HALA UPZONING: Last call for comments on DEIS; West Seattle real-estate listing pitches MHA avoidance

| Development | West Seattle news

Two notes related to the ongoing move toward upzoning as part of the Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) component:

COMMENT DEADLINE TOMORROW: The extra two weeks for commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the MHA upzoning – and its alternatives for how that might be achieved – is tomorrow (Monday, August 7th). That, you’ll recall, was a two-week extension from the original deadline. In her latest online update (second item), City Councilmember Lisa Herbold says she asked Office of Planning and Community Development director Sam Assefa for three more weeks, but he said no. He did, however, respond to her continuing concerns about displacement risk, she added:

(H)e did agree to significant new analysis on the displacement risks associated with the proposed upzones. I am specifically seeking more detailed quantitative analysis of displacement impacts on people-of-color and a more qualitative analysis of cultural displacement, both disaggregated to the neighborhood level. Director Assefa has also made an important commitment that the draft Final EIS will be shared with Council prior to publication. If the analysis for the FEIS is not sufficient to quantify disparate impacts, I may consider commissioning additional analyses either through a peer-review of the FEIS or other measure.

Whatever your comments, if you haven’t sent them yet, again, tomorrow’s the deadline; here’s how to send a comment.

ANOTHER REAL-ESTATE LISTING REFERENCING HALA: Last week, we reported on a $5.6 million real-estate listing in Morgan Junction offering 7 single-family parcels “bundled” in anticipation of HALA MHA upzoning, which could potentially, the flyer said, allow 148 apartments or 30 townhomes on the currently single-family-zoned site. This week, we discovered another West Seattle real-estate flyer with a HALA reference – this one, though, geared toward buyers who might want to avoid MHA (which would either require part of a project to be “affordable housing” or a fee to pay for some elsewhere). The flyer is for 3039 SW Avalon Way, seeking to sell the site where a proposed 71-apartment project passed Design Review last January, and has a Master Use Permit (MUP) “imminent,” per the flyer. Part of the flyer’s pitch: “The MUP allows a developer to break ground by the end of 2017, and equally beneficial, would not be subject to proposed HALA/MHA development fees scheduled to take effect in 2018.” Also from the flyer:

Avalon West is permitted for 71 apartment units, with a mix of studios, open 1-bedrooms, 1-bedrooms, and 2-bedrooms, and an average unit size of 525 square feet. Units will have high-end fixtures and finishes, including dishwashers and washer/dryers, with many units featuring views. Garage parking will be available for 18 cars, creating a premium on space and an opportunity to charge more than $100/space.

The listing doesn’t show an asking price.

Jeannie August 6, 2017 (3:44 pm)

“Garage parking will be available for 18 cars, creating a premium on space and an opportunity to charge more than $100/space.”

Nice touch! Why not charge $300/space, while we’re at it? If it had more typos, I’d think the seller was Trump, Inc. Hmmm…”This covfefe complex will permit imigrants, but only if their are no bad hombres and ar eithr edukated white peeple or willing two work for lokal milk peopul.”

TJ August 6, 2017 (7:52 pm)

Simple supply and demand 101 Jeannie. It’s really not hard to figure out that if there is only parking for 25% of the units people will pay for parking. The rest will try to park on the already crowded sidestreets. And my guess is Trump wouldn’t be dumb enough to allow developers to not provide ONE parking spot per unit. Nor be dumb enough to provide the supposed filler for the rest of your post

BJG August 6, 2017 (8:25 pm)

Anyone else as confused as I am about comment opportunities? Seems like it’s what I have been submitting over past months or a year or more. Is this new HALA material or just the last chance at one that’s been around? It seems I’m being redundant. Tired of it all. They’ll just do what they do anyway…carving up the neighborhood as we sit by.

WSB August 6, 2017 (8:33 pm)

There have been different comment opportunities – this one specifically relates to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, whose 400+ pages (plus appendices) included information beyond what had been public previously. The Draft EIS was made public two months ago. The one official citywide public hearing for comment on it was in late June. Next step: The final EIS, plus the creation of legislation that would go to the City Council, which would mean more comment opportunities. – TR
- dsa August 8, 2017 (6:27 pm)
  
  Typically there should be no need for comment to the FEIS. The fact that the council wants a DFEIS means it’s not a FEIS and not for public comment. That anyway is how things worked when I was in the process.

BJG August 7, 2017 (9:45 am)

Thank you, TR. I guess this requires another response, but surely am not up to slogging through 400+ pages. I may just sit this out. As I said…just tired of pleading. When it goes to City Council, it’s a done deal. I’ve seen how they treat commenters.

Mark Schletty August 7, 2017 (11:04 am)

Bjg– commenting to the city on what they are doing is worthwhile, to establish a written record of how citizens feel about these projects, for future use by a council or mayor candidate who wants to run on an agenda of changing city policy. Or for any future lawsuits that might arise as a result of some of these actions. But commenting to the city thinking that elected officials or city staff will take your comment under consideration is a total waste of time. They represent themselves and their personal agendas, not us, and they just don’t care what their constituents think.

Darryl E. August 7, 2017 (11:11 am)

Charging $100 a month won’t come close to covering the costs associated with building 18 garage parking spaces on any typical amortization schedule; if that’s all they charge there renters in the other units will be effectively subsidizing the cost of car storage for 18 of their neighbors (as is typical in Seattle apartments). See here for more to think about the actual costs associated with car storage.

Because so many people are able to take advantage of free car storage on government land, the actual costs associated with providing parking seem quite high. If you care about affordable housing, you should be a big fan of low/no parking apartment developments.

Captin August 7, 2017 (2:33 pm)

This is an interesting interview. Obviously from an urbanist perspective but good reading. :-)

https://www.theurbanist.org/2017/08/02/interview-dan-savage-part-2-seattles-future/

Jeannie August 7, 2017 (5:32 pm)

tj – No need to be nasty and patronizing. I have no idea why my comment has a big blank space below it. If it confused you, I apologize.

As for your comment “And my guess is Trump wouldn’t be dumb enough to allow developers to not provide ONE parking spot per unit. Nor be dumb enough to provide the supposed filler for the rest of your post,” actually, tj, Trump is a complete idiot.

The ol’ “supply and demand” maxim is often perfectly valid, but keep in mind that it has also created the crisis of unaffordable housing and has contributed to the homelessness crisis. To use a micro economics example, I have two pairs of approved solar eclipse glasses for which I paid next to nothing. With the eclipse just about two weeks away, almost all the stores and online suppliers are sold out. As we get closer to the big event, I could probably sell a pair for $15 or more. But, to me, that would be greedy and unconscionable.
By the way, I do agree with you re the issue of parking on the side streets. It would be great if people didn’t need parking spaces. With fewer cars, the West Seattle Bridge wouldn’t be such a nightmare during rush hours. But that isn’t the current reality.

Jeannie August 7, 2017 (5:47 pm)

Captin, thanks for the link to the “Urbanist” interview. Is it supposed to be a parody, a satire mocking true urbanists? For instance, is the following quote, which demonstrates true ignorance, for real? I hope sincere urbanists don’t feel that way!

“Some people are saying the right thing. All of them, however, are saying we need to listen to the neighborhoods and empower the neighborhoods. I find that deeply disturbing. We need to disregard what the neighborhoods have to say because what part of the solution is doing away with a lot of our inner city neighborhoods are constituted currently zoned, currently constructed, currently inhabited.

Capitol Hill needs to go. My neighborhood is completely ridiculous. That you can walk from my house on Capitol Hill in this leafy, bucolic, suburban neighborhood to Downtown Seattle in 15 minutes is fucking ridiculous. It should be zoned out of existing. We should save a little chunk of the top of Queen Anne to show what houses were like when they were built here in the 19th century or the 20th century — which are not that remarkable and not historic in any other city. Save a little eight-square-block patch of the back side of Queen Anne and rezone the rest of it. There’s nothing remarkable about the architecture on Capitol Hill.”

Captin August 7, 2017 (7:08 pm)

Nope. I think what he is saying is that a handful of single family homeowners shouldn’t be the only voice that controls the progress of a city. I get it. Things are changing and not all is welcome and not all is good. I’ve been to Paris, I’ve been to Florence, I’ve been to Yokohama Japan; they are dense and it’s actually pretty cool. Shops, restaurants, little parks, art displays, etc. I personally like that vibrant environment. Here we aren’t talking whole city, we’re talking 6% being upzoned.

All I’m saying is we need a serious discussion about how to plan for the next 500 years for this city. We owe that to the people of the future. To do anything other than to plan for density and effective transportation is irresponsible as a person of “the past”. Density in some form has to happen. If a few houses have to go down so be it. We also need to think about the ramifications of sprawl and how that effects affordability and the environment. We only have one planet. Sorry but going up makes more sense than going out.
- For Livability August 8, 2017 (3:26 pm)
  
  So the city gets to effectively screw over 6% of the population, and you’ll go along with it because in your perspective you’re not one of those who will lose their neighborhood, their sweat equity, the spaces many thought would be enjoyable for at least the duration of their mortgages. As far as the environment goes, encouraging the destruction of structures to replace them with more expensive properties with less green space equals greater runoff and wasteful natural resource use. One can only hope those not impacted by this move will face some displacement in the future and those of us impacted have a greater ability to emphasize than you show here.
  - Captin August 8, 2017 (4:13 pm)
    
    I live in an upzone area. I am attempting to be pragmatic about urban planning. To buy a house 2 blocks from the junction or right in the U district or whatever and not think there’s a possibility of a zoning change imho is short sighted. No one has to sell. Yes you may end up with a structure by you that you don’t like. That’s living in the city. You’re neighbors can remodel and create a monstrosity next to you tomorrow and it’s perfectly within their right.
    
    I understand that some people in potentially impacted areas don’t like it. We have to plan for the future. Walkable neighborhoods with more industry long term do help the environment. A couple of extra 2×4’s is nothing compared to a century of more cars idling on the freeway when people could be on the train or walking to work.

For Livability August 8, 2017 (3:19 pm)

The HALA pushers say incoming residents don’t drive because Millennials don’t own cars. They should meet my 4 millennial neighbors who have 9 between them. The HALA shills also say millennials don’t want single family houses, yet my neighbors are all searching for single family homes in an area less dense than where we live (the junction). The hALa pushers say it’s not a handout to developers, yet developers are canvassing my neighborhood and buying up the houses that haven’t been renovated recently in anticipation of a financial windfall if we get upzoned. The HALA pushers count the pay to use golf course as green space/park land. It seems like the HALA pushers are full of crap, and just follow urban planner Rob johnson and his developer cronies. HALA is anti-Livability for those who live here now.

Sorry, comment time is over.