Good afternoon, folks, and thank you for attending today's special committee meeting of the mandatory housing affordability special select committee.
My name is Rob Johnson.
I'm the chair of the committee and joined this afternoon by Councilmember Herbold, although I expect many of our colleagues will be joining back imminently.
This is the 16th select committee meeting that we've held on mandatory housing affordability over the last year.
In addition to the several public hearings and open houses that we had last year, I think that this brings our count to somewhere just north of 40 public meetings on this topic so far.
And we plan to continue to hold meetings throughout the next few months as we contemplate adoption of these citywide zoning changes to implement our mandatory housing affordability program.
Today, we are going to be district focused.
We're going to be spending time and energy talking about three of our seven council districts.
Today, we're going to focus on districts four, six, and seven.
This coming Wednesday morning at 9.30 here at City Hall, we'll be continuing these discussions with a focus on the remainder of the other four council districts, districts one, two, three, and five.
As a reminder to my council colleagues, There is a public hearing that we've got scheduled for late February, February the 21st.
In order for us to adequately notice any amendments for that public hearing, our council central staff have asked you to identify any amendments that you would like for consideration to be noticed by tomorrow so that we can have the full 30-day notice for the February 21st public hearing.
So just a reminder to my colleagues about that.
We have one agenda item today, like I said, districts four, six, and seven, and Noah, I'll ask you to read that official item into the record.
Agenda item one, issue identification for citywide mandatory housing affordability, MHA, in districts four, six, and seven.
And we've been joined by my colleagues, Council Member Sawant, Bagshaw, and Juarez.
Thank you all for being here.
And sitting at the table today to staff us are the Venerable Ali Panucci and Quito Freeman.
Thank you for being here this afternoon.
One of the things we're going to be doing a little bit of today is walking through amendments, whether they've been identified by individuals within the community that have come forward at open houses or public hearings or identifying or identified by council members themselves, and talking through a couple of different options for consideration of these amendments.
I tend to refer to these as kind of three separate areas of focus, or if you will, three different buckets worth of consideration.
So, Ali and Kida will be walking us through those kinds of options.
And one of the things that I'd like to stress for folks is that we may likely be hearing from individuals in the public or we all may have ideas ourselves of amendments that may not necessarily be within the four corners scope of the environmental impact statement.
Those amendments may not be bad amendments by any stretch of the imagination, but I think are worthy of discussion about whether or not they should be included in this legislation or as part of future legislation to modify or clean up the mandatory housing affordability language.
I believe that our central staffers will spend some time clarifying for you whether or not some of the amendments that we'll be discussing today are within the scope of the EIS.
And then of course there are other ideas that will come up over the next couple of weeks that will naturally be kind of alongside our zoning legislation but don't necessarily have a place within the land use code.
We've traditionally put those into a council resolution.
We continue to plan to introduce a council resolution in the very near future that we will then use as a placeholder for those kinds of priorities whether they be about transportation or schools or housing or other concurrent issues that individuals either on this diaspora and community are interested in.
So those are the kind of the three categories of discussions that I anticipate we'll continue to have over the next couple months.
Things within the scope of the EIS, things that are land use ideas that may not be within the scope of the EIS, and then of course the council resolution option.
And thank you to the rest of you for joining.
Council Member O'Brien and Council President Hayhoe.
So, without further ado, why don't I turn it over to you, Ali and Ketel, and we'll take it away.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Council Members.
Today, the committee will continue its consideration of potential amendments to the legislation to implement the Mandatory Housing Affordability Program, which I'll refer to as MHA, moving forward today.
As described previously at the previous committee meeting, to allow for implementation of MHA, the Executive has proposed increasing development capacity in two ways.
through a change to the zone designations on the official land use map or through changes to development standards for that increased capacity for that zone.
So increasing the allowed height in a particular zone or the allowed floor area.
At the meeting, at the committee meeting on January 7th, the committee focused on an initial list of potential changes to those development standards.
This week the committee will focus on potential changes to the official land use map with today's focus on Districts 4, 6, and 7, and then followed by a discussion on Wednesday of Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5. What was discussed last week and what will be covered this week is not necessarily an exhaustive list of potential changes, nor does inclusion on this list necessarily imply that a council member will be sponsoring an amendment.
Over the next week or two, Council of Central Staff will, We'll work with members to refine that list and identify the amendments that they wish to move forward.
Those amendments, along with content for a companion resolution, will be discussed at the committee meetings in February.
So it will be a continued refining of the list.
In addition to the potential map changes that will be discussed today, we have prepared a track changes comparison to the MHA bill that was introduced last January to a redrafted bill that is anticipated to be introduced next Tuesday.
This is included in attachment 2 to the central staff memo.
And this will serve as the base bill moving forward for amendments.
Changes in the bill that will be introduced next week reflect changes to the municipal code that have been approved by ordinance since the bill was first introduced last January, technical edits and clarifications identified by staff, and some tweaking of proposed development standards.
So before diving into the district-specific map discussion for Districts 4, 6, and 7, we want to acknowledge that there are potential policy tradeoffs associated with these potential map changes.
As we work with all of you over the next few weeks to identify the specific amendments you would like to sponsor, we'll discuss those policy tradeoffs and potential impacts that the changes would have on the estimated number of income and rent-restricted units the MHA program is expected to produce.
One example of the policy tradeoffs is the strategy that was transmitted by the executive 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 would diverge a bit from that strategy in trying to balance other neighborhood concerns.
So those will be the types of tradeoffs council members will be balancing as we move forward with the discussions.
Also, we want to note that 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 that we won't be covering today, but we'll be covering in future meetings in February.
This includes, for example, potential specific development standards that might apply in the university district along the ave related to small commercial spaces.
Some of those development standards may make sense to apply.
in all pedestrian zones throughout the city or may be specific to that district.
So moving on to the focus of today's discussion, we first want to note that the complete set of map changes that was prepared by the executive is available online and is linked to the memo.
Today's discussion will focus on areas where council members may want to modify that proposal.
So to orient everyone, I will be speaking primarily to the materials found in Attachment 1 in the memo.
And we were starting on District 4, which starts on page 46 of Attachment 1. For each section, and I'm going to use District 4 as the example as we're starting there, there is first a district-wide map that includes the map legend that is used for all the maps map pages following this map and shows a number dot where all of the potential changes that will be discussed for that district.
So on the screen now is the district-wide map for District 4. This is just 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, what was proposed in the legislation transmitted by the executive, and identifies the range of zones studied for the site or area in the final environmental impact statement, as well as identifies the requested amendment.
And then the final column all the way to the right categorizes the potential amendment based on the final EIS analysis.
If the notation in this column states within FEIS scope, that indicates that the amendment requested was contemplated in the EIS and can likely, if a council member wants to move forward with it, could be accomplished in this legislation.
If the notation is additional environmental review is needed, it indicates that the potential change was likely not contemplated in the final EIS and may be a better candidate for the companion resolution.
With one caveat to that, in some cases, the requested amendment was not contemplated in the EIS, but there was an option sort of in between what was requested and what was proposed that may be possible.
And as we work with members over the coming weeks, we will work with you to identify those options.
And then following the table are individual maps for each row listed in the table, and that's what we'll be walking through today.
So the first map, Map 4-1, relates to 836 Northeast 69th Street.
The request is to increase the proposed zoning designation from what was proposed to go from single-family to low-rise to go to mid-rise.
This option was not considered in the EIS.
And we'll just keep rolling through the maps unless someone pauses me with questions.
I think that that's an appropriate expectation, Ms. Panucci.
And I'll keep my head on a swivel just to keep my eyes open to see in case anybody does have questions.
Map 4-2 relates to the area north of the Roosevelt High School.
The proposal is to rezone from single-family to low-rise, and the request is to reduce that to an RSL designation.
So there are sort of two areas, two levels of low-rise proposed here, and the request is to go from single-family to RSL, the residential small lot, rather than to low-rise.
The map 4-3 relates to a number of properties found at 6715 12th Avenue Northeast and 1029 through 1011 Northeast 68th Street.
The request is to increase the proposed zone designation from the proposed mid-rise to NC3P85.
So instead of a multifamily zone to a mixed-use neighborhood commercial zone, this is another one that the option was not contemplated in the EIS.
Ellie, can you remind us, since we'll be going through the land use code in some level of detail here, how tall does a mid-rise development get to go?
Generally 80 feet.
Yes, 80 feet.
So the real difference in that amendment is about that extra five feet and more importantly, maybe about the commercial that's allowed on the ground floor and whether or not we require commercial on the ground floor.
Yeah, so what wasn't contemplated is the, you know, slightly additional height, but also there are difference in the floor area ratio requirements for those zones, as well as the types of uses that can be, that are allowed in a mid-rise zone versus a neighborhood commercial zone.
Map 4-4 relates to the Roosevelt Urban Village along the area east of 15th Avenue.
The request is to reduce the proposed zone designation that is proposed to go from single-family to low-rise 1 to RSL.
Actually, that was within the scope of the EIS.
Map 4-5 relates to the future Roosevelt Station.
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 studied in the EIS.
So going higher than that would require additional environmental review.
Map 4-6 relates to a block around 6207 to 6211 12th Avenue NE and 1012 to 1032 NE 67. The request is to increase the proposed zone designation from single family to neighborhood commercial 2. Though not noted in the table, that request would require additional environmental review.
But there was a higher option studied in the EIS than what was proposed by the mayor.
So while NC 240 might be difficult to accomplish, low-rise 2 was studied while low-rise 1 was proposed.
So there may be an in-between option that is available.
The next map 4-7 6800 to 6842 35th Avenue Northeast is a request to rezone an area currently zoned single-family to low-rise 2. This is sort of filling in a gap between two multifamily or neighborhood commercial zones.
This area was not within the study area for the final EIS, so it's outside the scope and would require additional planning work.
This is one of those where I'll confess to feeling frustrated because this parcel is owned by a Jewish synagogue that would love to be able to build affordable housing on this site.
But because it's not within the scope of the EIS is difficult for us to include here in the final proposal.
So there are going to be times like that where we have good ideas that require additional analysis that unfortunately just won't be able to make it into this time.
Map 4-8 is 2315 Northeast 65th.
This is a request to consolidate a parcel that is currently split zoned.
So the northern half of the parcel is currently in a neighborhood commercial zone where the southern half is currently zoned single family.
The single family portion was not considered in the study area for the EIS.
It would require additional And this is an example of the type of guidance in a companion resolution that may request that the executive look at edge conditions and where there are split zone parcels and come back with a proposal to resolve some of those challenges.
Map 4-9 relates to the Roosevelt Urban Village Proposed Urban Village Boundary Expansion Area.
This request would suggest not expanding the urban village boundary or rezoning properties where the new Ravenna Cowan North Historic District overlaps with the proposed Roosevelt Urban Village Boundary Expansion.
So rather than rezoning that area from single family to RSL to leaving it as 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 zone.
So the proposal is to go from a commercial district with a 40-foot height limit to 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 4-11 is a vacant lot at the intersection of 50th and 9th 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 255 feet.
This was not an option contemplated in the EIS, so would require additional study.
Similarly, map 4-12, 4706 to 4716 9th Avenue Northeast.
The request is to increase the proposed LR2 with an M suffix to LR3 with an M1 suffix.
And that was the only option contemplated.
The next option, map 4-13, 45-16 to 46-28 Union Bay Place.
The request is to increase the proposal that would go from a commercial zone with a 40-foot height limit to a commercial zone with a 55-foot height limit.
The requested amendment would make that a neighborhood commercial zone with a 75-foot height limit, which is not an option contemplated in the EIS.
Maps 4-14 through 4.17 have a similar theme, so I'll describe those together.
These all relate to the Wallingford 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, and this would be, is an option contemplated in the EIS.
And we can skip to map 418, which is the final map in the District 4 series.
This relates to the eastern edge of the Eastlake Urban Village, and the amendment would increase the proposal rather than going from low-rise 3 to low-rise 3 with an M suffix to the mid-rise zone, which is an option in the contemplated in the EIS and would help sort of step down the proposed heights in the East Lake Urban Village.
So the most height would be on the eastern edge, stepping down towards the western shoreline.
So thus concludes District 4.
Quick question on that.
Please.
Maybe just a typo on the bottom of that.
It says proposed zoning LRS.
That is just a typographical error.
It should be low-rise 3.
Could 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 allow them to do affordable housing.
Is there anything creative we could do there to say if the additional work is done or whatever it would take to have the environmental impact statement expanded that we would consider that?
What are our next options?
Clearly, around the city, we're trying to do everything we can to expand affordable housing options.
So can you help us?
So there are a number of ways the council could could approach providing this direction because it was just outside of the study area in the EIS it would be difficult to accomplish as part of this legislation.
I think as council members are contemplating what to include in that companion resolution and how to provide direction to the executive, It will be important to sort of prioritize the areas that you want to consider first.
You'll see as we're moving through each district, there are a number of places where there are potential proposals for affordable housing projects and that type of thing.
It may be that 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 is for those areas.
Thank you.
Council Member Bragg.
Council Member Bagshaw, in a few moments I will have a similarly situated parcel in Greenwood.
We should talk more about, I've been convinced unfortunately that I don't think it makes sense to try to force it through in this one because I just don't think it will hold up.
But I do think it's a priority and would love to be collecting all the ones around the city that fit in there.
They're kind of geographically isolated, so I'm not sure how to streamline that process, but it would be great if we could find a path to that.
Yeah, one of the things we've contemplated in the resolution is to allow for self-determination by district.
So, issues that might come up in District 4 could be focused on in a section of the resolution that is focused on District 4. But we also know that we're going to have a lot of things that crosscut district boundaries, Council Member O'Brien.
So, a section that focuses on, analysis from environmental review that would expedite the creation of affordable housing and setting aside some particular parcels or some particular geographies could very well lend itself to its own section of companion resolution.
So lots more to come on that.
Thank you.
So shall we move along to District 6?
Yes.
Absolutely.
Anything you'd like to say to kick us off, Council Member O'Brien?
Jump in.
All right, so there are 15 known amendments or potential amendments for District 6. I'll walk through each of these.
I was looking through the maps just a minute ago, and I noticed that there are some places where the narrative doesn't necessarily match what's proposed, and so I'll correct those errors as we go along here.
So moving along here to the very top of District 6, almost near the boundary with District 5. There's a proposal from a property owner who has property that's kind of near where the QFC, I believe it is there on Holman Road, who would like to be included in the rezone area.
Unfortunately, it's a single family zoned area that was not covered by the final environmental impact statement, and so it's probably beyond the scope of what the council can achieve through this process.
Moving a little bit further south to just outside of the Crown Hill residential urban village, There is a block immediately to the northeast of the Crown Hill residential urban village that's not proposed as part of the Crown Hill expansion area, urban village expansion area.
There are some residents of that block who are proponents for including it in the urban village expansion area and also for upzoning it to something other than the current single family zone designation.
Similarly, this was not studied in the EIS and is probably outside of the scope of what council can consider through this process.
I'll just note that there's a planning process that's going on for Crown Hill right now.
And so at least for Crown Hill, there is on the horizon another process that these neighbors can avail themselves of for potential future regulatory changes.
So moving into Crown Hill itself, there are, let's see.
About 12 potential amendments proposed here.
The first has to do with an area that is just north and west of Crown Hill Park.
It's proposed its current zoning a single family of 5,000.
The proposal is for this entire area to be low-rise one.
There's a proposed amendment to change this to RSL.
I think there have been some further thinking about what a potential amendment for this area could look like.
One option would be to have the eastern block, I'm sorry, the western block go to RSL.
have some portion of the middle block go to low-rise and potentially have part of the block face or a portion of the block also be RSL and to maintain the low-rise zoning on the far eastern block there in 6.3.
Colleagues, I was out doing a walking tour with a handful of community members in Crown Hill this past weekend, and Quito was there too.
Thank you for joining us out there, Quito.
Kind of on that corner across from Crown Hill Park and adjacent to some of the neighborhood commercial to the south, I will likely be interested in coming in there with a pencil and drawing a low rise section to maintain, and then the rest of it going to RSL.
And so we'll continue to work on that.
But there's some kind of hybrid there, as Ketil mentioned.
But I believe at the moment seems to have support of most of the community members there, kind of a split.
All right, so moving on to potential change 6-4.
This is for a currently single-family zoned area that is just to the east of the commercial core there along 15th and north of Northwest 85th.
The MHA proposal for this area is for it to be low-rise 1M1.
A potential amendment would be to lower that to a residential small lot.
Moving on here to 6-5.
Similarly, it's an area, 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 block from low-rise 2M1 to low-rise 1M1.
The current zoning is single-family 5,000.
Just to the west of that, there is about a block and a half, well, a block and a half depth of an area that is proposed to go to low-rise 2. under the MHA proposal, a potential amendment for the council to consider is to go to residential small lot for this area.
Moving now to the east side of the Crown Hill residential urban village, so the east side of the, on the east side of the commercial core, here's a proposal that is very similar to what you saw in the west, which is to reduce the proposed zoning under MHA, which is LR1M1 to residential small lot.
As you'll notice that there's kind of a theme here of stepping down to residential small lot at the edges of the Crown Hill Urban Village, and adjusting the transitions accordingly towards the center.
Area 6-8 on the west side now, 15th Avenue Northwest, this would be a change from low-rise 2M1, which is what's proposed under the MHA proposal, to low-rise 1, so a slightly different transition.
And area 6-9, this would be a change from low-rise 1, which is what's proposed in the M1 proposal, to residential small lot.
So it's generally a transition from 15th Avenue Northwest to more intense zoning in the neighborhood, commercially zoned areas, to residential small lot at the edges.
Area 6-10, similar proposal going from low-rise 1 to residential small lot.
And then 6-11 going from low-rise 2 to low-rise 1. Before I move on here, there's a proposal, there's a proposed change that's not noted here that the council could consider that was discussed on Saturday, and that would be to go higher, generally at the intersection of Northwest 85th Street and 15th Avenue Northwest.
Finally, I asked for the MHA proposal, studied heights up to 75 feet there, so there's the opportunity to do more at that intersection.
And that's something that seems to have support, and certainly I support it, and it's consistent with kind of the overarching values we're trying to achieve.
In addition to that, I'm not sure what map you have up there.
Yeah, just to the west of that, along 85th, there's a orange section that's in the hash marks that is on the current map that is proposed to go to NC75.
And I may bring an amendment to lower that to 55. So again, changing a big chunk from 55 to 75, and then a small chunk from 75 back to 55 to follow more of the step down from the center of the village there.
So leaving Crown Hill now and moving over to Greenwood Fenny, there's a proposal here, I think this is what Councilmember O'Brien was talking about earlier, from the Boys and Girls Club to rezone a single-family zone site to a low-rise or something higher.
This is an area that was not studied as part of an urban village expansion for the Greenwood Fenny.
neighborhood nor was it studied for MHA implementation in the FEIS.
So this may not be an option that's available to the council members through this process.
And similar to Councilmember Johnson, what you spoke about in your district, this parcel is, I'm sure it's under contract or sold now from the Boys and Girls Club to Bellwether Housing.
They have an agreement to build housing above a redone Boys and Girls Club.
Kind of a win-win, my understanding, at least in preliminary outreach, is that the neighborhood's pretty supportive of it.
But unfortunately, the study wasn't done to include that.
For a variety of reasons, I think I'd be anxious to put that on an accelerated path, as you and Council Member Begichoff suggested.
So moving on now here to close to Green Lake.
This is not part of any urban village.
This proposal by a property owner to change the zone designation from a low-rise 1M to low-rise 3M2.
This is an area that was studied through the MHA proposal and is part of the FEIS.
Unfortunately, low-rise 3M2 was not studied as part of that process, so it's not an option available to council members here.
Getting into Ballard now, there is a proposal by a property owner to rezone a lot or two that is actually outside of the Ballard urban village expansion area to change the zoning of a single-family zone parcel to a residential small lot or low-rise.
This is also not an option that's available to council members through this process.
The next one, however, is this is a block that's part of the Ballard, the proposed Ballard urban village expansion under the MHA proposal.
This would go to low-rise 1M1.
There's an interest by some neighbors to go to a slightly less intensive zone, the residential small lot zone.
So that's it for District 6.
Any final thoughts, Council Member Ryan?
Okay.
Let's proceed to your district, Council Member Bagshaw.
Anything you'd like to kick us off with?
No, I'd just like to hear from the experts.
Okay, moving on to District 7. I'll just note that this is a shorter list in part because much of this district has gone through separate processes to implement MHA, including downtown, Southlake Union, uptown, and Chinatown International District.
So it is a smaller portion of the district that's under consideration in this legislation.
The first one, 7-1, is an area near the park, and the request is to not upzone this area in order to preserve the light and shadowing on the park.
Map 7-2 relates to the Upper Queen Anne Urban Village at the intersection of Boston and Queen Avenue North.
This is a request to reduce the proposed 75 foot height in a neighborhood commercial zone to maintain the 40 foot height requirement but adding the suffix.
I will note that I don't believe that this is a zone available currently in the proposal.
And adding the M suffix typically does result or in all cases would result in increasing the capacity of that zone.
Map 7-3 is the area along West Gailer Street in the Upper Queen Anne Urban Village.
And similarly, the request is to reduce the proposed heights.
They're proposed at either 55 or 75 feet, and the request is to step those down a bit to address the edge conditions, because at least the northern half of the black block is surrounded by single-family zoning.
And all of these requested changes would be within the scope of the EIS.
Council Member Bryan has a question.
I think it relates to the first topic.
Yeah, Ali, on the page that shows 7-1, I guess page 98, it says current zoning LR3-RC, proposed zoning LR3-RC, and proposed amendment no up zone.
Mm-hmm.
So the request is to not allow any increased development capacity.
So when the proposal is to keep the same zoning designation but add the M suffix, that's where development capacity is achieved through changes to the development standards.
So the M suffix adds a little bit more floor area that's allowed, a little bit more height than what was previously allowed.
to not allow that additional development capacity means it wouldn't be up zoned and MHA would not be in place on that property.
Understood.
Okay.
So if I'm correct, my understanding is the broad intent across MHA is that the low rise zones would all be changed to low rise zone Ms. And so this request would be to essentially hang on to a relic LR3 zone where there may be a different path to achieve that same goal.
I don't know.
Yeah, so it would be just maintaining the existing provisions for that zone as well as the new provisions with the M suffix in the zone.
It would also be one of very few properties in the city that have a low rise designation without an M suffix.
So essentially it would be one of the few places in the city where multifamily housing is permitted, but there would be no affordability requirement associated with any new development.
Understood.
Okay, thank you.
That concludes our tour of Districts 4, 6, and 7, folks.
Any further questions for Allie or Quito before we turn it over to public comment?
Any final things that you guys would like to add?
I think one thing I would just note in what I should have mentioned in response to Council Member Bagshaw's question earlier on other options for some of these areas where Council Members may want to have made an amendment, but it was outside the study area.
There's also a contract rezone path that is available to individual property owners where they can pursue zoning change on a property independent of a legislative action.
It still comes before the council, but that is an option available too.
property owners.
And then I would just reemphasize that we will be working to get the notice out.
So 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 to date, it would be great if you could get in touch with any one of the land use team on central staff and let us know so we make sure we are covering 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.
Okay.
Thanks, Allie.
Thanks, Ketel.
So we have about 25 people that have signed up to give public comment.
You'll each be given two minutes.
When I call your name, please come forward to one of the microphones in the front of the auditorium.
We'll start with Ruth Danner and then David Moody and David Nugent.
Ruth, are you here?
Okay.
How about David Moody?
David, you're going to be followed by David Nugent and then Brittany Bollet.
Good afternoon, Council, and good to see you again, Councilman O'Brien.
Our colleagues have left.
I was going to ask them to bring up page 87 off 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 and Northeast, you have two large apartment buildings, the Whittier Heights Tiny Village and then the Home Street Bank, an alley, and then on the opposite side of the block are 13 parcels.
One of those parcels is currently listed, another four are currently being shopped off list, and with the impact of those four parcels being shopped off list, another three could be added or under consideration.
We know that in the late 2025 to 2030, we're gonna have transit, the urban village is going to be well-developed, and at the moment, that half of the a block between 80th and 83rd is part and parcel.
It's currently going to be amended, or the plan is to LR2M1.
And I think that leaving it as such would be a real loss for our plans to develop, take care of our community, and deal with housing as we perceive it to be in that area.
Obviously, we have some very large developments going on north of 85th.
But this is an opportunity right now with 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-ins and, you know, really have them addressed one at a time.
If we address that half block in a manner that I think really takes the vision that council has, the council for the urban village takes in light of the transit.
I think we have an excellent opportunity.
Thank you, David.
I wish I had known you were coming to the neighborhood this weekend.
I would have loved to walk with you and continue our conversation.
I can come back, David.
Thank you.
Thank you, David.
We'll be, let's just get in touch.
Fantastic.
Yeah.
I want to learn more about your specifics.
David Nugent, I presume?
Yes.
David, you're going to be followed by Brittany Bollet.
Hi, I'm David Nugent.
I support HALA and MHA and also higher density and briefly had the opportunity to meet Council Member O'Brien over the weekend, just having to stumble on to the group that was just happening to look at our specific neighborhood.
Our specific neighborhood is under the alternative map, is currently at, we're at 6-3.
I guess we're not bringing it up on the map, but anyway, we are designated at low-rise one, and the, suggestion was to go to residential small lot, but our neighbors all got together.
So I'm representing about five or six neighbors who all got together and contacted Council Member O'Brien's office this week to keep our zoning at LR1 rather than go to single residential small lot.
So that particular block is very exposed to a lot of commercial, we're right next to Dick's and McDonald's and I look at mobile gas stations and stuff.
So, and we have a lot of traffic with the Crown Hill Center and whatnot.
So I think that that block, specifically I believe, this is my opinion, is that whole block of 14th Ave between 92nd and 95th should be residential, sorry, LR1.
along with 92nd, that's my feeling.
Anyway, again, thank you for your time.
Thank you, David.
Brittany, you're going to be followed by Megan Cruz.
Good afternoon, Council.
I am here this afternoon as a resident of District 7 and specifically of Queen Anne.
I am a single-family homeowner.
I feel very fortunate to live where I live.
I love my neighborhood.
I love walking to the grocery store.
I love transit.
I love the parks.
I love the restaurants.
I love my neighbors.
I want more of them.
Please maintain the originally suggested up zones in the MHA.
I would like to share my neighborhood with more people.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Megan Murphy, you're going to be a little bit later.
Megan Cruz is next.
Megan Cruz, you're going to be followed by Alex Zimmerman and then Judy Benditch.
Okay, thank you.
I'm here today to talk about point three of the hearing examiner's mandate to, with respect to MHA, to look at the environmental impacts on historic landmarks.
I'm a resident of a historic landmark in downtown Seattle.
And we are in support of MHA, but we are being threatened by a development that's quite oversized to our building across a narrow alley.
It's two different zones right back to back, and we have been through design review processes, but the codes and legislation on the book are not being addressed at design review.
So we're asking that this legislation address that and create some strong protections so that the next generation of stewards 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 light and air corridors.
It's going to plunge us into darkness.
And the second is shared alley resources.
Our building is so old it didn't come with parking.
Didn't think about it in those days.
But we rely on that alley and the project behind us, 50 stories, 459 studio apartments that will have roughly 1,200 cars coursing through the alley.
They want to make that their main entrance, the alley their main entrance.
And that will totally destroy our ability to put out garbage or maintain our building.
So again, this is a big picture.
And if we want to preserve our history, we've got to take active steps.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I'm not seeing Alex Zimmerman.
Judith Benditch, we get a reprieve for just a moment.
We all get a reprieve.
Good afternoon.
I'm Judith Benditch and I'm here on behalf of Friends of Ravenna Cowan.
And I had already handed to Mr. Ahn and I have distributed to each of you a petition that comes from people who live in the new historic district, which is called Ravenna Cowan North.
It's a National Historic District.
It's on the National Register of Historic Places as well as the State Register of Historic Places.
And this is a little map.
I know you can't all see it closely, but the proposed upzoning will take out the entire Cowan section and part of the expansion area.
So basically the name Ravenna Cowan North would become a non-entity.
And people here who live here, you may not know this, but that area, the whole district, has about 20% affordable housing now.
People have repurposed their homes.
There are many apartments there.
There are subdivisions in the apartments.
There are duplexes, and there are daddoos.
And many of these daddoos are replicas of the homes themselves, because the people here want to maintain that architectural heritage.
The whole area was established in 1906 by Charles Cowan and he dedicated the park, Cowan Park.
It's contiguous to Ravenna Park.
This goes along the Ravenna Boulevard.
Ravenna Boulevard is an Olmsted Boulevard.
It has enormous potential actually for making money.
The department, because visitors come here all the time, So we do not want to see the entire, we want to see that the entire district remains intact and a unified whole, which means to maintain the single family homes that are there.
And I was pleased to see some of the recommendations that say you can upzone.
Maybe it wasn't studied in the MHA process, but there are areas within the Roosevelt Urban Village where upzoning makes more sense.
This doesn't.
So I'm out of time.
But please read the petition, because it incorporates the national law and the principles that apply, as well as the numbers of people who really, really support this.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Rick McLaughlin has signed up next, but I don't see Rick here anymore.
We'll get back around to him when he comes back around.
Corey Crocker, you're next, followed by Esther Bartfield.
Rick went to a doctor's appointment.
He thought this was going to last two hours to be able to speak out.
Okay.
Okay.
Good afternoon, council members.
My name is Cory Crocker.
I'm from the U District.
And as you know, the U District was the first area of the city up zone to include MHA with the highest heights of any neighborhood outside of downtown at 320 feet.
Our neighborhood contributes 9% to MHA, while South Lake Union contributes just 2%.
The U District has demonstrated its contribution to MHA and welcomes greater density.
but it must have the concurrent investments and protections to keep it sustainable, equitable, and livable.
Working with the council, the U District rezoned delayed including the app to study the impacts on small businesses first.
Through companion resolution 31732, the city agreed to a number of displacement mitigation strategies, and two years later, we still wait for some of that help from the city.
In the meantime, however, our small business is organized.
We raised funds, and we conducted a door-to-door survey of 123 small businesses along the Ave, and we discovered that a majority are minority or woman-owned, and they employ many minorities and immigrants.
They're small.
They're even micro in size, owner-operated.
They rent their spaces, and therefore, they're highly vulnerable to displacement and development.
In summary, the U District has already been zoned to contribute proportionally the most support to MHA of any urban center or village.
The city has still not studied the impacts on small businesses as promised, and our small businesses are in danger of being displaced with potentially devastating repercussions for our community.
We request a meeting with our council member, Rob Johnson, please, to collaborate on a compromise solution to help us keep our main shopping street at a human scale.
We would like to save the ave.
Please help us.
Thank you.
Esther, you're going to be followed by Suzanne Grant and then Patience Malala.
Good afternoon.
My name is Esther Bartfeld.
I live in the Finney Ridge neighborhood.
And I testified last week with some general recommendations for scaling back MHA to keep it more in keeping with the comp plan ideals of preserving density in the urban villages and also protecting transitions between zones.
Today, I'd like to explain why I think I would urge you to exempt the Finney Ridge corridor from MHA.
This is the one street of Greenwood Avenue in the urban village and Finney Avenue below that.
because of some of its unique constraints in transportation and geography.
Specifically, when we look at Finney Ridge now, it can already absorb more than double its current capacity with the existing zoning.
It's just starting to be redeveloped and there's a lot of older housing stock that has a lot of larger affordable units more than would be put in place if these were redeveloped under the current MHA proposals.
Next, a very real constraint is the transportation constraints.
We have one bus route, the number five, that goes north-south.
There are no crosstown buses.
The nearest ones are at 80th and 45th.
There's no way to have one in between because Green Lake is in the way.
And so that means there's an increased dependence on cars in Phinney Ridge because we don't have a lot of options other than that bus.
The other is the current zoning.
We have all of the NC 240 parcels back up to single family zones, and four stories sharing a backyard with a single family zone is enough.
We don't need to up zone those to five stories.
This doesn't happen very many places in the city, but I would recommend that you not allow that anywhere, specifically not.
in Finney Ridge.
And some of the LR3 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 detailed letters and some maps earlier today, so I hope you'll take a look at that and consider that and my other letter from last week as you move forward.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Porfield.
Suzanne Grant, you're going to be followed by Patience Malaba and then Mark Sherberg.
Density needs to be purposeful.
I urge you to repurpose and save the older historic homes and add more structures in LR2, LR1 instead of the single family.
When you add that M suffix, you are effectively removing protection for trees.
Why isn't the city requiring the same tree canopy in LR2, LR1 miterized as they get for as single family homes get?
Don't the kids living in multifamily housing also deserve to have a place to play?
If not a backyard, then where's the money in your ordinance for more block playgrounds?
Where might it be safe to play without constant adult supervision?
Where do people go to garden?
What is left for the bees to pollinate?
Where is the money designated in your ordinance for more pea patches?
Here's one exceptional tree on Queen Anne Hill that is in imminent danger due to the city allowing too many structures to be built to replace one single family home.
The changes that you are considering with the floor ratio will do many trees like this, of which there are a dwindling number in our city once named the Emerald City, now what I think of as the Concrete City.
Removing the requirement for tree retention and onsite planning does not help provide affordable housing.
It does not help solve our biggest problem of climate change.
It does not line up with the stated goals of the city's desired canopy coverage and stronger, not weaker tree protection.
Please keep the existing tree retention or replanting requirements.
Seattle must have both density and trees.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Patience.
Good afternoon, Council Members.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
I am here as a District 7 resident and also as representing the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County and our coalition Seattle for Everyone.
I'm going to highlight two things, which is a watered down vision of the mandatory housing affordability is not going to help meet the growing community need, as you all know.
And 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 were presented and as were discussed do not represent that value and we ask that as you move forward in adopting these amendments you consider and prioritize maximum affordable housing goals.
District 4, 6 and 7 are largely high opportunity areas and we ask that you ensure that there are more housing options in those areas.
One thing that we really want to urge you to do is to take a long-range view as you make those decisions.
There are new opportunities that are coming up with some transit investments through the West Seattle Ballard Link extension as well.
All those coming projects will be an opportunity for us to be making sure we're increasing opportunities for more people.
So we ask that as you make those decisions, you prioritize all of Seattle and making sure that we're an inclusive city.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mark, you're going to be followed by Dave Moehring and Chris Hubbard.
Two recommendations pertaining to affordability and livability.
First, the City of Seattle should pay for the additional increase in property taxes resulting from the upzoning of all urban village parcels until the sale or development of such parcels.
And 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% of all development fees back to the urban village from which the fee originates will help Seattle deliver on its pledge of maintaining livability within the urban villages.
The city should remit these funds quarterly to the urban villages of origin so that all urban villagers can vote directly on how they wish the funds to be invested within their particular community.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mark.
David, are you here?
So everybody's sick this time of year, I get it.
I've got little kids.
Chris Hubbard.
Chris, are you still here?
Chris, you're going to be followed by Bonnie Williams and then Frank Fay.
So I'd like to consider or have you consider increasing the height and density closer to transit and to ease up further out.
as some of these amendments discuss for two reasons.
Once you approve the current proposal and developers do what you're hoping and build, any additional housing that could have been created in the unbuilt upper floors will be lost forever.
Those buildings are not gonna be torn down when you later up-zone and go a little bit higher, so we kind of have one opportunity to make density around transit, and if we don't do it right, we're gonna lose the opportunity.
The second one is, Once you up-zone what is currently single-family, you put the character of those neighborhoods at risk.
The point of MHA is to create additional affordable housing.
It doesn't require you to declare open season on historic houses.
Once we've tapped out the potential capacity close into transit, you always have the option to, if that's not sufficient, to expand the area and to continue to up zone further and further into what is currently idyllic single-family neighborhoods.
But once you do that, that character is gone.
You're never going to get it back.
So what you're doing with this MHA is great.
We need more housing, but I would like you to consider the long-term implications of what you're doing because it's going to have a huge impact potentially on just the character of Seattle and why we live here.
We don't live here to live in Seoul, right?
We live here because it's Seattle.
It has character.
It's a nice place.
You can walk around and it's pretty.
It's not just solid apartment buildings.
So we can have both.
But the way you go about it, you can poison the well while you're trying to achieve the admirable goal of creating more units.
So please be careful.
Bonnie, you're going to be followed by Frank Fay and then Doug Campbell.
Good afternoon.
I'm not familiar with the Wallingford changes that were up on the screen today.
Wallingford Community Council did submit a map comp plan amendment in 2017. it sort of got lost so we resubmitted it and our neighborhood has advocated very actively for the last couple years.
We think the up zones are two highly targeting single-family homes in Wallingford.
There's inventories that we've done and there is a big mix of multi-family small-scale housing units, triplexes, duplexes, etc. in addition to single-family homes that we've counted There are at least 700 single family homes targeted from 40th to 50th from I-5 to Aurora.
That takes in a lot of territory.
It is going to 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 the FEIS and the remand on the historic resource section is very important for you to consider because you have not had the information that is pertinent to upzoning to the degree that you're upzoning.
There are, Wallingford is known as a especially, especially historic neighborhood with a lot of craftsmen home and different styles of great architecture.
I was in on the appeal, and it isn't a negative thing necessarily when you consider that the historic resources citywide were being overlooked.
So we have pointed out a lot of information that needs to be made public.
You said you're going to do an addendum end of January.
You need that information before you decide on these map final, you know, final decisions on these maps.
I have 600 all sorts of red dots inside and outside the urban village.
We've prepared this from surveys of Wallingford.
So what we're saying is don't destroy our neighborhood.
Do not displace the single families that live there with too high a target.
Some urban villages are not, there's variances as to the up zones of single family by urban village.
Some urban villages are targeted with a greater degree.
So please consider that, try to create the balance that people are talking about and preserve the historic resources.
Thank you.
Frank?
I'm going to pass.
In the words of Council President Harrell, that's leadership.
Doug, you're going to be followed by David Ward and then Charles Baumann.
So my name is Doug Campbell.
I'm owner of Bulldog News on University Way.
I've been in business there for 35 years.
I'm here to speak in favor of removing the Ave from the up zone in District 4. And in support of that, I've asked us to reflect on Rob Johnson's remark at the end of the last committee hearing where he said, My God, we're going to have a new Target store in the neighborhood, and yet it's only going to be three stories.
In fact, it's going to be two stories.
And isn't that a shame in terms of the capturing of MHA that we have lost by not having the MHA in place when that development happened?
But in fact, since the U District up zone two years ago, there are already nine towers, most going to 200 or 320 feet.
either in the permit process or proposed for our neighborhood.
And many more towers are possible and likely.
Those are mostly residential towers.
And I submit to you, Rob, that those residents and the many additional workers who are going to be coming to our neighborhood, they're going to appreciate getting a little bit of sunlight in the evening on the main commercial street of our U District.
There are also 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 in a much different neighborhood.
So we'll lose those residents to our neighborhood.
So I speak in favor of removing the up zone.
It has not been studied in the official EIS for this proposal and amendment to that effect will be proposed by the deadline.
Thank you.
David?
David, you're going to be followed by Charles Baumann and then Maria Barrientos.
I would like to speak in favor of not upzoning the AAV as others before me have spoken.
It was not included in the FEIS and it should not be upzoned because of that.
I would also like to speak that 80% of Seattle's census tracts had at least 10 to 15% of cost-burdened or extremely cost-burdened households, and that includes in North Seattle.
So much of the up-zone that's going to be happening there is going to be removing people who are displacing people or cost-burdened.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Charles, you're going to be followed by Maria Barrientos, and then Megan Murphy.
All right, thank you.
Yeah, I'm Charlie Baumann.
I'm with Barrientos Ryan.
First, I just want to offer my support for the overall MHA up zone and thank you all for the work you've done on it to date.
And also encourage you to, you know, get this passed expeditiously.
Let's not lose the opportunity to get some affordable housing provided during this development cycle.
Specifically, in regards to District 7, I'm also requesting that Council reject the proposed amendment 7-2 and proceed with the MHA preferred alternative to zone the site to NC75.
This is the center of the Queen Anne Urban Village.
It's an ideal location to provide more density, creating a mixed-income community, and provide much-needed affordable housing throughout the city.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Maria, followed by Megan.
Hi, my question is why?
Why is council considering reducing up zones in important urban areas?
Why can't lower income residents in our city live in dense urban neighborhoods where all the services and transit are located?
I am advocating keeping all the up zones and density in as many areas as possible.
I was on the HALA committee.
I deeply believe in affordable housing, particularly in our dense neighborhoods.
I am particularly advocating today to keep all the increased heights in the Queen Anne Urban Village.
Councilman Bagshaw, I know I've communicated with you.
Even without the MHA on-site performance in this neighborhood, the reductions proposed in the amendments will eliminate 50 to 60 MFTE units that could be built in this neighborhood.
This is an area with great transit and neighborhood amenities, and 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, area 4-13, please upzone this small half block to match what is proposed across the street to create more affordable housing units.
Thank you.
Actually, I added one sentence.
I do believe there can never be too much or enough affordable housing in any urban neighborhood.
Megan, you're our final speaker.
Hi, concerning the issue of displacement, people who own the property in a single family zone are already like have so much more financial gain than low income people to hold a property lease.
So the single family zones were drawn up a long time ago, when the city was a lot less crowded.
And there is even different laws about who could own property in the city, according to race, and people had larger families back then, I'm pretty sure.
Now, global warming is an issue and there's an equity lens.
So I think it makes sense to rezone together with each other.
This is kind of fine comb through the neighborhoods and imagining what it could be.
and involving a lot of feedback because I know there's some areas in town where they're called the McMansions and like empty property, not very many people got together and discussed it and the resources are being used to fund these.
This I think is more elegant.
I saw Maria Nordman, at the Henry Art Gallery, and she was designing these kind of units, smaller even, in the 1970s, and there was colored windows on each side, and you could shut the curtains so that the light would, she was thinking about that, and I think that's a really profound form of art.
Anyways, I think it should be 20% units affordable instead of 7%.
I know John Grant talked about that when he was running for student council, I just really appreciate that this process, I think it's 6,000 units in 10 years, which is not enough.
And I think wasting money on other fetishes like space travel or war is a total waste of money when it could be used for housing and education.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Murphy.
That concludes the individuals who signed up to give public comment today, so I'll close the public comment portion.
I do want to recognize, though he didn't sign up for public comment, it's nice to have you in the audience today, former Councilmember David Della.
Always a pleasure to see our former colleagues here.
This concludes the meeting for today, focused on Districts 4, 6, and 7. We'll be back here at 9.30 on Wednesday morning to talk about Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5. See you then.
Thanks.