1.   Do you agree with the mayor’s proposal to allow “small lot dwellings, cottages or courtyard housing, rowhouses, duplexes, triplexes and stacked flats” in single-family zones?

I will agree with the desires of the residents impacted by these policies.
I know some would like to increase density while others do not. I tend to agree with protecting the sanctity of the SFR'S but I am sensitive to those that feel their only means to age in place is to have some rental income.

2.      Do you agree with the mayor’s proposal to expand the boundaries of some urban villages, such as in Ballard?

I do not agree with ANY MORE DEVELOPMENT with out first addressing the needed infrastructure paid entirely by new development first.

 3.      Do you agree with the mayor’s proposal to reduce parking requirements in transit-served areas and in multi-family zones outside urban centers and urban villages, to ensure that parking requirements are not re-introduced in urban villages and urban centers, and eliminate parking requirements for “small-scale” housing types in single-family neighborhoods?

We will never address our transportation problems by building more parking garages with every multi family development. You simply can not increase populations with cars, make streets narrower to allow for bikes and busses and say you are doing anything constructive on transportation congestion. We have been lied to here in the 6th long enough.

4.      Do you agree with the mayor’s proposal to increase allowable height and density in multi-family, neighborhood-commercial and commercial zones? Do you believe that such an increase is necessary to create affordable housing?

Development in existing retail foot prints makes more sense to me than the infiltration and destruction of our SFR neighborhoods with multi family dwelling units.

 5.      Do you believe that the mayor’s proposal does enough to require developers to help provide affordable housing and mitigate the impact of development?  Would you support other measures, such as a tougher inclusionary-housing requirement, or broader linkage and impact fees?

I do not think the development that has taken place and will take place in our community is in any way shouldering enough responsibility for the impact it is having on the quality of life of existing residents.
I would place a MUCH HIGHER PRIORITY ON IMPROVEMENTS FIRST -DEVELOPMENT SECOND !

Sincerely,
Stan Shaufler