REJECTED A Way Forward

1) Missing mitigation:

a) Displacement of current residents & loss of affordable housing

Proposed correction: *An Affordable Lowrise Program

—Remove density limits only in the case of voluntary 1 for 1 inclusionary housing (with all additional units affordable under long-term contract ).

Per SB 2984 enacted 2006, Shoreline and the *City of Bainbridge Island have affordable housing ordinances that permit up to 50% increase in density limit when each additional unit is “affordable.” COBE chose not to apply SMC 23.58A.014 Subchapter II: Extra Residential Floor Area Bonus residential floor area for affordable housing. That was a good decision because that giveaway is unlikely to work at such a small scale. However, unlimited density for what is well on its way to becoming standard practice (Built-Green) is nothing but a giveaway. The Council needs to go beyond the selective information they are fed on inclusionary housing. The similar village parking giveaway for frequent transit needs similar consideration. http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/landuse/Documents/Inclusionary%20Housing,%20Incentives%20and%20Land%20Value%20Recapture.pdf

More: Markets vs Management Compatible New Neighborhoods

b) Potential fire hazards

More: Two Fires, Two Messages

Proposed correction

—Enforce unit lot assess easements AND resolve fire hazards related to lack of sprinklers and pre-engineered floor and roof trusses.

c) Impossibility of infiltration, the City's preferred method of stormwater management *(Directors' Rule 2009-17 sec. 4.3.2) and other “simple, non-structural” methods of stormwater management such as increasing the tree canopy and amending soil (ibid, sec. 3.1, 4.4.1, & 4.4.2).

More: Green Gone Wrong

Proposed correction

—Fully implement the *Comprehensive Plan's urban village strategy to conserve neighborhood patterns outside of villages sufficient to make infiltration feasible in most cases thus balancing the more likely in-feasibility in most cases inside villages; and thus fully implementing the environmental policies of the *Comprehensive Plan. some added in 2007 and the new state mandate for Low Impact Development to the "maximum extent feasible."

Appy one or more of the following outside villages and by exception inside villages, dependent upon "place in the city"

—retain existing *lot coverage" or better Compatible New Neighborhoods

—require a sum total for front and back yards related to neighborhood patterns

—room for and planting of at least one medium sized tree, preservation of existing tree root zones including those on neighboring property, etc, etc, Green Gone Wrong

—correct setback and other imbalances disfavoring flats (most spatially and energy efficient)

MF Zoning on a Spreadsheet

2) Preemptive upzonings contrary to Ordinance & the Neighborhood Planning Element of the Comprehensive Plan—see attachments

Proposed correction:

A. Resolve failure to follow *legislative remapping procedural requirements and inadequate notification of property owners (risking a repeat of '89-90 remapping by free petition). Summarily rezoned with

• Outside villages: all LDT to LR-1 Extends the unpredictability (illustrated at right).

• Inside villages (See also attachment below: "Map of Proposed Upzones" with particularly impacted villages circled)

B. Enable steward group coordination of outreach, evaluation, and appropriateness of:

• all LDT to LR-1 See attachment below: CouncilStaff vs Reality Fremont LDT.pdf (the only L-1 left inside villages, or does it step up too now or later, see next)

• all L-1 to LR-2 (does this mean just old L-1 or old LDT too?)

• all L-3 to LR-3 (actually more intense inside villages than old L-4, which is similar to the old L-3 responsible for the 82-89 mess)

• impact on SF small lot, etc. still “only by neighborhood plan”

C. Facilitate, in lieu of NP Updates, preparation of neighborhood design guidelines by villages that still lack them (~ half of all villages)

D. Full consideration of neighborhood design guidelines or, in their absence, citywide design guidelines in all design reviews.