Here is a link to a post I did last week to state my position of the various perspectives on single family zoning: I
hesitate to comment on what the mayor's proposal is at this point
because it has not been clear to me. Instead, I prefer to be as clear
as I can on what my position is. If this statement still leaves
questions unanswered, please let me know. I am always happy to talk on
the phone or in person too. I think my post addresses questions 1 and 2, but let me add some detail to the others: 3.
Parking. It is not clear to me where the mayor plans to further reduce
minimum parking requirements so I would want to better understand what
his proposal is. We recently had some reports back on current
utilization of on and off street parking and what I heard was that we
continue to have excess off street parking in many of the urban
villages. We need to do more follow up on this report, but initially it
leads me to believe that requiring more off street parking will not
likely address the concerns that are being raised. I do thing there may
be some policy changes around parking in urban villages, such as
strategies to make existing off-street parking available to people
outside that specific building or requiring buildings that do not
provide parking to provide transit passes or subsidies for their
residents. As I mention in my post, I do support policy changes that
would encourage more back yard cottages or mother-in-law units within
single family homes. This would include possibly removing parking
requirements for these housing types - especially when this requirement
makes no sense. (In some cases, there is no curb cut or driveway for
parking. By requiring someone to make a new curb cut, they remove a
parking spot on the street, that would then be replaced by one off
street. This would just require a lot of expense for a project with no
net change in parking, which seems silly.) 4.
The deal that was reached to allow us to move forward with developers
producing 6000 units of affordable housing in the next ten years without
legal challenges for these developers required the zoning changes in
multi-family and NC zones, and I think this is a good deal for
affordable housing. It was a necessary part of the deal. There are
other paths to attempt to get the private development community to
produce affordable housing, but I believe this is the best path. The
process to actually change the zoning in these areas will be an 18-24
month process and out of the process we will learn a lot more and likely
be making specific zoning decisions on a neighborhood by neighborhood
basis. In general I support the concept of this deal but it is
premature for me to take a position on a specific zoning change on a
specific block. 5. The agreement that was
reached was for a specific production level of affordable housing. Our
calculations indicate that this deal will produce more affordable
housing that my originally proposed linkage fee and at a deeper
affordability level (60% of AMI as opposed to 80%). Of course I would
like to see more affordable housing, but I support this deal as a bold
step requiring for the first time in Seattle that all new development
produce affordable housing. |
Welcome to the PRCC Website > HALA Information > City Council Candidate HALA Statements During 2015 Election >