUR CITY LIVE IN
DENSE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS WERE
ALL THE SERVICES AND TRANSIT
ARE LOCATED?
I AM ADVOCATING KEEPING THE UP
ZONES AND DENSITY IN AS MANY
AREAS AS POSSIBLE.
I DEEPLY BELIEVE IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
PARTICULARLY IN OUR DENSE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
ARE PARTICULARLY ADVOCATING
TODAY TO KEEP ALL THE INCREASE
HEIGHTS IN THE QUEEN ANNE URBAN
VILLAGE.
I HAVE COMMUNICATED , EVEN
WITHOUT THE MHA ON-SITE
PERFORMANCE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD
THE REDUCTIONS PROPOSED IN THE
AMENDMENTS WILL ELIMINATE 50 TO
60 UNITS THAT COULD BE BUILT IN
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS AN AREA WITH GREAT
TRANSIT AND NEIGHBORHOOD
AMENITIES.
AGAIN WHY CAN'T PEOPLE LIVE IN
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE ALL THE
SERVICES ARE?
I ALSO WANT TO ADVOCATE
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON FOR UNION
BAY PLACE, PLEASE UP ZONE THIS
SMALL HALF BLOCK TO MATCH WHAT
IS PROPOSED ACROSS THE STREET
TO CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS.
THANK YOU.
ACTUALLY ADDED ONE SENTENCE.
I DO BELIEVE THERE CAN NEVER BE
TOO MUCH OR ENOUGH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND ANY URBAN
NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> MEGHAN YOU ARE THE FINAL
SPEAKER.
>> CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF
DISPLACEMENT, PEOPLE WHO OWN
THE PROPERTY IN A SINGLE-FAMILY
ZONE, ALREADY HAVE SO MUCH MORE
FINANCIAL GAIN THAN LOW INCOME
PEOPLE TO HOLD A PROPERTY LEASE.
THE SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES ARE
DRAWN UP A LONG TIME AGO.
THE CITY WAS A LOT LESS
CROWDED.
THERE EVEN DIFFERENT LAWS ABOUT
WHO COULD OWN PROPERTY IN THE
CITY.
ACCORDING TO RACE.
PEOPLE HAVE LARGER FAMILIES
BACK THEN.
GLOBAL WARMING IS AN ISSUE.
IT MAKES SENSE TO REZONE
TOGETHER WITH EACH OTHER.
LET'S FIND CONE TOOTH THROUGH
THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND IMAGINING
WHAT IT COULD BE.
I KNOW THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN
TOWN WHERE THEY ARE CALLED THE
McMANSIONS.
LIKE EMPTY PROPERTY NOT VERY
MANY PEOPLE GOT TOGETHER AND
DISCUSSED IT.
THE RESOURCES ARE BEING USED.
TO FUND THESE, THIS IS MORE
ELEGANT.
I SAW MARIA NORTMAN, AT THE
HENRY R GALLERY.
SHE WAS DESIGNING THESE UNITS.
SMALLER EVEN IN THE 1970S.
THERE WERE COLORED WINDOWS ON
EACH SIDE.
YOU COULD CHECK THE CURTAINS.
SHE WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT.
THAT WAS A PROFOUND FORM OF ART.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE 20 PERCENT
UNITS AFFORDABLE INSTEAD OF
SEVEN PERCENT.
I KNOW JON GRANT TALKED ABOUT
úTHAT WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR
STUDENT COUNCIL.
I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE THIS
PROCESS.
6000 UNITS IN 10 YEARS, WHICH
IS NOT ENOUGH.
I THINK WASTING MONEY ON OTHER
FETISHES LIKE SPACE TRAVEL WERE
WAR IS A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY
WHEN IT COULD BE USED FOR
HOUSING AND EDUCATION.
THANK YOU.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED UP FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PORTION.
I WANT TO RECOGNIZE HE DID NOT
SIGN UP FOR PUBLIC, IT'S NICE
TO HAVE YOU.
THIS CONCLUDES THE MEETING FOR
TODAY.
FOCUSED ON DISTRICTS FORMAT, 6
AND SEVEN.
WE WILL BE BACK AT 9:30 AM ON
WEDNESDAY MORNING.
SEE YOU THEN.
THANK YOU.