why we support fulfilling HB 1110 only, for now.

Our questions and concerns: (scroll down for each)

Concerning the citywide plan:

• Do we need more housing units than what HB 1110 alone would provide?
• How much housing will the newly funded 'Social Housing' provide?
• How much housing will result from statewide HB 1491 (Transit-Oriented Housing), that has just been signed into law?
• Are future growth projections based on current conditions?
• Will new housing (other than Social Housing) really be affordable?
• What about integration with existing residences and "preserving the character of the neighborhoods"?
• What about green space, trees and the tree canopy?
• What are the collateral costs to everyday taxpayers?
• Will there be increased property taxes across the city?

Specific to our West Green Lake neighborhood (and perhaps others):

• Maps of the proposed upzoning for West Green Lake and all of Green Lake in the Mayor's One Seattle Plan. You can find a map of your neighborhood here.
• West Green Lake does not qualify as a “Neighborhood Center” as proposed by the Mayor's One Seattle Plan.
• We are concerned about the health and safety of the land and water.
• We are concerned that the plan will not preserve the lake and park's child and family-friendly environment.

Washington State HB 1110 mandates housing that looks like the buildings in the image above. 

Nice. No problem.

It will increase four to six fold the number of potential housing units on existing residential lots across the city.

When state law HB 1110 goes into effect at the end of June of this year, single-residence zoned properties of 5000 square feet or more in Seattle, Bellevue, and other cities large and small, will automatically be rezoned to allow four, and in some cases six, separate units, with proportional density for smaller lots.

That is a dramatic increase in currently permitted density for the city, even without going beyond HB 1110 to the larger Mayor's plan. 

Before adopting the more sweeping Mayor's plan, we would like to see an analysis and observation of the effects of HB 1110 changes alone. 

How many additional housing units throughout the city will result from just that? Estimates we have seen vary, but could result in the bulk of the units required by the Growth Management Plan.

In addition, there is Seattle's Social Housing program for low and middle income residents that has been passed and funded. How many units is that?

And what about the additional housing units that will be required by WA State HB 1491 that has just passed in Olympia? (see below)

With all of these in place, and at the current average rate of new apartment units being built of 4-6,000 per year, over 20 years we will more than reach our projected housing unit goals without the Mayor's plan. 

Although this won’t happen all it once, neither will projected increases in population.

This is from the Seattle Social Housing Developer website:

"Seattle Social Housing (SSH) is a new, innovative public development authority created through the passage of I-135 in 2023. Our mission is to develop, own, lease, and maintain mixed-income housing that is permanently affordable, owned as a public asset forever, and designed for people priced out of market-rate housing.  

"We aim to provide housing to low-income households and those who can’t afford market rate housing but earn too much to qualify for affordable housing. These are the people who power our economy: teachers, firefighters, service workers, and many others who are rent burdened and increasingly displaced from Seattle."

This is from the King County website:

"I-135 explicitly prohibits taking funds from current affordable housing. This self-financing housing will serve low-income and middle-income Seattleites. It's a public good for residents struggling with housing costs and who may be one rent increase away from leaving our city." 

We say awesome! 

How many units will that be? 

What does that contribute to the total projected need of 120,000, or zoned unit capacity of 330,000 cited in the Mayor's One Seattle Plan?

These are important unanswered questions.

At the tiime of this writing, HB 1491 has just been signed into law by the Governor. It will automatically increase zoning capacity at multiple locations throughout the city. (See the bill here.)

HB 1491 requires cities operating under the Growth Management Act (including Seattle) to allow denser multi-family and mixed-use development within what they define as "station" areas, i.e. light rail and rapid transit. These "station" designations apply to locations that already exist or could be planned for.

It requires increased density within 1/2 mile walking distance of train, light rail, trolley stations or 1/4 mile walking distance from "permanent" bus rapid transit stops that have shelters, external payment systems, etc. 

Will HB 1491 satisfy Seattle's housing projections?

As far as we can tell, the Plan is based on population growth between 2010 and 2020, "normal" times and trends.

These are not normal times. There have been dramatic changes since then – more people working at home or from a distance, companies relocating out of Seattle, new tariffs affecting across the board costs, and reductions in federal employment and federal funding. 

And more changes will come.

We would like to see an updated analysis of projected population growth taking these changes and future possibilities into account.

Of course, we want housing to be affordable. Everyone does. But will it be?

• What analysis has been done about the use of the new buildings that have gone up under the last changes to zoning laws, especially in proposed "Neighborhood Center" areas? Are the new DADUs and ADUs that have been built - some of which apparently get sold as condominiums - resulting in affordable housing?

• Developers do not need to include affordable units. They can increase units or add an additional story if they EITHER include affordable units OR pay a fee to the city. It is often more lucrative to pay the fee and pass the cost on to the renter or buyer.

• With building costs rising due to national and international forces, will developers build quality units, or cut corners to (understandably) ensure a profit margin, resulting in poorer quality buildings and more costs down the line? Or will they simply pass the costs to the consumer, resulting in higher rents and prices?

Our understanding is that in some, if not all neighborhoods, units are being used as short term rentals (Airbnb, for instance) at high daily rates, effectively taking those units off the market, diminishing housing supply and driving up prices.

Perhaps we should require actual affordable housing in all neighborhoods, and look at limiting Airbnb type rentals?

This is another unanswered part of the equation and a reason to consider moving forward carefully.

The One Seattle Plan, specifically Neighborhood Centers, purports to "slope" building heights from the central commercial hub to residential areas. However, in looking at the actual zoning layouts, 5 and even 6 story buildings would be permitted right next to, within 5 feet of, small family homes.

In one case, for instance, tall apartment buildings would block the sun from homes that have responsibly installed solar power. In another, a towering new multiplex is sandwiched between traditional one story bungalows, dramatically affecting the character of the neighborhood - and not in a good way.

Rather than tapering there is an abrupt cliff. Changes in zoning should provide for gradual changes in height limits, so that 5-story buildings are not looming over one- or two-story residences. 

We do not see provision for that on the zoning maps.

Increased density, decreased required setbacks from sidewalks and alleys, and decreased undeveloped space on lots will result in the loss of trees, especially trees that grow on private property and are bigger than what the city allows for street trees. 

What is the plan for replacing them,? How much will that cost? How will that be paid for? 

The current tree ordinances do not prohibit developers from taking down trees. Is the city proposing to amend the ordinances to adequately prevent tree removal that would adversely affect the existing tree canopy?

It is acknowledged that the increased density proposed by the plan will require increased and updated infrastructure and services. 

We’d like to see the projections for the cost of sewer upgrades, stormwater treatment, electrical upgrades, and additional police and fire department services. How will they be paid for?

The plan predicts a loss of park acreage per person. Is there a plan for increasing parks? If so, what will it cost and how will it be paid for?

What other collateral expenses will be passed to taxpayers and homeowners?

Yes.

This is from OneSeattlePlanZoningUpdateFAQ.pdf 

"The King County Assessor determines property taxes by multiplying a citywide tax rate by a property's assessed value. 

"The assessed value is essentially the Assessor's estimate of the amount for which a property could sell. If the Assessor determines in the future that the value of additional development capacity provided through the rezone has significantly increased the overall value of your property compared to other properties, then your property taxes could go up as well. 

"This change would not, however, happen automatically when a zoning change occurs. A property's assessed value increases only if evidence shows the value of properties with similar zoning and location has increased based on actual sales that have occurred in the area."

Therefore our question is: will the increased tax burden (as a result of increased property valuations on existing property owners who live adjacent to or near new development), result in current homeowner displacement? 

The plan defines a “Neighborhood Center” as:

"centered around a local commercial district and/or major transit stop that serves as a focal point offering shops, services, grocery stores, restaurants, and more. The aim is to 'create more complete, walkable neighborhoods throughout the city where more people can walk, bike, or roll to everyday needs'.

They should generally encompass areas within 800 feet, or one to three blocks, of the central intersection or transit stop for easy pedestrian access to these daily amenities."

West Green Lake does not qualify to be such an area because

 - A high-traffic Washington State highway runs right through it .- the second major north-south traffic channel in the city. This area is not amenable to a safe, comfortable, casual, "walkable", residential/commercial area for pedestrians, children, families, and bikers to comfortably shop and socialize.

 - Most of the area is not within 800 feet of a major transit stop or the proposed hub. The only major transit stops (the E-line) are at Aurora and 76th and Aurora and 65th. The only other bus line is the 45, which stops at East Green Lake Dr N & Wallingford Ave N, a long way from most of the designated area. 

 - This area is much larger than the proposed definition of a Neighborhood Center.

 - The only grocery store is the small PCC organic co-op store. There is no public school. There is no drug store. There is no community center, no library, no health clinic, no dentist, bakery, clothing store or other shops. (There are, however, several taverns and a gun shop.)

 - The lack of walkable access to everyday amenities is obvious to anyone who has walked the area. 

We do not qualify as a Neighborhood Center.

Already, access to the lake and the park is difficult during the summer, when families from all over the city and region use the wading pool, the west swimming area, the running and bicycle paths, the boating opportunities, and the other pleasures of the park. 

The proposals for increased height along Aurora Avenue and part of Green Lake Way, 5- and 6-story residential buildings, and the changes to single family lots, will make the high traffic volume worse at all times, (even further congesting the necessary north-south and east-west through traffic).

With no parking to accommodate an influx of residents, (who will no doubt own cars), it will be even more difficult for outside visitors to come to the park, the vast majority of whom will come by car, not bus.

There are wastewater system capacity concerns – some of the system is 100-years old - that need to be addressed to the west and north of Greenlake.

City swimming beaches at Green Lake have periodic closures due to pollution, and a 4X or more population increase on a currently deficient system poses additional health risks. 

There could be increased stormwater runoff and phosphorus loading to Green Lake, which will increase the frequency and intensity of toxic algae blooms, and will result in closure of the lake to recreational uses in order to protect human and animal health.