The city has released Wallingford’s draft MHA zoning map. Click here to download the PDF.
Under this draft proposal, there would be no single family zoning left inside the urban village boundaries. The website includes instructions on how to interpret the map, which I recommend you read. In general, when you look at each zone on the map, our current zone is on the left and the new proposed zone is on the right.
The most dramatic changes, where the city wants to change some of the Single Family (SF) zones to Low Rise 3 (LR3), are mostly found west of Stone Way. Anyone remember that time when the city told us that zoning changes would just be “one more floor”? Well, this zoning change increases the height limit from 30’ to 50’ (and if you read further, the end product may be even higher). In general, 10’ is equal to one floor so a 50’ building is usually five stories high.
More common are blocks that are going from Single Family to Low Rise 2 (LR2), with a height “limit” of 40’. These zoning proposals can be a bit confusing to wrap your head around. The city is really changing the zoning twice. For example, the draft map shows a change from SF to LR2. But in addition, the defining characteristics of LR2 are also changing to allow for increased density, in the case of LR2 the heights will increase from 30’ to 40’. So first they change the zoning, then they also change the definition of the zone.
As if that was not enough, these specifics that define each zone in regards to height and setbacks are not as set in stone as you might think. Developers can request height “bonuses” for such things as being partially below grade, roof features, or green building components, although it is questionable how green these buildings really are in the end, but that’s another story (get it, “another story”?) And just so developers know how to take full advantage of these height bonuses, the city has kindly distributed instructions…
Notice that the height limit is 40’ but it says: Total perceived façade height from sidewalk level is about 57’. Nice job, city officials. Very transparent. Are you confused yet? Maybe that’s the point.
Setbacks are definitely not set in stone either. Say you live in a SF zone now that the city wants to upzone to a LR2 with a 40’ height limit. Your road has a bit of an incline and since the proposed development next to you is “partially below grade,” your SF home is next to the 57’ side of the building. Now the LR2 zones are supposed to have a minimum 5’ setback from the neighboring property line. However, the developer has the option of going to the city and asking for a “departure” from the building code so they can build right up to the property line. And it is up to the reviewer’s discretion whether or not to approve it. Add that the building may want to put its dumpsters in the back right near your property and the “livability” of your charming craftsman bungalow has gone out the window. Think I’m being dramatic? That exact scenario happened at a design review I recently attended in Wallingford. At least we still have design review for now, but if the Mayor has his way design reviews like that would not even happen (but again, that’s another story).
In addition, no parking is required at all for any developments inside the urban villages. This is not a new change but will likely be more apparent with large upzones. And all multifamily and commercial zones citywide will receive zoning changes as the city adjusts the parameters for each zone, so there’s plenty of changes happening outside the urban villages, too.
With our current zoning, Wallingford has a development capacity to add an additional 1,857 units but is expected to only need 967 units in the next 20 years. When pressed, city staffers will admit that zoning changes are not needed for our expected growth. But upzones are required for implementing Mandatory Housing Affordability or MHA as a part of the Mayor’s Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA). MHA came out of the “Grand Bargain” agreement between the city and developers. It requires that developers be given increased zoning capacity and in exchange, they will pay towards affordable housing. Zoning changes are not needed for our expected growth, but they are needed because of the deal that the city made with developers.
If we are already zoned to accommodate density, then what will be our new development capacity with the upzones? Developers will not nicely spread out their projects across the city to keep growth manageable. They will build where it’s the most profitable. If a “hot” neighborhood like Wallingford gets exploited by developers and built out to our new capacity, what is the plan for the schools and the sewers and other infrastructure needs to keep up?
For all the community engagement and outreach the city brags about at every meeting, there are still a lot of people who have no idea what is happening. If the city is truly as committed to public outreach as they claim, then they need to send a mailing to every person who lives in an area with proposed zoning changes and very clearly state what is being proposed. It needs to be honest, and clear and not heavily coated in pro-HALA propaganda.
This is usually the point where I tell you what to do next. But we’ve been writing emails to our officials, we’ve given public testimony at meetings, we’ve filled out useless online surveys. City Hall has heard us. They just don’t seem to care. So what do we do next? This article suggested an uprising against citywide upzones is brewing. Maybe that’s what we need?
Additional information:
- Take a look at the maps here. There are also instructions on how to interpret the maps and you can complete a survey in response to the proposed zoning changes.
- Read what the specifics of each zone would look like here. Scroll down to “MHA Development Example.” Once you are on the page for that zone be sure you scroll halfway down the page to the section that says “Proposed LR2,” etc.
- While I do not generally agree with the Urbanist on housing policy, this article does a very good job explaining the HALA rezones.
- The online map can be hard to read. If you would like a hard copy, the UPS Store on 45th has the map file uploaded to their computer. I recommend you print an 11×17 color copy, which costs 78 cents plus tax.
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks very much for your help in understanding these maps, Susanna — I really appreciate it. I’ve been poring over the PDF copy yesterday; your explanation was a big help. (BTW, I found it illuminating to compare a map of the existing Wallingford Urban Village zoning rules, and the new map.)
This is a great resource, much thanks for posting. Regarding what do we do next, the only hope is to change the mayor and our city council representative, Rob Johnson. Both have been transparently in favor of HALA from the get go and both are now trumpeting in favor of these upzones. They’ve also both put absolutely zero effort into advancing developer impact fees. Just look at the mayor’s 150K campaign kick off fundraiser 2 nights ago- that sort of money and interest only comes from developers that have a vested interest in him and the money to attend his fundraisers. This map is a straight forward political kick back, and short of political change it is also a done deal IMHO.
We’ve been playing by the theoretical rules of democracy – showing up at meetings, writing letters, etc., while Rob and the Mayor have been operating at the same level as an election in the PRC – all options are variations on the Party Line, input is controlled by presenting choices in the context of another idiotic survey, no write-in candidates or topics allowed. Rob has never had any intention of representing all the folks in his district, he’s about representing his own agenda. We need to stop playing nice and start organizing to get both of those awful totalitarians out of office.
The election for mayor is Nov. 2017. So far no one else has thrown their hat in the ring. We need to be actively searching for a new mayor, in my opinion.
Good article Susanna. It made me feel so bad for the people who are going to have to get used to the delicate aroma of garbage wafting over their backyard every day. I like to call the HALA supporters “DIMBY’s.” Now, not only do they want “Density In My Backyard,” they want “Dumpsters In My Backyard” as well.
Some people might say that’s too strong a term to describe people who want to upzone our neighborhood. But of course, the HALA cool aid drinkers probably have no problem calling those people who might have the nerve to resist having dumpsters on their property line a bunch of selfish, exclusionary NIMBY’s, so fair is fair.
That’s what nuisance law is for, not zoning, if for no other reason than the obvious one: zoning does nothing to prevent a single family home-owning neighbor who is thoughtless, disturbed or hostile from putting something stinky and gross right up against any of our property lines, while winning a civil injunction would.
Good luck, taking people to civil court to make them into good neighbors.
Nuisance law? Give me a break. That didn’t work out so well for our friends here, get it.
What do you think a judge would make the developer do? Stick the dumpsters down in the below grade parking lot so it stinks up their own building instead of their neighbors? Oh that’s right, there is no parking garage, is there.
Lots of useful info! Those upset about parking are a little shortsighted, forcing new construction to put in parking today is similar to forcing buildings in 1905 to include stables and hitching posts. Car ownership will be supplanted by automated car service in the coming decade.
That’s a new one! Usually don’t they say it will be supplanted by mass transit? but that with the latest proposed mass transit project looking like it’s a generation away and not really displacing a whole lot of private vehicles, maybe that isn’t very plausible any more. I guess the hypothetical automated cars won’t really need a place to park, they can just roam the streets at random during slow times. Don’t get me wrong, I do indeed believe that autonomous/networked cars are going to start playing a major role in transportation in a generation or so – but they could be privately owned and likely will be. And I don’t think it’s really fair to wipe out small businesses on N 45th in this decade, for the sake of changes that won’t come until following decades if at all.
Thanks for this. There’s a difference between NIMBY and wanting reasonable change. Raising the building height limit is not necessary to add capacity, there’s already a lot there. Oh, unless you aren’t willing to dig out a foundation or basement. Because money.
And cars will be around as long as the word “car” is a part of your “automated service”. The Uber driver is your neighbor, and mine. That car will still need a place to exist.
Until we get time travel, that is.
Susannah, You asked what should be done next. One idea is for the neighborhood community councils to reach out to some of the rental organizations. At the MHA City Council hearing earlier in the summer, there were many renters attending who belong to a Capitol Hill renters org and it appeared that many of the people didn’t understand that the in-lieu-of fee is going to defeat their hopes for affordable housing in the places where they want to live, like Capitol Hill and Wallingford. The message that they delivered at the microphone over and over was that there is a housing crisis and there needs to be more units. They were all very young and energetic but didn’t appear to understand this very important detail. In a local interview on KUOW several weeks ago, the interviewee said that in the past the city had divided developers against housing advocates and residents; now the city is dividing developers and housing advocates against residents. It’s time to try to shift the alliances and show renters that neither developers nor housing advocates really have their interests in mind.
Ok. Let’s do this.
If you want to live in the suburbs, move to the suburbs.
If you live in the middle of a major city, you can’t complain when they build a few apartment buildings. So childish.
If you want density, go live downtown, they’re building like gangbusters down there. And if you want affordability, upzone the Jungle.
Oh, honey, no. Most of us have lived here a damn long time. This isn’t a few apartment buildings. This is destruction of a way of life.
So childish.
I was born in Seattle and have lived here my entire life. The destruction of a way of life I see is from all the people forced to pay exorbitant rents or move out. It’s all the people I see living on the streets because they can’t afford a place to live.
Ignoring other people’s real suffering and saying your “way of life” is being destroyed because there is an apartment building down the block is childish.
There are apartment buildings sprouting up down the street, as fast as they can get the cranes to build them. It hasn’t done anything for that suffering, and it won’t. We just lose.
Don’t you understand, Donn? It’s not fair and “equitable” unless everybody loses.
New to Seattle ?
I don’t think people are concerned about a *few* apartment buildings. They are concerned that the entire Wallingford Urban Village will be replaced by apartment buildings, and expensive ones at that. Do you really think developers are going to build affordable units in Wallingford when they can pay a fee and have the affordable units built down in Rainier Valley? They want to build all luxury units here in Wallingford. The only ones who win here are the developers and those who want more affordable units in Rainier Valley.
I don’t know how most people feel about this, but I distrust the city intensely on this one. Simply put, builders get to build (a lot) where they couldn’t beforehand (parking is not necessary). In return the city gets “affordable housing”….somewhere…not where the buildings are…following a complicated formula for affordable. How about we simplify it a bit. Affordable means affordable for two minimum-wage earners and it must be provided on location. Let’s require 10% of the housing be “affordable” for the next 50 years. Under these conditions we know what we get in exchange for higher density and loss of parking. And we know that the people we help get to live in our neighborhoods; not far from their jobs.