City of Seattle - OPCD - MHA FEIS Appendices 2017

APPENDICES.
CITY OF SEATTLE
Office of Planning & Community Development
CITYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
OF MANDATORY HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY (MHA)
Final Environmental Impact Statement
November 9, 2017
APPENDIX A
CITY OF SEATTLE GROWTH
AND EQUITY ANALYSIS.
Available online at:
https://www.seattle.gov/DPD/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2427615.pdf
MHA Final EIS
Nov. 2017
A.2
Growth and Equity
Analyzing Impacts on Displacement and Opportunity
Related to Seattles Growth Strategy
Seattle
May 2016 Office of Planning &
Community Development
Growth and Equity
Analyzing Impacts on Displacement and Opportunity Related to Seattles Growth Strategy
May 2016
cover image flickr.com/photos/lytfyre/5322744274

above Seattle Department of Neighborhoods
2
Growth and Equity
Analyzing Impacts on Displacement and Opportunity
Related to Seattles Growth Strategy
Introduction
The City of Seattle is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, the document that
guides how the City will manage the 70,000 housing units and 115,000 new jobs expected
to be added in Seattle over the next 20 years, as well as establish what kind of city we want
to be. The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate four
alternative ways for distributing that amount of growth throughout the city. The EIS informs
decisions about selecting a preferred growth pattern and identify methods for addressing
undesired impacts. This document is a companion to that EIS, providing analysis of some of
the ways that the growth strategies could affect the citys marginalized populations.
Social equity has been one of the core values guiding the Comprehensive Plan since its
Social equity has
adoption in 1994. The Citys Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) began in 2005. Its mis-
been one of the core
sion is to overcome institutional racism by changing City policies and practices. Its vision is values guiding the
a future where: Comprehensive Plan
since its adoption in
Race does not predict how much a person earns or their chance of being homeless or 1994.
going to prison;
Every schoolchild, regardless of language and cultural differences, receives a quality
education and feels safe and included; and
African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans can expect to live as long as white
people.
In 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution 31164 directing City departments to focus
on achieving racial equity in the community in specific focus areas, including equitable
development. In 2014, Mayor Murray issued Executive Order 2014-02 reaffirming the Citys
commitment to equitable development.
In 2015, the City Council unanimously adopted the Mayors Resolution 31577 confirming
that the City of Seattles core value of race and social equity is one of the foundations on
which the Comprehensive Plan is built. This resolution advances the goal of reducing racial
and social disparities through the Citys capital and program investments. The Office of
Planning and Community Development (OPCD) and the RSJI Core Team are partnering to
implement the resolutions directives by including new policies directly related to achieving
equity through growth, developing equity measures of growth, and conducting this equity
analysis of the growth alternatives.
3
Growth and Equity
May 2016
The objective of the Growth & Equity Analysis is to inform elected officials and the public
about:
Potential future displacement impacts of the recommended Growth Strategy on
marginalized populations; and
Strategies for mitigating identified impacts and increasing access to opportunity for
marginalized populations.
Key Terms
Marginalized populations: Persons and communities of color, immigrants and refugees, En-
glish language learners, and those experiencing poverty. These communities are systemat-
ically blocked from or denied full access to various rights, opportunities, and resources that
are normally available to members of other groups and are fundamental to social integra-
tion within that particular group (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement,
democratic participation, and due process).
Access to opportunity: Living within walking distance or with transit access to services,
employment opportunities, amenities, and other key determinants of social, economic, and
physical well-being.
Displacement: The involuntary relocation of current residents or businesses from their cur-
rent residence. This is a different phenomenon than when property owners voluntarily sell
their interests to capture an increase in value. This analysis addresses both physical (direct)
and economic (indirect) displacement. Physical displacement is the result of eviction, ac-
quisition, rehabilitation, or demolition of property or the expiration of covenants on rent- or
income-restricted housing. Economic displacement occurs when residents and businesses
can no longer afford escalating rents or property taxes. Cultural displacement occurs when
people choose to move because their neighbors and culturally related businesses have left
the area.
Equitable Development: Public and private investments, programs, and policies in neigh-
borhoods taking into account past history and current conditions to meet the needs of
marginalized populations and to reduce disparities so that quality of life outcomes such
as access to quality education, living wage employment, healthy environment, affordable
housing and transportation, are equitably distributed for the people currently living and
working here, as well as for new people moving in.
This analysis distinguishes displacement from a related phenomenon, gentrification. Gen-

trification is a broad pattern of neighborhood change typically characterized by above-aver-
age increases in household income, educational attainment, and home values and/or rents.
These changes can contribute to displacement, but they can also benefit existing residents.
Displacement of existing residents can also occur without gentrification. Displacement and
gentrification are the result of a complex set of social, economic, and market forces at both
the local and regional scale.
4
Growth and Equity
May 2016
This analysis recognizes that people live multiple and layered identities. All historically
marginalized groups people of color, LGBTQ people, women, people with disabilities,
low-income households, to name a few experience systemic inequity. Many people and
communities, such as lesbians of color, live at the intersection of these identities and expe-
rience multiple inequities at once. It is important to respond to the intersecting ways that
barriers limit opportunities for people to reach their full potential. By focusing on race and
racism, the City of Seattle recognizes that we have the ability to impact all communities.
This focus is not based on the intent to create a ranking of oppressions (i.e. a belief that
racism is worse than other forms of oppression). For an equitable society to come into
being, government needs to challenge the way racism is used as a divisive issue that keeps
communities from coming together to work for change. The institutional and structural
approaches to addressing racial inequities can and will be applied for the benefit of other
marginalized groups.
Overarching Analytical Framework

The Growth & Equity Analysis looks at both people and places. It combines a traditional
EIS approach of analyzing potential impacts and identifying mitigation with the RSJI Racial
Equity Toolkit (RET), which assesses the benefits and burdens of policies, programs, and
investments for communities of color. Per the RSJI RET, the analysis includes a thorough de-
scription of desired equitable outcomes. In addition to identifying impacts and mitigation
associated with the recommended Growth Strategy in the Comprehensive Plan, the Growth
& Equity Analysis evaluates the opportunities for equitable development that the Growth
Strategy presents or misses.
The analysis seeks to answer the following questions:

Is the intensity of expected growth in particular urban centers and villages likely to
have an impact on displacement of marginalized populations?
Is the intensity of expected growth in particular urban centers and villages likely to
have an impact on marginalized populations access to key determinants of physical,
social, and economic well-being?
What strategies and levels of investment are necessary to mitigate the impacts of
expected growth and to maximize opportunities for equitable outcomes?
Figure 1 Visual representation of the overarching analytical framework
Establish outcomes Identify public

and categorize Identify potential mitigation
Review historical Evaluate existing
urban villages impacts of the strategies and
demographic conditions
using the equitable proposed growth opportunities to
trends
development strategy leverage private
typology development
Access to
Displacement Opportunity
Risk Index Index
5
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Historical Context
Critical to crafting policy and investment strategies to achieve equity is an understanding of
existing disparities and their historical origins.
Throughout Seattles history, certain populations and neighborhoods prospered at the

expense of others. Redlining and racially restrictive covenants limited where racially and
culturally distinct communities could live and where banks provided home mortgages.
Public subsidies and discriminatory real estate lending and marketing practices gave white
households substantial wealth in the form of home equity. Racialized housing patterns and
investment practices contributed to the wealth and poverty of households and neighbor-
hoods for multiple generations.
These place-based policies and investments also solidified social structures and cultural
identities. Community-based organizations arose to meet the needs of specific cultural
groups and neighborhoods. This continues today as immigrants and refugees settle in the
city and look to maintain their cultures alongside mainstream American culture.
Both the private and public sectors helped solidify the systemic structure of wealth and
Both the private and poverty in Seattle, and both have roles in influencing growth to achieve equitable out-
public sectors helped
solidify the systemic
comes. The private sector builds most of the housing and builds and operates most of
structure of wealth the businesses in Seattle, primarily in response to market demand. The public sectors
and poverty in Seattle, investments and regulations guide, serve, and control development to achieve a variety of
and both have roles
in influencing growth goals including an equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of growth. Supportive
to achieve equitable public policy and public investments can create community stability and economic mobility
outcomes.
opportunities. Public investments can meet the needs of marginalized populations when
the market will not and can help them benefit from future growth.
Demographic Trends
Before evaluating existing conditions and future impacts, it is helpful to take note of some
relevant historical trends and at least one example of displacement in Seattle.
DISPLACEMENT OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN SEATTLES CENTRAL DISTRICT
Though displacement is difficult to track, demographic changes at the neighborhood

level suggest when and where it has occurred. A study of the Central District found that in
1990 there were nearly three times as many black as white residents in the area, but by
2000, the number of white residents surpassed the number of blacks for the first time in
30 years.1 Given the net decline of 4,407 black residents in Seattle (2,405 from the Central
District alone) and the doubling and quadrupling of the black population in Renton and
Kent respectively between 1990-2000, the study concluded that African Americans are
moving southeast into Seattles Rainier Valley or beyond into Renton and other inner sub-
urbs. White residents in the Central District doubled during this period from 2,508 to 5,191.
1 Henry W. McGee, Jr. Seattles Central District, 1990-2006: Integration or Displacement. Urban Lawyer, Vol. 39, p. 2,
Spring 2007.
6
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Increases in educational attainment and income accompanied this racial demographic

inversion. Increases in renter housing cost burden and a dramatic increase in home values
were also documented by this report. For example a 1,270 square-foot single family, three
bedroom one bathroom home, was assessed by the county at a value of $5,000 in 1960,
$190,000 in 2001, $262,000 in 2003, and $355,000 in 2005.
The report does not determine whether this relocation of African Americans was volun-
tary or involuntary. However, a closer look at racial trends shows that groups least likely
to have the financial stability to absorb steep increases in the cost of housing experienced
the sharpest declines; specifically black renters, low-income black households, and young
black residents. Black renter-occupied households declined by 26% (460 households) while
black owner-occupied households declined by 19% (311 households). There were 965 fewer
black households reporting less than $25,000 in annual income in 2000 than in 1990. This
is in contrast to an almost identical increase of 968 white households reporting more than
$75,000 in annual income in 2000 than in 1990. While the white population under 39 years
old increased by 2,150, the black population under 39 years of age decreased by 2,070.
Seattles population is more diverse than in 1990. Decennial Census figures indicate that
persons of color increased from about 26 percent of Seattles population in 1990 to 34 per-
cent in 2010. In King County as a whole, the population of color grew much more dramati-
cally over the same period, from 15 percent to 31 percent.
Seattle has become a more international city. The percentage of Seattle residents born
outside the United States increased from roughly 13 percent in 1990 to 18 percent in 2010.
People of color are more likely to live inside an urban center or village. Census data show
that since 1990 the population of color has been about 10 percent higher inside urban cen-
ters and villages than outside. In 2010, persons of color were 41 percent of the population in
urban centers and villages compared to 30 percent of the population outside.
People of color make up a growing share of the population in urban centers and villag-
es as well as in the city as a whole. These increases have been primarily due to growing
shares of Asian and Hispanic or Latino populations. While the Black or African American
population in urban centers or villages was relatively constant between 1990 (20,048) and
2010 (21,802), it decreased from 14 percent to 11 percent of the total population within
urban centers and villages. In Seattle as a whole, the Black/African American population
declined in both relative and absolute terms from 51,948 or 10 percent of the population in
1990 to 48,316 or 8 percent in 2010. In King County as a whole, the Black/African American
population grew from 5.1 percent to 6.2 percent from 1990 to 2010.
Table 1 Urban centers and villages in Seattle with a decrease in population by race, 1990 to 2010
Black or African American Indian or Hispanic or

White Asian
American Alaska Native Latino
Number of urban centers or villages with an
3 8 1 26 0
absolute decrease in population (out of 30 total)
7
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Three urban villages where the Black or African American population decreased substan-
tially both in absolute and relative terms are 23rd & Union-Jackson, Columbia City, and
Madison-Miller. In 1990, Black or African American people were between 43 percent and
66 percent of the population in these urban villages; by 2010, their share had fallen to
between 16 percent and 31 percent. At the same time, several urban centers and villages
experienced significant increases in the share of people of color between 1990 and 2010.
These include Northgate (25 percent to 48 percent), Lake City (25 percent to 51 percent),
Aurora-Licton Springs (22 percent to 39 percent), South Park (37 percent to 68 percent), and
Westwood-Highland Park (40 percent to 61 percent). South Lake Union, where the total
population more than tripled over this 20-year period, also saw a large increase in the share
of people of color (14 percent to 33 percent).
Attachment A provides population counts by race for each urban center and village in 1990
and 2010. Figure 2 on the following page illustrates the change in the percentage of the pop-
ulation of color between 1990 and 2010 in each urban center and village.
8
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Figure 2 Urban centers and villages in Seattle with a decrease in population by race, 1990 to 2010
Persons of color include

Black/African American,
Asian, American Indian/
BITTER LAKE
LAKE CITY
Alaska Native, and
Hispanic/Latino.
NORTHGATE
AURORA
LICTON
SPRINGS
CROWN
HILL
GREENWOOD
PHINNEY RIDGE
GREEN
LAKE
ROOSEVELT
BALLARD
UNIVERSITY RAVENNA
DISTRICT
WALLINGFORD NORTHWEST
UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS
FREMONT
EASTLAKE
Change in share BALLARD

INTERBAY
NORTH END
UPPER
QUEEN
of people of color ANNE
by urban village
(percentage points) UPTOWN
SOUTH
LAKE UNION
CAPITOL HILL
MADISON
>15% decrease DENNY
TRIANGLE
MILLER
BELLTOWN
PIKEPINE
5 - 15% decrease
COMMERCIAL FIRST 12TH
CORE HILL AVENUE
5% decrease - 5% increase
23RD & UNION -
PIONEER JACKSON
5 - 15% increase SQUARE
CHINATOWN
INTERNATIONAL
DISTRICT
>15% increase
Manufacturing & NORTH
Industrial Center
RAINIER
ADMIRAL
NORTH
BEACON
HILL
GREATER
WEST SEATTLE
DUWAMISH
JUNCTION
COLUMBIA
CITY
MORGAN
JUNCTION
OTHELLO
SOUTH PARK
RAINIER
WESTWOOD BEACH
HIGHLAND
PARK
9
Growth and Equity
May 2016
An Equitable Development Framework for Growth

This section defines equitable outcomes and introduces a framework for mitigating and
leveraging growth to achieve these outcomes.
Defining an Equitable City

Establishing an equitable outcome and strategies to reduce disparities are a critical compo-
nent of the Racial Equity Toolkit. The following is the vision for an equitable Seattle
Equitable growth will be achieved when Seattle is a city with people of diverse cultures, races
and incomes and all people are thriving and able to achieve their full potential regardless of
race or means. Seattles neighborhoods will be diverse and will include the community an-
chors, supports, goods, services, and amenities people need to lead healthy lives and flourish.2
All marginalized people can attain those resources, opportunities, and outcomes that im-
prove their quality of life and enable them to reach their full potential. The city has a collec-
tive responsibility to address the history of inequities in existing systems and their ongoing
impacts in Seattle communities, leveraging collective resources to create communities of
opportunity for everyone, regardless of race or means.
Population and employment growth is a dynamic force that introduces change into the ur-
ban environment and can help transform Seattle into a more equitable city. Influencing the
locations and types of development can contribute to achieving equitable outcomes.
In an equitable approach to growth, the City views all policy, programs, and investments
through a race and social equity lens. This approach would manage growth to minimize
displacement of marginalized populations and increase their access to opportunity.
An Equitable Development Framework

A framework to A framework to achieve racial and social equity identifies two goals: (1) strong communities
achieve racial
and social equity
and people and (2) great places with equitable access. This means community stability and
identifies two goals: resilience in the face of displacement pressures and great neighborhoods throughout the
strong communities city that provide equitable access to all.
and strong people
In Seattles current context of rapid growth and escalating cost of living, market forces alone
will not be able to produce equitable growth. Displacement risk exists for marginalized pop-
ulations and will worsen without government action to create the conditions for community
stability and economic mobility. A scan of key determinants of social, physical, and eco-
nomic well-being indicates they are not equitably distributed and that many already do not
have the means to access what is necessary to flourish. This limited access to resources for
some will persist without government intervention to fill gaps and leverage market strength
to create equitable access to all neighborhoods.
2 Excerpt from Resolution 31577.

10
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Achieving equitable growth will require:

Implementation of programs and investments that are designed to create
community stability and economic mobility for current residents in areas where
new development could lead to displacement and where marginalized populations
currently lack access to opportunity.
Leveraging private-sector development to increase the supply and variety of
housing options to create equitable access to neighborhoods that already have key
determinants of well-being.
A public investment strategy that reflects need rather than a distribution based solely
on numbers of people or households.
Mitigation measures described in this analysis were derived from the Puget Sound Regional
Equity Networks Principles of Equitable Development. Seattle and other public institutions
have some of the tools to operationalize this equitable development framework. However,
new tools are necessary to fill gaps. Detailed sub-measures are provided in the Equitable
Development Implementation Plan.
The measures are designed to mitigate harm and improve outcomes for marginalized
populations. They operationalize many of the Citys goals and policies for capital invest-
ments and the provision of public servicesto eliminate racial and social disparities.3 This
requires coordinating and targeting City policies and investments first in neighborhoods
with the highest displacement risk and/or the lowest access to opportunity.
A mitigation strategy to distribute resources equitably, rather than equally, is necessary to

produce equitable outcomes. Though targeted to specific neighborhoods with the greatest
need, these measures will benefit all neighborhoods throughout the city. Similarly, some
measures should target specific marginalized populations with the greatest disparities,
such as unemployment among Black youth. These measures can and will be deployed to
also improve outcomes for the benefit of other marginalized populations.
Goal 1: Strong communities and people. Community stability and economic mobility in the
face of displacement pressures.
Strategy 1: Advance economic mobility and opportunity. Promote economic opportu-

nities for marginalized populations and enhance community cultural anchors. Provide
access to quality education, training, and living-wage career path jobs for marginalized
populations.
Strategy 2: Prevent residential, commercial, and cultural displacement. Enact policies

and programs that allow marginalized populations, businesses, and community organi-
zations to stay in their neighborhoods.
Strategy 3: Build on local cultural assets. Respect local community character, cultural di-
versity, and values. Preserve and strengthen cultural communities and build the capacity
of their leaders, organizations, and coalitions to have greater self-determination.
3 Excerpt from Resolution 31577.
11
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Strategy 4: Promote transportation mobility and connectivity. Prioritize investment in

effective and affordable transportation that supports transit-dependent communities
and provides equitable access to key determinants of well-being.
Goal 2: Great places with equitable access. A city with an equitable distribution of great
neighborhoods full of strong amenities that provide equitable access throughout.
Strategy 5: Develop healthy and safe neighborhoods. Create neighborhoods that en-
hance community health through access to public amenities (schools, parks, open spac-
es, complete streets, health care and other services), healthy affordable and culturally
relevant food, and safe and inviting environments for everyone.
Strategy 6: Equitable access to all neighborhoods. Leverage private redevelopment to ex-

pand the supply and variety of housing and employment choices, fill gaps in amenities,
and create equitable access to neighborhoods with high access to opportunity.
Existing Conditions
Data and Analytical Framework for Equity Analysis

The Growth & Equity Analysis combines data about demographics, economic conditions,
and the built environment. As shown in Figure 3, the analysis integrates these indicators
into composite indices of displacement risk and access to opportunity. The displacement
risk index identifies areas of Seattle where displacement of marginalized populations is
more likely to occur. The access to opportunity index identifies disparities in marginalized
populations access to some key determinants of well-being.
Figure 3 Indicators combined to create a composite index of displacement
1 2
Overlay indicators of Overlay education,
vulnerability, ameni- economic, transit,
10 00
ties, development civic infrastructure,

,0 00
,0
,0
%
75
0
%
00
50
20
30
0,
0
<
01
<
00
-
%
%
0,
40
-
50
20
15
0
01
00
-
,0
%
0,
50
75
1
31
0
20
00
00
-
0,
%
0,
10
1
41
25
0
00
%
00
50
0,
0,
1
15
0, - 30
00
>
0,
20
1
00
0
0,
00
25
30
potential, and and health data to

>
median rent to create the Access to

ove AM I
AM
create the Displace- Opportunity Index.

of
I
0%
%
t
12
75
ac
pill of
%
tr
>
80
<
S %
r
80
%
75
<
85
-
%
81
90
-
86
%
90
>
ment Risk Index.

0
ffer
10
k
Par
0
bu
20
-
1
k
-
Par
1
50
10
00
-
1
10
20
00
-
20
1
50
-
01
10
00
20
>
% % %
< 40 - 50 % < 55 %
40% - 60 55
-65 %
51%
% - 75
- 70 66 - 85
%
61% % 76 %
> 70 > 85
sit
an
ht sity f a
t ca p ed
il) y tr
o
en o tifi
ra b
r lig iver s
in
el el re s w
ity
m evel en
te
od ev to use lo
d/o un u
pac
op d id
an or min
m y d ely al al
Cit lik enti that
(b lle in 30
as sid ls
re ce
co ith
us ge
Par
ent
cem to
pla ess y
h dis h acc nit
Hig k ent Hig portu
ris op
cem to
pla ess y
dis r acc nit r
Low k
ris nte Low portu nte
n Ce nte
r op n Ce nte
r
Urba n Ce ntial e Urba n Ce ntial e
lag lag
Urba lage eside lage an vil Urba lage eside lage an vil
Vil b/R Vil a Vil b/R Vil a
Hu ban tial urbn are & Hu ban tial urbn are &
Ur sio ing r Ur sio ing r
Poten an tur l Cente Poten an tur l Cente
exp nufactria exp nufactria
Ma us Ma us
Ind Ind
Park Park
12
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Table 3 and Table 4 describe the data used in this analytical model. The maps that follow
illustrate the variation in displacement risk and access to opportunity across the city.
Table 3 Displacement Risk Index indicators
Indicator Description Source
Percentage of the population that is a race other than non-

1 People of color 2010 Census
Hispanic White
Percentage of households in which no one 14 and over

20082012 American
2 Linguistic isolation speaks English only or no one 14 and over speaks both a
Community Survey
language other than English and English "very well"
Percentage of the population 25 years or older who lack a 20082012 American

3 Educational attainment
Bachelor's degree Community Survey
4 Housing tenancy Percentage of households that are renters 2010 Census
Percentage of households with income below 80% of area

Housing cost-burdened Consolidated Housing
median income (AMI) that are cost burdened (paying > 30%
households Affordability Strategy
of income on housing)
5 (CHAS) (based on 20072011
Percentage of households with income below 80% of area American Community
Severely housing cost-
median income (AMI) that are or severely cost burdened (> Survey)
burdened households
50% of income on housing)
Percentage of the population whose income is below 200% 20082012 American

6 Household income
of poverty level Community Survey
King County Metro General

Number of unique transit trips within a quarter-mile
7 Proximity to transit Transit Feed Specification
walking distance
(GTFS)
Proximity to current
Location near a current and future light rail stations and
8 or future Link light Sound Transit
streetcar stops, measured by walking distance
rail and streetcar
Location within a certain distance of supermarket/grocery

Proximity to core
9 (0.5 mi), pharmacy (0.25 mi), and restaurant/caf/diner City of Seattle
businesses
(0.25 mi)
Location within a certain distance of a public or private

Proximity to civic school (0.25 mi), community center (0.25 mi) or park of
10 ReferenceUSA
infrastructure at least 0.25 acre (distance varies based on park size), or
library (0.5 mi)
Census tracts that (a) have a median household income <

Proximity to high-
11 80% of AMI and (b) abut a tract where median household King County GIS
income neighborhood
income is > 120% of AMI
Travel time to designated King County Urban Centers and

12 Proximity to job center City of Seattle
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers
Parcels that allow residential uses identified as likely to 20082012 American

13 Development capacity
redevelop in City development capacity model Community Survey
Ratio of rent per net rentable square foot by tract to the

14 Median rent Dupre + Scott (Spring 2016)
Seattle average for rent per net rentable square foot
13
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Table 4 Access to Opportunity Index indicators
Indicator Description Source
Elementary school math and reading proficiency scores by

1
attendance area
School performance Washington Office of
Middle school math and reading proficiency scores by Superintendent of Public
2
attendance area Instruction (OSPI)
3 Graduation rate High school graduation rate by attendance area
City of Seattle
Access to college Location within 30 minutes of a college or university by
4 King County Metro GTFS
or university transit (bus and/or light rail)
Sound Transit
5 Proximity to a library Location within quarter-mile walking distance to a library City of Seattle
Puget Sound Regional

Number of (by census tract centroid) jobs accessible in 30
6 Proximity to employment Council 2013 Covered
minutes by transit
Employment Estimates
2000 Census
7 Property appreciation Change in median home value 20002013 2009-2013 American
Community Survey
King County Metro General

Number of unique transit trips within 0.25-mile walking
8 Proximity to transit Transit Feed Specification
distance
(GTFS)
Proximity to current Sound Transit

Location near a current and future light rail stations and
9 or future Link light
streetcar stops, measured by walking distance City of Seattle
rail and streetcar
Location near a City-owned and City-operated community

Proximity to a center, measured by walking distance
10 City of Seattle
community center (Proximity determined by the size of the park. Larger parks
have larger service areas.)
Location near a public open space, measured by as-the-

11 Proximity to a park City of Seattle
crow-flies distance
Percentage of block faces within a quarter mile missing a

12 Sidewalk completeness sidewalk (excluding those SDOT has not identified should City of Seattle
be improved)
Proximity to a health Location near a health care facility, measured by walking King County Public Health
13
care facility distance (2010)
ReferenceUSA
Proximity to a location Location near a supermarket, produce stand, or farmers
14 Washington State Farmers
that sells produce market, measured by walking distance
Market Association
14
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Limitations
The indices and maps in the Growth & Equity Analysis should be used with caution. This is a
first attempt to understand equity effects of broad City policies, and results of the analysis
depend on the selection and weighting of indicators.
All data sources have limitations. These indices are high-level assessments that can inform
(but should not predetermine) decisions about growth, investment, and policy. Greater his-
torical and qualitative context is needed to avoid simplistic conclusions. Engagement with
those most affected by the equity issues evaluated here should complement this analysis
and inform policy makers decisions.
The indices present snapshots in time based on the best currently available data and on
research indicating relationships between that data and both displacement risk and access
to opportunity. It is important to recognize that anomalies exist in both indices. Further-
more, these indicators will change over time. For example, late in 2015 bus service signifi-
cantly expanded in Seattle, increasing the number of bus trips within walking distance for
many locations in the city.
Income, behavior, and physical proximity affect opportunity in complex and nuanced
ways. Some neighborhoods that appear at the lower end of the access to opportunity index
may in fact have desirable neighborhood amenities such as a walkable business district or
other determinants of well-being not measured by this index. Unique neighborhood charac-
teristics can affect the outcomes of the indices; for instance, the large student population in
the University District skews census data for that neighborhood, and findings about dis-
placement risk there are less reliable as a result.
Marginalized populations exist across the entire city, including outside neighborhoods
identified as high risk on the displacement risk index. These populations are at risk to have
to relocate due to rising housing costs, whether these increases are due to limited housing
putting upward pressure on prices or due to particular development in their neighborhood.
The displacement risk index is an assessment of susceptibility, not a predictor of future

outcomes. Whether displacement occurs depends on several factors, such as the timing
and intensity of growth and the public investments that precede or accompany it.
The relationship between growth and potential displacement is not straightforward.

Displacement has many interrelated causes that are difficult to quantify. In areas where
current rents are below average, the higher price of new market-rate development can exert
upward pressure on the rents in the immediate vicinity, even as overall housing supply
increases. Yet while new development in certain areas can exacerbate displacement pres-
sures, new development is critical for absorbing the increasing citywide housing demand
that leads to displacement. Growth can also reduce transportation costs, attract new cus-
tomers to local businesses, and bring in infrastructure and service investments.
15
Growth and Equity
May 2016
The displacement risk index does not directly assess displacement risk for businesses
or cultural organizations that are also sometimes forced to relocate as a result of market
pressures. Many of the same vulnerability and market indicators could make it difficult for
an existing business or community organization to remain. Their displacement can also fur-
ther destabilize communities of marginalized populations. This displacement may occur at
a faster rate than housing displacement since more protections exist for affordable housing
than for businesses and cultural anchors.
Displacement Risk Index

This analysis focuses on both physical (direct) and economic and cultural (indirect) dis-
placement that affects marginalized populations. By combining data on vulnerability, ame-
nities, development potential, and rents, the displacement risk index identifies areas where
displacement of marginalized populations may be more likely.
Vulnerability: Populations less able to withstand housing cost increases and more
likely to experience discrimination or other structural barriers to finding new
housing.
Amenities: Potential contributors to real estate demand. Some factors include access
to transit, proximity to certain core businesses, and adjacency to gentrifying or
affluent neighborhoods.
Development capacity: A measure of how much future development could
exist parcel by parcel under current zoning. This roughly suggests the potential
location and scale of future development, but it is not a reliable predictor of when
development will occur in a given place.
Median rent: Comparing a neighborhoods median rent to the citywide average can
suggest the extent to which new market-rate development could affect current rents
in that neighborhood.
Figure 4 integrates the vulnerability indicators (the first six indicators in Table 3) into a sin-
gle map. These are just some of the factors that contribute to the level of displacement risk
across Seattle, which is shown in Figure 5.
Access to Opportunity Index

The analysis also considers marginalized populations access to key determinants of social,
economic, and physical well-being. Access to economic opportunity depends on not only
physical proximity to quality jobs but also the ability to attain the skills and experience
needed to acquire such jobs. Shown in Figure 6, the access to opportunity index integrates a
broad range of indicators, but it is not an exhaustive assessment of the factors that contrib-
ute to well-being and allow individuals to flourish.
The access to opportunity index includes measures related to education, economic oppor-
tunity, transit, civic infrastructure, and public health.
16
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Figure 4 Composite vulnerability indicators
High vulnerability
High vulnerability
Low vulnerability
Low vulnerability
Urban CenterUrban Center

Village Village
Hub/Residential
Hub/Residential
Urban VillageUrban Village
Potential urban village urban village
Potential
expansion area
expansion area
Manufacturing &
Manufacturing &
Industrial Center
Industrial Center
Park Park
17
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Figure 5 Displacement Risk Index
High displacement
High displacement
risk risk
Low displacement
Low displacement
risk risk

Village Village
Hub/Residential
Hub/Residential
Potential
Potential urban villageurban village
expansion area
expansion area
ManufacturingManufacturing
& &
Industrial Center
Industrial Center
Park Park
18
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Figure 6 Access to Opportunity Index
High access toHigh access to

opportunity opportunity
Low access toLow access to

opportunity opportunity

Village Village
Hub/Residential
Hub/Residential
Potential urban village urban village
Potential
expansion area
expansion area
Manufacturing &
Manufacturing &
Industrial Center
Industrial Center
Park Park
19
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Together, the indicators in Table 4 produce an index that assesses access to social, physical,
and economic opportunity. The indicators measure access to some of the resources peo-
ple need to succeed and thrive. Because these resources can attract private development
and influence residents decisions about where to live, communities with more of these
resources also have some of Seattles highest housing costs. Note that some of the access to
opportunity indicators are also factors that increase the potential for displacement, such as
access to transit and jobs.
In 2010, the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity released The Geography
of Opportunity, an opportunity mapping report for King County. While that research has
informed our analysis, Kirwan uses a larger set of education, economic opportunity, and
housing indicators that includes both determinants (such as proximity to jobs) and out-
comes (such as unemployment rate). Other outcome measures in the Kirwan work are
crime rate and neighborhood poverty rate. Since this analysis is intended to inform Seat-
tles long-range growth strategy, it focuses on place-based determinants that could lead to
unwanted changes in a neighborhood, rather than on outcomes.
The access to opportunity index also incorporates some of the neighborhood amenities
identified in the Seattle Planning Commissions Seattle Transit Communities report. The in-
dex does not catalog amenities such as locally owned stores that sell culturally appropriate
food or cultural organizations.
Methodological Updates
In response to public comments on the Draft Growth & Equity Analysis, these maps of the
displacement risk and access to opportunity reflect several minor methodological updates.
Table 5 summarizes these changes. Most methodological updates occurred in order to use
the most current datasets available. Individual maps for each factor in the displacement
risk and access to opportunity models are available in Attachment B.
Introducing a Displacement Risk / Access

to Opportunity Typology
The maps of existing conditions show that disparities exist. Displacement risk is greater in
some neighborhoods than others, and Seattles geography of opportunity is uneven. Some
neighborhoods, such as southeast Seattle, present a very high level of displacement risk
and very low access to opportunity. Key determinants of social, physical, and economic
well-being are not equitably distributed, leaving many marginalized populations without
access to factors necessary to succeed in life.
Figure 7 illustrates a typology that categorizes each of the citys urban centers and villag-
es according to its relative position on the displacement risk and access to opportunity
indices. The typology helps identify the potential impacts of future growth and suggests
which mitigation measures could address the differential needs and opportunities present
20
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Table 5 Methodological changes between the Draft and Final Growth & Equity Analysis
Indicator Change in methodology
Previously this indicator was English-speaking ability. The linguistic isolation indicator
Linguistic isolation captures households where adults do not speak English very well, even if children in that
household do speak English very well.
Proximity to transit This indicator was updated to reflect the most current transit service data available.
Proximity to light rail This indicator was updated to reflect University Link service, which came online in March 2016.
Proximity to regional
This indicator now includes designated Manufacturing and Industrial Centers.
job center
This indicator was updated to reflect the most current rent data available. Previously, median
rent data was gathered at the census tract level, but for many tracts no data was available for
Median rent
a given unit type. To address this, the updated version incorporates median rent data at the
neighborhood scale.
Previously this indicator reflected elementary and middle school reading and math proficiency
scores relative to a citywide average. In the updated model, school performance data is
School performance
classified according to the percentage of students at grade level. This changes only how the
data are visualized; it does not have an effect on the results.
Previously this indicator reflected high school graduation rates to a citywide average. In the
Graduation rate updated model, each high schools graduation rate is classified as an absolute percentage. This
changes only how the data are visualized; it does not have an effect on the results.
Access to college This indicator now incorporates University Link service, which increases the area in certain
or university parts of the city that can access a college or university within 30 minutes by transit.
This indicator was updated to reflect the most recent employment dataset available.
Proximity to employment Previously this indicator used as-the-crow-flies distance to assess proximity. In the updated
model, it uses access via the transit network.
This is a new indicator added in response to public comment that sidewalk connectivity
Sidewalk completeness
influences the level of access to services and amenities.
The dataset for this indicator has been adjusted. Previously it reflected an outdated and
Proximity to a location
unreliable dataset. The updated model includes supermarkets, produce stands, and farmers
that sells produce
markets.
in urban centers and villages. For certain urban villages whose boundaries are proposed
to change, their placement on the typology reflects the expanded geography. This analysis
builds on the Puget Sound Regional Councils (PSRC) Growing Transit Communities work,
which also accounts for both the physical and social conditions of communities.
This typology informed the development of the recommended Growth Strategy. Similar
to the emphasis on higher relative growth near high capacity transit, slightly lower growth
estimates reflect areas with high displacement risk and low access to opportunity. The ty-
pology also informs the mitigation strategies appropriate for each type of urban village, as
outlined in the Equitable Development Implementation Plan. The methodological changes
described in Table 4 did not change the categorization of any urban village, but it slightly
refines their relative position on the typology.
The general clustering of urban villages into four distinct categories is a more meaningful
pattern than the precise relationship of any single urban village to another. Because many
21
Growth and Equity
May 2016
factors contribute to a neighborhoods position on this diagram, it is critical to examine

carefully the underlying data layers before adopting investments or programs to mitigate
displacement or increase access to opportunity. Two urban villages may coincide on the
typology diagram but for different reasons. For example, because this analysis integrates
several inputs into a single result, an urban village with marginalized populations and fewer
amenities could occupy a very similar position on the displacement risk axis of the typology
as an urban village with inverse characteristics. In this case, a similar result for displace-
ment risk in two urban villages masks their dissimilar socioeconomic conditions that invest-
ments and policy decisions must consider.
We can see this phenomenon at work in Seattles urban centers six large, populous areas
with a varied social and economic landscape. To address this, the typology not only classi-
fies urban centers but also their component urban center villages according to the average
Figure 7 Displacement Risk / Access to Opportunity Typology

high
Rainier Beach
HIGH DISPLACEMENT RISK /
Othello
HIGH ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Chinatown-
Columbia City International District
HIGH DISPLACEMENT RISK / Lake City University

LOW ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY Westwood- Northgate
District
Northwest
Highland Park
First Hill Commercial Core
North Beacon Hill

Pike-Pine
Downtown
South Park North Rainier U District

Bitter Lake Village
First Hill/Capitol Hill
12th Avenue Pioneer
Square Capitol Hill Denny Triangle
University Campus
23rd & Union-Jackson
Aurora-
Licton Springs
Ravenna Madison- Belltown
Miller
Greenwood-Phinney Ridge
South Lake Union
130th & I-5
Uptown Roosevelt
Admiral Green Lake
Wallingford
Seattle average
West Seattle Ballard Upper Queen Anne
Junction
LOW DISPLACEMENT RISK / Crown Hill
LOW ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Fremont
Morgan Junction
Eastlake LOW DISPLACEMENT RISK /
HIGH ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
low
low Access to Opportunity Index high
Urban Center Hub Urban Village Residential Urban Village Potential New
Residential Urban Village
Urban Center Village
22
Growth and Equity
May 2016
level of displacement risk and access to opportunity each presents. This granular level of
analysis allows us to distinguish, for example, subareas of the Downtown Urban Center,
such as Chinatown-International District, where displacement risk is very high, and Bell-
town, where it is very low.
Attachment B presents a series of maps that illustrate each of the individual factors used in
the displacement risk and access to opportunity indices. These are important resources to
consult whenever the typology informs investment or policy decisions because they pro-
vide context behind the high-level categorization of an urban village on the typology.
The following discussion explores the characteristics of each type of urban village, their role
in an equitable growth strategy, and the strategies and interventions necessary to create an
equitable city.
HIGH DISPLACEMENT RISK/LOW ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
As they grow, some areas with high displacement risk and low access to opportunity are
transitioning to higher levels of desirability. Several have light rail service that is beginning
to attract private market investment. However, some still do not have all the amenities and
services found elsewhere in Seattle. Urban villages in this category are often adjacent to
neighborhoods that have already experienced physical and demographic change.
Growth can benefit these communities because it leads to new services, amenities, and op-
portunities. Furthermore, at the citywide level, new housing is critical to addressing upward
pressure on housing costs due to employment growth and increasing demand for housing.
However, in certain areas rapid private-market-led development without mitigation will
lead to displacement of marginalized populations. Where displacement risk is higher, miti-
gation strategies must accompany market-rate housing growth to ensure that new develop-
ment benefits the neighborhood and limits displacement of existing residents.
Even without growth, these areas need significant assistance to provide more opportunities
for current residents. Strategies to address equity in these neighborhoods lead with public
investments in physical and social infrastructure and public- and non-profit-led develop-
ment that serves the needs of the existing community. For example, investments to foster
new quality job centers and the new post-secondary education facilities that train local
residents to fill those jobs. These interventions are the same as those required to mitigate
growth impacts in neighborhoods with high displacement risk. Therefore, early interven-
tions can also serve as mitigation for additional growth allocation.
HIGH DISPLACEMENT RISK/HIGH ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Neighborhoods with high risk of displacement and high levels of access to opportunity are
often highly desirable because of the amenities they contain and can have relatively low-
er housing costs. The desirability of these neighborhoods attracts new development that
could displace marginalized populations in these places.
23
Growth and Equity
May 2016
An equitable development strategy for these neighborhoods is to stabilize existing margin-

alized populations while also providing opportunities for economic mobility. This approach
would lead with public and non-profit investment in affordable housing and stabilization
of small businesses and cultural organizations to allow market-rate development to occur
with minimal displacement.
LOW DISPLACEMENT RISK/HIGH ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Neighborhoods with low risk of displacement and high access to opportunity are desir-
able and have fewer marginalized populations. These areas generally offer good access to
economic and educational opportunities. In these neighborhoods, housing costs tend to
be high, housing choices limited, and market-rate housing unaffordable to lower-income
households. With relatively few marginalized populations, these areas may also lack the
cultural services and community organizations geared to those populations.
An equitable approach to development in these places expands pathways into the neigh-
borhood for people who currently cannot afford to live, work, or operate a business there
and leverages market demand to welcome new residents, jobs, and businesses.
This approach calls for allowing the private market to meet the high levels of demand for
housing in these neighborhoods by increasing the supply and variety of housing options
available. Because they have lower displacement risk and higher access to opportunity,
these urban villages can welcome higher levels of growth in order to expand access for
marginalized populations without displacement. Incentives for private market housing
that serves a range of incomes and household sizes could make it possible for marginalized
populations to live and work in these areas and take advantage of the opportunities that
exist there. This means allowing and encouraging a denser and broader range of housing
types, such as duplexes, triplexes, rowhouses, flats, and other forms appropriate for a range
of incomes and household sizes, within and adjacent to these urban villages beyond what
current zoning allows.
LOW DISPLACEMENT RISK/LOW ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Few urban villages fall in this category. All could absorb growth with minimal displacement
risk, but access to opportunity in these places is also limited.
Currently, constrained capacity for growth in these areas limits the possibility for expanded
housing supply, new affordable housing, and a greater variety of housing options. De-
pending on the market, these areas may need public intervention to encourage growth.
An equitable development strategy could also make investments to improve access to key
determinants of well-being in these areas where there are gaps.
Table 6 broadly outlines approaches to producing more equitable conditions in different

village types. The Equitable Development Implementation Plan contains more detailed
strategies for each of the general approaches.
24
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Table 6 Equitable development measures for each type of urban center and village
High Displacement Risk/Low Access to Opportunity High Displacement Risk/High Access to Opportunity
Advance Economic Mobility and Opportunity

Prevent Residential, Commercial, and Cultural Advance Economic Mobility and Opportunity
Displacement Prevent Residential, Commercial, and Cultural
Build on Local Cultural Assets Displacement
Promote Transportation Mobility and Connectivity Build on Local Cultural Assets
Develop Healthy and Safe Neighborhoods
Low Displacement Risk/Low Access to Opportunity Low Displacement Risk/High Access to Opportunity
Develop Healthy and Safe Neighborhoods Advance Economic Mobility and Opportunity
Equitable Access to all Neighborhoods Equitable Access to all Neighborhoods
Analysis of the Recommended Growth Strategy

The Citys Comprehensive Plan describes how and where the City plans to accommodate
expected growth. Between 2015 and 2035, Seattle expects to add 70,000 housing units and
115,000 jobs. Because Seattle is a fully built city, most new development will occur on sites
that already contain some existing residences or businesses. The Citys primary approach to
accommodating growth is to locate new housing and jobs in the urban villages well served
by light rail or bus transit. Table 8 lists the housing and employment growth estimates for
urban centers.
Table 7 Expected growth in housing units and jobs for the six urban centers
Urban Center Expected housing growth Expected employment growth
Downtown 12,000 35,000
First Hill / Capitol Hill 6,000 3,000
University District 3,500 5,000
Northgate 3,000 8,000
South Lake Union 7,500 12,000
Uptown 3,000 2,000
Table 8 indicates the growth rate for different categories of urban villages, with hub villages
expected to have a higher growth rate than residential urban villages. Villages with very
good transit service are expected to grow faster than those without. However, recognizing
the potential for displacement of marginalized populations and small businesses, the City
25
Growth and Equity
May 2016
proposes a moderate rate of growth in those villages that have both a high risk of displace-
ment and low access to opportunity and aims to make near-term public investments to
stabilize and create economic mobility opportunities. The accompanying Equitable Devel-
opment Implementation Plan details these investments. The map on the following page
identifies villages by category and illustrates the growth rates shown below.
Table 8 Proposed growth estimates by urban village types
Expected housing Expected employment

growth rate* growth rate*
Hub Urban Villages

Fremont 40% 50%
Lake City
Hub Urban Villages with very good transit service

Ballard
60% 50%
Mount Baker (North Rainier)
West Seattle Junction
Hub Urban Villages with high displacement

risk and low access to opportunity,
regardless of the level of transit service 40% 50%
Bitter Lake Village
Residential Urban Villages

Admiral
Eastlake
GreenwoodPhinney Ridge
30% not applicable
Madison-Miller
Morgan Junction
Upper Queen Anne
Wallingford
Residential Urban Villages with

very good transit service
23rd & UnionJackson
AuroraLicton Springs
Columbia City 50% not applicable
Crown Hill
Green Lake
North Beacon Hill
Roosevelt
Residential Urban Villages with high

displacement risk and low access to opportunity,
regardless of the level of transit service
Othello 30% not applicable
Rainier Beach
South Park
Westwood-Highland Park
* Percentage growth above the actual number of housing units or jobs in 2015, except as limited by zoning
capacity.
26
Growth and Equity
May 2016
The recommended Growth Strategy continues the Comprehensive Plans urban village
strategy, with varying rates of growth expected among the citys urban centers and villages
to reflect multiple policy goals, such as densifying the citys urban centers, locating more
growth near high-capacity transit service, and addressing the risk of displacement for mar-
ginalized populations.
Summary of Growth Alternatives Analyzed in the DEIS

The City of Seattle expects to add 70,000 housing units and 115,000 jobs over the next 20
years. In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the City analyzed four growth alterna-
tives for distributing the 70,000 housing units and 115,000 jobs expected over the next 20
years. In brief, the Draft Growth & Equity Analysis of the four alternatives made the following
conclusions:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Continue Current Growth Guide Growth to Guide Growth to Urban Guide Growth to Urban
Trends (No Action) Urban Centers Villages near Light Rail Villages near Transit
What level of public investment is necessary for marginalized

populations to benefit from growth without displacement?
Required public Highest level of growth

Potentially lower levels Substantial anti-
investment is in the in high-displacement
of investment needed displacement
middle compared to risk areas like Rainier
because less growth investments required
other alternatives Beach, Othello,
is allocated in high- in the southeast Seattle
because growth is more and North Beacon
displacement risk areas. urban villages with
evenly distributed in Hill, requiring the
However, more growth light rail stations where
both high- and low- greatest degree of
would be in expensive displacement risk is
displacement risk urban anti-displacement
high-rise construction. high.
villages. mitigation.
How much does the alternative expand access to opportunity for marginalized populations?
Greater potential to
Does the least to expand Potential to expand
Allocates significant grow in areas with high
access for marginalized access to opportunity
growth to a few access to opportunity
populations because in some, but not
urban villages where than Alternative 3, but
less growth is allocated most, areas with low
displacement risk limited potential to
to areas with high displacement risk
is low and access to expand access it other
opportunity and low and high access to
opportunity is high. high-access urban
displacement risk. opportunity.
villages.
Each of the growth alternatives studied in the DEIS reflected the same estimates of the new
housing units and jobs expected in Seattle over the next 20 years. The alternatives did not
address the timing of growth during that period or specify the type of development that
could occur. Yet timing and type could determine the impact that new development would
have on marginalized populations with respect to displacement and access to opportunity.
27
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Difference between Existing Units and Expected Growth

To understand the potential impacts of the recommended Growth Strategy, the Growth &
Equity Analysis focuses on the expected rate of housing growth for an urban village in the
context of its current stock of housing units. The analysis then examines this relative growth
rate with the degree of displacement risk and access to opportunity for the urban village.
The proportional difference in magnitude between existing units and expected growth is
important. 500 new housing units in an urban village that currently has 1,000 housing units,
a 50 percent increase over the current housing stock, is likely to have a greater impact on
current real estate prices in that submarket than 500 new units in an urban village that
already has 5,000 housing units, a 10 percent increase.
Figure 8 illustrates the expected housing growth rates for each urban village as listed in
Table 8.
Impacts of the Recommended Growth Strategy on

Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity
This section analyzes how the recommended Growth Strategy affects displacement risk and
access to opportunity for marginalized populations and identifies how managed growth
and equitable investments can lower the risk of displacement and expand access to oppor-
tunity to create an equitable city. This analysis cannot account for many of the factors that
contribute to these outcomes, such as market dynamics and the timing of development in
individual urban centers and villages. Instead, it assumes that growth will occur evenly over
time and distributed to different villages according to the assumptions in the Comprehen-
sive Plan. Numerous policy choices must accompany the recommended Growth Strategy,
and additional study is necessary to understand more fully the specific actions to take and
their full costs.
For achieving equity,
how growth To achieve equity, how growth unfolds is as important as the amount of growth. The rela-
unfolds is much tive growth expected for a particular neighborhood is not the only determinant of whether
more important
than the amount of the neighborhood will develop equitably. The timing and pace of redevelopment can also
growth. influence the likelihood of displacement. Rapid changes can be more destabilizing for a
neighborhood real estate market and therefore more likely to displace existing residents
than a steady rate of growth that allows time for accompanying offsetting investments to be
effective.
If unmitigated, rapid market-rate redevelopment in high displacement risk areas is likely to

exacerbate displacement pressures. Limited housing choice and supply in areas with low
displacement risk and high access to opportunity is likely to continue to inhibit equitable
access for marginalized populations.
In the recommended Growth Strategy, the City anticipates a higher rate of growth in urban
villages with good transit service and a relatively lower rate of growth in urban villages with
28
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Figure 8 Expected housing growth rates relative to existing housing units
NE 130th St
Bitter and I-5
Lake
Village
Lake
NE 130th St
Bitter and I-5
City
LakeNorthgate
Village
Aurora-
Licton Lake
Springs Northgate City
Crown
Hill
Aurora-
Licton
Green
Springs
Greenwood-
Crown Lake
Phinney Roosevelt
Hill
Ridge
Ballard
Green
Greenwood- Lake
Phinney Roosevelt
Wallingford
Ridge
Ballard
Urban Centers and Villages Fremont

University
District
Wallingford
Urban Center Ballard-
Interbay-
Northend University
Fremont District
Urban Village
Urban Center Upper
Ballard- Eastlake
Queen
Interbay-
Anne
Hub Northend
Residential
Urban Village Upper
South Eastlake
Uptown Queen
Lake
Anne Madison-
Village with High
Hub Risk of Displacement and Union Miller
Low Access to Opportunity First
Downtown Hill/
Residential
Very Good Transit Capitol
Uptown
South
23rd &
Lake Madison-
Village with High Risk of Displacement and Hill Union Union-
Miller
Low Access to Opportunity Jackson
First
Downtown Hill/
Potential Village
Very Good Transit Capitol 23rd &
Hill Union-
Jackson
Mt Baker
Manufacturing Industrial Centers Admiral
Potential Village
Mt Baker
Manufacturing Industrial Centers Admiral North
Beacon
West Seattle
Junction Hill
Greater
Expected housing growth rates Duwamish NorthColumbia
Beacon City
West Seattle
Junction Hill
Urban Centers see Table 7 Greater
Morgan Duwamish Columbia
Junction
Hub Urban Villages 40% Othello City
with very good transit 60%

Morgan
service Westwood-Junction Othello
Highland Park
with high displacement 40%
risk and low access to South
Park
Westwood-
opportunity Highland Park Rainier
Beach
Residential Urban Villages 30% South
Park
with very good transit 50% Rainier
Beach
service
with high displacement 30%
risk and low access to
opportunity
29
Growth and Equity
May 2016
high displacement risk and low access to opportunity, as shown in Table 8. This addresses
the existing conditions reflected in the displacement risk and access to opportunity indices
and builds into the Plan a key strategy for mitigating displacement risk. However, in certain
areas, displacement is a concern regardless of the level of growth and is likely to have dis-
proportionate impacts on marginalized populations. The Equitable Development Imple-
mentation Plan identifies near-term investments in anti-displacement strategies that the
City can use to ensure equitable growth in neighborhoods with high displacement risk and
low access to opportunity. With sufficient public resources, neighborhoods with the highest
risk of displacement could experience significant private-sector housing development with-
out displacement, provided that appropriate public investment in the associated mitigation
strategies accompany or, ideally, precede that growth. For neighborhoods identified in the
previous section as having low access to opportunity, some intervention is necessary to
make them more equitable communities, even without any growth.
A higher rate of growth in areas with frequent transit service can help expand access and
housing choices for marginalized populations. Because access to transit can help to offset
higher housing costs, substantial investment in affordable housing close to light rail and
frequent bus service can increase access to education and employment opportunities and
help to stem displacement, especially as expanded transit service attracts new residents to
these areas. Without increased access to transit, marginalized populations may experience
only the market pressures associated with living in a desirable neighborhood and not the
benefits.
Similar to the relatively lower growth rates for areas where displacement risk is high, the
recommended Growth Strategy takes a complementary approach for some urban villages
with low displacement risk and high access to opportunity where very good transit service
is present: Roosevelt, Crown Hill, and Ballard. As previously discussed, urban villages with
high access to opportunity and low displacement risk often have higher real estate values,
fewer housing choices for lower-incomes households, and fewer marginalized popula-
tions. In these areas, higher rates of redevelopment could accommodate more of the citys
expected 20-year growth, absorbing citywide housing demand, without increasing displace-
ment risk. Higher rates of growth can also increase options for a broader range of people
and households to live and work in these high-opportunity neighborhoods. Leveraging new
development to expand access for marginalized populations without displacement beyond
the growth estimates in the recommended Growth Strategy would advance the Citys goal
of equitable development. These policy changes could be considered during future Com-
prehensive Plan annual amendment cycles.
Roughly half of the 20-year housing growth in the recommended Growth Strategy is expect-
ed to occur in the six urban centers. Many of these 35,000 housing units will be in high-rise
buildings, which are inherently more expensive to construct than the wood-frame construc-
tion typical in, for example, low-rise multifamily zones. Higher construction costs generally
yield higher rents. The high access to opportunity found in urban centers can partially offset
some of the added cost of housing in these areas. Further, construction of housing tar-
30
Growth and Equity
May 2016
geted for high-income households absorbs demand that otherwise puts upward pressure
on housing costs elsewhere in the city. Policies such as the proposed Mandatory Housing
Affordability (MHA) program can help to ensure that growth in expensive building types
nonetheless contributes to affordability and inclusion.
Urban Village Boundary Changes

The Draft Growth & Equity Analysis considered expanded urban village boundaries for sev-
eral urban villages, which would affect future use and density levels in areas predominantly
zoned for single-family residential use currently. The displacement risk and access to op-
portunity typology reflects these expanded urban villages, which would include land within
a 10-minute walk of frequent transit facilities. These potential boundary changes largely fall
into two categories:
LOW DISPLACEMENT RISK/HIGH ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY URBAN VILLAGES:

BALLARD, FREMONT, CROWN HILL, ROOSEVELT, AND FREMONT
Adding development capacity to areas in close proximity to frequent transit is consistent

with a strategy to create more multifamily development, expand housing choice and sup-
ply, and increase the possibility of having more affordable housing in these neighborhoods.
HIGH DISPLACEMENT RISK URBAN VILLAGES: OTHELLO, COLUMBIA CITY,

NORTH RAINIER, NORTH BEACON HILL AND RAINIER BEACH
It is not clear that expanding urban village boundaries supports the equitable development
strategies outlined for these villages. New development may put upward pressure on rents
before community stabilizing investments take effect. A well-resourced mitigation strategy
coupled with expansion of housing choices over time could prove successful, but further
community engagement and analysis should be undertaken to determine the feasibility
and details of such a strategy.
31
Growth and Equity
May 2016
< intentionally blank >
32
Attachment A
Decennial Census Population Estimates by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin
TOTAL POPULATION WHITE BLACK (1990); BLACK OR AFRICAN ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER (1990); AMERICAN INDIAN, ESKIMO, OR HISPANIC (1990); HISPANIC OR PERSONS OF COLOR
AMERICAN (2010) ASIAN (2010) ALEUT (1990); AMERICAN INDIAN LATINO (2010)
& ALASKA NATIVE (2010)
2010
1990
(of a race other than
1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 (of a race other than
White alone and/or
White and/or of
of Hispanic/Latino
Hispanic origin)
origin)
King County 1,507,319 1,931,249 1,278,532 85% 1,325,845 69% 76,289 5% 119,801 6% 118,784 8% 282,075 15% 17,305 1.1% 16,147 0.8% 44,337 3% 172,378 9% 273,124 18% 852,327 44%
City of Seattle 516,259 608,660 388,858 75% 422,870 69% 51,948 10% 48,316 8% 60,819 12% 84,215 14% 7,326 1.4% 4,809 0.8% 18,349 4% 40,329 7% 135,836 26% 205,082 34%
Outside Urban Centers/
365,931 399,870 285,003 78% 291,445 73% 31,479 9% 26,270 7% 40,946 11% 33,654 8% 4,226 1.2% 2,589 0.6% 11,333 3% 22,596 6% 86,453 24% 119,730 30%
Villages
All Urban Centers/Villages 146,662 206,068 101,313 69% 129,587 63% 20,048 14% 21,802 11% 19,397 13% 50,395 24% 2,979 2.0% 2,138 1.0% 6,724 5% 17,286 8% 48,126 33% 84,300 41%
URBAN CENTERS 69,857 102,883 52,805 76% 68,355 66% 6,213 9% 7,684 7% 8,263 12% 17,813 17% 1,381 2.0% 1,164 1.1% 3,226 5% 6,870 7% 18,565 27% 38,189 37%
Northgate 5,136 6,369 3,942 77% 3,600 57% 279 5% 580 9% 752 15% 1,353 21% 59 1.1% 89 1.4% 256 5% 679 11% 1,303 25% 3,063 48%
South Lake Union 1,116 3,774 1,001 90% 2,663 71% 45 4% 394 10% 39 3% 410 11% 16 1.4% 36 1.0% 57 5% 235 6% 156 14% 1,257 33%
University District Northwest 10,552 13,654 8,206 78% 8,318 61% 273 3% 386 3% 1,852 18% 3,756 28% 106 1.0% 73 0.5% 319 3% 714 5% 2,523 24% 5,705 42%
Ravenna 2,850 3,323 2,171 76% 2,199 66% 117 4% 93 3% 449 16% 754 23% 48 1.7% 11 0.3% 115 4% 194 6% 722 25% 1,219 37%
University Campus 4,598 5,727 3,014 66% 3,282 57% 211 5% 101 2% 1,202 26% 1,784 31% 58 1.3% 25 0.4% 211 5% 291 5% 1,666 36% 2,646 46%
University Community 18,000 22,704 13,391 74% 13,799 61% 601 3% 580 3% 3,503 19% 6,294 28% 212 1.2% 109 0.5% 645 4% 1,199 5% 4,911 27% 9,570 42%
Uptown 4,472 7,300 3,943 88% 5,824 80% 186 4% 258 4% 206 5% 720 10% 61 1.4% 55 0.8% 162 4% 457 6% 611 14% 1,739 24%
Belltown 4,116 11,961 3,490 85% 8,404 70% 300 7% 871 7% 168 4% 1,703 14% 105 2.6% 166 1.4% 152 4% 789 7% 691 17% 4,016 34%
Denny Triangle 732 3,248 562 77% 2,240 69% 65 9% 253 8% 43 6% 475 15% 55 7.5% 57 1.8% 32 4% 229 7% 185 25% 1,143 35%
Commercial Core 3,898 5,917 2,613 67% 3,996 68% 979 25% 1,031 17% 135 3% 538 9% 134 3.4% 107 1.8% 182 5% 288 5% 1,361 35% 2,096 35%
Pioneer Square 1,485 2,252 943 64% 1,385 62% 389 26% 464 21% 40 3% 137 6% 74 5.0% 80 3.6% 164 11% 187 8% 637 43% 954 42%
Chinatown-ID 1,962 3,466 728 37% 868 25% 222 11% 351 10% 888 45% 1,977 57% 70 3.6% 64 1.8% 159 8% 177 5% 1,274 65% 2,670 77%
Downtown 12,193 26,844 8,336 68% 16,893 63% 1,955 16% 2,970 11% 1,274 10% 4,830 18% 438 3.6% 474 1.8% 689 6% 1,670 6% 4,148 34% 10,879 41%
Capitol Hill 16,334 18,279 13,714 84% 14,493 79% 1,294 8% 832 5% 825 5% 1,464 8% 229 1.4% 161 0.9% 699 4% 1,276 7% 2,993 18% 4,532 25%
Pike/Pine 2,624 4,413 1,971 75% 3,261 74% 328 13% 277 6% 193 7% 515 12% 85 3.2% 55 1.2% 123 5% 292 7% 711 27% 1,322 30%
First Hill 7,568 8,681 5,081 67% 5,220 60% 1,050 14% 1,230 14% 1,096 14% 1,396 16% 209 2.8% 124 1.4% 404 5% 682 8% 2,658 35% 3,749 43%
12th Avenue 2,414 4,519 1,426 59% 2,602 58% 475 20% 563 12% 375 16% 831 18% 72 3.0% 61 1.3% 191 8% 380 8% 1,074 44% 2,078 46%
First/Capitol Hill 28,940 35,892 22,192 77% 25,576 71% 3,147 11% 2,902 8% 2,489 9% 4,206 12% 595 2.1% 401 1.1% 1,417 5% 2,630 7% 7,436 26% 11,681 33%
HUB URBAN VILLAGES 22,264 30,906 17,030 76% 20,912 68% 1,823 8% 2,730 9% 2,612 12% 4,186 14% 409 1.8% 318 1.0% 825 4% 2,302 7% 5,579 25% 11,006 36%
Ballard 7,311 10,078 6,602 90% 8,551 85% 128 2% 218 2% 294 4% 578 6% 168 2.3% 89 0.9% 263 4% 557 6% 848 12% 1,839 18%
Bitter Lake Village 3,175 4,273 2,711 85% 2,642 62% 96 3% 523 12% 284 9% 626 15% 50 1.6% 49 1.1% 112 4% 290 7% 530 17% 1,754 41%
Fremont 3,153 3,960 2,740 87% 3,249 82% 92 3% 104 3% 193 6% 326 8% 68 2.2% 23 0.6% 107 3% 173 4% 456 14% 800 20%
Lake City 2,111 3,899 1,603 76% 2,108 54% 142 7% 462 12% 288 14% 763 20% 22 1.0% 63 1.6% 88 4% 494 13% 533 25% 1,985 51%
continued on following page
33
Growth and Equity
May 2016
continued from previous page

TOTAL POPULATION WHITE BLACK (1990); BLACK OR AFRICAN ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER (1990); AMERICAN INDIAN, ESKIMO, OR HISPANIC (1990); HISPANIC OR PERSONS OF COLOR
AMERICAN (2010) ASIAN (2010) ALEUT (1990); AMERICAN INDIAN LATINO (2010)
& ALASKA NATIVE (2010)
2010
1990
(of a race other than
1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 1990 2010 (of a race other than
White alone and/or
White and/or of
of Hispanic/Latino
Hispanic origin)
origin)
North Rainier 3,629 4,908 877 24% 1,371 28% 1,227 34% 1,281 26% 1,404 39% 1,633 33% 59 1.6% 57 1.2% 132 4% 472 10% 2,779 77% 3,686 75%
West Seattle Junction 2,885 3,788 2,497 87% 2,991 79% 138 5% 142 4% 149 5% 260 7% 42 1.5% 37 1.0% 123 4% 316 8% 433 15% 942 25%
HUB URBAN VILLAGES 22,264 30,906 17,030 76% 20,912 68% 1,823 8% 2,730 9% 2,612 12% 4,186 14% 409 1.80% 318 1.00% 825 4% 2,302 7% 5,579 25% 11,006 36%
23rd & Union-Jackson 6,926 9,468 1,077 16% 4,191 44% 4,407 64% 2,617 28% 1,207 17% 1,429 15% 85 1.2% 74 0.8% 296 4% 962 10% 5,930 86% 5,634 60%
Admiral 1,186 1,528 1,087 92% 1,260 82% 27 2% 56 4% 44 4% 89 6% 21 1.8% 18 1.2% 32 3% 96 6% 120 10% 324 21%
Aurora-Licton Springs 4,709 6,179 3,812 81% 4,065 66% 258 5% 469 8% 460 10% 845 14% 96 2.0% 58 0.9% 218 5% 704 11% 1,013 22% 2,418 39%
Columbia City 3,617 3,937 822 23% 1,271 32% 1,646 46% 1,210 31% 977 27% 1,005 26% 112 3.1% 29 0.7% 146 4% 375 10% 2,819 78% 2,798 71%
Crown Hill 2,109 2,459 1,886 89% 1,934 79% 46 2% 95 4% 99 5% 126 5% 55 2.6% 23 0.9% 56 3% 271 11% 250 12% 641 26%
Eastlake 3,602 5,084 3,286 91% 4,173 82% 93 3% 128 3% 166 5% 459 9% 31 0.9% 22 0.4% 83 2% 249 5% 364 10% 1,040 20%
Green Lake 2,119 2,904 1,951 92% 2,361 81% 33 2% 53 2% 102 5% 292 10% 17 0.8% 15 0.5% 49 2% 126 4% 200 9% 619 21%
Greenwood-Phinney Ridge 2,016 2,927 1,750 87% 2,232 76% 33 2% 180 6% 128 6% 228 8% 38 1.9% 27 0.9% 92 5% 221 8% 297 15% 799 27%
Madison-Miller 2,829 4,066 1,407 50% 2,697 66% 1,228 43% 658 16% 112 4% 326 8% 35 1.2% 16 0.4% 90 3% 295 7% 1,463 52% 1,495 37%
Morgan Junction 1,667 2,046 1,448 87% 1,596 78% 76 5% 122 6% 89 5% 118 6% 32 1.9% 19 0.9% 53 3% 171 8% 242 15% 538 26%
North Beacon Hill 2,531 2,900 534 21% 1,079 37% 324 13% 208 7% 1,450 57% 932 32% 98 3.9% 43 1.5% 224 9% 769 27% 2,028 80% 2,056 71%
Othello 4,570 7,267 643 14% 908 12% 1,953 43% 2,792 38% 1,638 36% 2,932 40% 168 3.7% 35 0.5% 260 6% 390 5% 3,950 86% 6,492 89%
Rainier Beach 2,703 3,583 616 23% 629 18% 1,211 45% 1,618 45% 637 24% 733 20% 133 4.9% 53 1.5% 157 6% 583 16% 2,097 78% 3,127 87%
Roosevelt 2,008 2,384 1,812 90% 1,964 82% 53 3% 51 2% 114 6% 207 9% 10 0.5% 9 0.4% 76 4% 132 6% 245 12% 506 21%
South Park 2,161 3,448 1,470 68% 1,516 44% 156 7% 386 11% 282 13% 596 17% 72 3.3% 62 1.8% 314 15% 1,212 35% 794 37% 2,337 68%
Upper Queen Anne 1,921 2,143 1,745 91% 1,809 84% 58 3% 48 2% 75 4% 147 7% 12 0.6% 10 0.5% 65 3% 98 5% 206 11% 394 18%
Wallingford 4,102 5,350 3,722 91% 4,437 83% 82 2% 152 3% 197 5% 418 8% 42 1.0% 19 0.4% 153 4% 277 5% 468 11% 1,088 20%
Westwood-Highland Park 3,765 4,606 2,410 64% 2,198 48% 328 9% 545 12% 745 20% 773 17% 132 3.5% 124 2.7% 309 8% 1,183 26% 1,496 40% 2,799 61%
MFG./INDUSTRIAL CENTERS 3,666 2,722 2,542 69% 1,838 68% 421 11% 244 9% 476 13% 166 6% 0.0% 0.0% 292 8% 447 16% 1,257 34% 1,052 39%
Ballard-Interbay-Northend 1,316 1,658 1,106 84% 1,214 73% 81 6% 131 8% 66 5% 109 7% 44 3.3% 24 1.4% 86 7% 176 11% 261 20% 526 32%
Greater Duwamish 2,350 1,064 1,436 61% 624 59% 340 14% 113 11% 410 17% 57 5% 77 3.3% 58 5.5% 206 9% 271 25% 996 42% 526 49%
Notes:
Census questionnaire changes limit comparability of 1990 Census estimates on race and ethnicity with later Census estimates. Small differences over time may be due to changes in the questionnaire, but larger differences are more likely to represent actual demographic shifts.
One of the most changes was the option respondents were given, beginning with the 2000 Census questionnaire, to select more than one race.
Population estimates by race are shown for non-Hispanic/Latino individuals in each of the major race categories listed. The Census collects information on Hispanic/Latino ethnicity in a separate question from race.
Persons of color include persons of any race other than white alone (other than white in 1990) as well as persons of any race who are of Hispanic /Latino (Hispanic in 1990) origin.
Sources: 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census estimates, (100% count datasets), U.S. Census Bureau.
Estimates for Urban Villages produced by the City of Seattles Department of Planning and Development based on combinations of census blocks approximating Urban Villages.
34
Growth and Equity
May 2016
Attachment B
Displacement Risk and Access to Opportunity Indicators
35
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Linguistic isolation
Educational attainment
Housing tenancy
Housing cost-burdened households
Severely housing cost-burdened
households
Household income
Proximity to transit
Proximity to current or future Link
light rail and streetcar
Proximity to core businesses
(supermarket/grocery, pharmacy,
and restaurant)
Proximity to civic infrastructure
(location within a certain distance
of a school, park, community
< 20%
center, or library)
20% - 30%
Proximity to high-income
neighborhood 31% - 40%
41% - 50%
Proximity to regional job center
Development capacity
> 50%
Median rent
Urban Center
Hub/Residential
Urban Village
Manufacturing &
Industrial Center
Percentage of population
that is a race other than non-
Hispanic White
(Census block)
< 20%
20% - 30%
31% - 40%
41% - 50%
> 50%
Source: 2010 Census
36
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
< 15%
center, or library)
15% - 20%
26% - 30%
> 30%
Median rent
Percentage of households that are

linguistically isolated
(Census tract)
< 15%
15% - 20%
21% - 25%
26% - 30%
> 30%
Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey
A linguistically isolated household is one

in which no one 14 years and older speaks
English only or no one 14 years and
older speaks both a language other than
English and English very well.
37
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
< 40%
center, or library)
40% - 50%
61% - 70%
> 70%
Median rent
Percentage of population 25 years

and older who does not have a
Bachelors degree
(Census tract)
< 40%
40% - 50%
51% - 60%
61% - 70%
> 70%
38
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
< 40%
center, or library)
40% - 50%
61% - 70%
> 70%
Median rent
Percentage of population in
occupied housing units that are
renters (Census block)
< 40%
40% - 50%
51% - 60%
61% - 70%
> 70%
Source: 2010 Census
A linguistically isolated household is one

in which no one 14 years and older speaks
English only or no one 14 years and
older speaks both a language other than
English and English very well.
39
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
< 10%
center, or library)
10% - 15%
21% - 25%
> 25%
Median rent
Percentage of households with

income below 80% of the Area
Median Income that are cost
burdened (Census tract)
< 10%
10% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
> 25%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy

(based on 2007-2011 American Community Survey)
A cost-burdened household is one that

pays between 30 and 50 percent of its
income on housing costs.
40
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
< 10%
center, or library)
10% - 15%
21% - 25%
> 25%
Median rent
Percentage of households with

income below 80% of the Area
Median Income that are severely cost
burdened (Census tract)
< 10%
10% - 15%
16% - 20%
21% - 25%
> 25%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy

(based on 2007-2011 American Community Survey)
A severely cost-burdened household is

one that pays more than 50 percent of its
income on housing costs.
41
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
< 25%
center, or library)
25% - 30%
36% - 40%
> 40%
Median rent
Percentage of the population with

income below 200% of the Federal
poverty level
(Census tract)
< 25%
25% - 30%
31% - 35%
36% - 40%
> 40%
42
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
of a school, park,
1 - community
100
center, or library)
101 - 200
neighborhood 201 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 2000
Median rent > 2000
Number of daily unique transit

trips within a quarter-mile walking
distance of a location
1 - 100
101 - 200
201 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 2000
> 2000
Source: King County Metro
A transit trip occurs each time a bus or train arrives

at and departs from a stop. This map shows the
number of unique transit trips that occur within a
quarter-mile along the walking network.
It does not double count when the same exact transit

vehicle stops at two locations that are both within a
quarter-mile walk. Instead, it quantifies the number
of unique bus trips that someone can access during
an entire weekday.
43
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
!
households
Household income
!

!
and restaurant)
Proximity to civic infrastructure !

of a school, park,
0.25community
mile
center, or library)
0.5 mile
Proximity to high-income !
neighborhood
! Link light rail
Proximity to regional job center !
!
Median rent !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
Walking distance to a current or !
future Link light rail station !
0.25 mile
!
0.5 mile
! Link light rail
!
Source: Sound Transit
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
44
!
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
of a school, park,
0.25community
mile
center, or library)
0.5 mile
Streetcar stop
!
neighborhood
! !
!
! !
!
Proximity to regional job center !! !

! !
!
Development capacity !
!
!
!
Median rent
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
Walking distance to a current or

future streetcar stop
0.25 mile
0.5 mile
Streetcar stop
!
! !
!
! !
!
!! !
!
Source: Seattle Department of Transportation !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
45
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
Within
of a school, park, 0.5 mile of a
community
supermarket/grocery, 0.25
center, or library)
mile of a pharmacy, and 0.25
of a restaurant, cafe, or diner
neighborhood
Median rent
Locations within walking distance of

core businesses
Within 0.5 mile of a

supermarket/grocery, 0.25
mile of a pharmacy, and 0.25
of a restaurant, cafe, or diner
Source: ReferenceUSA
46
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
of a school, park,
0 community
center, or library)
1
neighborhood 2
3
Median rent
Number of the following locations

within the specified distance:
School (0.25 mile)
Community center (0.25)
Library (0.5 mile)
Park (varies by acreage)
Source: City of Seattle
47
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
> 120% of AMI
center, or library)
< 80% of AMI
neighborhood Spillover tract
Median rent
Median household income relative

to Area Median Income (AMI) (Census
tract)
> 120% of AMI
< 80% of AMI
Spillover tract
A spillover Census tract is one that

a) has a median household income
under 80% of the Area Median Income
and b) abuts a tract where the median
household income is above 120% of the
Area Median Income.
48
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
of a school, park,
< 5community
center, or library)
5 - 10
neighborhood 11 - 15
16 - 20 job center
> 20
Median rent
Travel time to designated King

County Urban Centers and
Manufacturing & Industrial Centers
(minutes)
<5
5 - 10
11 - 15
16 - 20
> 20
Source: King County
49
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
Parcels
of a school, park, that allow
community
residential uses identified
center, or library)
as likely to redevelop in
City development capacity
neighborhood model
Median rent
Parcels that allow

residential uses identified
as likely to redevelop in
City development capacity
model
The City maintains a capacity model that compares

existing development to an estimate for what
could be built under current zoning. The difference
between existing and potential development yields
the capacity for new residential and commercial
development.
Certain parcels unlikely to develop are excluded,

such as public facilities, cemeteries, and parcels
that contain landmarked structures or transferred
development rights.
The model does not predict market trends or

suggest when redevelopment will occur. A property
owners decision to demolish and replace an ex-
isting building involves many considerations, such
as whether the land is owned outright, financial
feasibility, and current revenue.
50
Growth and Equity
May 2016

People of color
Housing tenancy
households
Household income
and restaurant)
< 75%
center, or library)
75 - 90%
neighborhood 91 - 110%
> 110%job center
Median rent
Ratio of average rent per census

tract to Seattle average
< 75%
75 - 90%
91 - 110%
> 110%
Source: Dupre + Scott (Spring 2016)
Based on multifamily buildings with 20 or

more units, for all unit sizes, in dollars per
net rentable square feet.
51
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Access to college or university
Proximity to a library
Proximity to employment
Property appreciation
Proximity to a community center
Proximity to a park
Proximity to a health care facility
Proximity to a location that sells
produce
< 55%
55 -65%
66 - 75%
76 - 85%
> 85%
Percentage of elementary school

students performing at grade level in
math (attendance area)
< 55%
55 -65%
66 - 75%
76 - 85%
> 85%
Source: Washington Office of Superintendent of Public

Instruction (2012-2013 school year)
52
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
< 55%
55 -65%
66 - 75%
76 - 85%
> 85%
Percentage of elementary school

reading (attendance area)
< 55%
55 -65%
66 - 75%
76 - 85%
> 85%

53
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
< 65%
65 - 70%
71 - 75%
76 - 80%
> 80%
Percentage of middle school

math (attendance area)
< 65%
65 - 70%
71 - 75%
76 - 80%
> 80%

54
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
< 65%
65 - 70%
71 - 75%
76 - 80%
> 80%
Percentage of middle school

reading (attendance area)
< 65%
65 - 70%
71 - 75%
76 - 80%
> 80%

55
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
< 75%
75 - 80%
81 - 85%
86 - 90%
> 90%
Four-year cohort high school

graduation rate (attendence area)
< 75%
75 - 80%
81 - 85%
86 - 90%
> 90%

56
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
Within 30 minutes of a
college or university by transit
(bus and/or light rail)
Within 30 minutes of a
college or university by transit
(bus and/or light rail)
Source: King County Metro, Sound Transit
57
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
Within 0.5 mile of a library
Within 0.5 mile of a library
58
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
< 50,000
50,001 - 75,000
75,001 - 100,000
100,001 - 150,000
150,001 - 200,000
200,001 - 250,000
250,001 - 300,000
> 300,000
Number of jobs accessible in 30

minutes by transit
< 50,000
50,001 - 75,000
75,001 - 100,000
100,001 - 150,000
150,001 - 200,000
200,001 - 250,000
250,001 - 300,000
> 300,000
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council 2014 Covered

Employment Estimates by Census tract
59
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
Below city average
100 - 150% of city average
> 150% of city average
Change in median home value 2000-

2013 (Census tract)
Below city average
100 - 150% of city average
> 150% of city average
Source: 2000 Census, 2009-2013 American Community

Survey
60
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
1 - 100
101 - 200
201 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 2000
> 2000
Number of daily unique transit

trips within a quarter-mile walking
distance of a location
1 - 100
101 - 200
201 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 2000
> 2000
Source: King County Metro
A transit trip occurs each time a bus or train arrives

at and departs from a stop. This map shows the
number of unique transit trips that occur within a
quarter-mile along the walking network.
It does not double count when the same exact transit

vehicle stops at two locations that are both within a
quarter-mile walk. Instead, it quantifies the number
of unique bus trips that someone can access during
an entire weekday.
61
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
!
!

Proximity to a park
Sidewalk completeness !

Proximity to a location that sells !
produce
0.25 mile
0.5 mile
!
! Link light rail
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
Walking distance to a current or !
future Link light rail station !
0.25 mile
!
0.5 mile
! Link light rail
!
Source: Sound Transit
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
62
!
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
0.25 mile
0.5 mile
Streetcar stop
!
! !
!
! !
!
!! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
Walking distance to a current or

future streetcar stop
0.25 mile
0.5 mile
Streetcar stop
!
! !
!
! !
!
!! !
!
Source: Seattle Department of Transportation !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
63
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
Within a 0.5 mile walk of a
City-owned and
City-operated community
center
Within a 0.5 mile walk of a

City-owned and
City-operated community
center
64
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
Park
Park buffer
Locations near a public open space,

measured by as-the-crow-flies
distance
Park
Park buffer
The size of the service area buffer

around each park varies according to the
area of the park.
65
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
Percentage of block faces within a

quarter mile with sidewalks
< 20%
20 - 40%
40 - 60%
60 - 80%
> 80%
66
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
Within one mile of a
healthcare facility (measured
by walking distance)
Within one mile of a

healthcare facility (measured
by walking distance)
Source: King County Public Health (2010)
67
Growth and Equity
May 2016

School performance
Graduation rate
Proximity to a park
produce
within 0.5 mile and accepts SNAP
within 0.5 mile
Walking distance to a supermarket,

produce stand, or farmers market
within 0.5 mile and accepts SNAP
within 0.5 mile
Source: ReferenceUSA, Washington State Farmers

Market Association
68
Whats changed since the DEIS?
Appendix B was replaced with an
updated summary of community
input since issuance of the DEIS.
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INPUT.
Draft document as of November 2017.

MHA Final EIS
Nov. 2017
B.2
Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA)
Community Input
Summary
DRAFT November 2017

Thank you.
South East Seattle HALA Meetup hosted by CORE & South East District Council | February 2016
Since October 2015, Thank you for dedicating your time and
energy. Your input will help Seattle remain a
thousands of welcoming city for years to come.
community members We want to celebrate your accomplishments
have come together and thank you for your efforts. You shaped
principles that directly informed the draft
to talk about housing MHA proposal. You advanced design
affordability in Seattle. standards that will enhance livability in our
neighborhoods. And the rich local knowledge
you brought to the process helped tailor
urban village zoning maps to better reflect
our shared principles.
Thank you.
MHA Community Input Activities
Community members dedicated countless hours to improving the MHA proposal in these ways:
sharing key materials translated into
7
languages: Chinese (Mandarin and
Traditional), Somali, Korean, Spanish,
Tagalog, and Vietnamese
responding to information mailed to over
information 88,800 urban village

dwellers
sharing Signing up for newsletter updates, with over 4,200 recipients
Sharing our website, with over 5,000 monthly pageviews
participating in
198 community
engagement meetings
including citywide public open houses, community design
workshops, and neighborhood meet-ups
engaging in online dialogue with
1,100 registered users at

hala.consider.it
contributing
talking 600 community volunteer

hours
person for the nine-month community focus group process
-to- talking with us when we canvassed
person
10,000
urban village
households
Asking more than 600 questions during Reddit Ask-Me-

Anything events
Engaging in hundreds of discussions through the HALA
hotline (206) 743-6612 and halainfo@seattle.gov
DRAFTNovember2017
Executive Summary
TOWARD AN EQUITABLE CITY
Seattle is facing its worst affordability crisis Outreach Goals
in decades. Our beautiful, welcoming,
thriving city is attracting more businesses MHA is designed to meet affordable
and residents than ever. Our population housing goals while enhancing quality of
has grown by more than 75,000 people life in Seattle. We rely on your perspectives
in just five yearsabout 40 per daybut to get this right. That means we need to
housing has not kept pace. Mandatory hear from a broad array of residents: new
Housing Affordability (MHA) is a new policy and old; renters and owners; experienced
to leverage the citys growth so that more community advocates and newcomers to
people can afford to live in Seattle near the conversation. It is especially important
transit, parks, and more. that we hear from those traditionally
underrepresented. To that end, our public
DRAFT November 2017

In order to effectively implement MHA, the engagement efforts aimed to achieve the
City has engaged thousands of community following goals:
members in conversations about how their
neighborhoods should grow. As Seattles
Recruit, engage, and receive
population changes and increases, we need
to hear from you about how we can grow key feedback from a diversity of
equitably and sustainably so that together perspectives
we thrive. We also need to ensure that
growing demographic groups have a voice in Lower barriers to participation
our decision-making processes and that we
eliminate barriers to participation.
by providing supports
With your insight, we designed an inclusive Bring varying perspectives

approach that responds to unique conditions
of each neighborhood while providing more together to discuss the merits of
housing options for workers of all income a proposal with one another, not
levels. just with City staff
This report summarizes MHA
Foster understanding between
outreach and engagement, and
people from geographically
synthesizes your valued input.
distant communities
Meet people where they are

with subject matter, conveying
content to all levels of expertise
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Community Input Summary 4
Executive Summary
Where Community Your Input Matters
Members Agree We have already begun to respond to the
input gathered from community members,
During our many conversations, we heard
since the process of developing the MHA
about your experiences with growth in
proposal began in Fall 2015 . Your input
Seattle. There is a lot of optimism about how
has been critical to shaping MHA, ensuring
our city can continue to flourish, along with
that we address both concerns about the
some growing pains. Together you affirmed
way MHA will guide growth in Seattles
a shared vision of inclusivity, connectedness,
neighborhoods, as well as hopes for how it
sustainability, and community vibrance.
will benefit communities. Later in this report,
Though there was not always agreement
we describe some of the key changes we
on how to achieve this vision, your
have already made in response to your
conversations were creative, inspired,
feedback, as well as the final process
passionate, and productive. Here are a few
DRAFT November 2017

for considering additional changes to the
highlights of general agreement:
proposal.
Create more housing for people at all
income levels Next Steps for Input
Minimize displacement of current Additional Changes to Zoning Proposals
residents
With the close of public comment on the
Prioritize populations most at MHA proposal in Summer 2017, City staff
risk, including those experiencing worked to incorporate nearly two years of
homelessness, those with very community engagement and economic and
low incomes, and traditionally environmental analysis into a final proposal
underrepresented groups that City Council will consider in 2018. Staff
rely heavily on the MHA program goal to
Create housing choices, including home produce at least 6,000 income and rent-
ownership options and family size units restricted homes, the community-guided
Create more opportunities to live near implementation principles, and the legal
parks, schools, and transportation allowances and constraints of the program,
to direct this work in a manner that is
Strengthen the sense of place within our transparent and consistent across the City.
Urban Villages
Delivery of Proposal to City Council
Retain the urban and architectural
character of our neighborhoods as Once a final proposal is transmitted to
individual buildings redevelop City Council, another phase of community
engagement will begin. Throughout its
Promote environmental health and deliberations, City Council will provide
sustainability, which includes cutting opportunities for public comment and input
carbon emissions, supporting transit use, at all district-based community events,
and having space for trees Council meetings, and formal public
hearings. City Council will take action on
the MHA citywide proposal after a lengthy
process, likely in mid- to late 2018.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Table of Contents
Project Background
What is the problem? 7
How are we addressing it? 9
Outreach Activities 11
Calendar of Events 16
Event Map 20
Policy & Program Development

How Community Input Shapes Policy 21
Community Generated Principles 32
MHA Zone Maps

From Draft to Final Proposal 35
Urban Village Maps 39
23rd & Union-Jackson
Admiral
Aurora-Licton Springs
Ballard
Bitter Lake
Columbia City
Crown Hill
Eastlake
First Hill / Capitol Hill
Fremont
Green Lake / Roosevelt
Greenwood-Phinney Ridge
Lake City
Madison-Miller
Morgan Junction
North Beacon Hill
North Rainier
Northgate
Othello
Rainier Beach
South Park
Upper Queen Anne
University District / Ravenna
Wallingford
West Seattle Junction
Westwood-Highland Park
Reflection65
Project Background
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? Average rent for a 1-bedroom
apartment increased 35% in the
People at all income levels last five years to $1,641.
are finding it harder than The rising cost of housing makes the
average one bedroom unit unaffordable by
ever to afford housing in conventional measures to a worker earning
Seattle. a $15 minimum wage. These rates are rising
faster than anywhere else in the country, at
In response, the City of Seattle seeks to about four times the national average. This
address the need for affordable housing. The means that lower wage workers such as
need is greatest for households with lower nursing assistants, teachers, paramedics,
incomes who are not adequately served by and social workers, among others, are
the current housing market. The need for finding it more difficult to live near their jobs.
DRAFT November 2017

affordable housing is well documented and
can be measured in many ways.
We are not growing
More than 45,000 households equitably.
spend more than half of their
income on housing. People of Color in Seattle are
more than five times more likely to
This condition is referred to as a severe
cost burden. Nearly one in seven Seattle be part of the working poor.

households is severely cost burdened The share of adults who are working
when it comes to housing. This means full-time jobs but still cannot make ends
these households have less money to meet has increased, particularly among
spend on education, healthcare, healthful Latinos and other workers of color. As the
food, transportation, and more. The lack low-wage sector has grown, the failure
of affordable housing has disproportionate of even full-time work to pay family-
impacts on certain populations. Nearly supporting wages dampens the potential
35 percent of Black renter households in of millions of workers and our nation as a
Seattle pay more than half of their income whole. | PolicyLink
on housing, compared to about 18 percent
of White renter households.
17% People of Color
3% White People
$
Seattle adults working full-time, living
below 200% of the poverty level (2014)
| PolicyLink
1 in 7 Seattle households are severely cost

burdened when it comes to housing
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Project Background
In 2014, Black households had In 2017, Count Us In identified 905
the lowest homeownership rate in families with children experiencing
Seattle, at 25%. homelessness in Seattle/King
Homeownership can be a critical pathway

County.
to economic security and mobility, helping Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis
lower-income people build an asset that with many causes. Broadly defined, people
can be used to pay for education or experiencing homelessness are those who
other productive investments. Following lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime
decades of exclusion due to racist residence. This includes sleeping in a public
covenants and lending practices, people space, a car, or a camp ground. When priced
of color face new barriers to accessing out of a home, some families have chosen to
sustainable homeownership. Communities live out of doors instead of moving out of the
of color were disproportionately targeted city entirely. Many do this in order to stay in
DRAFT November 2017

by predatory lenders and negatively the communities they have worked hard to
impacted by the foreclosure crisis, establish. Some parents work full time and
contributing to the rising racial wealth gap. choose to live in a friends living room or in a
| Policy Link car so that they can maintain regular access
to jobs, beloved schools for their children,
Nearly a third of the homeless and proximity to support systems.
population is African American,
but African Americans make up Many families seek affordable housing
opetions outside of the city, choosing to live
only 6 percent of the general where the cost burden is less extreme. This
population in King County. makes for exceptionally long commutes
and less time with family and friends.
Homelessness is These trends negatively impact cherished
community fabric as well as our climate
increasing, including change mitigation goals.
childhood homelessness.
3,857 people are living without
shelter in Seattle.
The unsheltered population has grown to
3,857 people as counted in 2017. Across
King County there are 6,158 people
living unsheltered, and an additional
5,485 sheltered people experiencing
homelessness, bringing the total to 11,643
people experiencing homelessness in King
County.
A homeless camp beneath an Interstate 5 off-

ramp in Seattle's SODO district. | KUOW.org
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Project Background
HOW ARE WE ADDRESSING IT?
HALA is a multi-pronged approach to How does it work?

addressing the housing affordability crisis in
Seattle. A key recommendation is Mandatory Developers comply with MHA by providing
Housing Affordability (MHA). MHA is a affordable housing (performance option) or
landmark agreement between community paying into a fund that Seattles Office of
groups, low-income and affordable housing Housing uses to support the development
advocates, homeless advocates, private of affordable housing throughout Seattle
development, and the City of Seattle to (payment option). In exchange for this
ensure we grow more equitably than ever public benefit, new height and/or floor area
before. MHA expands rent- and income- limits are adopted to increase development
restricted affordable housing by requiring all capacity. Zoning changes provide this
new commercial and multifamily residential additional capacity within existing multifamily
DRAFT November 2017

development to contribute to affordable and commercial zones, as well as within
housing. MHA has been twenty years in existing urban villages and their expansion
the making and will allow us to grow more areas.
equitably than ever before.
Enacting affordable housing requirements
and development capacity increases
Planning for equitable simultaneously is consistent with a state-
approved approach used in other cities to
growth help increase the creation of rent-restricted
The Citys Comprehensive Plan (Seattle and market-rate housing. This strategy is an
2035) includes a goal to help meet current important tool for slowing rent increases and
and projected regional housing needs of providing a wider array of housing choices.
all economic and demographic groups by The amount of additional height and/or floor
increasing Seattles housing choices. To area granted would vary by zone to account
help achieve that goal, Seattles Housing for the size of buildings currently allowed,
Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) as well as specific design considerations. In
strives to create 50,000 homes by 2025, most zones, a typical change would allow
including 20,000 affordable homes. one additional story of development.
Critical to this overall vision, Mandatory

Housing Affordability (MHA) will provide
at least 6,000 of the 20,000 net new rent-
restricted homes for households with
incomes no higher than 60 percent of the
area median income. In 2016, 60 percent of
the area median income was about $38,000
for an individual and $54,000 for a family of
four.
To provide people with safe and

affordable housing, that is one of the
most key things that can possibly be
done to change our society.
| Rick Wyman
Rick Wyman is a resident of Arbor
Woods Apartments, Mt. Baker Housing
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Project Background
Both payment and performance options offer HALA Advisory Committee
unique benefits and are equally important to 20 Oct 2014 Multi-stakeholder committee
the success of MHA. With the performance 14
meets monthly for ten months
option, a specified percentage of homes 20 Jul 2015 Committee publishes report
in new multifamily residential buildings will 15
of 65 recommendations addressing
be reserved for income-eligible households
housing affordability crisis in Seattle
and have restricted rents. These affordable
homes will be comparable to market-rate
units (e.g., size, number of bedrooms, and Council Work Plan for HALA
lease terms). Recommendations
Fall 2015 Approved by City Council
With the payment option, developer
contributions enable the Office of Housing Community Engagement Kickoff!
to leverage other funds to produce more Start of 2+ years talking with
Fall 2015
affordable housing overall. In addition, communities and gathering input
DRAFT November 2017

affordable housing funded with MHA
payments advances other City goals, such MHA Framework Legislation
as expanding housing opportunity in all Commercial framework
Nov 2015
20
neighborhoods, addressing displacement, 16 Aug 2016Residential framework
providing housing for families with children,
and building in locations near transit and Draft Citywide MHA Zoning Maps
other amenities. Jan-Aug Crafted MHA implementation
principles with community
The City Council adopted legislation Oct Published first draft of citywide MHA
establishing frameworks for how MHA zoning maps
will apply to commercial and residential 20
Oct 2016-Jun 2017 Gathered community
17
development. However, the MHA input on draft citywide MHA zoning maps
requirements included in the frameworks do
not take effect until the City adopts zoning Implementing MHA in Other Areas
changes that increase development capacity Feb 2017 University District
and tie MHA requirements to those specific Apr Downtown & South Lake Union
zones. The University District and other Aug ChinatownInternational District
areas already involved in multi-year planning Aug 23rd & Union, Cherry, Jackson
efforts have implemented MHA already. Oct Uptown
MHA Citywide EIS & Legislation

Whats next? Jun Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Citywide proposal will go to City Council (DEIS)
in November 2017. Council is planning about Jun-Aug Public comment on DEIS
six months of community engagement on Nov Final Environmental Impact
the MHA proposal, including open houses, Statement (FEIS)
public hearings, and more. Nov (expected) Transmit MHA Citywide
legislation to City Council
Want more info? Go online to 20
www.seattle.gov/HALA for updates. 18
City Council Community Engagement
2018 6+ months of community
engagement through City Council process
Council vote on Citywide MHA
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
A NEW APPROACH Neighborhood Meetings
From the beginning this process was a City staff met with community members in
little bit different than how the City has their neighborhoods by attending standing
done traditional engagement. We asked neighborhood council meetings and through
neighborhoods to come together with other City-hosted Open Houses. City staff
neighborhoods not based on geography but responded to requests for neighborhood
based on community needs, experiences, meetings to the extent possible and reached
and application of MHA. We asked people areas throughout the city. The purpose of
who have been a part of previous planning MHA participation at neighborhood meetings
processes to welcome community members was to:
who were participating for the first time. update local neighborhood areas on
MHA progress and next steps,
The scope of MHA called for a multi-pronged
listen to feedback from local groups that
DRAFT November 2017

approach that gathered feedback from many
voices across the city. We took feedback in shape MHA implementation, and
person, online, and over the phone. We held consider neighborhood preferences for
meetings in all neighborhoods and many how MHA actions fit local conditions.
were centrally located to serve the greatest
number of community members. At our Spring 2017 Regional Open Houses,
we debuted the Hololens (see below), a
Following are descriptions of the events mixed reality experience enjoyed by many.
and interactions we had with community It allowed community members to see
discussing MHA. proposed zoning changes in 3D. It was
pretty cool!
Citywide Activities
We focused on reaching out to a broad
public audience through a variety of events,
venues, and formats. Citywide conversations
aimed at:
getting the word out about MHA,
updating the community at large on MHA
progress and next steps, and
listening to feedback from a broad public
audience.
These events included citywide meetings
such as an open house at City Hall. We sent
a mailer to households within urban villages
and expansion areas - more than 88,000!
We also conducted doorknocking aimed at
informing all single family zoned areas in
urban villages and propsed expansion areas
about MHA.
Open House with Hololens mixed reality headsets
showing proposed zoning changes in 3D
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
Digital Media
The City broke new ground in gathering your
input through multiple types of media. We
recognize that many community members
cant or prefer not to attend events in
person, for a variety of reasons. We wanted
to reach as diverse an audience as possible
by opening up our dialogue online, over the
phone, and through experimental platforms.
Digital media engagement aimed at:
making efficient use of peoples time by
allowing them to weigh in remotely,
hearing candid views that some felt
DRAFT November 2017

more comfortable sharing in a non-public
setting,
helping people see information in a new
way or from a different angle,
providing easy-access resources for self-
guided exploration and learning,
gathering input from community
members who may not have time or
resources to meet us in person,
share information broadly in a way that
could be easily shared among community
members, and
making this process fun!
Our website hosted our event calendar with
constantly updating events, key resources,
Weekly Wonk videos demystifying land
use topics, an interactive web map, PDF
maps available for download, Land Use 101
slideshows, an MHA neighborhood model
slideshow, and a video highlighting HALA
accomplishments for 2015 and 2016.
Early in the process we held three
Weekly Wonk - Mandatory Housing
Telephone Town Halls with the mayor and
Affordability
City staff. These conversations involved
phonecall notification to more than 70,000
landlines across the city, inviting households
to pose questions about HALA, MHA,
and other city issues. You can listen to
recordings online: January 31, February 2,
and February 4, 2016.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
We received feedback via email through
our email address (HALAInfo@seattle.gov)
and over the phone on the HALA hotline
(206) 743-6612. We also sent out email
newsletters through our sign-up listserv,
packed with information about HALA
progress, opportunities to get involved and
provide feedback, City Council hearings on
MHA, and what we heard at various points
throughout the process.
We shared Housing Stories as told by
community members across the city, in their
own words. These in-depth interviews shed
light on the housing crisis and measures
DRAFT November 2017

we are already taking to make Seattle more
affordable for all.
We gathered input online through the HALA
Consider.it platform. Community members
weighed in on MHA implementation
principles, proposed design standards,
and urban village expansion boundaries.
Comments were constructive and there was
a rich dialogue among community members
from across the city.
At many of our citywide events we
broadcasted directly to you with Facebook
Live. This involved live question and answer
with City staffers, streaming in real time on
our Facebook page.
Digital media provided opportunities for a ton
of interaction and rich feedback that wouldnt
have been possible at in-person events.
Thank you for getting online and getting
engaged!
Open Houses
The City hosted several rounds of open
houses. Some of these were broad, citywide
invitations to join in conversation around
HALA, MHA, and many aspects of city
life. Other events were aimed at bringing
together people from specific communities,
with localized conversations about housing,
livability, and more.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
City staff from multiple departments were on- More about focus groups:
hand at these events to answer questions There were four focus groups, each with
about our transit network, tree canopy, about 40 community members.
parks, democracy vouchers, parking, and
more. Each reflected a broad range of
perspectives.
Together we shared information about Focus groups met monthly starting in
our housing affordability crisis, existing April 2016 and were facilitated by an
and proposed programs for housing more independent third party.
people, new transportation investments such
as Move Seattle, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Groups conducted a detailed review of
and Seattle Neighborhood Greenways. Many proposed land use changes to implement
asked questions and got answers. the MHA program.
Meetings and conversations were
Participants also shared their experiences transparent and open to the public.
DRAFT November 2017

with one another while considering the
merits of the MHA proposal. Community Participants were encouraged to relay
members reviewed and commented on information to their home neighborhoods.
urban village maps, making suggestions The four focus groups were arranged by
about the proposed zoning changes. urban village type and included:
Expansion Area Urban Villages
Community Focus Groups Hub Urban Villages
In January 2016 we sent out a call for Medium Density Urban Villages
applicants to our HALA Community Focus Lower Density Urban Villages
Groups. By the end of February, nearly
seven hundred community members To support focus group members so that
across Seattle had submitted applications they could participate fully in the process,
to participate. Applicants wrote about the City provided accommodation as
commonly held aspirations for Seattle to needed:
become an affordable place as we grow. Child Care
One hundred and seventy applicants were
invited to join us for this series of monthly Transportation
conversations. Translation
HALA Community Focus Groups consisted Interpretation
of four to six representatives from each Small Stipend
urban village and adjacent neighborhood (for low-income participants only)
area. The groups were a sounding board
to give focused feedbackparticularly Overall there were thirty two meetings with
on how the MHA program would apply in participation of both focus group members
neighborhood areas. and the general public. Meetings were held
downtown at City Hall.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
City Council-Hosted The goals of these workshops were to:
Assist community members to
Community Design
understand preliminary recommendations
Workshops for MHA and potential changes to zoning
and land use;
HALA Community Urban Design Workshops
were organized by Councilmember Rob Provide an additional opportunity
Johnsons office with a goal of giving for community members and other
communities the opportunity to give input on interested groups to provide focused
MHA maps in a setting and location specific input on the program, especially where:
to their neighborhood. These workshops there is a recommend ation for significant
helped inform the City Council about boundary expansions,
community vision of how our urban villages there are proposed changes to single
should look, feel, and function in support family areas within Urban Villages,
DRAFT November 2017

of important citywide goals for increased
there are areas with both a high risk
affordability, design quality, and housing
of displacement and low access to
options throughout the city.
opportunity as identified in the City of
These workshops encouraged exchange Seattles Growth and Equity Analysis.
of ideas and opinions in small groups on Help inform the Office of Planning and
the recently proposed zoning changes Community Development (OPCD) and
for many neighborhoods, including where City Council about these communities
the boundary for urban villages should be vision of how Urban Villages should look,
drawn, what mix of zones best support feel, and function in support of important
the context and conditions of local areas, citywide goals for increased affordability,
and how to encourage more housing design quality, and housing options in
options and elements of livability (including neighborhoods throughout the city.
neighborhood infrastructure such as
frequent and reliable transit, community-
serving businesses, parks, and
schools).
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
Calendar of Events 193 meetups & counting!
2015
October
2016
January
10/8 Uptown Community Council 1/20 Morgan Junction Community Council
10/13 Beacon Hill Community Council 1/26 Belltown Community Council
10/19 Miller Community Center 1/26 Seattle at Work, City Hall
10/24 Crown Hill Neighborhood Association 1/28 Alliance for Pioneer Square
1/31 Telephone Town Hall - North Seattle
DRAFT November 2017

November
11/5 Leif Erikson Hall, Ballard February
11/5 Haller Lake with Councilmember OBrien 2/2 Telephone Town Hall - Central Seattle
11/7 Comprehensive Plan Meeting - South End 2/4 Telephone Town Hall - South / West Seattle
11/12 Comprehensive Plan Meeting - West Seattle 2/9 Lakewood Neighborhood Association
11/12 Central District Community Council 2/10 Belltown Community Council
11/14 Comprehensive Plan Meeting - North Seattle 2/13 Seattle Neighborhood Coalition
2/17 OPCD Wallingford Houseparty
December 2/18 Capitol Hill Community Council & Capitol Hill Housing
2/20 Lake City Neighborhood Alliance
12/1 South Lake Union Community Meeting 2/23 Housing Levy & HALA in West Seattle
12/2 Southwest Community Council 2/24 International District HALA meet up hosted by
12/8 Green Drinks SCIDpda, Interim CDA, CIDBIA
12/14 Queen Anne / Magnolia Community Council 2/25 South East Seattle HALA meet up hosted by
12/16 SAGE Equity and Density Panel South CORE, SE Dist. Council
March
3/3 Meet Up with Wallingford Folks
You invited us, we showed up! 3/12 West Seattle VIEWS
More than fifty (50!) events 3/15 Facebook Lunch and Learn
RSVP
were hosted by community 3/15 Housing Levy at Magnolia Community Council

3/16 Wallingford for Everyone
groups, local councils, and
3/17 Law Seminars Conference
advocacy organizations,
3/21 Downtown Focus Group + Livability
who invited us to talk about
3/23 Goodwill Event with ESL
MHA, HALA, and housing
3/30 Ethiopian Community in Seattle
affordability. We came packed 3/30 Wallingford Community Meeting
to the gills with informational
materials, engaged in
Q&A about what housing April
affordability means to you, 4/4 HALA Community Focus Group Orientation
and how the city is working to 4/5 Designer/Builder Working Group
address this urgent crisis. 4/13 Arts in the City
4/19 Livability Night Out
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
Calendar of Events
May 8/18 Lake City Farmers Market
8/21 West Seattle Farmers Market
5/11 Rainier Beach Community Club 8/22 Focus Group - Lower Density Urban Villages
5/11 Greenlake Community Council 8/23 Focus Group - Hub Urban Villages
5/16 Queen Anne Land Use Review 8/23 Meeting with Crown Hill Urban Village Committee
5/17 Ravenna/Bryant Neighborhood Association for Smart Growth
5/21 HALA table at the U District Street Fair 8/25 Focus Group - Medium Density Urban Villages
5/23 Focus Group - Expansion Areas 8/25 Summer Parkways in Ballard with CityScoop
5/23 Focus Group - Lower Density Urban Villages
5/24 Focus Group - Hub Urban Villages
5/26 Focus Group - Medium Density Urban Villages September
5/31 Aurora-Licton Springs Find It Fix It Walk 9/8 Discussion at University of Washington
5/31 POEL Focus Group Discussion 9/14 Meeting with Columbia City Business Association
DRAFT November 2017

9/14 Meeting with AuroraLicton Springs Urban
June Village Community Council representatives
9/19 Designer / Builder Working Group
6/1 Aurora Neighbor Gathering 9/19 Community Representative Working Group
6/2 Community Representative Working Group 9/22 Meeting with Othello Area Stakeholders
6/6 Land Use 101 9/25 CityScoop West Seattle
6/8 WallHALA 9/27 Focus Group - Combined Meeting
6/8 Jubilee Womens Circle 9/29 Meeting with Anti-Displacment Stakeholders
6/8 Rainier Beach Community Club
6/13 Judkins Park Community Council
6/14 Arts Commission October
6/20 Focus Group - Expansion Areas 10/2 Mt. Baker Community Club
6/20 Focus Group - Lower Density Urban Villages 10/4 Seattle Planning Commission
6/21 Focus Group - Hub Urban Villages 10/5 Meeting with Sightline Institute
6/30 Focus Group - Medium Density Urban Villages 10/7 EIS Scoping discussion with Fremont and
U-District commenters
July 10/16 Meeting with The Urbanist writers
10/17 Focus Group - Expansion Areas
7/11 Focus Group - Expansion Areas 10/20 Beacon Hill Council Workshop
7/12 Focus Group - Hub Urban Villages 10/24 Focus Group - Lower Density Urban Villages
7/21 Designer / Builder Working Group 10/25 Focus Group - Hub Urban Villages
7/25 Focus Group - Lower Density Urban Villages 10/27 Focus Group - Medium Density Urban Villages
7/27 Maple Leaf Ice Cream Social 10/27 Seattle Planning Commission committee
7/28 Focus Group - Medium Density Urban Villages 10/29 Roosevelt Council Workshop
7/29 Phinney Ridge Farmers Market
August November
11/1 On Board Othello at Homesight
8/2 Rainier Beach Big Night Out 11/1 West Seattle small group walk
8/5 Phinney Ridge Farmers Market 11/9 City Council-hosted Community Design
8/8 Latino Equity Lunch Workshop - Westwood Village
8/11 Lake City Farmers Market 11/15 First Hill Improvement Association
8/12 Rainier Valley Summer Parkways with City Scoop 11/15 Crown Hill Council Workshop
8/12 Urban League Lunch 11/19 Crown Hill Whittier Heights Find It Fix It
8/15 Focus Group - Expansion Areas 11/21 Focus Group Webinar - Expansion Areas
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
Calendar of Events
11/22 Focus Group Webinar - Hub Urban Villages (RBAC) leadership
11/28 Focus Group Webinar - Lower Density Urban 1/26 City Council-hosted Community Design
Villages Workshop - West Seattle Junction
11/29 Morgan Community Association 1/31 City Council-hosted Community Design
11/29 City Council-hosted Community Design Workshop - 23rd & Union/Jackson
Workshop - Aurora-Licton Springs 1/31 Meeting with Wallingford community member
about RSL standards
December 1/31 Meeting Crown Hill Committee for Smart
Growth leadership
12/1 Focus Group Webinar - Medium Density
Urban Villages
12/3 HALA Winter Open House - Northwest February
Neighborhoods - Bitter Lake Community Center 2/1 Wallingford Community Council
DRAFT November 2017

12/6 Unreinforced Masonry (URM) advisory group meeting 2/4 HALA Winter Open House - Southeast
12/7 HALA Winter Open House - Southwest Neighborhoods - The Royal Room
Neighborhoods - Youngstown Cultural Arts 2/7 Focus Group Wrap-up Event
Center & Shelbys Bistro and Ice Creamery 2/11 City Council-hosted Community Design
12/10 Presentation and meeting at Roosevelt Workshop - Admiral
Neighborhood Association Land Use Academy 2/11 Seattle Neighborhood Coalition
12/10 December Focus Group Drop-in 2/17 Yesler Community Collaborative Policy Committee
12/13 HALA Winter Open House - Northeast 2/28 City Council-hosted Community Design
Neighborhoods - Ravenna Community Center Workshop - Madison-Miller
12/15 Housing Development Consortium Affinity Group
12/16 Meeting with Anti-Displacement Stakeholders March
3/2 City Council-hosted Community Design
2017
Workshop - North Rainier / Mt. Baker
3/5 HALA and Historic Preservation Panel
3/6 City Council-hosted Community Design
Workshop / Morgan Junction
3/8 Columbia City in-home hosted discussion
3/10 MHA for Downtown Residents and
January Stakeholders
1/4 Capitol Hill Renters Initiative 3/11 Capitol Hill Renters Initiative at Optimism
1/10 HALA Winter Open House - Central Brewing Company
Neighborhoods - Optimism Brewing 3/13 City Council-hosted Community Design
1/11 City Council-hosted Community Design Workshop - Eastlake
Workshop - South Park 3/13 Downtown Projects Information Sharing
1/12 Seattle Planning Commission 3/14 Wallingford Find It Fix It Community Event
1/17 City Council-hosted Community Design 3/16 Chong Wa Benevolent Association
Workshop - Wallingford 3/17 Seattle for Everyone Coalition Meeting
1/19 City Council-hosted Community Design 3/28 Small Developer, Designer, and Builder
Workshop - Othello Stakeholder Meeting
1/23 Pike Pine Urban Neighborhoods Committee 3/29 City Council-hosted Community Design
(PPUNC) Workshop - Rainier Beach
1/24 HALA Building Code Charette 3/29 Uptown Rezone Public Open House
1/25 Meeting with Rainier Beach Action Coalition 3/30 Reddit Ask Me Anything
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
Calendar of Events
April
4/11 Presentation to Ankrom Moisan Architects
4/11 Chinatown-International District Safety Task Force
4/13 Seattle Planning Commission
4/27 Community Open House - Northwest
Neighborhoods - Hales Ales Brewery
4/29 Community Open House - Northeast
Neighborhoods - Northgate Community Center
May
5/6 Community Open House - Southwest
DRAFT November 2017

Neighborhoods - Westside School
5/13 Community Open House - Southeast
Neighborhoods - Rainier Beach Community Center
5/16 Community Open House - Central
Neighborhoods - Washington Hall
June
6/2 South Park Carnival at Concord International School
6/14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
presentation to South Park & Georgetown
community leaders with Duwamish Valley Program
6/27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement briefing
with Roosevelt Neighborhood Association
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Outreach Activities
Event Map
Meet-ups are shown by City Council District
11
updated 9/27/2017
5
MEET-UPS TOTAL HALA
meetups
6
23
MEET-UPS
23
MEET-UPS 198
7 4
DRAFT November 2017

14
MEET-UPS
Citywide
+ online
19
events
3
MEET-UPS 61
MEET-UPS
2
1
19
MEET-UPS 28
MEET-UPS
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
How Community Input Shapes Policy
YOUR INPUT MATTERS Addressing Areas at Greatest Risk
of Displacement
Community input is Concern about physical, economic, and
cultural displacement
invaluable to ensuring Community members want to know how
that we implement MHA MHA can help minimize displacement. Many
have observed displacement of neighbors
thoughtfully and equitably and friends, find themselves at risk of
across Seattles diverse displacement, or have already found the
need to move out of their neighborhood
neighborhoods. or the city entirely. Community members
There was a broad spectrum of themes attributed displacement trends to rising
that emerged through engagement. This housing costs, redevelopment of existing
housing, and lack of sufficient affordable
DRAFT November 2017

section discusses consistent themes we
heard across the city and how that input housing choices.
has shaped the MHA proposal. Much of MHA is an anti-displacement policy.
this input has been incorporated into MHA MHA requires development to contribute
implementation. In some cases MHA already to affordable housing. This new policy is
accounts for these concerns, which we key to reaching the overall HALA goal to
discuss as well. Other issues are already triple our current production of rent- and
being addressed through the ongoing income-restricted housing for low-income
programs at various departments throughout community members. MHA is not our
the City, outside of MHA. Furthermore, only tool for preventing displacement,
perspectives on many of these themes but it a critical part of the overall strategy.
often conflict, as community members hold See the section later in this document
different viewpoints on these issues. That on Themes of the Final Proposal for
tension is described as well. more information about how the zoning
Finally, some themes emerged that are in proposal carefully considers areas at
conflict with either the MHA program goals high risk of displacement.
or its legal mechanisms. Sharing these ideas MHA implementation was crafted
and aspirations is important for illustrating with a racial equity lens. In our final
our many varied perspectives, even if we proposal to City Council, we have
cannot act on them. considered smaller changes in zoning
where theres a high risk of displacement
for marginalized people. Likewise,
weve proposed to allow more housing
in neighborhoods where displacement
risk is low and the cost of housing limits
access for marginalized populations.
There is a strong desire to focus anti-
displacement efforts toward low-income
populations, seniors, people with
disabilities, communities of color, and
immigrant and refugee communities.
Many of these groups are most at risk of
displacement.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Area-specific displacement concerns than what could be created through
Community-based organizations in performance because the City can
Chinatown-International District and the leverage other funding sources with
Central Area asked how we can strengthen MHA payment funds. It is estimated
MHA to mitigate displacement in those that MHA payments could produce
neighborhoods. Our Seattle 2035 Growth at least twice as many units as the
and Equity Report found that Chinatown- performance option for a given project.
International District and the Central Area
are the two Seattle communities most b. High quality and sustainable
impacted by all three types of residential construction. Affordable housing
displacement: physical, economic, and developments funded with payment
cultural. contributions are built to Evergreen
Sustainable Development Standards.
In response to these trends, coupled with
engagement with key community-based c. Strong equity outcomes. Seattles
DRAFT November 2017

organizations from those communities, Office of Housing invests in areas with
Chinatown-International District and the high displacement risk and areas that
Central Area were moved to a higher lack private investment.
tier of MHA requirements to ensure
that when development occurs in this d. MHA payments can be used for
historically marginalized communities, preservation of existing housing.
the community will see the highest public MHA funds go to the Seattle Office of
benefit. Housing, which operates the Rental
Housing Program. This program funds
Payment and performance options both rental housing production and
Many questioned why developers should preservation of existing housing for
be allowed to make a payment instead low-income community members. A
of building affordable housing as part of key program objective is to Promote
each development. Others felt that we preservation of affordable housing,
should encourage more payment in-lieu of and prevent displacement of Low
performance since it would result in a larger Income residents, through purchase
number of affordable housing units overall. and rehabilitation of existing housing.
Funding sources come from MHA
Allowing both options provides payments, the Seattle Housing
flexibility. Payment and performance Levy, federal funds, and other fund
both result in mixed-income sources. See the Office of Housing
neighborhoods. The option to choose Seattle Housing Levy Administrative &
allows small and large projects alike to Financial Plan for more information.
contribute to affordable housing while
maintaining development feasibility e. Strategic community investments.
There are crucial benefits to allowing Affordable housing funded with MHA
the payment option. Allowing affordable payments can incorporate community-
housing payments keeps the program identified goals such as family-
in compliance with state law, but there sized and family-friendly housing,
are additional benefits not immediately wraparound support services, and
obvious to the public, such as: more.
a. More affordable housing. Payment
yields substantially more housing
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Preserving existing low-cost housing to households making no more than
Many community members suggested the 60% of the Area Median Income. MHA
City combat displacement by incentivizing payments, however, can be applied with
preservation of low-cost, market-rate more flexibility, and historically the Office
housing where possible, while also creating of Housing funds affordable housing
new affordable housing. development serving very low income
(0-30% AMI) households, not just those
See above for information about how MHA making 60% AMI. The Office of Housing
payments can be used for preservation of funds homeowner programs that serve
existing housing. people making up to 80% AMI.
Duration of affordability Housing choices for others who are
cost burdened. MHA is one of many
Some community members suggested strategies addressing the housing
that affordable units be required to stay affordability crisis. Adding development
DRAFT November 2017

affordable indefinitely. capacity through MHA while expanding
MHA housing will be affordable for all zone types allows more housing
75 years. The original proposal called choices for more households.
for 50 years of affordability with MHA
performance housing. This period was Property taxes
established as it is consistent with Some homeowners expressed concern
requirements for state and federal funded that zoning changes in their neighborhoods
affordable housing projects and because could elevate assessed property values,
buildings of this age are generally lower- which might increase property taxes. Others
cost and need additional money to be suggested that property values would
rehabilitated. In response to broad public decrease with zoning changes, which could
support for longer terms of affordability, cause a loss of equity.
MHA homes will now be affordable for 75 Changes in property tax due to MHA are
years. likely to be small in most cases. The King
Serving our lowest-income households County Assessor determines property
and others who are cost burdened taxes by multiplying a citywide tax rate
by the assessed value of a property.
There was quite a bit of conversation about The assessed value is essentially the
the levels of affordability required with MHA. Assessors estimate of how much a
Many expressed concern about community property could sell. If the Assessors
members making far less than 60% of Area determines in the future that the value of
Medium Income (AMI), as well as those who additional development capacity, along
do not qualify for rent-restricted housing but with the cost of MHA requirements, has
still find themselves cost burdened when it significantly increased the overall value
comes to housing. Across the board there of your property, then your property
was support for more housing affordable to taxes would go up as well. Economic
all income levels. analysis suggests that value of the
MHA payments fund rent- and income- additional capacity and the cost of MHA
restricted housing for people making are generally offsetting on most sites, but
0-80% of the Area Median Income. it is possible that value could increase
MHA performance requirements stipulate in many cases. This change would not,
that affordable housing included in however, happen automatically when
market rate development is affordable a zoning change occurs. A propertys
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
assessed value increases only if there Taxypayer Assistance and Relief.
is evidence that the value of properties Washington State law provides two tax
with similar zoning and location has benefit programs for senior citizens and
increased. the disabled: property tax exemptions
A study of property assessments after a and property tax deferrals. Yet more
2011 rezone near the proposed site of than 26,000 qualified seniors and
the Roosevelt Light Rail Station provides disabled persons have yet to register
some clues about how property values for the exemption, and only 1 in 100 of
could potentially change under MHA. those eligible for deferrals are currently
In that area, a number of parcels were enrolled.
rezoned from Single Family to Lowrise Linking Zone Changes to
3 (allowing four-story apartments) and Affordable Housing Requirements
Midrise (allowing six-story apartments)
without the implementation of MHA Balancing affordable housing
DRAFT November 2017

requirements. A comparison of these requirements with a need for more
parcels to adjacent single-family parcels housing overall
that were not rezoned showed no change
There were questions about why the City
in property assessments or taxes for the
needs to provide additional development
rezoned properties in the first three years
capacity as part of MHA. Many felt that
following the zoning changes. In the
developers should be required to contribute
four and fifth year, after groundbreaking
to affordable housing without added
of several large Midrise multifamily
capacity.
apartment buildings, property values for
the Midrise-zoned properties increased We need more market-rate and rent-
while the Lowrise-zoned properties and income-restricted housing to
continue to show no difference from the address our housing affordability
single-family zoned areas. Even in the crisis. To address the housing
extreme case of a rezone from single- affordability crisis, Seattle must build
family to Midrise adjacent to the light rail a substantial amount of market-rate
station without MHA requirements, the housing in order to reduce competition
increase in property assessment was for housing and slow rent increases.
roughly 25 percent. We also need more rent- and income-
restricted affordable housing to provide
Property taxes, excluding publicly
housing for people that market-rate
approved levies, are also subject to
housing doesnt serve. Numerous studies
regulations that limit the total increase
have found that both strategies are
in taxes within a City to one percent
necessary to address affordability overall.
annually, with some limited exceptions.
By implementing zoning changes and
If, for example, all properties in the City
affordable housing requirements at the
increased in value by exactly 10 percent,
same time, we can substantially increase
the tax rate would have to go down such
our supply of affordable housing without
that the total property taxes collected
affecting the critical supply of market-rate
would only go up by one percent. As
housing.
MHA is proposed to be implemented
citywide, this rule will limit the potential Nearly every conversation about MHA
increase in property taxes. included discussion of proposed affordability
requirements. The City heard many
perspectivessome expressing the
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
affordable housing requirements are too In response, we made two key changes
high, and others that they are too low. Many to the MHA proposal.
participants voiced a desire for requiring First, we added an explicit direction to the
more affordable housing onsite or higher Office of Housing to consider the location
fees. Others expressed concern that high of where payments are generated in
requirements could stifle development and its investment decisions, in addition to
further drive up housing costs. other strategic goals such as addressing
MHA balances affordable housing displacement, locating near transit, and
requirements with value of added serve the needs of residents.
capacity. A key program component Second, we added requirements to
is the balance of affordable housing ensure transparency and accountability
requirements and the value provided as the Office of Housing implements
to landowners through additional MHA. In addition to annual reporting to
development capacity. MHA payment City Council on the overall performance
DRAFT November 2017

and performance requirements were of the program, including how and where
developed so that, in most cases, the funds are invested, the Office of Housing
requirements and the value are generally will be required to identify as a priority
balanced. any area where there is a significant
Affordable housing requirements imbalance between its investments and
are designed to be higher where the receipts of MHA payments.
value of additional development is Also, through participation in
greater. MHA requirements vary based MHA community conversations, many
on the market strength of various areas community members learned about the
of Seattle according to high, medium, Office of Housings 35-year track record of
and low categories. Additionally, sites investing in affordable housing in all City
that received larger increases in capacity neighborhoods. See map below.
have higher requirements through a
classification of M, M1, or M2 suffixes. !
! ! !! !
!!
!
!!
!! !!
! !!
! !
! ! ! !
Affordable Housing in
! !!
! !!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !!
! ! !
Neighborhoods Experiencing
!
! !
! !
! !!! ! !! !
!
! !
Development !
!
!!!!!
! !!
!! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!! ! !
Investing MHA payments

!! ! !
! !! ! ! !
!! ! !
!!!! !
! !!
!
!! ! ! !!
!
There was widespread concern that in-

!
!!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
lieu fee revenue might not be used in the

!
!
!
neighborhoods where development is Seattle Office of Housing !

!
!
!! !!
!
!!! !
! !! !
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!
! !!
!! !!!!
!
occurring. There was even some concern

!!!!
Rent- and Income-Restricted
!
!!
!! !!! !!! !!! ! !!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!
! !! !
!
! ! !!
!
!! !
!! !
! ! !
!
!!
Housing Locations
!
!
that this revenue might be used entirely

! !
!!!! !!
!! !!!! ! !
!! !
!
!
!!!! !!
!
!!! !!!!!!!!
!
! !!
!!! !
in relatively low-cost neighborhoods.

!
!! !
!
Many expressed a desire for payments

! !! !
!
! !
!!!
!!
generated by development in an urban

! ! !
!
!!! !!!
! ! !! !
!!!!! !
!!!
! !
village be dedicated to the development or

! !
!!
!
! ! !
! !
!
preservation of affordable housing in that

! !
! !
! !
!! !
!
same urban village.

! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Locating near assets and There was also strong support for locating
infrastructure more housing near neighborhood assets and
infrastructure such as parks and schools.
Maximizing public investments There was broader set of conflicting opinions
Many community members supported on this topic, however, with some citing
expanding housing choices in urban villages capacity concerns for these resources.
by allowing more development capacity in all The final proposal prioritizes more
zone types, including areas currently zoned capacity increases assets and
Single Family. There was strong support infrastructure such as parks and
for increasing development capacity near schools. Referring to the Seattle 2035
high frequency transit in urban villages, Comprehensive Plan, Community
which would allow more people access Generated Principles, and community
to the transit network, particularly for low- input that together encourage maximizing
income households. Many felt that capacity the utility of public investments, weve
DRAFT November 2017

increases are a good trade-off for more suggested more room for housing near
affordable housing, and will help create parks and schools. We proposed Lowrise
more housing options for households at all zoning in areas close to Jefferson Park,
income levels. Many expressed support for Judkins Park, Wallingford Playfield, and
more Lowrise instead of Residential Small Miller Playfield.
Lot (RSL) in urban villages, particularly near
major transit investments such as light rail Addressing Concerns about
and bus rapid transit (BRT). Impacts to Historic Districts
In contrast, many community members Ensuring historic areas maintain their
expressed concern that allowing new character
building types in areas currently zoned
Single Family could negatively impact There is widespread interest in preserving
neighborhood character and livability. aspects of Seattles architectural character
Concerns raised included potential for in its residential areas and business districts.
taller buildings to block light and air, and Examples of these areas include Pioneer
more. More concerns associated with Square and the Chinatown-International
adding capacity in Single Family areas District. While these areas generally
are discussed below. Many of these accommodate a mix of old and new
comments recommended removing current structures, many expressed concerns that
Single Family areas from urban villages or increasing the potential height difference
excluding them from MHA zone changes. between existing historic buildings and new
The final proposal prioritizes the development could have negative impacts
greatest capacity increases near on the overall character of the districts.
transit. Weve proposed Lowrise Some went further and recommended that
zoning near the Beacon Hill and future the City designate more historic areas in
Roosevelt light rail stations, among certain business districts and Single Family
others, in areas that currently allow areas to preserve the character of these
only Single Family homes. Single places.
Family areas inside urban villages and In contrast, other community members
expansion areas account for about 6% of recommended that historic areas contribute
Single Family zoned area in the city. to affordable housing through MHA. They
underscored the idea that fewer areas
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
contributing to MHA may result in less There was some agreement that RSL should
affordable and market rate housing. still allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Community Generated Principles and Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
call for National Historic Register (DADUs) and other options to be built by
Districts to be excluded from MHA homeowners.
implementation. We decided that Some suggested that RSL zoning might
since historic areas represent a very support homeowners seeking to stay in
small portion of the city and are unlikely their neighborhoods while adding housing
to see much redevelopment due to to their property and requested that we
existing protections, excluding these seek opportunities to encourage this option.
areas from MHA would not significantly Encouraging this type of approach could
reduce the amount of affordable housing help homeowners build and maintain equity.
generated. As an example, the legislation
implementing MHA in Downtown and The MHA proposal recommends a
DRAFT November 2017

South Lake Union, which was adopted mix of zone types across the city.
by City Council in April 2017, excluded Residential Small Lot and Lowrise 1
the National Historic Register Districts in zones maintain the scale of Single
that area as well as a small area in which Family areas while allowing cottage
increasing height could interfere with a housing, stacked flats, townhomes, and
protected view corridor from Pike Place rowhouses, and contributing to affordable
Market. Similarly, we have not proposed housing. Lowrise 2 and 3 also allow
zone changes in Seattles designated family size housing as townhomes,
Historic Districts, like Ballard Avenue, rowhouses, and apartments. Mixed
Harvard-Belmont, and Columbia City. use development in Neighborhood
With this approach, theres no change Commercial zones allow everything from
to the currently allowed height and scale studios to multi-bedroom units in family-
for new buildings in these areas, and friendly buildings with shops, services,
new development would not have MHA and amenities nearby.
requirements for affordable housing. In most urban village expansion areas,
Residential Small Lot zoning would allow
Housing options a wider range of housing types but at
There was general agreement among a scale similar to existing single-family
community members that we need more neighborhoods. For example, you will
housing choices within new development. see RSL in the proposed expansion
The kinds of choices discussed included areas in Crown Hill, Roosevelt, North
options for households in different life Rainier, and Othello.
phases: studios for individuals, multi- MHA includes a requirement for
bedroom units for families, and housing family-size units. We are proposing a
that serves aging populations. There few strategies to encourage family-size
were also many discussions about how housing as we welcome new neighbors.
housing choices could serve people with A family-size unit requirement for Lowrise
different lifestyles, incomes, and cultural 1 zones would ensure new housing
backgrounds. For example in some cultural options include two- or three-bedroom
traditions families have more children, which units that serve larger households. And
requires housing with a minmum number of weve proposed RSL and Lowrise 1
bedrooms. zoning along quiet streets to encourage
family-friendly housing like cottages,
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
rowhouses, and townhomes, where each were concerned that overall the program
unit has direct access to ground-level would reduce the value of redevelopment in
open space. these zones which would reduce the amount
of market-rate housing (and thus also the
Zone changes where MHA will not apply amount of affordable housing generated
Many community membershomeowners through MHA). These comments tended
and renters alikequestioned why Single to focus on the zones that currently allow
Family areas outside of urban villages townhouses, zones where additional floors
should not contribute to affordability result in different, more expensive building
through MHA. Many expressed support for code requirements, and zones where the
including all Single Family areas of the city increase in Floor Area Ratio was less than
in a rezone. Many community members 20%.
observed that Single Family areas across Some people suggested we consider
the city already have a variety of building allowing more housing types beyond Single
DRAFT November 2017

types, including duplexes, triplexes, and Family in other areas outside of urban
apartment buildings. Most were built before villages.
the areas were zoned Single Family, and
provide living examples of multiple housing Community Generated Principles &
types in one neighborhood. Proposed Zoning Changes
Many community members pointed to some Community-generated MHA principles were
commercial zones and industrial areas that a frequent touchstone for developing the
limit or preclude residential development initial set of recommended zoning proposals
as areas where the City should consider across Seattles urban villages and centers.
allowing housing, particularly in areas well These principles influenced choices about
served by transit and other amenities. the amount of additional development
The proposal recommends zone capacity to propose on a given block, what
changes inside urban villages, areas should not participate in the program,
expansion areas, and areas already and the types and amount of housing to
zoned for multifamily or commercial encourage, among others. Following are
uses. Other areas currenctly zoned specific examples of how these principles
single family or industrial are not part of were applied in various urban villages:
the proposal. However all single family Our draft proposal frequently reflects
areas contribute to affordable housing several different MHA Principles that
outside of MHA through the Housing dont point to the same zoning choice.
Levy, a property tax that funds rent- and For example, the urban village expansion
income-restricted homes in Seattle. area in Ballard includes a mix of Lowrise
Also, City Council is exploring a policy 2, Lowrise 1, and Residential Small Lot
that would allow more housing options zoning. This approach seeks to balance
in Single Family areas by encouraging the principle to ensure development
backyard cottages and mother-in-law in expansion areas is compatible
units. with existing context, the principle to
Some also felt that the amount of additional allow more people to live near transit
development capacity that was proposed investments like RapidRide bus rapid
in some areas was too low in comparison transit, and the principle to plan for a
to the cost of the affordable housing gradual transition between major arterials
requirements. These community members like 15th Ave NW and surrounding lower-
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
scale areas. In these instances where several zones to help reduce the visibility
the community-generated MHA Principles of the additional height of new buildings
suggest varying zoning choices, we seek under MHA.
guidance in the core MHA Principles, Weve also proposed modulation
like advancing racial equity, and in our requirements, new Pedestrian Zone
Comprehensive Plan, which charts an designations, and maximum width
overall vision for Seattles future growth. regulations that help ensure more
Urban design quality buildings are visually interesting and
engaging at street level.
Much of the conversation about adding Were updating Seattles Green Factor
development capacity centered on the size, landscaping requirement to incentivize
shape, architectural style, and material trees and large plantings that soften
choices of new buildings. the experience of bulk and scale of
new buildings, while including human
DRAFT November 2017

There were many suggestions that we relax
development standards on building use, and environmental health benefits, and
height, setbacks, and FAR in all existing and generally adding to our quality of life.
proposed Multifamily and Commercial zones Transitions
in order to maximize utility of developable
land and ease upward pressure on housing Community members expressed concern
prices. that transitions where Single Family zones
abut neighborhood commercial zones are
Contrasting suggestions were aimed too extreme. There were suggestions to
at limiting the scale of new buildings to soften that transition with an intermediate
minimize their impact on existing buildings zone, such as Lowrise.
and yards. Community members suggested
this could be achieved by requiring greater Many observed that the Lowrise 1 zone has
setbacks and limiting bulk and height of new roughly the same height requirements as
development adjacent to existing single- Single Family, and so can be an appropriate
family homes. Most concerns focused on transition zone between Single Family areas
the importance of open space, vegetation, and zones that allow taller buildings. There
and access to light and air at ground level. were also assertions that Residential Small
Many community members recommended Lot is the most appropriate zone to place
reducing the impact of rooftop height between Single Family and higher zones.
extensions like penthouses and roof decks.
Some community members suggested
Many people felt that new buildings arent forgoing transitions altogether if it would
designed well in terms of their aesthetics. allow Single Family zones to remain
Community members often expressed a unchanged, even in cases where Single
strong desire for greater public influence Family would then abut six-eight story
over building design through the design midrise buildings.
review process. Contrastingly, some In Crown Hill, weve proposed Lowrise
in the design and development fields and Residential Small Lot (RSL) zoning
recommended reducing project delays and to create a more gradual transition
expense by easing design review standards, between the Neighborhood Commercial
which could help lower housing costs. buildings along 15th Ave NW and the
To promote urban design quality, were nearby blocks zoned for single-family
proposing a new upper-level setback in homes.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
You can also see this approach in parts
it does not include 20th Ave NW, a very
of the AuroraLicton Springs Urban
narrow street that functions as an alley.
Village, where current zoning has
resulted in small-scale development
almost directly next to a highway, and Many of the following topics brought
in Wallingford, where Lowrise zoning up in community conversations are key
behind the Commercial zoning on Stone to livability in Seattle. The Citys various
Way would create a transition to single- departments are working hard to deliver
family areas outside the urban village. these livability basics and improvements,
Urban village expansion areas and know that more can and will be done.
Though these topics fall outside of the scope
Some community members suggested that of MHA, they are included here because
the City focus zoning changes to existing they were so common in our community con-
urban villages before expanding any versations. You can find more information
DRAFT November 2017

boundaries. Others supported proposals about many of these issues in the Growth
to expand boundaries near high frequency and Livability Report.
transit, so as to allow more multifamily
land near these transit investments. Some Infrastructure
supported additional expansion areas Some community members expressed
not currently in the proposaleither to strong support for addressing local drainage
incorporate key investments or community problems before adding development
assets into the urban village, or to include capacity in those areas.
specific lower-density properties that would
otherwise be surrounded by higher-density Traffic
uses. Many identified traffic congestion as a
Some adjustments to proposed significant challenge to livability across the
expansion areas were made based on city. There was broad desire to ensure that
community input as well as overarching transportation infrastructure is in place
themes of limiting change in areas at before additional development capacity,
high risk of displacement. especially in areas like West Seattle that are
dependent on limited travel corridors.
Unique conditions
Others acknowledged that traffic congestion
Many recommended that the City consider is likely to worsen regardless of whether
topography when making zoning changes so MHA is implemented, and that providing
that transitions from one zone to the next are more housing options near transit hubs will
reasonable. help more people get around more easily.
There are several areas where we
Public transit
lowered the scale of change due to
topographic conditions. See the urban Many believed that transit is improving, and
village maps for more detail. if the City waits too long to require affordable
housing, more people will be priced out,
Some commenters suggested that we
resulting in more long distance commutes.
should consider locating less housing in
There was shared understanding that
areas with streets that are unimproved, have
more people commuting longer distances
dead ends, or have few sidewalks nearby.
undermines equity and climate goals.
In Crown Hill we adjusted the proposed Many suggested that urban villages with
urban village boundary expansion so that
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
lower levels of transit available should not that these places not receive additional
receive additional development capacity until development capacity until the sidewalk
expanded transit service is available. Some network is complete. Many also supported
observed that some buses are at capacity existing requirements to provide sidewalks
during peak travel times. with all new buildings. Further, some
suggested that missing sidewalks should
Many suggested that we consider planned
be considered when making urban village
transit investments when making capacity
expansions.
increases. Those include Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) on Madison Avenue, the Judkins Park Among the development community and
Light Rail station, and future light rail stations those seeking to build single family homes,
in Ballard and West Seattle. there was agreement that not all new
development should require sidewalks,
Tree canopy
as the cost is overly burdensome to small
developers.
DRAFT November 2017

Some expressed concern that zoning
changes could result in loss of the citys tree
Parking
canopy coverage. There were suggestions
that the City strengthen protection for trees. Parking is a particularly hot topic, and was
discussed regularly at meetings and online.
Parks & open space
Many expressed strong support for current
Some expressed concern that some policy that does not require parking spaces
urban villages lacked sufficient parks and with new development inside urban villages.
open space and suggested expansion Many said that support for the current policy
of these amenities prior to allowing more helps advance CO2 reduction goals. It was
development capacity in select areas. agreed that the transition from a car culture
to a transit culture is difficult but necessary
Commercial affordability & small business to achieve equity and climate goals. Many
others suggested that we require new
There was widespread agreement that
development to include parking so as to
small and affordable retail spaces be
reduce impacts on scarce street parking.
incentivized so that existing local businesses
can transition into appropriately sized new Schools
commercial spaces. It was suggested that
this type of retail space be included in MHA Many were concerned about overcrowding
or other City actions. in schools, and asked that we make sure to
coordinate with Seattle Public Schools when
Public safety planning zoning changes.
Some expressed concerns about public Community planning
safety, including car prowls, and requested Some community members requested
that the City enhance police presence prior additional community planning processes
to adding more capacity. to adding more prior to, or along with, zoning changes so
capacity. residents can shape local changes and
prioritize needed investment.
Sidewalks & walkability
Community members observed that some
urban villages have significant gaps in the
sidewalk network. There were suggestions
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Community Generated Principles
A PRINCIPLED APPROACH MHA implementation principles were
grouped into the three categories:
Principles guiding MHA implementation A. Principles that form the foundation of
reflect what we heard during months of MHA
conversations in neighborhoods and online. These are essential to MHA.
These principles were developed over the
They include core values critical to HALA
course of eight months of outreach and
goals.
finalized in August 2016. Principles were
used to guide the first draft of MHA zoning B. Community-generated principles that
maps, which included zoning change guided MHA implementation
proposals as well as changes to urban These are statements about how to
village boundaries in some neighborhoods. implement MHA, based on community-
As we worked with communities on MHA, generated ideas and preferences.
we revisited these principles to inform and
DRAFT November 2017

evaluate policy and program choices. These ideas will meaningfully shaped
MHA implementation choices.
While we recognize that not everyone
agreed with the final adopted principles, the C. Principles addressed outside of MHA*
goal was to reflect widely held community- These are important principles about
based ideas. The principles have been housing and livability that cannot be
presented in writing to City Councilmembers addressed through MHA.
in order to inform them about community
Other existing or proposed programs will
input regarding MHA implementation.
address these principles.
The final set of these principles were
shared with City departments, and used
to inform their work outside of MHA
implementation.
In person and online, the City took extensive

See community feedback on how MHA implementation
input on MHA principles were represented in the first draft
implementation of zoning maps.
principles online at
HALA.consider.it
*C Principles are not shown here but are

reflected in both citywide and neighborhood-
specific input summaries that follow.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Principles that form the foundation
A of MHA
Community comments and suggestions
shaped these principles.
1. Contribute to the 10-year HALA goal 5. In alignment with a state-approved
of 20,000 net new units of rent- and affordable housing based incentive
income-restricted housing. Specifically, zoning approach (37.70A.540), new
the MHA goal is at least 6,000 units of affordability requirements are linked to
housing affordable to households with allowing some additional development
incomes up to 60% of the area median capacity in commercial and multifamily
income (AMI), units that will remain zones (in many cases this includes one
DRAFT November 2017

affordable for 75 years. In 2016, 60% of additional floor).
the AMI is $37,980 for an individual and
$54,180 for a family of four. 6. Allow a variety of housing types in
existing single-family zones within urban
2. Require multifamily and commercial villages.
development to contribute to affordable
housing. 7. Expand the boundaries of some urban
villages to allow for more housing near
3. Contributions to affordable housing will high-frequency transit hubs.
be provided by including affordable
housing on site or by providing a 8. Maintain Seattle as an inclusive city
payment to the Seattle Office of Housing by providing housing opportunities for
for creation of new affordable housing. everyone: people of all ages, races,
ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds
4. Ensure MHA creates affordable housing and households of all sizes, types, and
opportunities throughout the city. incomes.
9. Evaluate MHA implementation using a

social and racial equity/justice lens.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Community-generated principles that will help guide
B MHA implementation
Community comments and suggestions
shaped these principles.
1. Housing Options b. In other areas of historic or cultural
a. Encourage or incentivize a wide variety significance, do not increase
of housing sizes, including family-sized development capacity, even if it means
homes these areas do not contribute to
and not just one-bedroom and studio affordability through MHA.
homes.
b. Encourage more small-scale multi-unit 5. Assets and Infrastructure
DRAFT November 2017

housing that is family friendly, such a. Consider locating more housing near
as cottages, duplexes or triplexes, neighborhood assets and infrastructure
rowhouses, and townhouses. such as parks, schools, and transit.
2. Urban Design Quality: 6. Urban Village Expansion Areas

a. Address urban design quality, including a. Implement the urban village expansions
high-quality design of new buildings and using 10-minute walksheds similar to
landscaping. those shown in the draft Seattle 2035
b. Encourage publicly visible green space Comprehensive Plan update.
and landscaping at street level. b. Implement urban village expansions
c. Encourage design qualities that reflect recommended in Seattle 2035 but
Seattles context, including building with modifications to the 10-minute
materials and architectural style. walkshed informed by local community
d. Encourage design that allows access members. Consider topography, natural
to light and views in shared and public boundaries, such as parks, major roads,
spaces. and other large-scale neighborhood
elements, and people with varying
3. Transitions: ranges of mobility
Plan for transitions between higher- and c. In general, any development capacity
lower-scale zones as additional development increases in urban village expansion
capacity is accommodated. areas should ensure that new
a. Zone full blocks instead of partial blocks development is compatible in scale to the
in order to soften transitions. existing neighborhood context.
b. Consider using low-rise zones to help
transition between single-family and 7. Unique Conditions
commercial / mixed-use zones. a. Consider location-specific factors such
c. Use building setback requirements to as documented view corridors from a
create step-downs between commercial public space or right-of-way when zoning
and mixed-use zones and other zones. changes are made.
4. Historic Areas 8. Neighborhood Urban Design

a. In Seattles Historic districts, do not a. Consider local urban design priorities
increase development capacity, even if it when zoning changes are made.
means these areas do not contribute to
housing affordability through MHA.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
MHA Zoning Maps - Draft to Final Proposal
OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
Each of Seattles neighborhoods is

unique. While much of the input we
received on MHA pertained to conditions
on the ground in a particular urban
village, many of these themes resonate
across the city. In this section you will
read about input received that is both
specific to a neighborhood as well as the
citywide themes most discussed.
A section for each urban village
summarizes recurring themes we heard
DRAFT November 2017

about these places: what makes them
unique, challenges and opportunities
for growth, and aspirational ideas for
how these places can welcome more
neighbors.
Each urban village section also includes
information about how we propose
changing certain zoning choices
proposed in the Draft 1 map released in
October 2016. Changes are keyed to the
map, with an explanation of how those
choices better align with MHA principles
and respond to community input.
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Draft 1 Maps: How did we make decisions?
Adopted in August 2016, the Seattle 2035 Citywide policy direction from
Comprehensive Plan identified our housing Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan
crisis and proposed ways of addressing this
HALA goals & recommendations
challenge by recommending larger urban
including racial & social equity
village boundaries, more housing capacity,
and focusing growth near assets and Recent community planning
infrastructure. Community input
MHA was then carried forward during the Development & application of
HALA committee process, which culminated Community Generated Principles
in the recommendations outlined in the 2015
HALA report. The report set out policies and
DRAFT November 2017

actions to accomplish an ambitious goal of
tripling our affordable housing production
and easing upward pressure on rents.
Draft 1 zoning maps
With these goals, parameters, and
community planning efforts in mind, October 2016
we asked what you thought about the
proposal and how we could tailor it to meet
your needs while achieving the project
objectives. Through that process and
First HillCap
primarily guided by your input, we developed Urban Center itol Hill DRAFT ZONING
to implement CHANGES
Community Generated Principles (see proposed zoning
white labels identify
existing zone
changes:
| draft MHA zone

MHA requirement
vary based on
scale
s
(residential proposalof zoning change
zone catego
follow the links ries
HALA.Consider
.it
Housing Afforda
Interactive web
Mandatory
bility (MHA)
map seattle.gov/HA
MHA Implementation Principles B). These

shown) below to see examples LA

of how buildings October 19, 2016
(M) 7% of homes must Residen tial Small could look under
Lot (RSL) MHA
75 (M)
Solid areas have a payment of $20.75be affordable or

I-5 COLONNADE
cottages, townhouse
Midrise (MR) urban villages
typical increase a
BOREN PARK
W AVE E
per sq. ft similar in scale s, duplexes/triplexes

areas designate
in zoning to single family apartments with Neighborhood
| C1-
(usually one story) zones d for growth in

7-8 stories Comme

rcial (NC) our Comprehensive
(M1) 10% of homes
or a payment ofmust be affordable
mixed-use buildings
Existing Plan
FAIRVIE
Lowrise (LR) with 4-9 stories

C1-65
21ST AVE E
Hatched areas $29.75 per sq. Highrise (HR) boundary
LR3 | LR3 (M)

larger increase have a ft Open space
PL E
E
townhouses, rowhouses
20TH AVE
or a change in in zoning
apartments with Commercial (C)
Principles address topics like neighborhood

, or apartments
(M2) heights
AUBURN
zone type. 11% of homes Lowrise 1 (LR1) of 240-300 ft. INTERLAKEN
or a payment ofmust be affordable auto-oriented commercia

PARK
max height 30 Proposed
$32.75 per sq. Lowrise 2 (LR2) ft. l buildings Public school
ft max height 40 E GALER ST
boundary
Lowrise 3 (LR3) ft. Seattle Mixed (SM)
E CRESCEN
T DR
max height 50 Industrial Comme
!

ft. buildings with a
mix of
)
rcial (IC) Light rail

(M
offices, retail, and MHA applies only

homes E GALER ST Seattle

5
to commercial 2035
E
-5
uses
G
| IC
10-minute walkshe
LA
E GALER ST
VIL E
d
5
ST MARKS GREENBELT
Bus stop
-4
E

ANLA
IC
16TH AVE
assets, urban design quality, and housing

RB T
E
U AS
18TH AVE

E
E
24TH AVE
Stevens
)

(M
E
VOLUNTEER
R2
LR3 | LR3 (M)
PARK
19TH AVE
E HIGHLAN
|L
E
D DR
Principle 4a:
N AVE E
20TH AVE
2
LR
In designated
historic
LR1 | LR1 (M)
N
BOYLSTO
E districts, do not
choices.
AV zoning change make
22ND AVE
W s.
E
IE
23RD AVE
V HARVARD-BELMON
IR T
LANDMARK DISTRICT
E PROSPECT
ST
FA

LR1 | LR1 (M)
E PROSPECT NC1-30 |
ST NC1-40 (M)
E

10TH AVE
ALOHA ST
E
E
E
E
16TH AVE
PL E
12TH AVE
18TH AVE
17TH AVE
N
E WARD ST
MINOR AVE
NC1-40 |

BELMONT
NC1-55 (M)
VALLEY ST
E

13TH AVE E

AVE E
15TH AVE
VALLEY ST
Principle 5a:
AVE E
AY E

Expand housin
BROADW
Community Generated Principles, together

g options
HARVARD
EASTLAKE
E WARD ST
near infrastructure NC1-40 |
NC1-55 (M)
ROY ST MR |
MR (M) LR3 | LR3 (M) transit. like
E ALOHA ST
MERCER ST E VALLEY
ST
E ROY ST

E ROY ST
N
TERRY AVE
|
NC1-40
NC1-55 (M)

with geographic data and policy direction

LR2 | LR2 (M)

AVE N
MADISONMI
Lowell
South Lak E ROY ST
|
e ST
Single Family
(M)
TASHKENT PARK
LR2 (M1)
E MERCER
REPUBLICAN ST Single Family
Union Urban
|
FAIRVIEW
(M1)
NC1-40 | NC1-55
LR1 (M1)
E

LR3 | LR3 (M)
E
23RD AVE

E
LR3 | LR3 (M)

MELROSE AVE
AVE E
N AVE E
Center
NC3-40 | NC3-75
E
SUMMIT AVE

LLER URBAN
24TH AVE

AVE E
E
BELMONT

BOYLSTO
10TH AVE E
12TH AVE
AVE E
LR2 |
N
from existing plans and policies, guided

E
E REPUBLIC
BOREN AVE
11TH AVE
HARRISON
FEDERAL
LR2 (M)
| LR2 (M1)
ST AN ST

(M)

BELLEVUE
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55

AVE E
| LR2 (M1)
VILLAGE
Single Family
MINOR AVE
13TH AVE
(M1)
14TH AVE
CASCADE PLAYGROUND
MR | MR (M)
MALDEN
YALE AVE N

Under curren
ST THOMAS

t rules for
NC3P-40 | NC3P-75
E HARRISON

this hatched NC-40 ST
Single Family
the height limit area,
development of the Draft 1 zoning maps that

NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
residential usesis 65 feet if E THOMAS ST
MR-RC (M)
MR-RC |
occur above
(M1)
40 feet (SMC
23.47A.012).
JOHN ST
NC3-40 | NC3-75
LR2 | LR2 (M)

Single Family
E JOHN ST MILLER
|

LR3 (M2)
Single Family
PLAYFIELD
LR2 | LR2 (M)
5 (M)
LR2 (M1)
5 | NC3P-7 NC2-40 | NC2-55

(M)
NC3P-6 E JOHN
ST

NC3-65 |
NC3-75 (M) LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC3-65 |
we published in October 2016.

MR-RC (M)
NC3-75 (M)
LR3 | MR (M1)
!

MR-RC |
DENNY WAY
E

17TH AVE
ST
O
RA E DENNY WAY
NC2-55 (M)
LR3 RC |
E
NC2-40 |
N
LR3 | LR3
NC3-40 | LR3 RC (M)
(M)
E
20TH AVE
NC3-75 (M1)
LE
M
16TH AVE
21ST AVE
IN

NC2P-55 (M)
O
NC2P-40 |
R

AV

(M)
E
(M)
ST LR3 | LR3 (M)

NC3-65 | NC3-75
NC3-40 | NC3-55
IA
AVE
E DENNY WAY
LR2 | LR3 (M1)
ST
GIN

N PARK
RT T
BOYLSTON
LR2 | LR2 (M)
SEVEN
S NC2-65 |
IR HILLS
NC2-40 |
E
|
NC2-75 (M)
A L E HOWELL ST
LR3 | LR3 (M)
V
-65 )
PARK
EW EL MR | MR (M) NC2-55 (M)

15TH AVE
3P 5(M
ST OW NC 3P-7
NC3-75 (M)

CAL ANDERSO
NC3-65 |
SUMMIT AVE
H
BELMONT AVE
NC
YA
E OLIVE ST
LE
13TH AVE
LR3 PUD (M)

14TH AVE
LR3 PUD |
AV
NC3-65 |
19TH AVE

LR2 | LR2 (M)
NC3-75 (M)
WAY NC3-65 |
E OLIVE ST NC2-40 | NC2-55
NC3P-75 (M1)
NC3-75 (M)
LIVE (M)
NC3P-40 |
O LR1 |
E AVE
D PL
LR1 (M)

Lot/TC | LR1 (M1)
MELROSE AVE
CRAWFOR

BELLEVU
7T

NC3P-95 (M)
NC3P-40 |
NC3P-85 |
)
H
E PINE NC3P-55 (M) (M

ST
NC2-55 (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)

AV
75
NC3P-65 |
NC2-40 |
NC3P-75 (M)
NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 3- Residential Small

E
| NC
9T
(M) Lot/TC | LR2 (M1)

3-65

Residential Small
H AV
14TH AVE
NC

10TH AVE
E

E PIKE ST
HARVARD AVE

E ST

N ST
LR1 | LR1 (M)
6T
PIN MR | MR (M) SO
ADI Single Family
H AV
E PIKE ST |
EM
LR1 (M1)
11TH AVE
Seattle
E
PLAYGROUND
N ST
T.T. MINOR
IO World School E PIKE ST

UN

TE
E ST
NC2-75 (M1)

RR
NC2-40 |
PIK
Y AV
LR2 |
(M1)
Y ST E UNION
NC2P-55 (M)
NC1-30 | LR2 (M)

NC2-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
ST
NC2P-40 |
SIT NC1-40 (M)

E

Downtown
ER
IV NC2P-30 | NC2P-40
NC2P-40 | NC2P-75
UN (M)
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
BO
WESTLAKE PARK

RE
Urban D |
LR3 | LR3 (M) NC2P-65 | NC2P-40 |
) |
NC2P-55 (M)
N AV
NC2P-75 (M)
-PU (M 160 (M)
HR-PUD
NC3-170
23RD & UNION
16TH AVE
NC3-
Center
HR | HR (M)
Lot (M)
HR
SPRING
LR2 | LR2 (M)

NC2P-55 (M)
STREET
18TH AVE

NC2-40 |
NC2-40 |
NC2P-40 |
MINI PARK NC2-55 (M)

19TH AVE
E
(M)
NC2-75 (M1) LR2

E SPRING ST | LR2 (M)
20TH AVE
LR3 | LR3 (M)

NC2P-40 | NC2P-55
)
G ST
0 (M
-17
SP
RIN 3P NC2-40 |
NC
| Residential Small
0|
NC2-75 (M1)
ST
-16
NION 3P
JACKSON
NC
U JIM ELLIS FREEWAY
Major Instituti
on
PARK E MARION
ST
ST Overlay
8T

SITY (MHA applies
H AV
only
ER non-institutional to
BROADWAY
) LR1 | LR1 (M)

17TH AVE
IV 0 (M uses)
UN
MI
-17
E
URBAN VILLAG
12TH AVE
3P
NO
NC
0|
-16 E COLUMBI
R AV
3P A ST
NC E COLUMBI
A ST
23RD AVE
E
NC
22ND AVE
ST
Single Family
24TH AVE
A
3-1
N ST
NEC RIO
60
SE
MA
E CHERRY
ST
| NC
ST
E
IA LR3 | LR3 (M)

3-1
MB
LU
CO LR2 | LR2 (M)
5T
70

G ST
H AV

LR2 RC |
(M
RIN
LR2 RC (M)
E JAMES ST E CHERRY
NC1-40 (M1)
8T
)
ST
Family |
SP
Single
ST
H AV
LR2 RC |
RY NC1-40 (M1)
E
ER NC1-30 |
Nova at Mann
CH NC1-40 (M)

E
(M)
5| )

LR2 | NC1-40
TE
4T
3-8 (M
NC 3-95
RR
ST HR | HR (M)
H AV
ON NC
Y AV

DIS E JAMES ST
MA
E

NC3-95 (M)
NC3-85 |
E
(M)
|
-65 (M) GARFIELD PLAYFIELD
10TH AVE
LR2 | NC1-40
NC3 -75
NC2-40 | NC2-55
(M)
NC3 NC3P-40 |
A ST NC3P-55 (M) NC1-30 |

NC1-40 (M)
JEFFER
E
MBI

SON ST
LU
NC3-75 (M)

MR

NC3-65 |
CO

9T
| MR
NC3P-65 |
H AV
ST
2N
RY MR | MR (M) NC3P-75 (M)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
(M
ER
D AV

CH
)
E
NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65 |

PO
Garfield
ST

AV
ST
MES
E
NC2-65 |
R ST NC2-75 (M)
NC3-75 (M)
JA
NC3-65 |
N ST DE Single Family
SO AL | LR2 (M1)
ER
15TH AVE
JE
FF E ALDER ST
16TH AVE
HORIUCHI
17TH AVE
PIONEER SQUARE PARK

20TH AVE
CITY HALL PARK

FIR ST
21ST AVE
AL AVE S
PREFONTAINE
PLACE
NC3-75 (M)
E SPRUCE ST
NC3-65 |
Single Family
SPRUCE STREET
|
Residential Small
MINI PARK
C2-65 |
OCCIDENT
C2-75 (M) Lot (M)

YESLER
16TH AVE
WAY LR3 | LR3 (M) E FIR ST

4TH AVE S
5TH AVE S

(M)
PIONEER SQUAR NC3-65 |

E Yesler Terrace
NC2-40 | NC2-55
OCCIDENTAL YESLER NC3-75 (M)

PRESERVATION
SQUARE TERRACE
Master Planned
CC
Bailey E YESLER WAY Single Family
Community
| LR1 (M1)
S MAIN ST
DISTRICT

Gatzert

KOBE TERRACE NC1-40 |
NC1-55 (M)
LR3 RC |
LR3 RC (M)
INTERN ATIONAL
S MAIN ST NC1-40 |
NC1-55 (M)
NC2-65 | NC2-75

DISTRICT (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

NC2-55 (M)
UNION STATION S MAIN ST

22ND AVE S
NC2-40 |
SQUARE
17TH AVE S

SPECIAL REVIEW
18TH AVE S

7TH AVE S
PRATT PARK
9TH AVE S

DISTRIC T
NC2P-65 |
NC2P-75 (M)

HING HAY PARK
MHA area

S JACKSO S MAIN ST
NST NC3P-40 | NC3P-55 First HillCapi
(M) tol Hill | NC3-75
NC3-65
CHINATOWN/ID
HUB URBAN (M)
VILLAGE C1-65 | C1-75
(M)

NC3P-65
| NC3P-75
NC3-65 | NC3-75
(M) (M)

DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Final Zoning Proposal: How did we make decisions?
HALA goals & recommendations

including racial & social equity
Recent community planning
Citywide policy direction from
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan
Community input
Development & application of
DRAFT November 2017

After publishing the Draft 1 zoning maps Draft 1 zoning maps
in October 2016, we continued community
engagment, gathering your feedback on October 2016
maps and other aspects of MHA. These
included development standards such as
setbacks, height restrictions, and density
requirements.
We also drafted an environmental impact Continued gathering community
analysis that assessed potential impacts of input
MHA implementation, including proposed Environmental analysis, including
zoning changes. This Environmental Impact community input and analysis of
Statement, or EIS, is required by state EIS mapping Alternatives 2 & 3
law, and precedes many programmatic
proposals put forth by government agencies.
Environmental impacts studied through this
process included impacts on air quality,
housing and socioeconomic factors, and tree Final zoning map
canopy, among many others. proposal
The data, analysis, and local knowledge Send to City Council
described above, as well as comments November 2017
received on the Draft 1 zoning maps and
the draft environmental impact statement,
informed development of the final proposal.
City Council Process

Continues community engagement
Amends to the proposal
Council vote mid-2018 (expected)
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
Final Zoning Proposal: How did we make decisions?
More about developing the Final Proposal addressing displacementwhile reducing
the relative scale of change to these high
Most MHA mapping choices presented displacement risk communities.
tradeoffs and elicited a range of perspectives
and preferences from the public. No While we considered unique factors for
single recommendation could satisfy each urban village, these overall themes,
all perspectives, and the final proposal reflective of core feedback from communities
balances diverse community perspectives. across the city, are applied consistently for
all areas.
Themes of the Final Proposal
How the MHA zoning maps changed from
We heard consistently from community Draft 1 to Final Proposal
members that preventing displacementand
DRAFT November 2017

the disproportionate impacts displacement On the following pages, an MHA proposed
has on low-income households and zoning map for each urban village shows the
communities of coloris a core value Draft 1 map and describes how we revised it
throughout the city. This principle underpins in the final proposal. With each urban village
our work to implement MHA. Therefore, map is a summary of the key topics of input
the final proposal targets more housing specific to that community.
development to communities where
existing residents are less vulnerable to Note that the input does not convey
displacement and where more assets exist consensus among community members.
to provide for a growing population, like The purpose of this section is to share the
parks and transit. diversity of opinions expressed.
In detail, the final proposal carries forward

the Growth and Equity Analysis of the
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan. That
body of work examined neighborhoods
across the city and sought to understand
their relative access to opportunity and risk
of displacement. The analysis included each
of Seattles urban villages and proposed
a typology for each place as low or high
access to opportunity, and low or high risk of
displacement. This typology informed zoning
choices in the final proposal, which targets
more housing in high opportunity areas with
access to jobs, transit, and services. For
communities at high risk of displacement,
where affordable housing options may not
yet be sufficient to keep up with larger scale
changes, MHA rezones are moderated
to ensure that development contributes
to affordable housinga critical tool for
DRAFT
DRAFTNovember2017
23rd & UnionJackson DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
to implement Mandatory
Housing Affordability (MHA)
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 23rd & Union-Jackson
High Risk of Displacement / High Access to Opportunity

proposed zoning
STchanges:
MHA requirements zone categories urban villages
white labelsE identify
JOHN NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
vary based on scale of zoning change look under MHA
follow the links below to see examples of how buildings could areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan
PLACE E JOHN
ST
25TH AVE E
26TH AVE E
MADISONMILLER URBAN VILLAGE
(residential proposal
WILLIAMS shown)
13TH AVE E

19TH AVE E
27TH AVE E
Residential
E JOHN ST Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR)
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Existing Open space
14TH AVE E
NC3-40 | NC3-75 (M1) existing zone | draft MHA zone boundary
20TH AVE E
cottages, townhouses, duplexes/triplexes apartments with 7-8 stories mixed-use buildings with 4-9 stories
29TH AVE E
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
30TH AVE E
single family zones
21ST AVE E
31ST AVE E
7% of homes must be affordable or
22ND AVE E
(M)
!
a payment of $20.75 per sq. ft
similar in scale to NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)

Public school
Zoning changes from Draft 1 map
16TH AVE E
Solid areas have
LR3 RC | LR3aRC (M) Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) Proposed
typical
NC3P-40 | NC3P-75 (M1) increase in zoning Lowrise (LR) apartments with heights boundaryE DENNY WAY
LR2 | LR2 (M)

10% of homes must be affordable auto-oriented commercial buildings
(M1) or a payment of $29.75
!

32ND AVE
(usually one story) per sq. ft
townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments of 240-300 ft. Light rail
LR2 | LR3 (M1)

E DENNY WAY
LR3 | MR (M1)
Lowrise 1 (LR1) max height 30 ft. 5| )
Hatched areas have a 2-6 (M
Seattle Mixed (SM)
Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle 2035
NC3-40 | NC3-55 (M)
NC2-75
LR3 | LR3 (M)

11% ofLR3
homes
| LR3 must
(M) be affordable Lowrise 2 (LR2) max height 40 ft.
larger increase in zoning
(M2)
NC

buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute walkshed Bus stop
or a change in zone type. or a payment of $32.75 per sq. ft Lowrise 3 (LR3) max |height
NC2-40 NC2-5550(M)
ft. ( M) offices, retail, and homes LR1 | LR1 (M)
NAGLE PL
E HOWELL ST
C 3P
-75 NC3-65 |
NC3-75 (M) a In areas with high risk of displacement, keep c Parcel near E Yesler Way and 14th Ave S is
CAL ANDERSON PARK
65| N
E HOWELL ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)

11TH AVE
zoning changes to the standard (M)-tier capacity proposed for NC-75 (NC-40 currently and NC-
-

P
C3
LR3 PUD (M)

LR3 PUD |
N NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
increase. Draft 1 showed changes beyond the 55 in the Draft 1 proposal). Site to be used for
14TH AVE
E OLIVE ST
17TH AVE

E OLIVE ST
(M) tier. The final proposal is Residential Small future development of 100% affordable housing.
15TH AVE
Residential Small Lot |

29TH AVE
LR3 | LR3 (M) Residential Small Lot |
LR1 (M1)
NC2-55 (M)
M)
LR2 (M1)
Lot (RSL) for these areas. Multiple areas shown.
NC2-40 |
NC3P-40 | NC3P-55 (M) 5(
a
3-7
E PINE ST

| NC
3 -65
d
E PINE ST
NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M)

NC
Single Family | LR1 (M1)
Site between Yesler and Jackson east of
b Parcel at E Yesler Way and 18th Ave proposed 20th Ave S changed proposed for NC1-55
19TH AVE
LR1 | LR1 (M)
13TH AVE

E PIKE ST

Seattle E PIKE ST
for MR-RC (LR3-RC currently and in the Draft (LR3 currently and in the Draft 1 proposal)
PLAYGROUND
T.T. MINOR
World School
10TH AVE
LR2 |
LR2 (M)
ST
1 proposal) to maximize capacity for future based on community feedback for commercial
NC2P-55 (M)
NC2-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
NC2P-40 |
ISON
AD
NC1-30 | NC1-40 (M)

NC1-30 |

11TH AVE
LR1 | LR1 (M)
development of 100% affordable housing opportunities in this area.

EM NC1-40 (M)
LR2 |

E UNION
LR2 (M)

ST
35TH AVE

NC2P-65 |
NC2P-75 (M) LR2 |
with flexibility for commercial uses with RC
LR2 (M)

NC2-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
LR3 | LR3 (M) LR2 | LR2 (M)

E SPRING ST Principle 4b:
Madrona K-8
designation.
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Consider less E SPRING ST

NC2P-55 (M)
FIRST HILLCAPITOL HILL URBAN CENTER

NC2P-40 |
intensive zoning
MLK JR WAY
PLAYGROUND
LR2 | LR2 (M)

changes in areas
MADRONA
MHA implemented through of historical
or cultural
separate legislation for E MARION ST Single Family | Residential Small Lot (M)
significance.
three nodes at Union,
LR1 | LR1 (M) E MARION ST

Cherry, and Jackson E MARION ST
What we heard from the community Local opportunities and challenges
34TH AVE
23RD AVE
12TH AVE
Streets in the Central Area.

20TH AVE
22ND AVE
24TH AVE
27TH AVE
16TH AVE
18TH AVE
19TH AVE
13TH AVE
15TH AVE
17TH AVE

E COLUMBIA ST
E COLUMBIA ST
Continued impacts from historic redlining
Ongoing loss of cultural anchors
LR2 RC | LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR2 RC (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
Citywide themes most discussed

E ARLINGTON PL
E CHERRY ST LR2 RC |
Area undergoing swift change

NC1-40 (M1) Nova at Mann
LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M)
NC1-40 | NC1-55 (M)

Equity and Displacement

14TH AVE
Need for Design Guidelines

Major Institution Overlay
(MHA applies only to E JAMES ST

a Transitions
GARFIELD PLAYFIELD
non-institutional uses)
Affordable housing & housing choices

21ST AVE
30TH AVE
32ND AVE
28TH AVE
29TH AVE
34TH AVE
33RD AVE
Single Family | Residential Small Lot (M)
31ST AVE
Proximity to Transit

ST
E JEFFERSON

Centerstone were supportive of more affordable
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
NC3P-40 |
NC1-30 |
NC1-40 (M)
NC3P-55 (M)

Principle 3a:
POWELL BARNETT PARK
housing and did not have a particular concern
NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65 |
Garfield
Zone full blocks instead of partial
10TH AVE
E TERRACE ST
blocks to soften transitions. E TERRACE ST
with zoning changes.
NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65 |
35TH AVE
MR | MR (M)
There is interest in community ownership and
Need more housing options for renters
E ALDER ST E ALDER ST

the need to be more flexible with how we get to
NC3-75 (M)
Principle 1b:
NC3-65 |
LR2 | LR2 (M)

16TH AVE
15TH AVE
17TH AVE
and for non-wealthy people to own.

Encourage small-
ownership (coops, etc.).
E SPRUCE ST
scale, family-friendly
NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M)
housing options like

24TH AVE
25TH AVE
26TH AVE
28TH AVE
27TH AVE

a
cottages, triplexes, and
BO
rowhouses.
- Ryan L. Interest in more density in the northern part of the
RE
NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65 |
E FIR ST
c
N
PEPPIS
C2-65 |
AV
LR3 | LR3 (M) PLAYGROUND
Urban Village looking at redevelopment around

C2-75 (M)
E
Single Family | LR1 (M1) Leschi

b d

NC2-55 (M)

23rd and Union.
NC3-65 |
NC2-40 |
NC3-75 (M)
LR1 | LR1 (M)
NC1-40 | E YESLER WAY

NC1-40 |
32ND AVE S
LR3 RC |
I totally agree that the areas along transit
NC1-55 (M)
Judkins Park planning process supported more

Bailey NC1-55 (M) LR3 RC (M)
Gatzert
NC2-55 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
NC2-40 |
22ND AVE S
DR. BLANCHE LAVIZZO PARK
routes should have more density than development nearest light rail and park as well as
20TH AVE S
S WASHINGTON ST

16TH AVE S
17TH AVE S
LESCHI PARK
NC2-65 | NC2-75 (M) PRATT PARK
S MAIN ST
S MAIN ST
Single a what is proposed. more commercial along Rainier.

19TH AVE S
Family |
Mixed interest in more development here. Along

LR1 (M1)

- Mark S.

NC2-55 (M)
S JACKSON ST NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M) LR2 RC |

NC2-40 |
LR2 RC (M)
corridors (MLK not necessarily 23rd) as well as

NC3P-40 | NC3P-55 (M)

NC2P-75 (M)
FRINK PARK
NC2P-65 |
C1-65 |
C1-75 (M)
near the new light rail station.

LR2 RC |
18TH AVE S
LR2 RC (M)
SHORT PL S
12TH AVE S
NC2-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
S KING ST LR1 | LR1 (M) LR2 | LR2 (M)
a a
NC
Principle 6a:
Slight leaning toward the UV expansion
2-6
LR2 | LR2 (M) C1-40 |

Residential Small Lot (M)
C1-55 (M) S KING ST

Implement urban village
5|

35TH AVE S
S WELLER ST
24TH AVE S
23RD AVE S
25TH AVE S
26TH AVE S
Washington expansions using 10-minute

Single Family |
NC

2-7
LR2 | LR2 (M)
walksheds from frequent

Recommended limits on zone changes
LR3 RC |
LR2 | LR2 (M)
5 (M
LR3 RC (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M) transit.

)
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
S LANE ST

Urban League lunch and learn were supportive
S LANE ST
S LANE ST

LR1 | LR1 (M)

30TH AVE S
28TH AVE S
29TH AVE S
LR3 |
of a softer approach to changes particularly in the

LR3 (M) Single Family | Residential Small Lot (M)
S DEARBORN ST
S DEARBORN ST

heart of CD which is defined as around Garfield.
NC
NC
3-40
ST NC1-30 | S DEARBORN ST S DEARBORN ST

AN
3
NC1-40 (M)
Principle 5a: S DE
|N
-65
LR1 |
C3-

31ST AVE S
LR1 (M)
55
Allow more housing

|N
(M
IC-65 | IC-75 (M)

C3
20TH PL S
)
32ND AVE S
26TH AVE S
29TH AVE S
33RD AVE S
options near
a a
NC2-40 |
20TH AVE S
-75
NC2-55 (M)
neighborhood assets
DA
(M
VIS
like parks and schools.

)
ST
PL
U
R G ST
S
U ES
S RL
PA HA
LR
SC
NC
C1-65 | R K LR3 | LR3 (M)

Single Family |
LAKESIDE AVE S
1|
C1-75 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)
3-4

LR
0|
LR1 (M1)

1
LR
C1-85 |

NC
(M
1|
C1-95 (M)

LR1 | LR1 (M)
)
3
LR
a
-55
S NORMAN ST
PO
1 (M

C1-145 (M)
PL
C1-125 |
C1-160 |
S NORMAN ST
(M
C1-200 (M)
HIA
)
AR
DR. JOSE RIZAL PARK

LR1 | LR2 (M)
PL
WA
Principle 5:
30TH AVE S
S
T
LE
LR2 | LR2 (M)

ST
HA
WIS
Increase housing options

U
PL
RG
DA
PA
near infrastructure like

S
US
LR1 | LR2 (M)

LR2 RC |
RK
BRADNER PL S
EJ
LR2 RC (M)
RA
AV
transit. S JUDKINS ST
EO
S JUDKINS ST
ES
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)

IN
N

PA
IER
IC-6
RK
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR1 | LR1 (M)

35TH AVE S
JUDKINS PARK AND PLAYFIELD

5|
AV

LR
IC-7
ES
S IRVING ST
2|
S IRVING ST
14TH AVE S
12TH AVE S
15TH AV
(M
Thurgood Marshall
LR
Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Community Input Summary

)
39
2(
13TH AVE S
LR1 | LR1 (M)

M)

!

!

ES
MHA area
NC
NC1-40 (M)
C1 5 (M
NC1-30 |
S ATLANTIC ST
I90 EB
3-9
23rd & UnionJackson

-40 1)
NORTH S DAY ST
|
LR3 | LR3 (M) RAINIER SAM SMITH PARK

Admiral DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Admiral
proposed zoning MHA requirements zone categories urban villages
Low Risk of Displacement / High Access to Opportunity
LR1 | LR1 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

white labels identify changes: vary based on scale of zoning change follow the links below to see examples of how buildings could look under MHA HAMILTON areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan
(residential proposal shown) VIEWPOINT
)
(M
Residential Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial
PARK (NC) Existing Open space
R
existing zone | draft MHA zone
|M
6% of homes must be affordable or SW
cottages,
SEATTLE townhouses, duplexes/triplexes
ST
apartments with 7-8 stories mixed-use buildings with 4-9 stories boundary
R (M) similar in scale to single family zones
M
Specific zone ideas


42ND AVE SW

L
Public school
AI
Solid areas have a Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) Proposed

TR
typical increase in zoning 9% of homes must be affordable or Lowrise (LR)

apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
(usually one story)
!
Expand boundary to Fairmount Park, include LR2
KI
a payment of $20.00 per sq. ft townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments of 240-300 ft. Light rail
AL
Lowrise 1 (LR1) max height 30 ft. 2035

Hatched areas have a Seattle Mixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle NC2-65 | NC2-75 (M)
10% of homes must be affordable Lowrise 2 (LR2) max height 40 ft.
(M2) Bus stop
buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute walkshed
Expand RSL, and/or expand urban village
H
or a change in zone type. or a payment of $22.25 per sq. ft
a
LR3 | LR3 (M)

In areas with low risk of displacement and high
Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. offices, retail, and homes
A
)
(M
RB
R3
boundary to include more RSL

|L
access to opportunity, the final proposal guides
O
SW MASSACHUSETTS ST
3

LR
SW
SE
44TH AVE SW
AC
Prefer RSL over LR1 and LR2
R
AV
D
RE
us to include more capacity for housing. At the
SW
IR
ST
E
A
VIC
PA
N
AVE
SW
BO
RK
intersection of SW Admiral Way and California Increase boundary around California and Admiral
SW
TO
PALM
VE
ARCH AVE SW
RIA

Ave SW, the final proposal is NC-75 (NC-40 Support zoning changes from SF to LR
YA
AV
NC
RR
3-
A
E
65
FE

currently and NC-55 in the Draft 1 proposal).
LK

SW
Suggestion focusing development along arterials
|N
SW HOLGATE ST
IT
C3
-7
RA
SW HOLGATE ST
5
This proposal better aligns with Community
(M
IL
BROOK AVE SW
)
48TH AVE SW

Generated Principle to allow more housing
SW
No multifamily on College and 44th

E
AV
near parks, schools, community centers, and

T
)
45TH AVE SW
SE
(M
Exclude SF areas from Urban Villages
N
R3
47TH AVE SW
SU
|L
amenities.
3
LR
E IA
RN
Affordable commercial space
SW HILL ST
PL IFO
AC

L
CA

SW HILL ST
CALIFORNIA AVE SW
Need more affordable commercial space
49TH AVE SW
DUWAMISH HEAD
GREENBELT
What we heard from the community
LR3 | LR3 (M)

Grow with small businesses in mind
SW
Principle 1b:
50TH AVE SW
Encourage small-scale,
BELVIDERE AVE
family-friendly housing SW
options like cottages,
triplexes, and rowhouses.
SU
MN
ER
Transportation infrastructure
WA
SW WALKER ST Y
Transit and traffic are over taxed
Single Family |
SW WALKER ST
Citywide themes most discussed Struggling businesses and lack of parking to
Single Family |
E
LR1 (M1)
SW COLLEGE ST
Property taxes serve them
EG INE
LL AV
CO ET R
RE Traffic Need direct transit from Admiral to downtown,
WALNUT AVE SW
ST
SW COLLEGE ST
Public transit more than just rush hours
48TH AVE SW
LR3 | LR3 (M)

46TH AVE SW
Single Family |
SW PRINCE ST
Parking
LR1 (M1)
Better pedestrian infrastructure along California

NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
LR2 | LR3 (M1)
Infrastructure
49TH AVE SW
SW
AVE
50TH AVE SW
42ND AVE SW
SCO
TT
Mid-block pass-throughs
37TH AVE SW
PRE
Transitions
NC2P-40 (M)
NC2P-30 |
LR1 | LR1 (M)
SW GRAYSON ST Transitions principle

SW WAITE ST
Principle 3b: Concern about transitions throughout Admiral
a
Consider Lowrise (LR) LR3 | LR3 (M) LR2 |
SW ADMIRAL WAY Suggestions for expanding boundary to the west
LR2 (M)
zones to help transition
We simply need more options for

between commercial and LR2 RC |
to provide for more transition

LR2 RC (M)
single-family areas.
residential units in the area. The prices

50TH AVE SW
49TH AVE SW
Use multifamily areas as buffer between

are so cost prohibitive for younger adults
BELVEDERE PARK
Single Family | NC2-40 (M2)
NC3P-40 | NC3P-55 (M)
California and single family areas

41ST AVE SW
LR3 | LR3 (M)
FAIRMOUNT SW OLGA ST

PARK
and families. Consider topography and the transitions principle
- 4th Gen West Seattle

SW LANDER ST Lafayette
Family-size and family-friendly housing

SW LANDER ST
Support for family-sized requirement in LR1
Principle 5a:
Allow more housing options I love RSL - fine grain urbanity FTW - and Community planning
near neighborhood assets like
38TH AVE SW
50TH AVE SW
parks and schools.

I want to see more! Need planning around infrastructure including
37TH AVE SW
HIAWATHA PLAYFIELD SW FOREST ST

hospitals and disaster preparedness
- Ian C.
Look and feel of new zone changes
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
SW STEVENS ST Local opportunities and challenges Need more Design Review

SW STEVENS ST Affordable housing & housing choices Concern about bulk and scale, sunlight reaching
Willing to give up some on single family if the the street
BELVIDERE AVE SW

West Seattle
High School affordable housing goes in the community Need upper level setbacks concern about
Concern that performance requirement would be canyon effect
36TH AVE SW

too onerous for landlords Need more on-the-ground look at local changes
SW HANFORD ST

SW HANFORD ST Housing for missing middle is needed Homeownership
Desire for more density generally, and in Concern about rising property taxes displacing
41ST AVE SW
WALNUT AVE SW
40TH AVE SW
48TH AVE SW
47TH AVE SW
39TH AVE SW
seniors
44TH AVE SW
49TH AVE SW
37TH AVE SW
particular near the junction, east of California,

NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
North of Hiawatha Playfield, and around Lafayette Concern about decreasing property values

Playfield Incentives for homeowners to stay in homes
SW HINDS ST Suggestions to expand boundary generally to Parks and open space
spread out capacity across a larger area

Need to keep green space as an asset, include it
Incentivize ADUs and DADUs as requirement for development
SW HINDS ST
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)
42ND AVE SW
Madison

0 300 600 1,200 MHA area
Feet SW SPOKANE ST
Admiral
AuroraLicton Springs DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Aurora-Licton Springs
proposed zoning
white labels identify changes:
MHA requirements
vary based on scale of zoning change
(residential proposal shown)
zone categories
follow the links below to see examples of how buildings could look under MHA
urban villages
areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan Low Risk of Displacement / Low Access to Opportunity
Residential Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Existing Open space
LR2 | LR2 (M)

existing zone | draft MHA zone cottages, townhouses, duplexes/triplexes apartments with 7-8 stories mixed-use buildings with 4-9 stories boundary
(M) similar in scale to single family zones
NC3-40 | NC3-55 (M)

Public school
AIL
Lowrise (LR)
AN TR
typical increase in zoning 8% of homes must be affordable or apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
(usually one story) a payment of $11.25 per sq. ft townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments NC3-65of| 240-300 ft.
!
LightLR3
rail | LR3 (M)
RURB
LR3 | LR3 (M)
Lowrise 1 (LR1) max height 30 ft. NC3-75 (M)
Hatched areas have a Seattle Mixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle 2035
INTE
9% of homes must be affordable or Lowrise 2 (LR2) max height 40 ft.
(M2) a payment of $12.50 per sq. ft buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute walkshed Bus stop
a b
or a change in zone type.
In areas with low risk of displacement and high The final proposal is NC-75 at N 100th St to
Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. offices, retail, and homes N 112TH ST
N 110TH ST
NC3-40 |
NC3-55 (M)
NC3-65 |
NC3-75 (M) access to opportunity, the final proposal guides encourage a denser, more vibrant node based
N 110TH ST

us to include more capacity for housing. To on community input. The area is currently zoned
better align with transition principle of zoning NC-40 and the Draft 1 proposal was NC-55.
DAYTON AVE N
N 109TH ST
NORTH PARK AVE N
full blocks, the final proposal is LR1 in these

EVANSTON AVE N
PHINNEY AVE N
NC3-85 |
C2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
locations (single family currently and RSL in

NC3-95 (M)
WHITMAN AVE N
c Changed to RSL to moderate the transition at
MR | MR (M)
the Draft 1 proposal). These zone changes
LR2 | LR2 (M)

the southernmost edge of the urban village.
also support principle to locate more housing
C1-40 | NC3-55 (M1)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
N 107TH ST
near transit, as Aurora and 85th has BRT
MERIDIAN AVE N
N 107TH ST
LR3 | LR3 (M)

MIDVALE AVE N
AY
service. Also supports community guidance to d Changed to NC-65 to align with transitions
W
E
AT
BURKE AVE N
HG
LR3 | LR3 (M)
encourage nodes of development at 85th and principle, calling for gradual height changes
RT
MR-85 | MR-85 (M)
NO
100th. between proposed single family and NC areas.
MINERAL
N
SPRINGS PARK
C1-55 (M)
NC1-30 | NC1-40 (M)

C1-40 |

N 105TH ST
Single Family | LR2 | N 105TH ST


LR2 RC (M1) LR2 RC (M) LR2 | LR2 (M)

a
LR2 | LR2 (M)

N 104TH ST
Some reservations about zone changes if new

LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC3-85 | NC3-95 (M)

development brings smaller units.
LR2 | LR2 (M)
INTERLAKE AVE N
N 103RD ST
Transportation infrastructure
ASHWORTH AVE N
DENSMORE AVE N
LR2 | LR2 (M)

N 103RD ST

MR-85 | MR-85 (M)
Citywide themes most discussed Pedestrian safety improvements needed along

Urban design quality
N 102ND ST NORTHGATE
URBAN CENTER
Single Family |
Aurora as development occurs.
Transitions
b
LR2 (M1)
NC3P-40 | NC3P-55 (M)
STONE AVE N
Encourage focus on walkability and community

FREMONT AVE N
N 101ST ST Principle 1b:

Encourage small-scale, family- Displacement
friendly housing, such as cottages,
duplexes, and rowhouses. Unique conditions nodes.

90th and Linden are unsafe streets. Others will
N 100TH ST
Principle 3b: become unsafe as traffic increases.

Provide a transition between Principle 8a:
Neighborhood Commercial zoning along Redevelopment seen by some as a way to
COLLEGE WAY N
higher- and lower-scale zones. Neighborhood Commercial
WALLINGFORD AVE N
ASHWORTH AVE N
Aurora with density tapering off to either

N 98TH ST
zoning supports local priorities
for pedestrian-oriented urban
design.
LR2 | LR2 (M)
improve safety and walkability.
side is exactly what is needed for this to Concern about lack of sidewalks, safe and usable
N 97TH ST
a become a true neighborhood. open spaces, connections to Northgate light rail,

(MHA applies only to safe connections across Aurora.

- Ryan D.
DAYTON AVE N
PHINNEY AVE N
EVANSTON AVE N
Capitalize on planned greenways at 92nd and

LR3 | LR3 (M)
N 96TH ST Principle 5a:

100th.
Single Family | Single Family | Allow more housing options
Residential Small Lot (M) LR2 (M1) LICTON SPRINGS
near neighborhood assets like
C2-65 | NC3-75 (M) PARK
parks and schools.

INTERLAKE AVE N
N 95TH ST

Local opportunities & challenges
Affordable housing & housing choices Reservations about rezoning residential areas.
LINDEN AVE N
N 95TH ST

LR2 | LR2 (M)
In the future consider ALUV for expansion, with Focus on growth along Aurora first before other
N 94TH ST
a transit node at Aurora & 85th based on the areas such as single-family.
WOODLAWN AVE N
d frequency of the 45 bus and E line.

LR3 | LR3 (M)
Residents of N 84th St: concern about rezone
AURORA AVE N
LR1 | LR1 (M)
N 92ND ST
Concern about loss of existing low-cost market- to LR1. Want to be excluded from rezone and/or
urban village.
N 92ND ST
N 92ND ST
rate housing, especially north of 100th.
Interest in affordable housing being built here. Transitions principle
N 91ST ST Cascadia Elementary School and
Robert Eagle Staff Middle School
Specific zone ideas Transitions from high-density along Aurora to
a Single Family work well.

ALUV and community members favor zone
Some concern and changing Single Family to


changes from C to NC.
N 90TH ST
N 90TH ST
N 90TH ST
Lowrise and preference for RSL as a transition.

LR1 | LR1 (M)
N 90TH ST Concern about auto-oriented development

MERIDIAN AVE N
occurring under current zoning. Look and feel of new zone changes
N 89TH ST
C1-40 | NC3-75 (M1)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

C1-65 | NC3-75 (M)
GREENWOOD
PARK
Some business owners want to retain C zoning Potential scale, use, and intensity impacts where
NC2P-55 (M)
NC2P-40 |
WALLINGFORD AVE N
N 89TH ST
N 88TH ST
and fear NC zoning could put pressure on

LR3 | LR3 (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
Single Family zoning changed to Lowrise.

STONE AVE N
NESBIT AVE N
MIDVALE AVE N
INTERLAKE AVE N
ASHWORTH AVE N
existing businesses that would not conform.

NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
N 88TH ST
N 87TH ST Local infrastructure

N 87TH ST
Encourage nodes at 85th, 105th, and Oak Tree. ALUV missing key features of an urban village.
Family-size and family-friendly housing
BURKE AVE N
Large amounts of informal drainage. ALUV is a

N 86TH ST
Desire for family-size housing, including

NC3P-55 (M)
NC3P-40 |
NC2P-40 | NC3-40 | NC3-55 (M) N 86TH ST
capacity-constrained area for water/sewer.

NC2P-55 (M)

incentives.
LR3 | LR3 (M)

c c
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M) N 85TH ST
GREENWOODPHINNEY RIDGE
URBAN VILLAGE Single Family | LR1 (M1) Single Family |

MHA area
41
LR1 (M1)
N 84TH ST
AuroraLicton Springs
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)
Ballard DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Hub Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Ballard
NC2-40 | NC2P-55 (M) Family | NC2-55 (M2)
Single
proposed
zoning MHA requirements zone categories Single Family | LR2 (M1) Single Family | LR1 (M1)
urban villages
white labels identify changes: vary based on scale of zoning change
LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M)
follow the links
NW below to see examples of how buildings could look under MHA
80TH ST
areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)

NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M) (NC) Existing Open space

21ST AVE NW

cottages, townhouses, duplexes/triplexes apartments with 7-8 stories mixed-use buildings with 4-9 stories boundary

Solid areas have a
typical increase in zoning Lowrise (LR)
Highrise (HR) Commercial
Single Family | (C) Single Family |
Proposed Public school
9% of homes must be affordable or apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings Residential Small boundary
(M1) Residential Small
(usually one story)
!

NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

a payment of $20.00 per sq. ft townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments of 240-300 ft. Lot (M) Lot (M) Light rail
Hatched areas have a NW 77TH ST
Lowrise
1 (LR1) max height 30 ft.
Seattle Mixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle 2035
(M2) or a payment of $22.25 per sq. ft buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute
NW 77TH ST
walkshed Bus stop
a e
or a change in zone type. Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. CROWN HILL
Added more housing capacity with proposed Expanded urban village boundary further to
offices, retail, and homes
URBAN VILLAGE
LR3 | LR3 (M)
MARY AVE NW
14TH AVE NW
change to NC-55 in this high opportunity urban implement full 10-minute walkshed and provide
EARL AVE NW
29TH AVE NW
26TH AVE NW
28TH AVE NW
25TH AVE NW
27TH AVE NW
31ST AVE NW
LOYAL HEIGHTS
PLAYFIELD
village to strengthen commercial corridor a consistent RSL edge between urban village
NC2P-55 (M)
Whittier

NC2P-40 |

NW 75TH ST
and adjacent areas

LR1 | LR1 (M) NW 75TH ST

NW 74TH ST

b Added capacity at (M1) and (M2) levels in high
opportunity areas. Changes include LR2, LR3, f Reduced proposed zoning change to LR1 to
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

NW 73RD ST
and MR where previously LR1 and LR2 (see better align with transition principle
24TH AVE NW

ALONZO AVE NW
DIBBLE AVE NW
JONES AVE NW
MARY AVE NW
20TH AVE NW
22ND AVE NW
23RD AVE NW
19TH AVE NW
16TH AVE NW
18TH AVE NW
17TH AVE NW
10TH AVE NW
14TH AVE NW
21ST AVE NW
13TH AVE NW
12TH AVE NW
11TH AVE NW
9TH AVE NW
FEIS appendix H for more detail).
NW 73RD ST

NW 72ND ST
g Changed from NC-40 to NC-75 to maximize

c Request from property owners, St. Lukes (LR3 capacity for future 100% affordable development
KIRKE PARK
NW 71ST ST
NC2P-55 (M)
to NC3-75 and LR3 to MR) and St. Alphonsus
NC2P-40 |
h Single parcel is removed from proposed urban
NW CANOE PL

churches (NC-40 to NC-75), with potential for
NW 70TH ST NW 70TH ST LR2 RC |
LR2 RC (M) SALMON BAY PARK LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M) NW 70TH ST
NC1-30 |
NC1-40 (M)
village expansion area to align with transitions
future affordable housing development
NW SLOOP PL

MARY AVE NW
ALONZO AVE NW
14TH AVE NW
13TH AVE NW
principle of zoning full (not partial) blocks
NW 69TH ST

LR2 | LR2 (M)
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

NW 68TH ST Principle 8 directs
the City to consider LR1 | LR1 (M)
d Proposed change from LR2 to LR3 to achieve i LR3 allows for more capacity near a park
11TH AVE NW
10TH AVE NW
9TH AVE NW
DIBBLE AVE NW
DIVISION AVE NW
12TH AVE NW
8TH AVE NW
WEBSTER
local urban design
consistency with surrounding zoning
PARK
NW 67TH ST
20TH AVE NW
prorities. The draft NW 67TH ST
LR3 | LR3 (M)
NW 67TH ST
SWIMMING
proposal reflects
BALLARD
POOL
local input from a LR2 | LR2 (M)
recent planning
NW 66TH ST Salmon
process in Ballard.
Bay K-8
NC2P-40 | Principle A.9:
What we heard from the community Desire for a neighborhood planning process
NC1-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
NC1-55 (M) Ballard Evaluate MHA using a social and
NC1-30 | NC1-40 (M)
NW 65TH ST LR2 |
LR2 (M) LR2 | LR2 (M)
racial equity lens. Increasing
NC1-30 |
housing options allows more
NC2P-30 | NC2P-40 (M)

NC1-65 | NC1-40 (M)
Pace of growth general sentiment that the

NC1-75 (M)
NC3P-40 |
people to live in this high-
30TH AVE NW
22ND AVE NW
26TH AVE NW
NC3P-55 (M)
NW 64TH ST
NW 64TH ST opportunity neighborhood.
neighborhood has experienced a lot of growth
a Citywide themes most discussed
32ND AVE NW

LR3 RC | NC1-40 (M)
and change already in recent years, and concern

NW 63RD ST
NW 63RD ST
LR1 | LR1 (M)

about the potential for more growth under MHA
NC3-40 | NC3-55 (M)
LR1 | LR1 (M)
Principle 1b:

NW 62ND ST
Transitions
Adams NW 62ND ST
Encourage small-
b
LR3 | LR3 (M)
LR1 | LR1 (M) scale, family-friendly
Concerns about adjacency to industrial area and

LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M)

e Displacement
housing options like
11TH AVE NW
NW 61ST ST
NW 61ST ST
cottages, triplexes,
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)

major arterials like 15th
BALLARD PLAYGROUND
and rowhouses.
Unique conditions
b

b b
NW 60TH ST
NW 60TH ST

Distribute capacity more equitably with more
LR2 | LR2 (M)
NW BRYGGER PL
LR2 | LR2 (M)
medium-density throughout urban villages, not

LR2 | LR2 (M)
With the Link coming, we need to

NW 59TH ST

b c
LR3 | LR3 (M)
concentrated high density on arterials

LR3 | LR3 (M)
NW 58TH ST MR-RC | MR-RC (M)

encourage transit orientated development

LR2 | LR2 (M)
c c
LR3 RC (M)
LR3 RC |
LR3 |
NC3-55 (M)
Single Family |
Some commenters are upset with the design of

BALLARD
d
COMMONS NC3P-40 | Residential Small
Lot (M)
MR-RC |
NC3-75 (M) MR-RC | MR-RC (M) NC3P-55 (M)
b c b to create a vibrant urban village.

LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)
Single Family |
new mixed-use buildings, lowrise housing, and

LR2 (M1)
f
NC3P-65 | NW 57TH ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)
LR1 | LR1 (M)

MR-RC | MR-RC (M) NC3P-75 (M) NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M)
NC3-75 (M)
Single Family |
NC3-65 |
new single-family homes.

LR3 | LR3 (M) NC3-65 | Single Family | LR1 (M1)
- Dan T.
NW 56TH ST
NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M) NC3-75 (M)
LR2 (M1)
a
LR2 | LR2 (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M) NC3P-85 | NC3P-95 (M)
Commercial growth
g
NC3P-65 | NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M) NC2-40 |
NC3P-75 (M) NC2-55 (M)
NW MARKET ST

a Local opportunities and challenges

NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M) Single Family | NC1-40 (M2) NC1-30 |

Support for more business growth in Ballard,
IC-65 | IC-75 (M) NC3-65 | LR3 |
NC1-55 (M) NC1-40 (M)
NC3-75 (M)

NC 3P-7
NC
NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65 |
3P 5
NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)
i
-6 (M
NC3-65 |
Affordable housing & housing choices which is a hub urban village

5 )
NC
|
NC3-75 (M) NW 54TH ST

3-
BA
h
65
Major Institution
Overlay
LL
|N
(MHA applies only to
Substantial concern about affordability and

AR
Support for Neighborhood Commercial zoning

C3
non-institutional uses) GILMAN

-7
C1-65 | C1-75 (M)

D
NW 53RD ST
5
PLAYGROUND
AV
(M
)
LR3 | MR (M1)
E
LR1 | LR2 (M)

support for creating more affordable housing along Market between 15th and 8th.
NU
M
R
E
|M
HI
NW 52ND ST
options in Ballard.
ST
(M
Some comments expressing concern about

)
OR
IC
DI
Principle 4a:
Transportation infrastructure access to sunlight in areas with new mixed-use
NW 51ST ST

ST
SH
LR1 | LR1 (M)

14TH AVE NW
In designated historic
RI
IL

CT
C2-65 | C2-75 (M)

districts, do not increase
SH
buildings.
11TH AVE NW

General concerns about mobility.
OL
development capacity. NW 50TH ST

E
AV
IC-65 | IC-75 (M)

E

LR
Parking challenges is a common theme

N
NW 49TH ST
3
W
|L
R3
(M
)
Principle 5:

NW LEARY WAY
NW 48TH ST Transit service is insufficient to keep up with the Received a written comment from a homeowner
transit.

BALLARD
NW BALLARD WAY
population growth, as buses often crowded. that zoning in the expansion area should be
higher density than shown in the draft proposal.
NW 47TH ST
27TH AVE W
INTERBAY Bicycle and pedestrian safety existing and

32ND AVE W
Principle 6a:
Implement urban village expansions
NW 46TH ST NW 46TH ST
proposed Greenways and the Burke Gilman Specifically along 14th the author supports four-
NORTH END
SH
ILS
using 10-minute walkshedsHO
from
story buildings or higher and worries that less
LE
W AV
frequent transit.
Missing Link project
EN
W FORT ST CO W
MANUFACTURING
M
31ST AVE W
NW 45TH ST
MO
GILM
NC1-40 | NC1-55 (M)
intensive zoning perpetuates the existing housing

DO
26TH AVE W
30TH AVE W
A
RE
WA
Local infrastructure
N
29TH AVE W

AV Y
AND INDUSTRIAL shortage.
28TH PL W
E
W
28TH AVE W
Concern about school capacity

DISTRICT
LE
Some comments state that crime has increased

AR

BU
YW
31ST
RK

Parks and open space
E
24TH AVE W
LR
as the neighborhoods population has grown.

GI
AY
BALLARD BRIDGE
LM
2
AVE
|L
N
AN
W
R2
TR
Concern about parks and open space capacity

GI
W
(M
AI
23RD AVE W
LM

Some comments expressing concern about
L
)
W
AN

PL
PL
W
T

Ballard needs more high-quality parks,
28
multifamily development along NW 58th St, which

NW FERN PL
22ND AVE W
NC1-40 |
particularly for families with children

W ELMORE ST NC1-55 (M)

is a planned Neighborhood Greenway.
21ST AVE W
32ND AVE W
31ST AVE W
WILLIAMS AVE W
26TH AVE W
27TH AVE W
NW 42ND ST
Community planning
W ELMORE PL

LR
Lawton
3
RC
W VIEW PL

|L

R3
30TH AVE W

42
RC

(M
MHA area W THURMAN ST

AL TR
AIL
CAN
Ballard SHIP
LAWTON
PARK

Bitter Lake DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Hub Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Bitter Lake
High Risk of Displacement / Low Access to Opportunity

white labels identify changes: vary based on scale of zoning change follow the links below to see examples of how buildings could look under MHA areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan

Solid areas have a
typical increase in zoning

Lowrise (LR)
Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) Proposed Public school
8% of homes must be affordable or apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
(usually one story)
Hatched areas have a

a payment of $11.25 per sq. ft townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments
Lowrise 1 (LR1) max height 30 ft.
of 240-300 ft.
!

Light rail
or a change in zone type. (M2) a payment of $12.50 per sq. ft Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft.
buildings with a mix of
MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute walkshed Bus stop
a Most C2 zoning changed to C1 so that mixed- c The block along the south side of N 130th St

use development including housing is more (i.e., the proposed North Precinct site) changed

feasible. from C to NC to encourage more pedestrian-
friendly development along this important east

west connection.
N 145TH ST
b Reduced proposed zoning change to RSL to

better align with transition principle.
NC2P-40 (M)

NC2P-30 |

d Proposal to keep C2 zoning based on
COURTLAND PL N
EVANSTON AVE N
FREMONT AVE N
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
Single Family |

DAYTON AVE N
LR3 | LR3 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)
BURKE AVE N
N 144TH ST
ROSLYN PL N
community input.
WAYNE PL N
LR3 | LR3 (M)
N 143RD ST

LENORA PL N
N 143RD ST

Principle 3b:
b
2ND AVE NW

N 142ND ST
Consider Lowrise (LR)
BAGLEY AVE N
zones to help transition
RO between commercial and
OS
EV single-family areas.
N 141ST ST N 141ST ST E LT
Adding density to Aurora is a win-
C2-65 | C2-75 (M)

NW 140TH ST W
PALATINE AVE N
AY
N
a
N 140TH ST
GREENWOOD AVE N
MERIDIAN AVE N
win-win: we can reduce our housing
N 140TH ST
WALLINGFORD AVE N
1ST AVE NW

C1-65 | C1-75 (M)
ASHWORTH AVE N
INTERLAKE AVE N
DENSMORE AVE N
MIDVALE AVE N
shortage, make an appealing
CORLISS AVE N
Public and pedestrian safety
LR2 | LR2 (M)
N 138TH ST
BURKE AVE N
N 137TH ST

Principle 1b: Infrastructure (sidewalks and drainage) neighborhood, and get people to work on

Encourage small-
scale, family-friendly
N 137TH ST

Transitions transit.
LR3 | LR3 (M)
LINDEN AVE N
N 136TH ST housing options like

cottages, triplexes,
LR2 |
LR2 (M)
and rowhouses.
- EHS

N 135TH ST

N 135TH ST
Local opportunities and challenges
Affordable housing & housing choices Transportation infrastructure
LR3 | LR3 (M)
MADISON POOL

BAGLEY AVE N
MR | MR (M)
HELENE
General agreement that the area is ready Need for better and safer connections across
C1P-65 | C1P-75 (M)

C1-65 | C1-75 (M)
Ingraham
N 133RD ST High School
N 132ND ST
for additional growth, both market-rate and Aurora, sidewalks, and infrastructure for

LR2 | LR2 (M)

N 133RD ST
affordable pedestrian safety like traffic calming
Broadview-Thomson BITTER LAKE
a Transitions principle
STONE AVE N
PLAYFIELD
NC3P-65 |
N 131ST ST N 132ND ST Racial and Social Equity
Concern about abrupt transitions, but much of
NC3P-75 (M)

Equitably distribute housing opportunities by
LR3 PUD | LR3 PUD (M)
NC3-65 | C2-40 | C2-55 (M)
c
NC3-75 (M)
N 130TH ST
this isnt due to zoning but the mix of existing

zoning more medium-density areas throughout

LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC3-40 |

buildings
PALATINE AVE N
urban villages instead of concentrating higher

NC3-55 (M)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
N 128TH ST
densities along arterials and preserving lower- Local infrastructure
NC2-55 (M)
C1-40 |
C1-65 |
density areas
NC3-75 (M) Neighborhood
Concern about more growth with existing (i.e.,
N 128TH ST
a
Recent planning in Commercial zoning
NW 127TH ST
N 127TH
Bitter Lake ST
informs encourages
pedestrian-
the draft proposal, oriented buildings in the
Specific zone ideas insufficient) drainage infrastructure
LR3 | LR3 (M)
neighborhood heart,
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)
in according with
C2-65 | C2-75 (M)
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)
following Principle 2.
LR1 | LR1 (M)
AURORA AVE N
Lots of support for more growth along Aurora Bitter Lake has a large amount of informal
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Principle 8 (consider
local urban design
priorities).
Some support for increasing the amount of drainage and is a capacity-constrained area

NC1-30 |

N 125TH ST Neighborhood Commercial Recommended limits on zone changes

Since recent planning identified where
NC1-40 (M)

Concern about environmentally sensitive areas
Neighborhood Commercial is appropriate,
DEN
around Bitter Lake

C1-40 | C1-55 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

SM
not proposing to extensively reconsider those

d
In August 2016, Mayor
ORE
Murray signed legislation

NW 122ND ST changing the zoning in the
decisions
C1-65 | C1-75 (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)

N 122ND ST
Bitter Lake Urban Village
Need neighborhood Design Guidelines
AVE
C2-65 |
based on an inclusive
C2-75 (M)
planning process.
General preference for more capacity along
N
Future work on Commercial zones could evaluate

ASHWORTH AVE N
Aurora and 130th, less surrounding Bitter Lake

INTERURBAN TRA
N 122ND ST
N 122ND ST
potential for changes to the many large parking
BURKE AVE N
DAYTON AVE N
NORTH PARK AVE N

EVANSTON AVE N
FREMONT AVE N
PHINNEY AVE N
Recent planning decisions about where to focus

2ND AVE NW
1ST AVE NW
N 120TH ST
N 121ST ST
lots and big box stores in Bitter Lake
NC vs. principle to encourage more pedestrian-
LR2 | LR2 (M)
N 120TH ST
IL
friendly development (and housing) throughout

LR2 (M)
LR2 |
NORTHGATE URBAN CENTER

MERIDIAN AVE N
urban villages
LR3 PUD |
CORLISS AVE N
LR3 PUD (M)

NORTH PARK AVE N
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)

NW 117TH ST
N 117TH ST
(MHA applies only to N 117TH ST

LR3 | LR3 (M)
NW 116TH ST LR3 | LR3 (M)

PALATINE AVE N

2ND AVE NW
MHA area

N 115TH ST
N 115TH ST
N 115TH ST
43
| LR2 (M)
Bitter Lake
3-55 (M)

C3-40 |
NC3-65 |
NC3-75 (M)
Columbia City DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Columbia City
LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD
35TH AVE S
34TH AVE S
white labels identify changes: vary based on scale of zoning change follow the links below to see examples of how buildings could look under MHA areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan
27TH AVE S
LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M)

COURTLAND PL S
33RD AVE S
apartments with 7-8 stories boundary
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)

cottages, townhouses, duplexes/triplexes mixed-use buildings with 4-9 stories

Solid areas have a
Highrise LR2
(HR)| LR2 (M)
Commercial (C) S COURT ST Proposed Public school
boundary
YORK PARK
9% of homes must be affordable or apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings
(M1)
(usually one story)

Lowrise
C1-65 | C1-75 (M) 1
townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments
(LR1) max height 30 ft.
Seattle Mixed (SM)
of 240-300 ft.
Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle 2035 Hawthorne

!
Light rail
10% of homes must be affordable Lowrise 2 (LR2) max

or a change in zone type. (M2) S CHAR
or a payment LESTOWN
of $22.25 per sq.
ST ft
height 40 ft.
Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50S ft.
a In areas with high risk of displacement, keep c Additional areas of existing C zoning in the MLK
CHARLESTOWN ST S CHARLESTOWN ST
zoning changes to the standard (M)-tier capacity Jr. Way S. corridor are proposed to convert
RE
NT
LR2 | LR2 (M)
increase. Where there is a light rail station, to NC in the final proposal, to support a more
LR3 | LR3 (M)
37TH AVE S
S BRADFORD ST
ON
NC
2-4
AV
allow (M1) and (M2) within a 5-minute walk to pedestrian-friendly environment. This change
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)

S BRADFORD ST
0 |N
C2-65 | C2-75 (M)
E

C2
S
the station. Draft 1 showed changes beyond the was supported by community input received.
-55

(M
)
S ANDOVER
ST
Residential Small

(M) tier outside of the 5-minute walk, which has
Single Family |
S ANDOVER ST
d At the west edge of the urban village several
Lot (M)
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)
S LILAC ST Principle 2: been modified for the final proposal. Residential parcels within the 5-minute walkshed to light
NC1-30 | NC1-40 (M)

Principle 5: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Small Lot (RSL) is now proposed for these
43RD AVE S
zoning encourages high-quality
rail that are to the west of MLK Jr. Way S.
31ST AVE S
30TH AVE S
design and pedestrian-friendly

transit. development. areas. Multiple areas shown. were removed from the proposed urban village
BLVD S
LR2 | LR2 (M)

S DAKOTA ST
b Based on community input from neighbors in the boundary expansion after more detailed review
CHEASTY
S DAKOTA ST
S DAKOTA ST
Single Family |
blocks bounded by S. Alaska St. S. Oregon of environmental constraints in the area.
ML
Residential Small Lot (M) C2-40 |

C2-55 (M) NC2-30 |
LEXIN
St. & 33rd Ave. S. 35th Ave. S. changes were Concurrently parcels in this area that were not
D
NC2-40 (M)
ULEVAR
KJ
LR2 | LR2 (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
38TH AVE S
CASCADIA AVE S
made to apply the Lowrise 1 zone instead of the constrained were changed to consistently apply
GTON
41ST AVE S
LR2 |
RW
STY BO
C1-40
T LR2 (M) LR3 RC S ADAMS ST
M SS
Lowrise 2 zone.
PL
DA ST
SA DA
| C1-5
the LR2 zone in this area.
36TH AV
CHEA
AY
EVA
S
| LR3 RC
SN
5 (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
S

34TH AV
ES
LR3
(M)
RC
S GENESEE ST
31ST
| LR
C1-40 | NC1-55 (M)

ES

3R

LETITI

AVE
T
ES
C (M
LR2
SE
NE
Single Family |
RAINIE
E
SG
S
LR3 | LR3 (M)

)
| LR
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

AVE S
I agree in general with adding density to

2 (M
29T
NC
)
1-4
the area.
H
R AVE
0|
AV

S OREGON ST GENESEE PARK
28
NC
E
TH
AND PLAYFIELD
NC
1-5
S
39TH AVE S

2-4
LR3
5 (M
AV
Assets and Infrastructure - Sandra

LR3
AY
0|
S
E
RC
RW
34TH AVE S
35TH AVE S
33RD AVE S
S
NC
RC
VE
| LR
2-5
NO
CHEASTY
T
| LR
b a
ES
Race / Equity Lens
GREENSPACE O
5 (M
MI SC
3R
L
3R
UA
C (M
)
OQ RAINIER PLAYFIELD
C (M
S SN
)
Displacement The proposed changes that rezone C2

)
NC1P-40 |
42ND AVE S
LR2 | Single Family | LR2 (M1)
NC1P-55 (M)
Affordable Housing Requirements

LR2 (M)
to NC2 on Rainer Ave and Dawson St
44TH AVE S
Interagency

S ALASKA ST
at Columbia

are essential for fostering a walkable,
31ST AVE S

NC2-75 (M)

NC2-65 |
a
S ALASKA ST
LR3 | LR3 (M)
Single Family |

NC
LR2 | LR3 (M1)
LR1 (M1)
pedestrian-oriented urban village.

2P
32ND AVE S
-40
S AMERICUS ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)
|N
COLUMBIA PARK

C2
!

P-
LR3 | LR3 (M)
- Michael B.
55
NC2-40 |
(M
LR3 | LR3 (M)

NC2-55 (M)
)
Principle 4a:
S ANGELINE ST In designated historic
districts, do not
NC
S EDMUNDS ST
Avoid potential displacement pressure.
LR 5 (M
increase development
1-5

3| )
LR3 | LR3 RC (M)

LR2 |
NC1-55 (M1) capacity.
COLUMBIA CITY
Capacity increases near the light rail station could
d a
S FERDINAND ST LANDMARK
DISTRICT
Single Family |
S EDMUNDS ST
LR2 (M1)
Single Family | LR2 RC (M1)

LR3 RC (M)
be larger.
LR3 |
LR2 |
LR3 (M1) LR2 | LR2 (M)
Principle 8: S FERDINAND ST
LR3 RC (M)
LR3 RC |
Local urban design input

suggests opportunities for
S FERDINAND ST Supports MHA implementation, affordable
c
LR2 | 44TH AVE S
small-scale commercial along
Single Family |
LR2 (M)
LR3 | LR3 RC (M)
LR1 RC (M1)
housing, and more housing here.

NC2-55 (M)
SEdmunds.
NC2-55 (M)
NC2P-40 |
NC2-40 |
HUDSON ST
C1-40 | Single Family | LR1 (M1)
C1-55 (M)
Specific zone ideas

30TH AVE S
26TH AVE S
28TH AVE S
29TH AVE S
27TH AVE S
S HUDSON ST
a Family-size and family-friendly housing

Single Family |
a Proposed conversion of Single Family lands to

LR2 (M1) LR3 |
C2-65 | NC2-65 LR3 (M)
(no MHA)
Lowrise in blocks bounded by S. Alaska St. S. Ensure family-sized housing.

LR3
43RD AVE S
LR2 | LR2 (M)

44TH AVE S
S DAWSON ST
S PEARL ST
RC
Oregon St. & 33rd Ave. S. 35th Ave. S. Historic areas

| LR
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Principle 6b: C2-65 | NC2-75 (M) LR3 | LR3 (M)

3 RC

expansions recommended
General support for conversion of C zoning to NC General support for exclusion of the National
(M)
Single Family | LR2 (M1) S DAWSON ST

in Seattle 2035 but S DAWSON ST
a to support enhanced walkability.

considering topography
Register Historic District from MHA.
Single Family |
LR2 (M1)
LR2 | LR2 (M)
and natural boundaries.
c
C1-4

Suggestion for LR1 (instead of LR2 proposed in
Single Family |
Transitions principle
0
S BENNETT ST
| C1
Single Family |
Draft 1 map) for blocks bounded by S. Alaska St.

Single Family | LR1 (M1) Residential Small Lot (M)
Provide a transition to single family

-55
(M)
HITTS HILL PARK NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

S. Oregon St. & 33rd Ave. S. 35th Ave. S. neighborhoods to the east of the urban village,

LR3 | LR3 (M)
Dearborn Park
LR1 would allow additional housing in the scale

International
S BRANDON ST
and ensure new development is compatible.
CH
31ST AVE S
Principle 3:
IE
S BRANDON ST
and pattern of the neighborhood.
FS
Use Lowrise (LR) zones

LR2 | LR2 (M)

EA
DEARBORN PARK to transition between

LT
ML
commercial and lower-

Support for Residential/Commercial (RC)
H
scale residential areas.

Concern that introducing commercial could
TR
AI
KIN
S LUCILE ST
designations along several streets.
L
impact residents and change character.

35TH AVE S
31ST AVE S
32ND AVE S
33RD AVE S
37TH AVE S
30TH AVE S
G JR
Concern that LR2 may result in developer-only

26T
Concern that LR2 could unnecessarily alter scale

39TH AVE S
Principle 6b:
HA
The proposal showsS FINDLAY ST

WAY
interest, vs. existing owner and resident created

VE
RSL zoning due to the

of housing in the area.
S
steep topography in
housing.
NC
S FINDLAY ST
this area.
S
2P-4

0|N
S ORCAS ST
C2P
Single Family |

idential Small Lot (M)
C1-40 | NC2-55 (M)
44
Single Family | LR1 (M1) LR1 (M1)
-5

JUNEAU TER S
5 (M
RENTO
Single Family |
MHA area S MEAD ST

1-40 (0.75) |
C1-55 (M2)
S MEAD ST
Columbia City
N
MR | MR (M) C1-65 |
AVE S
NC2-75 (M)
S JUNEAU ST
Crown Hill DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Crown Hill
proposed zoning
MHA requirements
zone categories
urban villages
areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan Low Risk of Displacement / High Access to Opportunity
NW 98TH ST Residential Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Existing Open space
MARY AVE NW

14TH AVE NW
13TH AVE NW
15TH AVE NW
Solid areas have a
Public school
Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) Proposed
typical increase in zoning 9% of homes must be affordable or Lowrise (LR) apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings
NW 97TH ST
boundary
(M1)
(usually one story)

NW 97TH ST
of 240-300 ft.
!
Light rail
LR1 | LR1 (M)
(M2) or a payment of $22.25 per sq. ft buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute walkshed Bus stop
a d
Single Family to RSL Areas within existing urban NC area around intersection of NW 85th St
NW 96TH ST
NW 96TH ST
LR2 | LR2 (M) village boundary changed to Lowrise 1 and and 15th Ave NW changed to 55 height limit
Lowrise 2 to achieve M1 tier, consistent with to moderate capacity increases in the urban
19TH AVE NW
18TH AVE NW
17TH AVE NW

LR3 | LR3 (M)

approach to Low Risk of Displacement / High village overall, while maintaining higher capacity

Opportunity areas. Increases housing options NC area to the northeast. Meets multiple goals
NW 95TH ST NW
across the urban village, with a focus on zoning for of responding to community input while de-
RD family-size housing. emphasizing 15th as the priority area for capacity,
NW 94TH ST
AN
Single Family | Residential Small Lot (M) LM consistent with equity and health goals.
HO
a Single Family |
NC2P-75 (M2)
b In Draft 1 proposed expansion area west of 19th e Lowrise 2-Residential Commercial area at
Ave NW and north of NW 85th St, removed from
DIBBLE AVE NW
northwest corner of NW 83rd St and Mary Ave
11TH AVE NW
9TH AVE NW
20TH AVE NW
Whitman
NW 93RD ST
CROWN HILL
PARK

expansion in final proposal based on sub-standard NW is changed to NC2P-55, with the same height
road, identified by the community and confirmed

and capacity as the Draft 1 map, but added a
d
NW 92ND ST
by City staff.
NW 92ND ST
Pedestrian designation. Achieves consistency with
the rest of the block.
LR2 | LR2 (M)
c
NW 92ND ST
SOUNDVIEW PLAYFIELD Principle 8: Single Family to NC area along 16th Ave NW
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
zoning and additional height creates
an opportunity for a mixed-use
reduced to M1 tier and removed commercial f Single Family to NC2-55 area between NW 80th St
NW 90TH ST
heart for the neighborhood. designation based on community support for and NW 83rd St along Mary Ave NW changed to

reducing allowed height from Draft 1 proposal, and Lowrise 2 based on community support for keeping

LR2 | LR2 (M)
NW 89TH ST C1-40 |
NC2P-75 (M1)
Principle 1b:
is consistent with transition principles. this area residential in use.
LR1 | LR1 (M) Encourage small-scale, family- NW 90TH ST

HILL GLEN
duplexes, and rowhouses.

22ND AVE NW
CROWN

23RD AVE NW
c a a What we heard from the community Need for plazas and public open space; design
standards to retain character. Support for creating

a neighborhood center or gathering place.
Principle 6b:
Local input suggests not expanding the
NW 88TH ST
b a
C1-30 |
urban village further west, where fewer NC3P-75
Both support for NC along Mary Ave and some

(M1)
services and amenities exist.
LR2 | LR2 (M)
NW 87TH ST
Public safety opposition.
Single Family |
c
NC3P-75 (M2)
NW 87TH ST
Sidewalks & walkability
NC3P-40 | NC3P-75 (M1)
Both support and opposition to expanding the

Parking
urban village boundary.
Infrastructure
NW 86TH ST
Community planning Opposition to extending NC zoning to a full block
LR3 | NC3P-75 (M1)
deep off of 15th Ave.

LR1 | LR1 (M)
Transitions
NC2-40 | LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M) NC2P-75 (M1)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

85TH ST
NW
Support for changing C zoning to NC

NC2P-40 |
NC2P-75 (M1) LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M)

LR1 | LR1 (M)
NC1-40 | NC1-55 (M)
Urban Village expansion areas
to encourage more pedestrian-oriented
d Public transit

Single Family | NC3P-75 (M2)
LR2 RC |
development and provide affordable options for

16TH AVE NW

15TH AVE NW
LR2 RC (M)
LR2 RC | LR3 (M)

more small business.

Single Family |
NC2-55 (M1)
e Support for removing 20th between 85th & 89th

LR2 RC |
LR2 (M1)
There is enough commercial and transit
from the urban village expansion area due to
NW 83RD ST
Principle 3a:
Zone full blocks instead a c NW 83RD ST
8TH AVE NW
in the Crown Hill urban village core substandard roadway (<10 wide) that functions
of partial blocks to soften
to justify more dwelling density. More as an alley.
transitions.
NC2-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
pedestrian-friendly amenities would Transportation infrastructure

f a
Single Family | Principle 6c:
Residential Small
Lot (M) Development in expansion areas
should be compatible in scale with help. Concern that the draft map for Crown Hill does
existing neighborhood context.
- Kit not reflect that bus transit service is not the same

NW 80TH ST

level as light rail service.
NC2P-40 |
NC2P-55 (M)
Local opportunities and challenges Transitions principle
Provide greater setbacks, stepdowns, or

Principle 6a:
Support for implementation as soon as possible
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
using 10-minute walksheds from

frequent transit.

transitions where commercial zoning would be
21ST AVE NW
to achieve housing affordability and choice goals. next to Residential Small Lot (RSL) or Lowrise
Support for diversity in housing, including family- (LR) zoning.
NW 77TH ST sized units. Community planning
Specific zone ideas Neighborhood planning before zoning changes
Strong support for more development along Local infrastructure
MARY AVE NW
20TH AVE NW
22ND AVE NW
10TH AVE NW
19TH AVE NW
18TH AVE NW
12TH AVE NW
13TH AVE NW
17TH AVE NW
11TH AVE NW
LOYAL HEIGHTS PLAYFIELD
arterials and places that already have capacity Tie density to infrastructure investments
but are underdeveloped
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)

Whittier


45
NW 75TH ST

0 0.25
0.5
H AVE NW
MHA area
Crown Hill
mi
NC2-40 |
Eastlake DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Eastlake


proposed zoning
Hamilton Int'l
N 41ST ST
MHA requirements
zone categories

urban
MR | MR villages
(M)
areas designated forMR
growth in our
| MR (M) Comprehensive
NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M) Plan
MR-RC | MR-RC (M)

LATONA AVE NE
(residential proposal shown) C1-65 | C1-75 (M)
8TH AVE NE
2ND AVE NE
Residential Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Existing
5TH AVE NE
4TH AVE NE
Single Family | Residential
existing zone Small Lot (M)
| draft MHA zone
NE 41ST ST
Open space
1ST AVE NE
(M) a payment of $13.25 per sq. ft
similar in scale to single family zones

typical
Single Family increase
| LR1 (M1)
Solid areas have a
in zoning Lowrise (LR)
Highrise (HR) Commercial (C)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
Proposed
NE CAMPUS PKWY
Public school
9% of homes must be affordable or apartments with heights auto-orientedNE
commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
(usually one story)
Hatched areas have

NC1-30 |
aNC1-40 (M)

of $20.00 per sq. ft
a payment
N 40TH ST

Lowrise
1 (LR1) max height30 ft.
of 240-300 ft. 40TH ST

Light rail
!

Seattle 2035
15TH AVE NE
Seattle Mixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC)
NC1-40 (M)
10% of homes must be affordable Lowrise 2 (LR2) max height
(M2) 40 ft.
LR2 | LR2 (M) Bus stop
NC1-30 |
or a payment of $22.25 per sq. ft buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute walkshed
or a change in zone type. Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. offices, retail, and homes
C2-40 |
a Increase heights along Eastlake Ave c Change the zoning along the water at the
LR3 | LR3 (M)

C2-55 (M)
WALLINGFORD AVE N
from E. Newton (south) to E. Hamlin northern most edge from C to NC. This
N 39TH ST
IC-45 | IC-55 (M)

University District

(north). This is in the heart of the will improve trail access and is consistent
EASTERN AVE N
NE PACIFIC ST
LR1 | LR1 (M)
business district. It is adjacent to a park with NC in Urban Village.
N 38TH ST
MHA implementedthrough
R
YB
a separate inclusive
SUNNYSIDE AVE N
SIT
planning process
and at the highest point of Eastlake.
ER
IV
E
N

UN
E
LR2 |
AV
LR2 (M) NE

TH
N 37TH ST BO
AT

15
LR2 RC | ST

LR2 RC (M)

ST
CORLISS AVE N
C
Increase LR3 zone from E Lynn St
FI
b
CI
)
(M
PA
BAGLEY AVE N
WOODLAWN AVE N
ASHWORTH AVE N
-55
DENSMORE AVE N
N
MERIDIAN AVE N
2P
(south) to E. Roanoke (north) following
BURKE AVE N
NC
CARR PL N
|
N 36TH ST
-40
M)
M)

5(
2P
3(
Minor Ave. E. This is intended to make
1-5
NC
LR

(M)
|C
3|
NC

LR
-40
1-40
M)
NC 2-4
PO
2-5 0 |
1(
C1
a better transition from the business
5 (M
RT
0|C
LR
)
AG
IL
)
-55 |
(M
A
1|
3P -40
C1-3
TR
BA

EE
LR
N 35TH ST
NC C3P
YP
AN
FU
M)
AV
district and allow for more housing
LE
C2-40 | C2-55 (M)
ILM
5(
HR
EW
3-5
G
LR2 | LR2 (M)
MA
KE
RV
NC
R
BU
N
I
choices in a high opportunity area.
0|
FA
E ALLISON ST
AV

3-4
C1P-40 |
E
C2P-40 | C2P-55 (M)
NC
C1P-30 |
E
C1P-55 (M)
C1P-40 (M)
N 34TH ST
NC2P-65 | FA
NC2P-75 (M) IR
IC-45 | IC-55 (M) PA VIEW
RK E GWINN PL
C1-30 |
C2-40 | C1-40 | C1-40 (M)
C1-40 | C2-55 (M) C1-55 (M)
C1-55 (M)
M)
5(
N NORTHLAKE WAY
3-5
M)
C(
E SHELBY ST
M)
NC
5( |
HARVARD AVE E
3-5 C

2R
NC R3 R
0|
BOYLSTON AVE E
LR
3-4
BROADWAY E
10TH AVE E
11TH AVE E
L
C|
NC
Concern about changes to zoning

2R
LR
NC3P-40 |
NC3P-55 (M)
GAS WORKS PARK E HAMLIN ST
Interest in more transit and better mobility

NC2P-40 | E HAMLIN ST
NC2P-55 (M)
)
NC2-30 |
3R C|
C (M
NC2-40 (M)
for this area

LR R3 R

NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
LR2 RC | NC2-55 (M1)

L
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Infrastructure Interest in preserving the views from

E EDGAR ST
ROANOKE
PARK
Public transit school as well as private homes
E ROANOKE ST

BAGLEY SR 520 Commercial affordability & small Increase density near I-5
PLAYGROUND
VIEWPOINT
business
ROGERS
NC2-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
Increase density at the north and south

TOPS K-8

end of the Urban Village
E LOUISA ST
NC1-40 | NC1-55 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR3 | LR3 (M)

NC2P-30 | NC2P-40 (M)
Access to South Lake Union and

FAIRVIEW AVE E
MONTLAKE
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
E MILLER ST
BO
PLAYFIELD
b There should be no RSL this close

YE
Principle 8a:
a R
AV
University make this a great place to live
15TH AVE E
16TH AVE E
E
E
Neighborhood Commercial
to downtown. we should be looking
LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
zoning encourages and allows

12TH AVE E
13TH AVE E
a continuous and walkable

Lots of great parks and the trail along the
commercial corridor along
Eastlake Ave E.

E LYNN ST at drastically raising height limits to
water is a great asset
BOYLSTON AVE E

address climate change and affordability
E LYNN ST
E LYNN ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
FEDERAL AVE E
Transit Improvements are needed/

BROADWAY E
12TH AVE E
13TH AVE E
11TH AVE E
LR2 RC |
crises.
NC1-55 (M1)
Parking is pinched
LR3 | LR3 (M) NC2P-40 |
NC2P-55 (M)
- Mike E.
NC1P-30 |
NC1P-40 (M)
FRANKLIN AVE E
New development missing the

HARVARD AVE E
BO
MINOR AVE E
LR3 | NC1-55 (M)
ST
YALE AVE E
E CROCKETT ST
N
community character
E BOSTON TER
ST
E NEWTON ST
INTERLAKEN PARK
LR2 | LR2 (M)
14TH AVE E

10TH AVE E
New density could create a more vibrant

LR1 | LR1 (M)
GRAND ARMY
YA CEMETERY
and walkable area

LEP
LE
E HOWE ST
LR3
Transit is overcrowded at current. The

| LR3
C1-40 |
C1-55 (M)
(M)
N PL
Brooklyn light rail station as well as the

BOREN PARK
E BLAINE ST
E BLAINE ST
E OLI
I-5 COLONNADE
C2-40 | C2-55 (M)
upcoming BRT should help with that.

Air Quality along I-5. At the least the first
E GARFIELD ST
(M)

| C1-75
block or more along I-5 is within 500 feet

AUBURN PL E
LR3 | LR3 (M)
16TH AVE E
E GARFIELD ST
)
LR 1 |
C1-65
1 (M
LR

of I-5.
E GALER ST

N
E
AV
)
(M
EW
55
C-
VI
ST MARKS GREENBELT
|I
IR
5
-4
FA
IC

)
(M
E HIGHLAND DR
3
E HIGHLAND DR

LR
VOLUNTEER PARK

T HILLCAPITOL
3|
46
LR
15TH AVE E
LR3 | LR3 (M)

MHA area South Lake
URBAN
Eastlake Union Urban

LR1 | LR1 (M)
HARVARD-
Center
TER
BELMONT
LANDMARK
First HillCapitol Hill DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Urban Center HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 First Hill / Capitol Hill
proposed zoning
MHA requirements
zone categories

BOREN PARK
urban villages
areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan High Risk of Displacement / High Access to Opportunity
21ST AVE E
Residential
I-5 COLONNADE Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial
(NC) Existing Open space
(M)
20TH AVE E
(M)
| C1-75
AUBURN PL E
LR3 | LR3 (M)

FAIRVIEW AVE E
Solid areas have a
Lowrise (LR)
Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) Proposed
INTERLAKEN PARK
E CRESCENT DR
Public school
C1-65
typical increase in zoning 10% of homes must be affordable apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
(usually one story)

or a payment of $29.75 per sq. ft townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments
of 240-300 ft.

!
Light rail

E GALER ST
Seattle Mixed (SM)
Industrial Commercial (IC) E GALER ST Seattle 2035 E GALER ST
a c
Some MR expansions outside Draft 1 version New NC zoning proposed for John and 12th
24TH AVE E
16TH AVE E
)
18TH AVE E
(M
that are either within the 5 minute high transit Ave informed by community feedback asking for
55
GE
C-
LA
ST MARKS GREENBELT
|I
N KE
Stevens
IL
5
19TH AVE E
-4
BATLA
V
IC
capacity walkshed or informed by community contiguous retail in the area.
20TH AVE E

URAS
E HIGHLAND DR

E
VOLUNTEER PARK
feedback specifically to support affordable
LR3 | LR3 (M)
22ND AVE E
(M
Principle 4a:
23RD AVE E
R2
BOYLSTON AVE E
In designated historic
|L
housing projects.
2
districts, do not make
LR1 | LR1 (M)

LR
zoning changes.
d Change from Commercial to Neighborhood

N
NC1-30 |
E

Commercial along East Fir for future
E PROSPECT ST NC1-40 (M)
AV
E PROSPECT ST
HARVARD-BELMONT
EW
LANDMARK DISTRICT
VI

b NC2P-75 proposed for 12th between Spring and development of 100% affordable housing.
LR1 | LR1 (M)

IR
18TH AVE E
16TH AVE E
10TH AVE E
17TH AVE E
FA
12TH AVE E
E WARD ST

Marion based on input from Pacific Northwest
15TH AVE E
BELMONT PL E E WARD ST
13TH AVE E
ALOHA ST
Principle 5a:
Photographic Center to support affordable
NC1-40 |

NC1-40 |
NC1-55 (M)
NC1-55 (M)
Expand housing options E ALOHA ST
BROADWAY E
MINOR AVE N
HARVARD AVE E

housing project on their parcel which currently has

EASTLAKE AVE E

VALLEY ST
VALLEY ST transit. E VALLEY
ST
ROY ST
MR |
MR (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
E ROY ST
E ROY ST
split zoning.

MADISONMILLER URBAN VILLAGE

E ROY ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Single Family |
MERCER ST
LR2 (M1)
NC1-40 | NC1-55 (M)
| Single Family |
23RD AVE E
NC1-40
NC1-55 (M)
LR1 (M1)
24TH AVE E
Lowell
TERRY AVE N
E MERCER ST

LR3 | LR3 (M)

TASHKENT PARK

LR3 | LR3 (M)
a
NC3-40 | NC3-75 (M1)
FAIRVIEW AVE N
LR2 |


South Lake
LR2 (M)
REPUBLICAN ST
12TH AVE E
BOYLSTON AVE E

BELMONT AVE E

SUMMIT AVE E
FEDERAL AVE E
MELROSE AVE E
Union Urban Plan for M2 near the Capitol Hill rail station/high
E REPUBLICAN ST
11TH AVE E
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)

10TH AVE E

Center
BELLEVUE AVE E
MALDEN AVE E
density near Future BRT

13TH AVE E
14TH AVE E
HARRISON ST
BOREN AVE N
E HARRISON ST
New development must maintain sensitivity to

NC3P-40 | NC3P-75 (M1)
a Citywide themes most discussed

MR | MR (M) NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
MINOR AVE N
YALE AVE N
local character.
CASCADE PLAYGROUND
Single Family |
THOMAS ST E THOMAS ST
Single Family |

c Displacement
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR3 (M2)
MILLER
LR2 (M1)
Under current
rules for LR2 | LR2 (M)
MR-RC (M)
PLAYFIELD
MR-RC |
NC3-40 | NC3-75 (M1)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
Apply preservation approaches along with

this hatched NC-40 area,

the height limit is 65 feet if

NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

residential uses occur JOHN
above
increased densities, (some are of the opinion
E JOHN ST
ST (M)
40 feet (SMC 23.47A.012).
NC2-55 (M)
3P-75
17TH AVE E
E JOHN ST
NC2-40 |
| NC
3P-65
Locating housing near assets and

NC
20TH AVE E
21ST AVE E
NC3-65 |
that buildings 8 stories instead of 7 will no longer

LR3 | MR (M1)
NC3-75 (M)
NC2P-55 (M)
(M)
LR3 | LR3
!

NC2P-40 |
MR-RC (M)
NC3-75
MR-RC |
NC3-65 |
a
(M)

16TH AVE
LR3 RC |
infrastructure
LR3 RC (M)
function as an effective financial incentive)

LR2 | LR3 (M1)

DENNY WAY
E DENNY WAY NC3-40 |

LR2 | LR2 (M)

NC3-75 (M1)
E DENNY WAY

LR3 | LR3 (M)

NC3-40 | NC3-55 (M)
|
NC2-65 |

Housing options Maximize density changes around the link rail

LR3 | LR3 (M)
ST
-65(M)
M NC2-40 |
NC2-75 (M)
RA
3P 75
IN
NC3-75 (M)
SEVEN NC2-55 (M)
NC3-65 |
O
O
NC 3P-
HILLS
R AV
N
c
15TH AVE E
NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)

LE
PARK
NC
CAL ANDERSON PARK
BOYLSTON AVE
E E HOWELL ST
transit stop (LR3-MR)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

ST
19TH AVE

LR3 PUD (M)
IA
MR | MR (M)
ST
LR1 |
Plan for MR within 5-10 minute walksheds from

LR3 PUD |

ST
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

N

14TH AVE
13TH AVE
LR1 (M)
RT
I

RG
BELMONT AVE
SUMMIT AVE
EL
A

EW
E OLIVE ST
Residential Small Lot/TC | LR1 (M1)

VI
E OLIVE ST
OW
Madison
YA

ST
L
H
EA

NC3P-75 (M1)
This is a prime upzone location. Please

NC3-65 |
NC3P-40 |

VE
NC3-65 |
NC3-75 (M)
M)
NC3-75 (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC2-55 (M)
AY 5(
NC2-40 |
Residential Small Lot/TC | LR2 (M1)

3-7
NC Zones should not be isolated. Along 12th Ave
NC3P-40 |
EW NC3P-55 (M)
NC
BELLEVUE AVE
CRAWFORD PL
I V
5|
E PINE ST
OL
do so much more heavily, but also

-6
C3
MELROSE AVE
and E John St, consider creating a continuous

NC3P-65 |
N
NC3P-95 (M)
NC3P-75 (M)
14TH AVE

NC3P-85 |

7T NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M)
keep in mind principles of livability and

H Single Family |
LR1 | LR1 (M)

corridor of NC zoning.
AV LR1 (M1)
ST
10TH AVE
E
9T
E PIKE ST N

I SO E PIKE ST
H
increase public spaces and setbacks.

AD
E PIKE ST
HARVARD AVE

AV

EM
Consider greater density and higher MHA
NC2-75 (M1)
Seattle
NC2-40 |
PLAYGROUND
E
World School
T.T. MINOR
LR2 |
NC2P-40 | NC2P-75 (M1)

LR2 (M)
NC2P-55 (M)
11TH AVE
T MR | MR (M) NC2-55 (M)
Also please increase MHA!

NC2-40 |
ES NC2P-40 |

requirements near the Capitol Hill light rail station.
NC2-40 |
N
NC2-55 (M)
PI
NC1-30 |
6T
E UNION ST
NC1-40 (M) NC2P-30 | NC2P-40 (M)
ST
H
N
NC2P-40 |
IO NC2P-55 (M)
AV
a
NC2P-65 |
UN
Consider MR in areas around Link Rail Station up

NC2P-75 (M)
TE
E
- Alphonse
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
23RD & UNIONJACKSON URBAN
LR3 | LR3 (M)

RR
T T NC2-40 |
NC2P-55 (M)
ES YS
NC2-75 (M1) LR2 | LR2 (M)
NC2P-40 |
YA
T
K SI
PI ER
to 15th
VE
20TH AVE
IV
16TH AVE
18TH AVE
19TH AVE
UN
SPRING
STREET
BO

LR2 | LR2 (M)
MINI PARK
NC2-40 |
0| ) E SPRING ST NC2-75 (M1)
RE
3-16 0 (M
Downtown
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
NC 3-17
LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC

Expand housing options along E. Madison St.

N
|
WESTLAKE PARK
UD (M)
HR | HR (M)
AV
-P
HR -PUD

Urban

HR M)
E
0(
b with future BRT

17
ST P-

Center SP
RI
NG
3P
-16
0 |N
C3

Major Institution
E MARION ST
More people need to live on Broadway

Keep community character as much as possible.
NC
17TH AVE
Overlay
where access to link is so easy and you
LR1 | LR1 (M)
ST (MHA applies only to
23RD AVE
22ND AVE
ON
24TH AVE
BROADWAY
NI
JIM ELLIS FREEWAY PARK
12TH AVE

In Capitol Hill more housing may not mean more

8T
VILLAGE
dont need to walk up or down any hills.

T ) E COLUMBIA ST
YS
H
E COLUMBIA ST
MI
(M
70
IT
NO
P-1
AV

RS |N
C3
R
E
affordability. Programs will need to help defend
E
IV 0
AV
-16 LR2 | LR2 (M)

UN
P
E
3
NC

LR2 RC |
LR3 | LR3 (M)
- Scott
LR2 RC (M)
ST
existing residents against economic eviction

NC

NC1-40 (M1)
E CHERRY ST
ON
Family |
Single
RI
LR2 RC |

3-1
NC1-40 (M1)
MA E CHERRY ST Nova at Mann

ST
NC1-30 |

60
NC1-40 (M)
ECA ST
LR2 | NC1-40 (M)
IA
and also seek to remedy displacement that has

|N
MB
EN LU

C3

S CO E JAMES ST
-17

0(
E JAMES ST
already occurred.
5T
ST
LR2 | NC1-40 (M)
M)
GARFIELD PLAYFIELD
RY
8T
T ER
H
GS

5| )
H
CH
3-8 5 (M
AV
AV
IN NC 3-9
TE
R
E
SP
E
NC
Figure combining neighborhood density and
RR

YA
JEFFERSON
E
NC3-95 (M)
HR | HR (M) ST
VE
NC3-85 |
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

4T
NC1-30 |

10TH AVE
5| )
NC1-40 (M)
NC3P-40 |
3-6 5 (M NC3P-55 (M)
ST
H
existing character.
NC 3-7
NC
ON
AV
IS LR2 | LR2 (M)

D

E
NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65 |
MA
Garfield
ST
Plan on no towers on Capitol Hill.
MR
IA NC3P-65 |
MB NC3P-75 (M)
|M
9T

LU MR | MR (M)
R
H
CO
NC3-75 (M)

(M
NC3-65 |
AV
Plan for M2 zoning near Capitol Hill light rail station.

)
ST
E
RY E ALDER ST
ER

2N
CH
NC3-75 (M)
15TH AVE
NC3-65 |
NC2-65 |
Nothing can be reasonable and appropriate

DA
17TH AVE
16TH AVE
20TH AVE
21ST AVE
NC2-75 (M)
R ST
VE
PO
E
T LD Single Family |
SS
d
A E SPRUCE ST
ST
Residential Small
ME
SPRUCE STREET
HORIUCHI
ST
until expanded infrastructure, schools and other

AV
N PARK
MINI PARK
Lot (M)
JA SO
E
ER
FF
JE FIR ST

NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65 |
amenities are provided to accommodate the

E FIR ST
C2-65 |
16TH AVE
CITY HALL PARK LR3 | LR3 (M)

PIONEER SQUARE C2-75 (M)
OCCIDENTAL AVE S
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
density.
PREFONTAINE PLACE

YESLER
WAY
NC3-65 |

NC3-75 (M) E YESLER WAY

YESLER
Bailey
4TH AVE S
5TH AVE S
Yesler Terrace TERRACE

NC1-40 | LR3 RC | NC1-40 |
Gatzert
LR2 | LR2 (M)
CC
Master Planned LR3 RC (M) NC1-55 (M)
NC2-55 (M)
NC1-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
Community
22ND AVE S
PIONEER SQUARE
OCCIDENTAL SQUARE

PRESERVATION
18TH AVE S
17TH AVE S
KOBE TERRACE
NC2-65 | NC2-75 (M) PRATT PARK
S MAIN ST
DISTRICT

INTERNATIONAL
S MAIN ST
S MAIN ST MHA area
DISTRICT NC2P-65 |
NC2P-75 (M)
S MAIN ST
First HillCapitol Hill | NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65
H AVE S
H AVE S
UNION STATION SQUARE

SPECIAL REVIEW
NC3P-40 | NC3P-55 (M)
Fremont DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Hub Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Fremont
proposed zoning
MHA requirements
zone categories
below toNsee
follow the links

46TH ST | NC1-55 (M)
NC1-40 LR1 | LR1 (M)
under MHA
examples of how buildings could look

|urban
Single Family LR3 RC (M2) villages
areas designated for growth in our N
NC2P-30 | NC2P-40 (M)
Comprehensive
46TH ST Plan Low Risk of Displacement / High Access to Opportunity
Residential Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood CommercialSingle
(NC) Existing
Family | LR2 (M1)
OpenLR2
space
RC | LR2 RC (M)
existing zone | draft MHA zone LR3 | LR3 (M)
NW 45TH ST
(M) 6% Nof 45TH
homesST
must be affordable or similar in scale to single family zones
Solid areas have a
N 45TH ST
Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) N 45TH
Proposed
ST Public school
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)
FREMONT
(M1)
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)

(usually one story) PEAK
a payment ofPARK
$20.00 per sq. ft townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments of 240-300 ft.
!
Light rail
INTERLAKE AVE N
MIDVALE AVE N
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)

Hatched areas have a Seattle Mixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle 2035
PHINNEY AVE N
(M2) or a payment of $22.25 per sq. ft buildings with a mix of N ALLEN PL
a d
In areas with low risk of displacement and high In the center of the business district, in blocks
Lowrise 3 LR1
(LR3)| LR1 (M) 50 ft.
max height offices, retail, and homes
Single Family |
3RD AVE NW
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
LR3 (M2)
NW 44TH ST LR2 | LR2 (M)
ROSS PLAYGROUND
access to opportunity, the final proposal guides flanking Fremont Ave. N and Leary Way,
EVANSTON AVE N
PALATINE AVE N
N 44TH ST
FRANCIS AVE N
BAKER AVE NW
WOODLAND PARK AVE N

DAYTON AVE N

2ND AVE NW
N 44TH ST
1ST AVE NW
us to include more capacity for housing. In changes to implement the NC-75 zone with
LR2 | LR2 (M)
N 44TH ST
WINSLOW PL N
N 43RD ST
N 43RD ST
Single Family |
LR3 (M2)
central portions of the neighborhood along N. an (M1) tier instead of the MC-55 zone are
35th and N. 36th streets and vicinity, increases proposed.
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)

NW 43RD ST N 43RD ST
N 43RD ST
to a Lowrise 3 zone with an (M1) MHA tier are


e Changes from existing Commercial (C) zoning
proposed instead of LR1 or LR2 zones.
N MOTOR PL
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
to Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning in the
LR2 | LR2 (M)

b

NW 42ND ST
LR3 RC |
LR3 RC (M) N 42ND ST In the Stone Way corridor and blocks west of Stone Way corridor are also proposed. These
it, changes to implement the NC-75 zone with changes are consistent with comment in support

N 42ND ST
STONE WAY N
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)
the (M1) tier, instead of the NC-55 zone are of a more pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.
1ST AVE NW
LR1 | LR1 (M)

LR1 | LR1 (M)
Principle 5a:

C1-40 |
C1-55 (M)
Allow more housing
options near proposed in some locations.
neighborhood assets like
N 41ST ST
parks and schools.
c At the west edge of the urban village an area of
DAYTON AVE N
N 41ST ST
existing Lowrise 2 zoning south of N. 39th St. is
PLAYGROUND
LR1 | LR1 (M)

B.F. DAY
N 40TH ST Principle 8a:
N LUCA
S PL
Single Family |
LR1 (M1)
proposed for Lowrise 3 zoning with an (M1) tier

instead of maintaining the LR2 zone.
LR1 (M)
Neighborhood Commercial zoning

LR1 |
N 40TH ST
encourages more pedestrian- WALLINGFORD
friendly development and a more URBAN VILLAGE
walkable corridor along N 36th St.
BALLARDINTERBAYNORTH END
N BOWDOIN PL LR2 | LR2 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)
NC3P-55 (M)
NC3P-40 |
With strong employment growth in the area, in
LE
AURORA AVE N
MANUFACTURING AND
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT

AR
B.F. Day
general this is good location for more housing.
YW
N 39TH ST LR1 | LR1 (M)

AY
N 39TH ST
Many comments that transit is overcrowded.
c
5 |
LR2 | LR3 (M1)
)
-5 40
(M
N
2P P-
WINSLOW PL N
1ST AVE NW
GREENWOOD AVE N
PHINNEY AVE N
FRANCIS AVE N
DAYTON AVE N
EVANSTON AVE N
WHITMAN AVE N
FREMONT AVE N
LR2 | LR2 (M)
C 2
Upgrade and enhance existing transit service.
W
N NC

LR1 | LR1 (M) Citywide themes most discussed Desire for more open space in the area

C1-4
0|N
C2-5 Community planning
5 (M
)
N 38TH ST
N 38TH ST

Affordable housing requirements Improve protections for trees with new
LR3 | LR3 (M)
FR
EM N3
6TH

Affordability development
FREMONT LN N
LINDEN AVE N
ALBION PL N
WOODLAND PARK AVE N
ASHWORTH AVE N
ON
ST
b
T
Improve urban design of new development

CA
Livability
NA
C2-40 | C2-55 (M)

L LR3 | LR3 (M)
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)

PA
R

K
C2-40 | C2-55 (M)
Assets and Infrastructure Some comments in favor of larger capacity
d e
NC3P-40 | NC3P-55 (M)
MHA would not apply to
C1-30 | C1-40 (M)

increases in, or expansion of the Fremont Urban
LR2 | LR2 (M)

BU N3 LR2 | LR2 (M)
R industrial
5TH uses in IB and
ST
KE IG zones. MHA does apply
GI N 36T
to commercial uses in IC
Village, consider adding the island between
LM H ST
AN NC2P-40 |
zones. NC2P-55 (M)
NC3P-75 (M)
TR
NC3P-65 |
b
AI LR2 | LR2 (M)
L
N3
NC3P
NC3P -40 |
-55 (M
)
LR1 |
LR1 (M
) It's a good place for diversity to exist, Fremont and Wallingford to the urban village.
4TH

ST

LR2 |
LR2 (M
) as it's near lots of transit options and General support to convert existing C zoning on
Leary and on Aurora to NC.

C2-30 | C2-40 (M)
C1-65 | C1-75 (M)
TROLL AVE N
neighborhood assets.

N 35T IC-45 | IC-55 (M)
W CREMONA ST NC3P
LR3 |
LR3 (M H ST
Consider additional density along Aurora Ave. N.
-65 | NC )
3P-75
(M)

NI C1-65
- hogsmanor
b eN 34TH Concern about infrastructure sidewalks, and
C1-40 | C1-55 (M) | C1-75
CK (M)
ER
QUEEN ANNE AVE N
W DRAVUS ST SO
N SH
IP
IC-65 | IC-75 (M)
STN NO
bicycle infrastructure should be improved
ST CA RTH
L

AKE
Monitor MHA production in urban villages
NA WAY
L TR
L
LR3 | LR3 (M) ETRURIA ST C2-30 | C2-40 (M)

Proposed conversion of Single Family areas in Differing opinions were expressed about the East
East Fremont (within Wallingford Urban Village) Fremont area
3RD AVE W
LR2 | LR2 (M) LR1 | LR1 (M)

C2-40 | C2-55 (M)
to Lowrise. Some comments received in favor of lowrise
4TH AVE N
LR2 | LR2 (M)

FLORENTIA ST Strong need for affordability multi-family housing there due to proximity to
Corresponding livability investments transit employment and transit.
3RD AVE N
Cascade

MAYFAIR AVE N
service, open space Some comments (including FNC) opposed to LR

1ST AVE N
2ND AVE N
WARREN AVE N
FULTON ST
Concerns about lack of adequate neighborhood zoning there.
QUEEN ANNE BOWL PLAYFIELD FULTON ST

W planning process and consideration of Consider increased capacity at transit nodes (i.e.
ES
ARMOUR ST
TL
AK neighborhood-specific issues. N. 35th / 36th St, 39th St., and Stone Way N.)
EA
VE
Opposes the scale of conversion to lowrise Discussion was generally polarized, but comment
QUEEN ANNE AVE N
NEWELL ST
LR1 | LR1 (M) N
DAVID RODGERS PARK zones in East Fremont (within Wallingford Urban in support of draft zoning changes outweighed
LR1 | LR1 (M)
NEWELL ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)

Village). those against by about 1/3. Numerous written
comments in Consider.it suggested Lower

Corresponding infrastructure and livability
RAYE ST
MAYFAIR
PARK
LR3 | LR3
(M)
investments are needed. Fremont is a good location for additional housing.
RAYE ST
C2
LR1 | LR1 (M)
-40
|C
C1-65 | C1-75 (M)
2-5
DR
NE
5(
5TH
1ST AVE N
M)
AN
EEN
2ND AVE W
1ST AVE W

AVE
QU
48
N
HALLADAY ST
MHA area HALLADAY ST LR2 | LR2 (M)
TH AVE N

Fremont
Green Lake / Roosevelt DRAFT ZONING CHANGES

Residential Urban Villages HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Green Lake / Roosevelt
proposed zoning
MHA requirements
zone categories
urban villages
NE 86TH ST
LR3 | LR3 (M) Low Risk of Displacement / High Access to Opportunity
17TH AVE NE
(residential proposal shown) NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)

Residential
Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
LR2 | LR2 (M) Existing
Open space LR2 | LR2 (M)
existing zone | draft MHA zone cottages, townhouses, duplexes/triplexes apartments with7-8 stories mixed-use buildings with 4-9 stories boundary
C1-65 | C1-75 (M)
(M)
NE 85TH ST
Public school
LATONA AVE NE

4TH AVE NE
NE 85TH ST
2ND AVE NE
Solid areas have a Highrise (HR)

MAPLE LEAF RESERVOIR PARK
Commercial (C) Proposed
Lowrise (LR)
NC1-40 | NC1-55 (M)

typical increase in zoning 9% of homes must be affordable or apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
(usually one story)

NE 84TH ST
of 240-300 ft.
!

C1-40 | C1-55 (M) Light rail
LR1 | LR1 (M)
a As an area with high opportunity and low h SF to LR3 (M2) area at 64th and Brooklyn
14TH AVE NE
(M2) Bus stop
or a change in zone type. or a payment of $22.25 per sq. ft Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft.
MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute walkshed
displacement risk, principles call for (M1) and (M2) changed to LR2 (M1) to moderate scale
21ST AVE NE
zone changes, especially near transit. Community
NE 83RD ST
changes. A nearby surface parking lot changed

NE 82ND ST
NE 82ND ST input also encouraged more (M1) zone changes in from LR2 (M1) to LR3 (M2) to encourage more

Green Lake. LR3 (M) areas along Ravenna Blvd housing close to transit on a site with no existing
BROOKLYN AVE NE
NC2-55 (M)
changed to MR (M1).
NC2-40 |
NE 81ST ST
N
E structures.
12TH AVE NE

W
AY b RSL and LR1 near school changed to LR2.
TY

i Other areas within a close walk of light rail
BA
NE 80TH ST

CI
NN

E
c changed to a zone with higher height limit, such
K
LR2 (M) changed to LR3 (M1) along Green Lake
ER
LA
5TH AVE NE
W
Way and north end of urban village. as the half block zoned LR2 at 9th and 63rd,
AY
NE 79TH ST
)
(M
11TH AVE NE
LR2 |
55
LR2 (M)
NE
1-
|C
changed from NC-40 to NC-75.
40
1-
20TH AVE NE
C
15TH AVE NE

d NC-55 (M) changed to NC-75 (M1) in the core of
NE 78TH ST
NE 77TH ST
j Expansion area. Community input to moderate

14TH AVE NE
16TH AVE NE
18TH AVE NE
17TH AVE NE

the Green Lake business district
8TH AVE NE
LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M) NE 77TH ST
intensity and scale of zoning changes outside

1ST AVE NE
SUNNYSIDE AVE N
NE LONGWOOD PL
CORLISS AVE N
BAGLEY AVE N
9TH AVE NE
NC-55 (M) changed to NC-75 (M1) north of 72nd the urban village east of 15th Ave NE. Size of
2ND AVE NE
NE 76TH ST
Principle 2:
Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
NE 76TH ST
)
to create more consistent zoning for third phase
(M
2R C|
urban village expansion maintained, but scale of
C
LR 2 R
NE 76TH ST zoning encourages better design
LR
outcomes in new development.

of the Green Lake North redevelopment site. This zone change reduced in response to community
NE 75TH ST
site has already applied for a contract rezone to

input that the area east of 15th should have less


E
LR2 | LR2 (M)

E

AV
C1-40 | NC3-55 (M)

NC-65.

H
Single Family |

4T

Principle 6c:
zoning change.
PL
c
F
A
Development in expansion
LE

E
PL
areas should be compatible

A
Principle 5:
NC2-55 (M)
M
f As an area with high opportunity and low k One area on 15th from LR3 RC to LR2 RC.
NC2-40 |
in scale with existing

E
C |
N
)
Locate more housing

(M
R C
2 2R
e f
neighborhood context.
LR LR
| ) NE 73RD ST near infrastructure

displacement risk, principles call for (M1) and (M2)
40 M
2- 5 ( like light rail.
6TH AVE NE
LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC 2-5
NC 2P
NC
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
f
NC
2P -55
l The other half of that block changed from LR2 to

NE 73RD ST
-40 |
-4 (M
zone changes, especially near transit. Community

0 )
NC2P-55 (M)
|
C1-40 |
C1-55 (M) NC2P Single Family |
Residential Small
NE 72
ND ST
Lot (M)
FROULA PLAYGROUND input also encouraged more (M1) zone changes in RSL.
Green Lake. RSL (M) areas within existing urban
16TH AVE NE
19TH AVE NE
17TH AVE NE
f
NE 71ST ST
20TH PL NE
f

m South of 65th the area proposed to go to LR1
GREEN LAKE PARK
ROOSEVELT WAY NE
NC2P-65 | NC2P-75 (M) Single Family | LR1 (M1)

village and close to transit changed to Lowrise
Single Family | LR1 (M1) Single Family |
Residential Small
Lot (M)
RC changed to RSL in consideration of existing

NC2
NC2 (M)

-55
-40 |
NE 70TH ST zoning.
d
TH ST
NE 70
g parcel orientation. LR1 RC on north side of 65th

NC2P-55
NC2P-40 |

8TH AVE NE
i
(M)
) Single Family |
W
5 (M Principle 5:
P-5 LR2 (M1) Single Family | LR2 (M1)
Single Family |
g Calvary church site changed from LR2 (M1) to retained because parcels oriented to 65th.
EE
C3
NC2-40 (1.3) |
NC2-55 (M1)
-40
|N
NC2-40 | Allow more housing
DI
3P
NC NC2-55 (M) options near assets like
MR (M2) to facilitate potential affordable housing

N
i
LR3 RC | parks and schools.
PL
LR3 RC (M) NE 68TH ST

n Area proposed from SF to NC-55 changed to
NC3P-65 (1.3) |
NC3P-75 (M2)
k
TH ST
on surface parking lot.

NC3P-65 (4.0) |
NE
NC3-40 | LR3 (0.75) |

NC3-55 (M) NE 68 NC3P-75 (M) MR (M2)
LR3 | LR3 (M) MR (0.75) |
MR (M2)
LR1 and RSL in response to community input

NC3P-65 | NE 68TH ST
NE
NC3P-65 (2.0) |

Sin
NC3P-75 (M) NC3P-75 (M1)

5T
l
ECKSTEIN PARK
gle
RA
b f
Single Family |
Roosevelt
AV
Sin
LR3 RC (M2)
CHAPIN PL N
RAVENNA-
a that scale changed was excessive.
MR (1.2) | MR (M2)
Fa
Residential Small
Single Family |
John Marshall
gle
VE
mil
Single Family |
NE

y|
Fa
Lot (M)
NN
MR (1.3) | MR (M2)
mil
LR
!

y|
1 (M
Green

AB
LR3 RC | NE 66TH ST
LR
NE 66TH ST
1)
Lake LR3 RC (M) NC3-65 (1.3) |

2 (M
NC3P-85 (2.0) |
NC3-75 (M2)
LV
NC3P-95 (M2)
NC3P-85 (5.75) | NC2P-65 (4.0) | NC2P-75 (M1) LR1 |

1)
LR1 RC | LR1 (M)

NC3P-95 (M)
D
LR1 RC (M)
NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)

m

NC1-30 |
NC1-40 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

NE 65TH ST ! NC2-40 |
NC2P-65 (1.3) | NC2P-75 (M2)

NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M) Single Family |
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
h
NC1P-40 (1.2) |
LR1 RC (M1)

NC2-55 (M) NC1P-55 (M1)

n
NC2P-40 (1.2) |
i Local opportunities and challenges

NC2P-55 (M1)
NC2P-40 (0.75) |
NC2P-55 (M2) NC1P-40 (0.75) | NC1P-55 (M2)

NC3-65 (1.3) |
NC3-75 (M2)
NC3-40 | NC3-55 (M)

Single Family |

Residential Small
NC1-55 (M2)
LR2 (0.75) |
NC3-65 (2.0) |
LR3 (M2)
LR2 (M1)
Single Family |
Family |

NC3-75 (M1)
NE 64TH ST
Single
i Transitions
LR3 (0.75) |
Lot (M)

LR3 (M2)
NE 64TH ST Principle 3:
Assets & Infrastructure
Plan for transitions
Single Family |
NC3-65 (1.3) |
LR1 (M1)
Principle A.9:
NC2-40 |
C1-40 (M)
NC3-75 (M)
between higher- and

NC3-75 (M2)
Views
LR2 | N
NC2-55 (M)
NC3-65 |
NC3P-65 | Single Family | LR2 (M1) NE 63RD ST

Evaluate MHA using a social and lower-scale areas.
i
NE 63RD ST NC3P-75 (M)
racial equity lens. Expanding the NC3-65 (4.0) |
Concern about zoning changes in single-family

NC2-40 (1.3) |
NC3-75 (M)
20TH AVE NE
NC2-55 (M1)
21ST AVE NE
number and range of housing options

Transit-oriented development
i
Single Family |
f
allows more people to live in high- NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
Residential Small
Lot (M)
areas, especially outside urban village

i
opportunityneighborhoods.
Affordability in the neighborhood
NE 62ND ST
LR1 | LR1 (M) NE
Extent of urban village expansion; 15th as a Pedestrian safety

62
N DS
T
HILLMAN PL NE
NE 61ST ST
CORLISS AVE N
f Historic resources
6TH AVE NE
4TH AVE NE
5TH AVE NE
natural boundary
1ST AVE NE

LATONA AVE NE
Single Family |
Residential Small
COWEN PARK RAVENNA PARK NE 61ST ST

Housing options
NE 60TH ST
NE 60TH ST Lot (M)
Pedestrian safety, Vision Zero, NE 65th St

Locating near assets and infrastructure

Transitions from the high street to adjacent low-

NE 59TH ST
NE 59TH ST
LR3 | LR3 (M)
Principle 6b:
Parks and open space
NE 58TH ST
expansions recommended density areas
16TH AVE NE
18TH AVE NE
17TH AVE NE
LR2 | LR2 (M)
NE 58
in Seattle 2035 considering NE 58TH ST TH ST

Appropriate height at the light rail station
natural boundaries like
11TH AVE NE
BROOKLYN AVE NE
Ravenna Boulevard.
LR3 | LR3 (M)
NE 57TH ST
NE 57TH ST

Increase capacity in high-opportunity areas
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

Distribute capacity more equitably with more
NE 56TH ST NE 56TH ST NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M) Principle 1b:
Encourage small-scale,

Expand urban villages to include areas within medium-density throughout urban villages, not

1-3 blocks of the 10-min walkshed surrounding
family-friendly housing, such
NE 55TH ST
NE 55TH ST
as cottages,
rowhouses.
duplexes, and
NE 55TH PL
concentrated high density on arterials
McDonald
International

schools, parks, institutions, cultural centers, and Increase capacity in high-opportunity areas
KE

NS
9TH AVE NE
5TH AVE NE
8TH AVE NE
7TH AVE NE

other services
NE 54TH ST
ING
Some support more (M1) and (M2) zoning in

TO
N
20TH AVE NE
17TH AVE NE
PL
N
LR2 | LR2 (M)

NE 53RD ST
University District Increase capacity around schools, parks, transit Green Lake
KIR

19TH AVE NE
18TH AVE NE
KW
21ST AVE NE
MHA implemented NC3P-65

through
OO
| NC3P-75 (M)
DP
a
separate inclusive
LN

NE 52ND ST

planning process
LR1 | LR1 (M)LR2 | LR2 (M)
MHA area
Green
N 51ST ST Lake / Roosevelt
NE 51ST ST LR3 | LR3 (M) LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)

GreenwoodPhinney Ridge DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Greenwood-Phinney Ridge
proposed zoning
whiteNW
labels
97TH ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)
identify changes:
MHA | C1-55
C1-40
LR2 | LR2 (M)
requirements
(M)
zone categories
N 98TH ST urban villages
LR1 | LR1 (M) Residential Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Existing
existing zone | draft MHA zone Open space
6% of homes mustSTbe affordable or
(M) NW 97TH
LR2 | LR2typical
Solid areas have a
(M) increase in zoning LR1 | LR1 (M) Lowrise (LR)

Highrise (HR)
N 97TH ST
Commercial (C) Proposed Public school
(M1)
(usually one story)

of 240-300 ft.
!
Light rail
Seattle Mixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC) SeattleLR3
2035
| LR3 (M)
(M2)
Community feedback to increase heights
LR3 | LR3 (M) 10-minute walkshed Bus stop
a
or a payment of $22.25 per sq. ft buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses
or a change in zone type. Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. offices, retail, and homes
N 96TH ST
Single Family |
Residential Small Lot (M) Single Family | N 96TH ST
LR2 (M1)
NW 95TH ST
N 95TH ST
along Greenwood, specific feedback
LINDEN AVE N
from property owners, plus the urban
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)

C2-65 |

village being in a high opportunity, low
9TH AVE NW
DIBBLE AVE NW
7TH AVE NW
6TH AVE NW
4TH AVE NW
2ND AVE NW
PALATINE AVE N
PHINNEY AVE N
DAYTON AVE N
3RD AVE NW
EVANSTON AVE N
8TH AVE NW
NC3-75 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M) N 94TH ST
displacement risk area led to increases
LR1 | LR1 (M)

in densities (M1) along Greenwood Ave

N 93RD ST
NW 92ND ST
and N 85th St to NC-65 and NC-75.
C1-40 | NC2-55 (M)

SANDEL PLAYGROUND
Principle 8a:
N 92ND ST
URBAN VILLAGE
AURORALICTON SPRINGS
(NC) zoning encourages more
pedestrian-friendly buildings.
N 91ST ST


NW 90TH ST
N 90TH ST

NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M) LR3 |
C1-40 | NC3-75 (M1)
C1-65 | NC3-75 (M)

NW 89TH ST
LR3 (M)
LR3 | LR3 (M)

N 89TH ST

a Support for expanding urban village
GREENWOOD
PARK
NW 88TH ST NC2P-40 |

NC2P-55 (M)
boundary
N 88TH ST

N 87TH ST
NC3-65 (3.0) |
NC3-75 (M1)
MIDVALE AVE N
NC3-65 (3.0) | NC2-65 (1.3) |
NESBIT AVE N
Urban village as it is does not provide
NW 87TH ST
FREMONT AVE N
NC3-75 (M1) NC2-75 (M2)
NC2-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
N 87TH ST
NC2P-75 (M)
NC2-75 (M)
NC2P-65 |
Transitions
Single Family |
NC2-65 |
NC2-65 (3.0) |
opportunity for smooth transitions - too

Residential Small NC2-75 (M1) N 86TH ST
Lot (M) NW 86TH ST
NC3P-65 (3.0) |
NC3P-75 (M1)
Parking
N 86TH ST
narrow at present
LR2 |
NC2P-65 (3.0) |
NC3P-55 (M)
LR2 (M) NC2P-75 (M1) NC3P-40 |
| NC3-40 | NC3-55 (M)
NC1-40 NC2-40 |
Infrastructure
NC1-55 (M) LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC2-55 (M) N85TH ST
LR1 |
NC2P-40 |
People both in favor of more density and

LR1 (M) LR3 | LR3 (M) NC2P-40 |
NC2P-55 (M) NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M) NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M) NC2P-55 (M)

NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M) LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
reduced density along the corridor

LR2 RC (M)
LR2 RC |
Single Family | NW 84TH ST Single Family | Single Family |

GREENWOOD AVE N
Residential Small N 84TH ST LR1 (M1) LR1 (M1)

Lot (M)
NW 83RD ST People will like more density along the

corridor
N 83RD ST
An increase in the type of housing
C1-40 | C1-55 (M)

Reduced density near the bend of
NW 82ND ST
N 82ND ST
available is good for everyone.

LR2 RC | NCNC1
Greenwood Avenue (south of 67th)

LR2 RC (M) 1-5 -40
5 (M |
)
NW 81ST ST
N 81ST ST
Greenwood - Scott Concerns around infrastructure

LR2 RC |
N 80TH ST
Concerns around parking
LR2 RC (M)

LR1 | LR1 (M)
Concerns around impact on light and

Daniel
N 79TH ST Bagley

AURORA AVE N
LINDEN AVE N
shade
NC3P-40 | NC3P-55 (M)
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
N 78TH ST
Support expanding the UV boundary

LR2 RC (M)
LR2 RC |
NW 77TH ST
Concern that 85th & Greenwood is

N 77TH ST
1ST AVE NW
N 76TH ST will turn that in to a canyon of modern

LR2 | LR2 (M)

N 75TH ST

1 R (M
LR 1 RC
|
C ) blandness
Public transportation is a concern
LR
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
ST
ON
E N
LR2 | LR2 (M)
EA
AV
Other infrastructure related concerns
N 74TH ST
VE
A AY N
ON NW
N
KEE
IN
W

NW 73RD ST
N 73RD ST
LR3 | LR3 (M) Transitions adjacent to SF will be

GREEN LAKE
PARK
problematic
Would like RSL on SF adjacent to LR3
N 72ND ST
KIRKE PARK
N 72ND ST
N 71ST ST
Where we have existing tall buildings, the
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Ridge is a canyon that doesnt get any

NC1-30 | NC1-40 (M) LR1 | LR1 (M) NW 70TH ST
N 70TH ST

light. Increasing the height & number will
PHINNEY AVE N
FRANCIS AVE N
DAYTON AVE N
N 68TH ST
only increase the problem.
Density focused around arterials and
transit hubs
NW 67TH ST
N 67TH ST
SYCAMORE AVE NW
CLEOPATRA PL NW
DIVISION AVE NW
PALATINE AVE N
DIBBLE AVE NW
Switch from C1 to NC is good

2ND AVE NW
6TH AVE NW
4TH AVE NW

5TH AVE NW
7TH AVE NW
1ST AVE NW
N 66TH ST
FRANCIS AVE N
LR3 RC (M)
NC1-40 (M)
LR3 RC |
NC1-30 |

LR2 RC |
LR2 RC (M) N 65TH ST
NC2P-30 | NC2P-40 (M)

NW 64TH ST

MHA area
50
N 64TH ST
GreenwoodPhinney Ridge
Lake City DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Hub Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Lake City
proposed zoning
MHA requirements
zone categories
follow the links below to see examples of
how buildings could look under MHA LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M) NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)
urban villages
LR2 | LR2 (M)
NE 135TH ST Residential Small Lot (RSL)
Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Existing Open space
(M) similar in scale to single family zones NE 135TH ST

Solid areas have a Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) Proposed Public school
26TH AVE NE
typical increase in zoning 8% of homes must be affordable or Lowrise (LR) apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
(usually one story)

of 240-300 ft.
!
Light rail
(M2)
CEDAR PARK
larger increase in zoning buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute walkshed Bus stop
or a change in zone type. a payment of $12.50 per sq. ft Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. offices, retail, and homes
NE 134TH ST
NE 134TH ST
a In area west of 30th Ave NE and north b In area between NE 123rd St and NE
of NE 125th St reduce to M tier (NC3P- 125th St along Lake City Way, same
65 to C3P-75 & NC3-65 to NC3-75). rationale as above, as well as removing
LR2 | LR2 (M)

NE 133RD ST
Same as area east of 30th Ave NE zoning change emphasis from small
30TH AVE NE

and south of NE 127th St., and area scale business district corridor.
26TH AVE NE
25TH AVE NE
28TH AVE NE
31ST AVE NE
between NE 123rd St and NE 125th St
Principle 8a: along Lake City Way. Principles call for c In area west of 28th Ave NE and north of
mostly M and some M1 changes in High
Taller Neighborhood Commercial
(NC) zoning encourages a vibrant,
walkable neighborhood heart in NC3-40 | NE 125th St increase to M1 tier (LR3 to
this area.
NC3-30 |
NC3-40 (M)
NC3-55 (M)

Risk of Displacement / High Access NC3-75). Recent area planning identified
NE 130TH ST
NE 130TH ST to Opportunity areas. Draft 1 showed this site as a community asset that
significant height increases and M1
LR2 | LR2 (M)
could be redeveloped with affordable
Principle 8 directs
37TH AVE NE
the City to consider
changes in this area.

local urban design
NE 128TH ST
prorities. The draft
proposal reflects
local input from a
housing and improved community center,
recent planning
process in Lake City. providing more public benefit on publicly
NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)
NC3P-65 |
owned property.
NC3P-75 (M)

35TH AVE NE
NE 127TH ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)

26TH AVE NE
27TH AVE NE

NC3-65 |
NC3-40 | NC3-75 (M)
NC3-55 (M)
a a
NC3-65 | NC3-85 |
NC3-145 (M1) NC3-145 (M1)
ALBERT DAVIS PARK

Recent planning addressed C/NC zoning
c changes desired.
LR3 | LR3 (M)

NC3-65 |
NC3-75 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Displacement Additional sidewalk, transit, and street

24TH AVE NE

NC3P-65 | NC3P-85 |
NC3P-145 (M1) NC3P-95 (M)
NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M)

NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
Property taxes infrastructure greatly desired.

Housing options Expand UV more where transit service is

NE 125TH ST
NC2P-40 |
NC2P-65 | NC2P-75 (M)

NC2P-55 (M) NC3P-65 | NC3P-65 | NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
good both east and west
LAKE CITY PARK
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Traffic
NC3P-75 (M) NC3P-75 (M)
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)
Public transit Create connections to 130th and Bitter

NC2P-30 | NC2P-40 (M)
Public safety Lake

NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)
NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)
NC3P-65 |
NC3P-95 (M1)
NC3-85 |
VIRGIL FLAIM PARK

MR | MR (M)
b
NC3-95 (M)
Sidewalks & Walkability More people living in Lake City could
LR3 | LR3 (M) Parking put additional pressure on transportation
infrastructure, including narrow streets,
NE 123RD ST
NE 123RD ST In August 2016, after

several years of local
planning, Mayor Murray
signed legislation changing
parking challenges, and lack of
sidewalks.
the zoning in Lake City to
LR3 | LR3 (M)
encourage more pedestrian-

Si
ng LR1
oriented development.
le (M
LR2 | LR2 (M)

Fa 1)
Principle 3b:
m
ily
Consider Lowrise (LR) NC3-65 |

LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)
|
zones to help transition LR2 | LR2 (M)

NC3-75 (M)
between commercial and
LR3 | LR3 (M)
30TH AVE NE
28TH AVE NE
33RD AVE NE
31ST AVE NE
NE 120TH ST

E
NE 120TH ST
35TH AVE N
36TH AVE NE

E
)
DA
5 (M
HOMEWOOD
YN
24TH AVE NE
26TH AVE NE
PARK
N
IE
3-5
L
WA
32ND AVE NE
PL
NC
N
E
E
N
31
0|
33
Y
AVE
ST
RD
3-4
CIT
PL
LN
33RD
NC
N
E
E
KE
LA
NE 118TH ST
THORNTON CREEK
NATURAL AREA
27TH AVE NE
28TH AVE NE
NC3-30 | NE
NC3-40 (M)
117T
HS
T

LR2 RC |

NC3-40 |
51
LR2 RC (M)
NC3-55 (M)
30TH AVE NE
32ND AVE NE
NE
31ST AVE NE
VE
LR3 | LR3 (M)
MHA area
HA
2 | LR2 (M)
T
34 Lake City
MadisonMiller DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Madison-Miller
proposed zoning
MHA requirements
zone categories
follow the linksbelow to see examples of how buildings could look under MHA
urban villages
E HIGHLAN D DR (NC) Existing Open space

Solid areas have a
Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) Proposed Public school
10% of homes must be affordable apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
(usually one story)
VOLUNTEER
PARK
or a payment of $29.75 per sq. ft townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments
of 240-300 ft.

!
Light rail
Seattle Mixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle
E P 2035
(M2) or a payment of $32.75 per sq. ft buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses RO walkshed
10-minuteS
Bus stop
a c
Community feedback about increasing density RSL to LR1
Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. offices, retail, and homes PE
CT
24TH AVE E
ST
NC1-30 |

NC1-40 (M)

E PROSPECT ST
along 19th and Madison and reducing it in the
Single Family area north of Madison along 20th

d NC-40 to NC-75 south of Madison

and 21st has informed the changes from the
19TH AVE E
15TH AVE E
WASHINGTON PARK
AND ARBORETUM
Draft 1 version. Draft 1 showed changes beyond
20TH AVE E
26TH AVE E
25TH AVE E
14TH AVE E
16TH AVE E
17TH AVE E
E WARD ST
E WARD ST
the (M) tier, which included LR1 and LR2 zoning e Draft 1 showed changes beyond the (M) tier,

where it is currently single family. The final which included LR2 and LR3 zoning where it is
E ALOHA ST
NC1-55 (M)
proposal is RSL and LR1 for these areas. currently single family. The final proposal is RSL
NC1-40 |

and LR1 for these areas.
E ALOHA ST

Principle A.9:
Evaluating MHA using a social
23RD AVE E
and racial equity lens suggests
b New LR2, LR3, MR, NC-75 along 19th north of
E VALLEY ST
28TH AVE E
29TH AVE E
zoning that allows more homes in
high-opportunity neighborhoods.
Madison, MR south of Madison f We reduced RSL and LR1 along 21st and 22nd
E VALLEY ST

Principle 5:
Allow more housing

north of Madison
LR2 | LR2 (M) options near neighborhood E ROY ST
assets like parks.
a
Single Family |

LR2 (M1)
Single Family |
NC1-40 | NC1-55 (M)
LR1 (M1) LR1 |

LR1 (M)
E MERCER ST
E MERCER ST What we heard from the community
MALDEN AVE E

LR3 | LR3 (M)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
)
(M
26TH AVE E
25TH AVE E
24TH AVE E
27TH AVE E
5
-5
2P
C
|N
E REPUBLICAN ST

0
PL
-4

R
2P
U
Infrastructure
URBAN CENTER
C
H
RT
N

CAPITOL HILL
b
A
NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)

E
Parks & open space
FIRST HILL
e
LR3 | LR3 (M)

b Principle 5: E HARRISON ST
Lowrise 3 zoning allows
E HARRISON ST more housing options Parking
)
(M
near the future Madison
R
Traffic

|L
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) LR1 |
LR1 (M)
2
LR
corridor.
)
NC2-40 |
(M
MLK JR WAY E
NC2-55 (M)
3
R
|L
3
E THOMAS ST
LR

Single Family |

MILLER PLAYFIELD
e
LR2 | LR2 (M)
LR3 (M2)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

b
LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC2-40 |

ETHOMAS ST

Meany Middle School re-opening fall of 2017,
NC2-55 (M)

E JOHN ST concern about infrastructure capacity, traffic, LR2 on 20th and 21st between Mercer and
E JOHN
ST
Thomas is too tall. Better to keep as LR1 for
E JOHN ST

parking, etc. with this change
b better transition to the surrounding SF.
17TH AVE E
18TH AVE E
20TH AVE E
22ND AVE E
26TH AVE E
27TH AVE E
21ST AVE E
E JOHN ST
24TH AVE
25TH AVE
NC2-40 |
Community members define the area as

NC2P-40 | NC2P-55 (M)
NC2-55 (M)

Major Institution LR2 | LR2 (M)
historically working class and single family homes Retain SF zoning between Roy and Mercerlots
Overlay
E GLEN ST LR3 | LR3 (M)
should be maintained too small to be upzoned, many ADUs exist, lovely
character.
E DENNY WAY

Increase density on busy roads like 19th, no
LR2 | LR3 (M1)
Like density, affordability, diversity. Worried about

14TH AVE
17TH AVE
16TH AVE E
15TH AVE
changes to historic single family neighborhoods.

NC2-65 |
NC2-75 (M)

b

livability.
LR3 | LR3 (M)
LR1 | LR1 (M)
Like to see more density. Cities are not

SEVEN
LR3 | LR3 (M)
HILLS NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M)

PARK
E HOWELL ST
NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)
E HOWELL ST museums. Danger of bulky buildings and superblocks, loss
of character; need increased setbacks.
d
HARRIS PARK
| NC3P-75 (M)
Property tax implications for SF to LR2.
NC3P-65
HOMER

LR3 PUD (M)
Need neighborhood design guidelines, sun and

E OLIVE ST
LR3 PUD |
Streets less walkable-not more, independent

PLUM
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M) TREE
PARK
E OLIVE ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)
businesses gone, little new commercial light access, no ugly buildings.
E OLIVE ST
development even though more density, people Developer payments should go to affordable
Residential Small Lot |

26TH AVE
27TH AVE
29TH AVE
21ST AVE
M L KING JR WAY
23RD AVE
b housing within the Urban Village

ST Residential Small Lot | LR2 (M1)
c displaced.
LR1 (M1)
LR3 | LR3 (M)
ON
NC2-55 (M)
IS Not enough open space, parks, P Patches, tree

NC2-40 |
NC3P-40 |
NC3P-55 (M)
A D South of Mercer East keep SF- this block of
EM

E PINE
canopy
ST
E PINE ST homes are likely the last single family homes that
23RD & UNIONJACKSON URBAN VILLAGE
NC3-65 | NC3-75 (M)
NC3P-65 | NC3P-75 (M)

are actually somewhat affordable for a middle Nothing can be reasonable and appropriate
19TH AVE

LR3 | LR3 (M)
class family, and they will be pushed out with until expanded infrastructure, schools and other
20TH AVE
amenities are provided to accommodate the

increased density.

density.
E PIKE ST
E PIKE ST
Support among Focus Group members for the
NC2-75 (M1)
Parking is a concern.
PLAYGROUND
changes to LR multifamily from SF zoning in the

NC2-40 |
LR2 | LR2 (M)

T.T. MINOR
Seattle World
School LR1 | LR1 (M)
vicinity of Miller Playfield.

NC2-55 (M)
Need to extend NC zones along Thomas/John

NC2-40 |
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
NC2P-30 | NC2P-40 |
Keep the only RSL zone as RSL.

NC1-30 | NC1-40 (M) NC2P-30 |
NC2P-40 | NC2P-75 (M1)
and 19th.
NC2P-55 (M1)
E UNION ST NC2P-40 (M) NC2P-55 (M) LR1 | LR1 (M)
NC2P-40 |

NC2P-55 (M)

16TH AVE
17TH AVE
18TH AVE
15TH AVE
NC2P-65 |
NC2P-75 (M) LR2 |
LR2 (M)
52
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
NC2-75 (M1) LR2 | LR2 (M)
22ND AVE
0 300 600 1,200 NC2P-40 | MHA area NC2-40 |

NC2-55 (M)
LR1 | LR1 (M)

Feet NC2P-55 (M)
Single Family |
MadisonMiller
Residential Small
Morgan Junction DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 Morgan Junction
proposed zoning
MHA requirements
zone categories
urban villages
areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan Low Risk of Displacement / Low Access to Opportunity
(M) similar in scale to single family zones| NC2-40 (M)
NC2-30
school Zoning changes from Draft 1 map

Solid areas have a
typical increase in zoning Lowrise (LR) Highrise (HR) Commercial (C) Proposed Public
9% of homes must be affordable or apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary LR2 | LR2 (M) Fairmount Park
(M1)
(usually one story)

of 240-300 ft.
!
rail
Light
Seattle Mixed
SW (SM)
FINDLAY ST Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle 2035
a d
Increase from RSL to LR1 the area between Decrease from LR1 to RSL the area between

Willow and Mills, and Fauntleroy and the alley Parshall, Holly and 42nd (support minimal
behind California better align with transitions changes on steep slopes)
47TH AVE SW
46TH AVE SW
45TH AVE SW
44TH AVE SW
42ND AVE SW
41ST AVE SW
40TH AVE SW
CALIFORNIA AVE SW
prinicple e Decrease from LR3-RC to LR2-RC the area
b Decrease from LR2 to LR1 the area between along the west side of California, between Myrtle
LR1 | LR1 (M)

Holly, Fauntleroy and 44th (support transitions) and Mills (supports consistency along California)

c Decrease from LR2 to LR1 the area between f Apply a Pedestrian zone classification to the

SW JUNEAU ST
Graham, Raymond, and the alleys behind NC3-55 and NC2-40 areas along California
California and Fauntleroy (support transitions) between Holly and Raymond (support
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M)

commercial node and pedestrian-friendly urban
Principle 1b: design)
Encourage small-scale, family-

duplexes, and rowhouses.

Concerns about increased density on steep

SW RAYMOND ST
Citywide themes most discussed slopes and environmentally sensitive areas
LR2 | LR2 (M)

Displacement Concerns about current infrastructure being
NC2-30 | NC2-40 (M)
Traffic congestion insufficient for more peopleincluding

c Transitions
stormwater, sewer, and emergency response
LR1 | LR1 (M)

Parking Concerns about amenities being insufficient
Community planning for more peopleincluding parks, transit, and
Principle 8a: Infrastructure schools
zoning encourages more SW GRAHAM ST
pedestrian-friendly
development to strengthen the
SW GRAHAM ST Concerns about transportation, better transit and
heart of the neighborhood.
MORGAN
Local opportunities and challenges bike lanes, and insufficient on-street and off-
street parking, and commute traffic congestions
JUNCTION
PARK LR3 | LR3 (M)
Support for programs and tools that provide

f
SW EDDY ST
affordable housing in Morgan Junction, including Concerns that changes from SF to LR2 or LR3
mechanisms to allow existing residents to remain are too great
Single Family |
Residential Small
Lot (M) in their homes Concerns about tree canopy loss as community
MARSHALL AVE SW
GE PL
VERID NC3-30 | NC3-40 (M)
redevelops
SW BE
Y WA
Y SW Concerns about zoning changes without a
LERO
Concerns about changing identity of
Single Family | T
neighborhood planning process
LR1 (M1) FAUN
Single Family |
SW MORGAN ST
The draft suggests
Concerns about the infrastructureincluding neighborhood
NC3-30 | NC3-55 (M)
Residential Small Lot

(RSL) zoning in this area
with steep topography
sewer, emergency response, transitto support Concerns about new development will block
44TH AVE SW
rather than a higher-

scale zone.
more people moving to the neighborhood westward views from existing homes and block
b
NC2-30 |
NC2-40 (M)
BEVERIDGE PL SW
sunlight on the streets and existing gardens

Principle 3b:
Concerns that MHA rezones are inconsistent
38TH AVE SW
37TH AVE SW
Single Family | LR2 (M1) zones to help transition

Support for rezones to bring more housing
SW
between commercial and

with the neighborhood plan policies that call for
E
LR2 | LR2 (M)

AV
TH
retention of single-family zoning choices in residential areas

47
SW
Principle 1a: WA
R
Support for better design standards for new

SA
A range of Lowrise and RSL
Suggestion that rezones should also apply to
W
ST
zoning encourages a wide variety
of housing sizes, including family-
development
SW HOLLY ST
single-family outside of urban villages, not just

sized homes.
W
d
PL S
within, and that City should create additional new Support for changes from SF to LR3 from
HOL
H
47T
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LY P
urban villages residents interested in selling their homes

L SW
40TH AVE SW
SW WILLOW ST
46T
H AV
Suggestion that rezones wait until final ST3 Support for RSL housing types, cottages,
45TH AVE SW
E SW
a
LR3 | LR3 (M)

alignment decisions are made, and until a duplexes, and family-sized requirements
PELLY PLACE
SW MILLS ST
neighborhood planning process can take place Support for using RSL to transition from denser
NATURAL AREA
Suggestion that we need changes to state law areas to single-family areas

SW WILLOW ST
to allow more condos to encourage ownership, Support for affordable housing in Morgan
LR2 RC | LR3 RC (M1)
rather than just apartments Junction, not just payment

e
47TH AVE SW
46TH AVE SW
SW FRONTENAC ST
Principle 5: Concerns that rezones will decrease property Support for other tools in addition to rezones
Expand housing options
near neighborhood assets
like parks and schools.
values, leading to loss of investment to produce affordable housing, including de-
PARSHALL PL SW
Gatewood
Concerns that rezones will increase property incentivizing speculation, and better more tools
values, leading to property taxes going up for middle class housing
SW
39TH AVE SW
M YRT
LE
ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)
SW MYRTLE ST
44TH AVE SW
SYLVAN LN SW
OODSIDE PL SW
MHA area
Morgan Junction
LR3 | LR3 (M)
North Beacon Hill DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
Residential Urban Village HALA.Consider.it Interactive web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016 North Beacon Hill

proposed zoning MHA requirements zone categories
C1-85 | C1-95 (M)
LR1 | LR1 (M) Single Family | LR1 (M1)
urban villages
white labels identify changes: C1-125 | C1-145
vary based on scale of zoning change (M) C1-125
follow the links
C1-160 | C1-200 (M) below
| C1-145 (M)to see examples of how buildings could look under MHA
NC3-40 | NC3-55 (M) S NORMAN ST areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive
S NORMAN ST
SinglePlan
Family | LR1 (M1)

ST
(residential proposal shown) C1-65 | C1-75 (M)
Residential Small Lot (RSL) Midrise (MR) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Existing LR1 | LR1 (M)
Open space
UR
existing zone | draft MHA zone apartments with 7-8 stories boundary
LR1 | LR2 (M)

cottages, townhouses, duplexes/triplexes mixed-use buildings with 4-9 stories
GU
6% DR.
of homes must be C1-65 | C1-75
affordable or (M)

JOSE RIZAL PARK
S
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Public school
AV
LEWIS PARK
E
typical increase in zoning Lowrise (LR) L
C1-40 | C1-55 (M) apartments with heightsSH P boundary LR2 RC | LR2 RC (M)
S
9% of homes must be affordable or auto-oriented commercial buildings
(M1)
(usually one story)

Lowrise 1 (LR1)
townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments of 240-300 ft.
DAEJEON PARK SB
U
LR1height
max | LR1 (M)
30 ft.
!
S JUDKIN
Light rail S ST
S JUDKINS ST Seattle Mixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle 2035
(M2) or a payment of $22.25 per sq. ft buildings with a mix ofIC-65 | IC-75 (M) MHA applies only to commercial uses 10-minute
walkshed Single Bus
Familystop
| LR2 (M1)
a c
As an urban village with high displacement risk, Several other blocks within the 5-minute
Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. offices, retail, and homes JUDKINS PARK AND PLAYFIELD

S IRVING ST
16TH AVE S
Thurgood
Marshall the locations of (M1) and (M2) MHA capacity walkshed to the light rail transit station that were
increases were limited to the 5-minute walkshed proposed for the Lowrise 3 (LR3) zone in the
LR1 | LR1 (M)

S ATLANTIC ST !

I90 EB
!
of the Beacon Hill light rail station. Areas draft 1 map are proposed instead for the LR2 or
12TH AVE S
23RD & UNIONJACKSON URBAN VILLAGE
C1
SAM SMITH PARK
further from light rail but within the urban village, LR1 zone in the Preferred Alternative, in order
-40
SOUND TRAIL
|N
LR2 | LR2 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)
C3
LR2 | NC3-95 (M1)

that were proposed to change from Single to provide a more gradual transition to lower
JIMI HENDRIX
-95
LR1 | LR3 (M1)

LR1 | LR1 (M)
LR2 (M)
(M
PARK
LR2 |
Family to a Lowrise 1 or Lowrise 2 in the draft density areas.

LR1 | MR (M1)
1)
LR2 | MR (M2)

MOUNTAINS TO
S MASSACHUSETTS ST
LR2 |

1 map were changed to Residential Small Lot
MR-RC (M2)
S MASSACHUSETTS ST
26TH AVE S

17TH AVE S
LR2 | LR3 (M1)
LR3 | LR3 (M)

MR (M2)
LR2 | LR3 (M1)
(RSL) in the Preferred Alternative. This includes

C1-65 | NC3-95 (M)
LR2 |
LR1 | LR1 (M)

d At the south edge of the proposed urban village
PLAYGROUND
LR3 | LR3 (M)
LR1 | LR3 (M1)

S STATE ST
COLMAN
areas in the north portion of the urban village
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR2 | LR2 (M) LR2 |
boundary expansion, an area of existing single
8TH AVE S
in blocks flanking 17th Ave. S., and along 12th

LR3 (M1)
S GRAND ST
Principle 5:
family zoning in blocks adjacent to existing
Allow more housing options and 13th Ave. S. Similarly, blocks in the south
PLAYGROUND
BEACON HILL
multifamily housing and across the street from

near neighborhood assets Single Family | LR2 (M1) LR2 | LR2 (M) LR1 | LR2 (M)
and schools.
like parks
S HOLGATE BR
S HOLGATE ST
half of the urban village in the vicinity of S.
Jefferson Park are proposed for the LR1 zone
LR1 | LR1 (M)
Principle 3b:
16TH AVE S
Stevens St., and to the west of Lafayette Ave.
19TH AVE S
20TH AVE S
21ST AVE S
24TH AVE S
25TH AVE S
Use Lowrise (LR) zones to help
S PLUM ST transition between mixed-use with an MHA (M1) tier. This is an exception from
S PLUM ST S. are proposed for RSL instead of a lowrise
Beacon Hill
International and single-family zones.

the limitation of (M1) or (M2) capacity increases
multifamily zone. These changes are also
8TH AVE S
Single Family | C1-65 |

to the 5-minute walkshed. However, community
C1-40 | C1-40 |
11TH AVE S

C1-75 (M) C1-75 (M1) C1-55 (M)
S HILL ST responsive to comments from some residents
comments supported allowing additional housing
S WALKER ST in the area who are concerned that multifamily

in the vicinity, along with a MHA implementation
S WALKER ST
zoning would alter the scale and character of
Single Family |

NORTH RAINIER
S WALKER ST

principles that support more housing near assets
existing single family neighborhoods.
14TH AVE S
15TH AVE S
LR3 (1.2) | LR3 (M1)
LR1 (M1) Single Family |
a
URBAN VILLAGE Single Family |
such as parks facilities.

LR1 (M1)
LR1 (M1)
12TH AVE S
S COLLEGE ST
C2-65 | C2-75 (M)

RA
a b In response to comments, an area of existing

AIRPORT WAY S
Single Family |
18TH AVE S
IN
LR3 (0.75) |
LR3 (M2)
S STACY ST LR3 | LR3 (M)
lowrise zoning fronting onto Beacon Ave. is

Single Family |
IER
LR2 (M1)
NC2P-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
24TH AVE S
NC2-40 |
NC2P-55 (M)
proposed for Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
AV

8TH AVE S
LR2 | LR2 (M)
E
NC2-40 |
Single Family |
zoning to encourage a complete and consistent

NC2-55 (M)
S BAYVIEW ST
S
LR1 (M1)
a
S BAYVIEW ST

NC2-65 (4.0) |
NC2-55 (M)
NC2-40 |
NC2-75 (M1)
commercial business district.

EAST DUWAMISH
LR3 | LR3 (M)

Single Family |

GREENBELT
SM
LR3 (0.75) |
LR1 (M1)
14TH AVE S
LR3 (M2)
Principle 5:
-N
NC
R-
S WAITE ST
Create more housing
12
S LANDER ST
2P
opportunity near
NC2-65 (4.0) |
5|
NC2-75 (M1)
-65
infrastructure like transit.
SM
NC2P-65 (0.75) |
(4.
NC2P-75 (M2)

-N
0)
S LANDER ST
Community survey included strong support for
S LANDER ST
R-
|N
12
LR2 | LR2 (M)
a

C2
NC2P-40 |
5(
LR3 (M1)
NC2P-55 (M)
SM/R-75 (M)
P-
Single Family |
LR2 |
M)
more local businesses
SM/R-65 |
75
LR2 (M1)
SM
c
(M
Principle 3: NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
S MCCLELLAN ST
-NR
1)
Plan for transitions between

Care needed with transitions to step down from
-85
higher- and lower-scale areas.
NC2-55 (M)
NC
NC2-40 |
23RD AVE S
Single Family |
|S
SM/R-75 (M2)
denser areas to single family areas

2P

M-N
-40
HARRIS PL S
|N
20TH AVE S
22ND AVE S
R-9
S FOREST ST
Single Family |
C2
21ST AVE S
S FOREST ST
Assets and Infrastructure Opportunities for more (commercial) development

a
P-
LR2 | LR2 (M)
5 (M
NC2-55 (M)
55
NC2-40 |
NC2-40 |
(M
NC2-55 (M)
)
Displacement on Beacon Ave. to fill in holes, and expand both

)
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
S STEVENS ST
Affordable Housing Requirements north and south, and along 15th
12TH AVE S
13TH AVE S
b Like the example of the Maestas development for

17TH AVE S
LR2 | LR
S WINTHROP ST Principle 6c:

balancing density with welcoming public spaces/
Single
25TH AVE S
Development in expansion areas

19TH AV
S WINTHROP ST
2 (M)
S HANFORD ST
should be compatible in scale with
plazas and cultural diversity
18TH AV
Family
NC1-30 | NC1-40 (M)

the existing neighborhood context.


ES
Principle
6a:
Support for family-sized housing including
S HANFORD ST
| Reside
ES

using 10-minute walksheds from

Extent of urban village boundary expansion
BEAC
NC1-40
frequent transit.
extended families
LR1 | LR2 (M)
ntial Sm

25TH AVE S
24TH AVE S
d
S HORTON ST

Provide transitions to single family areas Concerns about additional density in blocks
| NC1-
O
all Lot
S HORTON ST

N AVE
S HINDS ST Kimball
Add more business vitality on Beacon Ave. N. /

17TH AVE S
55 (M)
bounded by 16th-17th & Walker to College due to

(M)
preserve local business opportunities

Single Family |
slope, infrastructure and transitions.

S
LR1 (M1)
LAFAYETTE AVE S
S HINDS ST
Allow more housing while maintaining Support for more multi-family housing adjacent to
ALAMO PL S
HINDS PL S
LR2 | LR
16TH AVE S
Single Family |
neighborhood character
Principle 5:
Allow more housing
LR1 (M1)
Jefferson Park
(M) 2
options near assets

LR3 | LR3 (M)

like parks.
S SPOKANE ST Community survey included soft support for urban Concerned about the proposal to allow 50 foot
village boundary expansion building heights on the W side of 18th Ave S
GREENSPACE

LR3 | LR3 (M)
CHEASTY

S COURT ST S COURT ST
Community survey included strong support for between Lander and Bayview
affordable housing Consider the slopes at the east edge of the urban
LR3 | LR3 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

Community survey many residents were not village and how taller buildings would affect
13TH AVE S

S CHARLESTOWN ST
JEFFERSON PARK JEFFERSON PARK
GOLF COURSE aware of urban village or MHA homes lower down the hill.
LR1 | LR1 (M)
DS

S BRADFORD ST S BRADFORD ST
CHEASTY BLV
12TH AVE S

MHA area
North Beacon Hill

S ANDOVER ST S ANDOVER ST
LR3 RC | LR3 RC (M) C1-40 | C1-55 (M)
S KING ST
18TH AVE S
28TH AVE S
S KING ST
35TH AVE S

North Rainier
S WELLER ST

DRAFT ZONING CHANGES
24TH AVE S
LR2 | LR2 (M)

NC2-65 | NC2-75 (M)
29TH AVE S
30TH AVE S
LR2 | LR2 (M)
25TH AVE S
26TH AVE S
LR3 | LR3 (M)
NC2-40 | NC2-55 (M) LR3 | LR3 (M)
NE ST
S LANE ST

Housing Affordability
(MHA)
S LANE ST
Hub Urban Village North Rainier

S LANE ST S LANE ST
N PLACE LR3 | LR3 (M)
N BLVD S
S DEARBORN ST LR1 | LR1 (M)
S DEARBORN ST
HALA.Consider.it Interactive
web map seattle.gov/HALA October 19, 2016
NC1-40 (M)
NC3-55 (M)
NC1-30 |
NC3-40 |
20TH AVE S
LAKE WASHINGTO
S DEARBORN ST
NC
S DEARBORN ST
19TH AVE S
3-6
IC-65 | IC-75 (M) LR1 |

5|
26TH AVE S
LR1 (M)
NC
white labels identify changes: vary based on scale of zoning change follow the links below to see examples of how buildings could look under
NC2-40 | MHA areas designated for growth in our Comprehensive Plan
3-7
NC2-55 (M)
LAKESIDE AVE S
5 (M
DA
31ST AVE S

YAKIMA AVE S
S CHARLES ST
VI
S
(M) 6% of homes must be affordable or
30TH AVE S
32ND AVE S
29TH AVE S

33RD AVE S
PL LR1

HI

S
AW C3-4
C1-65 |
Public school
22ND AVE S
LR3 |
C1-75 (M) Solid areas have a Highrise LR3
(HR) Commercial (C) Proposed
AT 0 |
N
(M) LR2 | LR2 (M)
HA NC
|L
9% of homes must be affordable or Single Family | LR2 (M1) apartments with heights auto-oriented commercial buildings boundary
(M1)
!

R1
(usually one story)
PL 3-55
C1-85 | a payment of $20.00 per sq. ft townhouses, rowhouses, or apartments of 240-300 ft. Light rail

(M
S
C1-95 (M)
LR1 | LR1 (M)

)
Lowrise 1 (LR1) max height 30 ft. S NORMAN ST
Hatched areas have a PO SeattleMixed (SM) Industrial Commercial (IC) Seattle 2035
PL 10% of homes must be affordable S NORMAN STLowrise 2 (LR2) max height 40 ft.
(M2) Bus stop
C1-125 |
(M
C1-160 |
10-minute walkshed
C1-145 (M) C1-200 (M)
AR buildings with a mix of MHA applies only to commercial uses
)
or a payment of $22.25 per
L sq. ft
a d
or a change in zone type. S NORMAN ST
Consistent with approach for urban villages with Discourage large changes within 500 feet of
OSE HP Lowrise 3 (LR3) max height 50 ft. offices, retail, and homes
US
P
PARK
LS
SB
IC- LR2 | LR2 (M) LR1 |
65
a high risk of displacement, encourage only (M)- freeways due to air quality concerns. This
LR2 (M)
DA
C1-40 | | IC LR2 RC |
C1-55 (M)

EJ
LR2 RC (M)
S JUDKINS ST
EO
-75
tier changes outside of the five-minute walkshed changed the proposed (M1) and (M2) changes
NP
LR1 | LR2 (M)

(M
AR
35TH AVE S
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR1 | LR1 (M)

K
JUDKINS PARK AND PLAYFIELD
of frequent transit (the current light rail station at adjacent to the future Judkins Park station area.

Principle 5: S IRVING ST
16TH AVE S
More housing options

14TH AVE S
Thurgood
12TH AVE S
S IRVING ST
Mt Baker and future light rail station at Judkins

near infrastructure
LR1 | LR1 (M) Marshall
like transit.
! !
e Create a walkable mixed-use node to support

INTERSTATE 90
Park) the Judkins Park station further south to avoid air
d
S ATLANTIC ST
NC1-40 (M)
NC1-30 |
SAM SMITH PARK S DAY ST
LR3 | LR3 (M)
LR2 | LR2 (M)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
b Any SF zoned areas outside of the five-minute quality concerns from I-90.
d d d d
S ATLANTIC ST
c
C1-40 | NC3-95 (M1)
LR1 | LR1 (M)
LR1 | LR3 (M1)

NC3-95 (M1)
walkshed of frequent should be rezoned no
LR1 | LR1 (M)

LR1 | MR (M1)
29TH AVE S
LR2 | LR2 (M)

BRADNER PL S
JIMI

f
LR2 |

LR2 | MR (M2) HENDRIX
PARK
Where community support exists, convert C

higher than RSL. This changed many draft
35TH AVE S
LR2 |
MR-RC (M2)
zones along Rainier Avenue to NC in order to

c c c

e
LR2 | LR3 (M1) C1-65 |
LR3 | LR3 (M)

MR (M2)
LR3 (M1)
rezones along the outer edges of the urban
LR2 |
LR2 |
LR1 | LR1 (M)
NC3-95 (M)
c
PLAYGROUND
encourage pedestrian-friendly redevelopment
LR1 | LR3 (M1)

12TH AVE S
S MASSACHUSETTS ST
COLMAN
S STATE ST
LR2 | LR2 (M)

e
LR1 | LR2 (M)
28TH AVE S
c village, including along Cheasty Boulevard,

36TH AVE S
LR2 | LR2 (M)
22ND AVE S
LR2 |
g
LR3 (M1)
Zone change from NC-40 to NC-75

c

S GRAND ST
S GRAND ST areas south of Franklin High School, and areas
MLK JR WAY S
PLAYGROUND
accommodates future development of 100%

BEACON HILL
LR1 (M)
on the north-eastern slope of Beacon Hill.
LR2 | LR2 (M)
LR1 |
S HOLGATE ST COLMAN PARK
S HOLGATE ST

C1
LR1 | LR1 (M)
affordable housing
S HOLGATE ST
20TH AVE S
24TH AVE S
25TH AVE S
26TH AVE S
19TH AVE S
18TH AVE S
RA
21ST AVE S
-65

IN
Principle
S PLUM ST 3b:

|C

c Allow some (M1) and (M2) tier changes within
IER

1-7
Beacon Hillzones to transition S PLUM ST

h Small urban boundary expansion to the south
AV
5(
Single Family |
the five-minute walkshed of frequent transit,
f
Internationalbetween commercial
M)
Residential Small
E
C1-40 | C1-40 |
along Martin Luther King Jr Way S to incorporate
S PLUM ST

S
and single-family Lot (M) C1-55 (M)

C1-75 (M1)
areas.
such as the area to the south of the Mt Baker
S HILL ST S HILL ST
S HILL ST
S HILL ST
existing Lowrise zone and resolve split zoning on
28TH AVE S
S WALKER ST

station area. future 100% affordable housing site
S WALKER ST
LR3 (1.2) | LR3 (M1)
Single Family | S DOSE TER

LR1 (M1) Single Family |

KING JR MEMORIAL
LR1 (M1)
12TH AVE S
MARTIN LUTHER
S COLLEGE ST
S COLLEGE ST
What we heard from the community Support for more multi-family housing adjacent to
S COLLEGE ST
16TH AVE S
24T

Residential Small
HA
Single Family |
S COLLEGE ST
Jefferson Park
VE
LR3 (0.75) |
a
31ST AVE S
LR3 (M2)
Lot (M)
LR3 |
S
LR3 (M) C2-65 | C2-75 (M)
32ND AVE S
30TH AVE S
29TH AVE S
34TH AVE S
33RD AVE S
RK DR S
NC2-55 (M)
Concerned allowing 50 heights on the W side of

NC2P-40 |
NC2-40 |
NC2P-55 (M)
13TH AVE S

NC2-40 |
Sidewalks and walkability

NC2-55 (M) Single Family |
18th Ave S between Lander and Bayview
LAKE PA
LR1 (M1)

LR2 | LR2 (M)
S BAYVIEW ST
NC2-65 (4.0) |
S BAYVIEW ST

EAST DUWAMISH GREENBELT
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)
S
NC2-75 (M1)
MOUNT BAKER PARK

S BAYVIEW ST
MOUNT BAKER DR
LR3 | LR3 (M)

Displacement of current residents Consider the slopes at the east edge
18TH AVE S
LR3 (0.75) |
LR3 (M2)
SM

S WAITE ST
Infrastructure
-NR
LR3 | LR3 (M)

NC2-65 (4.0) |
Principle 2:ST
Suggestion to expand the urban village to include
NC2-75 (M1)
S WAITE
-12
NC2P-65 (0.75) |

Plan for transitions
5|
Urban village expansion areas

MR (2.0) | MR (M1)
NC2P-65
S LANDER (4.0) | NC2P-75 (M1)
NC2P-75 (M2)
S LANDER ST
SM
!
ST

between higher- and S LANDER ST
the island of parcels, many already zoned for

LR2 | LR3 (M1)
-NR
LR2 | LR2 (M)
NC2P-40 |
lower-scale areas.
SM/R-75 (M)
NC2P-55 (M)

Historic areas
SM/R-65 |
Single Family | S LANDER ST

-14
LR2 (M1)
multi-family, between the North Rainier and North

NC2-40 |
5(
NC2-55 (M)
g
S MCCLELLAN ST
M)
Tree canopy
Beacon Hill urban villages
NC
NC2-55 (M)
Single Family |
SM/R-75 (M2) SM-NR-65 | NC1-40 |
NC2-40 |
Single Family | SM-NR-75 (M) NC1-55 (M)

2P

23RD AVE S

22ND AVE S

Traffic congestion
LR1 (M1)
SM-NR-9
SM
-40
S MCCLELLAN ST
c

Single Family |
26TH AVE S
NC1-30 |
|N
NC1-40 |
-NR 5 (
LR1 (M1)
Suggestion to increase green development;

NC1-55 (M)
S FOREST ST
C2
Single Family |
NC1-40 (M)

P-5
20TH AVE S
LR2 | LR2 (M)
Community planning
NC2-55 (M)

NC2-55 (M)
LR3 (M2)
-85 M)
NC2-40 |
NC2-40 |
5 (M

SM-NR 55/75 (2.0) |
16TH AVE S
12TH AVE S
support for an eco-district concept

|
SM-NR-95 (M1)
MO
NC2-40 |
NC2-55 (M)

27TH AVE S
S STEVENS ST
UN
VD
21ST AVE S
BL

Concerns about impacts on the historic single-
TA
ER
S STEVENS ST
!
TB
AK
DA
M

LR2 | LR
SP
19TH AV
family homes to the east of the town center

N
17TH AVE S

City of Seattle - OPCD - MHA FEIS Appendices 2017

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

City of Seattle - OPCD - MHA FEIS Appendices 2017

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

APPENDICES.

Available online at:

cover image flickr.com/photos/lytfyre/5322744274

This analysis distinguishes displacement from a related phenomenon, gentrification. Gen-

Overarching Analytical Framework

The analysis seeks to answer the following questions:

Figure 1 Visual representation of the overarching analytical framework

Establish outcomes Identify public

Throughout Seattles history, certain populations and neighborhoods prospered at the

DISPLACEMENT OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN SEATTLES CENTRAL DISTRICT

Though displacement is difficult to track, demographic changes at the neighborhood

Increases in educational attainment and income accompanied this racial demographic

Black or African American Indian or Hispanic or

Persons of color include

Change in share BALLARD

of people of color ANNE

An Equitable Development Framework for Growth

Defining an Equitable City

An Equitable Development Framework

2 Excerpt from Resolution 31577.

Achieving equitable growth will require:

A mitigation strategy to distribute resources equitably, rather than equally, is necessary to

Strategy 1: Advance economic mobility and opportunity. Promote economic opportu-

Strategy 2: Prevent residential, commercial, and cultural displacement. Enact policies

Strategy 4: Promote transportation mobility and connectivity. Prioritize investment in

Strategy 6: Equitable access to all neighborhoods. Leverage private redevelopment to ex-

Data and Analytical Framework for Equity Analysis

ties, development civic infrastructure,

potential, and and health data to

median rent to create the Access to

create the Displace- Opportunity Index.

ment Risk Index.

Table 3 Displacement Risk Index indicators

Indicator Description Source

Percentage of the population that is a race other than non-

Percentage of households in which no one 14 and over

Percentage of the population 25 years or older who lack a 20082012 American

4 Housing tenancy Percentage of households that are renters 2010 Census

Percentage of households with income below 80% of area

Percentage of the population whose income is below 200% 20082012 American

King County Metro General

Location within a certain distance of supermarket/grocery

Location within a certain distance of a public or private

Census tracts that (a) have a median household income <

Travel time to designated King County Urban Centers and

Parcels that allow residential uses identified as likely to 20082012 American

Ratio of rent per net rentable square foot by tract to the

Table 4 Access to Opportunity Index indicators

Indicator Description Source

Elementary school math and reading proficiency scores by

3 Graduation rate High school graduation rate by attendance area

Puget Sound Regional

King County Metro General

Proximity to current Sound Transit

Location near a City-owned and City-operated community

Location near a public open space, measured by as-the-

Percentage of block faces within a quarter mile missing a

The displacement risk index is an assessment of susceptibility, not a predictor of future

The relationship between growth and potential displacement is not straightforward.

Displacement Risk Index

Access to Opportunity Index

Figure 4 Composite vulnerability indicators

Urban CenterUrban Center

Urban CenterUrban Center