FtLawton Final EIS

Final Environmental
Impact Statement
Prepared for
Fort Lawton Army Reserve

Center Redevelopment
Project
Prepared by the City of Seattle
March 29, 2018

March 29, 2018
Dear Affected Agencies, Tribes, Organizations and Interested Parties:
Enclosed is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Fort Lawton Army Reserve
Center Redevelopment Project. The FEIS analyzes probable adverse environmental impacts associated
with the proposal, together with two action alternatives and a No Action alternative.
The Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued on December 14, 2017, for a 45-day extended comment period that
ended on January 29, 2018. A public hearing was held on January 9, 2018, to collect both written and
oral comments on the DEIS. We received written and oral comments from 1,132 unique individuals and
organizations, including 809 comments that were supportive of the proposal. A total of 173 commenters
urged the City to consider adding more affordable housing to the plan, while 157 commenters
supported using the property for a public park.
The FEIS includes the following:

• Revisions to the DEIS as a result of comments received on the DEIS;
• Written comments received during the DEIS comment period, and responses to substantive
comments that were raised; and
• A transcript of oral comments at the public hearing, together with responses to substantive
comments.
The FEIS has been distributed to agencies and stakeholders noted on the Distribution List of this FEIS
(Chapter 6 in Volume II). The FEIS can be viewed at the Seattle Office of Housing located at 700 5th
Avenue, Suite 5700, Seattle, WA 98104. A limited number of CDs are also available upon request.
Thank you for your interested in the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project.
Sincerely,
Steve Walker
Director, Seattle Office of Housing
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5700 | PO Box 94725 | Seattle, WA 98124-4725 | 206-684-0721 | [email protected] | seattle.gov/housing
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the
Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Center
Redevelopment Project
City of Seattle
The Final EIS (FEIS) for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project has been prepared
in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of
Washington) and the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter 197-11, Washington
Administrative Code). Preparation of this FEIS is the responsibility of the City of Seattle. The City of Seattle
has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate methods
and has directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken in preparation of this FEIS. This
document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for an
action; in its final form, it will accompany the Proposed Actions and will be considered in making the final
decisions on the proposal.
Date of DEIS Issuance ........................................................................... December 14, 2017
Date of FEIS Issuance................................................................................... March 29, 2018

FACT SHEET
Substantive information added or changed subsequent to the issuance of the Draft EIS is
shaded to ease identification of the added or changed information.
Name of Project Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center

Redevelopment Project (Fort Lawton Project)
Applicant City of Seattle Office of Housing (Office of Housing)
Location The approximately 34-acre Fort Lawton site is located in

the Magnolia neighborhood in northwest Seattle. The
site is bordered by W Lawton Street to the north, 36th
Avenue W to the east, W Government Way to the south
and Discovery Park to the west.
Prior Environmental NEPA environmental review was accomplished by the

Review Army for prior actions related to the Fort Lawton
Project. See the Final EA for BRAC 05 Recommendations
for Closure, Disposal and Reuse of Fort Lawton, United
States Army Reserve Center (FACID, WA030, WA031,
WA012), Seattle, WA (July 2012).
EIS Required The Office of Housing, as SEPA lead agency, determined

that the Fort Lawton Project is likely to have a significant
adverse impact on the environment. Thus, an EIS is
required, per RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).
Proposed Actions • City Council approval of a redevelopment plan;

• City Council approval of a rezone of portions of the
Fort Lawton site from SF 7200 to LR2 (M1) zoning
classification;
• Authorization to accept conveyance of the site from
the Army, and convey portions of the site for housing
development, and execute easements;
• Preliminary and final plat approvals;
• Approval of funding for acquisition and
development; and
• Land use, building, construction and other
development permits and approvals.
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page i Fact Sheet

March 2018
EIS Alternatives Alternative 1 – Mixed Income Affordable Housing and
Public Park Uses Onsite (Preferred Alternative):
Development of a mix of affordable housing onsite,
including homeless and affordable rental and ownership
housing, with a portion of the site rezoned to lowrise
residential zoning. Public park uses would also be
provided, including creation of active and passive
recreation areas, preservation of existing natural areas
and conversion of an existing structure to a park
maintenance facility;
Alternative 2 – Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable

and Homeless Housing Offsite: Development of market-
rate single-family housing under current zoning onsite,
and construction of homeless and affordable housing at
the Talaris site;
Alternative 3 – Public Park Onsite; Affordable and

Homeless Housing Offsite: Development of the entire
site as a public park, and construction of homeless and
affordable housing at the Talaris site; and
Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative: No

redevelopment of the site at this time; existing
structures onsite would be maintained.
Lead Agency SEPA Steve Walker, Director

Responsible Seattle Office of Housing
PO Box 94725
Official Seattle, WA 98124-4725
EIS Contact Person Lindsay Masters, Project Manager

Seattle Office of Housing
PO Box 94725
Seattle, WA 98124-4725
Telephone:
Email: [email protected]
Required Approvals Preliminary analysis indicates that the following

and/or Permits approvals and/or permits may be required for
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Additional permits/approvals
may be identified during the review process associated
with the specific development projects.
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page ii Fact Sheet

March 2018
City of Seattle Permits and Approvals:
Alternative 1
• Council approval of a redevelopment plan
• Council approval of rezone of portions of the
property from SF 7200 to LR2 (M1) zoning
• Council authorization of property conveyances,
including acquisition and subsequent sale of
parcels designated for housing development,
and execution of easements
• Preliminary and final plat approvals
• Approval of funding for acquisition and
development
• Land use, building and grading permit approvals
Alternative 2
• Preliminary and final plat approvals
• Council approval of rezone of the Talaris site
from SF 5000 to LR2 (M1)
• Council approval of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to designate the Talaris site
as multifamily
Alternative 3
• Council approval of a redevelopment plan
• Council authorization of property conveyances,
including acquisition and subsequent sale of
parcels designated for housing development,
and execution of easements
• Council approval of funding for acquisition and
development of park spaces
• Council approval of rezone of the Talaris site
from SF 5000 to LR2 (M1)
• Council approval of amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan to designate the Talaris site
as multifamily
Federal and/or State Permits and Approvals:

Alternative 1
• Completion of updated National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review
• HUD and Department of Interior approval of
applications for public benefit conveyances
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page iii Fact Sheet
March 2018
• U.S. Army approval of negotiated sale for
portions of the property
Alternative 2
• U.S. Army approval of negotiated sale for the
entire property
Alternative 3
• Department of Interior approval of applications
for public benefit conveyances
EIS Authors and Principal EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC
Contributors • SEIS Project Manager, Primary Author:
Summary; Project Description; Environmental
Health; Land Use/Relationship to Plans and
Policies; Aesthetics/Visual Resources; Recreation
and Open Space; Public Services;
Housing/Socioeconomics; Environmental Justice.
SMR Architects
• EIS Alternative Site Plans
Tiscareno Architects
• Visual Simulation, Shadow Diagrams
Landau Associates
• Earth, Air Quality and Noise
Watershed Company
• Biological Resources
Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc.

• Historic and Cultural Resources
Heffron Transportation
• Transportation
MIG|SVR
• Utilities
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page iv Fact Sheet

March 2018
Location of Background Background material and supporting documents are
Information available at the offices of:
EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC

2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 707
Seattle, WA 98121

Lindsay Masters
Seattle Municipal Tower
700 5th Avenue, #5800
Telephone: 206.684.0340
Date of Issuance of this March 29, 2018

FEIS
Availability of the Copies of the DEIS and FEIS have been made available to
Draft and Final EIS agencies, organizations and individuals noted on the
Distribution List. The DEIS and FEIS can be reviewed at:
• Seattle Office of Housing

700 5th Avenue, #5700
Seattle, WA 98104
A limited number of complimentary CD copies of this

FEIS may be obtained from the Office of Housing while
the supply lasts. Additional CD copies may be
purchased for the cost of reproduction.
The FEIS can also be reviewed and downloaded online at:
http://www.seattle.gov/housing/ft-lawton
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page v Fact Sheet

March 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACT SHEET
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Proposed Actions ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 FEIS Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Impacts .................................. 1-17
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Background .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Environmental Review Process and Purpose........................................................... 2-5
2.4 Site Description ........................................................................................................ 2-9
2.5 Site History……………………………………………………. ................................................. ….2-10
2.6 Existing Site Conditions.......................................................................................... 2-11
2.7 Description of the Proposal ................................................................................... 2-16
2.7.1 Description of EIS Redevelopment Alternatives .................................................... 2-20
Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................... 2-21
Alternative 2 ...................................................................................................... 2-36
Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................... 2-42
2.8 Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative .................................................................... 2-48
2.9 Benefits and Disadvantages of Deferring Project Implementation ....................... 2-48
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS,

MITIGATION MEASURES and SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMPACTS
3.1 Earth ...................................................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 3.2-1
3.3 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 3.3-1
3.4 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 3.4-1
3.5 Environmental Health ........................................................................................... 3.5-1
3.6 Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies ........................................................ 3.6-1
3.7 Aesthetics/Visual Resources ................................................................................. 3.7-1
3.8 Recreation and Open Space .................................................................................. 3.8-1
3.9 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 3.9-1
3.10 Transportation .................................................................................................... 3.10-1
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page vi Fact Sheet

March 2018
3.11 Public Services..................................................................................................... 3.11-1
3.12 Utilities ................................................................................................................ 3.12-1
3.13 Housing and Socioeconomics ............................................................................. 3.13-1
3.14 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 3.14-1
4. KEY TOPIC AREAS/UPDATED INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
APPENDICES
5. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
6. DISTRIBUTION LIST
7. REFERENCES
Technical Appendices
A. Scoping Summary
B. Geology/Soils Report
C. Biological Resources Report
D. Air Quality Report
E. Noise Report
F. Environmental Hazards Abstracts
G. Visual and Shadow Analysis Documentation
H. Historical/Cultural Resources Report
I. Transportation Report
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page vii Fact Sheet
March 2018
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Impacts Summary Matrix ................................................................................. 1-4
2-1 Existing Built and Open Space Area – Fort Lawton Site ................................. 2-11
2-2 Built and Open Space Area on the Fort Lawton Site – EIS Alternatives......... 2-21
2-3 Summary of Development – EIS Alternatives ............................................... 2-22
2-4 Phasing Schedule – Alternative 1 ................................................................... 2-25
2-5 Number of Housing Units – Alternative 1 ...................................................... 2-26
2-6 Area of Housing – Alternative 1 ..................................................................... 2-26
2-7 Parking Spaces Breakdown – Alternative 1 ................................................... 2-31
3.3-1 Comparison of Annual GHG Emissions – EIS Alternatives ............................ 3.3-9
3.4-1 Estimated Traffic-Related Noise Levels – EIS Alternatives...................... 3.4-5
3.6-1 Existing Fort Lawton Building Characteristics… ............................................ 3.6-3
3.9-1 Fort Lawton Site – Existing Buildings & Structures ....................................... 3.9-5
3.9-2 Talaris Site – Existing Buildings and Structures ............................................. 3.9-9
3.10-1 Level of Service Near Fort Lawton Site – Existing and 2030 No Action ...... 3.10-5
3.10-2 Level of Service Near Talaris Site – Existing and 2030 No Action ............... 3.10-8
3.10-3 Vehicle Trip Generation – Alternative 1 (Fort Lawton Site) ...................... 3.10-10
3.10-4 Level of Service Near Fort Lawton Site 2030 – Alternative 1 .................... 3.10-11
3.10-5 Project Trips at Magnolia Access Points 2030 – Alternative 1 .................. 3.10-15
3.10-6 Level of Service at W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W.......................... 3.10-17
3.10-7 Existing Transit Capacity and Load Ratio – AM Peak Hour/Peak
Direction.................................................................................................. 3.10-19
3.10-8 Vehicle Trip Generation – Alternative 2 (Fort Lawton Site) ...................... 3.10-22
3.10-9 Vehicle Trip Generation – Alternative 2 (Talaris Site) ............................... 3.10-23
3.10-10 Level of Service Near Talaris Site 2030 – Alternative 2 & 3 ...................... 3.10-25
3.10-11 Vehicle Trip Generation – Alternative 3 .................................................... 3.10-26
3.11-1 West Precinct CAD Events: 2012 – 2016 ..................................................... 3.11-3
3.11-2 Q1 Beat Calls for Service: 2012 – 2016 ........................................................ 3.11-3
3.11-3 Summary of SFD Responses: 2012 – 2016 ................................................... 3.11-4
3.11-4 Summary of SFD Responses for Station 20 and Station 41: 2012 – 2016 ... 3.11-5
3.11-5 Capacity of Schools that Serve the Fort Lawton Site ................................... 3.11-6
3.11-6 School Enrollment in Fort Lawton Vicinity: 2012 – 2016 ............................. 3.11-6
3.11-7 Enrollment Projections for Schools in the Fort Lawton
Vicinity: 2012 – 2016 ................................................................................. 3.11-6
3.11-8 North Precinct CAD Events: 2012 – 2016..................................................... 3.11-8
3.11-9 U3 Beat Calls for Service: 2012 – 2016 ........................................................ 3.11-8
3.11-10 Summary of SFD Responses for Station 17 and Station 38: 2012 – 2016 ... 3.11-9
3.11-11 Capacity of Schools that Serve the Talaris Site ............................................ 3.11-9
3.11-12 School Enrollment in Talaris Vicinity: 2012 – 2016 ................................... 3.11-10
3.11-13 Enrollment Projections for Schools in the Talaris
Vicinity: 2012 – 2016 .............................................................................. 3.11-10
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page viii Fact Sheet
March 2018
3.11-14 Forecasted Student Generation for the Fort Lawton
Site – Alternatives 1-4 ............................................................................ 3.11-14
3.11-15 Forecasted Student Generation for the Talaris Site – Alternatives 1-4 ..... 3.11-20
3.13-1 Housing Characteristics – Fort Lawton Vicinity ............................................ 3.13-4
3.13-2 Race and Ethnicity – Fort Lawton Vicinity .................................................... 3.13-6
3.13-3 Population Characteristics – Fort Lawton Vicinity ........................................ 3.13-7
3.13-4 Income and Poverty Information – Fort Lawton Vicinity ............................. 3.13-8
3.13-5 Employment – Fort Lawton Vicinity .............................................................. 3.13-9
3.13-6 Housing Characteristics – Talaris Vicinity ................................................... 3.13-10
3.13-7 Race and Ethnicity Information – Talaris Vicinity ....................................... 3.13-11
3.13-8 Population Characteristics – Talaris Vicinity ............................................... 3.13-11
3.13-9 Income and Poverty Information – Talaris Vicinity .................................... 3.13-12
3.13-10 Employment – Talaris Vicinity .................................................................... 3.13-12
3.13-11 Number and Type of Housing Units – Alternatives 1-3 .............................. 3.13-13
3.13-12 Population Estimates – Alternatives 1-3 .................................................... 3.13-13
3.14-1 Elementary School Characteristics ............................................................... 3.14-4
3.14-2 Elementary School Characteristics ............................................................... 3.14-6
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page ix Fact Sheet

March 2018
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 Regional Map ....................................................................................................... 2-2
2-2 Fort Lawton Vicinity Map ..................................................................................... 2-3
2-3 Talaris Vicinity Map .............................................................................................. 2-7
2-4 Existing Fort Lawton Site Conditions ................................................................. 2-12
2-5 Existing Talaris Site Conditions .......................................................................... 2-14
2-6A Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 1 ................................................................ 2-23
2-6B Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 1 ................................................................ 2-24
2-7 Fort Lawton Circulation Plan – Alternative 1 .................................................... 2-28
2-8 Fort Lawton Typical Road Sections – Alternative 1 ........................................... 2-29
2-9 Massing Diagrams .............................................................................................. 2-33
2-10 Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 2 ................................................................ 2-37
2-11 Talaris Site Plan – Alternatives 2 and 3 .............................................................. 2-38
2-12A Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 3 ................................................................ 2-43
2-12B Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 3 ................................................................ 2-44
3.1-1 Fort Lawton Grading Plan – Alternative 1 ........................................................ 3.1-7
3.2-1 Fort Lawton Existing Biological Resources........................................................ 3.2-3
3.2-2 Talaris Existing Biological Resources................................................................. 3.2-7
3.4-1 Fort Lawton Noise Sensitive Receptors ............................................................ 3.4-3
3.4-2 Talaris Noise Sensitive Receptors ..................................................................... 3.4-4
3.6-1 Fort Lawton Existing Land Uses ........................................................................ 3.6-5
3.6-2 Fort Lawton Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map ................................. 3.6-7
3.6-3 Fort Lawton Existing Zoning Map .................................................................... 3.6-8
3.6-4 Talaris Existing Land Uses ............................................................................... 3.6-11
3.6-5 Talaris Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map ........................................ 3.6-12
3.6-6 Talaris Existing Zoning Map ............................................................................ 3.6-14
3.6-7 Fort Lawton Rezone Map – Alternative 1 ....................................................... 3.6-46
3.7-1 Viewpoint Location Map ................................................................................... 3.7-3
3.7-2 Viewpoint 2, Fort Lawton Cemetery at Discovery Park .................................... 3.7-8
3.7-3 Viewpoint 3, Discovery Park East Boundary .................................................... 3.7-9
3.7-4 Viewpoint 6, Secondary Entrance at Texas Way ........................................... 3.7-11
3.7-5 Viewpoint 9, 36th Avenue W ........................................................................... 3.7-12
3.7-6 Talaris Site Existing Views ............................................................................... 3.7-15
3.7-7 Affordable Housing Design Examples ............................................................. 3.7-17
3.9-1 Fort Lawton Site Existing Buildings ................................................................... 3.9-6
3.9-2 Talaris Site Existing Buildings .......................................................................... 3.9-10
3.10-1 Fort Lawton Trip Assignment – Alternatives 1 and 3 ................................... 3.10-12
3.10-2 Project Trips at Magnolia Access Points 2030 – Alternative 1 ..................... 3.10-14
3.10-3 Talaris Trip Assignment – Alternatives 2 and 3 ............................................ 3.10-24
3.12-1 Fort Lawton Existing Utilities .......................................................................... 3.12-3
3.12-2 Talaris Existing Utilities ................................................................................... 3.12-6
3.13-1 Census Tracts Map .......................................................................................... 3.13-3
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page x Fact Sheet

March 2018
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
ACM Asbestos Containing Materials
ACS American Community Survey
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AFH Assessment of Fair Housing
ALS Advanced Life Support
AMI Area Median Income
AMSA Area Maintenance Support Activity
AP Analytic Period
APE Area of Potential Effects
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
bgs Beneath Ground Surface
BINMIC Ballard/Interbay Northend Manufacturing & Industrial Center
BLS Basic Life Support
BMP Best Management Practices
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CAD Computer Aided Dispatch
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Equivalent amount of carbon dioxide
CPP Countywide Planning Policies
CSECP Construction Stormwater Erosion Control Plan
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMP Coastal Zone Management Program
DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNR Department of Natural Resources
EFSEC Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESDS Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FLARC Fort Lawton Army Reserve Complex
FWHCA Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GMA Growth Management Act
HUD Housing and Urban Development
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page xi Fact Sheet

March 2018
IBC International Building Code
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LBP Lead-Based Paint
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Redevelopment Authority
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MRS Munitions Response Site
MTCA Model Toxic Control Act
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx Nitrogen oxide
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
OMS Organizational Maintenance Shop
ORMA Ocean Resource Management Act
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
PM2.5 Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in size
PM10 Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in size
PSE Puget Sound Energy
PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council
Q1 Queen Sector and Beat 1
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SFD Seattle Fire Department
SHA Seattle Housing Authority
SMA Shoreline Management Act
SOx Sulfur oxide
SP Spill Plan
SPD Seattle Police Department
SPR Seattle Parks and Recreation
SPS Seattle Public Schools
SPU Seattle Public Utilities
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tanks
VA Veterans Administration
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page xii Fact Sheet
March 2018
WAAQS Washington State Ambient Air Quality
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
WTD Wastewater Treatment Division
WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
WHR Washington Heritage Register
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page xiii Fact Sheet
March 2018
Chapter 1
Summary
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project (also referred to as the Fort
Lawton project). It briefly describes the Proposed Actions and alternatives; contains an
overview of significant environmental impacts identified for the Proposed Actions; and,
provides a list of mitigation measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts. Please
see Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the Proposed Actions and alternatives,
Chapter 3 for a detailed presentation of the affected environment, significant impacts of
the Proposed Actions, mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse impacts,
Chapter 4 for key topic areas/updated information and analysis and Chapter 5 for all the
comments received on the DEIS and responses to the substantive comments . In this
chapter, substantive information added or changed subsequent to issuance of the DEIS is
shaded to ease identification of the added or changed information.
Seattle Office of Housing (the project applicant) is considering redevelopment options

including housing and park uses for the Fort Lawton U.S. Army Reserve Center site. The
approximately 34-acre site currently contains six buildings. The City’s goals are to produce
supportive housing for formerly homeless people and affordable rental and ownership
housing for low-income families and individuals, and create public park uses (including
active and passive uses) and meet park maintenance needs. Full buildout of the project is
expected to occur over an approximately 7-year period. For purposes of the FEIS analysis,
2025 is the assumed buildout year.
Potential redevelopment of the Talaris site is also studied in this FEIS. This site is included
only as an example of a possible off-site alternative for the affordable and formerly
homeless housing. It is provided to conceptually analyze probable adverse impacts that
would be expected with redevelopment at that site or other off-site locations in the City.
Additional more detailed SEPA review of the Talaris site, or another off-site location, would
be required should that or another site ultimately be selected for the affordable and
formerly homeless housing.
1.2 PROPOSED ACTIONS

The Proposed Actions for the Fort Lawton Project include the following:
• City Council approval of a redevelopment plan;
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 1-1 Chapter 1

March 2018 Summary
• City Council approval of a rezone of portions of the Fort Lawton site from SF 7200 to
LR2 (M1) zoning classification;
• Authorization to accept conveyance of the site from the Army and convey portions
of the site for housing development, and execute easements;
• Approval of funding for acquisition and development; and
• Land use, building, construction and other development permits and approvals.
1.3 EIS ALTERNATIVES

For the purposes of environmental review, the environmental impacts of four alternatives
are analyzed in this FEIS, including three development alternatives – Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
-- and a No Action Alternative. The range of alternatives allows for the analysis of
environmental impacts that: 1) encompasses a reasonable range of land uses and densities;
2) meets the applicant’s objectives; and, 3) provides decision makers with relevant
information needed to make decisions about the Proposed Actions. Not all the alternatives
would require the same set of actions. For example, Alternative 2 would not require rezone
of a portion of the Fort Lawton site LR2 (M1) zoning classification or public property
conveyances. The environmental impacts of the Proposed Actions are evaluated in the
context of each alternative.
Alternative 1 – Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses

Onsite (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative 1, assumed development would feature a mix of affordable housing on

the Fort Lawton site, including affordable rental and ownership and formerly homeless
housing. A portion of the site would be rezoned to LR2 (M1) zoning. Public park uses would
also be provided, including creation of active and passive recreation areas, preservation of
existing natural areas and conversion of an existing structure to a park maintenance facility.
More specifically, the project under Alternative 1 would include 238 total housing units with
85 senior supportive apartments (plus one manager unit), 100 affordable rental units and
52 affordable ownership units. The project would also provide 21.6 acres of parks and
recreation area, including two multi-purpose fields, a park maintenance facility and 266
parking spaces. All existing buildings on the Fort Lawton site except OMS - Building 245
would be demolished and removed. OMS Building 245 would be preserved as a parks
maintenance facility.
No development would occur on the Talaris site under Alternative 1.

March 2018 Summary
Alternative 2 – Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable and Homeless
Housing Offsite
Under Alternative 2, development of market-rate single-family housing under current

zoning is assumed on the Fort Lawton site, and construction of affordable and formerly
homeless housing would occur on the Talaris site. Alternative 2 would include 113 market-
rate residences with 254 parking spaces on the Fort Lawton site. The Talaris site would
include 238 affordable housing units (with the same numbers of senior, rental and
affordable ownership units as Alternative 1), approximately 30,621 sq. ft. of community
facilities and 295 parking spaces. The project would not provide any active or passive public
parks on either the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites. All existing buildings on the Fort Lawton site
would be demolished and removed. The buildings on the Talaris site would be retained and
reused; new buildings would be constructed on the site as well.
Alternative 3 – Public Park Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing

Offsite
Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be developed as a public park;
construction of affordable and formerly homeless housing would occur at the Talaris site.
Alternative 3 would include approximately 34 acres of park and recreation uses, including
three multi-purpose fields and 90 parking spaces on the Fort Lawton site; and
approximately 238 affordable housing units, 30,621 sq. ft. of community facilities and 295
parking spaces on the Talaris site (with the same numbers of senior, rental, and affordable
ownership units as Alternative 1). All existing buildings on the Fort Lawton site except OMS -
Building 245 would be demolished and removed. OMS Building 245 would be preserved as a
parks maintenance facility. All existing buildings on the Talaris site would be retained and
reused; new buildings would be constructed on the site as well.
Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the Fort Lawton site would remain in its existing vacant
condition. The property would not be conveyed by the U.S. Army to the City of Seattle per
the BRAC process. The City would terminate its lease of the property and the Army would
resume maintenance of the site and facilities. Buildings and infrastructure would likely
continue to deteriorate. The site could be conveyed to the City or conveyed or sold to
another entity in the future, and could be developed in accordance with the uses allowed
by the site’s current SF 7200 zoning.
1.4 IMPACTS
Table 1-1 highlights the significant impacts that would potentially result from the
alternatives analyzed in this FEIS. This summary table is not intended to be a substitute for
the complete discussion of each element that is contained in Chapter 3.

March 2018 Summary
Table 1-1
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS SUMMARY MATRIX
Alternative 1 (Applicants Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative
3.1 EARTH
Fort Lawton Site
• A minimal amount of grading and placing/compacting of • Similar grading would occur as Alternative 1. Construction of • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and earth-
structural fill would be required (11,000 CY of soil moved, retaining walls and/or deep foundations could also be related conditions would continue as under existing
with no imported or exported fill). necessary. conditions.
• The potential for impacts from landsides is considered • The possibility for landslides to occur would be greater than • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
moderately low. under Alternative 1.
• The potential for impacts to site structures during seismic • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
events is considered minimal. Seismic design using current
design codes and engineering standards/practices would
reduce these hazards.
• Impervious surfaces would decrease from 18.5 under • Impervious surfaces would decrease to 15.3 acres. • Impervious surfaces would decrease to 9.4 acres.
existing conditions to 13.2 acres, with a possible increase in
recharge to the aquifer beneath site.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and earth- • A minimal amount of grading and placing/compacting • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and earth-
related conditions would continue as under existing structural fill would occur. Any fill needed onsite would be same development is proposed. related conditions would continue as under existing
conditions. imported. conditions.
• Portions of the site are underlain by soft deposits.

Techniques such as deep foundation systems would be
implemented to address potential settlement impacts.
• The potential for landslide impacts is considered moderately

low. Site-specific analysis would be conducted prior to
construction.
• Ice contact and recessional outwash and relatively thick peat

on site could increase susceptibility to amplified earthquake
ground motions. Liquefiable soils would have a moderate to
high seismic risk. Site-specific slope stability analyses and
design/construction of structure would address these
potential impacts.
• Impervious surfaces would increase from 30% to 50% of the

site. No significant loss of recharge to the aquifer beneath
the site is expected.
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Fort Lawton Site
• Construction equipment activity and noise could potentially • More potential impact to wildlife and habitat than • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and
disturb wildlife and habitat. Alternative 1 with more of the site developed. biological resources would continue as under existing
conditions.
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Summary

March 2018 1-4 Chapter 1
• Open space would increase from 45% of the site under • Open space would increase to 55% of the site. • Open space would increase to 73% of the site.
existing conditions to 61% of the site.
• Existing forested habitat areas would be preserved in the • Forested habitat would be completely or partially developed. • Existing forested habitat areas would be preserved in the
north and south parts of the site. north and south parts of the site.
• No direct impacts to critical areas, vegetation that provides • Direct impacts to biological resources include: impacts to • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
wildlife habitat or sensitive wildlife species is expected. wetland areas, removal of forested vegetation and wildlife
habitats and displacement or loss of wildlife.
• Indirect impacts to retained habitat could occur due to • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, with the • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
increased human activity, lighting, noise, the use of additional potential for indirect impacts from development
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and the introduction of adjacent to the potential wetland.
domestic dogs and cats.
• Stormwater runoff could carry pollutants to downstream • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
water resources. With installation and operation of the
temporary and permanent stormwater control systems, no
significant impacts to biological resources downstream are
anticipated.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and • Construction equipment activity and noise could potentially • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and
biological resources would continue as under existing disturb wildlife and habitat. same development is proposed. biological resources would continue as under existing
conditions. conditions.
• 50% of the site would be in open space, less than under
existing conditions. Much of the existing landscaping, which
contributes to on-site habitat, would be retained under this
alternative.
• Development would avoid direct impacts to the wetland

area.
• Indirect impacts to wildlife would increase due to human

activities, including building, parking lot and roadway
lighting; noise; and use of fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides in landscape
• Stormwater runoff could carry pollutants to downstream

water resources. With installation and operation of the
temporary and permanent stormwater control systems, no
significant impacts to biological resources downstream are
anticipated.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Fort Lawton Site
• Construction activities could impact air quality. Most impacts • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to under Alternative 1, but • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and air
would be temporary and far outweighed by existing regional somewhat less since construction of new residential quality and GHG conditions would continue as under existing
emissions. Construction would comply with PSCAA development would not occur. conditions.
regulations to minimize air quality impacts.

• Projected average annual GHG emissions are estimated to • Projected average annual GHG emissions are estimated to • Projected average annual GHG emissions are estimated to
be 4,012 MTTCO2e per year and would not meet Ecology’s be 5,949 MTTCO2e per year, including GHG emissions from be 4,012 MTTCO2e per year, including GHG emissions from
threshold for significance. the Talaris site, and would not meet Ecology’s threshold for the Talaris site, and would not meet Ecology’s threshold for
significance. significance.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and air • Construction activities could impact air quality. Most • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and air
quality and GHG conditions would continue as under existing impacts would be temporary and far outweighed by existing same development is proposed. quality and GHG conditions would continue as under existing
conditions. emissions in the region. Construction would comply with conditions.
PSCAA regulations to minimize air quality impacts.
• Projected average annual GHG emissions are estimated to • Projected average annual GHG emissions are estimated to
be 5,949 MTTCO2e per year, including GHG emissions from be 4,012 MTTCO2e per year, which includes GHG emissions
the Fort Lawton site, and would not meet Ecology’s from the Fort Lawton site and would not meet Ecology’s
threshold for significance. threshold for significance.
3.4 NOISE
Fort Lawton Site
• Construction activities would be accompanied by temporary • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and noise
increases in noise sources would continue as under existing conditions.
• Estimated increases in traffic-related noise of <1 to 4 dBA • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
could occur. No significant impacts are expected.
• Operational noise under Alternative 1 would be generated • Operational noise under Alternative 2 would be generated • Operational noise would be greater than under Alternative 1
by multi-family residential, parks/recreation, senior support by single-family residences. Noise associated with these because there would be one additional multi-purpose field.
service and maintenance facility uses at the Fort Lawton site. residences is expected to be minimal. As with Alternative 1, forested buffers would reduce the
Forested buffers would reduce noise impacts from the site impact of noise. No significant impacts are expected.
on surrounding areas. No significant impacts are expected.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and noise • Construction activities would be accompanied by temporary • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and noise
sources would continue as under existing conditions. increases in noise same development is proposed. sources would continue as under existing conditions.
• Estimated increases in traffic-related noise of <1 dBA could

occur and is not expected to be significant.
• Operational noise under Alternative 2 would be generated

by multi-family residences and senior support service uses.
Noise associated with these uses is expected to be minimal.
3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Fort Lawton Site
• Air pollutants could be generated during construction. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and
Demolition activities would be conducted according to environmental health conditions would continue as under
applicable air quality regulations and no significant impacts existing conditions. Buildings and infrastructure would likely
are expected. continue to deteriorate, and hazardous materials associated
with the buildings would not be removed or properly
disposed of at this time.

• Existing buildings may contain asbestos, lead based paint and • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
PCBs which could be disturbed during demolition.
Construction activities would adhere to requirements to
minimize the potential for workers to be exposed to
hazardous materials. No significant impacts are expected.
• Undocumented underground storage tanks or contaminants • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
could be discovered during construction. Any tanks or
contamination discovered would be handled in accordance
with applicable investigation and cleanup provisions.
• Accidental spills of construction-related chemicals could • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1.
occur during construction resulting in polluted stormwater
runoff entering surface waters. A stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and adhered to
prevent and respond to accidental spills.
• Future residential uses could misuse and improperly dispose • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be less than Alternative 1 because there
of household cleaners, yard fertilizers and pesticides, etc. would no residential units.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and • A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would likely be • Impacts would the same as Alternative 2 because the same • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and
environmental health conditions would continue as under conducted to determine the environmental condition of the development is proposed. environmental health conditions would continue as under
existing conditions. site. existing conditions.
• The potential for construction impacts on environmental

health would be similar to under Alternative 1. Applicable
regulations would be adhered to including development of a
SWPPP.
• Future residential uses could misuse and improperly dispose

of household clears, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.
3.6 LAND USE
Fort Lawton Site
• Development would include: • Development would include: • Development would include: • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and land
- 238 affordable housing units; - 113 new market-rate housing units; and - 34.0 acres of public park and recreational areas; uses would continue as under existing conditions. The U.S.
- 21.6 acres of parks and recreation area - 254 parking spaces. including three multi-purpose fields; and 90 parking Army may choose to retain the property in caretaker status,
- two multipurpose fields; and spaces. or could sell it to another party. Development could occur in
- 266 parking spaces. the future in accordance with the site’s SR 7200 zoning.
• Redevelopment would require a portion of the site be • No zoning reclassification required. • No zoning reclassification required.
rezoned from SF 7200 to LR2 (M1) zoning.
• Temporary impacts to adjacent land uses over the buildout • Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. • Construction impacts to off-site land uses would be similar
period (i.e. dust, air emissions, noise and increased traffic) to but less than under Alternative 1, because no housing
may occur. Due to the temporary nature of construction and would be developed onsite.
required compliance with City of Seattle construction code
regulations, no significant impacts are expected.

• Residential uses would increase densities and activity levels • Residential uses would increase densities and activity levels • New park facilities (particularly multi-use fields) would result
on the site. Park uses would increase activity levels as well. onsite. Impacts would be less than Alternative 1. in increased activity levels on the site, greater than under
Alternative 1.
• Significant adverse impacts on surrounding land uses are not • Significant adverse impacts on surrounding land uses are not • Density would not increase onsite as no new building
expected due to the compatibility of proposed uses with off- expected due to the compatibility of proposed uses with off- development would occur. Significant adverse impacts on
site uses, layout of uses, provision of buffers/separation, and site uses. surrounding land uses are not expected due to the
the lack of vehicular/pedestrian connection to certain off- compatibility of proposed uses with off-site uses, provision
site uses. of buffers/separation and the lack of connection to certain
off-site uses.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time and land uses • Development would include: • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and land
would continue as under existing conditions. - 238 affordable housing units; same development is proposed. uses would continue as under existing conditions.
- 30,621 sq. ft. of community facilities; Development could occur in the future in accordance with
- 295 parking spaces; and the site’s SR 5000 zoning.
- Open space.
• Redevelopment would require a portion of the site be

rezoned from SF 5000 to LR2 (M1) zoning; a Comprehensive
Plan amendment would also be required.
• Potential construction impacts would be similar to those

described for under Alternative 1.
• Increases in densities and activity levels would occur onsite;

however, there would be no activity from recreational uses.
• Significant adverse impacts on surrounding land uses are not

expected due to the compatibility of proposed uses with off-
site uses, layout of uses, and provision of buffers/separation
from off-site uses.
3.7 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES
Fort Lawton Site
• Development would change the visual character of the site • Development would change the visual character of the site • Development would change the visual character of the site • The site would site would not be redeveloped at this time,
to multi-family housing and open space/park facilities. to single-family residences. New single-family homes would to new park/recreational areas. Passive recreation would be and aesthetics, views, light and glare and shadows would
Housing would be in new 30 to 40-foot tall buildings, generally be a maximum of 30 feet tall and would generally located in the north and south portions of the site, and continue as under existing conditions.
primarily in the west and central portions of the site. be located throughout the site. multi-use fields in the central portion of the site.

• Views: New development would be visible from the Fort • Views: From Viewpoint 2, single-family homes would • Views: No view impacts are anticipated since no building
Lawton Military Cemetery (Viewpoint 2). From the East comprise a more substantial portion of the view than under development would occur on the site.
Boundary of Discovery Park (Viewpoint 3), new buildings Alternative 1. From Viewpoint 3, view impacts would be
would generally be located in similar areas as existing similar to those under Alternative 1. From Viewpoint 6,
buildings, but would be taller and denser. From the views of the development would be similar to Alternative 1,
Secondary Entrance at Texas Way (Viewpoint 6), the general although portions of the development may be visible
view would not differ substantially from existing conditions. through certain sections of existing trees. From Viewpoint 9,
From 36th Avenue West (Viewpoint 9), townhouses may be buildings would be similar in height and bulk to existing
partially visible, although existing mature trees would residences to the east of the site, and existing mature trees
continue to provide a visual buffer. No significant view would continue to provide a visual buffer. No significant
impacts are expected, including on views protected by the view impacts are expected, including on views protected by
City. the City.
• Light: Redevelopment would add new sources of light on the • Light: Impacts would be similar to but less than Alternative 1 • Light: The amount of light from new sources would be much
site, including interior and exterior building and vehicle because fewer residential uses and no park uses would be less than under Alternatives 1 and 2, although passive and
lights. Light spillage is not expected to be significant and built. Light spillage is not expected to be significant. active recreation areas would increase mobile sources of
existing mature trees would continue to serve as a partial light from vehicles.
buffer in certain locations.
• Glare: Redevelopment would increase glare, including from • Glare: Similar to Alternative 1, although less due to fewer • Glare: The amount of glare from new sources would be
vehicles and building facades. Significant glare impacts are residential units onsite. much less than under Alternatives 1 and 2, although passive
not expected. and active recreation areas would increase mobile sources
of glare from vehicles.
• Shadows: Most shadows from development would remain • Shadows: Similar to Alternative 1 • Shadows: No new shadows would be generated.
onsite, except for some that would extend onto adjacent
portions of Discovery Park in the winter. No significant
shadow impacts are expected.
Talaris Site
• The site would site would not be redeveloped at this time, • Development would change the visual character of the • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would site would not be redeveloped at this time,
and aesthetic, view, light and glare and shadows would Talaris site from a conference center in a park-like setting to same development is proposed. and aesthetic, view, light, and glare and shadows would
continue as under existing conditions. multi-family housing and open space areas. Some housing continue as under existing conditions.
would occupy existing, renovated buildings, while other new
housing would be in new 30 to 40-foot tall buildings,
primarily in the west and south portions of the site.
• Views: There are no City-designated viewpoints in the

immediate vicinity. Any potential modifications to
designated City historic landmark site would need to obtain
a Certificate of Approval by the City of Seattle’s Landmarks
Preservation Board.
• Light: Redevelopment would add new sources of light on the

site, including interior and exterior building lighting and
vehicle lights. The amount of light spillage is not expected to
be significant and existing mature trees would continue to
serve as a partial buffer in certain locations.

• Glare: Redevelopment would increase glare, including from

vehicles and building facades. Significant glare impacts are
not expected.
• Shadows: Most shadows from potential development would
remain onsite; no shadows would extend onto parks.
3.8 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
Fort Lawton Site
• 21.6 acres of public park and recreation facilities would be • No new recreation facilities would be developed. Up to 4.7 • 29.0 acres of public park and recreation facilities would be • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and open
provided, including 13.0 acres for passive recreation and 5.1 acres of forested land could become open space. provided, including, 17.0 acres for passive recreation and 7.6 space conditions onsite would continue as under existing
acres for active recreation with two multi-purpose fields. 4.7 acres for active recreation with three multi-purpose fields. conditions.
acres of forest land would be incorporated into Discovery Up to 4.7 acres of forest land would be incorporated into
Park. Discovery Park.
• Based on the estimated number of residents (586 people), • Based on the estimated number of residents (263 people), • No increase in demand for park and recreation facilities • No additional park or recreation demand would be created
there would be demand for approximately 4.7 acres of parks there would be demand for approximately 2.1 acres of parks would occur. The proposed park and recreation facilities or satisfied. No new parks and recreational facilities would
and recreation area. New demand would be addressed by and recreation area. This demand could be addressed by the would provide an additional amenity for nearby residents be developed on the site that would help satisfy the
proposed park and recreation facilities onsite. developer of the site purchasing the approximately 4.7 acres and the city of Seattle, and would help satisfy the parkland needed by the City by 2035.
in the west part of the site from the U. S. Army and using it approximately 40 acres of parkland needed in Seattle by
as private open space for residents; or this area could be 2035.
purchased by the City for future public use.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and open • No new park or recreation facilities would be developed • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and open
space conditions onsite would continue as under existing under Alternative 2. Some open space areas (pond, forested same development is proposed. space conditions onsite would continue as under existing
conditions. areas) and walkways would be retained. conditions.
• Based on the estimated number of residents (586 people), • No additional parks/recreation demand would be created or
there would be demand for approximately 4.7 acres of parks satisfied. No new parks and recreational facilities would be
and recreation area. This demand could result in increased developed on the site that would help satisfy the parkland
use of nearby parks. On-site walkways and open space areas needed by the City by 2035.
could fulfill a portion of the demand.
3.9 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Fort Lawton Site
• Except for OMS Building 245, all existing buildings and • All buildings and structures would be demolished. Like • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. • The site would not be redeveloped and historic and cultural
structures on site would be demolished. None of the existing Alternative 1, existing buildings to be removed would need resources would continue as under existing conditions.
buildings are listed in the NRHP. Existing buildings to be to be referred to the City LPB for consideration. If a building Buildings at Fort Lawton would likely continue to deteriorate.
removed would need to be referred to the City Landmarks is determined eligible for City Landmark status, The U.S. Army may sell or retain the property in caretaker
Preservation Board (LPB) for consideration. If a building is requirements would be determined by the LPB. status.
determined eligible for City Landmark status, requirements
would be determined by the LPB.
• The adjacent Fort Lawton Cemetery would not be indirectly • Indirect impacts to the adjacent Fort Lawton Cemetery could • Indirect impacts to the Fort Lawton Cemetery are not
(e.g., visually) affected by redevelopment under Alternative occur due to the construction of a road and housing in anticipated because new construction would not occur
1. proximity to the eastern cemetery boundary. This could adjacent to the cemetery. A forested buffer would be
affect the cemetery’s integrity of setting through the retained east of the cemetery, and multi-use field would be
introduction of new built environmental elements. An located north of the cemetery.
undeveloped buffer could be retained around the cemetery
to address this impact.

• The probability of impacts to archaeological resources under • Although Alternative 2 could include more overall ground • The potential for impacts to archaeological resources would
Alternative 1 is considered low. disturbance, the likelihood of impacting archaeological be low, similar to Alternatives 1 and 2.
resources is considered to be low.
Talaris Site
• The Talaris site would not be redeveloped at this time, and • All the site’s major buildings and reused, and most of the • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and any
any historic or cultural resources would continue as under landscaping would be retained. However, impacts to this same development is proposed. historic or cultural resources would continue as under existing
existing conditions. designated Seattle Landmark and NRHP-eligible site could be conditions. Future use and development of the property
generated by proposed alterations to the existing site and would be subject to the City’s Certificate of Approval process
buildings. Development would require a Certificate of because it has been designated a Seattle Landmark.
Approval from the City to ensure that modifications do not
significantly compromise the site’s landmark status.
• The Talaris site is considered to have a moderate potential
for as-yet unknown archaeological sites and proposed
development could result in localized impacts to
archaeological resources. With implementation of legally-
required measures, no significant impacts are expected.
3.10 TRANSPORTATION
Fort Lawton Site
• Truck traffic and employee traffic would be generated during • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1. • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and the
construction activities. The vicinity roadway system would transportation system and traffic conditions would remain as
be able to accommodate construction traffic. No significant under existing conditions.
impacts expected.
• Alternative 1 would generate daily vehicle trips at buildout • Alternative 2 would generate daily vehicle trips at buildout • Alternative 3 would generate daily vehicle trips at buildout
as follows: as follows: as follows:
- 1,260 vehicle trips per day - 700 vehicle trips per day - 570 vehicle trips per day
- 64 AM peak hours trips - 55 AM peak hours trips - 0 AM peak hours trips
- 216 PM peak hour trips - 55 PM peak hour trips - 210 PM peak hour trips
• All nearby study area intersections are expected to continue • Fewer peak hours trips would occur than under Alternative • The same number of PM peak hour trips as Alternative 1
operating at LOS B or better, with slight increases in delay 1; all study intersections would operate at the same or would be generated, and study intersections would operate
from additional trips generated by Alternative 1. better levels than under Alternative 1. at similar levels.
• Project trips were also analyzed at access intersections to the • Alternative 2 would generate fewer daily vehicle trips than • Alternative 3 would generate fewer daily vehicle trips than
Magnolia neighborhood, including three intersections of 15th Alternative 1 and would have less impact at access Alternative 1 and would have less impact at access
Avenue W: at W Emerson Place/ W Nickerson Street, W intersections to the Magnolia neighborhood. intersections to the Magnolia neighborhood.
Dravus Street and the Magnolia Bridge. Project-generated
trips under Alternative 1 would constitute a small percentage
of the trips through each Magnolia access intersection (up to
approximately 1.4% in the AM peak hour and up to
approximately 3.6% in the PM peak hour) and would have a
small effect on intersection operations. New analysis was
also performed for the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W
intersection and indicated that trips under Alternative 1
would be 1.2% to 2.1% of the total traffic.

• Proposed parking would meet Code requirements. Peak • Proposed parking would meet Code requirements. Peak • Proposed parking would meet Code requirements. Peak
parking demand could exceed supply by up to 28 spaces. parking demand would be accommodated by the proposed parking demand could exceed supply by 9 spaces. This would
This would be addressed through parking management parking supply. be addressed by parking management strategies and
strategies, including: providing a shared bicycle fleet or possibly by shared parking.
encouraging use of bike sharing programs, encouraging use
of car sharing programs or providing information about bus
service. Parking could also be shared with uses on and
adjacent to the site.
• Although traffic at study area intersections would increase, • Alternative 2 is not expected to result in new safety issues. • Traffic safety impact would be similar to under Alternative 1.
which could increase the number of collisions, new safety
issues in the neighborhood are not expected.
• Alternative 1 is expected to generate 28 peak hour transit • Alternative 2 is expected to generate 21 peak hour transit • Alternative 3 is expected to generate little to no transit use.
trips. Existing bus service would be adequate to serve this trips and would not adversely affect transit service.
demand.
• New non-motorized facilities (e.g., sidewalks and pedestrian • Pedestrian facility upgrades would be similar to those • Pedestrian facility upgrades would be similar to those
crosswalks) would be constructed according to City described for Alternative 1. described for Alternative 1.
standards and no adverse non-motorized impacts are
expected.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and the • Construction activities and the associated potential for • Transportation impacts would be the same as described for • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and the
transportation system and traffic conditions would remain as impacts on the transportation system and traffic on and in Alternative 2 because the same development is proposed. transportation system and traffic conditions would remain as
under existing conditions. the site vicinity would be similar to under Alternative 1. under existing conditions.
• Alternative 2 would generate daily vehicle trips at buildout

as follows:
- 880 vehicle trips per day
- 64 AM peak hours trips
- 76 PM peak hour trips
• Alternative 2 would add less than one second of delay to two
intersections projected to operate at LOS F and E. This
increased delay is not considered a significant impact. It is
the City’s long-standing precedent that delay increases less
than 5 seconds at an intersection are not significant.
• Proposed parking would meet Code requirements. Peak

parking demand would be accommodated by the proposed
supply.
• Although traffic at study area intersections would increase,

which could increase the number of collisions, new safety
issues in the neighborhood are not expected.
• Alternative 2 is expected to generate 17 peak hour transit

trips and existing bus service would be adequate to serve
this demand.

• New non-motorized facilities would be constructed

according to City standards and no adverse non-motorized
impacts are expected.
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
Fort Lawton Site
• Construction activities could temporarily increase demand • Construction and operational demand for police services is • Construction and operational demand for police services is • The site would not be redeveloped at this time and public
for police service. Police demands could also incrementally anticipated to be less than under Alternative 1 because anticipated to be less than under Alternatives 1 and 2, services would continue as under existing conditions.
increase during project operation due to increases in on-site fewer residential units and no park uses would be because no housing would be developed.
population. Seattle Police Department (SPD) has the capacity developed.
to meet the increased police service needs.
• Construction activities could temporarily increase Seattle • Potential construction and operational increases in demand • Potential construction and operational increases in demand
Fire Department (SFD) service calls. Increases in on-site for fire and emergency services would be less than under for fire and emergency services would be less than under
population and new park/recreational uses could increase Alternative 1 because fewer residential units and no park Alternatives 1 and 2 because no housing would be
fire and EMS calls. SFD staffing has the capacity to meet the uses would be developed. developed under Alternative 3.
increased fire/EMS service needs.
• Development could generate approximately 41 new • Development could generate approximately 31 new • No new students would be generated under Alternative 3
students. Students added to Lawton Elementary and Ballard students, with the same school capacity restrictions as under and no impacts to public school service would occur.
High School would contribute to schools that are projected Alternative 1. Magnolia Elementary and Lincoln High School
to be over capacity. Magnolia Elementary and Lincoln High are expected to help absorb demand in the surrounding
School are slated to be operational by 2019, which is area.
expected to help absorb demand in the surrounding area.
Talaris Site
• The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and public • Construction activities could temporarily increase demand • Impacts would the same as Alternative 2 because the same • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and public
services would continue as under existing conditions. for police service. Existing SPD staff would have the capacity development is proposed. services would continue as under existing conditions.
to continue to meet police service needs. Police service
demands could also incrementally increase during project
operation due to increases in on-site population. SPD has the
capacity to meet the increased police service needs.
• Construction activities could temporarily increase SFD
service calls. Increases in on-site population could increase
fire and EMS calls, but less than under Alternative 1. SFD
staffing has the capacity to meet the increased fire/EMS
service needs.
• Development could generate approximately 47 new
students. Students added to Eckstein Middle School would
contribute to a school that is projected to be over capacity.
SPS’s annual planning process could address increases in
student population, including by providing transportation
service, adjusting attendance area boundaries or adding
portables.
3.12 UTILITIES
Fort Lawton Site
• Erosion and sedimentation and pollutants from construction • Impacts would be the similar to Alternative 1. • Impacts would be similar to Alternative 1 • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and utilities
equipment and vehicles could impact stormwater. A would continue as under existing conditions.
temporary stormwater control system and construction Best

Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to

minimize potential impacts.
• Approximately 40% of the site would be covered in • Approximately 45% of the site would be covered in • Less than 30% of the site would be covered in impervious
impervious surfaces, 15% less than under existing impervious surface, 10% less than existing conditions. A surfaces (over 20% less than existing conditions). A
conditions. A permanent stormwater system would be permanent stormwater system would be installed. permanent stormwater system would be installed.
installed. No significant stormwater impacts are expected.
• Sewage flows and potable water demand from/to the site • Sewage flows and potable water demand from/to the site • There would be no additional demand for sewer service.
would increase to approximately 41,720 gallons per day. would increase to approximately 39,550 gallons per day. Potable water demand is assumed to be less than under
Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) would continue to provide SPU would continue to provide sewer and water service and Alternatives 1 and 2, although demand would depend on
sewer and water service and has adequate supply and has adequate supply and capacity. irrigation needs for the parks. SPU would continue to
capacity. provide sewer and water service and has adequate supply
and capacity.
Talaris Site
• The Talaris site would not be redeveloped at this time, and • Erosion and sedimentation and pollutants from construction • Impacts would the same as Alternative 2 because the same • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and utilities
utilities would remain as under existing conditions. equipment and vehicles could impact stormwater. A development is proposed. would continue as under existing conditions.
temporary stormwater control system and construction
BMPs would be implemented to minimize potential impacts.
• Approximately 50% of the site would be covered in

impervious surfaces, a 20% increase over existing
conditions. A permanent stormwater system would be
installed.
• Proposed development would increase sewage flows and

potable water demand from/to the site to approximately
41,720 gallons per day. SPU would continue to provide
sewer and water service and has adequate supply and
capacity.
3.13 HOUSING AND SOCIOECONOMICS
Fort Lawton Site
• Residential units onsite would increase from 0 to 238 • Residential units onsite would increase from 0 to 113 • No housing would be provided under Alternative 3. • The site would not be developed at this time, and housing,
affordable units with: market-rate units. population and socioeconomic conditions would continue as
- 85 formerly homeless senior units (plus one manager under existing conditions. No new affordable housing would
unit) be provided that would help achieve the City’s affordable
- 100 affordable rentals housing targets based on existing unmet need and anticipated
- 52 affordable homeownership units growth by 2035. The site could be conveyed to the City or
conveyed or sold to another entity in the future, and could be
• Density would increase from 0 dwelling units/acre to 7 • Density would increase from 0 dwelling units/acre to 3.3 • Density would remain at 0 dwelling units/acre. developed in accordance with the uses allowed by the site’s
dwelling units/acre (based on entire site area). dwelling units/acre (based on entire site area). current SR 7200 zoning.
• The new housing would contribute towards meeting the • The new housing units would contribute towards meeting • No contributions to meeting the City’s overall housing plan
City’s overall housing plans and targets for affordable the City’s overall housing plans, but would not provide or affordable housing target based on existing unmet need
housing based on existing unmet need and anticipated affordable housing to help achieve the City’s affordable and anticipated growth by 2035 would occur at this location.
growth by 2035. The City’s existing supply of approximately housing targets based on existing unmet need and
28,800 income-restricted affordable housing units would anticipated growth by 2035.
increase by 0.8%.

• Additional housing units would increase the housing supply • Additional housing units would increase the housing supply • No changes to the Magnolia Neighborhood’s existing supply
in the Fort Lawton vicinity by approx. 4.1%. in the Fort Lawton vicinity by approximately 2.0%, and would of housing would occur.
continue the existing prevalence of single-family homes in
the site vicinity.
• The permanent on-site residential population would • The permanent on-site residential population would • No permanent residential population would be added to the
increase from 0 to approximately 596 people. The existing increase from 0 to approximately 565 people. Existing age, Fort Lawton site. Population conditions on and in the site
age, ethnicity and income levels in the Magnolia gender, income and ethnicity trends would likely continue vicinity would remain similar to under existing conditions.
neighborhood would be expected to shift towards ratios and minimal diversification of the Magnolia neighborhood
more consistent with the city of Seattle. would occur.
• The site would shift from being inactive to housing low- • No direct jobs would be supported on the site, but increased • No direct jobs would be supported on the site
income residents with associated supportive services and a spending on goods and services in the larger Magnolia
minor amount of employment. Increased spending on goods neighborhood is expected from the additional market-rate
and services in the larger Magnolia neighborhood is housing residents.
expected from the addition of affordable housing residents.
Talaris Site
• The Talaris site would not be redeveloped at this time, and • Residential units onsite would increase from 0 to 238 • Impacts would the same as Alternative 2 because the same • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and housing
housing and socioeconomic conditions would continue as affordable units with: development is proposed. and socioeconomic conditions would continue as under
under existing conditions. - 85 formerly homeless senior units (plus one manager existing conditions. No new affordable housing would be
unit) provided that would help achieve the City’s affordable
- 100 affordable rentals housing targets based on existing unmet need and anticipated
- 52 affordable homeownership units growth by 2035. The site could be sold to another entity in
the future, and could be developed in accordance with the
• Density would increase from 0 dwelling units/acre to 13.2 uses allowed by the site’s current SR 5000 zoning.
dwelling units/acre (based on the entire site area).
• The new housing would contribute towards meeting the

City’s overall housing plans and targets for affordable
housing based on existing unmet need and anticipated
growth by 2035.
• Additional housing units would increase the housing supply

in the Talaris vicinity by approximately 7.6%.
• The permanent on-site residential population would increase

from 0 to approximately 596 people. The existing age,
ethnicity and income levels in the Talaris vicinity are
expected to shift towards ratios more consistent with the
city of Seattle.
• The site would shift from being a conference center to

housing low-income residents with associated supportive
services and a minor amount of employment. Increased
spending on goods and services in the larger Laurelhurst
neighborhood is expected from the additional affordable
housing residents.

3.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Fort Lawton Site
• The potential for disproportionately high or adverse impacts • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar or less than Alternative 1. • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and
to low-income or minority communities or persons during environmental justice conditions would remain as under
construction would be minimal. existing conditions. Buildings and infrastructure would likely
continue to deteriorate, and hazardous materials associated
with the buildings would not be removed or properly
• No significant noise or air quality impacts are expected from • No significant noise or air quality impacts are expected from • No significant noise or air quality impacts are expected from disposed of at this time. The opportunity to provide
operation of the affordable housing and parks uses. operation of the market-rate housing. Redevelopment operation of the park uses. Redevelopment would eliminate affordable housing in the Magnolia neighborhood, and the
Redevelopment would eliminate site-related health hazards would eliminate site-related health hazards associated with site-related health hazards associated with older buildings positive impacts of diversifying a neighborhood that is
associated with the older buildings onsite (remove and the older buildings onsite similar to Alternative 1. onsite, similar to Alternative 1. disproportionately occupied by higher income households,
dispose of lead-based paint, asbestos and PCBs), and no would not be realized.
significant noise or air quality impacts are expected during
operation of the project.
• Construction and operation of affordable housing and park • Similar to Alternative 1. • Similar to Alternative 1.
uses onsite is not expected to result in environmental health
or safety risks to children in the site vicinity.
Talaris Site
• The Talaris site would not be redeveloped at this time, and • Similar to Alternative 1, the potential for disproportionately • Impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 because the • The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and
environmental justice conditions would continue as under high or adverse impacts to low-income or minority same development is proposed. environmental justice conditions would continue as under
existing conditions. communities or persons would be minimal. existing conditions. The opportunity to provide affordable
housing in the Laurelhurst neighborhood, and the positive
• Renovation of existing buildings could eliminate site-related impacts of diversifying a neighborhood that is
health hazards associated with the older buildings onsite disproportionately occupied by higher income households,
(removal and proper disposal of lead-based paint, asbestos would not be realized.
and PCBs), and no significant noise or air quality impacts are
expected during operation of the project.
• Construction and operation of affordable housing onsite is

not expected to result in environmental health or safety risks
to children in the site vicinity.

1.5 MITIGATION MEASURES AND SIGNIFICANT
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The following list highlights the mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse
impacts that would potentially result from the alternatives analyzed in this FEIS. These
measures apply to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 unless otherwise noted. Legally-Required
Measures are measures that are required by code, laws or local, state and federal
regulations to address significant impacts. Measures Proposed as Part of Project are
measures incorporated into the project to reduce significant impacts. Other Possible
Measures are additional measures that could be implemented to address impacts, but are
not necessary to mitigate significant impacts. This list is not intended to be a substitute for
the complete discussion of mitigation measures within each element that is contained in
Chapter 3 of the DEIS.
Earth
Legally-Required Measures
• During construction, contractors would employ temporary erosion and sedimentation

control measures and BMPs to control erosion. These measures would be consistent
with City of Seattle critical area and grading regulations.
• The foundation support systems would be determined as part of the specific design and
permitting of infrastructure and individual buildings. Site-specific studies and
evaluations would be conducted in accordance with SMC requirements and the
provisions of the current version of the SBC.
• Proper design and construction procedures, including those in the SBC, would be
followed to ensure that buildings and infrastructure could withstand a seismic event.
• A permanent stormwater management system would be designed and installed

onsite, in accordance with the Seattle Stormwater Code.
Measures Proposed as Part of Project
• Site-specific analyses would be completed prior to construction to address:

development on or adjacent to steep slopes areas, and to determine what structures
could be influenced by excavation dewatering.
• As appropriate, pile- or pier-supported foundations would be used for structures near

landslide hazard areas to reduce impacts to steep slopes.

• Any excavation shoring systems would be properly designed and constructed to
address impacts from temporary construction excavations.
• Fill would be designed to control adjacent settlements and ground subsidence impacts.
In addition, adjacent structures/surfaces would be monitored during construction to
verify that no adverse settlement occurs.
• To limit the potential for adverse vibration impacts from pile driving on nearby
structures, vibration monitoring would be conducted during installation of test piles and
selected production piles.
• If appropriate, drilled piles would be used to limit the vibration and ground settlement
impacts associated with driven piles.
• Ground improvement techniques or deep foundations would be employed to address

the potential for liquefaction impacts at the Talaris site.
Other Possible Measures
• The potential use of properly designed retaining walls that are constructed near
landslide hazard areas in accordance with City of Seattle critical area and grading
regulations would reduce impacts to steep slopes.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

No significant unavoidable adverse earth-related impacts are expected.
Biological Resources
• On the Fort Lawton site, any wetlands would be delineated, surveyed and rated and
appropriate buffers determined per SMC 25.09.160.
• On the Talaris site, the jurisdictional status of the constructed pond and the stormwater
pipe/riparian corridor would be confirmed.
• On the Talaris site, the status of the bald eagle nest would be determined.
• On the Fort Lawton site, a great blue heron Management Plan would be followed per
DPD Directors Rule 5-2007, including:
o Any clearing, grading or outside construction would be done outside of the
nesting season (February 1st through July 31st).

• Coordination with WDFW would be provided when working near nesting habitat
associated with known great blue heron breeding areas.
• Significant trees in the development areas of the sites would be identified per SMC
Chapter 25.11 and tree protection/replacement measures would be implemented, as
applicable.
• Development would be limited to the minimum necessary to meet project needs and
mitigation sequencing would be demonstrated, as required by the City.
• Temporary and permanent stormwater control systems would be installed to limit

water quality impacts on downstream resources.
• Temporary fencing at wetland buffer edges and around vegetation that provides habitat
for sensitive wildlife species (i.e., bald eagle nest area at Talaris and/or forested habitat
patches at Fort Lawton) would be installed during construction to protect and preserve
these critical areas. Permanent fencing would be maintained at the edges of wetland
buffers and at the edges of habitat areas to discourage intrusion by people and pets.
• Mitigation would be provided for any wetland impacts by implementing an approved

mitigation plan, per SMC 25.09.065. Any mitigation sites would be maintained and
monitored and trees would be retained/installed, as applicable.
• Development would be planned in areas that limit impacts to wetlands and their
associated buffers and to maximize retention of trees and valuable habitat areas.
• On the Fort Lawton site, the north and south forested patches would be retained to the
greatest extent possible to provide natural habitat and corridors for wildlife movement
between Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Discovery Park.
• The use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in developed areas would be limited,
consistent with the City’s ongoing pesticide reduction commitments.
• Native, drought tolerant species would be planted in landscaped areas.
• Lighting would be directed away from natural areas, downcast lighting would be used
and night lighting would be limited, where feasible, to limit impacts on wildlife.
• Interpretive signs could be installed and/or information on biological resources could be

distributed for public education.

Under Alternatives 1 and 3 at the Fort Lawton site, there could be a permanent minor
displacement of certain wildlife species less tolerant of urban uses due to proposed
development (e.g., from increased activity levels, use of landscape maintenance products
and the introduction of pets). The past military use of the Fort Lawton site could also have
impacted these species. Under Alternative 2 at the Fort Lawton site and Alternatives 2 and
3 at the Talaris site, there could be a permanent displacement of certain wildlife species
less tolerant of urban uses, due to proposed development (e.g., from the elimination of
habitat, as well as increased activity levels, use of landscape maintenance products and the
introduction of pets). The existing conference center uses at the Talaris site also likely
impact these species. No other significant unavoidable adverse biological resources
impacts are anticipated.
Air Quality
• PSCAA regulations to minimize fugitive dust and odor during construction would be
implemented.
• All development would comply with applicable air quality regulations, including NAAQS,
State Ambient Air Quality standards, PSCAA’s and Ecology’s indoor burning regulations,
PSCAA’s outdoor burning regulations and State of Washington GHG laws.
• Construction contractors would implement air quality control plans for construction
activities. A dust control plan would be prepared that would require construction
crews to implement all reasonable control measures described in the Guide to
Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects. 1 Air quality control plans would
include best management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted
by diesel construction equipment.
• Housing developed on the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites would comply with the Evergreen
Sustainable Development Standards (ESDS), which include the following GHG reduction
measures:
o Walkable neighborhoods (resulting in lower transportation-related emissions);
and
1 Associated General Contractors of Washington and Fugitive Dust Task Force 1997.

o Reductions in energy use and increased insulation (resulting in lower emissions
related to space heating).
• Under Alternatives 1 and 3, sidewalks and trails would be located throughout the site
that would provide opportunities for non-motorized circulation and reduce vehicular
emissions.
• Under Alternatives 1 and 3, King County Metro transit bus stops would be provided at
two locations along Texas Way West on the Fort Lawton site to encourage mass-transit
use between the site and off-site locations and reduce the number of vehicular miles
travelled.
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality or GHGs are anticipated.
Noise
• Construction activities would be limited to between the hours of 7 AM and 10 PM

during weekdays, and between the hours of 9 AM and 10 PM on weekends and legal
holidays to comply with applicable state and local regulations.
• The noise associated with maintenance and amplified/unamplified human voices in

the active open space under Alternatives 1 and 3 would adhere to the regulations in
SMC 25.08.490.
• To minimize construction noise at nearby receivers, the following mitigation measures

would be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications:
o Locate stationary equipment away from receiving properties;
o Erect portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near
sensitive receivers;
o Turn off idling construction equipment;
o Require contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment; and
o Train construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping
bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement)
near noise-sensitive areas.
• Under Alternatives 1 and 3, existing wooded areas in the north, south, and west parts
of the Fort Lawton site would be preserved in forest. Vegetation along the east edge
of the Fort Lawton site would be maintained and potentially enhanced as necessary to
serve as a noise buffer between the site and the adjacent Magnolia neighborhood

under these alternatives as well. Woodland and vegetated buffers would assist in
reducing the impact of noise from the site on the surrounding areas.
No significant unavoidable adverse noise-related impacts are expected.
Environmental Health
• A site-specific health and safety plan would be prepared that includes the safety
requirements of WAC 296-843, Hazardous Waste Operations, and WAC 296-155, Safety
Standards for Construction Work to minimize the potential for workers to be exposed to
hazardous materials during construction.
• Building construction/renovation would be conducted after a hazardous building

materials survey has been completed to identify or confirm the presence of ACM, LBP or
PCBs. Hazardous building materials would be removed or stabilized prior to
demolition/renovation in accordance with applicable regulations.
• If unanticipated contamination or underground storage tanks are discovered during

construction activities, the project would comply with applicable cleanup provisions
based on MTCA regulations.
• Spill prevention and response planning would be conducted prior to the start of
construction/renovation activities to prevent and, if needed, respond to hydraulic oil or
fuel spills. A SWPPP would be developed per Ecology requirements and BMPs followed
to reduce the risk of spills and discharges to the stormwater. Stormwater treatment
and monitoring would be conducted during demolition and construction activities.
• Conventional dust control measures would be implemented to minimize the exposure

of workers and the immediate surrounding populations to construction-generated dust
(see Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Appendix D for details).
• Information could be provided to inform residents about the threat to the environment
from the misuse and improper disposal of household cleaners, yard fertilizers, and
pesticides, and gas and other petroleum products used in the operation and
maintenance of automobiles and yards.

No significant unavoidable adverse environmental-health related impacts are expected.
Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies
• Proposed development would adhere to all applicable City of Seattle Land Use Code
requirements.
• Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, new landscaping would be provided on the Fort Lawton
site. Under Alternative 2 and 3, existing landscaping would be preserved on the Talaris
site consistent with the historic designation for the site.
• Additional mitigation measures would be provided to minimize overall impacts from

construction of the site (see Section 3.1, Earth; Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.4,
Noise; and Section 3.10, Transportation).
• Additional mitigation measures would be provided to minimize the overall impacts from
operation of the development (see Section 3.4, Noise; Section 3.7, Aesthetics; Section
3.10, Transportation; and Section 3.11, Public Services).
Measures Proposed as Part of the Project
• Proposed development would be phased over an approximately seven-year buildout

period.
• Under Alternative 1 and 3, proposed development would include open space areas on
the Fort Lawton site. Forested areas in the north, south, and west parts of the site
would be retained and the existing vegetation along the eastern edge of the site would
be preserved. As necessary, the vegetative buffer on the east edge of the site would be
enhanced to provide a further buffer between the site and adjacent uses.
the Talaris site. The natural area in the southwest part of the Talaris site would be
retained and would provide a buffer between the site and adjacent uses.
Development under Alternatives 1 and 2 would convert the Fort Lawton site from its
existing, vacant military storage and maintenance buildings to new residential uses.
Development under Alternatives 1 and 3 would include active and passive parks uses on
the Fort Lawton site. Development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would convert the existing
conference center uses on the Talaris site to new residential uses. These conversions of

uses would result in an intensification of uses and an increase in activity levels on the sites.
Proposed development would generally be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and
regulations. No significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts are anticipated.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
requirements related to aesthetics/light and glare and would be subject to the City’s
design review processes.
• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, proposed development on the Talaris site would require
a Certificate of Approval from the City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods to
ensure that modifications do not significantly compromise the site’s landmark
status, including visual character and views. The Certificate of Approval would
require the review and approval by the City of Seattle’s Landmark Preservation
Board.
• Landscaping would be provided per the City of Seattle landscape standards.
• Pedestrian-scale lighting would be provided consistent with code, function, and

safety requirements. Exterior lighting would include fixtures to direct the light
downward or upward and away from off-site land uses.
Proposed development under the EIS Alternatives would change the visual character of the
Fort Lawton or Talaris sites to new townhouses, rowhouses, and apartment buildings and
open space/park facilities. No significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic/light and glare
Recreation and Open Space
• A portion of the tax revenues generated directly and indirectly from development
under the EIS alternatives—potentially including construction sales tax, retail sales
tax, property tax, utilities tax, leasehold excise tax, and other fees from City licenses
and permits during site redevelopment—would accrue to the City of Seattle and
could help offset demands for public services, including parks and recreation.

• Up to 4.7 acres of forest land on the western edge of the Fort Lawton project site
would be incorporated into Discovery Park under Alternatives 1 and 3. This area
could potentially be purchased by the City of Seattle under Alternative 2 or used as
private open space.
• Under Alternatives 1 and 3, passive and active recreation areas would be provided
on the Fort Lawton site, including 2 or 3 multiuse fields, respectively.
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on recreation and open space are anticipated.
Historic and Cultural Resources
• Existing buildings that appear to meet the criteria for landmark designation and are
proposed to be demolished at the Fort Lawton site would be referred to the City’s
Landmark Preservation Board (LPB) for their consideration as a City Landmark. If a
building is designated as City Landmark, a Certificate of Approval will be required
before any changes requiring a Certificate of Approval can be made to the landmark
(see Appendix H for details).
• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, proposed development at Talaris would be reviewed by

the City Landmarks Preservation Board. Any changes to the site would comply with
the designating ordinance or Controls and Incentives Agreement for the property.
Proposed changes should also meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with Guidelines for the
Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.
• Should any as-yet unknown potentially significant archaeological sites be

encountered during construction and it is not possible to avoid them, impacts would
be minimized by one or more of the following:
o Limiting the magnitude of the proposed work;
o Modifying proposed development through redesign or reorientation to
minimize or avoid further impacts to resources; or
o Archaeological monitoring, testing, or data recovery excavations (DAHP
2010).
• Other measures that could be implemented to minimize adverse impacts to an

archaeological site include:
o Relocating the project on the site;
o Providing markers, plaques, or recognition of discovery;

o Imposing a delay of as much as 90 days (or more than 90 days for
extraordinary circumstances) to allow archaeological artifacts and
information to be analyzed; or
o Excavation and recovery of artifacts (DON 2015).
• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, an archaeological survey would be conducted prior to

development at the Talaris site due to the moderate potential for subsurface
archaeological sites to be present.
• If ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery of

archaeological deposits, work would be halted in the immediate area and contact
made with DAHP. Work would be halted until further investigation and appropriate
consultation is concluded.
• In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, work would be
immediately halted in the area, the discovery covered and secured against further
disturbance, and contact made with law enforcement personnel, consistent with the
provisions in RCW 27.44.055 and RCW 68.60.055.
• Under Alternative 2, an undeveloped buffer could be retained around Fort Lawton

Cemetery to avoid affecting its integrity of setting through introduction of new built
environment elements.
• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, interpretive information conveying the historical

significance of the Talaris site could be used as public education tools or integrated
into future planning and design efforts.
No significant unavoidable adverse historic or cultural resources impacts are anticipated.
Transportation
• Development would comply with all land use code requirements regardless of right of
way improvements including any requirements for addition or upgrade of pedestrian
facilities.
• Prior to commencing construction on either site, the selected contractor(s) would

prepare a Construction Management Plan that documents the following:
o Truck haul routes to and from the site;

o Truck staging areas (e.g. locations where empty or full dump trucks would wait
or stage prior to loading or unloading);
o Construction employee parking areas;
o Road or lane closures that may be needed during utility or street construction;
o Sidewalk, bike lane, or bus stop closures and relocations; and
o Mechanism for notifying the community if street, sidewalk, bike lane, or bus stop
closures would be required.
Fort Lawton Site
• Improve pedestrian facilities on Texas Way – For Alternative 1, 2 or 3, Texas Way would
be improved to add a sidewalk or walkway to the east site of the street adjacent to new
development areas. In addition, the existing sidewalk on the west side of the street
would be maintained. New crosswalks would be located where there is adequate sight
distance for both motorists and pedestrians, and all would be designed to meet Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. Americans with Disability Act
(ADA) curb ramps and landings would be provided on both sides of the street.
• Implement parking management strategies for affordable housing uses – To reduce

the potential for overflow residential parking with Alternative 1 or 2, the Office of
Housing and its partners would implement programs that reduce a resident’s need to
own a vehicle. The programs could include providing a shared bicycle fleet or
encouraging use of bike sharing programs, encouraging use of car sharing programs, and
providing information about bus service.
Talaris Site
• Improve pedestrian facilities on internal roads – For Alternative 2 or 3, all new or

retained internal roads at the Talaris site would have a pedestrian walkway on at least
on one side of the street. Any internal crosswalks would be located where there is
adequate sight distance for motorists and pedestrians and all would be designed to
meet MUTCD standards. ADA curb ramps and landings would be provided on both sides
of the street.
• Construct sidewalk along N 41st Street frontage – For Alternative 2 or 3, sidewalks would
be constructed along the N 41st Street site frontage where there currently are none.
• Share parking with athletic fields – For Alternative 1 or 3, peak parking for the athletic
fields on the Fort Lawton site is expected to occur in the evenings and on weekends.
Seattle Parks and Recreation could work with the VA to share its existing nearby parking

spaces offsite during these times when parking demand at the VA facility is low or use
the parking spaces at the Parks Maintenance Building onsite during these times.
• Magnolia Access Points – As noted in the Magnolia Bridge Traffic Maintenance During
Bridge Closure Report, the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection should be
monitored and signalization or other operational changes considered at the point that
monitoring indicates they are warranted. Funding for improvements would need to be
identified and prioritized against other city needs at that time. SDOT prioritizes signals
based on a variety of factors, including crash history, expected growth, equity and
potential for partnering with developers.
The project would add less than one second of delay to two intersections near the Talaris
site that are projected to operate at LOS F and E. This increased delay would not be
considered a significant impact, as it is the long-standing precedent established by the City’s
traffic review team that delay increases less than 5 seconds at a signalized intersection
would not be significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse transportation-
related impacts are expected.
Public Services
• All new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the 2015 Seattle Fire Code,
which is comprised of the 2015 International Fire Code with City of Seattle
amendments.
• Adequate fire flow to serve development under the EIS alternatives would be provided
as required by the 2015 Fire Code and specific requirements would be adhered to
regarding emergency access to structures.
• The portions of the site that are under construction during phased development of the
site would be fenced and lit, and could be monitored by surveillance cameras to help
prevent construction site theft and vandalism.
• A portion of the tax revenues directly and indirectly generated from development under
the EIS alternatives—including construction sales tax, retail sales tax, property tax,
utility tax and other fees, licenses and permits—would accrue to the City of Seattle and
could help offset demand for public services.

• Increases in student population over the buildout period would be addressed through
SPS’s planning processes. SPS could take any or a combination of the following actions
to match capacity and enrollment as buildout occurs under the EIS alternatives:
o Providing transportation service to schools with capacity;
o Adding, relocating or removing programs;
o Adjusting school boundaries;
o Adjusting geographic zones for option schools;
o Adding or removing portables;
o Adding to or renovating buildings; or,
o Opening, reconstituting or closing buildings.
• King County Metro could provide shuttle service between the Fort Lawton Project and
downtown to enhance residents’ access to services and employment opportunities.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase demand for school service, including at schools that
are projected to be over capacity with or without the project (e.g., Lawton Elementary School
and Ballard High School in the Fort Lawton vicinity and Eckstein Middle School in the Talaris
vicinity). This impact on school service would be greater under Alternatives 2 and 3 at the
Talaris site, as SPS does not have plans for a new middle school in the northeast Seattle area,
whereas in the service area at the Fort Lawton site there are immediate plans to add new
elementary capacity, as well as new high school capacity. In general, although general
growth-related pressures on schools are difficult to predict further into the future, SPS is
expected to take measures to address capacity issues, including provide transportation
service, adjust attendance area boundaries or add portables. As a result, no significant
unavoidable adverse schools or other public services impacts are anticipated.
Utilities
• Construction would be conducted in accordance with the conditions of all applicable

permits issued by regulatory agencies (e.g., City of Seattle, Department of Fish and
Wildlife and Department of Ecology).
• A Construction Stormwater Erosion Control Plan (CSECP) would be developed and

implemented to cover all areas of the contractor’s work including off-site areas such as
disposal sites, haul roads, all nearby property, streams and other bodies of water,
including:
o Waste materials would be transported offsite and disposed of in accordance
with applicable regulations and as noted in the CSECP.

o Construction entrances, wheel washes, street cleaning and other BMPs would be
used to prevent tracking of soils beyond the project limits.
o Stormwater from work areas would be kept separate from non-work areas.
o The locations of existing inlets and catch basins would be identified in the CSECP
and the method of protection would be described.
o Descriptions of locations, protections and covering practices for stockpiles would
be provided.
o Controls to prevent sediment, debris and other pollutants from entering surface
waters and drainage features would be provided.
• A Spill Plan (SP) would be developed and implemented to ensure that all pollutants and
products are controlled and contained.
• BMPs for concrete work would include the following:
o Cement trucks wash water would not be disposed of onsite but would be returned
to the off-site batch plant for recycling as process water; and
o New concrete work would be covered and protected from rainfall until cured.
• The use of unsealed external copper and galvanized metal would be prohibited except
where required by Code as necessary for public safety or where no feasible alternative
exists.
• BMPs would be implemented to ensure that no foreign material such as oil or fuel from
construction equipment enters surface waters and that sedimentation is minimized.
• Adequate material and procedures to respond to unanticipated weather conditions or

accidental release of materials would be available onsite.
• Contract documents would specify that equipment used for this project would be free of
external petroleum-based products while work is performed around any water
resources.
• Equipment staging or materials storage would be restricted to existing unvegetated

surfaces.
• Inspections of the erosion control measures would be conducted throughout the

construction period. This would ensure the effectiveness of the measures and
determine any need for maintenance, repairs or additional measures.
• Disturbance would be limited to those areas necessary for construction, which would be
identified in on-site plans and marked on the site before construction begins.

• Stormwater runoff from new roads, surface parking and other possible contaminant
sources would be collected in on-site facilities to provide water quality treatment
(Talaris Site) or flow control (Fort Lawton), as needed. These facilities could include
elements such as pipes, catch basins, manholes, vaults, raingardens, bioretention
facilities, dispersal trenches or underdrain systems.
• Measures to control any impacts of excavation dewatering on groundwater could

include: site-specific design and careful control of dewatering systems, minimizing the
extent and duration of dewatering, and infiltration of extracted groundwater (see
Appendix B for details).
No significant unavoidable adverse utility impacts are expected.
Housing and Socioeconomics
Increases in population and housing would occur gradually within the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites over the 7-year buildout period. No significant housing or socioeconomic
impacts are expected to result from any of the redevelopment alternatives and as a result,
no mitigation measures are identified.
No significant unavoidable adverse housing or socioeconomic impacts are expected.
Environmental Justice
Although no significant environmental justice related impacts have been identified, the
following measures would minimize related impacts.
• All construction activities would be required to comply with city of Seattle Municipal
Code regulations related to air quality and noise.
• Abatement, remediation, and disposal of any hazardous materials on site would occur in
accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to start of construction or
demolition activities on site.

• The areas of the site undergoing construction would be secured and non-accessible
after hours to prevent the creation of an attractive nuisance that could result in
safety/public health impacts to the residential populations near the site.
No significant unavoidable adverse environmental justice impacts are anticipated.

Chapter 2
Description of Proposed Action(s) and

Alternatives
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S)
AND ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes the Proposed Action(s) and EIS alternatives for the Fort Lawton Army
Reserve Center Redevelopment Project (hereafter also the “Fort Lawton Project”).
Background information and a summary of historic site activities are also presented. Please
see Chapter 1 for a summary of the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS), Chapter 3 for details on the affected environment, probable significant
environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Proposed Action(s) and
alternatives, Chapter 4, for key topic areas/additional information and analysis, and
Chapter 5 for all the comment letters on the Draft EIS (DEIS) and responses to the
substantive comments. In this chapter, substantive information added or changed
subsequent to issuance of the DEIS is shaded to ease identification of the added or changed
information.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Seattle Office of Housing (Office of Housing), is considering redevelopment
options including housing and park uses for the Fort Lawton U.S. Army Reserve Center site,
located in the Magnolia neighborhood in northwest Seattle (see Figure 2-1, Regional Map,
and Figure 2-2, Fort Lawton Vicinity Map). The approximately 34-acre site currently
contains six buildings. The City’s goals are to produce supportive housing for formerly
homeless people and affordable rental and ownership housing for low-income families and
individuals, as well as create public park uses (including both active and passive uses) and
meet park maintenance needs. It is expected that full buildout of the Fort Lawton Project
would occur by 2025. However, actual buildout could depend on specific economic and
market conditions.
2.2 BACKGROUND
Fort Lawton is one of the last remaining military bases to be disposed of under the U.S.
Army 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Following the decision to close
the base, the Army named the City of Seattle the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA),
responsible for preparing and implementing the redevelopment plan for the property. From
2006 through 2008, the City conducted an extensive community engagement process that
resulted in a detailed redevelopment plan (2008 Plan)1 to create a diverse, mixed-income
community with housing for homeless individuals and families and market-rate housing
(totaling up to 216 units), while also preserving existing wildlife habitat and creating a new
1
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Plan (September 2008).

March 2018 Description of Proposed Action(s) and Alternatives
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Fort Lawton Site

Talaris Site
Note: This figure is not to scale North

Source: SMR Architects, 2017. Figure 2-1
Regional Map
North
Note: This figure is not to scale Project Site
Source: Seattle Office of Housing, 2017. Figure 2-2

Fort Lawton Vicinity Map
neighborhood park. In September 2008, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution
adopting the plan and approving related applications to the federal government.2 A lawsuit
was subsequently filed by the Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council. In 2009, the Court
of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling on the applicability of the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) to the proposed redevelopment plan. Further changes in market
conditions following the 2009 decisions led to additional delay in carrying forward further
redevelopment plans.
In 2011, the U.S. Army vacated the base, leaving it in caretaker status. In 2012, the Army
issued a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
closure, disposal and reuse of Fort Lawton based on the 2008 Plan.3 The 2012 EA concluded
that the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts on the environment, and
the Army published a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The City is now carrying forward its past planning efforts into a vision for the Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Center that creates an affordable, livable community for people with low
incomes, and takes advantage of the opportunity to increase recreational and open space.
Specifically, the City envisions a mix of affordable housing including supportive housing for
formerly homeless seniors, as well as affordable rental and ownership housing for low-
income families and individuals. A variety of park uses would also be provided, including
preservation of natural areas, development of new park spaces that could support a range
of uses including active recreation and re-use of an existing structure as a park maintenance
facility. The Office of Housing is leading the Fort Lawton redevelopment effort, in
coordination with the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (SPR). The City’s
development partners for the affordable and formerly homeless housing include Catholic
Housing Services of Western Washington and Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King County.
Both groups have long, successful histories of providing quality affordable housing in the
greater Seattle area.
This SEPA EIS addresses the City’s current redevelopment plans and is intended to comply
with previous court decisions.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS AND

PURPOSE
SEPA EIS and Lead Agency
SEPA provides the framework for agencies to consider the environmental consequences of a
proposal before acting on it. It also gives agencies the ability to condition or deny a proposal
2
Resolution Number 31086.
3
Final EA for BRAC 05 Recommendations for Closure, Disposal and Reuse of Fort Lawton, United States Army
Reserve Center (FACID, WA030, WA031, WA012), Seattle, WA (July 2012).

due to identified likely significant adverse impacts. The Act is implemented through the
SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC and in City of Seattle by SMC 25.05 – Environmental
Policies and Procedures.
The lead agency is the agency responsible for all procedural aspects of SEPA compliance
(e.g., preparation and processing of an EIS). The responsible official represents the lead
agency and is responsible for the documentation and content of the environmental analysis.
For purposes of the Fort Lawton Project, Office of Housing is the SEPA lead agency and the
Director of the Office of Housing is the responsible official for SEPA compliance.
Determination of Significance and EIS Scoping
Office of Housing determined that the project is likely to have a significant impact on the
environment. Thus, an EIS is required, per RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).
On June 5, 2017, the City issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and Request for
Comments on the Scope of the EIS. The DS indicated that the 21-day EIS scoping period
would end on June 26, 2017, and that a public meeting would be held during scoping to
provide opportunities for the public to learn more about the Proposed Actions and to
provide input on the scope of the EIS. Based on feedback from residents who wanted to
attend the public meeting but had a scheduling conflict, a second public meeting was also
scheduled during scoping.
The first EIS Public Scoping meeting was held on June 19, 2017. During this meeting, the
public was encouraged to provide both written and/or oral comments on the scope of the
EIS. A total of 232 attendees signed in at the first meeting (the actual number may have
been greater because not everyone may have elected to sign in). The meeting was set up as
an open house, with a formal presentation by the Office of Housing and SPR, and a
continuous opportunity to provide written or oral comment throughout the meeting.
The second EIS Public Scoping meeting was held on June 21, 2017. A total of 129 attendees
signed in at the second meeting. The meeting included a similar presentation and open
house format as the first meeting, with public comment accepted through written forms.
During the EIS scoping comment period, a total of 715 comments were received from 676
unique commenters (some individuals provided multiple comments). In addition to public
comments, the Office of Housing received a petition requesting the addition of a school
alternative. The petition contained 1,001 unique signatures at the time of submission (146
signatories also submitted a public comment). All the comment letters/emails/forms/
transcript are available for review at Office of Housing (see Appendix A for details on the
scoping process and a summary of the scoping comments).
As a result of EIS scoping, the City identified the following EIS alternatives and elements of
the environment to be analyzed in the EIS.

EIS Alternatives
Three action alternatives and one no action alternative are analyzed in this EIS, including:
• Alternative 1 (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) – Mixed Income Affordable
Housing and Public Park Uses Onsite;
• Alternative 2 – Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable/Homeless Housing Offsite;
• Alternative 3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable/Homeless Housing Offsite; and
• Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative.
In considering potential off-site locations for Alternatives 2 and 3, Office of Housing

determined that property located in the Laurelhurst neighborhood in northeast Seattle, the
Talaris site, was a good candidate. The Talaris site, which was recently put on the market, is
one of the few large, contiguous sites available in a residential area of Seattle that would
meet the Office of Housing’s objectives and the purpose and need for the project (see
Section 2-7 for details). Thus, the potential off-site location for the affordable and formerly
homeless housing included in this EIS under Alternatives 2 and 3 is the Talaris site (see
Figure 2-3, Talaris Vicinity Map).
Potential redevelopment of the Talaris site is studied only as an example of a possible off-
site alternative. It is provided in order to conceptually analyze probable adverse impacts
that would be expected with redevelopment at that site or other off-site locations in the
City. As allowed by SEPA, the analysis of the Talaris site is less detailed than the analysis of
the Fort Lawton site. Additional more detailed SEPA review of the Talaris site, or another
off-site location, would be required should that or another site ultimately be selected for
the affordable and formerly homeless housing.
Requests to Change Proposal/Alternatives

Numerous comments were received during EIS Scoping requesting inclusion of a school on
the Fort Lawton site in the range of alternatives addressed in the EIS. This would be a
significant change to the underlying proposal. In response to interest from Seattle Public
Schools (SPS), the Office of Housing provided additional time for SPS to evaluate the site
more closely and determine whether it would be feasible to include a school in the
redevelopment. After closer investigation, SPS determined that it would be unable to meet
federal Department of Education requirements for a public benefit conveyance for
construction of a school. In particular, SPS determined that it would not meet the criteria
related to financial ability and immediate need, based on its past experience applying for
federal property and its review of data on projected student population. Thus, an
alternative that includes a school on the Fort Lawton site is not evaluated in this EIS.

North
Source: Bing Maps and EA Engineering, 2017. Figure 2-3

Talaris Vicinity Map
Subsequent to the scoping period, however, the SPS board passed a resolution
communicating its interest in finding ways to include SPS in the redevelopment. In
response, the City determined that SPS could potentially qualify for open space
conveyances, and has offered SPS the opportunity to pursue ownership of a portion of the
property devoted to active recreation under Alternatives 1. This option is described in
Alternative 1. SPS does not have funding or firm plans for development of a school at this
time. Should SPS pursue this option, they would need to conduct additional, separate
environmental review.
During Scoping, other requests were made for revisions to the EIS alternatives, including:
• Include an off-leash dog park in the park component;
• Increase the density of affordable housing;
• Give land to the United Indians;
• Give land to the Duwamish Tribe;
• Create new athletic facilities;
• Create meeting spaces and vacation rentals; and
• Remove the off-site housing component of Alternatives 2 and 3.
(See Appendix A for details.)
SEPA requires that EIS alternatives meet the applicant’s objectives for a project, but at a
lower environmental cost (WAC 197-11-440(5)(b)). Most of the above requests do not meet
the applicant’s objectives for the proposal, as described in Section 2.7 (except those related
to public recreation) and these requests are not carried forward in this EIS. Regarding
specific recreational programming, both the City and SPS are committed to a future process
that incorporates public input regarding the programming of this space when funding
becomes available for development. If this process identified specific uses with additional
impacts, further SEPA review would be conducted.
Elements of the Environment

The following elements of the environment are analyzed in the EIS. Conditions during
construction and operation of the project are evaluated.
• Geology/Soils • Recreation/Open Space
• Air Quality • Historic/Cultural Resources
• Biological Resources • Transportation
• Environmental Health • Public Services
• Noise • Utilities
• Land Use • Housing/Socioeconomics
• Aesthetics/Visual Resources • Environmental Justice
Purpose of EIS Analysis
Per WAC 197-11-400 and SMC 25.05.400, an EIS is an objective, impartial evaluation of the
environmental consequences of a proposal. It is a tool that will be used by City of Seattle,

other agencies and the public in the decision-making process for the Fort Lawton Project.
An EIS does not recommend for or against a course of action.
This FEIS for the Fort Lawton Project is the City of Seattle’s analysis of probable significant
environmental impacts of the Proposed Actions and alternatives of the elements of the
environment listed above. The FEIS has been issued and distributed to agencies, tribes,
organizations and the public for review as part of a public comment period. The DEIS was
issued on December 14, 2017, with the public comment period ending on January 29, 2018.
A public meeting was held on January 9, 2018.
Based on the comments received on the DEIS, this FEIS was prepared as the final step in the
EIS process. The FEIS provides responses to substantive comments received on the DEIS
from agencies, organizations and the public, and as necessary may contain clarifications on
the alternatives and the analysis of environmental impacts. The DEIS and FEIS together
comprise the document that the City will use—along with other analyses and public input—
to make decisions on the proposed Fort Lawton Project.
After the issuance of this FEIS , City staff will make recommendations to the decision-
makers on the Fort Lawton Project. Additional opportunities for public input will occur
during this process.
Prior Environmental Review
As mentioned previously, NEPA environmental review was accomplished by the U.S. Army
for prior actions related to the Fort Lawton Project. The Final EA for BRAC 05
Recommendations for Closure, Disposal and Reuse of Fort Lawton, United States Army
Reserve Center (FACID, WA030, WA031, WA012), Seattle, WA (July 2012) is incorporated by
reference into this EIS, per WAC 197-11-635 and SMC 25.05.635.
2.4 SITE DESCRIPTION

Fort Lawton Site
The approximately 34-acre Fort Lawton site is located in the Magnolia neighborhood in
northwest Seattle. The site is bordered by W Lawton Street to the north, 36 th Avenue W to
the east, W Government Way to the south and Discovery Park to the west. The site is in
Sections 10 and 15, Township 25 North, Range 3 East. W.M. The street address is: 4570
Texas Way (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2).
Talaris Site
The approximately 18-acre Talaris site is located in the Laurelhurst neighborhood in
northeast Seattle. The site is bordered by existing commercial, institutional and residential
uses along NE 45th Street to the north, residential uses along 42nd Avenue NE to the east, NE
41st Street to the south and the unimproved 38th Avenue NE right of way to the west. The
site is in Section 15, Township 25 North, Range 4 East, W.M. The street address is: 4000 NE
41st Street (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-3).
2.5 SITE HISTORY
The following provides brief histories of the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites.
General Site History
Fort Lawton Site

In 1897, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and local citizens donated 703 acres of
Magnolia Bluff to the U.S. Army for use as a base to defend Seattle and Puget Sound. Fort
Lawton was in active military use as a staging center and prisoner of war camp through
World Wars I and II, the Korean War and into the Vietnam War. At the height of base
activities during World War II, the Fort included 450 buildings and housed 20,000 soldiers.
In 1968, the Army decided to transfer much of the base site to the City of Seattle, which
subsequently became Discovery Park, the City’s largest park (534 acres). After the land was
transferred to the City, a 20-acre portion of the site was turned over to Native Americans to
create the Daybreak Star Cultural Center. An area of approximately 46 acres was retained
by the U.S. Army and used as a Reserve Center. In 2000, the Army built the Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Complex (FLARC) building at the Reserve Center, which was transferred to
the Veterans Administration (VA) in 2011. The Federal Government plans to retain the
portion of the Army Reserve Center site that contains FLARC, together with supporting
parking and the military cemetery. The remaining approximately 34 acres of the Army
Reserve Center, and the subject of this EIS, is currently closed and vacant and is in caretaker
status by the Army.
Talaris Site
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Talaris site was developed as the Battelle Memorial Institute.
The Battelle campus was used for educational seminars, conferences and workshops and as
an advanced study center. In 1997, Battelle sold the property to ERA Communities of
Laurelhurst, and in 2000, ERA Communities sold the property to 4000 Property, LLC. The
property was leased to the Talaris Research Institute which used the facilities to study early
childhood development. In 2012, Talaris Research was sold to a Maryland-based company.
The property is currently used as a conference center, known as the Talaris Conference
Center. In 2013, the buildings and landscaping at the Talaris site were designated as an
historic landmark by City of Seattle.
(See Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, and Section 3.9, Historic and
Cultural Resources, for details on the sites’ histories.)
2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Below is a summary of existing site topography, vegetation, land uses, vehicular/pedestrian

access and utilities; as well as Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning classifications at
the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites. More detailed information on existing site conditions is
provided in Chapter 3.
Existing Natural Environment
Fort Lawton Site

The Fort Lawton site is located on Magnolia Bluff. The site generally slopes downward in a
series of terraces from higher elevations at the southwest corner to lower elevations to the
north and northeast. Steep slopes are present along the north and east edges of the site
(see Figure 2-4, Existing Fort Lawton Site Conditions).
The site has two large areas of unmaintained natural vegetation: one along the north bluff
and the other in the south portion of the site, adjacent to the Fort Lawton
Cemetery. Other areas of the site contain grass and ornamental plants. Shilshole Bay is
located about 400 feet to the north of the site. No water resources are known to be located
onsite.
Table 2-1 presents a breakdown of the existing site conditions at the Fort Lawton site. As
shown in Table 2-1, 18.5 acres (55% of the site) is currently in built area/impervious
surfaces and 15.5 acres (45% of the site) is in open space areas/pervious surfaces.
Table 2-1
EXISTING BUILT AND OPEN SPACE AREA - FORT LAWTON SITE
Existing Conditions (Ac.)

Built Area (Impervious Area)
Buildings/Structure Footprints 2.3
Roadways/Sidewalks1 5.0
Surface Parking 11.2
Subtotal 18.5
Open Space Area (Pervious Area)
Landscaped Areas 5.9
Passive Open Space Areas2 9.6
Active Open Space Areas 0
Subtotal 15.5
TOTAL 33.9
Source: Seattle Office of Housing, 2017.
1 Includes paved area along the Texas Way and 36th Avenue W rights of way.
2 Passive open space areas under existing conditions includes natural wooded areas.
Note: any discrepancies in the table are due to rounding.

North
Source: City of Seattle, 2017. Figure 2-4

Existing Fort Lawton Site Conditions
Existing Built Environment
Fort Lawton Site

The Fort Lawton site presently contains six buildings, roadways, parking areas and sidewalks
(see Figure 2-4). The buildings include:
• Harvey Hall - Building 216 • Maintenance - Building 211
• Leisy Hall - Building 220 • Maintenance - Building 214
• Area Maintenance Support Activity • Organizational Maintenance
(AMSA) - Building 222 Shop (OMS) - Building 245
Most of the buildings were built for storage, maintenance or vehicle repair purposes.
Harvey Hall – Building 216 and Leisy Hall – Building 220 contained administrative and
training facilities. An incinerator stack is also present onsite. None of these structures are
currently in use.
Talaris Site
The Talaris site presently contains nine buildings, together with roadways, parking areas
and trails (see Figure 2-5). The buildings include:
• Apartment Building A • Lodge Building E
• Apartment Building B • Dining Building F
• Apartment Building C • Office Building G
• Seminar Building D • Two other minor structures
These buildings are currently used as a conference center.
Existing Site Access and Circulation
Fort Lawton Site

Vehicular access through the Fort Lawton site is presently provided by Texas Way, a street
that generally passes north-south through the site. The primary access point to the site is
from the south via the intersection of Texas Way and W Government Way. Secondary
access is available from the north via the intersection of Texas Way and 40th Avenue W.
There are several former vehicular access points to the site from 36th Avenue W; however,
these access locations are currently closed. Non-vehicular access within and
around the site is challenged by grades, intermittent sidewalks and the fence along the site
boundary.
Talaris Site
Vehicular access through the Talaris site is presently provided by private roadways. Access
to the site is from the south via two access points off NE 41st Street; an existing connection
from the west via 38th Avenue NE is currently closed and gated. Sidewalks onsite provide
opportunities for non-vehicular access; however, fencing that has been installed around the
site inhibits access by the public.

NE 45th St.
Union Bay
Note: This figure is not to scale Project Site North
Source: Google Earth and EA Engineering, 2017. Figure 2-5

Existing Talaris Site Conditions
(See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details.)
Existing Utilities
Fort Lawton Site
Water
Existing water service to the site is provided by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). The site is
currently served by a looped underground system of water mains. These water mains enter
the area at the intersection of 36th Avenue W and W Government Way. The mains supply
potable water as well as fire flow. There are ten fire hydrants located throughout the site.
Sewer
Existing sewer service to the site is provided by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). Wastewater
from the site is carried north by an 8-inch sewer line that connects to a major trunk line for
stormwater and wastewater in Commodore Way. Wastewater is conveyed to King County’s
West Point Sewage Treatment Plant, immediately west of Discovery Park, where it is
treated. In addition, the King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) manages a 144-
inch diameter sewer tunnel located approximately 140 feet beneath the south end of the
Fort Lawton site, starting where 36th Avenue W meets W Fort Street and continuing west
under the site.
Stormwater
Stormwater from the site is collected by roadside swales and parking lot catch basins that
drain into the City of Seattle’s combined stormwater and wastewater trunk line in
Commodore Way. Collected stormwater is conveyed to the West Point Wastewater
Treatment Plant. There is currently no on-site stormwater flow control or water quality
treatment.
Energy
Electrical power is presently provided to the site by Seattle City Light. The electrical system
was installed in 1999 and consists of a 26kV primary underground system with three pulling
vaults and four transformer vaults. Electrical service is provided by a Seattle City Light
substation located on the east side of 36th Avenue W and associated underground
transmission lines.
Natural gas service to the site is provided by Puget Sound Energy (PSE). A natural gas main is
located along 36th Avenue W.
Solid Waste
Solid waste service to the site is provided by a licensed private contractor and disposed of in
a permitted landfill. The U.S. Army Reserve, through a King County mandate, has a recycling
program in place that collects plastic, newspaper, aluminum and glass, and sells them to
Emerald Recycling services.

Talaris Site
Existing utilities on/available to the Talaris site include water (SPU), sewer (SPU), electricity
(Seattle City Light), natural gas (PSE) and solid waste (SPU). Stormwater conveyance is
provided onsite; however, no flow control or water quality treatment exist.
(See Section 3.12, Utilities, for details.)
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations
Fort Lawton Site

The Fort Lawton site is designated as a Multi-Family Residential Area in the Seattle 2035
Comprehensive Plan.4 Multi-Family Residential Areas are intended to allow a variety of
housing types and densities that are suitable for a broad array of households and income
levels and that promote walking and transit use near employment concentrations,
residential services and amenities. The site is zoned Single-Family 7200 (SF 7200). This zone
provides for single-family housing at one dwelling unit per lot, with a minimum lot size of
7,200 sq. ft. While single-family residential uses are the primary uses allowed in this zone,
other uses allowed outright by the Seattle Municipal Code include nursing homes and adult
daycares.
Talaris Site
The Talaris site is designated as a Single-Family Residential Area in the Seattle 2035
Comprehensive Plan. Single-Family Residential Areas are intended to provide opportunities
for detached single-family and other compatible housing options that have low height, bulk
and scale in order to serve a broad array of households and incomes and to maintain an
intensity of development that is appropriate for areas with limited access to services,
infrastructure constraints, fragile environmental conditions or that are otherwise not
conducive to more intensive development. The site is zoned Single-Family 5000 (SF 5000).
This zoning classification provides for single-family housing at one dwelling unit per lot, with
a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft.
(See Section 3.6, Land Use, for details.)
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

Objectives of the Proposal
SEPA requires that an EIS include a description of the applicant’s objectives for a proposal
(WAC 197-11-440(5) and SMC 25.05.440). The following are the applicant’s (Office of
Housing’s) primary objectives for the Fort Lawton proposal.
4
Seattle, 2016

• Redevelop an approximately 34-acre former U.S. Army Reserve Center site into an
affordable, livable community that meets Seattle’s increasing need for affordable
housing, and open space and recreation areas.
• Affirmatively further fair housing by providing quality, affordable housing choices for
low-income people, particularly in areas with few affordable housing options.
• Provide a mix of safe, quality and affordable housing options for people with low to
no incomes, including:
1. Approximately 85 units of permanent supportive housing for homeless
seniors, including veterans;
2. Approximately 75 to 100 units of affordable rental apartments for low-
income households earning up to 60% of area median income, including
families with children; and
3. Approximately 50 units of affordable homeownership opportunities for
families earning up to 80% of the area median income.
• Partner with community organizations and public agencies to support low-income
households to thrive.
• Preserve existing natural areas and support wildlife habitat.
• Provide new public park amenities that serve the needs of current and future
neighborhood residents, as well as the broader community.
• Help meet the high public demand for active recreation space.
• Reduce existing public maintenance costs at Discovery Park.
• Work cooperatively with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to
adopt necessary land use approvals, including rezoning a portion of the property to
lowrise zoning.
• Ensure that the redevelopment is financially feasible and sustainable.
• Utilize this unique opportunity to leverage public property for community benefit.
• Facilitate an efficient redevelopment process to enable completion of urgently
needed affordable housing as quickly as possible.
Purpose and Need for the Proposal
At this point, no federal actions or federal funding have been identified for the proposed
Fort Lawton Project, and environmental review is being conducted under SEPA. However, it
is possible that federal funding could be available in the future and NEPA environmental
review could be required. In anticipation of such federal funding, some discussions relative
to NEPA are provided in this EIS.
NEPA requires that environmental review documentation include a description of the

purpose and need for a proposal (Council of Environmental Quality NEPA Implementing
Regulations, Section 1502.13). The 2012 NEPA EA prepared for the Fort Lawton Army
Reserve Center described the U.S. Army’s purpose and need for closure, disposal and reuse
of the property. The City of Seattle is now advancing a redevelopment proposal for the Fort
Lawton site. In anticipation of possible federal funding, Office of Housing has identified the
following purpose and need for the project.

Purpose
The purpose of this project is to create an affordable, livable community with safe, high
quality housing options for those with low or no incomes, and to meet the growing demand
for open space and recreational opportunities.
Need
The shortage of affordable housing in Seattle is a longstanding problem that has intensified
in recent years as the city has experienced dramatic increases in housing prices from rapid
economic growth. While the impacts of rising housing costs are felt broadly, those with the
lowest incomes experience these effects most severely. It is estimated that over 42,000
low-income households in Seattle pay more than half their income toward housing costs,
leaving few resources for other necessities such as food, medical care, transportation or
child care.5 A severe housing cost burden puts low-income households at increased risk of
becoming homeless or being displaced from their community.
The number of families and individuals living unsheltered or without a permanent home has
also been on the rise. In 2016, Seattle Public Schools served 2,944 homeless students, while
the number of people living on the streets in King County rose 19% to 4,505, of which 2,942
were counted in Seattle (2016 One Night Count Annual Report). In 2017, a new point in
time count identified 5,485 people living without shelter and another 6,158 people living in
shelters or transitional housing in King County. Over 70% of the homeless population was
counted in Seattle.
Housing affordability has a clear nexus with racial and social inequity in Seattle. According
to the 2017 City of Seattle Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), Black households experience
the highest rates of severe housing problems such as severe cost burden and overcrowding
(35%), followed by Hispanic/Latino and Asian households, while White households are least
likely to experience housing problems. These inequities are also evident in persistent
disparities in access to homeownership, which has had compounding impacts on disparities
in wealth building.
In recent years, rapidly increasing home prices, has put the opportunity for buying a first
home out of reach for almost all moderate-income households. The median home value in
Seattle is now $690,300,6 an increase of 15.5% over the past year. Zillow predicts that home
prices will rise an additional 5.1% in the next 12 months. Providing affordable
homeownership opportunities addresses historical inequities by allowing families,
historically denied access to ownership to build wealth. In addition to building financial
wealth, homeownership allows families more stability and opportunity to gain in other
facets of their lives, whether it is better managing health issues, children doing better in
school or having the credit to start one’s own business. Presenting the opportunity to own a
5
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, CHAS, 2010-2014 5-year American Community Survey.
6
Zillow Home Value Index (as of August 2017).

home near amenities such as are present in Magnolia has shown to benefit families and
communities.
Patterns of racial segregation rooted in Seattle’s history of racially restrictive covenants also
persist. According to Seattle’s 2017 AFH, 69% of the lowest poverty exposure census tracts
also have a history of creating and enforcing racially restrictive covenants prohibiting one or
more groups of people based on race, ethnicity or national origin from settling in that area
compared with 33% of the highest poverty exposure tracts. Magnolia and Laurelhurst are
among the neighborhoods that utilized restrictive covenants in the past and have remained
relatively exclusive neighborhoods with little to no access to affordable housing choices for
those with low incomes.
In addition to the critical need for affordable housing, the growing population in Seattle has
placed extraordinary demand on the public park system and has over-burdened the limited
active recreation resources available through SPR.
Between 2010 and 2016, Seattle’s population increased by 78,140 individuals. Puget Sound
Regional Council has projected that an additional 120,000 will move to Seattle by 2035, with
most growth occurring in the city’s urban centers and villages. To meet the increased
demand for park space and meet the City’s adopted Level of Service (LOS) of eight acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents, SPR needs to acquire approximately 40 acres of parkland by
2035.
Proposed Actions
To implement the applicant’s objectives for the site and satisfy the purpose and need for
the project, the Proposed Actions for the Fort Lawton Project include:
LR2 (M1) zoning classification;
• Authorization to accept conveyance of the site from the Army and convey portions
of the site for housing development, and execute easements;
• Approval of funding for acquisition and development; and
As discussed later in this chapter, not all the alternatives would require the same set of
actions. For example, Alternative 2 would not require rezone of a portion of the Fort Lawton
site to LR2 (M1) zoning classification or public property conveyances, but it would require
that the City Council approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use
Map and a rezone to LR2 (M1) zoning classification for the Talaris site. The environmental
impacts of the Proposed Actions are evaluated in the context of each alternative.

Redevelopment Concept
As indicated in the “Applicant’s Objectives,” the intent of the Fort Lawton Project is to
“Redevelop the approximately 34-acre former Fort Lawton U.S. Army Reserve Center site
into an affordable, livable community that meets Seattle’s increasing need for affordable
housing, and open space and recreation areas.”
The Fort Lawton Project is intended to be a well-designed community that would be

compatible with the surrounding Magnolia neighborhood and Discovery Park. For the most
part, building development is not intended to be visible, directly interface with or connect
to these areas. Specifically, the project would locate the densest building development in
the central portion of the Fort Lawton site, away from site boundaries and nearby single-
family residential development. The project would preserve existing forested areas in the
north and south portions of the site, and would maintain the existing vegetation along the
eastern edge of the site that serves as a buffer between the site and the adjacent
neighborhood. A minimal number of vehicular and pedestrian access points would be
provided (one vehicular access point to the north and one to the south) to reduce the
project’s interface with the surrounding area.
2.7.1 Description of EIS Redevelopment Alternatives
To conduct a comprehensive environmental review, a range of redevelopment alternatives

are included in this FEIS to fulfill the applicant’s objectives and purpose and need for the
project, as well as provide a useful tool for the decision-making process. The EIS alternatives
create an envelope of potential redevelopment for the analysis of environmental impacts
under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. These alternatives are intended to represent a reasonable
range of land uses and densities to address the applicant’s development objectives for the
site, the existing regulatory framework and economic factors. As the environmental review
and land use approval process associated with the project proceeds, the Proposed Action
chosen by the decision-makers may include components of some or all of the three
alternatives. However, it is assumed that the scope of the Proposed Action that is ultimately
approved will be within the range of assumptions and impacts tested in this FEIS.
Table 2-2 summarizes and compares the built and open space areas, and Table 2-3 the
proposed redevelopment under the EIS alternatives.
Redevelopment is analyzed for the year 2025 which, for SEPA purposes, is assumed to
represent full buildout of the project. The actual buildout period could vary depending on
specific economic and market conditions. Likewise, during future permitting, the number
and type of dwelling units and/or the specific number and type of park facilities could vary
and be approved so long as the impacts are within the overall project envelope analyzed in
this EIS. Consequently, the summary of proposed development for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in
Table 2-3 is representative of the potential development; actual development may vary.

Under Alternative 1, proposed development would feature a mix of affordable housing on

housing. A portion of the site would be rezoned to LR2 (M1) zoning. Public park uses would
also be created, including active park facilities, preserved existing natural areas and
conversion of an existing structure to a park maintenance facility. Proposed development is
described further below and summarized in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.
As shown in Table 2-2 and illustrated in Figure 2-6A and 2-6B, Fort Lawton Site Plan –
Alternative 1, approximately 13.2 acres (39% of Fort Lawton site) would be in
built/impervious surface areas and 20.7 acres (61% of the site) would be in open
space/pervious surface areas under Alternative 1. A total of approximately 202,291 sq. ft. of
residential uses (238 units), 21.6 acres of parks and recreation facilities and 266 parking
spaces would be provided on the Fort Lawton site. Alternative 1 is anticipated to
accommodate approximately 596 new residents.7
Table 2-2
BUILT AND OPEN SPACE AREA ON THE FORT LAWTON SITE –
EIS ALTERNATIVES
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
(Ac.) (Ac.) (Ac.) (Ac.)
Built Area (Impervious Area)
Buildings/Structure Footprints 2.2 7.1 0.2 2.3
Roadways/Sidewalks1 6.6 6.9 5.0 5.0
Surface Parking 4.4 0.0 4.2 11.2
Private Drive Paths 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 13.2 15.3 9.4 18.5
Open Space Area (Pervious Area)
Landscaped Areas 2.6 12.7 0.0 5.9
Passive Open Space Areas2 13.0 0.0 17.0 9.6
Active Open Space Areas3 5.1 0.0 7.6 0.0
Undesignated Buffer Space 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0
Subtotal 20.7 18.6 24.6 15.5
TOTAL 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9
1 Includes paved area along the Texas Way and 36th Avenue W rights of way.
2 Passive open space areas under Alternatives 1 and 3 includes natural wooded areas and passive parks. Passive open space
areas under Alternative 2 include natural wooded areas.

3 Active open space areas under Alternatives 1 and 3 include multi-purpose fields.
Note: any discrepancies in the table are due to rounding.
7
Population estimates are based on comparable projects and are calculated as follow:
• Senior Supportive housing – 85 residents (1.0 resident per unit) and 1 manager (1.0 manager per manager
unit);
• Affordable rental – 250 residents (2.5 residents per unit); and
• Affordable ownership – 310 residents (5.0 residents per unit).

Table 2-3
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT – EIS ALTERNATIVES
ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3 ALT. 4

F.L. SITE T. SITE F.L. SITE T. SITE F.L. SITE T. SITE F.L SITE T. SITE
HOUSING
Number of Housing Units 238 0 113 2382 0 2382 0 0
Area of Housing (SF) 202,291 0 316,400 256,551 0 256,551 0 0
PARKS & RECREATION
Number of Sports Fields 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
Area of Parks & Recreation (Ac)1 21.6 0 0 0 29.0 0 0 0
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Area of Community Facilities (SF) 0 0 0 30,621 0 30,621 0 0
PARKING
Number of Parking Spaces 266 0 254 295 90 295 0 0
Area of Surface Parking (Ac) 4.4 0 0 3.3 4.2 3.3 0 0
F.L. = Fort Lawton, T. = Talaris
1 Includes active and passive parks, SPR maintenance facility and area dedicated to Discovery Park.
2 For purposes of conservative analysis in this EIS, the same number of affordable and formerly homeless housing units are
assumed on the Talaris site under Alternatives 2 and 3 as on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1.
Conveyance/Sale of Property
Development of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would require public property
conveyances by the U.S. Army to the City of Seattle per the BRAC process. Conveyances
would include acquisitions and subsequent sale of parcels designated for housing
development and the execution of necessary easement agreements.
Zoning Reclassification
The proposal would require that a portion of the site be rezoned from the existing SF 7200
zoning to LR2 (M1) zoning classification. For the rezone, a rezone proposal would need to be
prepared, review of the proposal conducted and City Council approval granted (see Section
3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, for details).
Phasing Plan
The proposal would be approved and constructed over an estimated seven years.
Construction of the project would begin after property conveyance, zoning reclassification
and other approvals, likely in 2020. For analysis purposes in this EIS, buildout of the project
is estimated to occur in 2025. Actual buildout would depend on specific economic and
market conditions. (See Table 2-4 for details.)
Demolition and Grading

Under Alternative 1, all the buildings on the Fort Lawton site, except OMS - Building 245,
would be demolished and removed. OMS Building 245 would be preserved as a
maintenance facility for SPR. Site grading for the residential and parks and recreation uses
and associated infrastructure at the Fort Lawton site would occur during initial site
preparation and during all subsequent phases of site redevelopment. As much as possible,

North
Note: This figure is not to scale
Source: SMR Architects, 2017. Figure 2-6A
Fort Lawton Site Plan—Alternative 1
North
Source: SMR Architects, 2017. Figure 2-6B
buildings, fields and infrastructure would be designed to conform to the existing site
topography and minimal grading would occur.
Table 2-4
PHASING SCHEDULE – ALTERNATIVE 1
Year Activity
Year 1 (2018) Property conveyance and zoning reclassification approval

Year 2 (2019) Permit intake, design development
Year 3 (2020) MUP/building permit approval, begin demolition, grading and construction of infrastructure
Year 4 (2021) Complete infrastructure, begin construction of affordable rental housing and phase 1 of
affordable for-sale housing
Year 5 (2022) Complete affordable rental housing, begin phase 2 of affordable for-sale housing
Year 6 (2023) Complete phase 2 of affordable for-sale housing, begin phase 3 of affordable for-sale housing,
begin development of active park facility
Year 7 (2024) Complete phase 3 of affordable for-sale housing, complete active park facility
Proposed Development
Housing
Alternative 1 would include approximately 238 housing units on the Fort Lawton site. A mix
of affordable housing would be provided, including:
• Senior Supportive Housing – Subsidized rental housing for senior citizens (55 years
of age and older), including veterans, who were formerly homeless and have income
at or below 30% of the area median income (AMI);8
• Affordable Homeownership – Housing available for sale to households with an
income at or below 80% of the AMI; and
• Affordable Rental – Housing available for rent to households with an income at or
below 60% of the AMI.
Table 2-5 provides a breakdown of the housing units and Table 2-6 provides the area of
housing by housing type under Alternative 1.
8
Per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s FY 2017 Income Limits Documentation
System, the 2017 AMI for a family of four in the Seattle-Bellevue area is $96,000.

Table 2-5
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS – ALTERNATIVE 1
ALT. 1
F.L. SITE T. SITE
Senior Supportive Apts. (Formerly Homeless Rental) 861 0
Affordable Rental 100 0
Affordable Ownership (Townhouses) 40 0
Affordable Ownership (Rowhouses) 12 0
TOTAL 238 0
1. Includes 85 senior units and one manager unit
Table 2-6
AREA OF HOUSING – ALTERNATIVE 1
ALT. 1
F.L. SITE T. SITE
Senior Supportive Apts. (Formerly Homeless Rental) 89,625 0
Affordable Rental (Rowhouses) 51,940 0
Affordable Ownership (Townhouses) 41,060 0
Affordable Ownership (Rowhouses) 19,666 0
TOTAL 202,291 0
Open Space and Recreation Areas

Under Alternative 1, a large portion of the Fort Lawton site (61%) would be in open space,
including: passive open space, active open space and landscaped areas (see Table 2-2).
These areas would be available for use by project residents as well as the public.
Passive Open Space Areas
A total of 13.0 acres of the site would be provided for passive recreation activities such as
picnicking and viewing (see Table 2-2). Existing wooded areas in the north and south parts
of the site would be preserved in their natural condition. A large passive park would be
provided in the north part of the site and a small passive park would be created in the
central site area, amongst the townhouses and row houses. The smaller park could include
a children’s play area(s). Up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the west
portion of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park. All park facilities would be
designed and constructed to SPR standards, and would be owned and maintained by SPR.
Active Open Space Areas
A total of 5.1 acres of the site would be developed for active recreation activities (see Table
2-2). Counting associated parking and site improvements, the total area devoted to active
recreation would be approximately six acres. Two unlit, multi-purpose fields would be
provided in the central portion of the site, to the south of the housing and parking. These

fields could be configured in a variety of orientations for different uses, including for both
structured and unstructured athletics and community functions. It is anticipated that some
league play would occur on these fields. The fields would require electricity to maintain the
fields. All fields would be designed and constructed per SPR standards, and would be owned
and maintained by SPR.
Ownership of Active Open Space Areas
The City has begun discussion with Seattle Public Schools (SPS) regarding their interest in
owning and maintaining land dedicated to active recreation under Alternative 1. Such uses
could help meet SPS’s recreational needs, as well as serving the broader public. As with
other shared facilities in Seattle, these would likely be the subject of a Joint Use of Facilities
Agreement with SPR.
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks and trails would be located throughout the site to provide opportunities for non-
motorized circulation. Texas Way would be improved to add a sidewalk or walkway on the
east site of the street adjacent to new development areas. In addition, the existing sidewalk
on the west side of the street would be maintained.Trails would be provided between the
rowhousing in the central portion of the site and potentially in other portions of the site as
well. No direct sidewalk/trail connections are assumed to the Magnolia neighborhood to
the east or Discovery Park to the west (see Figure 2-7, Fort Lawton Circulation Plan –
Alternative 1, and Figure 2-8 – Fort Lawton Typical Road Sections – Alternative 1).
Maintenance Building
Existing OMS - Building 245 and the associated surface parking area and driveways in the
north part of the Fort Lawton site would be retained under Alternative 1. These facilities
would be used for parks maintenance purposes by SPR. No new infrastructure would be
required for the building. Controlled access to the maintenance building parking area would
be available from a driveway off of Texas Way.
Landscaping
Landscaping on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would blend with the existing
natural vegetation in Discovery Park and the landscaping in the Magnolia neighborhood,
and would meet applicable City of Seattle landscape regulations. The landscape concept for
the parks and recreation component of the project would feature preserving wooded areas
(e.g., in the north and south portions of the site), retaining passive use lawn areas and
developing active playfields. The project would maintain and, if necessary, enhance the
existing vegetation along the east edge of the site that serves as a buffer between the site
and the Magnolia neighborhood. Exceptional trees in development areas onsite would be
retained where possible. If any exceptional trees need to be removed, City of Seattle’s
mitigation requirements would be met (per SMC Chapter 25.11). Landscaping would
incorporate native, noninvasive and drought-resistant plantings.


Fort Lawton Circulation Plan—Alternative 1

Fort Lawton Typical Road Sections—Alternative 1
Access/Parking/Transit
Access
Under Alternative 1, the primary access point to the site would continue to be from the
south via the intersection of Texas Way and W Government Way. Access would also
continue to be available from the north via the intersection of Texas Way and 40 th Avenue
W (see Figure 2-7).
Texas Way would be maintained in its current configuration and continue to serve as the
main access route through the site. This street would be improved to include:
• Two 10-foot wide travel lanes;
• 8-foot wide parking lanes (on both sides of roadway);
• 6-foot wide planting strips (on both sides of the roadway, adjacent to development
areas); and
• 6-foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of roadway, adjacent to development areas).
Other new residential streets would be developed onsite to serve development. These
streets would include:
• Two 12-foot wide travel lanes;
• 4-foot wide shoulders (on both sides of roadway);
• 6-foot wide planting strips (on both sides of roadway); and
• 6-foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of roadway).
(See Figure 2-8.)
Parking
A total of 266 parking spaces would be provided on the Fort Lawton site for development
under Alternative 1. Of these, 206 spaces would be for the housing and 60 spaces for the
parks and sports fields (see Table 2-7 for a breakdown of the parking spaces by use under
Alternative 1). Most of the parking spaces would be located in paved surface parking lots
(226 spaces); parking for the townhouses would be located within the buildings (40 spaces).
Parking under Alternative 1 would meet the requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code
(SMC 23.54.015).

Table 2-7
PARKING SPACES BREAKDOWN – ALTERNATIVE 1
Alt. 1
F.L. Site T. Site
HOUSING
Senior Supportive Apts. (Formerly Homeless) 18 0
Affordable Rental Apts. (Affordable Rental) 112 0
Townhouses (Affordable for Sale) 40 0
Rowhouses (Affordable for Sale) 12 0
New On-Street Parking 24 0
Subtotal 206 0
PARKS & RECREATION
Parks/Sports Fields 60 0
TOTAL 266 0
Transit
King County Metro transit bus stops would be provided at two locations along Texas Way
onsite: on either side of the roadway adjacent to the large shared parking area (see Figure
2-7).
Utilities
Alternative 1 would require new water, sewer, stormwater, electrical and solid waste
service for development. SPU would continue to provide water and sewer service, Seattle
City Light electrical service, PSE natural gas service and a licensed private contractor solid
waste service to the site. Necessary utility extensions would be made to serve development.
A temporary stormwater control system would be installed for construction and a
permanent stormwater control system for operation of the project, per City of Seattle
standards (see Section 3.12, Utilities, for details).
Project Design
A cohesive design concept would be generated for the development under Alternative 1
that would meet overall citywide design guidelines and City design review requirements.
Housing
The housing would feature four building types, as described below.
Senior Supportive Housing
The senior supportive housing would consist of one three-story, u-shaped building located
in the west central portion of the site, to the west of Texas Way (see Figure 2-6B). The
building would be developed by Catholic Housing Services and would feature:
• Maximum building height: up to 40 ft.;
• Density: 177 units allowed/85 units provided (plus one manager unit);
• Bedrooms: two floors of studio units over a base level of supportive services; and

• Open Space: courtyard to the west of the building.
Affordable Rental Housing
Affordable rental apartments would be provided in four, three-story rowhouse blocks

located in the central portion of the site (see Figure 2-6B). The buildings would also be
developed by Catholic Housing Services and would feature:
• Maximum building height: 30 ft. + 10 ft. (pitched roof allowance);
• Density: 31 units allowed/28 units provided;
• Bedrooms: One-, two- and three-bedroom units; and
• Open Space: courtyard surrounded by rowhouses.
Affordable Homeownership Rowhouses
Rowhouses would be provided in two, three-story six plex buildings in the central portion of
the site (see Figure 2-6B). The buildings would be developed by Habitat for Humanity and
would feature:
• Density per site: no limit/6 units per site provided; and
• Bedrooms: three-bedroom units.
Affordable Homeownership Townhouses
Townhouses would be provided in 20, three-story duplex buildings located in the central
and east portions of the site (see Figure 2-6B). The buildings would be also be developed by
Habitat for Humanity and would feature:
• Density: 2 units per site allowed/2 units per site provided; and
• Bedrooms: three-bedroom units.
(See Figure 2-9, Massing Diagrams.)
Exterior building materials for all the new buildings could include: fiber cement panel and
lap siding, as well as wood framing and trim. Design inspiration for the project would be
taken from the Officer Row housing that historically occupied the site.
Parks
The active and passive park areas would meet SPR standards for park development. The
parks would be designed in more detail in the future through a planning and public
outreach process, and would be constructed when funding is available.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TOWNHOMES CATHOLIC HOUSING SERVICES APARTMENT BUILDING/ROWHOUSES
CATHOLIC HOUSING SERVICES SUPPORTIVE

SENIOR HOUSING APARTMENTS

Massing Diagrams
Supportive Services, Facilities and Resident Associations
Under Alterative 1, supportive services would be provided for the formerly homeless senior
residents, and community facilities and organization would be provided for the residents of
the affordable rental and ownership housing on the Fort Lawton site as described below.
Senior Supportive Housing

The senior supportive housing would have a comprehensive package of services focused on
residential stability. First, case management services would be provided onsite by Catholic
Community Services of Western Washington (CHS’ sister organization). These Housing Case
Managers would meet with residents to identify their supportive service needs, provide
case management services, crisis intervention, eviction prevention, advocacy and linkages
to community resources, and encourage participation in meaningful activities. Residents
would be assisted in obtaining and maintaining financial disability benefits such as
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and VA
benefits, and would be assisted with obtaining Medicaid, Medicare and other medical
benefits. Case managers would also leverage outside behavioral health services, including
chemical dependency treatment and/or mental health services, and bring providers onsite
whenever possible. Residents needing additional help with personal care and unit up-keep
would be referred for chore service. Health care would be a primary need of residents at
the Fort Lawton Homeless Senior Housing. Residents would be referred, transported and
accompanied when necessary to community health clinics. Primary care physicians and/or
visiting nurses may use a private room available in the building to serve residents. This
approach would encourage residents to develop a plan of action to address their physical
and mental health care needs. The goal of services is for residents to obtain and maintain
financial and medical benefits, decrease the use of emergency medical services, establish a
relationship with a primary health care provider and increase a resident’s ability to abide by
lease requirements despite a disabling condition.
In addition to case management services, all residents would have access 24 hours a day to
residential counselors. Residential Counselors would actively engage residents in on-site
recreational and social activities which could include creating opportunities for resident
involvement in internal and external neighborhood volunteer activities. Residents would be
assisted in the formation of interest groups or therapeutic support groups which may be
facilitated when appropriate. Residential Counselors would collaborate with property
management, case managers and other outside service providers to ensure coordination of
services to residents. Housing stability plans would be developed in collaboration with
residents, case managers and other staff, outlining goals and strategies to ensure housing
success. Contact would be maintained with case managers to resolve crises and monitor
progress as defined in the housing stability plan, and ensure the adequate provision of
identified services.

Affordable Rental Housing
A versatile community space for tenants would be an integral part of the design of the
affordable rental housing, as tenant enrichment and empowerment is vital to Office of
Housing’s vision for Fort Lawton. The community space would house a meeting room with a
small kitchenette and on-site management offices. The meeting space would be available
for the tenants to come together socially and to facilitate tenant-based empowerment
activities such as a resident’s council, home ownership classes, visiting medical services and
similar activities. Catholic Housing Services would encourage the establishment of a
resident’s council to solicit input from tenants and cultivate an active community. If
possible, a computer lab would also be housed in the community space, providing tenants
an opportunity to learn, or improve, the computer skills necessary to participate in our
technological world. Catholic Housing Services has a long history of coordinating support
services and connecting residents with community-based resources, and with office space
available in the community space they hope to bring those resources to the residents of
Fort Lawton affordable housing.
Affordable Ownership Housing

The affordable ownership housing would utilize a land trust model that involves a
community association comprised of the Habitat homeowners. This model typically includes
requirements for homeowners to participate in the governance of their own community by
serving on the board of the association. Community members would be involved in the
establishment and enforcement of the rules and regulations impacting their own homes
and their own community. The association would be required to have professional
management and the ground lease would provide for oversight by Habitat. This would
provide the support and guidance to the community members and insure the Association is
properly managed and property standards are maintained.
Sustainability
Under Alternative 1, sustainable design principles for the Fort Lawton Project would
include:
• optimize site potential;
• minimize non-renewable energy consumption;
• use environmentally preferable products;
• protect and conserve water;
• enhance indoor environmental quality; and
• optimize operational and maintenance practices.
Housing developed on the Fort Lawton site would adhere to the Evergreen Sustainable
Development Standards (ESDS). These standards include: maximizing density; providing:
access to open space, walkable neighborhoods, water conserving fixtures, reductions in
energy use and increased insulation; and use of low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
materials.

The project stormwater management system could include retention basins and rain
gardens. The landscape design would include native drought resistant plants to reduce
water usage.
Alternative 2 – Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable and Homeless

Housing Offsite
Under Alternative 2, development of market-rate single-family housing under current

zoning would occur on the Fort Lawton site, and construction of affordable and formerly
homeless housing would occur on the Talaris site.
As shown in Table 2-2, approximately 15.3 acres (45% of the Fort Lawton site) would be
covered in built/impervious surface areas and 18.6 acres (55% of the site) would be in open
space/pervious surface areas with proposed development under Alternative 2.
Approximately 50% of the Talaris site would be covered in built/impervious surfaces and
50% in open space/pervious surfaces.
Alternative 2 would include 316,400 sq. ft. of residential uses (113 units) and 254 parking
spaces on the Fort Lawton site, and approximately 256,551 sq. ft. of residential uses (up to
238 units), approximately 30,621 sq. ft. of community facilities and 295 parking spaces on
the Talaris site. The project would not provide any active or passive public parks. These
figures are rough estimates based on areas that would likely be targeted for development;
actual buildout would be further refined based on variables such as avoidance of steep
slope areas and potential clustering of homes (see Figure 2-10 – Fort Lawton Site Plan –
Alternative 2 and Figure 2-11 – Talaris Site Plan, Alternatives 2 and 3).
Alternative 2 is anticipated to accommodate a total of approximately 849 residents (263 on

the Fort Lawton site9 and 596 residents on the Talaris site)..
Under Alternative 2, no public property conveyances by the U.S. Army to the City of Seattle
per the BRAC process would occur. The property would be sold to a home
developer/builder to develop the Fort Lawton site as market-rate housing.
Development of the Talaris site as affordable and formerly homeless housing would require
purchase of the property by affordable housing developers.
9
Based on 2.33 residents per unit in the Magnolia neighborhood from the American Community Survey 2009-
2013, census tract aggregation.

Matches project
area in Fort
Lawton USARC
Environmental North
Assessment (2012)

Talaris Site Plan—Alternatives 2 and 3
The single-family detached housing under Alternative 2 would be an allowed use under the
Fort Lawton site’s SF 7200 zoning. A zoning reclassification of the Fort Lawton site would
not be required.
The Talaris property would require a rezone toLR2 (M1). A Comprehensive Plan amendment
would also be required to allow for a rezone to LR2 (M1) zoning.
Phasing Plan
Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would be developed in phases over the course of
approximately 7 years, with buildout assumed by 2025 (subject to market conditions).

All the existing buildings on the Fort Lawton site would be demolished and removed under
Alternative 2 to construct the market-rate housing. It is assumed that all the existing
buildings on the Talaris site would be retained and reused for the affordable and formerly
homeless housing and community facilities, and that new residential buildings would be
constructed as well.
As with Alternative 1, residential buildings and associated infrastructure would be designed

to conform to the existing site topography on the Fort Lawton site; minimal grading would
occur. Minimal grading is also anticipated for the residential uses and associated
infrastructure at the Talaris site.
Housing
Alternative 2 would include approximately 113 market-rate housing units on the Fort
Lawton site. The market-rate housing would be sold at the prevailing price. Given the
current housing prices in the Magnolia area, these homes would likely only be affordable to
upper income households. Like Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would provide a total of up to
238 affordable and formerly homeless housing units; however, this housing would be
located at the Talaris site. Table 2-5 provides a breakdown of the housing units under
Alternative 1; for purposes of analysis in this EIS these are assumed to be the same under
Alternative 2.
Parks and Recreation Areas

No public parks or recreation areas would be provided on the Fort Lawton site with
development under Alternative 2. Up to 35% of the individual lots on the site would likely
be covered in buildings, as allowed by the site’s SF 7200 zoning. The remaining 65% of the
lots would be in private yards for use by the individual homeowners.

Up to 4.7 acres of forested land in the west portion of the site that borders Discovery Park
could be: retained by the U.S. Army and used as open space for the FLARC VA offices;
purchased by the developer of the private homes and used as private open space for the
development; or purchased by the City for future public use.
Community Facilities
Alternative 2 would include community facilities in three of the existing buildings on the
Talaris site. These facilities would be available for use by residents of the project as well as
the public, and would include conference and dining areas.
Landscaping
Landscaping on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2 would be at the discretion of the
homebuilder(s) and homeowners.
The Talaris site landscaping has been designated as an historic landmark by City of Seattle.
Under Alternative 2, much of the existing landscaping would be retained with the
development of the affordable and formerly homeless houisng on this site. Any
modifications to the existing landscaping would adhere to the requirements of the site’s
historic landmark designation.
The treatment of any exceptional trees on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites would adhere to
the requirements in SMC Chapter 25.11.
Access/Parking/Transit
Access
Under Alternative 2, vehicular access through the Fort Lawton site would be provided via
Texas Way and other public streets. Texas Way would likely terminate in a cul-de-sac. The
primary access point to the site would continue to be from the south via the intersection at
W Government Way. Access would also be available from the north via a new intersection
off W Lawton Street and from the east via three new access points along 36th Avenue W.
The access at W Government Way would be shifted to the west, along the site property line
to accommodate proposed development under Alternative 2 and to provide additional
separation from the existing W Government Way/36th Avenue NE intersection.
Access to the Talaris site would continue as under existing conditions. Vehicular access
through the Talaris site would be provided by private roadways. Access to the site would be
available from the south via two access points off NE 41st Street and from the west via one
access point off 38th Avenue NE.
Parking
A total of approximately 254 parking spaces would be provided on the Fort Lawton site for
the market-rate housing under Alternative 2. These parking spaces would be located within
the buildings. A total of 295 parking spaces would be provided on the Talaris site, 206
spaces for the affordable and formerly homeless housing and 89 spaces for the community

facilities. Parking under Alternative 2 would meet the requirements in the Seattle Municipal
Code (SMC 23.54.015).
Transit
No transit facilities would be provided on either the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites under
Alternative 2.
Utilities
Alternative 2 would require water, sewer, stormwater, electrical and solid waste service for
housing uses at the Fort Lawton site and housing and community facilities at the Talaris site.
SPU would continue to provide water and sewer service, Seattle City Light electrical service,
PSE natural gas service and a licensed private contractor solid waste service to the sites.
Necessary utility extensions would be made to serve development at both sites. Temporary
stormwater control systems would be installed for construction and permanent stormwater
control systems for operation of the project, per City of Seattle standards (see Section 3.12,
Utilities, for details).
Project Design
All the housing on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2 would be single-family detached
homes. As allowed by the site’s SF 7200, the Alternative 2 buildings would be a maximum of
30 feet in height, except:
• If a lot is less than 30 feet wide, then building height would be a maximum of 25
feet; and
• For buildings with pitched roofs, the roof may extend up to 5 feet above the
maximum building height.
Market-rate homes would likely be designed to appeal to high income buyers purchasing
homes in the $1.5 million range. Based on comparable new developments, units would be 3
bedroom/3 bathroom or 4 bedroom/4 bathroom homes. Building footprints would likely
maximize the 7,200 sq. ft. lots.
Under Alternative 2, some of the affordable and formerly homeless housing on the Talaris
site would occupy existing, renovated buildings, while other of the housing would be in
newly constructed buildings. The community facilities would occupy existing, renovated
buildings on the Talaris site. All the existing building exteriors on the Talaris site have been
designated as an historic landmark by City of Seattle. As such, any modifications to the
existing buildings would adhere to the requirements of the buildings’ historic landmark
designation. The design of new housing on the Talaris site would be similar to the building
design under Alternative 1 and would blend with the existing historic architecture onsite.
Supportive Services, Community Facilities and Resident Associations

residents and community facilities and resident associations would be incorporated into the

affordable rental and ownership housing, like under Alternative 1. However, these would be
located at the Talaris site.
Sustainability
Under Alternative 2, the market-rate housing developed on the Fort Lawton site could
incorporate sustainable development features, at the discretion of the home
developer/builder(s). Housing would be required to adhere to the energy requirements in
the most current International Building Code (IBC).
The affordable and formerly homeless housing on the Talaris site would adhere to the
Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards (ESDS), and would include sustainable
stormwater control and landscape features like those under Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing

Offsite
As shown in Table 2-2, 9.3 acres (27% of the Fort Lawton site) would be covered in built
areas/impervious surface areas and 24.6 acres (73% of the site) would be covered with
open space/pervious surface areas under Alternative 3. Approximately 50% of the Talaris
site would be covered in built/impervious surfaces and 50% in open space/pervious
surfaces.
Alternative 3 would include approximately 29.0 acres of park and recreation uses and 90
parking spaces on the Fort Lawton site, and approximately 256,551 sq. ft. of residential uses
(up to 238 units), 30,621 sq. ft. of community facilities and 295 parking spaces on the Talaris
site (see Table 2-2, Figure 2-11, Talaris Site Plan – Alternatives 2 and 3, and Figure 2-12A
and Figure 2-12B, Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 3).
Alternative 3 is anticipated to accommodate approximately 596 residents on the Talaris site.
Under Alternative 3, the U.S. Army would implement a public conveyance of the Fort
Lawton property for parks and recreation uses.
Development of the Talaris site as affordable and formerly homeless housing would require
purchase of the property by affordable housing developers.

North
Source: SMR Architects, 2017. Figure 2-12A
North
Source: SMR Architects, 2017. Figure 2-12B
Park uses on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3 would be allowed by the site’s SF
7200 zoning. Alternative 3 would not require a zoning reclassification of the site.
The Talaris site would require a rezone to LR2 (M1). A Comprehensive Plan amendment
would also be required to allow for a rezone to LR2 (M1) zoning.
Phasing Plan
Like Alternative 1, parks and recreation uses on the Fort Lawton site and affordable and
formerly homeless housing on the Talaris site under Alternative 3 would be developed in
phases over the course of approximately 7 years. Buildout is assumed to occur by 2025
(subject to market conditions). At this point, SPR does not have the funding to
design and build the parks and recreation facilities on the Fort Lawton site. The property
would be banked until funding is secured in the future.

As with Alternative 1, all the existing buildings on the Fort Lawton site would be demolished
and removed except OMS - Building 245 under Alternative 3. OMS - Building 245 would be
preserved and used as a parks maintenance facility by SPR.
Site grading would occur during initial site preparation and during all subsequent phases of
site redevelopment. Like Alternative 1, park and recreations uses and associated
infrastructure on the Fort Lawton site would be designed to conform to the existing site
topography; minimal grading would occur. Minimal grading is also anticipated for the
residential uses and infrastructure at the Talaris site.
Housing
No housing would be developed on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3. A total of up to
238 affordable and formerly homeless housing units would be provided on the Talaris site,
like under Alternative 2. Table 2-5 provides a breakdown of the housing units under
Alternative 1; for purposes of analysis in this EIS these are assumed to be the same under
Alternative 3.
Parks and Recreation Areas

Under Alternative 3, most the Fort Lawton site (73%) would be in open space, including:
passive and active open space areas (see Table 2-2). These areas would be available for use
by the public.
Passive Open Space Areas
A total of 17.0 acres of the site would be provided for passive recreation activities. Existing
wooded areas in the north and south parts of the site would be preserved in their natural
condition. Passive parks would be provided in the north portion of the site. Like Alternative

1, up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site
would be incorporated into Discovery Park. All passive parks would be designed and
constructed to SPR standards, and would be owned and maintained by SPR.
Active Open Space Areas
A total of 7.6 acres of the site would be developed as active open space areas. Three unlit,
multi-purpose fields would be provided. It is anticipated that some league play would occur
on these fields. The fields would require electricity to maintain the fields. All fields would be
designed and constructed per SPR standards, and would be owned and maintained by SPR.
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks and trails would be located throughout the site to provide opportunities for non-
motorized circulation. Texas Way would be improved to add a sidewalk or walkway on the
east site of the street adjacent to new development areas. In addition, the existing sidewalk
on the west side of the street would be maintained. No direct sidewalk/trail connections
would be provided to the Magnolia neighborhood to the east or Discovery Park to the west.
Maintenance Building
The existing SPR maintenance building (OMS Building 245) and associated surface parking
area and driveway in the north part of the Fort Lawton site would be retained under
Alternative 1. These facilities would be used for parks maintenance purposes. No new
infrastructure would be required for the building. Controlled access to the maintenance
building parking area would be available from a driveway off of Texas Way.
Community Facilities
Alternative 3 would include community facilities in existing buildings on the Talaris site.
These facilities would be available for use by residents of the project as well as the public,
and would include conference and dining areas.
Landscaping
Under Alternative 3, the landscape concept for the parks and recreation component of the
project on the Fort Lawton site would feature preservation of wooded areas (e.g., in the
north and south portions of the site), retention of passive use lawn areas and development
of active playfields.
The Talaris site landscaping has been designated an historic landmark by City of Seattle.
Under Alternative 3, much of the landscaping would be retained with the development of
affordable and formerly homeless housing on this site. Any modifications to the existing
landscaping would adhere to the requirements of the site’s historic landmark designation.
The treatment of any exceptional trees on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites would adhere to
the requirements in SMC Chapter 25.11.

Access/Parking/Transit Facilities
Access
Under Alternative 3, the primary access point to the Fort Lawton site would continue to be
from the south via the intersection of Texas Way and W Government Way. Access would
also continue to be available from the north via the intersection of Texas Way and 40th
Avenue W (see Figure 2-11).
Parking
A total of 90 parking spaces would be provided on the Fort Lawton site for park and
recreation uses under Alternative 3. These parking spaces would be in paved surface
parking lots. A total of 295 parking spaces would be provided on the Talaris site, 206 spaces
for the affordable and formerly homeless housing and 89 spaces for the community
facilities. Parking under Alternative 3 would meet the requirements in the Seattle Municipal
Code (SMC 23.54.015).
Transit
Like Alternative 1, King County Metro transit bus stops would be provided at two locations
along Texas Way on the Fort Lawton site.
Utilities
Alternative 3 would require water, sewer, stormwater, electrical and solid waste service for
park and recreation uses at the Fort Lawton site and housing uses and community facilities
at the Talaris site. SPU would continue to provide water and sewer service, Seattle City Light
electrical service, PSE natural gas service and a licensed private contractor solid waste
service to the sites. Necessary utility extensions would be made to serve development at
both sites. Temporary stormwater control systems would be installed for construction and
permanent stormwater control systems for operation of the project, per City of Seattle
standards (see Section 3.12, Utilities, for details).
Project Design
Under Alternative 3, some of the affordable and formerly homeless housing on the Talaris
site would occupy existing, renovated buildings, while other of the housing would be in
newly constructed buildings. The community facilities would occupy existing, renovated
buildings on the Talaris site. All the existing building exteriors on the Talaris site have been
designated as an historic landmark by City of Seattle. As such, any modifications to the
existing buildings would adhere to the requirements of the buildings’ historic landmark
designation. The design of new housing on the Talaris site would be like the building design
under Alternative 1 on the Fort Lawton site and would blend with the existing historic
architecture onsite.
Supportive Services, Community Facilities and Resident Associations

residents and community facilities and resident associations would be incorporated into the

affordable rental and ownership housing, like under Alternative 1. However, these would be
located at the Talaris site.
Sustainability
Under Alternative 3, the affordable and formerly homeless housing on the Talaris site would
adhere to the Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards (ESDS), and would include
sustainable stormwater control and landscape features like Alternative 1.
2.8.1 Alternative 4 - No Action Alternative
continue to deteriorate.
The site could be conveyed to the City or conveyed or sold to another entity in the future,
and could be developed in accordance with the uses allowed by the site’s current SF 7200
zoning.
2.9 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF

DEFERRING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The benefits of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementing
redevelopment of the Fort Lawton Project include deferral of:
• Potential impacts of the redevelopment on the natural environment (e.g., critical
areas, air quality and noise on and adjacent to the site); and
• Potential impacts of the redevelopment on the man-made environment (i.e., traffic
operations, aesthetics/views, historic and cultural resources, public services and
utilities).
The disadvantages of deferring approval of the Proposed Actions and implementation of

redevelopment include deferral of:
• The opportunity for conveyance of the Fort Lawton property by the U.S. Army to the
City of Seattle;
• The opportunity to implement housing and parks and recreation development on
the Fort Lawton site;
• The opportunity to increase the quantity of affordable and formerly homeless
housing, including for senior citizens and veterans in Seattle;
• The opportunity to optimize density and land uses on a large, contiguous parcel in
Seattle;
• The opportunity to provide parks and recreation opportunities for project residents
and the public; and

• Tax revenues and other fees (i.e., permit, inspection and utility connection fees) that
would accrue to City of Seattle.

Chapter 3
Affected Environment, Impacts, Mitigation

Measures and Significant Unavoidable
Adverse Impacts
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS,
ALTERNATIVES, MITIGATION
MEASURES AND SIGNIFICANT
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Chapter 3 describes the affected environment, impacts of the alternatives, mitigation measures
and any significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment that would be anticipated
from development of the Fort Lawton Project under the EIS alternatives. Substantive
information added or changed subsequent to issuance of the Draft EIS is shaded to ease
identification of the added or changed information.
3.1 EARTH
This section of the FEIS describes the earth-related conditions on and near the Fort Lawton
and Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives are
evaluated and mitigation measures identified. This section is based on the geotechnical
report prepared by Landau Associate in November 2017 (see Appendix B).
Key Findings
Geologic hazards are present at both sites, including steep slopes, erosion and seismic
hazards; a methane buffer is also located on the Talaris site. There is minimal potential for
methane to migrate onto the Talaris site.
Construction and operation of the project under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on and near the
geologic hazards could result in significant earth-related impacts. During construction,
impacts could include erosion from site clearing and grading, and instability and vibration
from building and infrastructure construction. Minimal grading is proposed under
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Alternative 2 at the Fort Lawton site has a greater potential for
erosion/landslides than the other alternatives, with development currently shown on steep
slopes/erosion hazard areas. During operation, development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
would change impervious surface area on the sites which could impact groundwater. With
implementation of site-specific analysis and other project features, and installation of
temporary and permanent stormwater control and construction BMPs required by the City,
no significant earth-related impacts are expected.
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 3.1-1 Chapter 3

March 2018 Earth
Methodology
Readily available geotechnical information and published sensitive area maps and surficial
geologic maps, including from the City, of the two sites were reviewed for this analysis.
Based on this information, conclusions were reached related to the potential for unstable
conditions/geotechnical hazards to be present on the sites and for proposed development
under the EIS alternatives to disturb these areas and potentially cause earth-related impacts
(see Appendix B for details on the geotechnical analysis methodology).
3.1.1 Affected Environment
This sub-section describes existing earth-related conditions on and near the Fort Lawton
and Talaris sites.
Fort Lawton Site
Geology and Topography

The Fort Lawton site is situated within a glacial upland that is locally referred to as Magnolia
Bluff. Magnolia Bluff is bounded by Shilshole Bay and Salmon Bay to the north, the Interbay
Trough to the east, Elliott Bay and Smith Cove to the south and Puget Sound to the west.
Glacial uplands such as Magnolia Bluff are generally comprised of very dense and hard
glacial soils that were laid down during the advance and retreat of several glaciers. The
surficial geology of the Fort Lawton site is largely mapped as advance outwash. Various
geologic units are present in the deeper subsurface at the Fort Lawton site. In general, the
geologic units are ordered from the most recent, or younger deposits, to the oldest and
include: Vashon till, Vashon-age advanced outwash, Lawton clay and Olympia beds. The
geologic units younger than the Vashon-age glacial till have not been glacially over-ridden.
The Vashon-age glacial till and the older units have been glacially consolidated and are
typically very dense or hard.
The site generally slopes downward in a series of terraces from higher elevations at the
southwest corner to lower elevations to the north and northeast. Steep slopes are present
along the north and east edges of the site.
Groundwater
It is likely that any groundwater present at the Fort Lawton site is perched atop the
relatively impermeable Lawton clay. Previous subsurface investigations have identified
groundwater levels near the site to be approximately 160 feet beneath ground surface
(bgs). Groundwater in the area generally flows laterally to the steep hillsides along the
coast and deep ravines, such as the Interbay Trough, where groundwater ultimately
discharges into Elliott Bay. It is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary
depending on local subsurface conditions, the season, recent weather pattern and other
factors.

March 2018 Earth
Geologic Hazards
Geologically hazardous areas are defined because of their potential susceptibility to
erosion, sliding, earthquake or other geologic events, or because of their past use (e.g.,
landfill). These areas may not be suited for development because of public health and
safety concerns without conducting specific studies during the design and permitting
process.
The City of Seattle defines and identifies geologic hazard areas in its Environmentally
Critical Areas Ordinance (SMC 25.09.020) and has developed a folio of maps of the
geologically hazardous areas. In general, before development is allowed in or immediately
adjacent to mapped critical areas, detailed geotechnical studies must be conducted to
address specific standards relating to site geology and soils, seismic hazards and facility
design.
A discussion of steep slope and landslide, seismic, landfill, erosion and flood hazards at
the Fort Lawton site follows.
Steep Slopes and Landslide Hazards
The City generally defines steep slope areas as those areas that rise at an inclination of 40
percent or more with a vertical change in elevation of at least 10 feet. Generally, landslide
hazard areas are defined as:
Any area with a combination of:

• Slopes greater than 15 percent;
• Impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular
soils (predominantly sand and gravel);
• Springs or groundwater seepage;
• Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene Epoch (from 10,000 years
ago to present) or is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch;
• Any area subject to instability due to rapid stream erosion, stream bank erosion or
undercutting by wave action;
• Any area that shows evidence of, or is at risk from, snow avalanches; and/or
• Any area located on an alluvial fan that is presently subject to, or potentially
subject to, inundation by debris flows or deposition of stream-transported
sediments.
The north portion Fort Lawton site and an area along the west portion of the site are
mapped as potential slide areas, with smaller localized areas mapped as steep slopes.
Additionally, the City of has identified previous slide activity both to the north and south
of the site.

March 2018 Earth
Seismic Hazards
Seismic hazard areas are generally defined as those areas subject to severe risk of
earthquake damage due to ground shaking, ground rupture or soil liquefaction. Ground
shaking can occur large distances from the earthquake source; ground rupture only occurs
along active fault traces; and liquefaction requires a certain combination of soil and
groundwater conditions.
Ground Shaking - The entire Puget Sound region lies within a seismically active area, and
moderate to high levels of ground shaking should be anticipated during the design life of a
project at the Fort Lawton site. Due to the previous development at the site, there is
potential for undocumented near-surface deposits of relatively loose/soft fill soils that
could affect the level of earthquake ground shaking felt in the area.
Ground Rupture - The Seattle Fault Zone, located about 6 miles south of the Fort Lawton
site, is the closest reported fault zone to the site. The Seattle Fault Zone is about 3 to 4
miles wide and consists of a series of east-west trending faults. Future ground rupture
may occur within the Seattle Fault Zone; however, the actual risk at the site posed by such
ground rupture is relatively small given the relatively thick deposits of glacial soils and the
distance between the site and the fault zone.
Liquefaction – Liquefaction can occur when certain soils lose strength and temporarily
behave as if they were a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. The seismically induced
loss of strength can impact building foundations and embankments. Seismically induced
liquefaction typically occurs in loose, saturated, sandy material commonly associated with
recent river, lake and beach sedimentation. In addition, seismically induced liquefaction
can be associated with areas of loose, saturated fill.
Due to the glacially consolidated nature of the soils and deep depth to groundwater at the
Fort Lawton site, it is not anticipated that liquefaction will pose a large hazard to
development. While there may be undocumented fill at the site, it is unlikely that it will be
thick enough or saturated enough to pose a serious liquefaction threat with development.
Erosion Hazards
Erosion hazard areas are defined as those areas containing soils that may experience
severe to very severe erosion from construction activity. The susceptibility to erosion is
generally a function of soil type, topography, occurrence of groundwater seepage or
surface runoff, and the built environment.
The surficial geology at the Fort Lawton site has been identified as advance outwash and
likely undocumented fill. When unvegetated and/or disturbed, advance outwash and fill
materials may experience severe to very severe erosion hazards on slopes exceeding 15
percent.

March 2018 Earth
Landfills and Flood Hazards
No landfills are known to exist on or adjacent to the Fort Lawton site. The City has not
mapped the site as being in a flood hazard area.
Talaris Site
Geology and Topography

The Talaris site is situated in the Laurelhurst neighborhood of North Seattle. Laurelhurst is
bounded by the Hawthorne Hills and Ravenna neighborhoods to the north, Wolf Bay and
Lake Washington to the east, Union Bay to the south and the Union Bay Natural Area
(formerly the Montlake Landfill) and the University of Washington bluff to the west. The
Laurelhurst neighborhood includes glacial uplands as well as marshlands, and as a result,
soils in this area may consist of a mixture of loose to very dense glacial soils and very soft
marsh deposits.
Various geologic units are present at the Talaris site, including: peat deposits, recessional
outwash and ice contact deposits.
The Talaris site topography is general flat to rolling, with limited areas of steep slopes.
Groundwater
Previous subsurface investigations have identified groundwater at depths ranging from 0
to 25 feet bgs. A confined aquifer is likely present beneath the ice contact deposits onsite.
It is anticipated that groundwater will be encountered at shallow depths near the marsh
and will be deeper in upland areas of the Talaris site.
Geologic Hazards
A discussion of steep slope and landslide, seismic, landfill, erosion and flood hazards at
the Talaris site is provided below, based on the definitions in the City’s Environmentally
Critical Areas Ordinance (SMC 25.09.020) and the its folio of maps of geologically
hazardous areas.
Steep Slopes and Landslide Hazards
Localized steep slope areas are located along the eastern edge of the Talaris site, as well
as along Talaris Way; however, no areas on or near the site have been identified as
potential slide areas.
Seismic Hazards
Ground Shaking – As mentioned previously, the entire Puget Sound region lies within a
seismically active area, and moderate to high levels of ground shaking should be
anticipated during the design life of development at the Talaris site. Due to the presence

March 2018 Earth
of relatively thick peat deposits, the near-surface soils at the Talaris site could affect the
level of earthquake ground shaking felt in the area.
Ground Rupture – The Seattle Fault Zone, located about 5 miles south of the Talaris site,
is the closest reported fault zone to the site. Future ground rupture may occur within the
Seattle Fault Zone; however, the actual risk at the Talaris site posed by such ground
rupture is relatively small given the relatively thick deposits of glacial soils and the
Liquefaction - Due to the presence of ice contact and recessional outwash and relatively
thick peat deposits at the Talaris site, it is anticipated that soil liquefaction would pose a
risk to development at the site.
Erosion Hazards
The soils at the Talaris site have been identified as peat, recessional outwash and ice
contact deposits, and likely undocumented fill. When unvegetated and/or disturbed (e.g.,
during construction), ice contact deposits, recessional outwash and fill materials may
experience severe to very severe erosion hazards on slopes exceeding 15 percent. Peat
deposits are typically found on very shallow slopes or flat areas and would not be
expected to be an erosion hazard; however, depending on the composition of the peat, it
may be erodible in unprotected cut slopes.
Landfills
The abandoned Montlake Landfill is located to the south and east of the Talaris site. While
the site is within the 1,000-foot methane buffer of the old landfill, previous studies have
indicated that the risk of methane migrating from the abandoned landfill onto the site is
low.
Flood Hazards
The Talaris site is not mapped as being in a flood hazard area.
(See Appendix B for details on the existing earth-related conditions at the Fort Lawton and
Talaris site.)
3.1.2 Impacts of the Alternatives
An analysis of the potential adverse earth-related impacts of Alternative 1, the Applicant’s

Preferred Alternative, is provided below. For EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, the analyses are less
detailed and any differences between the alternatives and the Preferred Alternative are
highlighted (other aspects of these alternatives are expected to be similar to the Preferred
Alternative).

March 2018 Earth
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Development of Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site would include removing some of the
existing pavement and most of the structures and preparing subgrade soil by grading, and
placing and compacting structural fill. Proposed structures would be designed to conform
to the existing site topography and minimal grading would occur, except at a large hill
located on the south end of the site next to the existing road (note: the general topography
and slopes onsite are similar to the site’s natural condition, but all the small hills or mounds could
have been created by past filling). Assuming it is suitable to be used as fill, the soil from the
hill would be moved to the north part of the site where steep grades currently exist. No
soil would be imported or exported from the site in this concept, but approximately
11,000 cubic yards of soil would be moved. The locations of major cut and fill are
indicated on Figure 3.1-1.
Construction for Alternative 1 could result in exposed soil and soil stockpiles, which could
erode and cause on-site and off-site transport of sediment. However, temporary erosion
and sedimentation control measures would be implemented during construction to
reduce the potential for erosion-related impacts.
Temporary excavations would likely be required for the installation of future structures
and infrastructure. Without mitigation, these excavations could impact immediately
adjacent existing and future structures, utilities and other improvements. However,
standard construction measures would reduce the potential for such impacts.
As mentioned above, surficial on-site soil that is excavated as part of site development
could be reused as on-site fill. All structural fill and backfill material placed as part of
future site improvements would be densely compacted which could cause vibrations and
potential settlement of structures in the immediate vicinity of the construction work.
Placement of large volumes of fill could also cause settlement/ground subsidence that
could impact existing or future structures in the immediate area of the fill. However, site
grading is expected to be minimal and site-specific analysis and design of fill placement
near settlement-sensitive structures would be conducted to address the potential for
settlement impacts at nearby structures and significant impacts are not expected.

March 2018 Earth
36th Avenue W
W Lawton Street
OMS
Building
245
Texas Way W
North
North
Source: SMR Architects, 2017. Figure 3.1-1

Fort Lawton Grading Plan—Alternative 1
Geologic Hazards
The potential geologic hazard impacts of development under Alternative 1 at the Fort
Lawton site are discussed below.
Settlement -The surficial soil at the site is not anticipated to be prone to great amounts of
settlement with development under Alternative 1.
Landslides/Steep Slopes - There is a potential for landslides to occur at the existing steep,
landslide–prone slopes in the north and west portions of the Fort Lawton site. The impact of
landslides is considered moderately low for Alternative 1 given that these portions of the
site would be maintained in their natural forested condition.
Erosion Hazards – When unvegetated and/or disturbed, the on-site soils could experience
severe to very severe erosion hazards on slopes exceeding 15 percent. Site-specific analyses
would be conducted to address this potential impact. Additionally, erosion control
measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction would be
implemented to reduce erosion impacts.
Seismic Hazards - Moderate to high levels of ground shaking should be anticipated during
the design life of Alternative 1. The relatively loose/soft fill near-surface soils at the site
could affect the level of earthquake ground shaking felt in the area. Seismic design using
current design codes and generally accepted engineering standards and practices during
the design phase of the project would reduce the potential impacts to buildings and
infrastructure from ground shaking.
The potential for ground rupture, liquefaction and landslide impacts from earthquakes
and their potential to damage structures under Alternative 1 are considered minimal.
Landfill Areas and Floodplains – There are no landfills or floodplains known to exist on or
adjacent to the site that could impact development under Alternative 1.
Groundwater
Groundwater could be encountered at relatively shallow depths onsite, particularly during

the winter and spring months, and construction dewatering could be required.
Dewatering could cause some ground settlement and damage to adjacent utilities and
structures. If extensive dewatering is required, site-specific analyses would determine
what structures could be influenced by excavation dewatering and the appropriate
control measures.
While temporary excavation dewatering could be required for certain structures, the
effect on groundwater would be temporary and localized and no significant impacts are
expected.

March 2018 Earth
Operation
At build-out under Alternative 1, the Fort Lawton site would be covered in roadways,
parking areas, structures, vegetated sports fields, landscaping and preserved natural open
space. Approximately 13.2 acres of the site would be in impervious surfaces, compared to
18.5 acres under existing conditions. Therefore, there would be no decrease in recharge
to the aquifer beneath the site, and there could be some increase in recharge.
A permanent stormwater management system would be designed and installed onsite, in

accordance with the Seattle Stormwater Code. As a result, earth-related impacts during
operation of the project would be minimal. The proposed stormwater management
system could include retention basins and rain gardens; there could be some recharge to
the aquifer near these facilities.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1 the Talaris site would not be redeveloped at this time and no earth-
related impacts are anticipated.
(See Appendix B for details on potential earth-related impacts under Alternative 1.)
Alternative 2 – Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable/Homeless

Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Like Alternative 1, development at the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2 would include
removing some of the existing pavement and preparing subgrade soils by grading, placing
and compacting structural fill. All structures would be removed under Alternative 2.
Minimal grading is anticipated; however, construction of retaining walls and/or deep
foundations could be necessary.
The potential for erosion/sedimentation, impacts on nearby structures (e.g., due to

temporary excavations, and vibration and settlement with placement/compaction of soils)
and impacts on groundwater during construction would be like under Alternative 1. With
implementation of temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures and BMPs,
and proper design and installation of construction-related structures, no significant
Alternative 2 involves constructing approximately 113 market-rate housing units on the

Fort Lawton site. Some of this proposed housing would be built near landslide hazard
areas. Site-specific slope stability analyses and design of the residential units and any
associated earth retention structures along the top of the slope would be required to
address the potential impacts of construction in these areas.

March 2018 Earth
Foundations
If needed due to soil and slope conditions in certain locations, deep foundations, such as
pile- or pier-supported foundations, could be used to reduce impacts to steep slopes (e.g.,
in the north portion of the site; see Figure 2-10). Increased levels of noise and vibration
could occur within about 50 to 100 feet of pile-driving activities and could result in
structural damage. The impact of vibrations is difficult to quantify and would be
addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Drilled piles could be used for stabilizing steep slopes in the landslide hazard areas on the
site. Installation of temporary casing for the piles could produce ground vibrations and
localized ground settlement around the drilled pile construction area. Monitoring of the
ground surface would be conducted during construction to address these potential
vibration impacts.
Geologic Hazards
Most of the potential geologic hazard impacts (e.g., settlement, erosion hazards, seismic
hazards, landfills and floodplains) of development under Alternative 2 at the Fort Lawton
site are expected to be like those under Alternative 1. However, the potential for landslide
hazard/steep slope impacts would be greater, as discussed below.
Landslide/Steep Slopes - There is a potential for landslides to occur on the existing, steep,
landslide-prone slopes in the northern and western portions of the Fort Lawton site. The
possibility for landslides is considered relatively high for Alternative 2 because the current
site plan shows some of the proposed structures would be located in or near landslide
hazard areas (see Figure 2-10). Site-specific analyses for future improvements near
landslide hazard areas would be prepared prior to any construction to ensure compliance
with City of Seattle requirements for setback and design. Retaining walls and/or deep
foundations such as driven piles could be used to reduce impacts.
Operation
structures and landscaping. Less area would be preserved in natural open space than
under Alternative 1. Approximately 15.3 acres of the site would be in impervious surfaces,
compared to 13.2 acres under Alternative 1 and 18.5 acres under existing conditions.
Therefore, there would be no decrease in recharge to the aquifer beneath the site, and
there could be some increase in recharge.
Like Alternative 1, a permanent stormwater management system would be designed and

installed onsite, in accordance with the Seattle Stormwater Code. As a result, earth-
related impacts during operation of the project would be minimal.

March 2018 Earth
Talaris Site
Construction
Development at the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would likely include removing some of
the existing pavement and preparing subgrade soils by grading, placing and compacting
structural fill. None of the structures at the site would be removed under Alternative 2.
Minimal grading is anticipated.
The potential for erosion/sedimentation, impacts on nearby structures (e.g., due to

temporary excavations, and vibration and settlement with placement/compaction of soils)
and impacts on groundwater during construction would be like at the Fort Lawton site.
With implementation of temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures and
BMPs, and proper design and installation of construction-related structures, no significant
Highly organic material, such as the peat that underlies a large portion of the Talaris site,
would not be suitable for reuse as onsite fill. As a result, it is likely that any fill needed
onsite would be imported. All structural fill and backfill material placed for site
improvements would be densely compacted, which could cause vibrations and potential
settlement of structures in the immediate vicinity of the construction work. Placement of
large volumes of fill could also cause settlement/ground subsidence that could impact
existing or future structures (onsite or offsite) in the immediate area of the fill. However,
site grading is expected to be minimal and site-specific analysis and design of fill
placement near existing settlement-sensitive structures would be conducted to address
the potential for settlement impacts at nearby structures.
Alternative 2 proposes constructing approximately 238 housing units, a community facility

and surface parking on the Talaris site. If any of these structures are constructed in steep
slope areas along the eastern edge of the site and along Talaris Way, the stability of the
slopes could be compromised. Site-specific slope stability analyses and design would be
conducted to address the potential for impacts during construction on the stability of
these areas. Additionally, temporary erosion control measures and BMPs would be
implemented during construction to reduce erosion impacts.
Soil Preparation
Preloading of soils could be required for the construction of some of the structures on the
Talaris site. Potential impacts of preloading would generally be associated with increased
quantities of earthwork and the potential for ground subsidence impacts to structures and
utilities in the immediate area. Site-specific analysis and design would be conducted; pre-
and post-construction surveys of nearby structures would be conducted; and ground
movements would be monitored to address these potential impacts.
Ground improvement methods, such as compaction grouting or stone columns, could be

used to reduce liquefaction hazard and increase bearing capacity of compressible

March 2018 Earth
foundation soils at the Talaris site. The potential impacts of these ground improvement
methods could include vibrations and potential settlement of structures in the immediate
vicinity, generating excessive spoils and heave of existing structures and utilities. Pre- and
post-construction surveys of nearby structures and monitoring of ground movements
would be conducted to address these possible impacts.
Foundations
It is expected that deep foundations would be required to support most of the proposed
structures under Alternative 2, and could include driven or drilled piles. Like at the Fort
Lawton site, there would be a potential for vibration impacts to nearby structures during
installation of the piles. The impact of vibrations is difficult to quantify and would be
addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Geologic Hazards
The potential geologic hazard impacts of development under Alternative 2 at the Talaris
site are discussed below.
Settlement - Portions of the Talaris site are underlain by loose/soft compressible deposits.
Constructing heavy structures or placing significant heights of fill directly on these soils
could cause foundation settlement, particularly in the southwest portion of the site. Such
settlement could result in damage to structures and utilities. Construction techniques,
including using deep foundation systems or preloading a building site prior to
construction, would be implemented to address potential settlement impacts.
Landslide Hazard/Steep Slopes - The impact of landslides is considered moderately low for
Alternative 2 because the steep slope areas on the Talaris site appear to be localized.
Site-specific analyses of the Talaris site would be conducted prior to any construction to
ensure compliance with City of Seattle requirements for setback and design.
Erosion Hazard - When unvegetated and/or disturbed, the ice contact deposits, recessional
outwash and fill materials at the Talaris site could experience severe to very severe erosion
hazards on slopes exceeding 15 percent. The peat deposits are typically found on very
shallow slopes or flat areas onsite and would not be expected to be an erosion hazard.
However, depending on the composition of the peat, it could be erodible in unprotected cut
slopes.
Portions of the site have slopes that exceed 15 percent. Case-by-case basis and site-
specific analyses would be conducted for each structure in these areas to address the
potential for erosion impacts. Additionally, construction on slopes would employ
temporary erosion control measures and BMPs during construction.
Seismic Hazard - Due to the relatively thick peat deposits at the Talaris site, the site may
be susceptible to amplified earthquake ground motions. Seismic design using current

March 2018 Earth
design codes and generally accepted engineering standards and practices would be used
during the design phase of the future site improvements to reduce potential impacts.
The potential for ground rupture from an earthquake and associated impacts at the
Talaris site is relatively small given the relatively thick deposits of glacial soils and the
The liquefiable soils that are present at Talaris site would have a moderate to high seismic
risk. There is a potential for loss of soil strength, ground surface settlement and lateral
displacement of soils supporting structures founded in or over liquefiable soils. Methods
to address potential soil liquefaction would include: ground improvement, deep
foundations and/or designing for the potential soil liquefaction impacts.
Although the potential for deep-seated, earthquake-induced landslides at the Talaris site
is relatively low, some sloughing and slope movement would likely occur within the loose
surficial materials on the localized slopes during a large seismic event. Site-specific slope
stability analyses and designing of structures would address these potential impacts.
Landfill Areas - While the Talaris site is within the 1,000-foot methane buffer of the former
Montlake Landfill, the risk of methane migrating from the landfill onto the site is considered
low. Therefore, no impacts to development at the Talaris site under Alternative 2 are
expected.
Groundwater
Groundwater could be encountered within excavations at relatively shallow depths at the

Talaris site, particularly during the winter and spring months, and construction dewatering
could be required. Dewatering could potentially cause some ground settlement and
damage to adjacent utilities and structures. Site-specific analyses would determine what
structures could be impacted by dewatering and the best methods to address these
impacts. While dewatering could potentially be required for certain structures, the effect
on groundwater would be temporary and localized.
Operation
At build-out under Alternative 2, the Talaris site would be covered in roadways, parking
areas, structures, landscaping and preserved natural open space. Approximately 50
percent of the site would be in impervious surfaces, compared to 30 percent under
existing conditions. However, no significant loss of recharge to the aquifer beneath the
site is expected.
A permanent stormwater management system would be designed and installed onsite, in

accordance with the Seattle Stormwater Code. As a result, earth-related impacts during
operation of the project would be minimal.

March 2018 Earth
Alternative 3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable/Homeless Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Like Alternative 1, development at the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3 would include
removing some of the existing pavement and most structures, and preparing the subgrade
soils by grading, placing and compacting structural fill. Minimal grading is anticipated.
Alternative 3 proposes constructing parks and recreation facilities on the Fort Lawton site,
including three multiuse fields. Like under Alternative 1, natural areas in the north and
west portions of the site would be retained. The potential for construction impacts,
including erosion/sedimentation, impacts on nearby structures (e.g., due to temporary
excavations, and vibration and settlement with placement/compaction of soils) and
impacts on groundwater during construction would be like under Alternative 1. With
implementation of temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures and BMPs,
and proper design and installation of construction-related structures, no significant
Geologic Hazards
Geologic hazard impacts under Alternative 3, including settlement, landslide/steep slopes,

erosion hazards, seismic hazards and landfill hazards would be like under Alternative 1.
Groundwater
As described under Alternative 1, the depth to groundwater at the Fort Lawton site is
expected to be relatively deep; however, groundwater could be encountered at relatively
shallow depths, particularly during the winter and spring months. Therefore, construction
dewatering could be required to control groundwater flow into certain excavations.
Dewatering could cause some ground settlement and damage to adjacent utilities and
structures. If extensive dewatering is required, site-specific analyses would determine
what structures could be influenced by excavation dewatering and the appropriate
control measures.
Operation
parking areas, a structure, vegetated sports fields and preserved natural open space.
There would be 9.4 acres in impervious surfaces under Alternative 3 compared to 13.2
acres under Alternative 1. Therefore, there would be no decrease in recharge to the
aquifer beneath the site, and there could be some increase in recharge.
Like Alternative 1, a permanent stormwater management system would be designed and

installed onsite, in accordance with the Seattle Stormwater Code. As a result, erosion,

March 2018 Earth
sedimentation and other earth-related impacts during operation of the project would be
minimal.
Talaris Site
Potential earth-related impacts during construction and operation of Alternative 3 at the
Talaris site would be the same as those described under Alternative 2, because the same
development is proposed.
Under the No Action Alternative, the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites would not be
redeveloped at this time and would remain in their existing conditions. No earth-related
impacts are anticipated under Alternative 4.
3.1.3 Mitigation Measures
The following measures have been identified to address the potential earth-related impacts
from construction and operation of the Fort Lawton Project under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
These measures apply to all the alternatives unless otherwise noted. Legally-Required
not necessary to mitigate significant impacts.
• During construction, contractors would employ temporary erosion and sedimentation

control measures and BMPs to control erosion. These measures would be consistent
with City of Seattle critical area and grading regulations.
• The foundation support systems would be determined as part of the specific design and
permitting of infrastructure and individual buildings. Site-specific studies and
evaluations would be conducted in accordance with SMC requirements and the
provisions of the current version of the SBC.
• Proper design and construction procedures, including those in the SBC, would be
followed to ensure that buildings and infrastructure could withstand a seismic event.
• A permanent stormwater management system would be designed and installed

onsite, in accordance with the Seattle Stormwater Code.

March 2018 Earth
• Site-specific analyses would be completed prior to construction to address:

development on or adjacent to steep slopes areas, and to determine what structures
could be influenced by excavation dewatering.
• As appropriate, pile- or pier-supported foundations would be used for structures near

landslide hazard areas to reduce impacts to steep slopes.
• Any excavation shoring systems would be properly designed and constructed to

address impacts from temporary construction excavations.
• Fill would be designed to control adjacent settlements and ground subsidence impacts.
In addition, adjacent structures/surfaces would be monitored during construction to
verify that no adverse settlement occurs.
• To limit the potential for adverse vibration impacts from pile driving on nearby
structures, vibration monitoring would be conducted during installation of test piles and
selected production piles.
• If appropriate, drilled piles would be used to limit the vibration and ground settlement
impacts associated with driven piles.
• Ground improvement techniques or deep foundations would be employed to address

the potential for liquefaction impacts at the Talaris site.
• The potential use of properly designed retaining walls that are constructed near
landslide hazard areas in accordance with City of Seattle critical area and grading
regulations would reduce impacts to steep slopes.
3.1.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse earth-related impacts are expected.

March 2018 Earth
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section of the FEIS describes the biological resources on and near the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives on these
resources are evaluated and mitigation measures identified. This section is based on the
biological resources report prepared by The Watershed Company in October 2017 (see
Appendix C).
Key Findings
A Wildlife Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) is mapped by the City on the Fort Lawton
site (which includes a heron management area); a potential wetland has also been identified
on the site. Riparian Corridor, Wetlands and Wildlife ECAs are mapped by the City on the
Talaris site (the latter including a bald eagle nest site). The riparian corridor is associated
with a stormwater pipe through the site. One wetland has been identified onsite. No
federally-listed species or federally-designated habitat are known to occur on either site.
Wildlife species of state and/or local importance potentially use the sites and nearby areas.
Construction activity would temporarily disturb wildlife under the action alternatives on the
Talaris and Fort Lawton site.
With proposed development, the amount of open space, including wildlife habitat, on the
Fort Lawton site would increase over existing conditions under all the action alternatives,
with the highest increase under Alternative 3 and Alternative 1, respectively. Open space
would decrease relative to existing conditions on the Talaris site under Alternatives 2 and 3.
No direct impacts to critical areas, wildlife habitat or sensitive wildlife species is expected on
the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 or 3. Under Alternative 2, direct impacts to
biological resources would include impacts to the potential wetland area and removal of
forested vegetation and wildlife habitat. On the Talaris site, development would remove
forested vegetation and wildlife habitat under Alternatives 2 and 3, but would avoid direct
impacts to the wetland area and bald eagle nest site. Under all the action alternatives,
indirect impacts to retained habitat and wildlife would increase due to increased human
activity. There could be a permanent displacement of certain wildlife species less tolerant of
urban uses from the Fort Lawton and/or Talaris sites with proposed development.
Methodology
Readily available existing information, including previous site studies, were reviewed to
identify wetlands, streams, vegetation and wildlife that may be present on or near the Fort
Lawton or Talaris sites. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping
programs were also used as a source of information on wildlife use of the project sites.
Information and locations of rare plants was reviewed using WA DNR databases and
NatureServe’s LandScope Washington mapping application. A site visit to the Fort Lawton

March 2018 Biological Resources
site was conducted on June 28, 2017 to verify previously reported lack of wetlands and
streams, assess existing vegetation and note wildlife observations (see Appendix C for
details on the methodology for the biological resources analysis).
This sub-section describes existing biological resources on and near the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites, including wetlands, streams, vegetation and fish and wildlife.
Fort Lawton Site
The Fort Lawton site is located in Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood and is bordered by
Discovery Park to the south and west and residential properties to the north and east. Also
nearby are Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park to the east and Commodore Park to the
northeast. Salmon Bay is located to the northeast. The site contains existing development
and some retained natural open space. Existing buildings and parking areas are no longer in
use.
Wetlands and Streams

A wetland was identified on the north slope of the Fort Lawton site during a previous study
(see Figure 3.2-1 for the approximate location). Wetland vegetation and topography of this
area indicates that wetland or stream features could be present. Additional studies would
be needed to document wetlands and/or streams and their required buffers in the north
portion of the site. The remaining portions of the Fort Lawton site are not expected to
contain wetlands or streams.
Wetlands and streams are mapped in both Discovery Park and Kiwanis Memorial Reserve
Park adjacent to the site.
Vegetation
Remaining natural unmaintained vegetation that is present at the Fort Lawton site is
primarily located in two areas in the north and south portions of the site. A narrow strip of
established trees is also present on the east side of the site (see Figure 3.2-1). Most of the
wildlife habitat available at the site is located within these areas. The site abuts forests
located in Discovery Park to the west. Overall, plant species at the site are typical of urban
non-wetland forests in the region. No sensitive or rare plants are known to occur on the
site or immediate vicinity.
North Forest
The north forest is located on the bluff in the north portion of the Fort Lawton site. It is
dominated by deciduous tree species, mainly red alder and bigleaf maple. Other tree
species present include western red cedar, bitter cherry, black hawthorn and Oregon ash.
The tree canopy is a single layer and is estimated as moderately closed (40-69%) overall.

*Note: Field sketch only.

Features depicted are approximate and not to scale
Source: The Watershed Company, 2017. Figure 3.2-1

Fort Lawton Existing Biological Resources
The understory of the north forest area is dominated by non-native invasive plant species
including English ivy, bindweed, Himalayan blackberry, herb-robert geranium, Scotch broom
and knotweed. Some native understory shrubs and groundcover plants are present but they
are suppressed by the invasive species. Special habitat features present in the north forest
include downed wood, leaf litter and dead parts of live trees. The north forest is a
designated Biodiversity Areas and Corridor and a Great Blue Heron breeding area by
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
South Forest
The south forest is located at the south end of the site, west of Texas Way and north of
Discovery Park Boulevard. This on-site forest connects with forested areas in Discovery Park
offsite to the west. The south forest consists of a mix of deciduous and coniferous native
trees species including Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, red alder, Pacific madrone and western
red cedar. The canopy is characterized as multi-story and considered closed (70-100%) on
average.
Shade-tolerant invasive non-native plants are also present in this forested area. These
species include English ivy, English holly, cherry laurel and Himalayan blackberry. Native
understory plants include osoberry, red elderberry, beaked hazelnut, native woodland rose,
trailing blackberry and swordfern. The south forest is a designated Biodiversity Areas and
Corridor by WDFW.
Other Vegetated Areas

Other vegetated areas on the Fort Lawton site are generally maintained or managed
landscapes that are often dominated by non-native species. These areas are located
adjacent to buildings, roads and parking lots. Vegetation in these areas often consists of
either mowed herbaceous plants or small patches of trees that contain little to no
understory vegetation. These areas offer relatively little habitat value when compared to
other unmaintained forested patches on and near the site.
A narrow strip of native conifer trees is present on the east perimeter of the site, between
Texas Way and 36th Ave W. This strip of vegetation, while disturbed and disconnected from
other habitat areas, contributes some habitat value to the site as a whole.
Offsite
Discovery Park and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park are located within approximately 300
feet of the Fort Lawton site. In general, these city-owned parks contain relatively contiguous
forested areas and are dominated by native tree species of varying sizes and ages. Kiwanis
Memorial Preserve Park appears to be dominated by deciduous tree species, while forested
areas of Discovery Park contain a mix of deciduous and coniferous tree species. Similar to
the habitat patches on the site, non-native invasive plants are likely present or prevalent in
places within these forested park areas

The parks likely include a variety of special habitat features that wildlife species may use,
including downed wood, leaf litter, duff, shrub layer, moss, flowers, lichens, forbs, fungi,
underground plant parts, herbaceous layer, snags, dead parts of live trees, tree cavities,
bark, large live tree branches, live remnant trees and fruits/seeds/nuts.
Discovery Park and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park are designated Biodiversity Areas and
Corridors by WDFW. Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park is also mapped as a Great Blue Heron
breeding area. Both parks also contain streams with associated wetlands.
Fish and Wildlife

While the Fort Lawton site is in a largely developed condition, remaining forested habitat
functions as a valuable wildlife refuge in a very urban landscape. Potential for wildlife use of
the site is increased particularly because of the proximity and connectivity to habitat
located in Discovery Park and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park.
The variety of wildlife using the habitat on and near the Fort Lawton site is fairly well
documented. During breeding point count surveys on the site in winter 2004, a total of 43
bird species were observed. These species consist of a mix of common urban bird species
(i.e., American crow, European starling, house sparrow) as well as species more suited to
low-density urban environments (i.e., bald eagle, chickadees, juncos, woodpeckers, great
blue heron, kinglets, swallows), likely a result of the preservation of large tracts of forest
and other habitat areas in Discovery Park to the west.
As stated previously, the north forest onsite and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park are
considered great blue heron breeding areas by WDFW. They are also mapped as Heron
Habitat Areas (with 500-foot buffers) and Wildlife Environmental Conservation Areas (ECAs)
by the City of Seattle. In addition, bald eagle breeding areas and a purple martin breeding
site are mapped nearby.
Fish are not present on or near the Fort Lawton site due to a lack of fish habitat. Amphibians
and reptiles are expected to be uncommon due to the surrounding roads and residences
which disconnect on-site habitat from nearby vegetated areas and generally create
movement barriers for these types of wildlife species. Terrestrial mammals that are
expected to use habitat on and near the site include mice, moles, voles, rats, squirrels,
chipmunks, rabbits, raccoons, opossums, coyotes, deer and bats. On occasion, larger
mammals have used habitat in Discovery Park, including a cougar in 2009 that was
subsequently relocated.
The following sensitive species are either species of local importance or priority species and
have been determined to potentially use habitat present on the Fort Lawton site or
immediate vicinity. No state- or federally-listed species or federally-designated critical
habitat are known to occur on or immediately adjacent to the site.
Great Blue Herons are regulated by the City of Seattle as a species of local importance. They
are considered a State Monitored species and Washington State Priority Species by WDFW.

A great blue heron rookery was located in Kiwanis Memorial Reserve Park in the past.
Forests of Kiwanis Memorial Reserve Park and the north forest onsite are mapped as
breeding areas by WDFW and the City of Seattle. Currently, the nearest known heron
rookery is located in Commodore Park next to Salmon Bay, approximately 800 feet from the
Fort Lawton site. As of April 2014, the Kiwanis heron colony had abandoned the Kiwanis site
due to repeated bald eagle attacks and the colony is not expected to return in the near
future. The north forest on the Fort Lawton site could provide nesting habitat for great blue
herons, although no nests have been documented onsite.
Pileated Woodpeckers are a State Candidate species and Washington State Priority Species
by WDFW. Forests on and near the Fort Lawton site likely support breeding pileated
woodpeckers. One individual was observed on the Fort Lawton site during a 2004 bird
survey. No nests are known to be present the site but nest sites are possible given the
habitat available, particularly if sufficient standing dead wood is retained onsite. Pileated
woodpeckers are expected to use habitat on the Fort Lawton site for foraging or traveling.
Purple Martins are a State Candidate species and Washington State Priority Species by
WDFW. A breeding site has been mapped approximately 0.3 miles northwest of the Fort
Lawton site in Discovery Park. Purple martins forage in open areas on the Fort Lawton site.
No nest sites have been documented onsite. However, there is potential for nest sites,
presuming pileated woodpecker use of forested habitat and limited competition from more
aggressive cavity-nesting species.
Talaris Site
The Talaris site is located in the Laurelhurst neighborhood of Seattle, on the west side of
Lake Washington north of Union Bay. The site is currently operated and managed as the
Talaris Conference Center. The conference center is situated in a park-like setting which
includes a constructed pond, landscaped lawns and natural areas. Natural open spaces
nearby include Union Bay Natural Area, Union Bay, and Washington Park Arboretum, all
generally located to the south of the site.
Wetland and Streams

Wetland ECAs are mapped by the City on the Talaris site. Based on a past study, one
wetland (Wetland 1) has been identified in the southwest portion of the Talaris site (see
Figure 3.2-2). Wetland 1 is a depressional wetland that contains no outlet and includes
emergent and scrub-shrub vegetation classes generally dominated by non-native invasive
plant species. Wetland 1 has been rated as a Category II wetland.
A constructed pond is located on the Talaris site. The pond could be considered an artificial
wetland and could be exempt from regulation as a critical area. The status of this feature

*Note: Field sketch only.

Features depicted are approximate and not to scale
Source: The Watershed Company, 2017. Figure 3.2-2

Talaris Existing Biological Resources
should be verified by the applicable local, state and federal jurisdictions. The pond covers
about 0.75 acre.
One off-site wetland (Yesler Swamp) is located approximately 175 feet southwest of the
site. Yesler Swamp is assumed to be a Category II/Category I wetland
Given the time that has passed and changes in critical area regulations, the boundaries and
classifications of these wetlands will need to be re-verified in accordance with current
regulations.
A stream or riparian corridor ECA is mapped by City of Seattle on the Talaris site. A past
study of the site indicates that this feature is a large stormwater pipe that lacks fish habitat
“upstream” of the site and is therefore not considered a regulated critical area. No other
streams are known to exist on the site.
Vegetation
Existing vegetation on the Talaris site is located around buildings, walkways, paved access
drives and parking areas. It mainly consists of large landscaped areas with lawns and large
trees. The site landscaping has been designated an historic landmark by City of Seattle.
A mix of native and non-native ornamental trees species are present throughout the site
including bigleaf maple, red alder, black cottonwood, bitter cherry, willow, western red
cedar, Douglas-fir, Lombardy poplar, weeping willow, ornamental pines, and ornamental
oaks.
Understory vegetation is generally managed/landscaped except for an area in the

southwest portion of the site and along the east property line. These unmaintained areas
contain understory vegetation dominated by non-native invasive plant species including
Himalayan blackberry, English ivy, field bindweed, bittersweet nightshade, patches of
knotweed and scattered English holly. Special habitat features include a few downed logs,
stumps and snags overgrown by invasive plants. No sensitive or rare plants are known to
occur on or near the site.
Offsite
Yesler Swamp, part of the Union Bay Natural Area, is located southwest of the Talaris site,
on the south side of NE 41st Street. This natural area, a former landfill, is situated next to
Union Bay and has various habitat types including forested, scrub-shrub and open
herbaceous areas interspersed with seasonal and permanent ponds. The various habitat
types and ponds attract a variety of birds.
WDFW has recorded a purple martin breeding area near Yesler Swamp and the University of
Washington Center for Urban Horticulture. Additionally, the Union Bay Natural Area and
associated lake shoreline are expected to provide habitat for other types of wildlife
including fish, amphibians, reptiles and some small mammals.

Fish and Wildlife
The Talaris site contains large undeveloped or partially developed areas, and is surrounded
by a highly developed urban landscape. The density of vegetation present onsite compared
to surrounding areas is high. The onsite vegetation functions as a refuge for urban wildlife
species in the area. However, wildlife use is likely limited by the plant species composition
and isolation from other habitat areas, noise and other disturbance associated with existing
facility operations and pedestrian use of the site.
The most common wildlife species onsite are typically birds and small mammals tolerant of
urban natural areas. American crow, Bewick’s wren, Steller’s jay, black-capped chickadee,
house sparrow and northern flicker have been observed onsite. Signs of woodpecker
foraging in the southwest portion of the site have also been found. Other wildlife expected
on the site include mice, rats, squirrels, raccoons, opossums, bats and a variety of other
birds like robins, thrushes, sparrows, towhees, juncos, ducks, hummingbirds and some
hawks. Coyote use of the property has been reported.
Native fish are not expected to be present on the Talaris site based on the lack of an above-
ground stream feature or natural ponds. The created ponds could support stocked or
introduced fish. Amphibians and reptiles are expected to be uncommon onsite due to the
surrounding roads and residences that disconnect on-site habitat from nearby vegetated
areas and generally create movement barriers to these less mobile wildlife species.
However, breeding of some tolerant amphibian species may take place in the pond.
A Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) associated with a known Bald Eagle
nest site is mapped on the site by the City of Seattle as a wildlife ECA. The nest was
observed in a stand of black cottonwoods in the southwest portion of the site. The current
status of the nest is unknown, but activity was reported in 2013 and again (although
unconfirmed) in 2015. Bald Eagles are no longer listed for protection by state or federal
agencies; they have also been recently removed from Washington State’s Priority Habitats
and Species list. The mapped Wildlife ECA on Talaris is presumably based on the prior status
of Bald Eagles as a Priority Species. Since this no longer applies, the City should be consulted
to determine how the mapped Wildlife ECA would be regulated. Bald Eagle nests are still
protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
No federally-listed species or federally-designated critical habitat are known to occur on the

site. No other state- species of local importance or priority species are known to use or have
a close association with the habitat onsite.
As stated previously, a purple martin breeding area is mapped by WDFW approximately 700
feet southwest of the site in the Union Bay Natural Area. Many other wildlife species are
also expected to use the Union Bay Natural Area for some portion of their life cycle. In
general, wildlife using habitat in the natural area are not expected to regularly visit the
Talaris site due to habitat fragmentation caused by roads and residences. Also, the “park-

like” habitat available onsite, in combination with the regular disturbance that the site
receives, precludes use by certain wildlife species present in the Union Bay Natural Area.
Purple martins may forage or pass through Talaris while traveling. However, suitable nesting
habitat appears to be limited to the Union Bay Natural Area.
(See Appendix C for details on existing biological resources.)
An analysis of the potential adverse biological resources impacts of Alternative 1, the

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, is provided below. For EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, the
analyses are less detailed and any differences between the alternatives and the Preferred
Alternative are highlighted (other aspects of these alternatives are expected to be similar to
the Preferred Alternative).
Alternative 1 - Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses

Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Construction activities on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would temporarily
impact wildlife species within the immediate area. Construction equipment activity and
noise could potentially disturb wildlife and habitat. Urban-adapted wildlife that are more
tolerant of disturbance (e.g., finch, sparrows, starlings, crows and small mammals) would
not likely be displaced but those that are habitat-specific (e.g., birds of prey, woodpeckers
and owls) may handle the displacement with difficulty when searching for suitable habitat
in otherwise claimed territories. During breeding season, there is a greater potential for
permanent loss of species.
There is a potential for erosion and sedimentation of downstream water resources to occur
during construction activities. With installation and operation of the proposed temporary
stormwater control system on the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 1 is not be expected to
significantly impact biological resources downstream.
Operation
Under Alternative 1, 61% of the Fort Lawton site would be retained in open space including
passive open space, active open space and landscaped areas (see Table 2-2). By
comparison, under existing conditions, 45% of the site is open space. Therefore, more of the
site would be in open space than at present under this alternative. Existing forested habitat
areas in the north and south parts of the site would be preserved in their natural condition
with proposed development. Wildlife habitat and corridors for wildlife movement between
Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Discovery Park would be preserved with these natural

areas. Up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site
would be incorporated into Discovery Park and could also be preserved as natural area.
Proposed development on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would include
residential buildings, parks/recreation areas, roadways/sidewalks, parking areas and
landscaping, primarily in the central portion of the site. The landscaping would likely include
a mix of ornamental plant species and native, noninvasive and drought-resistant plantings.
Some of the central portion of the site would be in sports fields. The landscaped, more
managed habitat would not provide substantial value for most wildlife species. Species
adapted to the urban environment would continue to use these areas.
No direct impacts to critical areas (i.e., the potential wetland/stream in the north forest
area), vegetation that provides wildlife habitat (in the north and south portions of the site),
or sensitive wildlife species (i.e., great blue herons, pileated woodpeckers and purple
martins which could use habitats onsite) would be expected at the Fort Lawton site under
Alternative 1.
Proposed development under Alternative 1 would indirectly impact retained habitat on the
Fort Lawton site due to: increased human activity; building, parking lot and roadway
lighting; noise; the potential use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in landscaped areas;
and the introduction of “super predators” (e.g., domestic dogs and cats) in residential areas
that could impact native wildlife. However, activity, lighting etc. from military use of the site
in the past could also have impacted these species.
Stormwater runoff from the site could carry pollutants to downstream water resources.
With installation and operation of the proposed permanent stormwater control system on
the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 1 is not be expected to significantly impact biological
resources downstream.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1, the Talaris site would not be redeveloped at this time and biological
resources on that site would continue as under existing conditions.

Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Temporary impacts to wildlife from construction activities would generally be similar to
under Alternative 1 (i.e., due to noise and activity). However, the area and magnitude of
construction would be greater under this alternative.

Like Alternative 1, there is a potential for erosion and sedimentation of downstream water
resources to occur during construction activities. With installation and operation of the
proposed temporary stormwater control system on the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 2 is not
be expected to significantly impact biological resources downstream.
Operation
Under Alternative 2, the Fort Lawton site would be developed with market-rate single
family housing. Approximately 55% of the site would be in open space, similar to under
existing conditions (see Table 2-2). However, forested habitat areas onsite would be
completely or partially developed under this alternative. No active or passive public parks
would be provided at the site under this alternative.
The north forest area would be partially developed and the south forest area would be
completely developed with single family residences, landscaping and driveways.
Landscaping would likely include a mix of ornamental plant species and native, noninvasive
and drought-resistant plantings. The landscaped, more managed habitat would not provide
substantial value for most wildlife species. Species adapted to the urban environment
would continue to use these areas. The forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the west
portion of the site may or may not be dedicated to Discovery Park and preserved as natural
area.
Direct impacts to biological resources would be expected at the Fort Lawton site under
Alternative 2. If the potential wetland area in the northwest portion of the site is
determined to be jurisdictional, current site plans would directly impact the wetland. On-
site forested vegetation that provides wildlife habitat would be removed or significantly
altered, impacting wildlife species that use these areas. Existing habitat on-site could
support breeding populations of great blue herons, pileated woodpeckers and purple
martins, although no nest sites have been documented on the site. Bald eagles are present
in the vicinity but not likely to nest on the site. Removal and reduction of forested habitat
areas and replacement with single family residences would preclude use of on-site habitat
by some wildlife species, including the sensitive species listed previously. Also, wildlife
currently using these habitat areas would be displaced or lost due to development under
Alternative 2.
Similar to Alternative 1, proposed development under Alternative 2 would indirectly impact

any remaining habitat due to increased human activity. Building, parking lot and roadway
lighting; noise; the potential use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in landscaped areas;
and the introduction of domestic dogs and cats in residential areas could impact native
wildlife. However, past military use of the site would have had similar indirect impacts to
wildlife. Additionally, should the potential wetland be preserved, indirect impacts from
smaller buffers and adjacent development could alter the wetland character and ability to
support local species.

Like Alternative 1, stormwater runoff from the site could carry pollutants to downstream
water resources. With installation and operation of the proposed permanent stormwater
control system on the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 2 is not be expected to significantly
impact biological resources downstream.
Talaris Site
Construction
Temporary impacts from construction activities could impact wildlife use of the Talaris site,
as described for Fort Lawton under Alternative 1 (e.g., due to noise and activity).
Conducting construction activities during the nonbreeding season could limit temporary
impacts to on-site sensitive wildlife species.
Like Fort Lawton under Alternative 1, there is a potential for erosion and sedimentation of
downstream water resources to occur during construction activities. With installation and
operation of the proposed temporary stormwater control system on the Talaris site,
Alternative 2 is not be expected to significantly impact biological resources downstream.
Operation
Under Alternative 2, the Talaris site would be developed with affordable housing. Some of
the housing would occupy existing, renovated buildings, while other housing would be in
newly constructed buildings. Approximately 50% of the site would be in open space, less
than under existing conditions. The Talaris site landscaping has been designated as an
historic landmark by the City of Seattle. As such, much of the existing landscaping, which
contributes to the available onsite habitat, would be retained under this alternative.
Preliminary site plans appear to avoid direct impacts to the known wetland area in the
southwest portion of the site as well as the constructed pond. Site plans also avoid directly
impacting the bald eagle nest tree and area within approximately 150 feet of the nest.
Alternative 2 is expected to reduce vegetation/potential habitat areas onsite. However,
much of the existing landscaping would be retained. Any removal of vegetation has the
potential to impact wildlife species that may use that vegetation for some portion of their
life cycle. Redevelopment of the site, with retention of vegetation in the vicinity of wetland
and bald eagle habitat areas, could provide opportunities for habitat enhancement through
removal of invasive species and replacement with native or noninvasive, drought-tolerant
plants.
Proposed development under Alternative 2 at the Talaris site would indirectly impact
retained habitat due to increased human activity. Building, parking lot and roadway
lighting; noise; use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in landscape would increase
under Alternative 2.

control system on the Talaris site, Alternative 2 is not be expected to significantly impact
biological resources downstream.
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Construction activities associated with removal of existing buildings and pavement at the
Fort Lawton site have the potential to temporarily disturb wildlife species in the immediate
vicinity. Urban-adapted wildlife are more tolerant of disturbance. Less tolerant species
may relocate due to noise and activity associated with demolition and construction.
Like Alternative 1, there is a potential for erosion and sedimentation of downstream water
resources to occur during construction activities. Erosion potential would be greater given
the development in erosion hazard areas (e.g., in the north part of the site). With
installation and operation of the proposed temporary stormwater control system on the
Fort Lawton site, Alternative 3 is not be expected to significantly impact biological resources
downstream.
Operation
Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be developed as a public park.
Approximately 73% of the site would be in open space, more than under existing conditions
or Alternative 1 (see Table 2-2). Much of the central portion of the site would be in sports
fields. Existing forested habitat areas in the north and south parts of the site would be
preserved in their natural condition under this alternative. Wildlife habitat and corridors for
wildlife movement between the Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Discovery Park would
be preserved with these natural areas. Like Alternative 1, up to 4.7 acres of forest land
owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site would be incorporated into
Discovery Park and could also be preserved as natural area.
No direct impacts to critical areas (i.e., the potential wetland/stream in the north forest
area), vegetation that provides wildlife habitat (in the north and south portions of the site)
or sensitive wildlife species (i.e., great blue herons, pileated woodpeckers and purple
martins which could use habitats onsite) would be expected at the Fort Lawton site under
Alternative 3.
Increased recreational use of the site could indirectly impact wildlife use due to increased
human activity. Building, parking lot and roadway lighting; noise; and use of fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides in the landscape would increase under Alternative 3. Previous
military use of the site would have contributed to these indirect impacts in the past.

control system on the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 3 is not be expected to significantly
impact biological resources downstream.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 3, the Talaris site would be developed in the same manner as Alternative
2 and impacts would be as described for Alternative 2.
redeveloped and existing conditions would continue. No impacts to biological resources
would be expected at either site.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential impacts on biological
resources from construction and operation of the Fort Lawton Project under Alternatives 1,
2 and 3. These measures apply to all the alternatives unless otherwise noted. Legally-
Required Measures are measures that are required by code, laws or local, state and federal
• On the Fort Lawton site, any wetlands would be delineated, surveyed and rated and
appropriate buffers determined per SMC 25.09.160.
• On the Talaris site, the jurisdictional status of the constructed pond and the stormwater
pipe/riparian corridor would be confirmed.
• On the Talaris site, the status of the bald eagle nest would be determined.
• On the Fort Lawton site, a great blue heron Management Plan would be followed per
DPD Directors Rule 5-2007, including:
o Any clearing, grading or outside construction would be done outside of the
nesting season (February 1st through July 31st).
• Coordination with WDFW would be provided when working near nesting habitat
associated with known great blue heron breeding areas.

• Significant trees in the development areas of the sites would be identified per SMC
Chapter 25.11 and tree protection/replacement measures would be implemented, as
applicable.
• Development would be limited to the minimum necessary to meet project needs and
mitigation sequencing would be demonstrated, as required by the City.
• Temporary and permanent stormwater control systems would be installed to limit

water quality impacts on downstream resources.
• Temporary fencing at wetland buffer edges and around vegetation that provides habitat
for sensitive wildlife species (i.e., bald eagle nest area at Talaris and/or forested habitat
patches at Fort Lawton) would be installed during construction to protect and preserve
these critical areas. Permanent fencing would be maintained at the edges of wetland
buffers and at the edges of habitat areas to discourage intrusion by people and pets.
• Mitigation would be provided for any wetland impacts by implementing an approved

mitigation plan, per SMC 25.09.065. Any mitigation sites would be maintained and
• Development would be planned in areas that limit impacts to wetlands and their
associated buffers and to maximize retention of trees and valuable habitat areas.
• On the Fort Lawton site, the north and south forested patches would be retained to the
greatest extent possible to provide natural habitat and corridors for wildlife movement
between Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Discovery Park.
• The use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in developed areas would be limited,
consistent with the City’s ongoing pesticide reduction commitments.
• Native, drought tolerant species would be planted in landscaped areas.
• Lighting would be directed away from natural areas, downcast lighting would be used
and night lighting would be limited, where feasible, to limit impacts on wildlife.
• Interpretive signs could be installed and/or information on biological resources could be

distributed for public education.

Under Alternatives 1 and 3 at the Fort Lawton site, there could be a permanent minor
displacement of certain wildlife species less tolerant of urban uses due to proposed
development (e.g., from increased activity levels, use of landscape maintenance products
and the introduction of pets). The past military use of the Fort Lawton site could also have
impacted these species. Under Alternative 2 at the Fort Lawton site and Alternatives 2 and
3 at the Talaris site, there could be a permanent displacement of certain wildlife species
less tolerant of urban uses, due to proposed development (e.g., from the elimination of
habitat, as well as increased activity levels, use of landscape maintenance products and the
introduction of pets). The existing conference center uses at the Talaris site also likely
impact these species. No other significant unavoidable adverse biological resources

3.3 AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section of the FEIS describes air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) conditions on and
near the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS
Alternatives are evaluated and mitigation measures identified. This section is based on the
Air Quality report prepared by Landau Associates in October 2017 (see Appendix D).
Key Findings
Near the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites, the largest existing contributor to criteria air
pollutants is on-road vehicular traffic. Both sites are located in an attainment area for
ozone, NO2 and PM10 and PM2.5 and in a maintenance area for CO, as designated by
Ecology and the EPA. There are currently no major sources of GHGs on either site.
Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, construction activities could temporarily impact air quality
due to increases in fugitive dust, particulate matter, traffic related emissions and soil
carbon GHG emissions. Construction activities would comply with Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency (PSCAA) regulations and no significant impacts are expected. During operation,
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in an increase in GHG emissions due to increased
heating and traffic-related activity. Due to the type and level of development, the air
quality impacts from project traffic are not expected to be significant. Alternative 2 is
projected to have the highest annual average GHG emissions, at 5,949 MTTCO 2 per year
(combined Fort Lawton and Talaris emissions). Alternatives 1 and 3 are projected to have a
slightly lower level of annual average GHG emissions, at 4,012 MTTCO 2 per year. Predicted
GHG emissions from all the alternatives would fall below Washington State Department of
Ecology’s threshold of significance; therefore, no significant GHG impacts are anticipated.
Methodology
Current federal, state and local air quality regulations were reviewed to prepare this
analysis, including regional U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) attainment status. Attainment status indicates that
air quality in an area meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and non-
attainment status indicates that air quality in an area does not meet those standards.
Projected air quality impacts resulting from construction and operation of residential and
park uses were then estimated and evaluated. The operational impact evaluation
considered vehicle miles traveled in association with new development and the associated
impact on air quality.
Ecology’s “SEPA GHG Calculation Tool” was used to evaluate existing and future buildout
GHG emissions for each action alternative. Because GHG emissions result in global rather
than localized impacts, GHG emissions from the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites were
combined. Three types of life-cycle emissions were estimated using the SEPA GHG
Calculation Tool: stationary combustion equipment, energy and transportation. Based on
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 3.3-1 Chapter 3.3
March 2018 Air Quality/GHG Emissions
Ecology’s guidance, GHG emissions are presumed to be not significant if a ‘business as
usual’ increase of less than 25,000 metric tons per year of CO2e occurs.
(See Appendix D for details on the air quality and GHG emissions analysis methodology.)
This sub-section describes existing air quality and GHG conditions and regulations
applicable to the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites. Air quality/GHG conditions and
regulations across King County are generally the same or similar; therefore, the Fort
Lawton and Talaris sites are presented together.
Fort Lawton and Talaris Sites
Air Pollution Sources

Typical existing air pollution sources in Seattle include commercial and retail businesses,
light industry, residential wood-burning devices (such as woodstoves) and vehicular
traffic. On-road vehicular traffic along major roadways and in existing institutional (school,
hospital), commercial and residential areas is expected to be the single largest contributor
to criteria pollutant emissions. Vehicles contribute most of the carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and GHGs. Stationary equipment used in commercial and industrial
areas is a secondary source of emissions and space heating (such as gas and diesel heating
equipment) contributes air pollutant emissions as well.
Key Criteria Air Pollutants

The criteria pollutants described below are the six key air pollutants produced in the
combustion of fossil fuels and other processes.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a product of incomplete combustion generated by mobile sources (such as vehicular
traffic and heavy equipment), residential wood combustion and industrial sources that
burn fuel. Of all pollutants for which short-term health standards exist, CO is emitted in
the greatest quantity. The impact of CO is usually limited to the local vicinity of its
emission. Since CO is of particular concern with respect to vehicular traffic, the highest
ambient concentrations tend to occur near congested roadways and intersections,
particularly during wintertime periods of air stagnation.
Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a highly reactive form of oxygen that is generated by an atmospheric
chemical reaction with ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides and volatile organic
compounds. These precursors are emitted directly from industrial and mobile sources.
Transportation equipment such as automobiles and trucks also significantly contribute to
ozone precursor emissions. Elevated ozone concentrations in the atmosphere is a regional
issue rather than a localized problem because the atmospheric reactions take time, and
during this delay, ozone precursors may be dispersed far from their point of origin.
Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5)

Particulate matter is generated by industrial emissions, residential wood combustion,
motor vehicle tailpipes and fugitive dust from roadways, haul roads and unpaved surfaces.
There are federal standards for the emission of particulate matter less than or equal to 10
micrometers in size (PM10) and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in
size (PM2.5) because these sizes of particulate matter contribute the most to human
health effects and regional haze. The highest ambient concentrations generally occur near
the emission sources which in King County would be from residential wood-burning stoves
and motor vehicle tailpipes on major roads. PM2.5 has a greater impact than PM 10 at
locations far from the emitting source because it remains suspended in the atmosphere
longer and travels farther.
Lead
The main source of lead pollution has historically been the transportation sector but
tailpipe lead emissions have drastically declined since the EPA implemented regulations to
remove lead from on-road motor vehicle gasoline in 1995. The major emission sources of
lead currently include lead smelters and metals processing plants and combustion of
aviation gasoline.
Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx) are emitted by mobile sources and fuel-
burning stationary sources. NOx and SOx pollution from tailpipe emissions form regional
haze and acid deposition in the Olympic and Cascade Mountains surrounding Seattle, and
NOx is one of the ozone precursors that contribute to ongoing ozone issues in the Puget
Sound region.
Greenhouse Gases
GHGs are a group of gases that, when present in the atmosphere, absorb or reflect heat
that normally would radiate away from the earth, and thereby increases global
temperature. Several GHG constituents are commonly evaluated: Carbon dioxide (CO 2),
methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, O3 and halocarbons. CO2 is the individual
constituent that is normally emitted in the greatest amount and generally contributes the
most to climate change. Each individual constituent has its own global warming potential.
To express the average emission rate and global warming potential of the combined
constituents, GHG emission rates are commonly expressed as the equivalent amount of
carbon dioxide (CO2e). The effects of GHG emissions are global rather than local, meaning
that the amount of GHG emitted is important, but not the specific location of the
emissions.
Air Quality Regulations
Three agencies have jurisdiction over ambient air quality on and near the sites: the EPA,
Ecology and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). The EPA established NAAQS and
specified future dates for states to develop and implement plans to achieve these
standards. The standards are divided into primary and secondary standards; the former
are set to protect human health within an adequate margin of safety and the latter to
protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life. Ecology established the
Washington State Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) for the six criteria air
pollutants that are at least as stringent as the national standards.
Air Quality Attainment Status
Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the EPA and Ecology
designate regions as being attainment or non-attainment areas for regulated air
pollutants. If the measured concentrations in a non-attainment area improve so they are
consistently below the NAAQS, Ecology and the EPA can reclassify the non-attainment
area to a maintenance area.
King County is designated an attainment area for ozone, NO2 and PM10 and PM2.5. The
County is designated in a maintenance area for CO.
Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation Conformity Analysis
Within the region, all federal- or state-funded, significant transportation projects

(including constructing or widening roadways and signalized intersections) that are
proposed within non-attainment or maintenance areas are subject to the Transportation
Conformity Regulations. These regulations ensure that transportation projects, plans and
programs will conform to existing plans and timetables for attaining or maintaining
NAAQS. The Fort Lawton and Talaris sites are located in a maintenance area for CO and
ozone.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Regulations
All construction sites in the Puget Sound region are required to implement rigorous
emission controls to minimize fugitive dust and odors during construction, as required by
PSCAA Regulation 1, Section 9.15, Fugitive Dust Control Measures.
Climate Change Policy
National Environmental Policy Act Requirement for Climate Change Analysis - In

2010, the Council on Environmental Quality issued draft National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) guidance on the consideration of the effects of climate change
and GHG emissions. This guidance advises federal agencies to consider
opportunities to reduce GHG emissions caused by federal actions, adapt their
actions to climate change impacts throughout the NEPA process and address these
issues in their agency NEPA procedures. This guidance does not set numerical
thresholds for what levels of GHG emissions would constitute a significant impact,
nor does it specify what types of mitigation measures should be required by local
municipalities.
State of Washington Greenhouse Gas Requirements - In 2007, Executive Order 07-02 was
issued establishing several GHG reduction goals, including reducing emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020, 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2035 and 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
In 2011, the Washington State Department of Commerce released an updated

Washington State Energy Strategy for 2012, which includes short- and long-term policy
options to maintain competitive energy prices; increase competitiveness by fostering a
clean energy economy and jobs; and meet the state’s obligations to reduce GHG
emissions. The Strategy outlines strategies to meet these goals in terms of transportation
efficiency, building efficiency, distributed energy and pricing.
In 2016, Ecology adopted emission standards (Chapter 173-442 WAC – Clean Air Rule) to
cap and reduce GHG emissions from significant stationary sources, petroleum product
producers, importers and distributors and natural gas distributors.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and Greenhouse Gases - In 2004, the PSCAA published its
strategy document for climate change, entitled Roadmap for Climate Protection: Reducing
GHG Emissions in Puget Sound.1 In this strategy, the PSCAA recommends a broad range of
GHG reduction measures including regional vehicle trip reduction, building energy
efficiency improvements, solid waste reduction, forestry and agriculture practice
improvements and community education. This strategy also encourages local
municipalities to implement their own GHG reduction measures.
City of Seattle Climate Change Policies - In 2013, the City of Seattle adopted Resolution
31447, the Seattle Climate Action Plan. Additionally, in 2013, Seattle published the Seattle
Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategy. The strategy provides a framework that
focuses on reducing GHG emissions in road transportation, building energy and waste
sectors of the economy.
The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan outlines the City’s goal of reducing GHG emissions
by 58% from 2008 levels by 2030 and becoming carbon-neutral by 2050. The
Comprehensive Plan also outlines policies related to transportation, building energy,
waste and the food system that are aimed at reducing the emission of GHGs.
(See Appendix D for details on existing air quality and GHG emissions conditions and
regulations.)
1
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 2004.
An analysis of the potential adverse air quality and GHG impacts of Alternative 1, the
Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, is provided below. For EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, the analyses
are less detailed and any differences between the alternatives and the Preferred Alternative are
Alternative).

Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Under Alternative 1, clearing and grading activities, demolition of most of the existing
structures and construction of new infrastructure and housing and park uses through
project buildout in approximately 2025 could cause temporary increases in the ambient
concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate matter. Construction activity
would comply with PSCAA regulations to minimize dust emissions. Therefore, no
significant construction impacts are expected.
Construction activities would likely require the use of diesel-powered, heavy trucks and
smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air
pollutants that could slightly degrade local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the
activity. However, these emissions would be temporary and localized and the resulting
construction tailpipe emissions would likely be far outweighed by emissions from existing
traffic in the region. No significant impacts are expected.
Some construction activities could cause detectable odors in the Fort Lawton vicinity,
especially during paving operations using tar and asphalt. Such odors would be short-term
and localized. Stationary equipment used for construction must comply with PSCAA
regulations requiring the best available measures to control the emissions of odor.
Construction equipment and material hauling could temporarily increase traffic flow on
city streets adjacent to a construction area. If construction delays traffic enough to
significantly reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic-related emissions would
increase.
Development would also require removal of some existing vegetation, which would lead
to soil carbon GHG emissions. However, wooded areas in the north and south parts of the
Fort Lawton site would be preserved and forest land in the west portion of the site could
be dedicated to the adjacent Discovery Park. Overall, more vegetated area would be
created in the form of landscaping, passive and active open space, than would be
removed, resulting in a net increase in vegetation on the site and less soil carbon GHG
emissions.
Operation
Air quality impacts that could result from residential development under Alternative 1
would include heating, wood-burning and transportation-related impacts; park uses
would result in transportation-related impact, as described below.
Mobile Source Air Toxics
Development would include the addition of roadways and improvements to existing

roadways. When a street is widened and moves closer to receptors, the localized level of
mobile source air toxics emissions could be higher. On a regional basis, the EPA’s vehicle
and fuel regulations (coupled with ongoing future fleet turnover) will over time cause
substantial reductions that will cause region-wide mobile source air toxics levels to be
significantly lower than today in most cases. Therefore, development under Alternative 1
is not expected to generate significant levels of mobile sources of air toxic emissions.
Emissions from Vehicle Travel
Tailpipe emissions from vehicles traveling on public roads would be the major source of
air pollutant emissions associated with development under Alternative 1. Potential air
quality impacts caused by increased tailpipe emissions are divided into two general
categories: CO hotspots caused by localized emissions at heavily congested intersections
and regional photochemical smog (the regional haze produced by ozone and fine
particles) caused by combined emissions throughout the Puget Sound region.
Development under Alternative 1 would increase vehicle travel on existing public roads.
However, it is unlikely that the increased traffic and congestion would cause localized air
pollutant concentrations at local intersections to form a hotspot (i.e., a localized area
where air pollutant concentrations exceed NAAQS).
EPA motor vehicle regulations have steadily decreased tailpipe emissions from individual
vehicles. Continuing decreases from individual vehicle emissions are expected to more
than offset the increase in vehicle traffic, leading to a decrease in total GHG emissions
from transportation sources, even as populations increase. For these reasons, it is unlikely
that air quality impacts from Alternative 1 at local intersections would be significant.
When added to other growth in the region, the increased emissions caused by
development under Alternative 1 could slightly contribute to worsening of regional air
quality. However, the change in tailpipe emissions would be very small relative to the
overall regional tailpipe emissions in the Puget Sound air basin. Because the change in
tailpipe emissions associated with Alternative 1 is expected to be small compared to the
overall tailpipe emissions in region and because the region is currently designated an
attainment area, Alternative 1 would not result in a significant impact on regional air
quality.
Space Heating Emissions at Residential Buildings
Emissions would be generated by natural gas at new dwellings. However, per-building

space heating emissions are expected to decrease in response to energy conservation
code advancements. Therefore, future space heating emissions at the Fort Lawton or
Talaris sites are not expected to cause significant air quality impacts in the Puget Sound
region.
Residential Wood Burning
Residential wood-burning appliances elevate concentrations of particulate matter and

toxic air pollutants especially when heavy wood burning is combined with stagnant
weather conditions. The ambient air pollutant concentrations caused by residential wood
combustion generally occur in the immediate vicinity of the wood-burning appliance.
Wood-burning appliances would not be included in the housing under Alternative 1.
The PSCAA and Washington State have regulations in place to improve regional air quality
by limiting PM2.5 emissions from woodstoves. Continued enforcement of these regulations
and policies would ensure that future emissions from residential wood combustion would
prevent ambient pollutant concentrations in heavily populated areas from approaching
health-based NAAQS limits. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Projected buildout (2025) GHG emissions for each of the EIS alternatives is presented in
Table 3.3-1. As mentioned previously, because GHG emissions result in global rather than
localized impacts, estimates from the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites have been combined.
Three types of life-cycle emissions are included in these calculations: stationary combustion
equipment, energy and transportation.
As shown in the Table 3.3-1, the projected average annual GHG emissions under Alternative
1 is estimated to be 4,012 metric tons CO2e per year. This is well below Ecology’s
threshold of significant impacts of over 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year. Therefore, no
significant impacts are expected. Note that the GHG emissions under Alternative 1 are
from the Fort Lawton site only, as the Talaris site is not included in the project under this
alternative.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1 the Talaris site would not be redeveloped. Air quality and GHG
conditions on and near the site would continue as under existing conditions.
Table 3.3-1
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS – EIS ALERNATIVES
Projected Average Annual GHG Emissions

(metric tons CO2e per year)
GHG Emissions Estimates
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 (NA)
Forecast Emissions
Emissions (Stationary
965 1,415 965 0
Combustion)
Emissions (Electricity) 929 1,541 929 0
Emissions (Transportation) 2,118 2,993 2,118 0
Total Emissions 4,012 5,949 4,012 0
Source: Landau Associates, 2017.

Housing Offsite
In general, air quality and GHG impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to but greater
than under Alternative 1 due to residential development occurring on both the Fort Lawton
and Talaris sites. As shown in Table 3.3-1, combined GHG emissions from development at
both sites is estimated at 5,949 metric tons CO2e per year which is higher than the other
alternatives, but below the threshold of significance (25,000 metric tons CO2e per year).
Alternative 2 would also result in more overall vehicle travel and vehicle-related emissions
than Alternative 1 because housing would be built on both the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites.
As with Alternative 1, it is unlikely that the increased traffic and congestion would cause
localized air pollutant concentrations at local intersections to form a hotspot.
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Temporary localized air emissions from construction activities (clearing/grading,
demolition of all structures and construction of residences) could occur through project
buildout in approximately 2025, similar to the impacts described under Alternative 1.
Construction activity would comply with PSCAA regulations to minimize dust emissions.
Therefore, no significant construction impacts are expected.
Operation
Air quality impacts associated with operation of market-rate residential development on
the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, and significant
levels of mobile sources of air toxic emissions, space heating emissions and residential
wood burning emissions are not anticipated.
Talaris Site
Construction
Temporary air quality impacts through project buildout under Alternative 2 would result
from clearing/grading, construction of homes and renovation of buildings throughout the
Talaris site; there would be no demolition of existing structures. Construction activity
would comply with PSCAA regulations to minimize dust emissions. Therefore, no
significant construction impacts are expected.
Operation
Air quality impacts related to operation of affordable housing on the Talaris site would be
similar to those described for the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1.
In general air quality impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1. As

shown in Table 3.3-1, combined GHG emissions from development at both sites is
estimated to be the same as Alternative 1 (4,012 metric tons CO2e per year). This is well
below Ecology’s threshold of significant impacts of over 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year.
Alternative 3 would result in more overall vehicle travel and vehicle-related emissions than
Alternative 1 because dwelling units would be built on the Talaris site and active and
passive open space uses at the Fort Lawton site. As with Alternative 1, it is unlikely that the
increased traffic and congestion would cause localized air pollutant concentrations at local
intersections to form a hotspot.
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Temporary construction air quality impacts through project buildout in approximately
2025 under Alternative 3 would result from clearing/grading, demolition of most of the
structures and construction of parks and recreation uses throughout the Fort Lawton site.
Impacts would be similar to but less than those described for Alternative 1 since
construction of new residential development would not occur. Construction activity would
comply with PSCAA regulations to minimize dust emissions. Therefore, no significant
construction impacts are expected.
Operation
Air quality impacts associated with operation of park and recreational uses on the Fort
Lawton site under Alternative 2 would be similar to under Alternative 1, and significant
levels of mobile sources of air toxic emissions, space heating emissions and residential
wood burning emissions are not anticipated.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 3, the Talaris site would be developed in the same uses as under
Alternative 2 and air quality impacts would also be the same.
(See Appendix D for details on potential air quality and GHG impacts under Alternatives 1, 2
and 3.)
Under Alternative 4, no redevelopment of the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites would occur at
this time. Existing air quality conditions would continue and no new project-related air
quality or GHG emissions would be generated.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential impacts on air quality
and GHGs from construction and operation of the Fort Lawton Project under Alternatives 1,
2 and 3. These measures apply to all the alternatives unless otherwise noted. Legally-
• PSCAA regulations to minimize fugitive dust and odor during construction would be
implemented.
• All development would comply with applicable air quality regulations, including NAAQS,
State Ambient Air Quality standards, PSCAA’s and Ecology’s indoor burning regulations,
PSCAA’s outdoor burning regulations and State of Washington GHG laws.
• Construction contractors would implement air quality control plans for construction
activities. A dust control plan would be prepared that would require construction
crews to implement all reasonable control measures described in the Guide to
Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects.2 Air quality control plans would
include best management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust and odors emitted
by diesel construction equipment.
2
Associated General Contractors of Washington and Fugitive Dust Task Force 1997.
• Housing developed on the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites would comply with the Evergreen
Sustainable Development Standards (ESDS), which include the following GHG reduction
measures:
o Walkable neighborhoods (resulting in lower transportation-related emissions);
and
o Reductions in energy use and increased insulation (resulting in lower emissions
related to space heating).
• Under Alternatives 1 and 3, sidewalks and trails would be located throughout the site
that would provide opportunities for non-motorized circulation and reduce vehicular
emissions.
• Under Alternatives 1 and 3, King County Metro transit bus stops would be provided at
two locations along Texas Way West on the Fort Lawton site to encourage mass-transit
use between the site and off-site locations and reduce the number of vehicular miles
travelled.
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality or GHGs are anticipated.
3.4 NOISE
This section of the FEIS describes the noise conditions on and near the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives are evaluated
and mitigation measures identified. The section is based on the Noise report prepared by
Landau Associates in October 2017 (see Appendix E).
Key Findings
The Fort Lawton site is currently vacant; existing sources of noise are limited to wildlife
and occasional maintenance. Sources of noise on the Talaris site are from conference
center uses and wildlife. Noise sources adjacent to both sites include traffic travelling on
nearby roads, residential uses and in the case of the Talaris site, institutional uses (i.e.,
Children’s Hospital).
During construction, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in a temporary increase in noise

due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of construction materials. During
operation, increases in traffic noise are expected to result from all development
alternatives, with Alternatives 1 and 3 generating a larger increase in traffic noise than the
other alternatives. Operational noise is anticipated to be highest under Alternative 3 with
three multi-purpose fields, followed by Alternative 1 with two multi-purpose fields. Under
Alternative 2, the increase in operational noise generation is expected to be minimal.
Increases in noise under all the development alternatives are not anticipated to be
significant relative to City and State regulatory criteria.
Methodology
Terminology used in the noise analysis include A-weighted decibel (dBA) and equivalent
sound level (Leq) as described below. Noise can be described as unwanted sound. A
frequency-dependent rating known as the dBA scale relates noise to human hearing
sensitivity. This scale accounts for the human perception of a doubling of loudness as an
increase of 10 dBA. Most people under normal listening conditions would probably
perceive a 5 dBA change in noise of a similar nature. A measure used to represent the
average sound energy occurring over a specified time period is Leq. Leq is the steady-state
sound level that would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that
actually occurs during the monitoring period. The 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound
level (Leq 1 h) is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour
period.
Noise-sensitive receiver locations considered for the noise evaluation include existing
nearby residences and parks and planned residences, parks and community gathering
places located throughout the study area, which includes Discovery Park, Kiwanis
Memorial Preserve Park and residential areas adjacent to the Fort Lawton site (see Figure

March 2018 Noise
3.4-1, Fort Lawton Noise Sensitive Receivers) and residential areas adjacent to the Talaris
site (see Figure 3.4-2, Talaris Noise Sensitive Receivers).
The temporary impacts of noise from construction and long-term impacts of noise from
residential land use and park uses are evaluated. Local on-site roadway noise was
qualitatively analyzed. The Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model Version
2.5 (USDOT FHWA 2004) was used to predict existing and future noise levels during peak
hours.
Traffic noise impacts caused by increased traffic on the following roads adjacent to the
Fort Lawton site were evaluated for the existing homes, parks and noise-sensitive
receivers:
• Texas Way (Fort Lawton Cemetery and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park: R-2);
• 40th Avenue West (Existing Residence: R-1);
• West Government Way (Existing Residences: R-3 and R-5); and
• 34th Avenue West (Existing Residence: R-4).
Traffic noise impacts caused by increased traffic on the following roads adjacent to the
Talaris site were evaluated for the existing homes and noise-sensitive receivers:
• Mary Gates Memorial Drive NE (University of Washington Sports Field: Field);
• NE 41st Street (Existing Residence: R-1); and
• NE 45th Street (Existing Residence: R-2).
Potential noise impacts are compared to City of Seattle and Washington State noise
regulatory criteria.
(See Appendix E for details on the noise analysis methodology.)
This sub-section describes existing noise conditions on and near the Fort Lawton and Talaris
sites.
Fort Lawton Site
The Fort Lawton site is currently a vacant former Army Reserve center; the only existing
sources of noise are wildlife that use the site and occasional maintenance of the facilities.
Existing noise sources near the site include activities associated with residential and park
uses (e.g., in the Magnolia neighborhood, and at Discovery Park and Kiwanis Memorial
Reserve Park) and traffic traveling on adjacent roadways (e.g., W Government Way, Texas
Way W, 36th Avenue W and W Lawton Street).

March 2018 Noise
Source: Landau Associates, 2017. Figure 3.4-1

Fort Lawton Noise Sensitive Receptors
Source: Landau Associates, 2017. Figure 3.4-2

Talaris Noise Sensitive Receptors
Table 3.4-1 lists the modeled daytime Leq noise levels at each representative receiver
location near the Fort Lawton site for existing conditions in 2017, as well as the traffic-
related noise levels under Alternatives 1 through 4 in 2030. (2030 corresponds to the
future analysis year in the transportation analysis for the project, and is consistent with
the future planning year used by the City of Seattle.)
Talaris Site
The Talaris site is currently used as a conference center in a park-like setting. Existing
sources of noise on the site are from the conference center attendees and staff and
wildlife that use the site. Existing noise sources near the site include activities associated
with residential, institutional and commercial uses (e.g., in the Laurelhurst neighborhood,
Children’s Hospital and commercial uses along Sandpoint Way), and traffic traveling on
adjacent roadways (e.g., NE 45th Street, 42nd Avenue NE, NE 41st Street and 38th Avenue
NE).
Table 3.4-1 lists the modeled daytime Leq noise levels at each representative receiver
location near the Talaris site for the existing conditions in 2017, as well as the traffic-
related noise levels under Alternatives 1 through 4 in 2030.
Table 3.4-1
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC-RELATED NOISE LEVELS – EIS ALTERNATIVES
Modeled Noise Impact in dBA

Difference from No-Action Alternative
Alt 4
Representative Receiver Existing Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 No Action
Location (2017) (2030) (2030) (2030) (2030)
Fort Lawton
Cemetery 48 4 1 4 49
R-1 56 2 1 1 56
R-2 / Kiwanis Park 47 4 1 4 48
R-3 61 2 <1 2 62
R-4 62 1 <1 1 62
R-5 64 <1 <1 <1 65
Talaris
Field 64 - <1 <1 64
R-1 59 - <1 <1 60
R-2 63 - <1 <1 64
Source: Landau Associates, 2017.

Note: Alternative 1 includes no development at the Talaris site; therefore, no project-related changes in traffic volume are forecast.
Development at the Talaris site is identical under Alternatives 2 and 3; therefore, project-related traffic volumes are forecast to be
the same under both alternatives.
Noise impacts are rounded to the nearest whole decibel, consistent with WSDOT traffic noise modeling guidance. Values indicated as
“<1” not shown due to rounding.

March 2018 Noise
An analysis of the potential adverse noise impacts of Alternative 1, the Applicant’s Preferred
Alternative, is provided below. For EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, the analyses are less detailed
and any differences between the alternatives and the Preferred Alternative are highlighted
(other aspects of these alternatives are expected to be similar to the Preferred Alternative).

Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Clearing and grading activities, demolition of most of the existing structures, and
construction of new infrastructure and housing through project buildout in approximately
2025 would be accompanied by temporary increases in noise due to the use of heavy
equipment and hauling of construction materials. Noise impacts would depend on the
background sound levels, the type of construction equipment being used and the amount
of time it is in use. The project would adhere to the limits for construction activity within
residential zones in SMC Chapter 25.08.425. Therefore, no significant impacts are
expected during construction.
Operation
Alternative 1 would result in increased traffic on local roadways and associated noise
within and around the Fort Lawton site. Noise impacts from traffic on local roadways is
shown in Table 3.4-1. The largest traffic noise impacts are expected to occur along Texas
Way W due to the low volume of existing traffic along this road and the relatively high
volume of project-related traffic that is expected. However, the modeled peak-hour traffic
noise increase at full buildout would not exceed the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) substantial increase impact threshold of 10 dBA at any of the
representative receiver locations under Alternative 1. Therefore, traffic-related noise is
not expected to be significant.
Operational noise under Alternative 1 would be generated by multi-family residential,

parks/recreation, senior support service, and maintenance facility uses at the Fort Lawton
site. Noise associated with residences and senior support service offices is expected to be
minimal. Active open space can produce noise associated with maintenance and amplified
and unamplified human voices, which is regulated by Chapter 25.08.490 of the SMC. As a
result, no significant impacts are expected. Under Alternative 1, existing wooded areas in
the north, south and west parts of the Fort Lawton site would be preserved in forest.
Vegetation along the east edge of the Fort Lawton site would be maintained and
potentially enhanced as necessary to serve as a noise buffer between the site and the
adjacent Magnolia neighborhood under this alternative. Woodland and vegetated buffers

March 2018 Noise
would assist in reducing the impacts of noise from the site on the surrounding area.
Therefore, operational noise is not expected to be significant.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1 the Talaris site would not be redeveloped. Noise sources on and near
the site would continue as under existing conditions and no additional noise impacts are
expected.
(See Appendix E for details on potential noise impacts under Alternative 1.)

Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Temporary construction noise impacts through project buildout under Alternative 2 would
be like under Alternative 1 and would result from clearing/grading, demolition of all the
existing structures and construction of homes throughout the Fort Lawton site. With
adherence to the limits for construction activity in SMC Chapter 25.08.425, no significant
Operation
Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would result in increased traffic on local roadways
and associated noise within and around the Fort Lawton site. Noise impacts from traffic
on local roadways are shown in Table 3.4-1. Traffic noise at representative receiver
locations near the Fort Lawton site is expected to range from less than 1 to 1 dBA which is
lower than under Alternative 1 due to the smaller increase in traffic volume forecast for
this alternative. Like Alternative 1, modeled peak-hour traffic noise increase at full
buildout would not exceed the WSDOT substantial increase impact threshold of 10 dBA at
any of the representative receiver locations under Alternative 2. Therefore, traffic-related
noise is not expected to be significant.
Operational noise under Alternative 2 would be generated by the single-family residences

at the Fort Lawton site. Noise associated with these residences is expected to be minimal.
No active open spaces and their associated noise are planned for the Fort Lawton site
under this alternative. Therefore, operational noise is not expected to be significant.
Talaris Site
Construction
result from clearing/grading, construction of homes and renovation of existing buildings
throughout the Talaris site. There would be no demolition of existing structures. With

March 2018 Noise
adherence to the limits for construction activity in SMC Chapter 25.08.425, no significant
Operation
Similar to the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1, development under Alternative 2
would result in increased traffic on local roadways and associated noise within and around
the Talaris site. Noise impacts from traffic on local roadways are shown in Table 3.4-1.
Traffic noise under Alternative 2 would increase by less than 1 dBA above the No-Action
Alternative; the increase in noise under Alternative 2 would be the result of higher traffic
volumes associated with the proposed multi-family development. The modeled peak-hour
traffic noise increase at full buildout would not exceed the WSDOT substantial increase
impact threshold of 10 dBA at any of the representative receiver locations under
Alternative 2. Therefore, traffic-related noise is not expected to be significant.
Operational noise under Alternative 2 would be generated by multi-family residential and

senior support service uses at the Talaris site. Noise associated with these uses is
expected to be minimal. No active use of open spaces and their associated noise are
planned for the Talaris site under this alternative. Therefore, operational noise is not
expected to be significant.
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
result from clearing/grading, demolition of most of the structures and construction of
parks and recreation uses throughout the Fort Lawton site. With adherence to the limits
for construction activity in SMC Chapter 25.08.425, no significant impacts are expected.
Operation
Similar to Alternative 1, development under Alternative 3 would result in increased traffic
on local roadways and associated noise within and around Fort Lawton site. Noise impacts
from traffic on local roadways under Alternative 3 at the Fort Lawton site are shown in
Table 3.4-1. Traffic noise level increase is expected to range from less than 1 to 4 dBA,
which is higher than Alternatives 2 or 4 due to the multi-use fields which are expected to
draw larger volumes of traffic during peak PM hours. The increase of traffic noise
associated with Alternative 3 is expected to be like the increase under Alternative 1,
except at receiver location R-1 where the increase associated with Alternative 3 would be
slightly less. Like Alternative 1, modeled peak-hour traffic noise increase at full buildout
would not exceed the WSDOT substantial increase impact threshold of 10 dBA at any of

March 2018 Noise
the representative receiver locations under Alternative 3. Therefore, traffic-related noise
is not expected to be significant.
Operational noise from Alternative 3 would be generated by the active and passive open
space uses at the Fort Lawton site. Active open space would produce noise associated
with maintenance and amplified and unamplified human voices. The noise generated by
the parks/recreation uses would be greater than under Alternative 1, because there
would be one additional multipurpose field. With adherence to the regulations in Chapter
25.08.490 of the SMC, no significant impacts are expected. Similar to Alternatives 1,
existing wooded areas in the north, south and west parts of the Fort Lawton site would be
preserved in forest. Vegetation along the east edge of the Fort Lawton site would be
maintained and potentially enhanced as necessary to serve as a noise buffer between the
site and the adjacent Magnolia neighborhood under this alternative as well. Woodland
and vegetated buffers would assist in reducing the impacts of noise from the site on the
surrounding area. Therefore, operation noise is not expected to be significant.
Talaris Site
The potential noise impacts of Alternative 3 at the Talaris site would be the same as
described under Alternative 2 because the same development is proposed.
Under Alternative 4, no development is proposed for the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites at
this time. No temporary clearing/grading, demolition or construction noise would occur.
Local roadway noise is expected to increase slightly through 2030 to correspond with an
expected one percent per year increase in traffic volumes resulting in a modeled increase
of noise associated with traffic ranging from less than 1 to 1 dBA, which would not exceed
the WSDOT substantial impact threshold of 10 dBA at any of the representative receiver
locations. No new project-related operational noises would occur.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential noise impacts from
construction and operation of the Fort Lawton Project under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. These
measures apply to all the alternatives unless otherwise noted. Legally-Required Measures
are measures that are required by code, laws or local, state and federal regulations to
address significant impacts. Measures Proposed as Part of Project are measures
incorporated into the project to reduce significant impacts. Other Possible Measures are
additional measures that could be implemented to address impacts, but are not necessary
to mitigate significant impacts.

March 2018 Noise
• Construction activities would be limited to between the hours of 7 AM and 10 PM

during weekdays, and between the hours of 9 AM and 10 PM on weekends and legal
holidays to comply with applicable state and local regulations.
• The noise associated with maintenance and amplified/unamplified human voices in

the active open space under Alternatives 1 and 3 would adhere to the regulations in
SMC 25.08.490.
• To minimize construction noise at nearby receivers, the following mitigation measures

would be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications:
o Locate stationary equipment away from receiving properties;
o Erect portable noise barriers around loud stationary equipment located near
sensitive receivers;
o Turn off idling construction equipment;
o Require contractors to rigorously maintain all equipment; and
o Train construction crews to avoid unnecessarily loud actions (e.g., dropping
bundles of rebar onto the ground or dragging steel plates across pavement)
near noise-sensitive areas.
• Under Alternatives 1 and 3, existing wooded areas in the north, south, and west parts
of the Fort Lawton site would be preserved in forest. Vegetation along the east edge
of the Fort Lawton site would be maintained and potentially enhanced as necessary to
serve as a noise buffer between the site and the adjacent Magnolia neighborhood
under these alternatives as well. Woodland and vegetated buffers would assist in
reducing the impact of noise from the site on the surrounding areas.
No significant unavoidable adverse noise-related impacts are expected.

March 2018 Noise
3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
This section of the FEIS describes the environmental health conditions on and near the Fort
Lawton and Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives are
evaluated and mitigation measures identified. This section is based on the review of several
technical reports on the sites (see Appendix F for a complete list and summaries of these
reports).
Key Findings
Potential environmental health hazards are present at the Fort Lawton site, including
asbestos, lead-based paint and PCBs in existing buildings, and possibly undiscovered
underground storage tanks or contaminants. Buildings on the Talaris site could also contain
asbestos, lead-based paint and PCBs. A former landfill is located near the Talaris site.
However, there is minimal potential for methane migration onto the site.
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, all existing buildings except Building 245 would be removed on
the Fort Lawton site. Under Alternative 2, all existing buildings would be removed on the
Fort Lawton site. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, all existing buildings on the Talaris site would
be retained and repurposed. During construction of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, impacts could
include air pollutants from dust or vehicle emissions, exposure to hazardous materials
and/or accidental spills of construction-related chemicals. During operation of all the
development alternatives, environmental health impacts could result from the improper use
and disposal of household chemicals, such as cleaners and fertilizers; operational impacts
are anticipated to be less under Alternative 3 due to fewer residential units than the other
alternatives. With the implementation of a site-specific health and safety plan and a SWPPP,
no significant environmental health impacts are expected.
Methodology
Relevant technical reports were reviewed to assess the environmental conditions/hazards

at the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites and vicinities. Based on this information, conclusions
were reached related to the potential for hazardous substances to be present on the sites
and for proposed redevelopment under the EIS alternatives to disturb these substances and
potentially cause environmental health impacts.
This sub-section describes existing and historic land uses on and near the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites and identifies the known presence or potential presence of contaminants
and/or hazardous materials on the sites.

March 2018 Environmental Health
Fort Lawton Site
In 1896, the Fort Lawton Military Reservation was established as an artillery battery
intended to defend the city of Seattle and South Puget Sound from naval attack. The
reservation consisted of over 1,100 acres and in 1900 was officially designated Fort Lawton.
The artillery firing pieces were not installed and in 1902 the fort was converted to infantry
use.
The current Fort Lawton site is situated on approximately 34 acres of the former military
reservation and contains the following six buildings which are vacant and in caretaker
status:
• Harvey Hall (Building 216) built in 1958;
• Leisy Hall (Building 220) built in between 1968 and 1972;
• Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA, Building 222) built in 1968;
• Maintenance Building (Building 211) built around 1958;
• Maintenance Building (Building 214) built in the late 1990s; and
• Organizational Maintenance Shop (OMS, Building 245) built in 1999.
Due to the age of some of the buildings, asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based
paint (LBP) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are potentially present. Other past
activities and facilities associated with the former military reservation could also have
resulted in the release of contaminates to the soil and groundwater (e.g., from underground
and aboveground storage tanks, a rifle and pistol range and fill materials from unknown
sources). These potential sources of contaminants are described further below.
Asbestos
Prior to 1973 ACM were commonly used for fireproofing and insulating purposes. In 1973
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned spray-applied surfacing asbestos;
further bans on asbestos products were adopted in 1975, 1977 and 1978. Asbestos is made
up of microscopic fibers that can easily become airborne and inhaled and can cause
inflammation of the lungs and other areas of the respiratory system and lead to other
health problems.
Asbestos surveys were conducted for Buildings 216, Building 220 and Building 222. These
surveys determined that all three buildings contain ACM.1 No asbestos survey was found
for maintenance Building 211, which was built in 1958 and has the potential to contain
asbestos. Building 214 and Building 245 were built in the late 1990s and are not expected
to contain ACM.
1
Rose Environmental, Periodic ACM/PACM Condition Assessment – Lawton US Army Reserve Center, Seattle,
Washington (December 2012).

Lead-Based Paint
Prior to 1978, lead was added to paint to speed up drying, increase durability, maintain a
fresh appearance and resist moisture that causes corrosion. Both inside and outside a
building, deteriorated lead-paint can mix with household dust and soil. Lead is a highly toxic
metal that may cause a range of health problems. In 1978, the federal government banned
consumer uses of LBP.
There are no documented LBP surveys or abatement records for any of the buildings onsite.
However, because most of the buildings were constructed before 1981, LBP is likely
present. Building 214 was constructed in the late 1990s and is not expected to contain
LBP.2
PCBs
Prior to 1979, PCBs were widely used in electrical equipment, such as transformers,
capacitors, switches, fluorescent lights (ballasts) and voltage regulators PCBs have been
found to cause health problems. When fish and wildlife are exposed to them, PCBs can
travel up the food chain, eventually accumulating in their tissues and becoming a threat to
human health if eaten. In 1976, the EPA initiated regulation of PCBs through the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) and then banned PCB use in 1978. In 1979, the
manufacturing of PCBs in the United States was banned.
There are no PCB-containing ballasts or transformers at Harvey Hall (Building 216) and Leisy
Hall (Building 220).3 In 1998, renovations conducted at Harvey Hall, Leisy Hall and Building
222 included upgrades to the lighting system. In 2001-2002, all pole-mounted and pad-
mounted transformers were removed from Harvey Hall. No PCB information was found for
Maintenance Building 211. Building 214 and OMS Building 245 were constructed in the late
1990s and are not expected to have PCB-containing equipment.
Underground and Aboveground Storage Tanks
Historically, there were five underground storage tanks (USTs) on the Fort Lawton site that
were used to store petroleum products. From 1990-1993, five USTs were removed,
cleaned, and disposed of. In 2013, there was no evidence of soil contamination at these
tank site locations.4 The status of three reportable USTs has been listed as “removed” in
the Washington Department of Ecology UST system; the other two heating fuel USTs were
exempt from reporting as soil samples did not detect petroleum products.3 Past studies
have indicated that no environmental conditions related to USTs were found and no further
action is recommended on this site.
2
Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott and May Engineers, Inc., Environmental Conditions Property Report (September 2007).
3
US Army Corp of Engineers, Mobile District, Final Environmental Assessment (EA) Report, July 2012.
4
EXCEL Engineering, Inc., Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) Update Report, April 2013.

Three aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are located at the Leisy Hall complex. One 4,000-
gallon diesel AST is situated on the southern exterior of Building 220 and is associated with
an emergency generator. One 200-gallon AST used to store hydraulic fuel for a vehicle lift is
situated in a storage room of the AMSA building (Building 222). And one 500-gallon AST
used for the storage of used oil collected in maintenance operations conducted at Building
222 is located within a portable hazmat storage shed west of Building 222. No issues of
leaks associated with the ASTs have been observed or reported.5 There is no information
on removal or decommissioning of the ASTs.
Rifle/Pistol Range
The Fort Lawton Rifle Target Range and Pistol Target Range were located on property
owned by the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Complex and the city of Seattle. Both were static
small arms ranges that were active from approximately 1904 through 1944 for rifle and
pistol marksmanship training for those stationed at Fort Lawton Military Reservation. The
1,000-Yard Target Range Munitions Response Site (MRS) is the portion of the Fort Lawton
Rifle Target Range located on the original Fort Lawton property but is not included on the
current redevelopment site. The target range is located north and extending northwest of
AMSA Building 222, partially located on the existing parking lot of the VA building.
Historically, arsenic and lead contamination can be present in soils and groundwater around
shooting ranges. Past studies indicate that no environmental conditions related to
munitions were found and no further action is recommended on this site.6
Other Potential Contaminant Sources
Soil and groundwater studies were conducted in the area of the existing paved parking of
the VA building (directly adjacent to and northwest of AMSA Building 222) to determine if
the property was adversely impacted by historical use or from adjacent properties. The
past study indicated that no environmental conditions were found and no further action is
recommended on this site.7
Talaris Site
The Talaris site contains nine separate buildings historically related to the Institute for
Advanced Study. The site is currently in use as the Talaris Conference Center. The buildings
were constructed in two phases: Phase I, 1965 – 1967; and Phase II 1970 - 1971. It is
unknown if any ACM, LBP or PCB surveys have been conducted on the buildings. However,
there is a potential for ACM, LBP and PCB ballasts or other equipment to be present due to
the age of the buildings.
An abandoned landfill (Montlake Landfill) is located to the west of the Talaris site. The
landfill operated from 1926 to 1966 and was closed in 1971 following landfill practices of
5
Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott and May Engineers, Inc., Environmental Conditions Property Report, September 2007.
6
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Omaha District, Final Site Investigation Report, May 2010.
7
ATC Associates, Inc., Phase II ESA, July 2009.

the time, including covering of the landfill with about 2 feet of clean soil. No landfill
deposits underlie the site. The easternmost extent of the mapped abandoned landfill waste
is slightly more than 1,000 feet from the western site boundary and a portion of the site is
located within the buffer of the landfill. Past studies indicate that there is a low probability
of methane migrating from the abandoned landfill onto the site.8
An analysis of the potential adverse environmental health impacts of Alternative 1, the

Alternative 1 - Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses

Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Under Alternative 1, all the buildings except Building 245 would be demolished and
removed from the Fort Lawton site. Demolition of the buildings could generate air
pollutants due to dust from demolition activities and emissions from construction vehicles.
However, such air pollutants would be temporary in nature and localized to the immediate
vicinity of the demolition activity. Demolition activities would be conducted according to
applicable air quality regulations established by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA),
and no significant impacts are expected (see Section 3.3 Air Quality, and Appendix D for
details).
Due to the age of some of the existing buildings, there may be ACM, LBP and PCB-
containing equipment present and the demolition of these structures could disturb these
materials. Exposure to ACM, LBP and PCB could present health and safety issues for
workers and the environment. Construction activities would include contingencies for
appropriate site-specific health and safety procedures that meet the requirements of WAC
296-843, Hazardous Waste Operations, to minimize the potential for workers to be exposed
to hazardous materials during construction, and no significant impacts are expected. Details
on environmental-health related impacts from ACM, LBP and PCBs are provided below.
Asbestos
Buildings 216, 220 and 222 are known to contain ACM. Building 211 has the potential to
contain asbestos due to its age. The other buildings on the site are not expected to contain
8
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Geotechnical Report, October 2013.

ACM. During demolition and removal of Buildings 216, 220, 222 and 211 under Alternative
1, ACM could be released and potentially impact the health and safety of workers and the
environment. ACM are required to be removed and disposed of in accordance with
Washington State Regulations prior to any demolition, renovation or remodeling that would
disturb these materials. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries and the
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) require that the abatement be performed using
Certified Asbestos Workers under the direct on-site supervision of a Certified Asbestos
Supervisor. ACM surveys conducted would be consulted for Buildings 206, 220 and 222
prior to any demolition activities to determine where ACM exists. If there are any data gaps
in determining where ACM exists, a new ACM survey would be conducted for clarification. A
new ACM survey would be conducted for Building 211 prior to any demolition activities to
determine if ACM exists. ACM abatement would occur prior to demolition.
Lead-Based Paint
Because most of the buildings on the site were constructed before 1981, the presence of
LBP is likely. Building 214, was constructed in the late 1990s and is not expected to contain
LBP. LBP surveys would be conducted prior to demolition of buildings on the site under
Alternative 1. If LBP is found on the exterior of the buildings, then the LBP survey would be
extended to include the soil surrounding buildings that contain exterior LBP. Materials
containing LBP would be removed or stabilized prior to demolition.
PCBs
PCBs are not expected to be present Building 216, Building 220, Building 222 or Building
214. Therefore, demolition of these buildings is not expected to release PCBs. No PCB
information was found for Maintenance Building 211 and it is possible that demolition of
this building could release PCBs. A PCB survey would be conducted for Building 211 to
determine if any PCB-containing equipment remains in the building. PCB-containing
equipment would be removed prior to demolition. Building 245 would be retained under
Alternative 1 and no PCBs would be released during construction.
Underground and Aboveground Storage Tanks
Historically there were five USTs on the Fort Lawton site that were used for storage of
petroleum products. These USTs were removed, cleaned, and disposed of. Due to the age
of past uses on the site and lack of environmental regulations in the past, it is possible that
undocumented underground storage tanks or contaminants could exist at the site and be
discovered during construction activities for Alternative 1. Should any contamination be
discovered during construction, applicable investigation and cleanup provisions, including
applicable Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) Regulations, would be followed.
There are three ASTs located at Leisy Hall. These ASTs would be properly emptied and
removed prior to construction under Alternative 1, in accordance with applicable
regulations.

Stormwater Management
During construction under Alternative 1, there would be a potential for accidental spills of
construction-related chemicals. Due to the location of the site near Shilshole Bay,
stormwater runoff could enter surface waters of the state. The Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) requires construction site operators to be covered by a
Construction Stormwater General Permit if they are engaged in clearing, grading and
excavating activities that disturb one or more acres and discharge stormwater to surface
waters of the state. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared as
required by the Stormwater Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would be prepared
prior to construction at the site and contain Best Management Practice (BMPs) to control
stormwater contamination and procedures for preventing and responding to accidental
spills.
Operation
Future residential uses could pose a threat to the environment through the misuse and
improper disposal of household cleaners, yard fertilizers and pesticides, and gas and other
petroleum products used in the operation and maintenance of automobiles and yard
equipment.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1 the Talaris site would not be redeveloped at this time. The site would
remain in its existing condition and no environmental health impacts are expected.

Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site

Potential environmental health impacts during demolition and construction of Alternative 2
would be like those described under Alternative 1 except that Building 245 would also be
demolished. Building 245 was constructed in 1999 and is not expected to contain any ACM,
LBP or PCBs. No significant impacts are expected.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 2, the Talaris property would be purchased by affordable housing
developers and a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) would likely be
conducted prior to property transfer. The purpose of the Phase I is to determine the
environmental condition of the property.
Construction
The planned construction and renovation of buildings under Alternative 2 at the Talaris site
could generate air pollutants such as dust from construction activities or emissions from
construction vehicles. However, such air pollutants would be temporary in nature and
localized to the immediate vicinity of the construction activity. Construction/renovation

activities would be conducted according to applicable air quality regulations established by
the PSCAA, and no significant impacts are expected (see Section 3.3, Air Quality, and
Appendix D for details).
Similar to under Alternative 1, during construction under Alternative 2 there would be a

potential for accidental spills of construction-related chemicals. Due to the location of the
site near Union Bay, stormwater runoff could enter surface waters of the state. Ecology
requires Construction site operators to be covered by a Construction Stormwater General
Permit if they are engaged in clearing, grading, and excavating activities that disturb one or
more acres and discharge stormwater to surface waters of the state. A SWPPP would be
prepared prior to construction at the site and contain BMPs to control stormwater
contamination and procedures for preventing and responding to accidental spills.
Therefore, no significant impacts are expected.
Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint and PCBs
There is a potential for ACM, LBP and PCB-containing equipment to be present in the
existing buildings at the Talaris site. Exposure to ACM, LBP and PCBs during renovation and
remodeling activities under Alternative 2 could present environmental health and safety
issues for workers and the environment. ACM, LBP and PCB surveys would be conducted
prior to renovation and remodeling activities. If LBP is found on the exterior of the
buildings, then the LBP survey would be extended to include the soil surrounding buildings
that contain exterior LBP. ACM, LBP and PCB-containing materials would be removed and
disposed of in accordance with Washington State Regulations prior to any renovation or
remodeling that would disturb these materials, and no significant impacts are expected.
Former Landfill
It is unlikely that methane is migrating from the abandoned landfill onto the Talaris site.
Therefore, proposed construction would not release this gas and no special measures would
be needed to address methane migration with proposed development under Alternative 2.
Operation
Future residential uses under Alternative 2 could pose a threat to the environment through
the misuse and improper disposal of household cleaners, yard fertilizers and pesticides, and
gas and other petroleum products used in the operation and maintenance of automobiles
and yard equipment.
Fort Lawton Site

Potential environmental health-related impacts of Alternative 3 at the Fort Lawton site
would be similar to those described under Alternative 1.

Talaris Site
Potential environmental health-related impacts of Alternative 3 at the Talaris site would be
the same as those described under Alternative 2 because the same development is
proposed.
Under the Alternative 4, the Fort Lawton Site would not be redeveloped at this time. The
buildings onsite would remain in their existing vacant condition. The City would terminate
its lease of the property and the Army would resume maintenance of the site and facilities.
Buildings and infrastructure would likely continue to deteriorate. No environmental health
impacts are anticipated under Alternative 4.
The Talaris site would not be purchased or redeveloped under Alternative 4. The buildings
onsite would remain in their existing condition and would continue to be used a conference
center. No environmental health impacts are anticipated.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential environmental health
impacts from construction and operation of the Fort Lawton Project under Alternatives 1, 2
and 3. These measures apply to all the alternatives unless otherwise noted. Legally-
• A site-specific health and safety plan would be prepared that includes the safety
requirements of WAC 296-843, Hazardous Waste Operations, and WAC 296-155, Safety
Standards for Construction Work to minimize the potential for workers to be exposed to
hazardous materials during construction.
• Building construction/renovation would be conducted after a hazardous building

materials survey has been completed to identify or confirm the presence of ACM, LBP or
PCBs. Hazardous building materials would be removed or stabilized prior to
demolition/renovation in accordance with applicable regulations.
• If unanticipated contamination or underground storage tanks are discovered during

construction activities, the project would comply with applicable cleanup provisions
based on MTCA regulations.

• Spill prevention and response planning would be conducted prior to the start of
construction/renovation activities to prevent and, if needed, respond to hydraulic oil or
fuel spills. A SWPPP would be developed per Ecology requirements and BMPs followed
to reduce the risk of spills and discharges to the stormwater. Stormwater treatment
and monitoring would be conducted during demolition and construction activities.
• Conventional dust control measures would be implemented to minimize the exposure

of workers and the immediate surrounding populations to construction-generated dust
(see Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Appendix D for details).
• Information could be provided to inform residents about the threat to the environment
from the misuse and improper disposal of household cleaners, yard fertilizers, and
pesticides, and gas and other petroleum products used in the operation and
maintenance of automobiles and yards.
No significant unavoidable adverse environmental-health related impacts are expected.

3.6 LAND USE
This section of the FEIS describes land uses on and near the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites.
Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives are evaluated and mitigation
measures identified.
Key Findings
Existing land uses on the Fort Lawton site reflect the site’s past military use. Land uses in the
broader Fort Lawton vicinity include parks (Discovery Park), single-family residences and
multi-family residences. Existing land uses on the Talaris site reflect the site’s current
conference center use. Land uses in the broader Talaris vicinity include single-family
residences, multi-family residences, commercial/retail uses and institutional uses (Children’s
Hospital).
On the Fort Lawton site, proposed development would redevelop the existing, vacant
military uses to new multi-family residential and passive and active park uses under
Alternative 1, single-family residential uses under Alternative 2, and passive and active parks
uses under Alternative 3. Most or all the existing buildings onsite would be removed for
proposed development. Development under Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the density
and height/bulk/scale of buildings onsite compared to existing buildings, with a greater
increase under Alternative 1, but on a smaller footprint. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would
increase activity levels onsite, with the greatest increase under Alternative 3 due to the
parks/recreation uses, including three multi-purpose fields. Overall, proposed development
on the Fort Lawton site under the EIS alternatives is not expected to result in significant
adverse impacts on surrounding land uses. Under Alternatives 1 and 3 this is due to the
compatibility of proposed uses with off-site uses, layout of uses, provision of
buffers/separation, and the lack of new vehicular/pedestrian connection to certain off-site
uses. Under Alternative 2 this is due to the compatibility of proposed development with
existing off-site uses.
At the Talaris site, development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would convert the existing
conference center uses to new multi-family residential uses. All the existing buildings would
be retained and reused. Proposed development would increase the density,
height/bulk/scale of buildings and activity levels onsite. Overall, proposed development on
the Talaris site is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on surrounding land
uses due to the compatibility of proposed uses with existing off-site uses, layout of uses, and
provision of buffers/separation of the development from off-site uses.
Alternative 1 would require that a portion of the Fort Lawton site be rezoned from the
existing SF 7200 zoning to LR2 (M1) zoning. Alternatives 2 and 3 would require that a
portion of the Talaris site be rezoned from SF 5000 to LR2 (M1) zoning; a Comprehensive
Plan amendment would also be required.
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS 3.6-1 Land Use

March 2018
Proposed development on the Fort Lawton site and Talaris site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
would be consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations.
Methodology
The pattern of land uses on the Fort Lawton site, the Talaris site and in the site vicinities was
described based on site visits conducted in September 2017. An analysis was prepared to
evaluate how the EIS alternatives would impact these land uses, either directly, indirectly or
cumulatively. This section also compares the consistency of the alternatives with relevant
federal, Washington State and City of Seattle land use plans, policies and regulations.
This sub-section describes existing land uses on and near the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites.
Fort Lawton Site
The approximately 34-acre Fort Lawton site is located in the City of Seattle’s Magnolia
neighborhood in northwest Seattle. The site is bordered by W Lawton Street to the north,
36th Avenue W to the east, W Government Way to the south and Discovery Park to the west
(see Figure 2-1, Regional Map, and Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map).
Historic Land Use Patterns
Reserve Center is the Fort Lawton site in this EIS (see Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural
Resources, and Appendix H for details).

March 2018
Current Land Use Patterns
On-site Land Uses
Existing development on the Fort Lawton site reflects the past military use of the site. The
site contains six buildings, an incinerator stack, roadways, parking areas and sidewalks (see
Figure 2-4, Fort Lawton Site Plan and Figure 3.9-1, Fort Lawton Building Development).
Most of the on-site buildings were built for storage, maintenance or vehicle repair
purposes. Harvey Hall – Building 216 and Leisy Hall – Building 220 contained administrative
and training facilities. None of the structures are currently in use. The on-site buildings
range in size from approximately 1,900 sq. ft. to 48,400 sq. ft. There is a total of
approximately 95,562 sq. ft. of building area on the site. Existing buildings are typically one
to two stories high.
Table 3.6-1
EXISTING FORT LAWTON BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
Building Building Number Building Size Building

(sq. ft.) Height
Harvey Hall 216 25,664 1 -2 stories
Leisy Hall 220 48,338 2 stories
Area Maintenance Support 222 5,837 1 story
Activity (AMSA)
Maintenance Building 211 5,426 1 story
Maintenance Building 214 1,930 1 story
Organizational Maintenance 245 8,367 1 story
Shop
Total 95,562
Source: U.S. Army, 2012.
See Figures 3.9-1 in Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, for the locations of the existing buildings.
There are two large forested areas onsite: one along the north bluff and the other adjacent
to the Fort Lawton Cemetery in the south portion of the site. Patches of forest are also
present in the west part of the site. Mature trees border the east site boundary along 36th
Avenue W and landscaping surrounds the existing buildings.
As shown in Table 2-1, approximately 45% of the Fort Lawton site is currently developed in
building footprints, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks and other built areas. The remaining
55% of the site is in open space areas consisting of lawns, landscaping and unmaintained
natural areas.
Land Uses in the Site Vicinity
Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Fort Lawton site are described below.

March 2018
• North – Single-family residential uses in the Magnolia neighborhood are located to
the immediate north (north of W Lawton Street), including the Lawtonwood vicinity
at the northern tip of Magnolia, which has two vehicle access routes via Texas Way
or 40th Avenue W. The Salmon Bay Waterway (part of the Ship Canal) is located
nearby to the north and east, including the Hiram Chittenden Locks. The BNSF
Railway with a drawbridge spanning the Waterway is also nearby to the north.
• East – Single-family residential uses in the Magnolia neighborhood are located to the
east (east of 36th Avenue W). Approximately 550 to 600 feet to the east is the
Kiwanis Memorial Reserve Park. This is a 15-acre ravine/natural area containing a
pedestrian bridge that crosses the park. Beyond the park are additional single-
family residences, together with some multi-family uses. Seattle’s Ballard/Interbay
Northend Manufacturing & Industrial Center (BINMIC) is located farther east of the
site, along both sides of the Waterway. The BINMIC is a light-industrial area
containing manufacturing, warehousing, marine uses, transportation, utilities,
construction and services to businesses.
• South and West – Discovery Park, a 534-acre natural area park, is located to the
south and west. The park is situated on Magnolia Bluff and offers views of the
Cascade and Olympic Mountain ranges, tidal beaches, open meadows, trails, a play
area and the Daybreak Star Cultural Center. Within the park is the 59.3-acre Fort
Lawton Historic District. The District consists of a portion of the original Fort with
historic buildings and open spaces including the original parade ground and former
officers’ quarters housing that was recently renovated and sold on the private
market. To the west of Discovery Park is the West Point Lighthouse and the West
Point Treatment Plant.
(See Figure 3.6-1, Fort Lawton Existing Land Uses.)
Existing Land Use Designations
Comprehensive Plan Designation
According to the City of Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, the Fort Lawton site is designated
Multi-Family Residential Area. Multi-Family Residential Areas are intended to allow a
variety of housing types and densities suitable for a broad array of households and income
levels, and to promote walking and transit use near employment concentrations, residential
services and amenities. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates that these areas should
provide housing for people of all income levels, in developments compatible with the
desired neighborhood character.
The Comprehensive Plan land use designations of the areas immediately adjacent to the site
include:
• North – Single-Family Residential;

March 2018
BINMIC
Discovery Park
Single-Family Commodore
Park
Single-Family
Discovery Park
Kiwanis Memorial
Reserve Park
Discovery Park
Multi-Family
Single-Family
Project Site
Source: City of Seattle, 2017. Figure 3.6-1

Fort Lawton Existing Land Uses
• East – primarily Single-Family Residential uses, with a City-Owned Open Space Area
(Kiwanis Memorial Reserve Park). A Multi-Family Residential Area is designated
surrounding W Government Way and a small Commercial / Mixed Use Area is
designated around the intersection of W Government Way and W Jameson Street;
• South – City-Owned Open Space (Discovery Park), with Single-Family Residential
Areas to the southwest; and
• West – City-Owned Open Space (Discovery Park). Smaller isolated areas within the
park are designated for Single-Family Residential uses.
(See Figure 3.6-2, Fort Lawton Comprehensive Plan Map.)
Zoning
According to the Seattle Land Use Code, the Fort Lawton site is zoned Single-Family 7200 (SF
7200). The SF 7200 zoning classification provides for single-family housing with one
dwelling unit allowed per lot, and a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. While single-family
residential uses are the primary uses allowed in this zone, other uses are allowed outright
by the Seattle Municipal Code and include nursing homes and adult family homes.
The City zoning classifications of the areas surrounding the Fort Lawton site include:
• North – SF 7200 (north of W Lawton Street) and SF 5000 (north of W Commodore
Way);
• East – SF 5000 (east of 36th Avenue W);
• Southeast – SF 5000. Surrounding W Government Way, zoning is Lowrise 3 (LR3),
Neighborhood Commercial 1 (NC1) and Neighborhood Commercial 2 (NC2);
• South – SF 7200 (Discovery Park) and SF 5000; and
• West – SF 7200 (Discovery Park).
(See Figure 3.6-3 for the zoning classifications of the areas immediately adjacent to the site.)
Talaris Site
The approximately 18-acre Talaris site is located in the Laurelhurst neighborhood in

northeast Seattle. The site is bordered by NE 45th Street to the north, 42nd Avenue NE to the
east, NE 41st Street to the south and the unimproved 38th Avenue NE right of way to the
west (see Figure 2-1, Regional Map and Figure 2-3, Talaris Vicinity Map).

March 2018
Project Site
North
Note: This figure is not to scale. The project boundary illustrates the
conceptual boundary of the site and is not intended to represent
specific parcel boundaries
Source: City of Seattle, 2017 .

Figure 3.6-2
Comprehensive Plan
Fort Lawton Future Land Use
Comprehensive PlanMap—Fort Lawton
Future Land Site
Use Map
Project Site conceptual boundary of the site and is not intended to represent
North
Source: City of Seattle, 2017 . Figure 3.6-3

Existing Zoning—Fort
Fort Lawton Existing Lawton Site
Zoning Map
Historic Land Use Patterns
The Battelle campus was used for educational seminars, conferences and workshops and as
an advanced study center. In 1997, Battelle sold the property to ERA Communities of
Laurelhurst, and in 2000, ERA Communities sold the property to 4000 Property, LLC. The
property was leased to the Talaris Research Institute, which used the facilities to study early
childhood development. In 2012, Talaris Research was sold to a Maryland-based company.
The property is currently used as a conference center, known as the Talaris Conference
Center. In 2013, the buildings and landscaping at the Talaris site were designated as an
historic landmark by City of Seattle (see Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and
Appendix H for details).
Existing Land Use Patterns
On-site Land Uses
The Talaris site currently contains nine buildings, roadways, parking area and paved trails
associated with the Talaris Conference Center. Buildings on the Talaris site are typically one
to two stories high and are generally similar in size to existing multi-family buildings to the
north of the site and larger than existing single-family residences to the east, south and
west of the site.
The existing on-site buildings include:

• Seminar Building D • Lodge Building E
• Apartment Building A • Dining Building F
• Apartment Building B • Office Building G
• Apartment Building C • Two minor structures
(See Figure 3.9-1, Talaris Existing Buildings.)
The remainder of the site is developed as a park-like setting with ornamental landscaping
and a manmade pond. Native vegetation and a wetland are present in the southwest part of
the site.
In total, approximately 30% of the Talaris is comprised of built areas (e.g., building
footprints, roadways, parking areas and paved trails) and approximately 70% is comprised
of open space areas (landscaped and natural areas).
Land Uses in the Vicinity
Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Talaris site are described below.
• North – Multi-family and single-family residential uses are located directly to the
north of the site (along NE 45th Street). Commercial retail and office uses are
located to the immediate northwest of the site. Further to the north, beyond NE 45 th

March 2018
Street, is the Children’s Hospital campus, medical office buildings and multi-family
residences.
• East – Single-family residential uses are located in the area immediately to the east
of the site. Further to the east is Laurelhurst Playfield, which includes two
baseball/softball fields, tennis courts, a children’s play area, open grass areas and
the adjacent Laurelhurst Community Center. Beyond the park are additional single-
family residences.
• South – To the south of the Talaris site, beyond NE 41st Street, are single-family
residences. To the southwest, is the University of Washington’s Urban Horticulture
Center and the Union Bay Natural Area.
• West – Single-family residences are located to the west of the Talaris site. Further to
the west is University of Washington’s Laurel Village (a student apartment complex),
the Ceramic Metal Arts Building and intramural sports fields.
(See Figure 3.6-4, Talaris Existing Land Use Map.)
Existing Land Use Designations
Comprehensive Plan Designation
The Talaris site is designated as a Single-Family Residential Area in the City of Seattle 2035
Comprehensive Plan. Single-Family Residential Areas are intended to provide opportunities
for detached single-family and other compatible housing options that have low height, bulk
and scale in order to serve a broad array of households and incomes and to maintain an
intensity of development that is appropriate for areas with limited access to services,
infrastructure constraints, fragile environmental conditions or that are otherwise not
conducive to more intensive development.
The City land use designations in the areas immediately adjacent to the Talaris site include:
• North – Commercial/Mixed Uses, Multi-family Residential, Single-Family Residential
and Major Institution (Children’s Hospital);
• East – primarily Single-Family Residential;
• South – Single-Family Residential, City-Owned Open Space and Major Institution
(University of Washington) and
• West – Single-Family Residential and Major Institution (University of Washington).
(See Figure 3.6-5, Talaris Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.)

March 2018
Multi-Family
Single-Family
Single-Family Institutional
(Hospital)
Commercial
and Retail Commercial
and Retail
Institutional Multi-Family
Housing
Institutional (Laurel Village) Open Space
(Sports Fields) (Laurelhurst
Single-Family Playfield)
Institutional Single-Family
(Arts Building)
Single-Family
Institutional
(Urban Horticulture Single-Family
Center)
Single-Family
Open Space
(Union Bay
Natural Area)
Source: Google Earth and EA Engineering, 2017. Figure 3.6-4

Talaris Existing Land Uses
Project Site
North
conceptual boundary of the site and is not intended to represent
Source: City of Seattle, 2017.

Figure 3.6-5
Talaris Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
Zoning
According to the Seattle Land Use Code, the Talaris site is zoned Single-Family 5000 (SF
5000). This zoning classification provides for single-family housing at one dwelling unit per
lot, with a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. Single-family residential uses are the primary
uses allowed in this zone, other uses are allowed outright by the Seattle Municipal Code
including nursing homes and adult family homes.
The City zoning classifications of the areas surrounding the Talaris site include:
• North – NC2, LR3 and SF 5000; further to the northeast are Major Institution Overlay
areas (Children’s Hospital);
• East – SF 5000;
• South – primarily SF 5000; areas to the southwest are LR1 and Major Institution
Overlay (University of Washington); and
• West – SF 5000; Major Institution Overlay (University of Washington) further to the
west.
(See Figure 3.6-6, Talaris Zoning Map.)
3.6.2 Impacts
An analysis of the potential adverse land use impacts of Alternative 1, the Applicant’s
Alternative).

Proposed Actions
As presented in Chapter 2, the Proposed Actions evaluated in this EIS for the Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Center Project include:
a LR2 (M1) zoning classification;
• City Council authorization to accept conveyance of the site from the Army and to
then sell portions of the site for housing development, and authorizing execution of
easements;
• City Council approval of funding for acquisition and development; and

March 2018
Project Site conceptual boundary of the site and is not intended to represent
North

Talaris Existing Zoning Map
Under Alternative 1, proposed development would feature a mix of affordable housing on
housing. Approximately 238 housing units would be provided on the site. A portion of the
site would be rezoned to LR2 (M1) zoning. Community facilities, such as case management
services, residential counselors, on-site meeting space, on-site offices and a potential
computer lab area, would be included for the housing. Public park uses would be provided
onsite, including active park facilities, preserved existing natural areas and the conversion of
an existing structure to a park maintenance facility. Up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned by
the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park.
New development would be phased over an approximately seven-year buildout period (see
Figures 2-6A and 2-6B, Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 1).
No new development is assumed for the Talaris site.
Fort Lawton Site
Construction Impacts
Demolition of most of the buildings, site preparation and construction of infrastructure and
buildings under Alternative 1 could result in periodic, temporary impacts to adjacent land
uses. Construction-related impacts would include additional dust and emissions from
construction equipment and vehicles; increased noise from construction activities; vibration
associated with construction activities and vehicle movement; and increased traffic
associated with construction vehicles and construction workers. Construction activities
would occur incrementally through buildout of the site in 2025. These activities would move
around the site and could result in temporary impacts to adjacent land uses when
construction occurs near the boundary of the site or near adjacent uses (see Section 3.1,
Earth; Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.4, Noise, and Section 3.10, Transportation for
details).
Existing land uses that would have the greatest potential to be impacted by construction
under Alternative 1 would include the existing single-family residences to the immediate
east of the site (beyond 36th Avenue West) and existing single-family residences to the
immediate north of the site (beyond West Lawton Street). Residences in the nearby
Lawtonwood area could experience periodic temporary delays in vehicular access due to
construction activities. Visitors to Discovery Park could also experience construction
impacts, particularly those that use trails near the Fort Lawton site. Overall, construction-
related impacts to off-site land uses would be temporary in nature and with
implementation of legally-required measures (e.g., adherence to construction regulations
related to air quality, noise and traffic), significant adverse impacts are not anticipated. No
on-site uses would be impacted during construction because the site is currently vacant.

March 2018
Direct Impacts
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Redevelopment under Alternative 1 would require that a portion of the Fort Lawton site be
rezoned from the existing SF 7200 zoning to Lowrise 2, Mandatory Housing Affordability
(LR2 (M1). LR2(M1) zoning would be consistent with the Multi-Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan designation for the Fort Lawton site which is intended to allow a
variety of housing types and densities suitable for a broad array of households and income
levels.
A rezone could be accomplished through the City’s rezone process. The applicant would
prepare a rezone proposal, City staff would review the proposal and City Council approval
would be required. See subsection 3.6.4, Relationship to Plans and Policies, for details.
On-site Uses
Development under Alternative 1 would convert the vacant former military storage,
maintenance and vehicle repair uses on the Fort Lawton site into new multi-family
affordable housing, community facilities and public park uses. All the existing vacant
buildings on the site would be demolished, except for the OMS – Building 245, which would
be retained as a maintenance facility for the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department
(SPR).
The proposed land uses would result in potential land use impacts that would be typical of
an urban development, including increases in densities and associated activity levels (e.g.,
pedestrian/vehicular noise and movement). Residential densities would increase on the site
with the development of approximately 238 housing units – 86 senior supportive
apartments, 100 affordable rental units, 40 affordable ownership townhomes and 12
affordable ownership rowhouses.
The activity levels on the site would substantially increase from existing conditions due to
the new residential development, increased resident population and increased employee
population associated with the community facilities. Activity levels would also increase due
to the provision of open space and recreation areas under Alternative 1. Approximately
13.0 acres of passive recreation areas would be provided, including a large passive park in
the north portion of the site and a smaller passive park in the central area. Approximately
5.1 acres of area would be developed as active park facilities, including two unlit, multi-
purpose fields in the central portion of the site. These facilities would provide space for
athletics and community activities, including SPR programmed uses.
Relationship to Surrounding Uses

March 2018
The relationship of development under Alternative 1 to surrounding uses would primarily
be a function of the intensity of the proposed uses (such as the types of uses, density of the
development, height/bulk/scale of buildings and levels of activity associated with the
development), the intensity of surrounding uses, the proximity of proposed uses to
surrounding uses, and the separation/buffers between proposed uses and surrounding
uses, as described below.
Types of Uses – The proposed multi-family residential, park and community facility uses on
the Fort Lawton site would be compatible with the existing single-family residential uses to
the north and east, multi-family residential uses to the southeast and the parks use to the
south and west.
Density, Height/Bulk/Scale and Proximity of Development - The development of

residential uses under Alternative 1 would increase the residential density and bulk and
scale of buildings on the Fort Lawton site in proximity to existing single-family residences to
the north and east of the site and park uses to the south and west of the site. Under
Alternative 1, the density on the Fort Lawton site would increase from zero dwelling
units/acre to approximately 11.4 dwelling units per acre.1 For comparison, most of the
existing single-family residential parcels to the east of the Fort Lawton site (approximately
60%) are 4,000-square foot lots; the remaining parcels (approximately 40%) range from
6,000 to 8,400-square feet. The 4,000-square foot lots equate to a density of approximately
10.9 dwelling units per acre, while the remaining parcels equate to a density ranging from
5.2 to 7.3 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the density under Alternative 1 would be
greater than the low end, but similar to the high end of the density of development to the
east of the site. The density would also be similar to that of the multi-family housing to the
southeast.
Proposed buildings are assumed to be three stories in height, which would generally be
similar in height to the two- and three-story buildings that are adjacent to the site.
Development on the site would include apartments and rowhouses with greater bulk and
scale than the adjacent single-family residential uses to the north and east of the site, and
townhouses with bulk and scale similar to the adjacent single-family residential uses (see
Figure 2-9, Massing Diagrams). The townhouses on the east edge of the Fort Lawton site
would be located approximately 100 feet from existing off-site single-family residences. The
bulk and scale of the proposed apartment building would be like some of the former
military buildings onsite and the existing FLARC VA building to the west of the site. The bulk
and scale of the proposed rowhouses would be like the existing multi-family development
located approximately 0.15 miles to the southeast.
1
The density calculation is based on the area of the site that would be redeveloped under Alternative 1 which
equates to approximately 20.9 acres (total site area, minus the proposed passive open space and retained natural,
forested areas). The density of the site based on the total site area, including open space areas, would be
approximately 7.0 dwelling units per acre.

March 2018
Several features of proposed development are designed to reduce impacts on surrounding
uses. The layout of the development would minimize impacts to off-site uses by locating the
lowest density housing (the townhouses) along the east edge of the site where they would
be proximate to adjacent existing off-site single-family residences. Higher density
development (rowhouses and apartments) would be located in the central and west
portions of the site and would be separated from existing off-site single-family residences.
New development would also be separated from existing single-family residences to the
north and east by existing retained vegetated/forested areas and the existing topography
(see the discussion of buffers/separation below). As a result, significant land use impacts, in
terms of density and height/bulk/scale, are not expected.
Activity Levels - As mentioned previously, activity levels would increase due to increased
density and associated on-site population under Alternative 1. This increased activity would
occur in the general vicinity of single-family residential uses to the east and park uses to the
west of the Fort Lawton site. Residences to the north of the site would be separated from
proposed development by existing topography and retained vegetated/forested areas on
the site (see the discussion of buffers/separation below). Development of the proposed
housing would result in new residents and visitors traveling to and from the site. Increased
activity associated with vehicle traffic would be noticeable for off-site uses, including
residences in the Lawtonwood neighborhood who travel through the Fort Lawton site.
However, it would be less noticeable to neighbors to the east, as there would be no access
points provided along this portion of the site. Activity levels on the site would be higher
than the existing surrounding residential and park areas; however, this increase in activity
levels is not anticipated to result in a significant land use impacts due to the provision of
buffers/separation between proposed uses and existing off-site uses, and the relatively
minor increase in activity from these uses.
The proposed open space and recreation uses would also increase activity levels on the site,
particularly the active recreation facilities, including two multi-use fields. While these uses
would increase activity levels, the active recreation area would be located in the central
portion of the site, separated from adjacent residential uses to the east by the proposed
lower density housing, and from Discovery Park by forest land that could be dedicated to
the park. Overall, no significant land use impacts from open space and recreation activities
are anticipated due to the provision of buffers/separation between proposed uses and
existing off-site uses.
Separation/Buffers – Under Alternative 1, the existing natural areas in the north, south and
west portions of the site would be retained and the vegetated buffer along the east site
boundary would be maintained and, as necessary, enhanced to provide a buffer between
proposed development on the Fort Lawton site and existing residential uses to the north
and east, and park uses to the south and west. Topographic separation between proposed
development and the residences to the north and east would be preserved with the
proposed grading. Existing roadways, including 36th Avenue W, W Lawton Street,

March 2018
Government Way W and Texas Way would also provide separation between on- and off-site
uses.
Overall, proposed residential and park uses on the Fort Lawton site are not expected to
result in significant adverse impacts on surrounding land uses, due to the compatibility with
off-site uses, layout of uses, provision of buffers/separation, and the lack of
vehicular/pedestrian connection to certain off-site uses.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1, no new development would occur on the Talaris site and the existing
uses on the site would remain. No new land use impacts are anticipated.
Indirect/Cumulative Impacts
Redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would contribute to the
cumulative residential and employment growth in the Magnolia area. The increase in on-
site population (residents, employees and visitors) would contribute to a cumulative
increase in activity levels in the area. The increase in population could also result in an
increased demand for goods and services. It is anticipated that most of this demand could
be fulfilled by businesses near the site in the Magnolia area.
To the extent that area property owners perceive an opportunity for development based, in
part, on the new population at the Fort Lawton site, some new development in the area
could be indirectly generated. However, there is little developable land in the area, and any
development/redevelopment indirectly generated by development of the Fort Lawton site
would likely occur incrementally over time. New development in the vicinity would be
controlled by existing Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning regulations. As a result,
significant indirect/cumulative impacts to land uses in the area are not anticipated.

Housing Offsite
Under Alternative 2, the Fort Lawton site would be sold to a private developer for the
development of market-rate single-family residences. The development of affordable and
formerly homeless housing would occur on the Talaris site. Approximately 113 market-rate
houses would be developed on the Fort Lawton site and approximately 238 affordable
housing units and associated community facilities would be developed on the Talaris site.
No active or passive public park areas would be required on the Fort Lawton or Talaris site.
Up to 4.7 acres of forested land in the west portion of the site could be: retained by the U.S.
Army and used as open space for the FLARC VA offices; purchased by the developer of the
private homes and used as private open space for the development; or purchased by the
City for future public use (see Figure 2-10, Fort Lawton Site Plan - Alternative 2, and Figure
2-11, Talaris Site Plan – Alternatives 2 and 3).

March 2018
Fort Lawton Site
Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1 and would include temporary
impacts from demolition of all the buildings, site preparation and construction of
infrastructure and buildings. Construction-related impacts would include additional dust
and emissions from construction equipment and vehicles; increased noise from
construction activities; vibration associated with construction activities and vehicle
movement; and increased traffic associated with construction vehicles and construction
workers. Overall, construction-related impacts to off-site land uses would be temporary in
nature and with implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., adherence to construction
regulations), significant adverse impacts are not anticipated.
Direct Impacts
The development of single-family detached market-rate housing under Alternative 2 would

be allowed by the current Multi-Family Residential Area land use designation and SF 7200
zoning of the Fort Lawton site. A zoning reclassification would not be required.
On-site Uses
Development under Alternative 2 would convert the former military storage, maintenance
and vehicle repair structures on the Fort Lawton site into new market-rate single-family
housing. All the existing vacant buildings on the site would be demolished. New market-rate
housing would be developed in phases over the approximately 7-year buildout period,
similar to Alternative 1.
The proposed land uses under Alternative 2 could result in potential land use impacts that
would be typical of an urban development, including increases in densities and associated
activity levels (e.g., pedestrian/vehicular noise and movement). These impacts would be
less than under Alternative 1 because fewer housing units would be developed on the site
and less activity would be associated with on-site population. In addition, no active or
passive public park areas would be provided on the Fort Lawton site, which would further
reduce the activity levels on the site compared with Alternative 1.
Type of Uses - The proposed single-family housing would be compatible with the single-
family residential uses to the north and east, park uses to the south and west, and multi-
family uses to the southeast.
Density, Height/Bulk/Scale and Proximity of Development – Like Alternative 1, the

development of single-family residences under Alternative 2 would increase density on the

March 2018
site, but the density would be lower under this alternative than Alternative 1. Under
Alternative 2, the density on the Fort Lawton site would increase from zero dwelling
units/acre to approximately 4.0 dwelling units per acre.2 For comparison purposes, the
density of existing single-family residences to the east of the site ranges from approximately
5.2 dwelling units per acre to 10.9 dwelling units per acre, with the majority of existing
residences in that area (approximately 60%) being 10.9 dwelling units per acre. Based on
the existing zoning, new single-family residences would be a maximum of 30 feet in height
and would likely include building footprints that would maximize the amount of building
coverage that is allowed by code on 7,200-square foot lots. Density, and building
height/bulk/scale is expected to generally be similar to existing residences in the
surrounding area.
Activity Levels - Activity levels on the site would increase under Alternative 2 compared
with the existing, vacant conditions of the Fort Lawton site. However, activity levels would
be lower than Alternative 1 because there would be fewer residential units and no active or
passive public park and recreation areas would be provided.
Buffers/Separation - The existing forest areas in the north and south portions of the site
and vegetated buffer along the eastern edge of the site are more likely to be removed with
development under Alternative 2 and proposed single-family residences would be located
in closer proximity to existing off-site land uses, including residences to the east and north
of the Fort Lawton site. Landscaping that could also provide buffers to surrounding uses
would be at the discretion of the private developer and homeowners. Grading may or may
not remove the topographic separation between proposed development and the residences
to the north and east. Existing roadways, including 36th Avenue W, W Lawton Street,
Government Way W and Texas Way, would continue to provide separation between on-
and off-site uses.
Overall, proposed single-family market-rate housing on the Fort Lawton site under
Alternative 2 is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on surrounding land
uses due to the compatibility with off-site uses, lower density and height/bulk/scale of
development, and lower activity levels.
Talaris Site
Construction impacts on the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would include temporary
impacts from site preparation and construction and renovation of buildings and
infrastructure (238 affordable multi-family housing units and associated community
facilities). It is assumed that all the existing buildings on the Talaris site would be retained
2
The density calculation is based on the area of the site that would be redeveloped under Alternative 2 which
equates to approximately 28 acres (total site area, minus the proposed buffer space). The density of the site based
on the overall total site area would be approximately 3.3 dwelling units per acre.

March 2018
and reused for the affordable and formerly homeless housing and community facilities and
that new housing would also be constructed on the site. Construction-related impacts
would include additional air quality emissions due to dust and emissions from construction
equipment and vehicles; increased noise levels from construction activities; vibration
associated with construction activities and vehicle movement; and increased traffic
associated with construction vehicles and construction workers through buildout (see
Section 3.1, Earth; Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.4, Noise, and Section 3.10,
Transportation for details).
Existing uses that would have the greatest potential to be impacted by construction under
Alternative 2 would include the single-family residences to the immediate north, south and
west of the Talaris site, as well as existing multi-family residences located to the immediate
north of the site, because those areas would be most proximate to potential new
development under Alternative 2. Overall, construction-related impacts to off-site land
uses would be temporary in nature and with implementation of legally-required measures
(e.g., adherence to construction regulations), significant adverse impacts are not
anticipated.
Direct Impacts
Similar to Alternative 1, the development of multi-family housing units on the Talaris site
under Alternative 2 would require a rezone to LR2 (M1). A rezone could be accomplished
through the City’s rezone process. A rezone proposal would need to be prepared, City staff
would review the proposal and City Council approval would be required. Due to the site’s
Single-Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation, a Comprehensive Plan
amendment would also be required to allow for a rezone to LR2(M1) zoning. See subsection
3.6.4, Relationship to Plans and Policies, for details.
On-site Uses
Development under Alternative 2 would convert existing conference facility uses into multi-
family affordable housing and associated community facilities. It is assumed that all the
existing buildings on the Talaris site would be retained and reused for the affordable and
formerly homeless housing and community facilities and that new housing would also be
constructed on the site. Approximately 238 affordable housing units would be provided on
the Talaris site. Potential new housing development would be located in the northwest
corner of the site and along the south portion of the site. Community facilities would be
within existing buildings and would be available for use by residents as well as by the public.
The proposed land uses could result in potential land use impacts that would be typical of
an urban development, including increases in densities and associated activity levels (e.g.,
pedestrian/vehicular noise and movement). Residential densities would increase on the site
with development of affordable housing and would result in increased on-site population

March 2018
and associated activity levels compared to existing activity levels on the site. However, the
increase in activity levels onsite would be lower than Alternative 1 because the Talaris site
currently includes a level of activity associated with the existing conference center uses on
the site.
Types of Uses – The proposed multi-family residential and community facility uses on the
Talaris site would be compatible with the existing single-family uses surrounding the site,
commercial/office and multi-family residential uses to the north and institutional (hospital)
uses to the northeast of the site.
Density, Height/Bulk/Scale and Proximity of Development - The development of multi-

family housing on the Talaris site would increase density and bulk and scale of development
in proximity to the existing single-family residences surrounding the site and multi-family
residential complexes to the north of the site. Density on the Talaris site would increase
from zero dwelling units/acre to approximately 13.2 dwelling units/acre.3 This density
would be greater than in the surrounding Laurelhurst single-family neighborhood, but
similar to the multi-family housing to the north. New buildings are assumed to be three-
stories in height, generally similar to the two- and three-story single-family residential
buildings that are adjacent to the site and similar to or lower than the three- to four-story
multi-family residential buildings to the north. Development on the site would include
apartments and rowhouses with greater bulk and scale than the adjacent single-family
residences but similar in bulk and scale to the nearby multi-family buildings (see Figure 2-9,
Massing Diagrams). The bulk and scale of the proposed apartments and rowhouses would
be like some of the conference center buildings onsite. The bulk and scale of the proposed
townhomes would be similar or greater than adjacent existing single-family development.
The layout of the development is designed to minimize impacts to off-site uses. Lower
density housing (townhouses) would be placed proximate to the adjacent single-family
residences and higher density housing (rowhouses and apartments) would be located in the
central and northwest portions of the site, generally at a distance from surrounding single-
family housing. Development along the west edge of the Talaris site would be located
approximately 50 feet from existing off-site single-family residences to the west.
Development along the north and south portions of the site would be located
approximately 75 feet from existing off-site single-family and multi-family residences.
Activity Levels - Activity levels would increase as a result of increased density and
associated on-site population under Alternative 2, similar to under Alternative 1. This
activity would occur in the general vicinity of the single-family residences surrounding the
site. Development of single-family housing would result in new residents and visitors
traveling to and from the site; the community facilities would also result in some additional
3
Density calculation is based on the entire 18-acre site area.

March 2018
traffic. Activity levels associated with the community facilities onsite would be similar to the
existing conference center uses. These on-site activity levels would be higher than the
existing surrounding single-family residences due to the amount and density of
development. However, activity levels would be similar to the multi-family and
commercial/office uses in the area, and less than Children’s Hospital to the northeast.
Buffers/Separation – Under Alternative 2, the existing natural area in the southwest corner
of the site would be retained and would serve as a buffer between proposed on-site
development and the existing single-family housing to the southwest. Consistent with the
historic landmark status of the Talaris site, it is assumed that much of the existing
landscaping would be preserved with development of the site and would serve as a buffer
between on and off-site uses, particularly along the east, south and west boundaries of the
site. The existing topographic separation that exists along the northwest boundary of the
site would be maintained and would separate proposed development in that area from
adjacent single-family homes. Existing roadways, including NE 45th Street to the north, 42nd
Avenue NE to the east, NE 41st Street to the south and the unimproved 38th Avenue NE right
of way to the west, would provide separation between on and off-site uses. In particular, NE
41st Street includes a vegetated landscape buffer (including mature trees) between the two
travel lanes for the majority of the Talaris site frontage which would provide a further buffer
from the single-family homes to the south.
Overall, proposed multi-family affordable housing on the Talaris site under Alternative 2 is
not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on surrounding land uses due to the
compatibility with off-site uses, layout of uses, and provision of buffers/separation from off-
site uses.
Redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site and Talaris site under Alternative 2 would
contribute to the cumulative residential and employment growth in the City of Seattle, and
the Magnolia and Laurelhurst areas. An increase in on-site populations (residents,
employees and visitors) would also contribute to a cumulative increase in activity levels
surrounding each of the sites. The increase in population could result in an increased
demand for goods and services. It is anticipated that most of this demand could be fulfilled
by businesses near the sites in the Magnolia and Laurelhurst areas.
part, on the new population associated with the Fort Lawton site and Talaris site, some new
development in the area could be indirectly generated. In particular, development at the
Talaris site would represent a small portion of total development in that area of the city and
could result in a marginal increase in demand for commercial services, particularly due to
the proximity to commercial/retail uses along NE 45th Street and Sand Point Way. However,
few sites are available for development/redevelopment and any development in the area
generated indirectly by development of the Fort Lawton site and Talaris site would likely
occur incrementally over time. New development in the vicinity would be controlled by

March 2018
existing Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning regulations. As a result, significant
indirect/cumulative impacts to land uses in the area are not anticipated.
Alternative 3 – Public Park Uses Onsite; Affordable/Homeless Housing

Offsite
Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be developed as a public park,
including approximately 17.0 acres of passive recreation area and approximately 7.6 acres
of active recreation areas. Active recreation areas would include three, unlit multi-purpose
fields, which would be owned and maintained by SPR. Up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned
by the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park.
Park facilities would be developed when funding is available (see Figure 2-11, Talaris Site
Plan – Alternatives 2 and 3 and Figures 2-12 A and B, Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 3).
New affordable and formerly homeless housing would be developed on the Talaris site,
including approximately 238 affordable housing units and associated community facilities.
Fort Lawton Site
Development of new park uses on the Fort Lawton site would result in temporary impacts
from demolition of most of the buildings, site preparation and construction of infrastructure
and park facilities. Construction-related impacts would include dust and emissions from
construction equipment and vehicles; increased noise levels from construction activities;
vibration associated with construction activities and vehicle movement; and increased
traffic associated with construction vehicles and construction workers (see Section 3.1,
Earth; Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.4, Noise, and Section 3.10, Transportation for
details). Overall, construction-related impacts to off-site land uses would be temporary in
nature and are anticipated to be less than under Alternative 1 because no housing would be
developed onsite.
Direct Impacts
Park uses on the Fort Lawton site would be allowed by the site’s Multi-Family Residential
Area Comprehensive Plan designation and SF 7,200 zoning. A zoning reclassification would
not be required.
On-site Uses
Development under Alternative 3 would convert the former military storage, maintenance
and vehicle repair structures on the Fort Lawton site into new park and open space uses,
including approximately 17.0 acres of passive recreation area and approximately 7.6 acres

March 2018
of active recreation areas (three, unlit multi-use fields). New park facilities, particularly the
multi-use fields, would result in increased activity levels on the site compared to existing
conditions. The assumed park and open spaces would result in visitors traveling to and from
the site and increased activity, primarily from the use of the multi-use fields. While activity
levels would increase compared to existing conditions, it is anticipated that these levels
would be less than Alternative 1 since no residential development would be provided
onsite.
Type of Uses – The proposed park uses on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3 would
be compatible with the park uses to the south and west (Discovery Park), and the
residential uses to the north, east and southeast of the site.
Density, Height/Bulk/Scale and Proximity of Development - The new park and recreation
facilities on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3 would not increase building density or
height/bulk/scale on the site.
Activity Levels - New open space and recreation uses would increase the activity levels on
the site, particularly the active recreation facilities, including the three multi-use fields,
which would be used for athletic events and SPR programmed uses. This increased activity
would be in proximity to existing residential uses to the north and east. Similar to under
Alternative 1, increased activity associated with vehicle traffic would be noticeable for off-
site uses, including residences in the Lawtonwood neighborhood who travel through the
Fort Lawton site. However, it would be less noticeable to neighbors to the east, as there
would be no access points provided along this portion of the site.
Buffers/Separation – Like Alternative 1, the existing natural areas in the north, south and
west portions of the site would be retained and the vegetated buffer along the east site
boundary would be maintained and, as necessary, enhanced to provide a buffer between
proposed development on the Fort Lawton site and existing residential uses to the north
and east. Topographic separation between proposed development and the residences to
the north and east would be preserved with the proposed grading. Existing roadways,
including 36th Avenue W, W Lawton Street, Government Way W and Texas Way, would also
provide separation between on and off-site uses.
Overall, proposed park uses on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3 are not expected to
result in significant adverse impacts on surrounding land uses due to the compatibility with
off-site uses, provision of buffers/separation, and the lack of vehicular/pedestrian
connection to certain off-site uses.

March 2018
Talaris Site
Development of affordable and formerly homeless housing on the Talaris site would be the
same as described under Alternative 2 and potential land use impacts would also be the
same.
Redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site and Talaris site under Alternative 3 would
contribute to the cumulative residential, employment and recreational growth in the City of
Seattle, and the Magnolia and Laurelhurst areas. An increase in on-site populations
(residents, employees and visitors) would also contribute to a cumulative increase in activity
levels surrounding each of the sites. The increase in population could also result in an
increased demand for goods and services. It is anticipated that most of this demand could
be fulfilled by businesses near the sites in the Laurelhurst area.
part, on the new population associated with the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites, some new
development in the area could be indirectly generated. In particular, development at the
Talaris site would represent a small portion of total development in that area of the city and
could result in a marginal increase in demand for commercial services, especially due to the
proximity to commercial/retail uses along NE 45th Street and Sand Point Way. However,
few sites are available for development/redevelopment and any development in the area
generated indirectly by development of the Fort Lawton site and Talaris site would likely
occur incrementally over time. New development in the vicinity would be controlled by
existing Comprehensive Plan policies and zoning regulations. As a result, significant
indirect/cumulative impacts to land uses in the area are not anticipated.
The Fort Lawton site would remain in its existing vacant condition under Alternative 4 and
the property would not be conveyed by the U.S. Army to the City of Seattle. The City would
terminate its lease of the property and the U.S. Army would resume maintenance of the site
and facilities. Buildings and infrastructure would likely continue to deteriorate. Consistent
with the BRAC process, the Fort Lawton site could be conveyed to the City or another entity
in the future and could be developed in accordance with the existing SR 7,200 zoning.
Under the existing zoning, up to 205 single-family residential units could be developed
onsite; other permitted uses with the SR 7200 zoning include public schools, nursing homes
and adult care facilities. The Talaris site would also remain in its existing condition and no
new development would occur on the site at this time. Since both sites would be assumed
to remain in their existing conditions, no new land use impacts are anticipated under
Alternative 4.

March 2018
The following measures have been identified to address the potential land use impacts from
construction and operation of the Fort Lawton Project under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. These
measures apply to all the alternatives unless otherwise noted. Legally-Required Measures
are measures that are required by code, laws or local, state and federal regulations to
address significant impacts. Measures Proposed as Part of Project are measures
incorporated into the project to reduce significant impacts. Other Possible Measures are
additional measures that could be implemented to address impacts, but are not necessary
to mitigate significant impacts.
requirements.
• Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, new landscaping would be provided on the Fort Lawton
site. Under Alternative 2 and 3, existing landscaping would be preserved on the Talaris
site consistent with the historic designation for the site.
• Additional mitigation measures would be provided to minimize overall impacts from

construction of the site (see Section 3.1, Earth; Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.4,
Noise, and Section 3.10, Transportation).
• Additional mitigation measures would be provided to minimize the overall impacts from
operation of the development (see Section 3.4, Noise, Section 3.7, Aesthetics, Section
3.10, Transportation, and Section 3.11, Public Services).
Measures Proposed as Part of the Project
• Proposed development would be phased over an approximately seven-year buildout

period.
the Fort Lawton site. Forested areas in the north, south and west parts of the site would
be retained and the existing vegetation along the eastern edge of the site would be
preserved. As necessary, the vegetative buffer on the east edge of the site would be
enhanced to provide a further buffer between the site and adjacent uses.
the Talaris site. The natural area in the southwest part of the Talaris site would be
retained and would provide a buffer between the site and adjacent uses.

March 2018
Development under Alternatives 1 and 2 would convert the Fort Lawton site from its
existing, vacant military storage and maintenance buildings to new residential uses.
Development under Alternatives 1 and 3 would include active and passive parks uses on the
Fort Lawton site. Development under Alternatives 2 and 3 would convert the existing
conference center uses on the Talaris site to new residential uses. These conversions of uses
would result in an intensification of uses and an increase in activity levels on the sites. No
significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts are anticipated.
3.6.5 Relationship to Plans and Policies
This section evaluates the consistency of the EIS alternatives with relevant adopted land use
plans, policies and development regulations in effect at the time of publication of this FEIS.
As described in Chapter 2, at this point, no federal actions or federal funding have been
identified for the Fort Lawton Project, and environmental review is being conducted under
SEPA. However, it is possible that federal funding could be available in the future and NEPA
environmental review could be required. In anticipation of such federal funding, discussions
of the relationship of the EIS alternatives to certain federal plans, policies and regulations
are provided. The plans, policies and regulations that are summarized and evaluated in this
section include:
State and Regional Plans, Policies and Regulations

• Washington Coastal Zone Management Program
• State Growth Management Act
• Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040
• King County Countywide Planning Policies
Local Plans, Policies and Regulations

• City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan
• City of Seattle Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development 2014-
2017
• City of Seattle Land Use Code
• Discovery Park Master Plan
Federal Plans, Policies and Regulations

• HUD Environmental Regulations
• Clean Air Act
• Clean Water Act
• Endangered Species Act
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species
• National Historic Preservation Act
• Coastal Zone Management Act

March 2018
State of Washington Plans, Policies, and Regulations
The Washington Coastal Zone Management Program
Summary: In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act to
encourage the appropriate development and protection of the nation's coastal and shoreline
resources. The Coastal Zone Management Act gives states the primary role in managing
these areas. To assume this role, the state must prepare a Coastal Zone Management
Program (CZMP) document that describes the State's coastal resources and how these
resources are managed. In 1976, Washington was the first state to receive federal approval
of a Coastal Zone Management Program. The Department of Ecology's Shorelands and
Environmental Assistance Program is responsible for implementing Washington's Program.
Washington’s Program defines the State’s coastal zone to include the 15 counties with
marine shorelines: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific,
Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum and Whatcom counties. Under
Washington’s Program, certain activities that affect any land use, water use or natural
resource of the coastal zone must comply with the enforceable policies within the six laws
identified in the Program document: the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(SMA), the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) and the Ocean Resource Management Act
(ORMA).
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site and Talaris site are located in King County, a Washington
State coastal zone. However, both sites are located outside the jurisdiction of the SMA. The
EIS alternatives would be consistent with applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act and
the Clean Air Act as described later in this sub-section, and the EFSEC and ORMA do not
apply to the Fort Lawton project. This EIS is prepared in compliance with SEPA.
Growth Management Act
Summary: The Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A), adopted in 1990 and
subsequently amended, provides a comprehensive framework for managing growth and
coordinating land use planning with the provision of infrastructure. The general goals of the
GMA include, in part: directing growth to urban areas; reducing sprawl; encouraging
economic development consistent with adopted comprehensive plans; protecting private
property rights; providing efficient multi-modal transportation systems; encouraging a
variety of housing types and densities affordable to all economic segments of the
population; protecting the environment; and ensuring that public facilities and services
necessary to support development meet locally established minimum standards at the time
development is in place (RCW 36.70A.020).
Jurisdictions subject to GMA must prepare and adopt: countywide planning policies;
comprehensive plans containing policies with specific elements for land use, transportation,

March 2018
housing, capital facilities, utilities, rural lands and economic development; and development
regulations implementing those plans. The GMA requires that each city and county in
Washington comprehensively review and revise its comprehensive plan and development
regulations as necessary every seven years to ensure that they comply with the GMA.
Discussion: Consistent with the GMA, the City of Seattle has adopted a Comprehensive
Plan and implementing regulations to guide future development and fulfill the City’s
responsibilities under the GMA (the Comprehensive Plan was most recently updated in
2016). EIS Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, as described in Chapter 2 of this FEIS, would satisfy
several of the GMA goals, including: directing growth to urban areas (both the Fort Lawton
and Talaris sites are located in Seattle, an urban area); encouraging a variety of housing
types and densities affordable to all economic segments of the population (Alternatives 1, 2
and 3 include a mix of affordable apartments, rowhouses and townhouses; Alternative 2
also includes market-rate single-family housing); protecting the environment (critical areas
on the sites have been/will be identified and provisions made for their protection); and
ensuring that public facilities and services necessary to support development meet locally
established minimum standards at the time development is in place (public
services/facilities are available to serve the project). The relationship of the EIS alternatives
to the City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan is discussed in greater detail later in this sub-
section.
Regional Plans, Policies and Regulations
Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040
Summary: VISION 2040 (updated in 2008) is the long-range growth management, economic
and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound region encompassing King, Kitsap,
Pierce and Snohomish counties. VISION 2040 provides a regional framework for achieving
the goals of the GMA and meets the multi-county planning requirements of the GMA for
these counties. The vision is for diverse, economically and environmentally healthy
communities framed by open space and connected by a high-quality, multimodal
transportation system that provides effective mobility for people and goods. VISION 2040
calls for locating development in urban growth areas--focused in Metropolitan, Core and
Larger Cities and their Urban Centers--so services can be provided efficiently and farmlands,
forests and other natural resources are conserved.
Discussion: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are consistent with VISION 2040 because they would
redevelop the Fort Lawton or Talaris site as denser, affordable or market-rate housing
within a Metropolitan City (Seattle). They would help the City achieve its overall housing
target, which was developed in accordance with recommendations from VISION 2040 (see
Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, for details).

March 2018
King County Countywide Planning Policies
Summary: The King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) were developed and
adopted by the King County Growth Management Planning Council in 1991 (and were last
updated in June 2012, with amendments adopted in 2016) consistent with GMA mandates
to provide policies to guide development of jurisdictional comprehensive plans. The CPP
include guidance on topics such as urban growth areas, affordable housing, open space,
economic development, rural character, public facilities and services and a regional transit
plan. In terms of affordable housing, the policies direct jurisdictions to specify the range and
amount of housing affordable to low and moderate-income households to be
accommodated in its comprehensive plan.
Discussion: The City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan was developed and updated (most
recently in 2016) to comply with the GMA and CPP. The City adopted targets for affordable
housing in accordance with the direction from the CPP and to meet the needs associated
with growth by 2035. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would help the City achieve its targets for
affordable housing (see Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, for details). The
proposed project’s consistency with the Seattle Comprehensive Plan is discussed below.
City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan
Summary: The City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan provides the overall goals and identifies
land use patterns for the city. The relationship of the EIS alternatives to relevant goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan is provided below.
The City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, Toward a Sustainable Seattle, was first adopted in
1994 to meet the requirements of GMA; the Comprehensive Plan has been amended every
year since its adoption, and was substantially updated most recently in November 2016
(Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan: Managing Growth to Become an Equitable and
Sustainable City 2015-2035). The Comprehensive Plan consists of 14 major elements: growth
strategy, land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities, utilities, economic
development, environment, parks and open space, arts and culture, community well-being,
community engagement, container port, shoreline areas and neighborhood planning. Each
element contains goals and policies that are intended to guide development of the City in
the context of regional growth management for the next 20 years. While each element
affects development within the City, the following elements are the most relevant to the EIS
alternatives.
Growth Strategy Element
GS 1.22 – Support healthy neighborhoods throughout the city so that all residents have
access to a range of housing choices, as well as access to parks, open space and services.

March 2018
GS 1.23 – Allow limited multi-family, commercial and industrial uses outside of urban
villages to support the surrounding areas or to maintain the existing character.
GS 2.4 – Work toward a distribution of growth that eliminates racial and social disparities by
growing great neighborhoods throughout the city, with equitable access for all and with
community stability that reduces the potential for displacement.
Discussion: Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would provide a range of housing types/densities

(including multi-family apartments, rowhouses, townhouses; and under Alternative 2 single-
family detached homes). They would also provide a mix of affordable housing including
supportive housing for formerly homeless seniors, as well as affordable rental and
ownership housing for low-income families and individuals. A variety of public park uses
would also be provided under Alternatives 1 and 3 on the Fort Lawton site, including
preservation of natural areas, development of new park spaces that could support a range
of uses including active recreation (e.g., multi-purpose fields) and re-use of an existing
structure as a park maintenance facility (see Chapter 2 for details).
As mentioned above, multi-family housing would be included under the Alternatives 1, 2

and 3. Neither the Fort Lawton nor the Talaris site is located in an urban village. However,
existing multi-family housing is present near both sites. Also, the Fort Lawton site is
designated Multi-Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan, indicating the future use
the City envisions for the site (see Section 3.6.2, for details).
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would not result in disproportionate impacts to minority or low-

income populations. In fact, the affordable housing provided under these alternatives could
be considered a positive impact relative to providing additional affordable housing serving a
variety of households and diversifying neighborhoods that are disproportionately occupied
by higher income households (i.e., the Magnolia and Laurelhurst neighborhoods) (see
Section 3.14, Environmental Justice, for details).
The senior supportive housing under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would include the provision of a
comprehensive package of services focused on residential stability and the well-being of
residents, including case management services provided onsite by Catholic Community
Services of Western Washington and residential counselors that would be available onsite
24 hours a day (see Chapter 2 for details).
GS 3.1 – Encourage the preservation, protection and restoration of Seattle’s distinctive

natural features and landforms such as bluffs, streams and remaining evergreen forests.
GS 3.25 – Promote well-defined outdoor spaces that can easily accommodate potential users
and that are well integrated with adjoining buildings and spaces.
GS 3.26 – Design public spaces that consider the nearby physical context and the needs of
the community.

March 2018
Discussion: Under Alternatives 1 and 3, public park uses would be provided on the Fort
Lawton site, including active park facilities, preserved existing natural areas and conversion
of an existing structure to a park maintenance facility. Unlit, multi-purpose fields would be
provided in the central portion of the site, adjacent to proposed housing and parking.
Existing wooded areas in the north and south parts of the site would be preserved in their
natural condition. Up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion
of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park. All the parks would be designed per
Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) standards, and would be owned and maintained by SPR.
The park areas would be available for use by project residents as well as the public.
Under Alternatives 2, no public park uses would be provided on the Fort Lawton site. Under
Alternatives 2 and 3, natural areas would be preserved on the Talaris site, including the area
in the southwest portion of the site that contains a wetland and eagles nest site.
(See Chapter 2 for details on the open space and parks uses under the EIS alternatives.)
Land Use Element
LU 1.1 – Use the Future Land Use Map to identify where different types of development may
occur in support of the urban village strategy.
LU 1.3 – Provide for a wide range in the scale and density permitted for multi-family
residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects to generally achieve the following overall
density and scale characteristics, consistent at minimum with the guidelines in Growth
Strategy Figure 1.
LU G2 – Provide zoning and accompanying land use regulations that allow a variety of
housing types to accommodate housing choices for households of all types and income
levels; support a wide diversity of employment-generating activities to provide jobs for a
diverse residential population, as well as a variety of services for residents and businesses;
and, accommodate a full range of public services, institutions, and amenities needed to
support a racially and economically diverse, sustainable urban community.
LU 2.1 – Allow or prohibit uses in each zone based on the zone’s intended function as
described in this Land Use Element and on the expected impacts of a use on other properties
in the zone and surrounding area. Generally allow a broad mix of compatible uses in the
urban centers and urban villages.
LU 2.3 – Allow residential use outright or as a conditional use in all zones except industrial
zones and those shoreline areas where residential uses may conflict with the intended
function of the shoreline environment.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site is currently designated Multi-Family Residential in the
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Multi-Family Residential Areas are intended to allow a
variety of housing types and densities that are suitable for a broad array of households and

March 2018
income levels and that promote walking and transit use near employment concentrations,
residential services and amenities. The Fort Lawton site is zoned SF 7200. The Talaris site is
currently designated Single-family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Single-family
Residential Areas are intended to provide opportunities for detached single-family and
other compatible housing options that have low height, bulk and scale to serve a broad
array of households and incomes, and to maintain an intensity of development that is
appropriate for areas with limited access to services, infrastructure constraints, fragile
environmental conditions or that are otherwise not conducive to more intensive
development. The Talaris site is zoned SF 5000.
Proposed development of the project at either site would require approval of a rezone of
portions of the site from its existing zoning to LR2 (M1) zoning classification. The required
rezone at the Fort Lawton site would be consistent with the site’s Multi-Family Residential
Land use designation. Due to the Talaris site’s Single-family Residential Comprehensive Plan
designation, a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required to allow for a rezone.
Proposed development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would feature a range of housing

types/densities (including multi-family apartments, rowhouses, townhouses, and under
Alternative 2 single-family detached homes). A mix of affordable housing would be provided
on either the Fort Lawton or Talaris site, including affordable rental and ownership and
formerly homeless housing; Alternative 2 would provide market-rate housing on the Talaris
site. Alternatives 1 and 3 would also provide active and passive public parks uses on the Fort
Lawton site (see Chapter 2 for details).
The potential for development under the EIS alternative to cause land use impacts--directly,
indirectly or cumulatively--is discussed in Section 3.6.2, Environmental Impacts. The analysis
concluded that the conversion of land uses on the two sites would result in an
intensification of uses and an increase in activity levels. However, no significant adverse
land use impacts are expected. Under Alternatives 1 and 3 at the Fort Lawton site, this
would be due to the compatibility of proposed development with off-site uses, layout of
uses, provision of buffers/separation, and the lack of vehicular/pedestrian connection to
certain off-site uses. Under Alternative 2 at the Fort Lawton site, this would be due to the
compatibility of proposed development with existing off-site uses, lower density and
height/bulk/scale of development, and lower activity levels. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 at
the Talaris site, this would be due to the compatibility of proposed uses with existing off-
site uses, layout of uses, and provision of buffers/separation of the development from off-
site uses.
LU 5.3 – Control the massing of structures to make them compatible with the area’s planned
scale, provide a reasonable ratio of open to occupied space on a site and allow the building
to receive adequate natural light.
LU 5.4 – Use maximum height limits to maintain the desired scale relationship between new
structures, existing development and the street environment; address varied topographic

March 2018
conditions; and limit public view blockage. In certain Downtown zones and in Industrial
zones, heights for certain types of development uniquely suited to those zones may be
unlimited.
LU 5.5 – Provide for residents’ recreational needs on development sites by establishing

standards for private or shared amenity areas such as rooftop decks, balconies, ground-level
open spaces or enclosed spaces.
Discussion: Building massing under the EIS alternatives is described in Chapter 2 and shown
in Figures 2-9. The proposed arrangement of buildings in the affordable housing
communities under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is designed to place the densest building
development toward the central portion of the sites, away from site boundaries and nearby
residential uses. All the proposed buildings would be within the maximum height limits of
the sites’ zoning. With the development patterns represented under the alternatives, and
siting and scaling of future multi-family uses, the resulting outcome would be a land use
pattern that maintains reasonable land use compatibility in use transitions, adjacencies,
proximity, density and intensity of use (see Section 3.6.2, Environmental Impacts, for
details).
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, a large portion of the Fort Lawton site (61% under Alternative 1
and 73% under Alternative 3) would be in open space, including: passive open space, active
open space and landscaped areas. The active open space would include two multi-purpose
fields under Alternative 1 and three multi-purpose fields under Alternative 3. The park areas
on the site would be available for use by project residents as well as the public. Up to 4.7
acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site would be
dedicated to Discovery Park. Under Alternative 2, the market-rate housing on the Fort
Lawton site would likely include private yards and possibly balconies for individual
homeowners. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, passive open space would be provided on the
Talaris site (see Chapter 2 for details).
LU 5.9 – Enhance the visual quality of an area through standards for visual screening and
landscaping appropriate to each zone in order to limit the visual impact of new development
on the surrounding neighborhood, streetscape and development in areas with less intrusive
zone.
LU 5.15 – Address view protection through: zoning that considers views, with special
emphasis on shoreline views; development standards that help to reduce impacts on views,
including height, bulk, scale and view corridor provisions, as well as design review
guidelines; and, environmental policies that protect specified public views, including views of
mountains, major bodies of water, designated landmarks and the Downtown skyline.

March 2018
Discussion:
Landscaping - Under Alternatives 1 and 3, the landscaping that would be provided on the
Fort Lawton site would blend with the existing natural vegetation in Discovery Park and the
landscaping in the Magnolia neighborhood, and would meet applicable City of Seattle
landscape regulations. The landscape concept would feature preservation of wooded areas
(e.g., in the north and south portions of the site) and would maintain and, as necessary,
enhance the existing vegetation along the east edge of the site that serves as a buffer
between the site and the Magnolia neighborhood. Under Alternative 2, landscaping on the
Fort Lawton site would be at the discretion of the homebuilder(s) and homeowners, and
may or may not retain the wooded areas in the north and south portions of the site or the
existing vegetation on the east edge of the property (see Chapter 2 for details).
The Talaris site landscaping has been designated as an historic landmark by City of Seattle.
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, much of the existing landscaping would be retained with the
development of the affordable housing on this site. Any modifications to the existing
landscaping would adhere to the requirements of the site’s historic landmark designation.
Views - A view analysis was prepared for this FEIS based on photographs taken of the Fort
Lawton site from selected viewpoints and photo simulations of proposed development
under the EIS alternatives from these viewpoints. The viewpoints for the visual analysis
were identified based on several factors, including the City’s view protection policies in SMC
25.05.675.P.2.a, 2.b. and 2.c. (e.g., specified viewpoints, parks, scenic routes and historic
landmarks where the site and proposed development could be seen) and other public
places with possible views of the site. Potential view impacts of development under
Alternatives 2 and 3 at the Talaris site were generally discussed based on the Massing
Diagrams and the Talaris Site Plan (see Figures 2-9 and 2-11). The view analysis determined
that no significant impacts on views are expected at either site under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
(see Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Visual Resources, and Appendix G, for details).
Height/Bulk/Scale - The development of multi-family, affordable housing under Alternative

1, 2 and 3 would increase the residential density and activity levels on the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites in proximity to existing single-family residences in the surrounding
neighborhoods. The height/bulk/scale of the largest proposed buildings (apartments and
rowhouses) would be similar to existing buildings on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites; the
smallest buildings (duplex townhouses) would be similar to adjacent single-family housing.
A mix of densities would be provided with the proposed development. The project is
intended to be a well-designed community that would be compatible with the surrounding
areas and is not expected to generate significant adverse land use impacts at either site.
Building development on the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 1 largely would not be
visible, directly interface with or connect to surrounding areas. Specifically, the project
would locate the densest building development in the central portions of the site away from
site boundaries and nearby single-family residential development. Existing

March 2018
buffers/separators (e.g., vegetation and topography) would be preserved and, as necessary,
enhanced. A minimal number of vehicular and pedestrian access points would be provided,
to reduce the project’s interface with the surrounding area and limit adverse
transportation-related impacts. As a result, significant adverse land use impacts from the
increased density/activity levels onsite are not expected (see Section 3.6.2, for details).
Single-Family Residential Areas
LU G7 – Provide opportunities for detached single-family and other compatible housing

options that have low height, bulk and scale in order to serve a broad array of households
and incomes and to maintain an intensity of development that is appropriate for areas with
limited access to services, infrastructure constraints, fragile environment conditions, or that
are otherwise not conducive to more intensive development.
LU 7.5 – Encourage accessory dwelling units, family-sized units and other housing types that
are attractive and affordable, and that are compatible with the development pattern and
building scale in single-family areas in order to make the opportunity in single-family areas
more accessible to a broad range of households and incomes, including lower-income
households.
LU 7.12 – Emphasize measures that can increased housing choices for low-income
individuals and families when considering changes to development standards in single-
family areas.
Discussion: Both the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites are located within single-family
neighborhoods and are currently in single-family zoning (although the Fort Lawton site is
designated as Multi-Family Residential by the City’s Comprehensive Plan). Other more
intensive uses/zoning are located near the sites. Under Alternative 2, the entire Fort Lawton
site would be developed in market-rate single-family detached housing, similar to
development in the adjacent Magnolia neighborhood. Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, more
intensive, multi-family affordable housing is proposed on the Fort Lawton or Talaris site. See
above and Section 3.6.2 for a discussion of the potential height/bulk/scale impacts of the
proposed affordable housing.
The affordable housing under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would include supportive housing for
formerly homeless people and affordable rental and ownership housing for low-income
families and individuals. This housing would require a rezone of a portion of the Fort Lawton
site from SF 7200 to LR2 (M1). A similar rezone would be necessary for proposed
development on the Talaris site, and a Comprehensive Plan amendment would also be
required.

March 2018
Multi-Family Residential Areas
LU G8 – Allow a variety of housing types and densities that is suitable for a broad array of
households and income levels, and that promotes walking and transit use near employment
concentrations, residential services and amenities.
LU 8.2 – Maintain a variety of multi-family zoning classifications that allow development at

different densities, scales and configurations and that are well suited to the variety of
specific conditions and development goals in diverse areas of the city.
LU 8.3 – Provide housing for Seattleites at all income levels in development that is
compatible with the desired neighborhood character and that contributes to high-quality,
livable urban neighborhoods.
LU 8.9 – Establish lowrise multi-family zones to accommodate various housing choices in the
low to moderate density range suitable for a broad array of households and incomes,
including walk-up apartments, town houses, row houses, duplexes, triplexes, and cottage
housing.
Discussion: A variety of housing types and densities would be provided under Alternatives
1, 2 and 3 (e.g., apartments, rowhouses and townhouses, and under Alternative 2 single-
family detached homes). Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would include affordable housing on the
Fort Lawton or Talaris site; Alternative 2 would include market-rate housing on the Fort
Lawton site. The affordable housing would feature supportive housing for formerly
homeless people and affordable rental and ownership housing for low-income families and
individuals, (see Chapter 2 for details).
As indicated above, the proposed affordable housing would require a rezone of portions of
the Fort Lawton or Talaris site to LR2 (M1) zoning classification.
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources
LU 14.4 – Encourage adaptive reuse of designated landmark structures by allowing uses in

these structures that may not otherwise be allowed under the applicable zoning provided
such action is approved by the Landmarks Preservation Board.
LU 15.2 – Encourage rehabilitation opportunities and reinvesting in vacant or underutilized

historic properties to spark economic revitalization.
LU 15.3 – Encourage rehabilitation of existing housing units and other building types that
expands affordable housing choices and contributes to market-rate and workforce housing.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site contains the vacant former U.S. Army Reserve Center. No
designated landmarks are currently located on the Fort Lawton site. The Army determined
that the site is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Most
of the buildings onsite are not expected to meet the criteria to be designated a Seattle

March 2018
Landmark. The Talaris site is currently occupied by the Talaris Conference Center. The site is
not currently listed on the NRHP. The buildings and landscape on the Talaris site is a
designated Seattle Landmark, and the site has been determined eligible for listing in the
NRHP. The buildings and landscaping are also considered to have local and national
significance (see Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H for details).
Under Alternative 1, the vacant former Army Reserve Center would be converted to
affordable housing and public park uses, and all but one of the buildings would be removed
(Building 245); under Alternative 2, the site would be converted to market-rate housing and
all the buildings would be removed; and under Alternative 3, the site would be converted to
public park uses and all but one of the buildings would be removed (Building 245). Under
Alternative 2 and 3, the existing historic buildings on the Talaris site would be retained and
reused, and new buildings would be constructed onsite to provide affordable housing.
Development on the Talaris site would require approval from the Landmark Preservation
Board (see Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H for details).
Housing
H G1 – Provide fair and equal access to housing for all people in Seattle.
H 1.3 – Work to overcome historical land use patterns of segregation, promote fair housing
choices and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination through actions,
such as affirmative marketing and fair housing education and enforcement.
H G2 – Help meet current and projected regional housing needs of all economic and
demographic groups by increasing Seattle’s housing supply.
H 2.2 – Identify publicly owned sites suitable for housing and prioritize use of sites where
appropriate, for rent/income-restricted housing for lower-income households.
H2.4 – Encourage the use of vacant or underdeveloped land for housing and mixed-use
development, and promote turning vacant housing back into safe places to live.
H G3 – Achieve a mix of housing types that provide opportunity and choice throughout
Seattle for people of various ages, races, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds and for a
variety of household sizes, types and incomes.
H 3.3 – Encourage the development of family-size housing affordable to households with a

broad range of incomes in areas with access to amenities and services.
H G4 – Achieve healthy, safe and environmentally sustainable housing that is adaptable to

changing demographic conditions.
H 4.7 – Promote housing for all Seattleites that is safe and free from environmental and
health hazards.

March 2018
H G5 – Make it possible for households of all income levels to live affordably in Seattle, and
reduce over time the unmet housing needs of lower-income households in Seattle.
H 5.3 – Promote affordable housing to lower-income households in locations that help

increase access to education, employment and social opportunities, while supporting a more
inclusive city and reducing displacement from Seattle neighborhoods or from the city as a
whole.
Discussion: Under Alternative 1, the City of Seattle is proposing to redevelop the vacant,
former Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center site as an affordable housing community.
Alternatively, the proposed mix of affordable rental and ownership housing could be
located at the Talaris site (as proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3) or at another off-site
location. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would provide: approximately 85 units of permanent
supportive housing for homeless seniors, including veterans (plus one manager unit);
approximately 100 units of affordable rental apartments for low-income households with
incomes up to 60% of area median income, including families with children; and
approximately 50 townhomes and rowhouses to provide affordable homeownership
opportunities for families with incomes up to 80% of the area median income. A variety of
housing types would be provided. The project is intended to affirmatively further fair and
equal access to quality, affordable housing for low-income people, particularly in areas with
few affordable housing options, including neighborhoods with a history of racial restrictive
covenants or “redlining” (e.g., the Magnolia and Laurelhurst neighborhoods) (see Chapter 2,
and Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, for details).
The U.S. Army currently owns the Fort Lawton site. The Talaris site is privately owned.
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, the Army would convey the Fort Lawton site to the City in
accordance with the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The City proposes to
use this unique opportunity to leverage public property for community benefit.
Housing developed on the Fort Lawton or Talaris site would adhere to the Evergreen
Sustainable Development Standards (ESDS). These standards include maximizing density;
providing open space access, walkable neighborhoods, water conserving fixtures, reduced
energy use and increased insulation; and using low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
materials. Development of the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites is not expected to result in
environmental health or safety risks to future residents. Existing environmental health
hazards (i.e., possible lead based paint, asbestos containing materials and PCBs in aging
buildings) would be removed and properly disposed of, or stabilized, and no significant
noise or air quality impacts are anticipated (see Section 3.5, Environmental Health, for
details).
It is likely that residents would need a vehicle to access employment and services (e.g.
medical and financial), and for grocery shopping. Public transit is available to both sites
(e.g., on Texas Way , which passes through the Fort Lawton site, and on 34th Avenue W near
the site; and on NE 45th Street one block north of the Talaris site) and would provide access

March 2018
to services and employment opportunities in other parts of the city. King County Metro is
planning for “frequent” bus service along a route that includes W Government Way and 34th
Avenue W by 2040, and for RapidRide service on NE 45th Street and Sandpoint Way NE by
2025. Shuttle service could be provided to improve access to the sites; van service could
also be provided as part of the project for senior supportive housing and possibly for the
other affordable housing onsite (see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for
details). Public schools are nearby, including Lawton Elementary and Laurelhurst
Elementary, close to the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites, respectively (see Section 3.11, Public
Services, for details).
Development of senior supportive housing under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would include the
provision of a comprehensive package of services for resident stability and well-being,
including case management services provided onsite by Catholic Community Services of
Western Washington and residential counselors who would be available onsite 24 hours a
day. The provision of these on-site services would help reduce the commuting needs of the
residents (see Chapter 2 for details).
Parks and Open Space
P 1.1 – Continue to expand the City’s park holdings and open space opportunities, with
special emphasis on serving urban centers and urban villages that are home to marginalized
populations and areas that have been traditionally underserved.
P 1.2 – Provide a variety of parks and open space to serve the city’s growing population
consistent with the priorities and level of service standards identified in the City’s Park
Development Plan.
P 1.13 – Make the most of limited available land by developing parks and open spaces so
that they can accommodate a variety of active and passive recreation uses.
P 2.7 – Provide athletic fields that can serve as places where people of diverse ages,
backgrounds, and interests can engage in a variety of sports.
Discussion: Under Alternatives 1 and 2, public park uses would be provided on the Fort
Lawton site, including active park facilities, preserved existing natural areas and conversion
of an existing structure to a park maintenance facility. The active park facilities would
include two or three unlit, multi-purpose fields under Alternatives 1 and 3, respectively. The
parks facilities would be designed to SPR standards and would be available to the
surrounding community. The park uses under Alternative 1 would be provided together
with affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site. Under Alternative 2, no public park uses
would be provided on either the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites (see Chapter 2 for details).
The City’s adopted LOS for parkland from the 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan is 8 acres per
1,000 residents. Based on the number of residents estimated under Alternative 1 and 3 (586
people) and the citywide LOS guidelines, there would be demand for approximately 4.7

March 2018
acres of parks and recreation facilities. The new demand could be satisfied by the provision
of passive recreation areas and active recreation areas onsite for use by the proposed
development and the public, as well as the incorporation of approximately 4.7 acres of land
owned by the U.S. Army at the Fort Lawton site to Discovery Park. Alternative 2 would
generate less demand for parks and recreation facilities than Alternatives 1 and 2 (see
Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, for details).
City of Seattle Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community

Development, 2014-2017
Summary: The Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development is a four-year
plan, updated annually, which outlines Seattle’s housing and community development
needs, and provides strategies for meeting identified needs. The Plan also provides policy
guidance for implementing City programs funded by four U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) grants.
The three primary HUD goals outlined in the 2014-2017 Plan are:
• Homeless prevention, intervention and housing stability

• Increase access to affordable housing
• Economic and neighborhood development.
City of Seattle strategies for achieving these goals include:
• Support the delivery of emergency shelter and related services for homeless persons
and families
• Develop and preserve affordable rental and ownership housing
• Support low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, businesses and business districts
with infrastructure and economic development assistance
• Support job training activities as part of anti-poverty strategies
Discussion: Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, affordable housing for low-income and formerly
homeless households would be provided on the Fort Lawton site or Talaris site. See the
discussion under the Seattle Comprehensive Plan - Housing for details on the types of
affordable housing and the populations served. The senior supportive housing would
include the provision of a comprehensive package of services focused on resident stability
and well-being, including case management services provided onsite by Catholic Community
Services of Western Washington and residential counselors who would be available onsite
24 hours a day (see Chapter 2 for details).
City of Seattle Land Use Code
Summary: The City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections administers a

land use code that regulates the type and scale of development within the City. The

March 2018
following is an overview of the zoning and development code requirements for the Fort
Lawton and Talaris sites, together with discussion of project consistency with these
regulations.
Fort Lawton Site
Existing Zoning – According to the Seattle Land Use Code, the Fort Lawton site is zoned
Single-family 7200 (SF 7200). The SF 7200 zoning classification provides for single-family
housing with one dwelling unit allowed per lot, and a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. While
single-family residential uses are the primary uses allowed in this zone, other uses are
allowed outright by the Seattle Municipal Code, including nursing homes and adult family
homes.
Proposed Zoning –The proposed Lowrise 2, Mandatory Housing Affordability 1 (LR2 (M1))
zone provides opportunities for a variety of multi-family housing in existing multi-family
neighborhoods and along arterials that have a mix of small scale residential structures. LR2
zones are most appropriate in an urban center or urban village, or near an urban center or
urban village LR2 zones are intended to establish multi-family neighborhoods of low scale
and density that are compatible with SF and LR1 zones or would provide a transition
between SF and LR1 zones.
Discussion: Under Alternatives 1, development of multi-family, affordable housing on the

Fort Lawton site would require a rezone to LR2 (M1) zoning. A rezone proposal would be
prepared, City staff would review the proposal, and City Council approval would be
required. A rezone to a lowrise residential classification would be consistent with the
existing Multi-Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation of the site. The proposed
rezone would not provide a gradual transition between less intensive residential zones and
more intensive multi-family or neighborhood commercial zones. However, there are
existing buffers/separation (e.g. vegetation, topography, and roadways) along the east and
west site boundaries that would ease the transition to adjacent single-family zones. The
development would be compatible with existing LR3 zoning to the southeast of the Fort
Lawton site.
Potential development on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2 (market-rate single-
family housing) and Alternative 3 (active and passive park uses) would be consistent with
the existing SF 7200 zoning and no rezone would be required.
Talaris Site
Existing Zoning – According to the Seattle Land Use Code, the Talaris site is zoned Single-
family 5000 (SF 5000). This zoning classification provides for single-family housing at one
dwelling unit per lot, with a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. Single-family residential uses
are the primary uses allowed in this zone, other uses are allowed outright by the Seattle
Municipal Code, including nursing homes and adult family homes.

March 2018
Proposed Zoning – See the discussion of proposed zoning above under Fort Lawton.
Discussion: Under Alternatives 2 and 3, development of multi-family, affordable housing on

the Talaris site would require a rezone to lowrise residential zoning (e.g., LR2 (M1)). The
rezone process would be similar to that described above for the Fort Lawton site. Due to
the Talaris site’s Single-family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation, a
Comprehensive Plan amendment would also be required to allow for a rezone to a lowrise
residential classification. A rezone to a lowrise residential zoning would be an extension of
the existing multi-family residential uses and zoning to the north of the site.
Chapter 23.34 – Amendments to Official Land Use Map – Rezones

SMC 23.34 establishes procedures and criteria for amending the City’s Official Land Use
Map (rezones). Under Alternative 1, approximately 9.66 acres in the central portion of the
Fort Lawton site is proposed to be rezoned from the existing Single Family 7200 (SF 7200)
zoning to Lowrise 2, Mandatory Housing Affordability 1 (LR2 (M1)) residential zoning (see
Figure 3.6-7, Fort Lawton Rezone Map). This includes the proposed housing sites in
Alternative 1, as well as adjacent roadways and the proposed parking lot to be shared by
housing and park facilities. The SF 7200 zoning in the north and south parts of the site
would remain unchanged. The following provides a discussion of the City of Seattle’s criteria
for rezones specifically in relation to the rezone to allow development on a portion of the
Fort Lawton site, as proposed under Alternative 1 (i.e., SMC 23.34.007, SMC 23.34.008,
23.34.010, 23.34.011, 23.34.013, 20.34.14 and 23.34.18).
SMC 23.34.007 – Rezone evaluation
A. The provisions of this chapter apply to all rezones except correction of mapping errors.
In evaluating proposed rezones, the provisions of this chapter shall be weighed and
balanced together to determine which zone or height designation best meets those
provisions. In addition, the zone function statements, which describe the intended
function of each zone designation, shall be used to assess the likelihood that the area
proposed to be rezoned would function as intended.
B. No single criterion or group of criteria shall be applied as an absolute requirement or

test of the appropriateness of a zone designation, nor is there a hierarchy or priority of
rezone considerations, unless a provision indicates the intent to constitute a
requirement or sole criterion.
C. Compliance with the provisions of this Chapter 23.34 shall constitute consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of reviewing proposed rezones, except that
Comprehensive Plan Shoreline Environment Policies shall be used in shoreline
environment redesignations as provided in subsection 23.60A.042.C.

March 2018

Fort Lawton Rezone Map—Alternative 1
D. Provisions of this chapter that pertain to areas inside of urban centers or villages shall
be effective only when a boundary for the subject center or village has been established
in the Comprehensive Plan. Provision of this chapter that pertain to areas outside of
urban villages or outside of urban centers shall apply to all areas that are not within an
adopted urban village or urban center boundary.
E. The procedures and criteria for shoreline environment redesignations are located in
Sections 23.60A.042, 23.60A.060 and 23.60A.220.
F. Mapping errors due to cartographic or clerical mistakes may be corrected through the
process required for Type V Council land use decisions in SMC Chapter 23.76 and do not
require the evaluation contemplated by the provisions in this chapter.
Discussion: The Seattle City Council will evaluate the proposed rezone of a portion of the Fort
Lawton site from SR 7200 to LR2 (M1) in accordance with the provisions above. The proposed
rezone would not correct a mapping error. The site is not located in a shoreline environment,
nor is a shoreline environment redesignation proposed. The site is located outside of an adopted
urban village or urban center boundary.
SMC 23.34.008 – General Rezone Criteria
A. To be approved, a rezone shall meet the following standards:
1. In urban centers and urban villages the zoned capacity for the center or village taken
as a whole shall be no less than one hundred twenty-five % (125%) of the growth
targets adopted in the Comprehensive Plan for that center or village.
2. For the area within the urban village boundary of hub urban villages and for
residential urban villages taken as a whole the zoned capacity shall not be less than
the densities established in the Urban Village Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site is not located within an urban center, urban village or an
area within the urban village boundary of a hub urban village.
B. Match Between Zone Criteria and Area Characteristics. The most appropriate zone
designation shall be that for which the provisions for designation of the zone type and
the locational criteria for the specific zone match the characteristics of the area to be
rezoned better than any other zone designation.
Discussion: Please see the discussions of the zoning criteria and area characteristics for the
Single-Family, LR1 and LR2 zones in the following sections. The provisions for designation of
these zones have been analyzed for their correlation to characteristics the site to be rezoned.
C. Zoning History and Precedential Effect. Previous and potential zoning changes both in
and around the area proposed for rezone shall be examined.

March 2018
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site, including the proposed rezone area, is currently zoned SF
7200. Zoning designations in the vicinity of the site include SF 7200 to the north, SF 5000 to
the east, LR3 and LR3 RC to the southeast, and SF 7200 (with a city parks overlay in certain
areas) to the south and west. There is no recent history of zone changes for the site or
surrounding area. Currently, the City is considering a citywide rezone proposal that would
increase development capacity and enact Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA)
requirements in most commercial and multifamily zones. For example, the LR3 and LR3 RC
zones to the southeast of the site are proposed to be rezoned to LR3(M) and LR3 RC (M).
Other than that proposed zoning change there are no known proposed zoning changes in
the immediate vicinity of the Ft. Lawton site.
A change in zoning for the Fort Lawton site would not necessarily create a precedential
effect because the site is unique in several respects, including: the large size of the property,
the fact that it is under single ownership by a public entity, and the intent of the zoning
change to allow for development of affordable housing and public park uses at this site only.
D. Neighborhood Plans.
1. For the purposes of this title, the effect of a neighborhood plan, adopted or
amended by the City Council after January 1, 1995, shall be as expressly established
by the City Council for each such neighborhood plan.
2. Council adopted neighborhood plans that apply to the area proposed for rezone
shall be taken into consideration.
3. Where a neighborhood plan adopted or amended by the City Council after January
1, 1995 establishes policies expressly adopted for the purpose of guiding future
rezones, but does not provide for rezones of particular sites or areas, rezones shall
be in conformance with the rezone policies of such neighborhood plan.
4. If it is intended that rezones of particular sites or areas identified in a Council

adopted neighborhood plan are to be required, then the rezones shall be approved
simultaneously with the approval of the pertinent parts of the neighborhood plan.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site is not located within an area that is subject to a
neighborhood plan
E. Zoning Principles. The following zoning principles shall be considered:
1. The impact of more intensive zones on less intensive zones or industrial and
commercial zones on other zones shall be minimized by the use of transitions or
buffers, if possible. A gradual transition between zoning categories, including height
limits, is preferred.
2. Physical buffers may provide an effective separation between different uses and
intensities of development. The following elements may be considered as buffers:

March 2018
Natural features such as topographic breaks, lakes, rivers, streams, ravines and
shorelines; freeways, expressways, other major traffic arterials, and railroad tracks;
distinct change in street layout and block orientation; and open space and
greenspaces.
3. Zone Boundaries.
a. In establishing boundaries the following elements shall be considered: (1)

Physical buffers as described in subsection E2 above; (2) Platted lot lines.
b. Boundaries between commercial and residential areas shall generally be

established so that commercial uses face each other across the street on which
they are located, and face away from adjacent residential areas. An exception
may be made when physical buffers can provide a more effective separation
between uses.
4. In general, height limits greater than forty (40) feet should be limited to urban
villages. Height limits greater than forty (40) feet may be considered outside of
urban villages where higher height limits would be consistent with an adopted
neighborhood plan, a major institution's adopted master plan, or where the
designation would be consistent with the existing built character of the area.
Discussion: Existing physical buffers are present around the portion of the Fort Lawton site
proposed to be rezoned. To the east, the rezone area is bordered by existing mature
vegetation, and further buffered by 36th Avenue W. Texas Way provides a buffer to the west
of the rezone area, and vacated Army facilities and parking lots lie to the north and south.
These areas are proposed to be used as park and open space. There are currently no platted
lots in the proposed rezone area. The single-family areas to the north and east of the site
feature platted lots.
The LR 2 (M1) zone proposed for a portion of the site would allow residential buildings no
greater than 40 feet high, which does not exceed the suggested maximum height limit for
multifamily structures outside of an urban village.
Additional Discussion of Fort Lawton Proposed Development
The proposed rezone to LR2 (M1) and associated development on the Fort Lawton site under
Alternative 1 would result in a variety of housing types, including ownership duplex
townhouses that are intended to be compatible with single-family homes to to the north,
east and south, and some denser multifamily rowhouses and apartments more similar to
existing multi-family developments to the southeast of the site.
Development under Alternative 1 would provide a gradual transition between proposed uses
and existing surrounding uses. Under Alternative 1, proposed building development would
be designed to place lower density uses (townhomes) closest to the east boundary of the

March 2018
site. Rowhouse development would be located further to the west. An apartment building
would be centrally located within the site, the furthest away from existing off-site single-
family residences. Proposed development on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would
also be designed with a substantial separation between off-site uses to the north, with
proposed retention of the existing parking lot and maintenance building, as well as existing
mature trees, vegetation and topographic buffers in the northern and eastern portions of
the site. An additional 4.7 acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the western portion
of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park (see Section 3.6.2 for further analysis
on the relationship of the proposed development under Alternative 1 to existing surrounding
uses). For additional discussion, see Section 3.7, Aesthetics, for details on building heights
and their relationship to surrounding built character.
F. Impact Evaluation. The evaluation of a proposed rezone shall consider the possible
negative and positive impacts on the area proposed for rezone and its surroundings.
1. Factors to be examined include, but are not limited to, the following: housing,
particularly low-income housing; public services; environmental factors, such as
noise, air and water quality, terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna, glare, odor,
shadows, and energy conservation; pedestrian safety; manufacturing activity;
employment activity; character of areas recognized for architectural or historic
value; and shoreline view, public access and recreation.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton EIS provides an analysis of all applicable factors listed above.
For housing and low-income housing, see Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics. For
public services, see Section 3.11, Public Services. For environmental factors, see Sections 3.1
through 3.4, and 3.7 (Earth, Biological Resources, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Noise, and Aesthetics/Visual Resources). For pedestrian safety, see Section 3.10,
Transportation. For architectural/historic value, see Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural
Resources. For shoreline view, see Section 3.7 Aesthetic/Visual Resources. For public access
and recreation, see Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space.
Additional Discussion of Fort Lawton Proposed Development
Below are specific aspects of development under Alternative 1 that would result in positive
impacts on the area proposed for rezone and its surroundings.
Proposed development under Alternative 1 would include approximately 238 new affordable
housing units with a mix of senior supportive rental housing, affordable rental housing and
affordable homeownership housing. The affordable housing provided under Alternative 1 at
the Fort Lawton site could be considered a positive impact relative to diversifying a
neighborhood that is disproportionately occupied by medium to higher income households
(see Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, and Section 3.14, Environmental Justice,
for details).

March 2018
Under Alternative 1, sustainable design principles for the Fort Lawton project would be
implemented, including: optimize site potential; minimize non-renewable energy
consumption; use environmentally preferable products; protect and conserve water; enhance
indoor environmental quality; and optimize operational and maintenance practices.
Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards would apply to all affordable housing
developed on the Fort Lawton site (see Chapter 2 for details).
The senior supportive housing would increase employment opportunities on the site under
Alternative 1. Case management services would be provided by Catholic Community Services
of Western Washington and Housing Case Managers would be available onsite.
Alternative 1 would provide approximately 8.2 acres of passive recreation areas and
approximately 5.4 acres of active recreation areas, including two multi-purpose fields, all of
which would be available to the public. Sidewalks and trails would be located throughout
the site to provide opportunities for non-motorized circulation. Approximately 4.7 acres of
land owned by the U.S. Army would be incorporated into Discovery Park under this
alternative. (see Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, for details).
2. Service Capacities. Development which can reasonably be anticipated based on the

proposed development potential shall not exceed the service capacities which can
reasonably be anticipated in the area, including: street access to the area; street
capacity in the area; transit service; parking capacity; utility and sewer capacity; and
shoreline navigation.
Discussion: Under existing conditions, Texas Way provides access through the Fort Lawton
site. Intersections in in the immediate vicinity of the site currently operate at an acceptable
LOS B or better. The W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection further from the site
presently operates at LOS F. Transit service to the Fort Lawton site and the vicinity is
generally provided by Metro Transit Route 33 and Metro Transit Route 24. Potential
development under the proposed rezone is expected to generate a small percentage of the
traffic at the studied intersections and a minor amount of transit ridership. Parking is
currently available in the portion of the site proposed for rezone. However, this parking
would likely be removed and replaced with other parking with potential development (e.g.,
within buildings) No significant transportation impacts are expected (see Section 3.10,
Transportation, for details).
Seattle Public Utilities provides potable water and sewer service to the Fort Lawton site.
There are no known capacity constraints for these services. No significant impacts on utilities
are expected with potential development under the proposed rezone (see Section 3.12,
Utilities, for details)
The Fort Lawton site is not located on a shoreline where shoreline navigation is a
consideration.

March 2018
G. Changed Circumstances. Evidence of changed circumstances shall be taken into
consideration in reviewing proposed rezones, but is not required to demonstrate the
appropriateness of a proposed rezone. Consideration of changed circumstances shall be
limited to elements or conditions included in the criteria for the relevant zone and/or
overlay designations in this chapter.
Discussion: There are several circumstances that have changed regarding the Fort Lawton
site. Fort Lawton is one of the last remaining military bases to be disposed of under the U.S.
Army 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, and the City of Seattle has been
working since 2006 on creating a plan to develop affordable housing at the Fort Lawton site,
while also preserving existing open space/vegetated areas and creating recreation areas.
Since the City has been working on its plan for the site, affordable housing and homelessness
has become an increasing issue in Seattle. The shortage of affordable housing in Seattle is a
longstanding problem that has intensified in recent years as the city has experienced
dramatic increases in housing prices from rapid economic growth. In addition to the critical
need for affordable housing, the growing population in Seattle has placed extraordinary
demands on the public park system and has over-burdened the limited active recreation
resources available through the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department.
H. Overlay Districts. If the area is located in an overlay district, the purpose and boundaries
of the overlay district shall be considered.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site is not located within an overlay district.
I. Critical Areas. If the area is located in or adjacent to a critical area (SMC Chapter 25.09),
the effect of the rezone on the critical area shall be considered.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site contains existing critical areas including geologic hazards
(steep slopes, erosion hazard and seismic hazard areas), a possible wetland, and a Wildlife
Environmental Conservation Area (ECA). With adherence to the City’s critical areas
regulations, potential development under the proposed rezone is not expected to result in
significant impacts on critical areas (see Section 3.1, Earth, and Section 3.2, Biological
Resources, for details)
J. Incentive Provisions. If the area is located in a zone with an incentive zoning suffix a
rezone shall be approved only if one of the following conditions are met: 1) The rezone
includes incentive zoning provisions that would authorize the provision of affordable
housing equal to or greater than the amount of affordable housing authorized by the
existing zone; or 2) If the rezone does not include incentive zoning provisions that would
authorize the provision of affordable housing equal to or greater than the amount of
affordable housing authorized by the existing zone, an adopted City housing policy or
comprehensive plan provision identifies the area as not a priority area for affordable
housing, or as having an adequate existing supply of affordable housing in the
immediate vicinity of the area being rezoned.

March 2018
Discussion: Single-family zones, including SF 7200, do not provide for public benefits through
zoning incentives. However, the proposed rezone of a portion of the site to LR 2 (M1) would
include a suffix provision for Mandatory Housing Affordability, which does make provision
for affordable housing a requirement of multifamily development in upzoned areas.
23.34.010 – Designation of single-family zones
A. Except as provided in subsections B or C of Section 23.34.010, single-family zoned areas

may be rezoned to zones more intense than Single-family 5000 only if the City Council
determines that the area does not meet the criteria for single-family designation.
B. Areas zoned single-family or RSL that meet the criteria for single-family zoning
contained in subsection B of Section 23.34.011 and that are located within the adopted
boundaries of an urban village may be rezoned to zones more intense than Single-family
5000 if all the following conditions are met:
1. A neighborhood plan has designated the areas appropriate for the zone designation,
including specification of the RSL/T, RSL/C, or RSL/TC suffix, if applicable;
2. The rezone is:
a. To a Residential Small Lot (RSL), Residential Small Lot-Tandem (RSL/T),

Residential Small Lot-Cottage (RSL/C), Residential Small Lot-Tandem/Cottage
(RSL/TC), Lowrise 1 (LR1), Lowrise 1/Residential-Commercial (LR1/RC), or
b. Within the areas identified on Map P-1 of the adopted North Beacon Hill
Neighborhood Plan, and the rezone is to any Lowrise zone, or to an NC1 zone or
NC2 zone with a 30 or 40-foot height limit, or
c. With the residential urban village west of Martin Luther King Junior Way South in
the adopted Rainier Beach Neighborhood Plan, and the rezone is to a Lowrise 1
(LR1) or Lowrise 2 (LR2) zone, or
d. Within an urban village and the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
designation is a designation other than Single Family.
C. Areas zoned single-family within the Northgate Overlay District, established pursuant to
Chapter 23.71, that consist of one or more lots and meet the criteria for single-family
zoning contained in subsection B of Section 23.34.011 may be rezoned through a
contract rezone to a neighborhood commercial zone if the rezone is limited to blocks
(defined for the purpose of this subsection C as areas bounded by street lot lines) in
which more than 80% of that block is already designated as a neighborhood commercial
zone.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site, including the proposed rezone area, does not meet the
criteria for single-family designation, as outlined further in the below discussion of SMC

March 2018
23.34.011.B. The Fort Lawton site is not located within the adopted boundaries of an urban
village or within the Northgate Overlay District.
23.34.011 – Single-family zones, function and locational criteria
A. Function. An area that provides predominantly detached single-family structures on lot

sizes compatible with the existing pattern of development and the character of single-
family neighborhoods.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site does not currently function as a single family zone. The
approximately 34-acre site, including the proposed rezone area, is a former U.S. Army
Reserve Center with vacant military buildings, streets, sidewalks, paved parking areas and
both landscaped and forested natural areas. It does not have any detached single-family
structures.
B. Locational Criteria. A single-family zone designation is most appropriate in areas

meeting the following criteria:
1. Areas that consist of blocks with at least seventy (70) % of the existing
structures, not including detached accessory dwelling units, in single-family
residential use; or
Discussion: Neither the Fort Lawton site, nor the proposed rezone area, consists of blocks with
at least seventy (70) % of the existing structures in single-family residential use. The area has
not historically been a part of any single-family residential neighborhood, having instead served
as part of a military installation with no discernible residential block pattern.
2. Areas that are designated by an adopted neighborhood plan as appropriate for

single-family residential use; or
Discussion: The proposed rezone areais not located within an area having a neighborhood plan.
3. Areas that consist of blocks with less than seventy (70) % of the existing
structures, not including detached accessory dwelling units in single-family
residential use but in which an increasing trend toward single-family residential
use can be demonstrated; for example:
a. The construction of single-family structures, not including detached

accessory dwelling units, in the last five (5) years has been increasing
proportionately to the total number of constructions for new uses in the
area, or
b. The area shows an increasing number of improvements and rehabilitation

efforts to single-family structures, not including detached accessory dwelling
units, or

March 2018
c. The number of existing single-family structures, not including detached
accessory dwelling units, has been very stable or increasing in the last five (5)
years, or
d. The area’s location is topographically and environmentally suitable for single-

family residential developments.
Discussion: As noted above, the proposed rezone area does not consist of any blocks with
existing structures in single-family residential use and there is no trend of increased
single family residential use at the site.
C. An area that meets at least one (1) of the location criteria in subsection B above should
also satisfy the following size criteria in order to be designated as a single-family zone:
1. The area proposed for rezone should comprise fifteen (15) contiguous acres or
more, or should about an existing single-family zone.
2. If the area proposed for rezone contains less than fifteen (15) contiguous acres, and
does not abut an existing single-family zone, then it should demonstrate strong or
stable single-family residential trends or potentials such as:
a. That the construction of single-family structures, not including detached

accessory dwelling units, in the last (5) years has been increasing proportionately
to the total number of constructions for new uses in the area, or
b. That the number of existing single-family structures, not including detached

accessory dwelling units, has been very stable or increasing in the last five (5)
years, or
c. That the areas locations is topographically and environmentally suitable for

single-family structures, or
d. That the area shows an increasing number of improvements or rehabilitation

efforts to single-family structures, not including detached accessory dwelling
units, or portions of blocks on an arterial which have a majority of single-family
structures, not including detached accessory dwelling units, shall generally be
included. This shall be decided on a case-by-case basis, but the policy is to favor
including them.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site does not meet at least one (1) of the locational criteria in
subsection B above.

March 2018
23.34.013 - Designation of multi-family zones
An area zoned single-family that meets the criteria of 23.34.011 for single-family
designation may not be rezoned to multi-family except as otherwise provided in Section
23.34.010.B.
Discussion: See the discussion following SMC 23.34.011 and 23.34.010.B.
23.34.014 – Lowrise 1 (LR1) zone function and locational criteria
A. Function. The function of the LR1 zone is to provide opportunities for low-density multi-
family housing, primarily rowhouse and townhouse developments, through infill
development that is compatible with single-family dwelling units, through the
conversion of existing single-family dwelling units, or through the conversions of existing
single-family dwelling units to duplexes and triplexes.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site is currently occupied by a vacant U.S. Army Reserve Center.
There are no single-family dwelling units located on the site. The proposed rezone would
allow infill development in an established neighborhood: Magnolia. Potential development
under the proposed rezone would not occur through the conversion of existing housing units,
as there are none onsite.
Locational Criteria. The LR1 zone is most appropriate in areas generally characterized by
the following conditions.
1. The areas is similar in character to single-family zones.

2. The area is either:
a. Located outside of an urban center, urban village, or Station Area Overlay
District.
b. A limited area within an urban center, urban village, or Station Area Overlay
District that would provide opportunities for a diversity of housing types within
these denser environments; or
c. Located on a collector or minor arterial;
3. The area is characterized by a mix of single-family dwelling units, multi-family
structures that are similar in scale to single-family dwelling units, such as rowhouse
and townhouse development, and single-family dwelling units that have been
converted to multi-family residential use or are well-suited to conversion.
4. The area is characterized by local access and circulation that can accommodate low
density multi-family development oriented to the ground level and the street,
and/or by narrow roadways, lack of alleys, and/or irregular street patterns that
make local access and circulation less suitable for higher density multi-family
development;

March 2018
5. The area would provide a gradual transition between single-family zoned areas and
multi-family or neighborhood commercial zoned areas; and
6. The area is supported by existing or projected facilities and services used by
residents, including retail sales and services, parks, and community centers.
Discussion: The Fort Lawton site is not similar in character to single-family zones, as it is
presently a vacant former U.S. Army Reserve Center. There are no single-family dwelling
units located on the site. The site is located outside of an urban center, urban village, or
Station Area Overlay District. Texas Way through the site and connects with Government
Way, a minor arterial to the south.
There are no single-family or multi-family buildings onsite. The existing military buildings
onsite are larger in scale than single-family dwelling units and are not suited for conversion
to residential uses.
Texas Way, which passes through the Fort Lawton site, could provide access/circulation to
low density or higher density multi-family development. The configuration of other private
roadways onsite would likely not be ideal for multi-family development.
The entire Fort Lawton site is currently zoned SF 7200. The site is surrounded by land zoned
SF 7200 to the north, SF 5000 to the east, LR 3 to the southeast, SF 7200 to the south and SF
7200 (with a city park overlay) to the west. A rezone of the central portion of the site to LR1
would not provide a gradual transition between less intensive residential zones and more
intensive multi-family or neighborhood commercial zones.
Existing retail and service uses, parks and community centers are located near the site (see
the discussion under SMC 23.34.008.B, and Sections 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans
and Policies, for details).
23.34.018 – Lowrise 2 (LR2) zone, function and locational criteria
A. Function. The dual functions of the LR2 zone are to:
1. Provide opportunities for a variety of multi-family housing types in existing multi-

family neighborhoods and along arterials that have a mix of small scale residential
structures; and
2. Accommodate redevelopment in areas within urban centers, urban villages, and
Station Area Overlay Districts in order to establish multi-family neighborhoods of
low scale and density.
Discussion: Existing land use on the Fort Lawton site is characterized by medium to large-
scale, one to two-story former military structures. The site is located in an existing
neighborhood that is characterized by single-family uses to the north and east, multi-family
uses to the southeast and public park uses to the south and west. Development in the

March 2018
surrounding area to the north, east and south is generally typified by small-scale residential
structures (e.g., structures two to three-stories high).
Texas Way passes through the site and connects with W Government Way, a minor arterial,
immediately south of the site.
The site is not located in an urban center, urban village or Station Overlay District.
The proposed rezone to LR2 would be consistent with the site’s existing Multi-family Residential
Comprehensive Plan designation. The rezone would allow multi-family housing at a low scale
and density. Consistent with the function of the LR2 zone, development under Alternative 1
would provide a variety of multifamily housing types, including townhouses, rowhouses and
apartments.
B. Locational Criteria. The LR2 zone is most appropriate in areas generally characterized
by the following conditions:
1. The area is either:
a. located in an urban center, urban village, or Station Area Overlay District

where new development could help establish a multi-family neighborhood of
small scale and density; or
b. located in or near an urban center, urban village, or Station Area Overlay

District, or on an arterial street, and is characterized by one or more of the
following conditions:
1) small-scale structures generally no more than 35 feet in height that are

compatible in scale with SF and LR1 zones;
2) the area would provide a gradual transition between SF or LR1 zones and
more intensive multi-family or neighborhood commercial zones; and
2. The area is characterized by local access and circulation conditions that

accommodate low density multi-family development;
3. The area has direct access to arterial streets that can accommodate anticipated
vehicular circulation, so that traffic is not required to use streets that pass through
lower density residential zones; and
4. The area is well supported by existing or projected facilities and services used by
residents, including retail sales and services, parks, and community centers, and
has good pedestrian access to these facilities.

March 2018
Discussion:The Fort Lawton site is not located in or near an urban center, an urban village or
a Station Overlay District. Texas Way passes through the site and connects with W
Government Way, a minor arterial, to the south.
The Fort Lawton site is currently zoned SF 7200. Existing structure onsite are medium to
large-scale and no more than 35 feet high. The central portion of the site is proposed to be
rezoned to LR2 (M1) zoning. The site is surrounded by land zoned SF 7200 to the north, SF
5000 to the east, LR 3 to the southeast, SF 7200 to the south and SF 7200 (with a city park
overlay) to the west. The proposed rezone to LR2 (M1) would not provide a gradual
transition between less intensive residential zones and more intensive multi-family or
neighborhood commercial zones. However, there are existing buffers/separation (e.g.,
vegetation, topography and roadways) along the east and west site boundaries that would
ease the transition to adjacent zones.
Local access and circulation conditions could accommodate low-density, multi-family

development. Intersections near the site currently operate at LOS B or better and bus service
is available to serve the site. Traffic from the site is generally not required to use streets
that pass through lower density residential zones to the east, but could pass through lower
density residential zones to the north (see Section 3.10, Transportation, for details).
Multiple facilities and services are located within a 1.5-mile radius of the Fort Lawton site,
including Metropolitan Market, Albertsons, QFC, Safeway, a Shell gas station, an Arco gas
station, three 76 gas stations and Swedish Primary Care facilities. Discovery Park is located
immediately west and south of the site, and provides open space and park facilities for the
community. The Daybreak Star Center is a community event and conference center focused
on Native American activities within the park (see Section 3.6.2 for details on commercial
and institutional services in the vicinity). Sidewalks are present on both sides of W
Government Way and there is a multi-use path on the south side of Discovery Park
Boulevard west of 36thAvenue W, which link to nearby facilities and services.
Environmentally Critical Areas
Summary: Washington State’s Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) requires all
cities and counties to identify critical areas within their jurisdictions and to formulate
development regulations for their protection.
The City of Seattle has adopted codes (SMC 25.09) to define and regulate critical areas to
avoid adverse environmental impacts and potential harm on the parcel and to adjacent
property, the surrounding neighborhood, and the drainage basin. SMC 25.09.020 defines six
types of environmentally critical areas including: geologic hazard areas, steep slope areas,
flood-prone areas, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and abandoned
landfills.
Discussion: On the Fort Lawton site, the following critical areas have been identified:
geologic hazards (steep slopes, seismic and erosion); wetlands (potentially); and fish and

March 2018
wildlife conservation area (including a heron management area). On the Talaris site, the
following critical areas have been identified: geologic hazards (steep slopes, seismic,
erosion, methane buffer from adjacent former landfill); wetlands; fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area (including an eagles nest site); and a riparian corridor. The potential for
proposed development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 to impact these critical areas is
discussed in Section 3.1, Earth, and Section 3.2 Biological Resources, and Appendices B and
C. These analyses concluded that with implementation of the legally-required measures and
measures that are part of the project, no significant adverse impacts to critical areas are
expected.
Tree Protection Ordinance
Summary: The City of Seattle regulates activities that affect trees through Seattle Municipal
Code (SMC) Chapter 25.11 – Tree Protection. The City adopted a new tree protection
ordinance amending this portion of the code, which became effective on April 1, 2009. In
addition, DPD Director’s Rule 16-2008 was implemented to clarify the definition of
‘exceptional tree,’ and to clarify the City’s SEPA Plants and Animals Policy (SMC subsection
25.05.675.N.2.c) relative to ‘rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional’ trees.
Four categories of trees are identified under these regulations:

• Significant trees, which are defined as any tree greater than or equal to 6 inches DSH
(diameter at standing height) for both evergreen and deciduous trees;
• Tree groves which are defined as a group of 8 or more trees 12 inches in diameter or
greater that form a continuous canopy;
• Hazardous trees; and
• Exceptional trees, which are a tree or group of trees that, because of its unique
historical, ecological or aesthetic value constitutes an important community
resource.
The ordinance prohibits removal of ‘exceptional trees’ and limits the removal of trees six
inches in diameter (at breast height [DBH]) or larger on lots in specific zones, except in
conjunction with a building or grading permit. SMC 25.11.090 provides requirements for
tree replacement and site restoration.
Discussion: Mature trees are present on both the Fort Lawton and the Talaris sites. Prior to
development on either site, a tree survey would be prepared to determine the presence of
any significant trees, tree groves, hazard trees and/or exceptional trees in the development
areas. To the extent feasible, existing trees would be preserved. Where removal of
significant trees, tree groves, hazard tree or exceptional trees is necessary, the
requirements in the Tree Protection Ordinance would be followed.

March 2018
Discovery Park Master Plan
Summary: The Discovery Park Master Plan guides decisions regarding the development of
Discovery Park, currently a 534-acre natural area park in northwest Seattle. The Master Plan
was first drafted in 1972, and updated in 1974 and 1986, as described in more detail below.
In 1972, a consultant prepared, but the City Council took no action on, a “final report on the
Master Plan for Fort Lawton Park”. The 1972 Plan noted the presence of the Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Center, but on the assumption that the City would acquire the Reserve
property, which was then retained for ongoing use by the federal government. The plan
called for a grand mall within the park and running through the northern Reserve property
to an entry that would connect to Gilman Avenue W via a bridge crossing the Kiwanis
Ravine.
In 1974, the Council adopted, by resolution, a “Revised Master Plan for Discovery Park”. The
purpose of the 1974 Plan was to reevaluate certain elements of the 1972 Plan. Among the
revisions were: a recognition that the proposed entrance via a bridge over the Kiwanis
Ravine was not practical at that point and a recommendation for a main entrance at
Government Way W. The “Long Range” map in the 1974 Plan displayed the Reserve
property as the only “Army Retained Area” on the map, with just a small portion of land
northwest of that area displayed as “Army Property Requested for Park Use.” In 1986, the
Council revised the plan again by resolution. The 1986 Plan noted the expectation of long
term Reserve use of the areas adjacent to the northeast corner of the park and did not
amend the “Long Range” map in the 1974 Plan.
The concept of a main entry on the axis of the grand mall via a bridge across the Kiwanis
Ravine has not gained ground through subsequent years, and is no longer viable. After the
adoption of the 1986 Plan, the City Council took several steps to preserve the Kiwanis Ravine
as a park, authorizing acquisition of property in the ravine for park purposes, transferring
the street rights of way over the ravine—including Gilman—to the Parks Department, and
(in 2007) deeming the ravine “important open space and heron habitat” and imposing on it
a restrictive easement that limits its use to park purposes. In addition, in the late 1990s, the
federal government built a new facility in the northwest quadrant of the Reserve property,
directly in the path of the originally envisioned grand mall, for use by the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
In September 2008, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution adopting the Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Plan and approving related applications to the federal
government for the Army Reserve Property4. In Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council v.
City of Seattle, 155 Wash.App. 305 (2010), a neighborhood group challenged the City’s 2008
adoption of a Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan (FLRP) and contended that the FLRP was
inconsistent with the 1986 Discovery Park Master Plan. The Court of Appeals agreed with
4 Resolution Number 31086.

March 2018
the City that the 1986 Master Plan created no enforceable right or duty and that the trial
court erred in ruling that the City was required to publicly determine the applicability of the
Master Plan to the FLRP.
Discussion: As noted above, the Court of Appeals determined that the City was not
required to publicly determine the applicability of the Discovery Park Master Plan to the
Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan. Moreover, the vision contemplated in the plan of a
bridge over the Kiwanis Ravine is no longer viable. However, it should be noted that under
Alternatives 1 and 3, public parks would be provided on the Fort Lawton site, including
passive and active recreation areas. Up to 4.7 acres of forestland owned by the U.S. Army in
the west portion of the Fort Lawton site would also be incorporated into Discovery Park
under these alternatives. No public parks would be included under Alternative 2.
Federal Plans, Policies and Regulations
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Summary: The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) NEPA

environmental review procedures for entities assuming HUD environmental review, decision-
making, and action responsibilities under NEPA and related federal laws and authorities are
contained in Title 24, Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations
provide instruction and guidance to recipients of HUD assistance and other responsible
entities for conducting an environmental review and for obtaining approval of a Request for
Release of Funds. The City of Seattle Human Services Department is the responsible entity
under 24 CFR 58 for environmental review, decision-making and action responsibilities that
would otherwise apply to HUD, under a delegation agreement between the City of Seattle
and HUD.
Discussion: Should federal funding become available for the Fort Lawton Project, NEPA
environmental review would be conducted. The NEPA review would be prepared consistent
with HUD’s environmental review procedures as outlined in Title 24, Part 58 of the CFR, and
would likely incorporate analysis from this SEPA EIS.
Summary: HUD’s basic regulation for responsible entities assuming HUD environmental
review decision-making, and action responsibilities that implement the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) and other related Federal environmental laws and authorities are contained in Title
24, Part 58 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The responsible entity must certify that it has complied with the requirements that would
apply to HUD under the following law and authorities, and must consider the criteria,
standards, policies and regulations of the following laws and authorities:
(a) Historic properties.
(1) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

March 2018
(2) Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment,
May 13, 1971 (3 CFR, 1971--1975 Comp., p. 559).
(3) The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, which amends the
Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.).
(4) Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation--36 CFR part 800).
(b) Floodplain, management and wetland protection.
(1) Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128) and the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 1994.
(2) HUD Procedure for the Implementation of Executive Order 11988 (3 CFR, 1977
Comp., p. 117)-24 CFR part 55, Floodplain Management.
(3) Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 121).
(c) Coastal areas protection and management.
(1) The Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement
Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
(2) The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), as amended.
(d) Sole source aquifers. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 201, 300 et seq.,
and b 21 U.S.C. 349), as amended. (See 40 CFR part 149.)
(e) Endangered species. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as
amended. (See 50 CFR part 402.)
(f) Wild and scenic rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), as
amended.
(g) Air quality. The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), as amended. (See 40 CFR parts 6,
51, and 93.)
(h) Farmlands protection. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et
seq.), as amended. (See 7 CFR part 658.)
(j) HUD environmental standards. Applicable criteria and standards specified in HUD
environmental regulations (24 CFR part 51) and HUD policy set forth in 24 CFR
58.5(i)(2).
(j) Environmental justice. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations (3 CFR, 1994
Comp., p. 859).
Discussion: See the discussion below under National Historic Preservation Act, Section 3.9,
Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H, for a description of the project’s
compliance with federal laws, regulations and procedures related to historic properties.
Neither the Fort Lawton site nor the Talaris site is located within a floodplain. Thus,
development at the sites is not subject to the flood-related federal laws, regulations and
procedures listed above. An existing wetland has been identified in the south portion of the
Talaris site and a wetland may be located in the north portion of the Fort Lawton site. See
Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C, for information on the protection of this
wetland/potential wetland with proposed development under the EIS alternatives.

March 2018
Neither the Fort Lawton site nor the Talaris site is located within a Coastal Barrier area.
Thus, development at the sites is not subject to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. King
County is designated as part of the coastal zone and is subject to the Coastal Zone
Management Act (see below for information on CZM compliance). No sole source aquifer is
located beneath either site. Thus, development at the sites is not subject to the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
No federally-listed species or federally-designated critical habitat is present on or

immediately adjacent to either of the sites. Thus, development at the sites would not affect
the species/habitat. See below under the Endangered Species Act, Section 3.2, Biological
Resources, and Appendix C, for further discussion of this federal law.
The Fort Lawton and Talaris sites are not located in proximity to a Wild and Scenic River.
Thus, development on the sites is not subject to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. See below
for a discussion of compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Section
3.12, Utilities.
See below and Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Appendix D, for information on the project’s
relationship to the Clean Air Act and other local and state air quality regulations.
The Fort Lawton site is designated Multi-Family Residential in the Seattle 2035
Comprehensive Plan and is zoned SF 7200; the Talaris site is designated Single-family
Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned SF 5000. No farmland is present on
either site and development on the sites is not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy
Act.
Proposed development under the EIS alternatives is not expected to result in

disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. Very few low-income or
minority populations are located in the Fort Lawton or Talaris site vicinities and the minority
populations that do, do not meet U.S. EPA’s definition of such a population (see Section
3.14, Environmental Justice, for details).
Summary: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides

environmental standards for determining project acceptability and necessary measures to
ensure that activities assisted by HUD achieve the goal of a suitable living environment. The
environmental criteria, encompassed in 24 CFR Part 51 include noise abatement and control
and the siting of HUD-assisted projects near hazardous operations including explosives,
flammables, runway clear zones at civil airports, and accident potential zones at military
airfields. In addition, as set forth in 24 CFR 58.5(i)(2), it is HUD policy that all properties that
are being proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination,
toxic chemicals and gases, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the
health and safety of occupants or conflict with the intended use of the property.

March 2018
Discussion: Section 3.4, Noise, and Appendix E, include observations of existing noise levels
and an analysis of potential noise impacts that could occur on the Fort Lawton and Talaris
sites under the EIS alternatives. The analysis concluded that with implementation of legally-
required measures, the project is not expected to result in significant noise impacts. The
sites are also not located in areas with substantial noise that could impact proposed
development.
Neither the Fort Lawton nor the Talaris site is located in proximity to hazardous operations
including explosives, flammables, runway clear zones at civil airports or accident potential
zones at military airfields. See Section 3.5, Environmental Health, and Appendix F, for a
summary of potential environmental health hazards on and near the sites and potential
impacts that could occur under the EIS alternatives. The analysis concluded that with
implementation of legally-required measures, the project is not expected to result in
significant environmental health impacts.
Clean Air Act
Summary: The Clean Air Act is a federal law intended to protect public health and the
environment from dangerous air pollution. The Act regulates air emissions from stationary
and mobile sources and authorizes the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQSs). The EPA designates locations not meeting NAAQSs as a U.S. EPA
Nonattainment Area, and prohibits federal assistance to projects that are not in
conformance with the air quality State Implementation Plan to bring areas back into
compliance with NAAQSs, or attainment Maintenance areas are attainment areas previously
designated as nonattainment areas. New construction and conversion in “non-attainment”
or “maintenance” areas as designated by the EPA may need to be modified or mitigation
measures developed and implemented.
Discussion: Both the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites are located in King County. The County
is designated an attainment area for ozone, NO 2, PM10 and PM2.5, and is designated a
maintenance area for CO. Existing traffic on major roadways in the vicinities of the Fort
Lawton and Talaris sites is a large contributor to criteria pollutant emissions. Development
under the EIS alternatives is not expected to generate significant levels of mobile sources
of air toxic emissions, and with implementation of legally-required measures, no
significant adverse impacts on air quality are expected (see Section 3.3, Air Quality, and
Appendix D, for additional information on the project’s relationship to the Clean Air Act
and local and state air quality regulations).
Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act)
Summary: The Clean Water Act (CWA) is a federal statute that protects surface water
quality through a variety of tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways and
manage polluted runoff. The CWA prohibits discharging pollutants from a point source (i.e.

March 2018
pipe, ditch etc.) into navigable waters unless an EPA National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit is obtained.
Discussion: The Washington Department of Ecology has local jurisdiction over the Clean
Water Act. Stormwater regulation for the Fort Lawton Project is per the Seattle Stormwater
Code (SMC 22.800) and the associated guidance in the 2016 City of Seattle Stormwater
Manual. These documents identify code regulations in compliance with the Phase I NPDES
permit and provide guidance for the application and design of stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and infrastructure facilities. See Section 3.12, Utilities, for
details on the project’s relationship to local and state stormwater regulations.
Endangered Species Act
Summary: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is administered by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The ESA, as amended, applies to federal agency actions and sets
forth requirements for consultation to determine if the proposed action “may affect” an
endangered or threatened species and their critical habitat. If an agency determines that an
action “may affect” a threatened or endangered species or critical habitat, then Section
7(a)(2) requires each agency, generally the lead agency, to consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the Services), as
appropriate, to ensure that any action the agency authorizes, funds or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed endangered or threatened
species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If a species
has been proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered, or a critical habitat has
been proposed, Section 7(a)(4) states that each agency shall confer with the Services.
Discussion: An analysis of biological resources on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites is
provided in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C. The analysis indicated that
no federally-listed species and no federally-designated critical habitat are known to occur
on or immediately adjacent to either of the sites. Thus, development at the sites is not
expected to affect these species/habitats.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Summary: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits private parties (and federal
agencies in certain judicial circuits) from intentionally taking a migratory bird, its eggs, or
nests. “Take” is defined as “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50
CFR §10.21). The MBTA prohibits taking, selling, or other activities that would harm
migratory birds, its eggs or nests, unless the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, through the
USFWS, authorizes such activities under a special permit. Part 724 FW 1-2 of the USFWS
Service Manual (USFWS 2003) states that for migratory birds other than eagles and
endangered or threatened species, a permit is not required to dislodge or destroy migratory
bird nests that are not occupied by juveniles or eggs. However, any such destruction that

March 2018
results in a take of any migratory bird is a violation of the MBTA (e.g., where juveniles still
depend on the nest for survival).
Discussion: An analysis of biological resources (including migratory birds) on the Fort

Lawton and Talaris sites is provided in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C. As
mentioned above, no federally-listed wildlife species, including birds, are located on or
adjacent to the sites. The analysis indicated that the north forest on the Fort Lawton site
and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park adjacent to the site are considered great blue heron
breeding areas, and bald eagle breeding areas and a purple martin breeding site are
mapped nearby (these are bird species of local or state importance). A bald eagle nest site is
mapped on the Talaris site. Legally-required measures and measures that are part of the
project are identified to address potential impacts of the project on these breeding areas
and other potential impacts on migrating birds. As a result, no significant impacts are
expected.
Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species
Summary: Pursuant to Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, enacted in February 3,

1999, federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of invasive species (alien species
whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm to human
health) are directed to use relevant programs and authorities, to the extent practicable and
subject to available resources, to prevent the introduction of invasive species, and provide
for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been
invaded. Agencies are not to carry out actions that they believe are likely to cause or
promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless the benefits of such actions
clearly outweigh the potential harm, and all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk
of harm should be taken in conjunction with the actions.
Discussion: Invasive plant species currently occur on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites,
including Himalayan blackberry, English ivy and Scotch broom. As possible, these species
would be removed prior to redevelopment of either site. The EIS alternatives are not
expected to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. Native,
noninvasive and drought-tolerant plants would be incorporated into the landscaping under
Alternative 1 and 3. Under Alternative 2, landscaping on the Fort Lawton site would be at
the discretion of homebuilders and homeowners (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and
Appendix C, for additional information on invasive species).
National Historic Preservation Act
Summary: The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106) requires federal
agencies or federally assisted undertakings to consider the effect of their undertakings on
any district, site, building, structure or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. The process includes consultation between the lead
agency and other parties with an interest in the effects of the proposed project on historic

March 2018
properties. Agencies are also required to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
“a reasonable opportunity to comment about such undertaking.”
Discussion: An analysis of historic resources on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites is provided
in Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H, including any site features
that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The
analysis indicated that the Final Environmental Assessment for Fort Lawton U.S. Army
Reserve Center (2012) determined that the Fort Lawton site was not eligible for listing in
the NRHP. The analysis noted that the buildings and landscaping at the Talaris site were
designated as an historic landmark by City of Seattle and the site has been determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP. The buildings and landscaping on the Talaris site are also
considered to have local and national significance. With implementation of legally-required
measures and measures that are part of the project, the analysis concluded that the project
is not expected to result in significant historic or cultural resources impacts.

March 2018
3.7 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES
This section of the FEIS describes the aesthetics/visual resource conditions on and near the
Fort Lawton and Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives
are evaluated and mitigation measures identified. The section is based on photo simulations
and shadow diagrams prepared by Tiscareno Architects in October 2017 (see Appendix G
for the simulations and diagrams).
Key Findings
The existing visual character of the Fort Lawton site is defined by its location on Magnolia
bluff and its collection of former military buildings and grassy/vegetated natural areas. The
existing visual character of the Talaris site is defined by the historic conference center
buildings that are located within a park-like setting.
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, most of the existing buildings on the Fort Lawton site would be
removed; under Alternative 2, all of the existing buildings would be removed. Development
on the site would change the visual character of the site with new townhouses, rowhouses
and apartment buildings and open space/park facilities under Alternative 1, single-family
housing under Alternative 2 and open space/park facilities under Alternative 3. New sources
of light, glare and shadows would be generated by development under Alternatives 1, 2 and
3; however, the amount of spillage onto off-site areas is anticipated to be minimal. No
protected views, as defined in SMC 25.05.675.P.2.a, 2.b. and 2.c., would be impacted with
proposed development.
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, no buildings would be removed on the Talaris site. Proposed
development would change the visual character of the site with new townhouses,
rowhouses and apartment buildings. New sources of light, glare and shadows would be
generated by development under Alternatives 2 and 3; however, the amount of spillage onto
off-site areas is anticipated to be minimal. No protected views, as defined in SMC
25.05.675.P.2.a, 2.b. and 2.c., would be impacted with proposed development.
Methodology
Visual Character
For the aesthetics analysis in this FEIS, the visual character of an area consists of the unique
and important aesthetic features that comprise the visual landscape. Both natural and built
features combine to define a location’s visual character, including natural resources
(topography, vegetation, geologic formations, wetlands, rivers and other water resources),
view corridors, vistas, parks and landmark structures/districts.
Views
A view analysis was prepared for this FEIS based on photographs taken of the Fort Lawton
site from selected viewpoints and photo simulations of proposed development under the
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS 3.7-1 Chapter 3

March 2018 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
EIS alternatives from these viewpoints. The viewpoints for the visual analysis were
identified based on several factors, including the City’s view protection policies in SMC
25.05.675.P.2.a, 2.b. and 2.c. (e.g., specified viewpoints, parks, scenic routes and historic
landmarks where the site and proposed development could be seen) and other public
places with possible views of the site. The designated viewpoints include: Discovery Park
and Commodore Park; designated landmarks include: Hiram Chittendon Locks and Salmon
Bay Bridge; and designated scenic routes include: W Commodore Way and Seaview Avenue
NW. Other public locations from which the site could be viewed include public
roadways/sidewalks surrounding the site (e.g., W Lawton Way, 36th Avenue W and W
Government Way). Accordingly, ten preliminary viewpoints were selected based on the
City’s view protection regulations and the potential for site development to change the
character of public views of the site (see Figure 3.7-1, Viewpoint Location Map for the
locations of the viewpoints and Appendix G for photos from these preliminary viewpoints).
From these viewpoints, four viewpoints (Viewpoints 2, 3, 6 and 9) were ultimately selected
for simulation based on the actual potential for view impacts with proposed development.
3D photo simulations of the views of site redevelopment under the EIS alternatives from
the selected viewpoints were prepared. SketchUp or Revit software was used to represent
building massing based on assumed building elevations, locations and heights. The view
analysis presented in this FEIS includes figures that incorporate the following:
• Photographs illustrating the existing visual condition as viewed from the respective
viewpoints; and
• Simulations of building massing envelopes representing the extent of building

massing visible from the respective viewpoint, consistent with assumed total
building square footage, setbacks and maximum heights. The building massing
envelopes represent vertical extensions of the building footprints illustrated in
Figure 2-6B, Fort Lawton Site Plan – Alternative 1 and Figure 2-10, Fort Lawton Site
Plan – Alternative 2 in Chapter 2 of this FEIS, and are intended to represent the
general bulk and scale of proposed development under these alternatives. Photo
simulations of Alternative 3 were not prepared, as no new building development is
proposed on site that could block views under this alternative.
Potential view impacts of development under Alternatives 2 and 3 at the Talaris site
are generally discussed based on Figure 2-9, Massing Diagrams and Figure 2-11,
Talaris Site Plan – Alternatives 2 / 3 in Chapter 2 of this FEIS, and do not include
photo simulations.
Light and Glare

Potential light and glare impacts were conceptually analyzed based on the type and sources
of light under the EIS alternatives and the potential for light/glare impacts on and near the
Fort Lawton and Talaris sites.

Note:
Blue circles represent selected viewpoints. Red circles
North
indicate viewpoints not selected for further analysis.
Fort Lawton Viewpoint Location Map
Shadows
Potential shadow impacts from proposed development at the Fort Lawton site on nearby
parks were analyzed per the City’s SEPA policies (SMC 25.05.675.Q.2). These policies aim to
“minimize or prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows on open spaces most used
by the public.” Shadow diagrams were prepared that depict the potential shading impacts
from the project, including on Discovery Park, Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and
Commodore Park. Shadow diagrams were prepared during the summer solstice
(approximately June 21st), autumnal equinox (approximately September 21st) and winter
solstice (approximately December 21st). Diagrams were prepared for three times of day (9
AM, 12 PM and 3 PM) under Alternatives 1 and 2 (the alternatives with new building
development) to illustrate how shadows would transition across the site on each of the days
referenced above and possibly impact the parks (see Appendix G for each of the shadow
diagrams prepared for this FEIS). Potential shadow impacts on nearby public open spaces
was qualitatively discussed for the Talaris site.
This sub-section summarizes the existing aesthetic/light and glare conditions at the Fort
Lawton and Talaris sites.
Fort Lawton Site
Visual Character
The existing visual character of Fort Lawton site is defined by its location on Magnolia bluff
and its collection of former military buildings and grassy/vegetated natural areas. Existing
buildings on the site are one- to two-stories in height and are generally constructed with
brick, stone, wood and/or metal facades. They are typically minimalist in appearance, in
accordance with their former storage and maintenance uses.
To the west and south of the site, the visual character is defined by the primarily
forested/vegetated portions of Discovery Park. The Fort Lawton Army Reserve Complex
(FLARC) VA center is also located to the west of the site. The FLARC is a two-story building
with a primarily brick façade.
The visual character of the areas to the north and east of the Fort Lawton site is generally
defined by the existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Existing residences are
typically two- to three-story, wood frame structures.
Views
The City of Seattle has adopted policies to: “protect public views of significant natural and
human-made features: Mount Rainier, the Olympic and Cascade Mountains, the downtown
skyline, and major bodies of water including Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Union and
the Ship Canal, from public places consisting of specified viewpoints, parks, scenic routes and

view corridors identified in Attachment 1”.1 It is also the City’s policy to protect public views
of City-designated historic landmarks, views of the Space Needle from designated public
places and views from City-designated scenic routes.
City-Designated Public Viewpoints

Of the City’s 97 officially-designated public viewpoints, two are near the Fort Lawton site
and could potentially be impacted by proposed development: Discovery Park and
Commodore Park. The locations of these viewpoints are depicted on Figure 3.7-1,
Viewpoint Location Map and are described below:
• Discovery Park – Discovery Park is located at the north tip of Elliott Bay and is
adjacent to the west and south boundaries of the Fort Lawton site. The
approximately 534-acre park includes panoramic views of Puget Sound, the Olympic
Mountains, the Cascade Mountains and Mount Rainier. Three designated viewpoint
areas are located within the park:
o The West Point Lighthouse – located on the west edge of the park, provides
panoramic views to the north, south and west;
o The Fort Lawton Historic District – located in the south portion of the park,
provides panoramic views to the north, west and southwest; and
o The Daybreak Star Center – located in the north portion of the park, provides
panoramic views to the north, east and west.
Views of the Fort Lawton site are not possible from any of the designated viewpoint
areas in Discovery Park due to the intervening distance, topography and vegetation.
However, the site can be seen from the park boundary to the west of the site, and
this location was included in the view analysis (see the photos in Appendix G).
• Commodore Park – Commodore Park is located less than 0.25 mile to the northeast
of the Fort Lawton site, along the south shore of the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
The approximately 3.9-acre park provides panoramic views of the Canal and
secondary views of Puget Sound to the west. There are two designated viewpoint
locations within the park, one on the east side and the other on the west side of the
park. Views of the Fort Lawton site are not possible from the designated viewpoint
areas in Commodore Park due to the intervening distance, topography, vegetation
and buildings (see the photos in Appendix G). Therefore, photo simulations of
proposed development were not prepared from this viewpoint.
Views of City-Designated Historic Landmarks

In addition to view protection policies associated with officially-designated viewpoints, it is
also City policy to: protect public views of historic landmarks designated by the City’s
Landmarks Preservation Board which, because of their prominence of location or contrasts of
1
Seattle Municipal Code Chap. 25.05.675 P.2.a.i. Attachment 1 is at the end of Section 25.05.675.

siting, age or scale are easily identifiable visual features of their neighborhood or the City and
contribute to the distinctive quality or identity of their neighborhood or the City.2 There are
two designated City Landmarks adjacent to the site: the Hiram Chittendon Locks and the
Salmon Bay Bridge. These historic landmarks are depicted on Figure 3.7-1, Viewpoint
Location Map and are described below:
• Hiram Chittendon Locks – The Hiram Chittendon Locks are located approximately 0.1
mile north of the Fort Lawton site and were constructed from 1911 to 1917 to move
boats from the water level of Lake Washington and Lake Union to Puget Sound, and
to maintain the water levels of both lakes. The Hiram Chittendon Locks were listed on
the National Register of Historic Places in 1978.
• Salmon Bay Bridge – The Salmon Bay Bridge is located approximately 0.1 mile north
of the Fort Lawton site and was constructed in 1914 by the Great Northern Railroad
Company to provide a rail connection between Ballard and Magnolia. It serves as a
prominent visual feature on the Lake Washington Ship Canal and is the only railroad
bridge across the canal. The bridge was designated as a City of Seattle Landmark in
1980.
Views of the Hiram Chittendon Locks and Salmon Bay Bridge are largely not available from
the Fort Lawton site due to the intervening distance, topography, vegetation and
buildings—only the top of the bridge can be seen (see the photos in Appendix G).
Therefore, photo simulations of proposed development were not prepared from these
viewpoints.
Space Needle Viewpoints

The most visible landmark from many parts of the City is the Space Needle, which is located
approximately 3.8 miles southeast of the Fort Lawton site. The City has identified ten
viewpoints from which views of the Space Needle are to be protected.3. These viewpoints
are located to the south and southeast of the Fort Lawton site. The designated Space
Needle view corridor that is closest to the project site is Kerry Park.4 This view corridor is
located approximately three miles to the southeast of the Fort Lawton site and maintains
protected views toward the south and southeast of the Space Needle.
Development on the Fort Lawton site would not impact views of the Space Needle from
Kerry Park or any other protected Space Needle viewpoint location; therefore, they were
not included in the view analysis.
2
Seattle Municipal Code Chap. 25.05.675 P.2.b.i.
3
Seattle Municipal Code Chap. 25.05.675 P. and Seattle DCLU, 2001,
4
City of Seattle, Viewpoints Locater Map.

Scenic Routes
City ordinances5 also identify specific scenic routes throughout the City from which view
protection is encouraged: It is City policy to protect public views of significant natural and
human-made features from designated scenic routes, identified in Attachment 1” (25.05.675
P.2.). Near the Fort Lawton site, there are two designated Scenic Routes, W Commodore
Way and Seaview Avenue NW to the north of the site that provide views of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal. These locations are depicted on Figure 3.7-1.
Development on the Fort Lawton site would not affect views from these scenic routes due
to the intervening distance, topography, vegetation and buildings (see the photos in
Appendix G). Therefore, photo simulations of proposed development were not prepared
from these viewpoints.
Existing Views from the Selected Viewpoints

Four viewpoints were ultimately selected as being most representative of area viewpoints
and/or were determined to have the greatest potential for redevelopment on the Fort
Lawton site to change the character of the view:
• Viewpoint 2 – Fort Lawton Military Cemetery (Southwest of Site)
• Viewpoint 3 – Discovery Park East Boundary (West of Site)
• Viewpoint 6 – Secondary Entrance at Texas Way (Northwest of Site)
• Viewpoint 9 – 36th Avenue W (East of Site)
See Figure 3.7-1 for the locations of these viewpoints. Existing views toward the Fort
Lawton site from these viewpoints are described below.
Viewpoint 2 – Fort Lawton Military Cemetery at Discovery Park
From Viewpoint 2, the existing view includes grass and trees within the Fort Lawton Military
Cemetery and the existing fence line separating the cemetery from the Fort Lawton site in
the foreground view. Texas Way is in the mid-ground view, as well as storage/maintenance
buildings and paved areas in the south central portion of the site. Existing on-site trees and
portions of other existing on-site buildings are also partially visible within the background
view (see Figure 3.7-2).
Viewpoint 3 – Discovery Park East Boundary
From Viewpoint 3, the existing view is of the central portion of the Fort Lawton site,
including Texas Way, the driveway access to the FLARC VA building and one- and two-story
storage and maintenance buildings on the site. Mature trees and vegetation are visible in
the background view (see Figure 3.7-3).
5
Ord. #97025 (Scenic Routes Identified by the Seattle Engineering Department’s Traffic Division) and Ord.
#114057 (Seattle Mayor’s Recommended Open Space Policies).

Existing Conditions
Alt. 1
Alt. 2

Viewpoint 2—Fort Lawton Military Cemetery at Discovery Park
Existing Conditions
Alt. 1
Alt. 2

Viewpoint 3—Discovery Park East Boundary
Viewpoint 6 – Secondary Entrance at Texas Way
From Viewpoint 6, the existing view includes the secondary entrance at the northwest
corner of the Fort Lawton site via Texas Way. The view from this location includes the Texas
Way paved roadway, which is framed by existing mature trees and vegetation on both sides
(see Figure 3.7-4).
Viewpoint 9 – 36th Avenue W
From Viewpoint 9, the existing view consists of the 36th Avenue W roadway and mature
trees, landscaping and fencing along the east edge of the Fort Lawton site. A portion of two-
story maintenance and storage buildings on the site are partially visible from this location
beyond the existing mature trees (see Figure 3.7-5).
Light and Glare

The principal sources of existing light on and adjacent to the Fort Lawton site include street
lights on area roadways (i.e., Texas Way, 36th Avenue W, W Lawton Street, W Government
Way, etc.); vehicle headlights on area roadways; and building lighting (including interior
lighting and exterior lighting). Existing buildings on Fort Lawton site produce a minimal
amount of light because the buildings are currently vacant. Existing light standards
associated with the streetlight fixtures onsite are approximately 30 feet high and the lamps
are cobra-style fixtures (cobra lamps function by lighting a broad area).
The primary sources of glare on and adjacent to the Fort Lawton site include light and
reflective glare from glazing and other specular surfaces on vehicles traveling along area
roadways, as well as light and reflective glare from glazing and other specular surfaces on
existing buildings. Glare from existing buildings, paving and vehicles on and near the Fort
Lawton site is expected to be minimal, given the types of buildings and amount of traffic
that is present.
Shadows
Seattle’s SEPA policies relating to shadows (SMC 25.05.675.Q.2.) aim to “minimize or
prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows on open spaces most used by the
public.”6 The closest public parks to the Fort Lawton site are Discovery Park (located
immediately west and south of the site), Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park (located one block
to the east) and Commodore Park (located less than 0.25 mile to the northeast). Factors
that influence the extent of shading include: weather (e.g., cloud cover); building height,
width and facade orientation; and the proximity of other intervening structures and/or
trees, topographic variations and significant landscaping. Generally, greater building
6
Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05.675 Q2.

Existing Conditions
Alt. 1
Alt. 2

Viewpoint 6—Secondary Entrance at Texas Way
Existing Conditions
Alt. 1
Alt. 2

Viewpoint 9—36th Avenue W
heights extend the length of the shadow cast and increased mass (or cross-sectional width)
widens the shadow cast by a building. Shadows from tall buildings extend farther from a
building but their effects on more distant locations are of shorter duration, because the
sun’s motion translates into faster movement of the shadow over the ground. Buildings
with greater mass create wider shadows and an increased amount of shaded area within
the immediate area (e.g., adjacent streets, public spaces, etc.), but the reach of the shadow
is limited by the building’s height.
Shadows from existing development on the Fort Lawton site are limited due to the lower
building heights on the site (primarily one- to two-story buildings). The mature trees and
vegetation surrounding the site within Discovery Park and adjacent neighborhoods is the
largest source of shadows on and near the site. Shadows from existing buildings onsite do
not extend onto the park.
Talaris Site
Visual Character
The existing visual character of the Talaris site is defined by the historic conference center
buildings located within a park-like setting. Existing buildings on the site are one- to two-
stories in height and are generally wood-frame construction. The buildings are in the mid-
century modern style. A man-made pond is located in the central portion of the site and a
natural area with a wetland in the site’s southwest corner. Mature trees are located
throughout the site, including along all four edges of the property. Both the buildings and
landscaping are designated historic landmarks by the City of Seattle (see Section 3.9,
Historic and Cultural Resources, for details).
To the east, west and south of the site, the visual character is primarily defined by existing
residences in the Laurelhurst neighborhood. Most of the buildings are single-family
residences with some multi-family residences located to the south of the site. Single-family
residences are generally one to two stories in height while multi-family residences are two
to three stories.
The visual character of the area to the north is generally defined by multi-family residences,
commercial/offices uses and institutional uses (Children’s Hospital). Multi-family apartment
complexes are located immediately north of the Talaris site and are typically three to four
stories in height. Commercial/retail uses to the northeast are generally one to two stories in
height. A four-story medical office building and an eight-story medical building (Children’s
Hospital) are located further to the north.
Views
City-Designated Public Viewpoints

There are no officially-designated public viewpoints in the immediate vicinity of the Talaris
site. The closest designated public viewpoint is Washington Park (Foster Island/Arboretum)
which is located approximately one mile to the south of the site, beyond Union Bay. This

viewpoint would not be impacted by development on the Talaris site due to the intervening
distance, topography, vegetation and buildings, and therefore was not analyzed.
Views of City-Designated Historic Landmarks

The existing Talaris buildings and landscape were designated as a historic landmark by the
City of Seattle in 2013 based on satisfying several criteria, including that the site embodies
distinctive visual characteristics of an architectural style or period or a method of
construction, is an outstanding work of a design or building and is an easily identifiable
visual feature of its neighborhood or the City and contributes to the distinctive quality or
identity of such neighborhood. Views of the Talaris site are available from several areas
surrounding the sight, the most prominent of which are from the south (along NE 41 st
Street), the west (along the street ends of NE 42nd Street, NE 43rd Street and NE 44th Street),
and the north (from existing multi-family residences immediately adjacent to the site) (see
Figure 3.7-6, Talaris Existing Views).
The next closest city-designated landmark to the Talaris site is the University Presbyterian
Church which is located approximately 1.1 miles to the northwest of the site. The closest
state or national historic register properties are located on the University of Washington
campus, approximately one mile to the west of the Talaris site. Views of these landmarks
and historic register properties would not be impacted by development on the Talaris site
due to the intervening distance, topography, vegetation and buildings, and therefore were
not analyzed.
Space Needle Viewpoints

There are no protected Space Needle viewpoints in the immediate vicinity of the Talaris
site. The closest protected Space Needle viewpoint is Gasworks Park which is located
approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest of the site. Views from this viewpoint would not
be impacted by development on the Talaris site due to the intervening distance,
topography, vegetation and buildings, and therefore were not analyzed.
Scenic Routes
The closest scenic route to the Talaris site is NE 45th Street and Sand Point Way NE, which is
located approximately two blocks to the north of the site. Within the area proximate to the
Talaris site there are no views of significant natural features (i.e., the Cascade Mountains,
Lake Washington, etc.) from this scenic route (views are blocked by development in the
Laurelhurst neighborhood). Therefore, view impacts from these scenic routes were not
analyzed.
Light and Glare

The principal sources of existing light that occur on or adjacent to the Talaris site include
street lights on area roadways (i.e., Talaris Way, NE 41st Street, 42nd Avenue NE, NE 45th
Street, etc.); vehicle headlights on area roadways; and building lighting (including interior
lighting and exterior lighting). Existing light standards associated with the streetlight fixtures
are approximately 30 feet and the lamps are cobra-style.

South Portion of
the Talaris Site
Central Portion of
the Talaris Site
North Portion of the

Talaris Site
Source: EA Engineering, 2017. Figure 3.7-6

Talaris Existing Views
The primary sources of glare on and adjacent to the Talaris site include light and reflective
glare from glazing and other specular surfaces on vehicles traveling along area roadways,
and light and reflective glare from glazing and other specular surfaces on existing buildings.
Shadows
As noted previously, Seattle’s SEPA policies aim to “minimize or prevent light blockage and
the creation of shadows on open spaces most used by the public.” The closest public park
to the Talaris site is Laurelhurst Park, which is located approximately 0.2 miles to the west
of the site. Shadows from existing development on the Talaris site are limited due to the
lower building heights on the site (primarily one- to two-story buildings) and the presence
of mature trees and vegetation around the perimeter of the site and do not extend onto the
park.
An analysis of the potential adverse aesthetics/light and glare impacts of Alternative 1, the

Fort Lawton Site
Visual Character
Under Alternative 1, development on the Fort Lawton site would change the visual
character from the existing, collection of former military buildings to housing and open
space/park facilities. Senior supportive housing would consist of one three-story (up to 40-
feet tall), u-shaped building located in the west central portion of the site. Affordable rental
housing would include four, three-story (up to 30-feet tall) rowhouse blocks in the central
portion of the site. Affordable homeownership rowhouses would be located in the central
portion of the site and include two, three-story (up to 30-feet tall) six-plex buildings.
Affordable homeownership townhomes would be provided in 20, three-story (up to 30-feet
tall) duplex buildings in the central and east portions of the site. The site layout under
Alternative 1 would place the taller and denser buildings in the central and west portions of
the site, away from the adjacent single-family areas offsite.
Exterior building materials could include fiber cement panel and lap siding, as well as wood
framing and trim. Design details for the buildings would be taken from the Officer Row
housing that had historically occupied the site and the design concept is intended to meet
the overall City of Seattle design guidelines and design review requirements. Figure 3.7-7,

Rainier Vista Townhouses, Seattle
Angle Lake Senior Housing, SeaTac
Note: These are examples of

existing affordable developments
with housing types similar to those
proposed at Fort Lawton.
High Point Duplex, Seattle
Source: Tonkin Architecture, SMR, and Habitat for Humanity, 2017. Figure 3.7-7
Affordable Housing Design Examples
Affordable Housing Design Examples, shows existing affordable housing in the Seattle area
that is representative of the housing types proposed at Fort Lawton.
Landscaping under Alternative 1 would be designed to meet applicable City of Seattle

landscape regulations and is intended to blend with the existing natural vegetation in the
adjacent Discovery Park and landscaping in the Magnolia neighborhood. The parks and
recreation facilities under Alternative 1 would preserve existing wooded areas in the north,
south and west portions of the site; retain passive use lawn areas; and develop two unlit,
multi-purpose fields in the central part of the site. The project would maintain and as
necessary enhance the existing trees and other vegetation along the east edge of the site
that serve as a buffer between the site and the existing residences to the east.
Views
The following summarizes potential changes to view conditions that could occur with
redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1.
Viewpoint 2 – Fort Lawton Military Cemetery
Under Alternative 1, the existing foreground view would remain unchanged, but new
development on the Fort Lawton site would be visible within the mid-ground and
background views. Affordable apartments and affordable homeownership townhomes and
rowhouses would be visible to the east of Texas Way and would generally be up to 30 feet
tall with a 10-foot pitched roof. To the south of these building would be surface parking
areas and the two natural-turf multi-purpose fields. The senior supportive housing
apartment building would be located to the west of Texas Way, but would largely be
obstructed from view in this location by existing mature trees (see Figure 3.7-2).
Redevelopment under Alternative 1 would replace the existing one- and two- story storage
and maintenance buildings with new three- to four-story buildings (up to 40 feet in height),
including senior supportive housing, affordable rental housing and affordable
homeownership townhomes and rowhouses. New buildings would generally be located in
similar areas as existing buildings on the site, but would be taller and denser. Surface
parking would be located to the south of the new buildings and the existing grass open
space area would be replaced with two multi-use fields (see Figure 3.7-3).
Viewpoint 6 – Secondary Entrance at Texas Way
Under Alternative 1, the view would remain generally like existing conditions.
Redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site would be located to the south of the roadway (to
the right of a potential viewer) and would generally be obstructed by existing mature trees
and vegetation adjacent to Texas Way. Portions of buildings may be visible through certain
sections of the existing trees and other vegetation but the general view from this location

would not be substantially different with redevelopment under Alternative 1 (see Figure
3.7-4).
Viewpoint 9 – 36th Avenue West
Redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would change the existing
background view from this location to reflect new buildings on the Fort Lawton site. New
affordable homeownership townhomes would be located on the eastern edge of the site
and would be two to three stories tall (approximately 30 feet with a 10-foot pitched roof).
These buildings would be similar in height and bulk to the existing residences located along
36th Avenue NE (to the east of the site) and would be partially visible from this location due
to the existing mature trees that would continue to provide a visual buffer between the site
and adjacent uses (see Figure 3.7-5).
Light and Glare

Redevelopment under Alternative 1 would add new sources of light on the Fort Lawton site,
including interior and exterior building lighting associated with new residential buildings,
pedestrian-scale lighting and an increase in mobile sources of light from vehicles traveling
to and from the site. Alternative 1 would result in the greatest increase in light on the site of
the EIS alternatives due to the number of residential units and the multiuse fields which
could result in an increase in visitors traveling to and from the site for recreational uses.
Areas immediately adjacent to the Fort Lawton site (i.e., existing residences to the east of
the site) could experience some localized light spillage; however, the amount of light
spillage is not anticipated to be significant and existing mature trees along the eastern edge
of the site would continue to serve as a partial buffer to screen light spillage in certain
locations. Lighting on the site would be designed to be consistent with City of Seattle
Municipal Code (SMC), including SMC 23.45.534 (multi-family light and glare standards).
New sources of glare would also occur on the site with redevelopment. The primary sources
of glare would be vehicles travelling to and from the site, as well as sunlight reflected off
specular building surfaces on building façades. As noted above, it is anticipated that
potential buildings would be designed to be consistent with City light and glare standards.
As part of the City’s design review process, potential factors that could influence glare
would be reviewed such as façade design, materials and glazing to ensure that new
development would not create a substantial source of glare. As a result, significant glare
impacts are not anticipated.
Shadows
Under Alternative 1, the housing development would generate additional shadows. Shadow
diagrams were completed under Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site (see Appendix G for
these diagrams). Shadows associated with new buildings would generally be cast toward
the northwest during the mornings (9:00 AM), transition toward the north in the mid-day
(12:00 PM), and toward the northeast by the late afternoon/early evening (3:00 PM). The
time of year with the longest shadows would be during the winter when the angle of the

sun is at its lowest period. Due the height of the potential buildings, most of the shadows
from potential development would remain on the Fort Lawton site. During the morning and
late afternoon in the winter it is possible that some shadows could extend beyond the site
boundaries and onto adjacent portions of Discovery Park. However, existing mature trees
would continue to provide the greatest source of shadows in the Fort Lawton vicinity.
Therefore, shadows associated with development under Alternative 1 would not result in
significant impacts.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1, no redevelopment would occur on the Talaris site. Aesthetic/light and
glare conditions would remain as under existing conditions.

Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site
Visual Character
Under Alternative 2, development on the Fort Lawton site would change the visual
character from the existing, vacant military storage and maintenance buildings to new
single-family residences. Approximately 113 new market-rate residential units would be
provided on the site. No parks and recreation facilities would be included; however,
approximately 65% of each building lot would be in private yards for use by individual
homeowners in accordance with the site’s SF 7,200 zoning (which allows up to 35% building
coverage per lot). Consistent with the site’s SF 7,200 zoning, buildings would generally be a
maximum of 30 feet in height. The market-rate homes would likely be designed to appeal to
higher income buyers.
Landscaping under Alternative 2 would be provided at the discretion of the homebuilders

and individual homeowners and would be intended to meet the applicable City of Seattle
landscape regulations.
Views
The following summarizes potential changes to view conditions that could occur with
redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2.
Viewpoint 2 – Fort Lawton Military Cemetery
From Viewpoint 2, the existing foreground view would remain unchanged under Alternative
2, but new development on the Fort Lawton site would be visible within the mid-ground
and background views. New single-family residences would comprise a more substantial
portion of the view from this location compared with Alternative 1, as no park areas (i.e.,
multi-use fields) would be provided between the south edge of development and Texas
Way (see Figure 3.7-2).

Like Alternative 1, redevelopment under Alternative 2 would change the view from
Viewpoint 3 to reflect new residential buildings. New buildings would generally be located
in similar areas as existing buildings on the site, but would be taller and denser. As under
Alternative 1, new residential development would comprise most of the view from this
location (see Figure 3.7-3).
Viewpoint 6 – Secondary Entrance at Texas Way in the North Portion of the Site
Under Alternative 2, the view of development on the Fort Lawton site from Viewpoint 6
would be generally similar to Alternative 1. However, a portion of redevelopment on the
site would be located to the north and south of the roadway, but would generally be
obstructed by existing mature trees and other vegetation adjacent to Texas Way. Portions
of buildings may be visible through certain sections of the existing trees and vegetation but
it is anticipated that the general view from this location would not be significantly impacted
by redevelopment under Alternative 2 (see Figure 3.7-4).
Viewpoint 9 – 36th Avenue W (East of the Site)
Like Alternative 1, redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2 would change
the existing background view to reflect new buildings on the Fort Lawton site. New single-
family residences would be located on the eastern edge of the site and would be two to
three stories tall. These buildings would be similar in height and bulk to the existing
residences located along 36th Avenue NE (to the east of the site) and would be partially
visible from this location due to the existing mature trees that would be retained that would
continue to provide a visual buffer between the site and adjacent uses (Figure 3.7-5).
Light and Glare

Like Alternative 1, redevelopment under Alternative 2 would add new sources of light on
the Fort Lawton site, including interior and exterior building lighting associated with new
residential buildings, pedestrian-scale lighting and an increase in mobile sources of light
from vehicles traveling to and from the site. Light levels would be lower than under
Alternative 1 due to fewer residential units and no parks uses. Areas immediately adjacent
to the site (i.e., existing residences to the east of the site) could experience some localized
light spillage; however, the amount of light spillage is not anticipated to be significant.
Lighting on the site would be designed to be consistent with City of Seattle light and glare
requirements.
New sources of glare would also be introduced on the site, including from vehicles travelling
to and from the site, as well as sunlight reflected off of specular building surfaces on
building façades. Potential glare levels would be lower under Alternative 2 due to fewer
residential units on the site than under Alternative 1. As noted above, buildings would be
designed to be consistent with City light and glare standards. As a result, significant glare
impacts are not anticipated.

Shadows
The proposed single-family housing would generate additional shadows on the Fort Lawton
site. Shadow diagrams were completed for Alternative 2 at the site (see Appendix G). Like
Alternative 1, most of the shadows from the development would remain on the Fort Lawton
site. During the morning and late afternoon in the winter time it is possible that some
shadows could extend beyond the site boundaries and onto adjacent portions of Discovery
Park. However, since the existing mature trees would continue to be the greatest source of
shadows in the Fort Lawton vicinity, shadows associated with development under
Alternative 2 are not expected to result in significant impacts.
Talaris Site
Visual Character
Development on the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would change the visual character of
the Talaris site from a conference center in a park-like setting to housing and open space
areas. Under Alternative 2, some housing would occupy existing, renovated buildings while
other new housing would be in newly constructed buildings, primarily within the west and
south portions of the site. New senior supportive housing would consist of one three-story
(up to 40-feet tall) building located in the west central portion of the site. Affordable rental
housing would include four new three-story (up to 30-feet tall) rowhouse blocks in the
northwest portion of the site. Affordable homeownership rowhouses would be located in
the west and south portions of the site and include seven new three-story (up to 30-feet
tall) six-plex buildings. An affordable homeownership townhome would be provided in one
three-story (up to 30-feet tall) duplex building in the south portion of the site. The site
layout under Alternative 2 is designed to place the tallest and most dense building internal
to the site and away from adjacent single-family areas offsite.
Exterior building materials would be similar to under Alternative 1. The design concept
under Alternative 2 is intended to meet the overall City of Seattle design guidelines and
design review requirements, and would also adhere to the requirement of the Talaris site’s
historic landmark designation.
Landscaping under Alternative 2 would be designed to meet the applicable City of Seattle
landscape regulations. A majority of the existing landscaping would be retained with the
development of the affordable housing onsite. Any modifications to the existing landscaping
would adhere to the requirements of the site’s historic landmark designation.
Views
As noted previously, there are no City-designated public viewpoints, protected Space
Needle viewpoints or scenic routes in the immediate vicinity of the Talaris site that would
be impacted by redevelopment under Alternative 2. However, the Talaris buildings and
landscape have been designated as a City historic landmark and potential modifications to
the existing buildings and landscaping, as well as the addition of new buildings would
change the views and aesthetic character of a designated landmark. Consistent with City of

Seattle requirements, any potential modifications to designated landmark features on the
Talaris site under Alternative 2 would need to obtain a Certificate of Approval from the City
of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods to ensure that modifications do not significantly
compromise the site’s landmark status. The Certificate of Approval would require the
review and approval by the City of Seattle’s Landmark Preservation Board.
Light and Glare

Like Alternative 1, redevelopment under Alternative 2 would add new sources of light on
the Talaris site, including interior and exterior building lighting associated with new
residential buildings, pedestrian-scale lighting and an increase in mobile sources of light
from vehicles traveling to and from the site. Areas immediately adjacent to the Talaris site
(i.e. existing residences surrounding the site) could experience some localized light spillage;
however, the amount of light spillage is not anticipated to be significant and existing mature
trees and other vegetation along the perimeter of the site would continue to serve as a
partial buffer to screen light spillage in certain locations. Lighting on the site would be
designed consistent with City of Seattle light and glare requirements.
New sources of glare would also be introduced on the site with redevelopment. The primary
sources of glare would be vehicles travelling to and from the site, as well as sunlight
reflected off specular building surfaces on building façades. As noted above, buildings
would be designed to be consistent with City light and glare standards. As a result,
significant light and glare impacts are not anticipated.
Shadows
Under Alternative 2, the new affordable housing would generate additional shadows on the
Talaris site. Like development on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1, it is anticipated
that most of the shadows from potential development would remain on the Talaris site.
During the morning and late afternoon in the winter time, it is possible that some shadows
could extend beyond the site boundaries and onto adjacent properties; however, the
shadows would not extend over any existing public parks. In addition, since existing mature
trees would continue to provide the greatest source of shadows in the Talaris vicinity,
shadows associated with development under Alternative 2 are not expected to result in
significant impacts.
Fort Lawton Site
Visual Character
Development on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3 would change the visual character
of the site from a collection of former military buildings and surface parking areas into new
park/recreational areas. Passive recreation areas would be located in the north portion of
the site. Multi-use fields would be provided in the south portion of the site.

Like under Alternative 1, landscaping under Alternative 3 would be designed to meet
applicable City of Seattle landscape regulations and is intended to blend with the existing
natural vegetation in the adjacent Discovery Park and landscaping in the adjacent Magnolia
neighborhood. The parks and recreation facilities under Alternative 3 would preserve
existing wooded areas in the north, south and west portions of the site; retain passive use
lawn areas; and develop three, unlit multi-purpose fields in the central part of the site. The
project would maintain and as necessary enhance the existing trees and other vegetation
along the eastern edge of the site that serve as a buffer between the site and the existing
residences to the east.
Views
Under Alternative 3, views of the Fort Lawton site would change to reflect the passive and
active recreation areas. No impacts to City-designated public viewpoints, protected Space
Needle viewpoints, scenic routes or other public views are anticipated since no building
development would occur on the site.
Light and Glare

Although no new sources of building or field lighting would occur on the Fort Lawton site
under Alternative 3, the passive and active recreation areas would result in an increase in
mobile sources of light and glare from additional vehicles traveling to and from the site. Due
to the level of development assumed under Alternative 3 the amount of light and glare
would be much lower than under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Shadows
Under Alternative 3, no new building development would occur on the Fort Lawton site and
no new shadows would be generated.
Talaris Site
Redevelopment of the Talaris site under Alternative 3 would be the same as described
under Alternative 2 and potential aesthetic, view, light and glare and shadow impacts would
be the same as well.
Under Alternative 4, no new development would occur on the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites at
this time. The sites would remain in their existing conditions and no changes to aesthetic,
view, light and glare or shadow conditions are anticipated.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential aesthetic impacts

requirements related to aesthetics/light and glare and would be subject to the City’s
design review processes.
• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, proposed development on the Talaris site would require
a Certificate of Approval from the City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods to
ensure that modifications do not significantly compromise the site’s landmark
status, including visual character and views. The Certificate of Approval would
require the review and approval by the City of Seattle’s Landmark Preservation
Board.
• Landscaping would be provided per the City of Seattle landscape standards.
• Pedestrian-scale lighting would be provided consistent with code, function, and

safety requirements. Exterior lighting would include fixtures to direct the light
downward or upward and away from off-site land uses.
Proposed development under the EIS Alternatives would change the visual character of the
Fort Lawton or Talaris sites to new townhouses, rowhouses, and apartment buildings and
open space/park facilities. No significant unavoidable adverse aesthetic/light and glare

3.8 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
This section of the FEIS describes recreation and open space uses on and near the Fort
Lawton and Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives on
these uses are evaluated and mitigation measures identified.
Key Findings
The Fort Lawton site currently contains no formal recreation uses. Discovery Park is located
immediately adjacent to the site. The Talaris site also contains no formal recreation uses,
but is used informally by the community for walking. The closest public park is Laurelhurst
Playfield and Community Center, approximately 0.25 miles to the east.
Under Alternatives 1 and 2, new residential development on the Fort Lawton site would
generate demand for parks and recreation facilities. Under Alternative 1, the demand for
approximately 4.7 acres of parks/recreation area could be satisfied by the incorporation of
approximately 4.7 acres of land owned by the U.S. Army into Discovery Park, as well as the
provision of approximately 8.2 acres of passive recreation areas and approximately 5.4 acres
of active recreation areas (including two multi-purpose fields). Under Alternative 2, the
demand for approximately 2.1 acres of parks/recreation areas could be fulfilled by use of the
4.7 acres of land on the west edge of the site as private open space or purchase of this land
by the City for public use. However, if this area is retained by the U.S. Army, it could result in
some demand by on-site residents at nearby parks. Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort
Lawton site would be developed as a public park, including 17.0 acres of passive recreation
uses and 7.6 acres of active recreation uses (including three multi-purpose fields).
Approximately 4.7 acres of land owned by the U.S. Army would also be incorporated into
Discovery Park under this alternative.
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, new residential development on the Talaris site would generate
additional demand for approximately 4.7 acres of parks/recreation areas. While retained
onsite walkways and open space areas could fulfill a portion of the demand for parks/
recreation areas, the demand could result in increased use of nearby parks.
Overall, residential development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is not expected to result in

significant impacts on recreation and open space given the proposed open space and
recreation areas. And, substantial parks and recreation facilities would be provided at the
Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 1 and 3.
Methodology
Information on existing recreation facilities and parks/open space is from the Seattle Parks
and Recreation (SPR) website. The analysis of demand for parks is based on level of service
standards from City of Seattle’s 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan.

March 2018 Recreation and Open Space
This sub-section describes the existing recreation facilities and parks/open space on and
near the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites.
Fort Lawton Site
Site
Lawton was in active military use through World Wars I and II, the Korean War and into the
Vietnam War. In 1968, the Army transferred much of the base site to the City of Seattle,
which subsequently became Discovery Park. After the land was transferred to the City, a 20-
acre portion of the site was turned over to Native Americans to create the Daybreak Star
Cultural Center. An area of approximately 46 acres was retained by the U.S. Army and used
as a Reserve Center. Approximately 34 acres of the Army Reserve Center, and the subject of
this EIS, is currently closed, vacant and in caretaker status by the U.S. Army. The Fort
Lawton site is currently comprised of buildings, surface parking and vegetated areas.
Approximately 9.6 acres of the site is in passive open space that includes natural wooded
and vegetated areas. An additional approximately 5.9 acres is comprised of landscaped
areas. There are no formal recreation uses on the Fort Lawton site.
Fort Lawton Vicinity

Discovery Park is located immediately west of the Fort Lawton site and is the largest park in
the city of Seattle. The approximately 534-acre area park is located on Magnolia Bluff and
offers views of Puget Sound, the Olympic Mountains and Cascade Mountains. The park
includes two-miles of protected tidal beaches as well as open meadow lands, sea cliffs,
forest groves, active sand dunes, thickets and streams. Boating access is available along
100-feet of shoreline north and 100 feet of shoreline south of the West Point lighthouse.
Recreational facilities within the park include a 2.8-mile loop trail around the park, open
space, beach areas, picnic areas, basketball courts, children’s play areas, tennis courts and
volleyball courts. The Daybreak Star Native American Cultural Center is in the north portion
of the park and is operated by the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation for their
programs and events, as well as for rental and use by the public. The Discovery Park
Environmental Learning Center is also located within the park and includes classrooms for
environmental programs and events.
Other parks in the Fort Lawton vicinity include the Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park (located
approximately one block to the east of the site) and Commodore Park (located less than
0.25 mile to the northeast of the site). The Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park is generally
comprised of natural open space areas and hiking trails. Commodore Park includes seating
areas, picnic areas, walkways and open space adjacent to the Lake Washington Ship Canal.

Talaris Site
Site
The Talaris site is comprised of buildings and parking areas that are part of a conference
center. The center is located within a park-like setting with ornamental landscaping and a
man-made pond. Existing trees and other vegetation are located along the perimeter of the
site and a natural area is located in the southern portion of the site. While there are no
formal public park uses on the Talaris site, many local community members have historically
used portions of it for strolling and dog walking. However, there are signs surrounding the
site noting that it is private property and that public access and use of the property is
prohibited.
Talaris Vicinity
The closest public park to the Talaris site is Laurelhurst Playfield which is located less than
0.25 mile east of the site and includes ballfields, tennis courts, a children’s play area and
open space. The Laurelhurst Community Center is located adjacent to the playfield and
provides several youth and recreation programs, including toddler/preschool age programs,
after school programs and youth sports.
Other recreation and open space areas near the site include Belvoir Place (located 0.25 mile
to the south), the Union Bay Natural Area (located 0.25 mile to the southwest) and Burke
Gilman Playground Park (located 0.3 mile to the north). Belvoir Place is a small waterfront
park that includes a dock and provides access for hand-carry boats. The Union Bay Natural
Area is a 74-acre public wildlife and natural restoration area on the University of
Washington campus; it includes walking trails and viewing areas. Burke Gilman Playground
Park includes jogging trails that connect with the Burke Gilman Trail, a children’s
playground, seating areas, picnic tables and open space.
Existing Citywide Demand for Park and Recreational Facilities
The growing population in Seattle has placed demands on the public park system and has
impacted the limited active recreation resources available through Seattle Parks and
Recreation (SPR). Between 2010 and 2016, Seattle’s population increased by 78,140
individuals. Puget Sound Regional Council has projected that an additional 120,000 people
will move to Seattle by 2035, with most growth occurring in the city’s urban centers and
villages. To meet the increased demand for park space and meet the City’s adopted Level of
Service (LOS) of eight acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, SPR needs to acquire
approximately 40 acres of parkland by 2035.
An analysis of the potential adverse recreation and open space impacts of Alternative 1, the


Fort Lawton Site

Redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would include 238 new senior
supportive and affordable housing units that would accommodate approximately 586
residents.1 Under Alternative 1, approximately 21.6 acres of park and recreation facilities
would be provided on the site. The 21.6 acres includes 3.3 acres for an SPR maintenance
facility and 18.3 acres of passive and active recreation and open space areas for use by the
on-site residents, as well as the surrounding community. The SPR maintenance facility
would use one of the existing buildings onsite. Sidewalks and trails would be provided
throughout the site. The parks and recreation facilities would be designed in more detail in
the future through a planning and public outreach process, and would be constructed when
funding is available.
Approximately 13.0 acres of the site would be provided for passive recreation activities such
as picnicking and viewing. Existing wooded areas in the north and south parts of the site
would be preserved in their natural condition. A large passive park would be provided in the
north part of the site and a small passive park would be created in the central site area,
amongst the townhouses and row houses. The smaller park could include a children’s play
area(s). Up to 4.7 acres (of the 13 acres in passive recreation areas) of forest land owned by
the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park.
These park areas would be designed and constructed to SPR standards, and would be
owned and maintained by SPR.
In addition, approximately 5.1 acres of the site would be developed for active recreation,
including two unlit, multi-purpose fields in the central portion of the site, to the south of the
housing and parking. Counting associated parking and site improvements, the total area
devoted to active recreation is approximately 6 acres. These fields could be configured in a
variety of orientations for different uses, including for both structured and unstructured
athletics and community functions. It is anticipated that some league play would occur on
these fields. The fields would include an irrigation system which would require electricity to
run. It should be noted that the City has begun discussion with Seattle Public Schools (SPS)
regarding their interest in owning and maintaining land dedicated to active recreation. Such
uses could help meet SPS’s recreational needs, as well as serving the broader public. As with
other shared facilities in Seattle, these would likely be the subject of a Joint Use of Facilities
Agreement with SPR.
1
Population estimates are based on comparable projects and are calculated as follows Senior Supportive housing
– 86 residents (1.0 resident per unit); Affordable rental – 250 residents (2.5 residents per unit); and, Affordable
ownership - 250 residents (5.0 residents per unit).

As mentioned above, the City’s adopted LOS for parkland from the 2017 Parks and Open
Space Plan is 8 acres per 1,000 residents. While this LOS is used as a citywide guideline for
the entire City of Seattle, it can also be used to provide an estimate of the demand for parks
and recreation facilities that could be generated by new residents on the Fort Lawton site.
Based on the number of residents (586 people) that would reside on the site with
development under Alternative 1 and the citywide LOS guidelines, there would be demand
for approximately 4.7 acres of parks and recreation facilities. This demand could result in
increased use of nearby parks (e.g., Discovery Park, Commodore Park, Kiwanis Memorial
Preserve Park, etc.). However, new demand could also be satisfied by the incorporation of
approximately 4.7 acres of land owned by the U.S. Army to Discovery Park, as well as the
provision of approximately 8.2 acres of passive recreation areas and approximately 5.4
acres of active recreation areas onsite. The provision of new passive and active recreation
facilities on the site would increase the amount of area and number of facilities that are
available to the public. This increase in recreation area would also provide an additional
amenity for nearby residents and the city of Seattle as a whole. As a result, no significant
recreation and open space impacts are anticipated.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1, the Talaris site would remain in its existing condition and no new
development would occur on the site at this time. Recreation and open space conditions
would remain as under existing conditions.

Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site

Under Alternative 2, market-rate housing would be developed on the Fort Lawton site,
including 113 new single-family homes. Development under Alternative 2 would
accommodate approximately 263 residents on the site.2
No new park or recreation facilities would be developed on the site under Alternative 2.
Approximately 18.6 acres of the site would be in open space that would include areas for
private yards on individual building lots. Up to 4.7 acres of forested land in the western
portion of the site could be retained by the U.S. Army and used as open space for the Fort
Lawton Army Reserve Center Veteran’s Administration offices; purchased by the developer
of the site and used as private open space for resident; or purchased by the City for future
public use.
Based on the SPR 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan citywide LOS guidelines and the number
of residents (263 people) that would reside on the site with development under Alternative
2, new residents would generate a demand for approximately 2.1 acres of parks and
2
Based on 2.33 residents per unit in the Magnolia neighborhood from the American Community Survey 2009-
2013, census tract aggregation.

recreation facilities. This demand could be fulfilled by use of the 4.7 acres of land on the
western edge of the as private open space or purchase of this land by the City for public
use. However, if this area is used by the U.S. Army, it could result in some level of increased
recreation demand by on-site residents at nearby parks such as Discovery Park, Commodore
Park and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park.
Talaris Site
Like development on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1, development on the Talaris
site under Alternative 2 would include 238 new senior supportive housing and affordable
housing units which would accommodate approximately 586 new residents on the site.
No park or recreation facilities would be developed on the Talaris side under Alternative 2.
However, based on the site plan (see Figure 2-11), some of the open space areas (i.e., the
existing pond and forested areas) and walkways would be retained onsite.
Based on the 2017 Parks and Open Space Plan citywide LOS guideline and the number of
residents that would reside on the site with development under Alternative 2 (586 people),
there would be demand for approximately 4.7 acres of parks and recreation facilities. While
onsite walkways and open space areas could fulfill a portion of the demand generated
under Alternative 2, the demand for parks and recreation facilities could result in increased
use of nearby parks (e.g., Laurelhurst Playground, Belvoir Place, Burke Gilman Playground
Park, the Union Bay Natural Area, etc.).
Fort Lawton Site

Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be developed as a public park.
Approximately 29 acres of open space area would be provided onsite, including the reuse of
one of the existing buildings as an SPR maintenance building. Sidewalks and trails would be
provided throughout the site. The parks and recreation facilities would be designed in more
detail in the future through a planning and public outreach process, and would be
constructed when funding is available. No housing would be developed on the site under
Alternative 3.
A total of 17.0 acres on the Fort Lawton site would be provided for passive recreation uses.
Existing forested areas in the north and south portions of the site would be preserved in
their natural condition. Passive park areas would also be provided in the north part of the
site. Like Alternative 1, up to 4.7-acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the west
site area would be incorporated into Discovery Park. All passive park areas would be
designed and constructed to SPR standards and would be owned and operated by SPR.
A total of 7.6 acres on the site would be developed for active recreation, including three
unlit, multi-purpose fields (versus two multi-purpose fields under Alternative 1). It is
anticipated that some league play from SPR programming uses would occur on the site. The
fields would include irrigation systems which would require electricity to run. All fields

would be designed and constructed per SPR standards and would be owned and operated
by SPR.
While there would be no increase in demand for park and recreation facilities by residents
on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3, the provision of passive and active recreation
facilities on the site owned and operated by SPR would increase the amount of area and
number of facilities that would be in the SPR inventory. This increase in recreation area (17
acres of passive and 7.6 of active recreation areas) would provide an additional amenity for
nearby residents and the City of Seattle as a whole and would help satisfy the
approximately 40 acres of parkland needed in the City by 2035.
Talaris Site
Development under Alternative 3 on the Talaris site would be the same as described under
Alternative 2. As result, potential recreation and open space impacts would be the same as
Under the No Action Alternative, no new development would occur on the Fort Lawton site
or the Talaris at this time. The sites would remain as under existing conditions and no
impacts to recreation and open space would be anticipated. No new parks and recreational
facilities would be developed on the Fort Lawton site, and the potential to satisfy some of
the parkland needed in the City by 2035 would not be realized.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential recreation and open
space impacts from construction and operation of the Fort Lawton Project under
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. These measures apply to all the alternatives unless otherwise noted.
Legally-Required Measures are measures that are required by code, laws or local, state and
federal regulations to address significant impacts. Measures Proposed as Part of Project are
• A portion of the tax revenues generated directly and indirectly from development
under the EIS alternatives—potentially including construction sales tax, retail sales
tax, property tax, utilities tax, leasehold excise tax, and other fees from City licenses
and permits during site redevelopment—would accrue to the City of Seattle and
could help offset demands for public services, including parks and recreation.

• Up to 4.7 acres of forest land on the western edge of the Fort Lawton project site
would be incorporated into Discovery Park under Alternatives 1 and 3. This area
could potentially be purchased by the City of Seattle under Alternative 2 or used as
private open space.
• Under Alternatives 1 and 3, passive and active recreation areas would be provided
on the Fort Lawton site, including 2 or 3 multiuse fields, respectively.
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to recreation and open space are anticipated.

3.9 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section of the FEIS describes historic and cultural resources on and near the Fort
Lawton and Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives are
evaluated and mitigation measures identified. This section is based on the historic and
cultural resources report prepared by Cultural Resource Consultants in October 2017 (see
Appendix H).
Key Findings
Neither the Fort Lawton nor the Talaris site is on the National Register of Historic Places. The
City Landmark status of the buildings on the Fort Lawton site has not been determined, but
most do not appear to meet the criteria to be considered eligible for Landmark designation.
The entire Talaris site is a designated City Landmark. The Fort Lawton site is considered to
have a low potential to contain as-yet unknown archaeological sites; the Talaris site is
considered to have a moderate potential to contain as-yet unknown archaeological sites.
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, all the existing buildings except Building 245 would be removed
on the Fort Lawton site. Under Alternative 2, all the existing buildings would be removed on
the Fort Lawton site. Existing buildings to be removed at the Fort Lawton site would be
referred to the City Landmark Preservation Board for consideration. If a building is
determined eligible for City Landmark status, requirements for mitigation of impacts to
historic sites would be determined by the Landmarks Preservation Board. Under Alternatives
2 and 3, all the existing buildings would be retained and repurposed on the Talaris site.
Development on the site could impact the site’s landmarks status, and proposed
development would require a Certificate of Approval from the Landmark Preservation Board
to ensure that modifications do not significantly compromise the site’s landmark status,
including visual character and views. The probability of impacts to archaeological resources
with development on either site is considered low, but somewhat greater with development
under Alternatives 2 and 3 on the Talaris site. An archaeological survey would be conducted
at the Talaris site prior to construction, and work stopped in the case of inadvertent
discovery. Overall, significant impacts on historic and cultural resources are not expected
with development at either site with adherence to applicable regulations.
Methodology
The assessment methods for the historic and cultural resources analysis included a review
of previous ethnographic, historical and archaeological investigations onsite and in the local
area; a records search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) for known sites in the immediate area; a review of relevant
background literature and maps; and a pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. The
cultural resources department at the Duwamish, Muckleshoot, Snoqualmie and Suquamish
tribes were also contacted to inquire about project-related cultural information or concerns

March 2018 Historic and Cultural Resources
on a technical staff-to-technical staff basis (see Appendix H for details on the historic and
cultural resources analysis methodology).
This sub-section describes the regulatory context that applies to historic and cultural
resources and existing historic and cultural resources on and near the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites.
Historic Resources Regulatory Context
Designated historic landmarks are those properties that have been recognized locally,
regionally or nationally as significant resources to the community, city, state or nation.
Recognition may be provided by: listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
or the Washington Heritage Register (WHR); through a nomination process managed by
DAHP; or by listing as a local landmark. Typically, a property is not eligible for
consideration for listing in the NRHP or WHR until it is at least 50 years old. For King
County Landmarks, the age threshold is 40 years and for city of Seattle Landmarks it is 25
years.
National Register of Historic Places

The National Park Service administers the NRHP. The NRHP is the official federal list of
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American history,
architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture. NRHP properties have significance to
the history of their community, state or the nation. Nominations for listing historic
properties come from State Historic Preservation Officers, from Federal Preservation
Officers for properties owned or controlled by the United States Government and from
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for properties on tribal lands. Private individuals and
organizations, local governments and American Indian tribes often initiate this process and
prepare the necessary documentation. In Washington State, the Washington State
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, organized and staffed by DAHP, considers each
property proposed for listing and makes a recommendation on its eligibility.
To be eligible for listing, a property must normally be at least 50 years of age and possess
significance in American history and culture, architecture or archaeology to meet one or
more of four established criteria. A property must also have integrity, which is defined as
"the ability of a property to convey its significance." 1
1 National Park Service. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register bulletin, 15. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997.

Washington Heritage Register
The Washington Heritage Register is an official listing of historically-significant sites and
properties found throughout the state. The list is maintained by DAHP and includes
districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that have been identified and documented
as being significant in local or state history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or
culture. Sites which are listed in the NRHP are automatically added to the Washington
Heritage Register.
King County Landmarks Process

The King County Historic Preservation Program administers the King County Landmarks
process. Anyone may nominate a building, site, object, structure or district in King County
for consideration as a King County Landmark. The King County Historic Preservation Officer
reviews the nomination for completeness and schedules a public hearing before the King
County Landmarks Commission for consideration. King County Code 20.62 requires that to
be designated, a property must be more than 40 years old; possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association; and meet at least one of
five criteria.
City of Seattle Landmarks Process

Local recognition of historical significance in Seattle is provided through the process of
designation of the property as a Seattle Landmark. The process consists of three sequential
steps involving the Landmarks Preservation Board: submission of a nomination and its
review and approval by the Board; designation by the Board; and negotiation of controls
and incentives by the property owner and the Board staff. A final step in Seattle's
landmarks process is approval of the designation by an ordinance passed by City Council.
The city of Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (SMC 25.12) requires that to be
designated, a building, object or site must be at least 25 years old and must meet at least
one of the six criteria for designation outlined in the Seattle Landmarks Preservation
Ordinance (SMC 25.12.350).
To make changes to the exteriors and in some case the interiors of designated Landmark
buildings in the city of Seattle, a Certificate of Approval from the Landmarks Preservation
Board must be obtained. This entails completing an application detailing proposed
changes and a presentation before the Board for a members’ vote. Based on the vote
results, an application is approved, approved with conditions, or denied. A Certificate of
Approval or a Letter of Denial is then issued.

Cultural Resources Regulatory Context
As described in Chapter 2, the proposed Fort Lawton Project is subject to SEPA, and could
be subject to NEPA review; therefore, the applicability of both federal and Washington
State regulations is considered in the cultural resources analysis for the project.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that a federal agency
consider the effects of undertakings upon historic properties within the project’s Area of
Potential Effects (APE). The APEs for the Fort Lawton project are defined as the areas
within the Fort Lawton and Talaris site boundaries. The Fort Lawton site (and APE) is
located in the Magnolia neighborhood in northwest Seattle; the Talaris site (and APE) is
located in the Laurelhurst neighborhood in northeast Seattle.
Several Washington State laws specifically address archaeological sites and Native
American burials and would pertain to redevelopment of the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites,
including the Archaeological Sites and Resources Act [RCW 27.53] and the Indian Graves
and Records Act [RCW 27.44].
(See Appendix H for details on historic and cultural regulatory context.)
Fort Lawton Site
Historic Resources
Site Historical Context
Reserve Center (the subject of this EIS) is currently closed and vacant and is in caretaker
status by the Army (see Appendix H for details about the history of the Fort Lawton site).

Site Buildings
There are currently six main buildings on the Fort Lawton site. Other buildings and
structures are also present. Table 3.9-1 lists the existing buildings and other
buildings/structures and the dates they were built, and Figure 3.9-1 depicts the locations of
the buildings/structures. The 2012 U.S. Army NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA)
determined that the Fort Lawton site was not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The EA did
not evaluate buildings relative to Seattle Landmark criteria. Several of the buildings are at
least 25 years old. However, the overall site is considered to have poor integrity and
individually, most of the buildings on the site do not appear to meet the criteria to be
considered eligible for Seattle Landmark designation due to a lack of significant
associations, design characteristics or prominence, or do not meet the age threshold of 25
years. The exception is Harvey Hall, which could meet several of the Seattle Landmark
criteria. Harvey Hall is an example of a Cold War military facility that was intended to be
part of the local community and has retained a high level of integrity.
Table 3.9-1
FORT LAWTON SITE – EXISTING BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
Building Name Building Number Build Date

Major Buildings
Harvey Hall Building 216 1958, 2003
Leisy Hall Building 220 1972, 1976
Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA) Building 222 1972
Maintenance Building 211 1958
Maintenance Building 214 2000
Organizational Maintenance Shop (OMS) Building 245 1999
Other Buildings and Structures
Fuel Shed Building 223 1972
Storage Shed Building 228 1990
Incinerator Stack Incinerator Stack 1934
Pumphouse Pumphouse 2001
Source: CRC, 2017.
Review of DAHP’s Historic Property Inventory shows that 75 historic resources have been
identified within approximately 500 feet of the Fort Lawton site. These resources are
primarily early to middle twentieth century single-family residences. Six historic resources
within 500 feet of the site have been recorded in more detail, including the on-site buildings
(see Table 2 in Appendix H for a list of these buildings). Each of these resources has been
determined not eligible for the NRHP. They have not been evaluated for eligibility for
nomination as Seattle Landmarks.

Source: Cultural Resources Consultants, 2017. Figure 3.9-1

Fort Lawton Existing Buildings
The Fort Lawton Cemetery located immediately west of the site was established in 1898.
The cemetery has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP based on its associations
with the development of Fort Lawton and its uniqueness as the only “post” cemetery in
King County. Additionally, one mid-twentieth century residence has been recorded east of
the site on 36th Avenue W but has not been evaluated for potential historical significance.
There are several properties within one mile of the site that have been listed on the NRHP,
Washington Heritage Register (WHR), Seattle Landmarks Register (SLR) or as a National
Historic Landmark. The Fort Lawton Historic District is located 0.25 mile west of the site.
However, due to the distance from the site there is little potential for impacts from the
project.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological Context
Thousands of years of human occupation of Puget Sound have been documented in a

number of archaeological and ethnographic investigations over the past decade that
provide a regional context for evaluation the Fort Lawton redevelopment. Archeological
evidence suggests the presence of nomadic hunter-gatherers during the late Pleistocene to
early Holocene. Human land use was generally structured around natural resources, such
as fresh water, terrestrial and marine food resources, forests, and suitable terrain.
Ethnographic Context
The Fort Lawton site is located within the traditional territory of the Duwamish, a southern
South Coast Salish people whose settlements were often located near major waterways
within Puget Sound. Members of Suquamish and Muckleshoot tribes also used the vicinity.
Ethnohistoric economies were dependent on seasonally available resources, which
translated to seasonal occupation and logistic mobility. Near Fort Lawton, Salmon Bay was
a thoroughfare for Puget Sound peoples headed to Lake Washington via canoe, as well as a
resource for fishing and trading with neighboring tribes.
Previously Recorded Sites and Surveys
Seven archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile of the Fort Lawton site (see
Table 1 in Appendix H for a list of these sites). One precontact archaeological site has been
recorded 0.28 mile from the Fort Lawton site. When discovered in 1950, several stone tools
were found at this site; when revisited in 1958, no artifacts or deposits were observed,
having likely been collected by local residents. Other precontact archaeological sites are
located near shorelines. Historic-era archaeological sites associated with Fort Lawton have
been identified west of the site. These include a historic building foundation and a historic
dump site used by the military. No archeological sites have been recorded within the Fort
Lawton site.

Potential for Unrecorded Cultural Resources
The DAHP statewide predictive model uses data about the locations of known
archaeological sites to identify where previously unknown archaeological sites are more
likely to be found. Based on this model, the Fort Lawton site is mostly ranked “Survey Highly
Advised: High Risk” with some areas of “Very High Risk” and “Moderate Risk.” However, the
Fort Lawton site location is considered to have low potential overall to contain as-yet
unknown archaeological sites due to the extent of prior ground disturbance for the former
military uses. Field observations support this conclusion, with no aboveground evidence of
archeological sites observed. If precontact archaeological materials do exist within the site,
they could include the remains of habitation sites, lithic scatters or similar features
representing domestic, subsistence or ceremonial activities. Historic period archeologic
materials would most likely be related to military activities.
(See Appendix H for details on existing historic and cultural resources on and near the Fort
Lawton site.)
Talaris Site
Historic Resources
Site Historical Context
Apartment buildings A, B and C, and Seminar Building D were built during phase one of
construction, from 1965-1967. Lodge Building E, Dining Building F and Office Building G
were built during phase two, 1970-1971. NBBJ, Inc. was the design architect for the Battelle
Memorial Institute in both phases. The designed landscape includes a water feature and
pedestrian bridge, as well as natural and ornamental landscaping. The firm of Richard Haag
Associates was responsible for both the conceptual Master Plan and landscape design. The
Battelle campus was used for educational seminars, conferences and workshops and as an
advanced study center.
In 1997, Battelle sold the property to ERA Communities of Laurelhurst, and in 2000, ERA
Communities sold the property to 4000 Property, LLC. The property was leased to the
Talaris Research Institute which used the facilities to study early childhood development. In
2012, Talaris Research was sold to a Maryland-based company. The property is currently
used as a conference center, known as the Talaris Conference Center. In 2013, the buildings
and landscaping at the Talaris site were designated as an historic landmark by city of
Seattle. The site has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. The buildings and
landscaping are also considered to have local and national significance (see Appendix H for
details about the history of the Talaris site).

Site Buildings
There are currently nine buildings on the Talaris site. Other features are also present.
Figure 3.9-2 depicts the locations of the buildings and features and Table 3.9-2 lists the
buildings and features onsite and years of construction.
Table 3.9-2
TALARIS SITE – EXISTING BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
Building Number (Use) Build Date

Buildings
Apartment Building A 1966
Apartment Building B 1966
Apartment Building C 1966
Seminar Building D 1966
Lodge Building E 1971
Dining Building F 1971
Office Building G 1971
Equipment Shed Unknown (after 1992)
Pumphouse 2001
Other Features
Water Feature (Pond) 1967
Pedestrian Bridge 1971
Source: CRC, 2017.
Talaris Vicinity
Approximately 130 historic resources have been identified within approximately 500 feet
of the Talaris site. There resources are early to middle twentieth century single-family
residences.
Cultural Resources
Archaeological Context
The archeological context of the Talaris site is as described for the Fort Lawton site.
Ethnographic Context
The Talaris site is located along the same canoe route connecting Puget Sound to Lake
Washington as discussed in the Fort Lawton ethnographic context section. The Talaris site
was in the homeland of the Lakes Duwamish. Precontact Suquamish settlements were
often located on major waterways and heads of bays or inlets. The Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe includes the descendants of an amalgam of tribes that lived in the Green River and
White River valleys.

Source: Cultural Resource Consultants, 2017. Figure 3.9-2

Talaris Existing Buildings
Previously Recorded Sites and Surveys
Seven archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile of the Talaris site (see
Appendix H for details). The closest archaeological site to the Talaris site is located 0.19
mile away from the site and has been recommended eligible for NRHP based on its high
structural and depositional integrity and potential to provide significant historic
information. Precontact sites recorded near the site are limited to two precontract isolates.
Both isolates were found in disturbed sediments and not in association with intact cultural
deposits. The precontact sites were recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No
archeological sites have been recorded within the Talaris site.
Potential for Unrecorded Cultural Resources
The DAHP statewide predictive model ranked the Talaris site “Survey Highly Advised: Very
High Risk.” The Talaris site has been previously altered by earthmoving activity but is
considered to have moderate potential for as-yet unknown archeological sites due to the
presence of the historical Union Bay shoreline and Holocene peat deposits on the site. As
with the Fort Lawton site, precontact-era archaeological materials could include the
remains of habitation sites, lithic scatters or similar features representing domestic,
subsistence, or ceremonial activities. Historic period archeological materials could be
associated with homesteading or farming.
(See Appendix H for details on existing historic and cultural resources on and near the
Talaris site.)
An analysis of the potential adverse historic and cultural resources impacts of Alternative 1,
the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, is provided below. For EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, the

Fort Lawton Site
Historic Resources
Except for OMS Building 245, all existing buildings and structures on the site would be
demolished, including Harvey Hall which is recommended eligible for nomination as a
Seattle Landmark. Existing buildings to be removed would need to be referred to the City
Landmarks Preservation Board for consideration, following the process described in more
detail in Appendix H. If a building is determined eligible for City Landmark status,

requirements for mitigation of impacts to historic sites would be determined by the
Landmarks Preservation Board.
The adjacent Fort Lawton Cemetery would not be indirectly (e.g., visually) affected by
redevelopment under Alternative 1.
Cultural Resources
Development under Alternative 1 would include minimal site grading because proposed
buildings would be designed to conform to the existing site topography. Undeveloped
areas of the site are forested and sloped and would not have been suitable for occupation
or other activities with potential to generate significant archaeological deposits. As
described previously, Fort Lawton is considered to have a low potential to contain as-yet
unknown archaeological sites due to the extent of prior ground disturbance. For these
reasons, the probability of impacts to archaeological resources under Alternative 1 is
considered low.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1, the Talaris site would not be redeveloped and historic and cultural
resources would remain as under existing conditions. No impacts to historic or cultural
resources are expected.

Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site
Historic Resources
Under Alternative 2, all buildings and structures would be demolished, including Harvey
Hall, a building that is recommended eligible for nomination as a Seattle Landmark. Like
Under Alternative 1, existing buildings to be removed would need to be referred to the City
Landmarks Preservation Board for consideration. If a building is determined eligible for
City Landmark status, requirements for mitigation of impacts to historic sites would be
determined by the Landmarks Preservation Board.
Indirect impacts to the adjacent Fort Lawton Cemetery would occur due to the
construction of a road and housing in proximity to the eastern cemetery boundary. This
would affect the integrity of setting of the NRHP-eligible cemetery through the
introduction of new built environmental elements.
Cultural Resources
Like under Alternative 1, the probability of encountering archaeological impacts is low.

Although Alternative 2 could include the construction of retaining walls and/or deep

foundations and more overall ground disturbance, the likelihood of impacting as-yet
unknown archaeological sites is low given the extent of prior ground disturbance at the
site.
Talaris Site
Historic Resources
Under Alternative 2, all of the site’s major buildings and most of the landscaping would be
retained. However, impacts to this designated Seattle Landmark and NRHP-eligible site
would be generated by proposed alterations to the existing campus and buildings.
Specifically, impacts would occur due to alterations to the designed landscape and any
interior alternations visible from the outside. The massing of units in large groups along NE
41st Street and deeper within the site would also be inconsistent with the siting and design
of existing buildings and the surrounding neighborhood. Removal of vegetation planted as
a part of the landscape design would also be considered an impact.
Cultural Resources
As described previously, the Talaris site is considered to have a moderate potential for as-
yet unknown archaeological sites due to the presence of the historical Union Bay shoreline
and Holocene peat deposits. Under Alternative 2 minimal grading is anticipated; however,
construction of retaining walls and/or deep foundations could be necessary, leading to the
possibility of localized impacts to archaeological resources.
Fort Lawton Site

Historic Resources
Under Alternative 3, direct impacts to historic resources (e.g., Harvey Hall) would be the
same as described under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Indirect impacts to the Fort Lawton Cemetery are not anticipated because new
construction would not occur adjacent to the cemetery. A forested buffer would be
retained east of the cemetery and a multiuse field would be located north of Texas Way, to
the north of the cemetery.
Cultural Resources
The potential for impacts to archaeological resources would be the same as described for
Alternatives 1 and 2 (i.e., the potential for impacts would be low).

Talaris Site
Potential impacts to historic and cultural resources on and near the Talaris site would be
the same as those described under Alternative 2, because the same development is
proposed.
redeveloped at this time and would remain in their existing conditions. Buildings at Fort
Lawton would likely continue to deteriorate. The Army may choose to retain the property in
caretaker status, or could sell it to another party. Future development of the property by
others would have the potential to impact the setting of the Fort Lawton Cemetery and
would likely involve removing existing buildings. Under the No Action Alternative, the
Talaris property could be sold to another party. Future use and development of the
property would be subject to the City’s Certificate of Approval process because it has been
designated a Seattle Landmark.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential historic and cultural
resources impacts from construction and operation of the Fort Lawton Project under
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. These measures apply to all the alternatives unless otherwise noted.
Legally-Required Measures are measures that are required by code, laws or local, state and
federal regulations to address significant impacts. Measures Proposed as Part of Project are
• Existing buildings that appear to meet the criteria for landmark designation and are
proposed to be demolished at the Fort Lawton site would be referred to the City’s
Landmark Preservation Board (LPB) for their consideration as a City Landmark. If a
building is designated as City Landmark, a Certificate of Approval will be required
before any changes requiring a Certificate of Approval can be made to the landmark
(see Appendix H for details).
• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, proposed development at Talaris would be reviewed by

the City Landmarks Preservation Board. Any changes to the site would comply with
the designating ordinance or Controls and Incentives Agreement for the property.
Proposed changes should also meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with Guidelines for the
Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.

• Should any as-yet unknown potentially significant archaeological sites be
encountered during construction and it is not possible to avoid them, impacts would
be minimized by one or more of the following:
o Limiting the magnitude of the proposed work;
o Modifying proposed development through redesign or reorientation to
minimize or avoid further impacts to resources; or
o Archaeological monitoring, testing, or data recovery excavations (DAHP
2010).
• Other measures that could be implemented to minimize adverse impacts to an

archaeological site include:
o Relocating the project on the site;
o Providing markers, plaques, or recognition of discovery;
o Imposing a delay of as much as 90 days (or more than 90 days for
extraordinary circumstances) to allow archaeological artifacts and
information to be analyzed; or
o Excavation and recovery of artifacts (DON 2015).
• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, an archaeological survey would be conducted prior to

development at the Talaris site due to the moderate potential for subsurface
archaeological sites to be present.
• If ground disturbing or other activities result in the inadvertent discovery of

archaeological deposits, work would be halted in the immediate area and contact
made with DAHP. Work would be halted until further investigation and appropriate
consultation is concluded.
• In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, work would be
immediately halted in the area, the discovery covered and secured against further
disturbance, and contact made with law enforcement personnel, consistent with the
provisions in RCW 27.44.055 and RCW 68.60.055.
• Under Alternative 2, an undeveloped buffer could be retained around Fort Lawton

Cemetery to avoid affecting its integrity of setting through introduction of new built
environment elements.
• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, interpretive information conveying the historical

significance of the Talaris site could be used as public education tools or integrated
into future planning and design efforts.

No significant unavoidable adverse historic or cultural resources impacts are anticipated.

3.10 TRANSPORTATION
This section of the FEIS describes the transportation conditions on and near the Fort Lawton
and Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives are
evaluated and mitigation measures identified. The section is based on the Transportation
Technical Report prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. (see Appendix I).
Key Findings
Access through the Fort Lawton site is currently provided by Texas Way. There are presently
no on-site sources of traffic. The project’s effect on area traffic operations was evaluated
using level of service (LOS), which are rated from LOS A, reflecting excellent operations to LOS
F, reflecting congested conditions. Although the City of Seattle does not have adopted level of
service standard for individual intersections, it typically considers operation of LOS D as
acceptable. The City may tolerate delays in the LOS E or F range for minor movements at
unsignalized intersections or at signalized intersections where additional traffic control
measures are not applicable or desirable. For signalized intersections that operate at LOS E or
F without the project, the City will typically accept increases in delay of less than 5 seconds per
vehicle.
Near the Fort Lawton site, all intersections presently operate at LOS B or better and are
expected to continue at the same levels in 2030 without the Fort Lawton project. More distant
from the site, the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection currently operates at LOS F,
and vehicle delays at this all-way-stop intersection would continue to increase through 2030
without the project.
Access through the Talaris site is currently provided by NE 41st Street. The Talaris Conference
Center periodically generates traffic from conference center guests and employees. In the
Talaris site study area, the NE 45th Street/Union Bay Place/Mary Gates Memorial Drive
intersection currently operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour and is expected to degrade
to LOS F by 2030 without the project. The other study intersections currently operate at LOS D
or better and are expected to remain at the same levels in 2030 without the project.
Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, truck traffic and employee traffic would temporarily increase
during construction activities for development at the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites. With
implementation of a Construction Management Plan, and due to the temporary nature of
the truck and employee traffic, this increase in traffic is not expected to result in significant
impacts.
With development at the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 1 and 3, the existing access
provided by Texas Way would be retained; no additional access points to the surrounding
neighborhood would be provided. Under Alternative 2 at the Fort Lawton site, access would
continue to be provided from the south at Texas Way/W Government Way but would
terminate at a cul-de-sac to the north; four additional access points to the surrounding

March 2018 Transportation
neighborhood would be provided. With development under Alternatives 2 and 3 at the
Talaris site, the existing site access would remain the same. At full buildout, Alternatives 1, 2
and 3 would increase daily vehicle trips above existing levels in the Fort Lawton and Talaris
vicinities. However, no significant LOS changes are expected at intersections near either of
the sites. At the Fort Lawton site, all alternatives would add traffic to intersections farther
from the site including the three Magnolia access points, the proportion of project-
generated traffic would be small compared to the total intersection volumes and would not
change the overall intersection levels of service. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, peak parking
demand could exceed supply at the Fort Lawton site. Excess parking demand could be
addressed through parking management strategies. Transit and non-motorized facilities
would be adequate at both sites to accommodate increases in demand resulting from all
alternatives. As a result, no significant transportation impacts are expected during operation
of the project.
Methodology
The transportation analysis was performed using best practice methodologies developed by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The Affected Environment section describes
various elements of the transportation system as they currently exist and changes that
could occur in the future without the proposed project. All future analyses were performed
for the year 2030 to be consistent with other transportation planning efforts in Seattle.
Trip generation for the EIS alternatives was estimated using the recommended
methodology in the ITE current edition of the Trip Generation Handbook. Average ITE trip
rates for the affordable housing were adjusted to account for anticipated mode-of-travel
characteristics from the year 2010 Census compiled by the PSRC. Analysis performed for a
similar project 1 was reviewed to determine the appropriate trip generation for the Senior
Supportive Housing. Trip generation for the athletic fields was estimated based on an
analysis of a similar facility. 2
The trip distribution pattern for the residential trips was developed using data from the City
of Seattle’s Concurrency Director’s Rule 5-2009. The City’s database does not have
information about recreational trips. Therefore, the trip distribution pattern for the athletic
field trips was based on existing travel patterns at the entrance to Discovery Park as well as
trip patterns at the other study area intersections.
A level of service analysis was conducted for the study area intersections for AM and PM peak
hour conditions under the EIS alternatives. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used
to characterize traffic operating conditions. The quality of traffic conditions is graded from
LOS A, the best and represents good traffic operations with little or no delay to motorists,
1
Ballard Senior Housing Project, Heffron Transportation, 2012.
2 Parking and Transportation Impact Analysis for the Loyal Heights Playfield Improvements, Heffron
Transportation, 2006.

through LOS F, the worst and indicates poor traffic operations with long delays. The City of
Seattle does not have an adopted level of service standard for individual intersections;
however, typically considers operation of LOS D as acceptable. The City may tolerate delays in
the LOS E or F range for minor movements at un-signalized intersections or at signalized
intersections where additional traffic control measures are not applicable or desirable. Levels
of service were determined using the Synchro 10.1 traffic operations analysis software. The
models reflect current intersection geometries and levels of service were reported based
upon guidelines presented in the Highway Capacity Manual. 3
Parking demand was estimated for the EIS alternatives based on rates compiled from a
variety of sources. Parking demand for single-family and multi-family households was
determined from data compiled by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) from the 2010
Census. Parking demand for the Alternative 1 Senior Supportive Housing was determined
from analysis completed for another senior housing project.4 Parking demand for the
proposed athletic fields was based on an analysis for similar facilities. 5
(See Appendix I for details on the transportation analysis methodology.)
This sub-section describes existing transportation system and traffic conditions on and near
the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites.
Fort Lawton Site
Roadway Network
Vehicular access through the Fort Lawton site is presently provided by Texas Way, a street
that generally passes north-south through the site. The primary access point to the site is
from the south via the intersection of Texas Way and W Government Way. Secondary
access is available from the north via the intersection of Texas Way and 40th Avenue W.
There are several former vehicular access points to the site from 36th Avenue W; however,
these access locations are currently closed.
Study area intersections near Fort Lawton were selected based on the vehicular travel
routes expected to be used to access and egress the site. The following four intersections
were evaluated for both the morning and afternoon peak hours.
• 40th Avenue E / Texas Way;
• Discovery Park Boulevard / Texas Way;
• W Government Way / 36th Avenue W; and
3
Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2016.
4
Ballard Senior Housing Project, Heffron Transportation, Inc., Ballard Senior Housing Project Parking Needs
Assessment, July 25, 2012.
5
Parking and Transportation Impact Analysis for the Loyal Heights Playfield Improvements, Heffron
Transportation, Inc. March 2006.

• Discovery Park Boulevard / 34th Avenue W.
All the study area intersections are currently un-signalized. Roadways in the Fort Lawton
study area were inventoried and are described in Appendix I. No major changes are
planned for area streets or intersections.
Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes in the Fort Lawton vicinity are primarily generated by local
residential development and visitors to Discovery Park. Based on observations and seasonal
counts at Magnuson Park—which offers similar types of recreational opportunities—traffic
volumes at Discovery Park are expected to be highest during the summertime. They are
expected to peak in the morning when parents drop off students who participate in day
camps offered at the park. Peak period turning movement counts were conducted at all
Fort Lawton site study area intersections in July 2017. The highest existing hourly volumes
in the morning began at 8:00 AM at all intersections. The highest afternoon hourly volumes
varied from times starting between 4:00 and 5:00 PM (see Appendix I for the existing
(2017) and 2030 No Action traffic volumes).
Future traffic volumes were forecast for the year 2030. Historical traffic counts conducted
by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) in the study area indicate that both
daily and peak hour volumes have decreased in the past decade and there is little growth
from new development expected in the immediate vicinity. Based upon these trends, it was
determined that a rate of 1.0% per year would result in a conservatively high estimate of
traffic growth from new development activity in the vicinity.
Traffic Operations
Table 3.10-1 summarizes level of service results for existing and 2030 No Action (without the
project) conditions. As shown, all intersections in the study area currently operate at LOS B or
better and are expected to continue at the same levels in 2030 without redevelopment of the
Fort Lawton site.

Table 3.10-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE NEAR FORT LAWTON SITE - EXISTING & 2030 NO ACTION
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Existing (2017) 2030 No Action Existing (2017) 2030 No Action
Intersection LOS1 Delay2 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
All-Way Stop-Controlled
W Government Way / 34th Avenue W B 10.3 B 11.5 B 11.0 B 12.2
W Government Way / Discovery Park
A 8.3 A 8.6 A 9.3 A 10.0
Boulevard / 36th Avenue W
Side-Street Stop-Controlled
40th Avenue E / Texas Way (overall) A 4.8 A 4.5 A 4.6 A 4.5
Westbound Movements A 8.9 A 9.0 A 9.6 A 9.8
Southbound Left Turns A 7.3 A 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.5
Discovery Park Blvd / Texas Way (overall) A 0.6 A 0.7 A 2.5 A 2.6
Eastbound Left Turns A 0.0 A 0.0 A 7.5 A 7.6
Southbound Movements B 10.3 B 10.6 B 10.7 B 11.2
Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., 2017.
Determined using the Synchro 10.1 software.
1. Level of service.
2. Average seconds of delay per vehicle.
Parking
There is one existing publicly-accessible 73-space parking lot on the Fort Lawton site,
located between Building 245 and the structures to the south. Three other parking lots on
the site are closed to the public and have an unknown number of parking spaces. Adjacent
to the site, on-street parking is provided along certain streets that front or connect to the
site.
Traffic Safety
Collision data for the study area intersections outside of Discovery Park was obtained from
SDOT (SDOT does not collect collision data inside the park and no data are available for the
Texas Way/40th Avenue W intersection). The historical collision data reflects the period
between July 1, 2014 and July 31, 2017. Zero or one collision was reported at each
intersection over the three-year study period. Overall, these data do not indicate any
unusual traffic safety conditions in the study area.
Transit
King County Metro Transit (Metro) Route 33 provides two-way bus service along Texas Way
W through the Fort Lawton site. Within a half mile of the site, Metro Route 24 provides
service with stops in both directions along 34th Avenue W. King County Metro’s Long Range
Plan 6 indicates that the existing level of local bus service is planned to remain through its
long-range planning year of 2040. It also identifies provision by 2040 of additional
6 King County Metro, Metro Connects: Long Range Plan 2016, Adopted January 2017.

“frequent” bus service (defined as buses that are so frequent that a schedule is not needed)
along a route that includes W Government Way and 34th Avenue W.
Non-Motorized Facilities
There is a continuous sidewalk on the west side of Texas Way W between Discovery Park
Boulevard and the north gate to Fort Lawton; about a 200-foot segment of Texas Way W
between the gate and 40th Avenue NE has no sidewalk or shoulder. Sidewalks are present
on both sides of the street along W Government Way and 34th Avenue W and are
intermittent along 36th Avenue W. There is a multi-use path on the south side of Discovery
Park Boulevard west of 36th Avenue W, and no sidewalk or walkway on the north side of
that street. W Government Way has marked crosswalks along the north, south and east legs
at its intersection with 36th Avenue W and across all legs at its intersection with 34th Avenue
W. Crosswalks are also present across Texas Way W near the Veterans Affairs (VA) facility.
Narrow painted bicycle lanes are present on W Government Way in both directions. There
is an extensive non-motorized trail system within Discovery Park just west of the site. The
trail system can be reached via Discovery Park Boulevard or Texas Way.
(See Appendix I for details on existing transportation system and traffic conditions on and
near the Fort Lawton site.)
Talaris Site
Information about the transportation system near the Talaris site was obtained from a
recent study of that property 7 and updated with information from field observation and
other sources as described in the following sections.
Roadway Network
The Talaris site is currently accessed from NE 41st Street; a second access to 38th Avenue NE
is currently closed to vehicular traffic. The following intersections were evaluated for the
Talaris site.
• NE 45th Street/Union Bay Place NE/NE 45th Place/Mary Gates Memorial Drive NE;
• NE 45th Street/Sand Point Way NE/38th Avenue NE;
• Sand Point Way NE/40th Avenue NE; and
• NE 41st Street/41st Avenue NE.
The NE 41st Street / 41st Avenue NE intersection is unsignalized and the other three are
signalized. Roadways in the Talaris study area were inventoried and are described in
Appendix I. No major geometry changes are planned for area streets or intersections.
However, traffic signal timings were optimized for analysis of future conditions to account
for future Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements planned along Sand Point
Way NE and NE 45th Street.
7 Transportation Impact Analysis for the 4000 Property, The Transpo Group, October 2013.

Traffic Volumes
Two studies previously conducted in the area found that the highest volume traffic occurs
during the PM peak hour; 8, 9 therefore, the PM peak hour was analyzed for the Talaris site.
PM peak hour intersection turning movement counts for the four analysis intersections
were performed in October 2013 for the prior study of the Talaris site. That study had
forecast conditions to 2017 assuming a 1% per year background growth rate plus traffic
generated by three large projects in the vicinity (Children’s Hospital Expansion, NE 46th
Street Multi-Use Building and University Village Expansion). The 2017 volumes developed
for the prior study were applied to the existing conditions analysis completed for this Draft
EIS.
Future traffic volumes were forecast for the year 2030, using a growth rate of 1% per year,
consistent with a past study 10 (see Appendix I for the existing (2017) and 2030 No Action
traffic volumes).
Traffic Operations
Traffic operations analyses were performed for the Talaris site using the same methodology
described for the Fort Lawton site. Table 3.10-2 presents level of service results for the
existing and 2030 No Action conditions. As shown, the “five corners intersection” at NE 45th
Street/Union Bay Place/Mary Gates Memorial Drive currently operates at LOS E during the
PM peak hour and is expected to degrade to LOS F by 2030 under No Action conditions. The
intersection at Sand Point Way/40th Avenue NE currently operates at LOS D and the other two
analysis intersections are operating at LOS B; all are expected to remain at those levels in
2030 under No Action conditions.
8
Transportation Impact Analysis for the 4000 Property, The Transpo Group, October 2013.
9
Sand Point Way Corridor Study, Heffron Transportation, Inc., Draft Report, March 2017.
10
Sand Point Way Corridor Study, Heffron Transportation, Inc., Draft Report, March 2017.

Table 3.10-2
LEVEL OF SERVICE NEAR TALARIS SITE – EXISTING & 2030 NO ACTION
PM Peak Hour
Existing (2017) 2030 No Action
Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay
Signalized
NE 45th Street / Union Bay Place NE / NE 45th Place
E 63.7 F 87.4
Mary Gates Memorial Drive NE
NE 45th Street / Sand Point Way NE / 38th Avenue NE B 12.6 B 12.2
Sand Point Way NE / 40th Avenue NE D 39.7 D 54.7
Side-Street Stop-Controlled
NE 41st Street / 41st Avenue NE (overall) A 0.7 A 0.6
Westbound Left Turns A 8.2 A 8.3
Northbound Movements B 11.5 B 11.9
Determined using Synchro 10.1 software. Cycle lengths, offsets, and splits optimized for signalized intersections in the NE 45th
Street / Sand Point Way corridor for the 2030 w/o project condition.
Parking
The existing Talaris site has a substantial amount of on-site parking that serves the existing
buildings and its function as a conference center. Adjacent to the site, on-street parking is
provided along all the streets that front or connect to the site.
Traffic Safety
Collision data for the study area intersections surrounding the Talaris site were obtained
from SDOT. Data reflect the period between July 1, 2014 and July 31, 2017 and showed that
on average all study area intersections experienced fewer than two collisions per year. One
of the reported collisions at the NE 45th Street/Mary Gates Memorial Drive intersection
involved a bicyclist. There were no fatalities. Overall, these data do not indicate any unusual
traffic safety conditions, and none of the intersections would meet the City’s definition of a
high collision location.
Transit
Metro provides bus service near the Talaris site. The nearest stops, serviced by Route 78,
are located at the southeast corner of the site, at the NE 41st Street/42nd Avenue NE
intersection. Metro Routes 31, 32, 65, 67 and 75 also serve the site with stops along NE 45th
Street, at the intersections of 36th Avenue NE and 42nd Avenue NE. King County Metro’s
Long Range Plan 11 indicates that the existing level of local bus service is planned to remain
through its long-range planning year of 2040. It also identifies provision of additional
RapidRide service (frequent two-way bus service with amenities that facilitate faster
11
King County Metro, Metro Connects: Long range Plan 2016, Adopted January 2017.

passenger loading and unloading) by 2025 for a route that includes NE 45th Street and Sand
Point Way NE.
All of the Talaris study area streets have sidewalks on both sides, except for NE 41st Street,
which has no sidewalk along the site frontage (north side of the street). All signalized
intersections have pedestrian crosswalks and signals and there is a pedestrian-only signal to
assist crossing NE 45th Street at 36th Avenue NE. The Burke-Gilman Trail is located north of
45th Avenue NE and west of Sand Point Way. There are connections to the trail at 36th
Avenue NE and from the 40th Avenue NE/Sand Point Way intersection. Pedestrian facilities
on the existing Talaris campus consist of short segments of sidewalk where drop-off/pick-up
activities occur as well as paved trails that connect between buildings. There are no
pedestrian facilities along the driveways that connect to the city street network.
(See Appendix I for details on existing transportation system and traffic conditions on and
near the Talaris site.)
An analysis of the potential adverse transportation impacts of Alternative 1, the Applicant’s

highlighted (other aspects of these alternatives are expected to be like the Preferred
Alternative).

Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Alternative 1 would generate construction truck traffic and employee traffic associated with
demolition, excavation, infrastructure construction, building construction and landscaping.
Internal roadways would be upgraded and/or replaced. The highest number of truck trips
per day would be generated during excavation activities when large quantities of materials
can be stockpiled on site and then hauled off in a compressed schedule. Based upon typical
construction shifts, it is anticipated that construction workers would arrive at the
construction site before the morning peak traffic period on local area streets and depart the
site prior to the evening commute peak period. The number of workers at the project site at
any one time would vary depending upon the construction element being implemented.
Construction worker trips typically peak during building construction when many trades can
be working simultaneously at the site.

For all these construction activities, it is unlikely that Alternative 1 would generate more
trips per hour than evaluated for the full build condition (see below under Operation for
details). Therefore, the vicinity roadway systems would be able to accommodate the
construction traffic. All truck staging and contractor parking should be able to be
accommodated on the site.
Prior to commencing construction, the selected contractor(s) would prepare a Construction

Management Plan. This plan would include information related to truck haul routes, staging
areas, sidewalk and street detours and employee parking. As a result, no significant
transportation impacts are expected during construction of the project (see Appendix I for
details).
Operation
Project Trips
The number of vehicle trips generated by Alternative 1 is summarized in Table 3.10-3.

Alternative 1 would generate an estimated 1,260 vehicle trips per day (630 inbound and 630
outbound) with 64 trips during the AM peak hour and 216 during the PM peak hour.
Table 3.10-3
VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION – ALTERNATIVE 1 (FORT LAWTON SITE)
# of Units/ Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips

Land Use Fields Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Senior Housing 861 150 7 2 9 2 7 9
Apartments (Rental) 100 430 7 26 33 26 14 40
Townhomes (Ownership) 52 300 6 16 22 16 11 27
Single-Family (Market-Rate) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Athletic Fields 2 380 0 0 0 70 70 140
Total Vehicle Trips 1,260 20 44 64 114 102 216
1. Includes 85 senior units and one manager unit.
During the peak hours, most residential trips from Alternative 1 would be associated with
commute trips to major employment areas such as downtown Seattle, Ballard and
Interbay; some peak hour residential trips could be to local areas such as schools and
shopping districts. Peak trips to and from the athletic fields are expected to be associated
with youth practice activities and as such, are primarily expected to be attracted from the
local Magnolia neighborhood. In terms of trip distribution, the data indicate that 78% of
all inbound trips during the PM peak hour would be from areas outside of Magnolia, the
remaining 22% would be local Magnolia trips. For the outbound trips, 38% would be local
Magnolia trips and the rest to outside neighborhoods. The reverse of these patterns was
assumed for the AM peak hours. The City’s database does not have information about
recreational trips. Therefore, the trip distribution pattern for the athletic field trips was
based on existing travel patterns at the entrance to Discovery Park as well as trip patterns

at the other study area intersections (see Appendix I for the trip distribution patterns
under Alternative 1). Trips were assigned to the roadway network (see Figure 3.10-1, Fort
Lawton Trip Assignment – Alternatives 1 and 3).
Traffic Operations
Within Site Study Area – The trip generation and trip assignments determined that
Alternative 1 would add the most traffic to area intersections of the EIS alternatives. Traffic
operations with Alternative 1 were evaluated to show the potential impacts associated with
the project and are compared to the No Action condition (see Table 3.10-4). As shown, all
study area intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS B or better with slight
increases in delay associated with the additional trips Alternative 1 would generate.
Therefore, no significant impacts are expected.
Table 3.10-4
LEVEL OF SERVICE NEAR FORT LAWTON SITE 2030 – ALTERNATIVE 1

2030 No Action 2030 w/ Alt. 1 2030 No Action 2030 w/ Alt. 1
LOS1 Delay2 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
W Government Way / 34th Avenue W B 11.5 B 11.9 B 12.2 B 14.1
W Government Way / Discovery Park
A 8.6 A 8.9 A 10.0 B 12.6
Boulevard / 36th Avenue W
Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersections
40th Avenue E / Texas Way (overall) A 4.5 A 5.5 A 4.5 A 5.3
Westbound Movements A 9.0 A 9.0 A 9.8 B 10.1
Southbound Left Turns A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.6
Discovery Park Blvd / Texas Way (overall) A 0.7 A 1.6 A 2.6 A 4.9
Eastbound Left Turns A 0.0 A 0.0 A 7.6 A 7.9
Southbound Movements B 10.6 B 11.1 B 11.2 B 14.5
Determined using Synchro 10.1 software.

North
Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., 2017. Figure 3.10-1

Fort Lawton Trip Assignment—Alternatives 1 and 3
Beyond Site Study Area – Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, several comments on
traffic operations beyond the site study area were received during the public comment
period. The most common comments or questions related to impacts at the Magnolia
neighborhood access points, traffic operations at W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W, and
the effect of potential bridge closures. Additional information on these topics is presented
below. The information provided in this section supplements the Transportation section of
the DEIS and the Transportation Technical Report that was provided as Appendix I.
Magnolia Access Points – This section provides additional clarifying information about the
expected impacts of project-generated trips at the three 15th Avenue W access points to the
Magnolia neighborhood: at W Emerson/Nickerson Street, W Dravus Street and the
Magnolia Bridge. Access at all three locations occurs via ramps between 15th Avenue W and
the intersecting street.
As described above in the Project Trips section, City concurrency data indicated that 78% of
all inbound peak hour residential trips would be from areas outside of Magnolia; the
remaining 22% would be local Magnolia trips. For the outbound peak hour trips, 62% would
be to areas outside of Magnolia; the remaining 38% would be local Magnolia trips. The trip
distribution pattern for the residential trips was developed using citywide data from the City
of Seattle’s Concurrency Director’s Rule 5-2009, consistent with the method described in
Appendix I. Peak hour trips to and from the athletic fields would be associated with youth
practice activities, and as such, are primarily expected to be generated by the local
Magnolia neighborhood. However, for the purpose of analysis, 30% of trips generated by
the athletic fields were assumed to be generated outside of the Magnolia neighborhood.
These trips were distributed based upon existing travel patterns in the area.
Figure 3.10-2 shows the resulting peak hour trip patterns in and out of the Magnolia
neighborhood under Alternative 1, which would generate the highest number of vehicle
trips of the three project alternatives.
Existing (2017) intersection volumes for the Magnolia access intersections were performed
by SDOT and compiled for the Magnolia Bridge Traffic Maintenance During Bridge Closure
Report. 12 Future background (No Action) volumes were estimated by applying 1%
compound annual growth through 2030, using the same methods applied for the DEIS
analysis.
12 Heffron Transportation, Inc., Magnolia Bridge Traffic Maintenance During Bridge Closure, Prepared for the
Seattle Department of Transportation, November 10, 2017.


Figure 3.10-2
Project Trips at Magnolia Access Points 2030 – Alternative 1
Table 3.10-5 summarizes the trips through each Magnolia access intersection, as well as the
W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection that is evaluated in a following section.
The total trips through each intersection is also shown.
Table 3.10-5
Project Trips at Magnolia Access Points – Alternative 1 2030 Conditions

Project Total Project Percent Project Total Project Percent
Intersection Volume 1 Volume 2 of Total 3 Volume 1 Volume 2 of Total 3
W Emerson Place /
19 1,609 1.2% 38 1,828 2.1%
Gilman Avenue W
W Emerson Place /
35 2,480 1.4% 71 1,981 3.6%
W Nickerson Street ramp
W Dravus Street /
4 2,039 0.2% 14 2,419 0.6%
15th Avenue NW west ramps
W Dravus Street /
4 1,614 0.2% 14 2,089 0.7%
15th Avenue NW east ramps
W Garfield Street /
12 4,032 0.3% 26 4,556 0.6%
15th Avenue NW
W Galer Flyover /
14 4,184 0.3% 33 4,733 0.7%
Elliott Avenue W
Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., February 2018.
1. Projected trips through intersection generated by buildout of Alternative 1, which would generate the highest volumes of the
three project alternatives.
2. Existing (2017) intersection volumes obtained from the Magnolia Bridge Traffic Maintenance During Bridge Closure Report
(Heffron Transportation, Inc., November 10, 2017); future background volumes estimated by applying 1% compound annual
growth through 2030, using the same methods applied for the DEIS analysis.
3. Project-generated volume through the intersection divided by the total volume through the intersection.
Table 3.10-5 shows that project-generated trips would constitute a small percentage of
trips through each Magnolia access intersection. Project trips are expected to be highest at
the W Emerson Street/W Nickerson Street ramp, which is the closest access point to the
Fort Lawton site. However, the peak hour tripsforecast to be about 1.4% of total trips
during the AM peak hour and about 3.6% of total trips during the PM peak hourwould
have small impact on the intersection operation. The trips generated under Alternative 1
would be lower at the W Dravus Street and Magnolia Bridge access points, which are
farther away from the site, constituting less than 1% of total trips through their respective
ramp intersections. Because trips generated by Alternative 1 through the three Magnolia
access points would be a small proportion of total trips through the intersections, detailed
operational analysis was not conducted to determine their relative level of impact at these
locations.

Effect of Potential Bridge Closures – SDOT commissioned a study in Fall 2017 to evaluate
the effect of emergency closure of the Magnolia Bridge due to a natural disaster and to
identify measures to address the transportation effects.13 Elements of the study included
development of an Emergency Bridge Closure Transportation Plan to address transportation
needs immediately following a catastrophic event and development of a Short-Term
Transportation Plan to improve the resilience of the transportation system in advance of
such an event. While the City has recognized the need to plan for a catastrophic event that
could affect access options for the Magnolia neighborhood, redevelopment at Fort Lawton
would not effect those plans. The trips that Alternative 1 would generate (as summarized in
Table 3.10-5) are a small percentage of total trips through the access points and do not
affect the findings or recommendations of the SDOT report. Since SDOT’s procedures to
address emergency access issues would be the same with or without Alternative 1, no
additional analysis related to emergency access is provided in the EIS.
Traffic Operations at W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W – The DEIS transportation

analysis did not initially include the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection as it
was believed that it was at a distance where the number of trips passing through would not
have a significant impact. However, comments received from the community indicated that
this intersection was of particular interest and as a result, has been included in the FEIS. The
analysis was based on current conditions, which include revisions implemented as part of
the Interbay Trail Connections Project, which included re-channelization of Gilman Avenue
W and the west section of W Emerson Place to provide protected bike lanes. For the FEIS
analysis, the impacts of the Alternative 1 trips have been evaluated at the W Emerson
Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection. As shown in Table 3.10-5, trips generated with
buildout of Alternative 1 (which would be highest of the three alternatives) would comprise
1.2% to 2.1% of the total peak hour volumes through the intersection.
Level of service analysis was conducted at the intersection using the same procedures
described in Section 2.1.3 of Appendix I for existing conditions, and future (2030) conditions
with and without the proposed project. It was assumed that the intersection would remain
as an all-way stop-controlled intersection. The results are summarized in Table 3.10-6.
As shown in Table 3.10-6, the intersection currently operates at LOS F during both peak
hours; if no vehicle capacity improvements are made to the intersection, it is expected to
operate at LOS F with higher delay in the future analysis year of 2030. Analysis indicates
that the project-generated trips could add up to 7 to 10 seconds of average delay per
vehicle but would have little impact on the intersection operation overall; operation would
be LOS F with or without the project.
13 Heffron Transportation, Inc., November 10, 2017.

Table 3.10-6
LEVEL OF SERVICE AT W EMERSON PLACE/GILMAN AVENUE W

Existing (2017) 2030 No Action 2030 w/ Alt 1 Existing (2017) 2030 No Action 2030 w/ Alt 1
Intersection LOS1 Delay2 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
W Emerson Place /
F 69.3 F 119.7 F 129.2 F 139.8 F 207.0 F 218.1
Gilman Avenue W 3
Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., February 2018. Determined using Synchro 10.1 software.
3. All-way stop-controlled; level of service based upon the average delay per vehicle for all movements through the
intersection.
It should be noted that the Short-Term Closure Plan identified in the Magnolia Bridge Traffic
Maintenance During Bridge Closure Report recommends that operation of the W Emerson
Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection be monitored, and a traffic signal installed at the point
that traffic signal warrants 14 would be met. Recommendations also include conversion of
the west leg of the intersection to one-way westbound at the time of signalization. If
implemented by SDOT, signalization could help to reduce vehicle delay for peak movements
at the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection; however, as previously described,
future plans for this intersection would be the same with or without the proposed Fort
Lawton Project.
SDOT recently commenced the long-term Magnolia Bridge Planning Study, which will
develop a permanent alternative to the existing Magnolia Bridge structure. At the time of
this FEIS, project alternatives were not yet developed. Further information about that study
can be found at www.seattle.gov/transportation/magnoliabridgeplanning. 15
Parking
Under Alternative 1, a total of 266 parking spaces would be provided on the Fort Lawton
site (see Table 2-7 for a breakdown of the parking spaces by use). Proposed parking would
meet the requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC 23.54.015).
The peak parking demand estimated for Alternative 1 is 257 to 294 parking spaces.
Therefore, at the high end of the range, parking demand would exceed parking supply,
particularly for the affordable housing and athletic fields. The excess parking demand from
the affordable housing could be addressed through parking management strategies. The
excess parking demand from the athletic fields could be addressed through sharing of
14 Traffic signal warrants are a prescribed set of measures that are defined in the US Department of Transportation’s Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Streets and Highways, 2009 Edition, last updated in May 2012.
15 Seattle Department of Transportation, 2018.

parking with the existing parking at the VA facility offsite and/or the Seattle Parks
Maintenance Facility onsite given that the peak demand would occur in the evenings and
weekends when these facilities are minimally used. Therefore, no significant impacts are
expected.
Traffic Safety
Alternative 1 would increase traffic at the study area intersections and statistically, the
number of collisions could increase as traffic increases. However, historical collision data
show that there are no existing safety issues in the Fort Lawton vicinity. Alternative 1 would
not change the roadway network--although several new intersections would be created
along Texas Way--and is not expected to result in new safety issues in the neighborhood.
Transit
Mode-of-travel data from the 2010 Census determined that 25% of residential trips in
Magnolia occur by transit. None of the athletic field trips are expected to use transit. At this
rate, Alternative 1 is expected to generate 28 peak hour transit trips. The projected
additional transit demand averages to about 2 to 3 riders per bus that currently serves the
Fort Lawton site during the peak hour, which is when the highest level of demand typically
occurs.
The DEIS analysis concluded that existing bus service would be adequate to serve this
demand. Subsequent to the issuance of the DEIS, several comments on transit were
received during the public comment period relating to the availability of transit service. The
following provides additional clarifying information about the expected impact of
Alternative 1 on transit service.
As described under Affected Environment, the site is directly served by King County Metro
Transit (Metro) Route 33. Metro Route 24 has stops about 1,800 feet from the site.
The conclusion presented in the DEIS is supported by additional analysis that was
completed for the Expedia project, 16 which is planned on the west side of Elliott Avenue W,
to the south of the Magnolia neighborhood. It is acknowledged that since the Magnolia
neighborhood is the north terminus for the routes that serve it, only a portion of the total
riders board or disembark the buses in Magnolia, and the routes have higher occupancy the
closer they get to Downtown. Table 3.10-7 summarizes transit capacity analysis that was
completed for the Expedia project. In addition to the routes that serve Magnolia,
information is also shown for two other routes that serve 15th Avenue W and Elliott Way W;
this recognizes that riders who board or disembark buses closer to Downtown have more
routes from which to choose.
16 Heffron Transportation, Inc., Revised Transportation Technical Report for the Expedia Campus, December 14, 2016.

Table 3.10-7
EXISTING TRANSIT CAPACITY AND LOAD RATIO –
AM PEAK HOUR/PEAK DIRECTION
Number of Total Peak Total Peak Average Total

Bus Trips in Hour Seat Standing Hour Riders/ Peak Hour Peak Hour
Peak Hour a Capacity b Capacity c Capacity Trip d Riders e Load Ratio f
Routes that directly serve the Magnolia neighborhood
Route 19 3 176 90 266 27 81 30%
Route 24 3 176 90 266 43 129 48%
Route 33 4 256 120 376 47 188 50%
Additional routes that serve the Elliott Way corridor between Magnolia and Downtown
Route 32 2 120 60 180 10 20 11%
D-Line 8 384 240 624 47 376 60%
Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., Revised Transportation Technical Report for the Expedia Campus,
December 14, 2016.
a. Reflects March 2016 schedule.
b. Based on King County Metro database listing seat capacity per bus trip from Spring 2015, reflecting a range of 35 to 64 seats
per bus, depending on bus type.
c. Assumes 30 standing passengers on a bus, a factor used by SDOT to estimate peak bus capacity.
d. Average riders per trip based on King County Metro count in Spring 2015. These reflect riders southbound on Elliott Avenue
W at W Prospect Street during the AM peak hour.
e. Average per trip ridership times number of trips.
f. Peak Hour Load Ratio = Peak Hour Riders / Total Capacity.
Table 3.10-7 summarizes existing transit capacity on the Elliott Avenue W corridor that was
evaluated using Metro data from Spring 2015. The analysis took into account the seat
capacity for each bus trip on the route as well as the average ridership per trip. In addition
to the number of seats, SDOT also estimates that buses can accommodate about 30
standing passengers at full capacity. The analysis reflects southbound ridership during the
AM peak hour at W Prospect Street and indicates that peak direction ridership for the three
routes that directly serve Magnolia utilizes 30% to 50% of the total capacity on each route.
For the additional routes that serve the corridor to the south Magnolia, 11% to 60% of
capacity is used.
Applying the same background growth assumptions that were applied to the future vehicle
forecasts in the DEIS (compound annual growth of 1%) from 2015 to 2030 results in an
estimated overall growth of 16.1% to the average riders per trip. With this level of growth,
and additionally accounting for the bus riders projected to be generated by the Expedia
project (a total of up to 64 additional peak hour riders are projected on Routes 19, 24 and
33), results in a 2030 utilization of 44% to 65% on the routes that directly serve Magnolia, if
no capacity changes are made.

These results indicate that while some buses may be “standing room only” during periods of
peak ridership, on average they have available capacity. It should be noted that while
Metro’s Long-Range Plan 17 does not indicate significant planned capacity changes for the
local bus routes that serve Magnolia, Metro continuously monitors ridership on its buses
and adjusts routes and schedules to adjust to shifts in demand. Updates are implemented
twice per year, in March and September.
Non-Motorized Transportation
Pedestrian facilities would be provided along all the new streets and upgraded along Texas
Way W. Texas Way W currently has a continuous sidewalk along only the west side of the
street and Alternative 1 would add a sidewalk to the east side of the street adjacent to new
development and to connect to the existing bus stop. It is noted that there are a couple of
locations where the existing west-side sidewalk width does not meet Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, including where it passes through the entry gate. These
could be widened, if feasible, to meet ADA standards.
Several new pedestrian crosswalks are proposed to connect housing clusters and transit
stops. All new crosswalk locations would have adequate sight lines for motorists and
pedestrians, and would be designed to meet Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) for Streets and Highways 18 standard ladder stripe standards (existing crosswalks
are now painted in non-standard yellow). ADA curb ramps and landings would be provided
on both sides of the street. New non-motorized facilities would be constructed according to
City standards and no adverse non-motorized impacts are expected to result.
Talaris Site
No redevelopment of the Talaris site would occur at this time under Alternative 1.
Transportation system and traffic conditions would continue as under existing conditions.
No transportation impacts would be expected under this alternative.

Housing Offsite
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Construction activities and their associated potential for impacts on the transportation
system and traffic on and in the vicinity of the Fort Lawton site would be similar to under
Alternative 1 (e.g., due to construction truck traffic and employee traffic). All truck staging
and contractor parking should be able to be accommodated on the site. Prior to
commencing construction, the selected contractor(s) would prepare a Construction
18 US Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration, 2009 Edition.

Management Plan. As a result, no significant transportation impacts are expected during
construction of the project.
Operation
Project Trips
The number of vehicle trips generated by Alternative 2 is summarized in Table 3.10-8. This
alternative would generate an estimated 700 vehicle trips per day (350 inbound and 350
outbound) with 55 trips during the AM peak hour and 55 during the PM peak hour. The
same trip pattern would occur as assumed for Alternative 1 (see Figure 3.10-1).
Table 3.10-8

Senior Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Athletic Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Vehicle Trips 700 14 41 55 35 20 55
Traffic Operations
Alternative 2 would generate fewer peak hour trips than Alternative 1. Therefore, the
intersections in the Fort Lawton vicinity would operate at the same or better levels with
Alternative 2 than reported in Table 3.10-4. No significant impacts are expected.
Parking
Alternative 2 is expected to generate a total peak parking demand of 180 to 201 vehicles,
which would fit within the proposed parking supply of 254 spaces. No adverse parking
impacts are expected (see Appendix I for details).
Safety
Alternative 2 would extend the existing grid of streets, creating several four-legged
intersections where T-intersections now exist along 36th Avenue W. The volumes at these
intersections are expected to be low and operate like other intersections in the residential
neighborhood and are not expected to result in new safety issues in the Fort Lawton site
area.

Transit
Alternative 2 is expected to generate 21 peak hour transit trips. The expected demand of 2
to 3 additional riders per bus would not adversely affect transit service in the site area.
The pedestrian facility needs for Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for
Alternative 1. Pedestrian facilities would be provided along all the new streets and
upgraded along Texas Way. Any new crosswalks would be designed to meet MUTCD
standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected.
Talaris Site
Construction
system and traffic on and in the vicinity of the Talaris site would be similar to at the Fort
Lawton site under Alternative 1 (e.g., due to construction truck traffic and employee traffic).
All truck staging and contractor parking should be able to be accommodated on the site.
Prior to commencing construction, the selected contractor(s) would prepare a Construction
Operation
Project Trips
outbound) with 64 trips during the AM peak hour and 76 during the PM peak hour. The
Talaris site currently generates traffic. However, no credit was taken for these existing trips,
which reflects a conservatively high estimate of site impacts.
Table 3.10-9
VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION – ALTERNATIVE 2 (TALARIS SITE)

Senior Housing 861 150 7 2 9 2 7 9
Athletic Fields 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1. Includes 85 senior units and one manager unit

It is projected that about 75% of the Talaris site trips under Alternative 2 would be to and
from the west on NE 45th Street. The other 25% of the trips would use 40th Avenue NE and
Sand Point Way NE, north and northeast of the site (see Figure 3.10-3, Trip Assignment
Talaris Site – Alternatives 2 and 3).
Traffic Operations
Table 3.10-10 presents the results of the traffic operations analysis for Alternative 2; levels
of service for the 2030 No Action alternative are shown for comparison. As shown, the
project is expected to add less than one second of delay to the intersections at NE 45th
Street/Mary Gates Memorial Drive NE and Sand Point Way/40th Avenue NE intersections,
which are projected to operate at LOS F and E with the project, respectively. This level of
increased delay would not be considered a significant impact, and no mitigation is
recommended. It is the long-standing precedent established by the City’s traffic review
team that delay increases less than 5 seconds at a signalized intersection would not be
significant.
Table 3.10-10
LEVEL OF SERVICE NEAR TALARIS SITE 2030 - ALTERNATIVE 2 & 3
PM Peak Hour
2030 No Action 2030 w/ Alternative 2 or 3
Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay
Signalized Intersection
NE 45th Street / Union Bay Place NE / NE 45th Place
F 87.4 F 88.7
Mary Gates Memorial Drive NE
NE 45th Street / Sand Point Way NE / 38th Avenue NE B 12.2 B 12.2
Sand Point Way NE / 40th Avenue NE D 54.7 E 55.5
Side-Street Stop Controlled Intersection
NE 41st Street / 41st Avenue NE A 0.6 A 0.6
Westbound Left Turns A 8.3 A 8.4
Northbound Movements B 11.9 B 12.1
Determined using the Synchro 10.1 software. Cycle lengths, offsets, and splits optimized for signalized intersections in the NE
45th Street / Sand Point Way corridor for the 2030 project conditions.
Parking
The projected total peak parking demand of 180 to 201 spaces under Alternative 2 would
be accommodated by the proposed supply of 254 spaces, with no overflow. No adverse
parking impacts are expected.

North

Figure 3.10-3
Talaris Trip Assignment—Alternatives 2 and 3
Traffic Safety
Under Alternative 2, the project would increase traffic at the Talaris study area intersections
and statistically, the number of collisions could increase as traffic increases. However,
historical collision data show that there are no existing safety issues in the Talaris vicinity.
Alternative 2 does not include any changes to the roadway network that are expected to
result in new safety concerns.
Transit
Alternative 2 is expected to generate 17 peak hour transit trips. This projected additional
transit demand averages to less than one rider per bus that currently serves the Talaris site
during the peak hour. The existing bus service would be adequate to serve this demand;
therefore, no adverse transit impacts are expected.
Non-Motorized Transportation
Under Alternative 2, a new sidewalk would be constructed along the NE 41st Street frontage
where no sidewalk exists today. In addition, a new sidewalk or a separated walkway would
be added along internal roadways as required by the City. New non-motorized facilities
would be constructed according to City standards and no adverse non-motorized impacts
are expected.
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
system and traffic on and in the vicinity of the Fort Lawton site would be similar to under
Alternative 1 (e.g., due to construction truck traffic and employee traffic). All truck staging
and contractor parking should be able to be accommodated on the site. Prior to
commencing construction, the selected contractor(s) would prepare a Construction
Operation
Project Trips
outbound) with no trips during the AM peak hour and 210 during the PM peak hour. The
same trip pattern would occur as assumed for Alternative 1; the trip assignment for this
alternative is shown on Figure 3.10-1.

Table 3.10-11

Senior Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Athletic Fields 3 570 0 0 0 105 105 210
Traffic Operations
Alternative 3 would generate approximately the same number of PM peak hour trips as
Alternative 1, and the intersections in the Fort Lawton vicinity would operate at similar
levels to those reported Table 3.10-4. The athletic fields are expected to generate no
additional trips during the AM peak hour and would not significantly affect morning traffic
operations.
Parking
Alternative 3 is expected to generate a total peak parking demand of 99 vehicles. This would
exceed the estimated proposed supply of 90 spaces. Proposed parking would meet the
requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC 23.54.015). Like under Alternative 1, it
may be possible to share existing parking at the VA facility offsite and/or the Seattle Parks
Maintenance Facility onsite in the evenings and/or on weekends when the peak field use is
expected. No significant impacts are expected.
Safety
Alternative 3 would increase traffic at the Fort Lawton study area intersections, and
statistically the number of collisions could increase as traffic increases. However, historical
collision data show that there are no existing safety issues in the Fort Lawton vicinity.
Alternative 3 would not change the roadway network and no safety impacts are anticipated.
Transit
Athletic fields proposed under Alternative 3 are expected to generate little to no transit use,
and therefore would have minimal transit impacts.

The pedestrian facility need for Alternative 3 would be the similar to Alternative 1.
Pedestrian facilities would be upgraded along Texas Way W. Any new crosswalks would be
designed to meet MUTCD standard. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected.
Talaris Site
Development under Alternative 3 on the Talaris site would be identical to under Alternative
2. Therefore, the transportation impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 2.
Under the No Action Alternative, the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites would not be redeveloped
at this time and would remain in their existing conditions. No transportation-related impacts
are anticipated under Alternative 4.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential transportation
• Development would comply with all land use code requirements regardless of right of
way improvements including any requirements for addition or upgrade of pedestrian
facilities.
• Prior to commencing construction on either site, the selected contractor(s) would

prepare a Construction Management Plan that documents the following:
o Truck haul routes to and from the site;
o Truck staging areas (e.g. locations where empty or full dump trucks would wait
or stage prior to loading or unloading);
o Construction employee parking areas;
o Road or lane closures that may be needed during utility or street construction;
o Sidewalk, bike lane, or bus stop closures and relocations; and
o Mechanism for notifying the community if street, sidewalk, bike lane, or bus stop
closures would be required.

Fort Lawton Site
• Improve pedestrian facilities on Texas Way – For Alternative 1, 2 or 3, Texas Way would
be improved to add a sidewalk or walkway to the east site of the street adjacent to new
development areas. In addition, the existing sidewalk on the west side of the street
would be maintained. New crosswalks would be located where there is adequate sight
distance for both motorists and pedestrians, and all would be designed to meet Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. Americans with Disability Act
(ADA) curb ramps and landings would be provided on both sides of the street.
• Implement parking management strategies for affordable housing uses – To reduce

the potential for overflow residential parking with Alternative 1 or 2, the Office of
Housing and its partners would implement programs that reduce a resident’s need to
own a vehicle. The programs could include providing a shared bicycle fleet or
encouraging use of bike sharing programs, encouraging use of car sharing programs, and
providing information about bus service.
Talaris Site
• Improve pedestrian facilities on internal roads – For Alternative 2 or 3, all new or

retained internal roads at the Talaris site would have a pedestrian walkway on at least
on one side of the street. Any internal crosswalks would be located where there is
adequate sight distance for motorists and pedestrians and all would be designed to
meet MUTCD standards. ADA curb ramps and landings would be provided on both sides
of the street.
• Construct sidewalk along N 41st Street frontage – For Alternative 2 or 3, sidewalks would
be constructed along the N 41st Street site frontage where there currently are none.
• Share parking with athletic fields – For Alternative 1 or 3, peak parking for the
athletic fields on the Fort Lawton site is expected to occur in the evenings and on
weekends. Seattle Parks and Recreation could work with the VA to share its
existing nearby parking spaces offsite during these times when parking demand
at the VA facility is low or use the parking spaces at the Parks Maintenance
Building onsite during these times.
• Magnolia Access Points – As noted in the Magnolia Bridge Traffic Maintenance

During Bridge Closure Report, the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W
intersection should be monitored and signalization or other operational changes
considered at the point that monitoring indicates they are warranted. Funding

for future improvements would need to be identified and prioritized against
other city needs at that time. SDOT prioritizes signals based on a variety of
factors, including crash history, expected growth, equity and potential for
partnering with developers.
The project would add less than one second of delay to two intersections near the Talaris
site that are projected to operate at LOS F and E. This increased delay would not be
considered a significant impact, as it is the long-standing precedent established by the
City’s traffic review team that delay increases less than 5 seconds at a signalized
intersection would not be significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse
transportation-related impacts are expected.

3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section of the FEIS describes the public services that serve the Fort Lawton and Talaris
sites, including police service, fire and emergency service, and public schools. Potential
impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives on these services are evaluated and
mitigation measures are identified.
Key Findings
Police service for the Fort Lawton site is provided by the Seattle Police Department (SPD)
West Precinct. Fire and emergency services are provided by the Seattle Fire Department
(SFD), with the closest station being Station 41. Seattle Public Schools provides public school
service and the closest schools are Lawton Elementary School, McClure Middle School and
Ballard High School. Police service for the Talaris site is provided by the SPD North Precinct.
Fire and emergency services are provided by SFD, with the closest station being Station 38.
Seattle Public Schools provides public school service and the closest schools are Laurelhurst
Elementary School, Eckstein Middle School and Roosevelt High School.
Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites would result
in increased demand for police and fire/emergency services during construction. These
demands would be temporary, are not expected to be substantial and would cease once full
buildout of the site is completed.
Increases in on-site population with development on the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives
1 and 2 would result in an increase in demand for police and fire/emergency services, as well
generate new students that would attend public schools. Alternative 2 would result in less
demand for public services due to fewer residential units than Alternative 1. There would be
no new on-site population under Alternative 3; however, the provision of new park facilities
could generate some increase in demand for police and fire/emergency services. This
increased demand would be less than under Alternatives 1 or 2. New students would attend
Lawton Elementary School and Ballard High School, which are projected to be over capacity.
Through tax revenues generated directly and indirectly from development of the Fort
Lawton site and the service purveyors’ planning processes, all the purveyors could handle
the increased demand for services from proposed development at the Fort Lawton site;
therefore, no significant public services impacts are expected.
Increases in on-site population with development on the Talaris site under Alternatives 2 and
3 would result in an increased demand for police and fire/emergency services, and would
generate new students that would attend public schools. New students would attend
Eckstein Middle School, which is projected to be over capacity. Through tax revenues
generated directly and indirectly from development of the Talaris site and the service
purveyors’ planning processes, all the purveyors could handle the increased demand for
services from proposed development at the Talaris site; therefore, no significant public
service impacts are expected.

March 2018 Public Services
Methodology
The analysis of public services is based on personal communication with the public service
providers, including the Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department and Seattle
Public Schools. As appropriate, information from the most current capital facilities plans,
annual reports and website data for each of the public service purveyors was also used for
the analysis.
This sub-section summarizes the existing public services that serve the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites, including police service, fire and emergency service, and public schools.
Fort Lawton Site
Police Service
The Seattle Police Department (SPD) serves five precinct areas within the city of Seattle
(North Precinct, East Precinct, South Precinct, Southwest Precinct and West Precinct). The
Fort Lawton site is located within the service jurisdiction of the West Precinct, which is
headquartered at 810 Virginia Street (approximately four miles to the southeast of the site).
The West Precinct is further divided into four sectors and 12 beats; the site is located within
the Queen Sector and Beat 1 (Q1).1
In 2016, SPD had 1,376 sworn officers, from the rank of police officer through police chief,
and 513 civilian employees. The West Precinct includes approximately 183 officers and
approximately 55 vehicles that are used by officers during their work in the field. The
minimum number of officers assigned to a given shift is 18 officers which occurs during 1 st
Watch (between 3 AM and 11 AM).1
SPD does not have adopted level of service standards or guidelines but instead uses Micro
Community Policing Plans to address the priorities of specific neighborhoods. The Fort
Lawton site is located within the Magnolia Micro Community Policing Plan area. Micro
Community Policing Plans are designed to address the distinctive needs of each community
based on community engagement, crime data and police services. Based on data collected
from April 2017 through June 2017, the public safety priorities for the Magnolia Micro
Community Policing Plan area were car prowls, burglaries, auto theft and car/RV/bus
camping.2
1
Personal communication with Alyssa Pulliam, Seattle Police Department Finance, Policy and Planning. September
2017.
2
Seattle Police Department. Magnolia Micro Community Policing Plan.
https://www.seattle.gov/police/community-policing/what-spd-is-doing. September 2017.

Table 3.11-1 presents the annual number of computer aided dispatch (CAD) events for the
West Precinct over the past 5 years. From 2012 to 2016, the number of dispatched events
for the West Precinct has increased by approximately 9%.
Table 3.11-1
WEST PRECINCT CAD EVENTS: 2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CAD Events 110,355 128,607 112,867 116,833 120,820
% Change over Previous 17% -12% 4% 3%
Year
Source: Seattle Police Department, 2017.
More specifically, Table 3.11-2 summarizes the annual calls for service over the last five
years for the Q1 Beat, which includes the Fort Lawton site and vicinity. As noted in the
table, there was a dramatic decrease in calls for service in 2013 and a sharp increase in calls
for service in 2014 and 2015. Overall, calls for service have increased by approximately 7%
since 2012.
Table 3.11-2
Q1 BEAT CALLS FOR SERVICE: 2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Calls for Service 3,173 457 1,372 3,306 3,406
% Change over Previous -86% 200% 141% 3%
Year
Regarding projected future staffing needs for the SPD, the City of Seattle has called for and
approved a plan to hire 200 new police officers by the year 2020.
Fire and Emergency Service

The Seattle Fire Department (SFD) provides fire protection, Basic Life Support (BLS) and
Advanced Life Support (ALS)/Emergency Medical Services (EMS) throughout the city of
Seattle, including the Fort Lawton site, from 33 fire stations. In 2016, the Department had
995 uniformed personnel, with an on-duty strength of 207 officers. Apparatus at all
stations includes: 33 fire engines, 11 ladder trucks, 5 aid units (basic life support), 7 medic
units (advanced life support), 2 air trucks, 4 fire boats and 2 hose wagons.3
The closest SFD stations to the Fort Lawton site are Fire Station 20 (2800 15 th Avenue W –
located approximately 1.7 miles to the southeast) and Station 41 (2416 34th Avenue W –
3
Seattle Fire Department. 2016 Annual Report, 2017.

located approximately 1.5 miles to the south). Station 3 is located approximately 1.2 miles
to the east of the site but is an unstaffed station that serves as the base of operations for
the SFD’s fireboats on the freshwater side of the Ballard Locks. Station 20 and Station 41 are
each staffed by 4 personnel each day (1 supervisor and 3 firefighters) and each station
maintains one fire engine onsite.4
The SFD has established a response time goal of four minutes (to be achievable 90% of the
time) for the first engine company to arrive at the scene of a reported structure fire or Basic
Life Service (BLS) medical emergency. Between 2012 and 2016, the SFD met this goal on
83% to 85% of those responses. The SFD also maintains a response time goal of eight
minutes (to be achievable 90% of the time) to all ALS/EMS emergencies and met this goal
on 85% to 89% of those responses between 2012 and 2016.4
Table 3.11-3 shows the historical incident response data for the SFD from 2012 to 2016,
including responses to calls for fire protection and responses for EMS calls. As shown in the
table, the majority of the incidents responded to by SFD were for EMS calls.
Table 3.11-3
SUMMARY OF SFD RESPONSES: 2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fire 12,651 13,388 14,260 15,079 15,787
EMS 69,082 71,948 75,720 77,773 79,454
Total 81,733 85,336 89,980 92,852 95,241
% Change over Previous 4% 5% 3% 2%
Year
Source: Seattle Fire Department, 2017.
More specifically, Table 3.11-4 summarizes the historical incident responses for the closest
stations to the Fort Lawton site (Station 20 and Station 41) over the last five years. Similar
to the overall SFD, the majority of incidents responded to by Station 20 and Station 41 were
for EMS calls.
4
Personal communication with Jay Hagen, Seattle Fire Department Assistant Chief – Operations Division.
September 2017.

Table 3.11-4
SUMMARY OF SFD RESPONSES FOR STATION 20 AND STATION 41:
2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station
20 41 20 41 20 41 20 41 20 41
Fire 200 122 226 147 234 132 22 154 265 121
EMS 847 559 920 522 892 503 983 565 1,118 581
Total 1,047 681 1,146 669 1,795 635 1,005 719 1,383 702
% 9% -2% 57% -5% -44% 13% 38% -2%
Change
Public Schools
The Fort Lawton site is located within the enrollment boundaries of Seattle Public Schools
(SPS). SPS contains 99 schools at various grade levels, including 59 elementary schools (K-6),
11 K-8 schools, 10 middle schools, 12 high schools and 7 service schools. SPS serves a total
student population of approximately 54,976 students and has a staff of approximately 6,371
personnel, approximately 4,810 of which are educators.5
The schools that are closest and would be anticipated to serve the Fort Lawton site include
Lawton Elementary School (4000 27th Avenue W – located 0.7 mile east of the site), McClure
Middle School (1915 1st Avenue W – located 2.7 miles east of the site) and Ballard High
School (1418 NW 65th Street – located 1.7 miles northeast of the site). SPS anticipates
opening Magnolia Elementary School and Lincoln High School in 2019, which are expected
to help absorb demand in surrounding areas and could affect the boundaries of Lawton
Elementary School and Ballard High School.
Table 3.11-5 summarizes the existing estimated right size capacity 6 of the schools that
currently serve the Fort Lawton site and vicinity.
Table 3.11-6 presents the enrollment for the schools that would serve the Fort Lawton site
from 2012 – 2016. As noted in the table, enrollment at the schools has been relatively
stable over the last five years. Lawton Elementary and McClure Middle School maintained
enrollment levels that were below the right size capacity for each school, while Ballard High
School had a higher enrollment than its right sized capacity as of 2016.
5
Seattle Public Schools. Seattle Public Schools Website
http://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=1529516. September 2017.
6
Estimated right size capacity is the number of students that can be accommodated assuming appropriately sized
and configured classrooms and space for preschools and other programs.

Table 3.11-5
CAPACITY OF SCHOOLS THAT SERVE THE FORT LAWTON SITE
Estimated Right Size Capacity

Lawton Elementary 452 students
McClure Middle School 615 students
Ballard High School 1,606 students
Source: Seattle Public Schools, 2017.
Table 3.11-6
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN FORT LAWTON VICINITY: 2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Lawton Elementary 433 422 419 426 443
% Change -3% -1% 2% 4%
McClure MS 448 520 540 554 552
% Change 16% 4% 3% -1%
Ballard HS 1,609 1,582 1,634 1,665 1,798
% Change -2% 3% 2% 8%
SPS completed their most recent five-year enrollment projections in October through
November 2017 to prepare for student enrollment changes and plan for future growth
within the district. Table 3.11-7 presents the five-year enrollment projections for each of
the schools that are most proximate to the Fort Lawton site. Based on these five-year
projections, Lawton Elementary and Ballard High School would be over their right size
capacity in the 2020-21 school year, while McClure Middle School ) would be below its right
size capacity. As mentioned previously, SPS anticipates opening Magnolia Elementary
School and Lincoln High School in 2019, which are expected to help absorb demand in
surrounding areas and affect the boundaries of Lawton Elementary School and Ballard High
School.
Table 3.11-7
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE FORT LAWTON
VICINITY: 2012 – 2016
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Change from

2016-21
Lawton Elementary 446 513 553 595 641 +195
McClure MS 552 540 552 548 548 -4
Ballard HS 1,798 1,882 2,035 1,842 1,787 -11

As part of their planning process, SPS maintains data regarding the student yield rate for all
students in grades K-12 in each part of Seattle for various types of housing (i.e., apartment,
condominiums, single-family residences, etc.). The rate indicates the percentage of students
that would be generated based on the number and type of housing unit. Within the
McClure Middle School area (which would include the Fort Lawton site), the student yield
rate for apartments is 2.3%, for condominiums the rate is 1.9% and for single-family
residences the rate is 27.6%.
Talaris Site
Police Service
SPD provides police service to the Talaris site. The site is located within the service
jurisdiction of the North Precinct, which is headquartered at 10049 College Way N
(approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest of the site). The North Precinct is further divided
into specific sectors and beats; the Talaris site is located within the University Sector and
Beat 3 (U3).7
The North Precinct includes approximately 200 officers and approximately 62 vehicles that
are used by officers during their work in the field. The minimum number of officers assigned
to a given shift in the North Precinct is 25 officers, which occurs during 1 st Watch (between
3 AM and 11 AM).1
The Talaris site is located within the University District Micro Community Policing Plan area.
Based on data collected from April 2017 through June 2017, the public safety priorities for
the University District Micro Community Policing Plan area were car prowls, burglaries,
property crime and homeless encampments.8
Table 3.11-8 presents the annual number of computer aided dispatch (CAD) events for the
North Precinct over the past 5 years. From 2016 to 2012, the number of dispatched events
for the West Precinct has increased by approximately 10%.
7
Personal communication with Alyssa Pulliam, Seattle Police Department Finance, Policy and Planning. September
2017.
8
Seattle Police Department. University District Micro Community Policing Plan.
https://www.seattle.gov/police/community-policing/what-spd-is-doing. September 2017.

Table 3.11-8
NORTH PRECINCT CAD EVENTS: 2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CAD Events 99,030 104,523 100,312 102,657 108,996
% Change over 6% -4% 2% 6%
Previous Year
More specifically, Table 3.11-9 summarizes the annual calls for service over the last five
years for the U3 Beat, which includes the Talaris site and vicinity. As noted in the table,
there was a dramatic decrease in calls for service in 2013 and a sharp increase in calls for
service in 2014 and 2015. Overall, calls for service have decreased within the U3 Beat by
approximately 7% since 2012.
Table 3.11-9
U3 BEAT CALLS FOR SERVICE: 2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Calls for Service 5,527 728 1,804 4,167 5,113
% Change over -87% 148% 131% 23%
Previous Year

SFD provides fire service to the Talaris site. The closest SFD stations to the site are Fire
Station 17 (1050 NE 50th Street – located approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast) and
Station 38 (4004 NE 55th Street – located approximately 0.5 mile to the north). Station 17
houses one fire engine, one ladder truck, one battalion chief vehicle and one medic unit;
the station is staffed by 11 personnel (two supervisors, six firefighters, two
firefighter/paramedics and one battalion chief).9
Table 3.11-3 presents the historical incident response data for the SFD from 2012 to 2016,
including responses to calls for fire protection and responses for EMS calls. More
specifically, Table 3.11-10 summarizes the historical incident responses for the stations that
are closest to the Talaris site (Station 17 and Station 38). Similar to the overall SFD, the
majority of the incidents that were responded to by Station 17 and Station 38 were for EMS
calls.
9
Personal communication with Jay Hagen, Seattle Fire Department Assistant Chief – Operations Division.
September 2017.

Table 3.11-10
SUMMARY OF SFD RESPONSES FOR STATION 17 AND STATION 38:
2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station
17 38 17 38 17 38 17 38 17 38
Fire 572 287 638 285 662 312 726 316 726 328
EMS 2,406 1,242 2,540 1,271 2,711 1,305 2,929 1,392 2,967 1,384
Total 2,978 1,529 3,178 1,556 3,373 1,617 3,655 1,708 3,693 1,712
% 9% -2% 57% -5% -44% 13% 38% -2%
Change
Public Schools
The Talaris site is within the enrollment boundaries of SPS. The schools that are closest and
are anticipated to serve the Talaris site include Laurelhurst Elementary School (4530 46th
Avenue NE – located 0.3 mile to the northeast), Eckstein Middle School (3003 NE 75th Street
– located 1.5 miles to the north) and Roosevelt High School (1410 NE 66th Street – located
1.6 miles to the northwest of the site). SPS also anticipates opening Lincoln High School in
2019, which could affect the boundaries of Roosevelt High School.
Table 3.11-11 summarizes the existing estimated right size capacity of the schools that
currently serve the Talaris site and vicinity.
Table 3.11-11
CAPACITY OF SCHOOLS THAT SERVE THE TALARIS SITE
Estimated Right Size Capacity
Laurelhurst Elementary 400 students
Eckstein Middle School 925 students
Roosevelt High School 1,719 students
Table 3.11-12 summarizes the enrollment for the schools that would serve the Talaris site
from 2012 – 2016. As noted in the table, enrollment at the schools has been relatively
stable over the last five years with the exception of 2014 for Eckstein Middle School which
saw a 28% decrease in enrollment from the previous year. In 2016, Eckstein Middle School
maintained enrollment that was below the right size capacity for the school, while

Laurelhurst Elementary and Roosevelt High School had an enrollment that was almost
exactly at the right sized capacity for each school as of 2016.
Table 3.11-12
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN TALARIS VICINITY: 2012 – 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Laurelhurst Elementary 410 427 421 432 403
Eckstein MS 1,298 1,220 881 907 980
Roosevelt HS 1,691 1,712 1,695 1,689 1,715

-
Table 3.11-13 presents the five-year enrollment projections for each of the schools that are
most proximate to the Talaris site. Based on these projections, Eckstein Middle School
would be over its right size capacity (1,060 students) in the 2020-21 school year, while both
Laurelhurst Elementary (400 students) and Roosevelt High School (1,715 students) would be
below their right size capacity. As mentioned previously, SPS anticipates opening Lincoln
High School in 2019, which could affect the boundaries of Roosevelt High School.
Table 3.11-13
ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE TALARIS
VICINITY: 2012 – 2016
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Change

from
2016-21
Laurelhurst Elementary 416 397 391 375 365 -51
Eckstein MS 980 967 1,014 1,032 1,055 +139

1% 7% 7% -1%
Roosevelt HS 1,713 1,813 1,891 1,418 1,487 -226
6% 4% -25% 5%
As mentioned for the Fort Lawton site, as part of their planning process, SPS maintains data
on the student yield rate for all students in grades K-12 in each part of Seattle for various
types of housing. The rate indicates the percentage of students that would be generated
based on the number and type of housing unit. Within the Eckstein Middle School area
(which would include the Talaris site), the student yield rate for apartments is 5.9%, for
condominiums the rate is 4.0% and for single-family residences the rate is 31.1%.

An analysis of the potential public services impacts of Alternative 1, the Applicant’s

Alternative).

Under Alternative 1, development would feature a mix of affordable housing on the Fort
Lawton site, including affordable rental and ownership and formerly homeless housing.
Approximately 238 housing units would be provided on the site. Public park uses would also
be included. No development is assumed for the Talaris site.
Fort Lawton Site
Police Service
Construction
Construction activities associated with development under Alternative 1 could result in an

increase in demand for police service due to potential construction site theft and/or
vandalism. Potential construction-related increases in demand for police service would be
temporary in nature and would cease once full buildout of the site is completed (assumed
to occur in 2025). It is anticipated that the construction site would be secured with fencing
for the duration of construction and that existing SPD staff would be sufficient to respond to
any potential service calls resulting from construction activities. It is also possible that police
staffing and resources would be needed at times for traffic management during
construction activities.
Operation
Increases in the on-site population associated with the development of affordable housing
and senior supportive housing under Alternative 1 would be incremental over the
approximately seven-year buildout of the Fort Lawton site and would be accompanied by
incremental increases in demand for police service. New park and recreation uses would
also be anticipated to generate some increased demand for police service. SPD expects that
call volumes could increase with development on the site; however, the exact number of
incremental new calls cannot be quantified.10
10
Personal Communication with Alyssa Pulliam, Seattle Police Department Finance, Policy and Planning.
September 2017.

There is some thought that affordable housing can result in potential increases in crime in
the surrounding areas. However, there is no definitive evidence that this is the case, and
several studies and literature do not support this conclusion. In a 2013 research paper,
Michael Lens, a professor of Urban Planning at the University of California at Los Angeles,
analyzed numerous studies, research and literature that have been conducted over the past
30 years in cities across the country on the subject of affordable housing and its effect on
neighborhood crime. Nearly all the studies referenced conclude that there is little evidence
that public or affordable housing attracts crime, and that there is little evidence for crime
spillovers into surrounding neighborhoods. In particular, a 2003 study in Denver examined
scattered/dispersed site public housing’s effect on neighborhood crime and compared
predicated and actual crime rates in neighborhoods with and without public housing. The
2003 study found no discernable impacts from dispersed public housing on crime rates in
Denver. They also conducted focus groups where the consensus among participants was
that public housing would bring down property values and increase crime. However, the
quantitative analysis concluded that property values increased and that there was no
increase in crime. Mr. Lens concluded that whether looking at larger public housing
projects, vouchers or scattered-site public housing, the effects on neighborhood crime are
typically quite small.11
In addition, a 2016 nationwide analysis of affordable housing projects funded through the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program found that with few exceptions, low-
income housing built in the nation’s 20 least affordable housing markets had “no effect on
home values.” The study examined housing projects built over a 10-year period, including in
the Seattle area. In particular, the report found that there is little cause for concern in cities
where housing is either expensive or in short supply.12
Development of senior supportive housing under Alternative 1 would include the provision
of a comprehensive package of services focused on residential stability and the well-being
of residents, including case management services provided onsite by Catholic Community
Services of Western Washington and residential counselors that would be available onsite
24 hours a day (see Chapter 2 for details). These support services could reduce the need for
police service.
While it is anticipated that new development and associated on-site population would
result in an increase in police service calls, SPD expects that they would have the capacity to
continue to meet the police service needs on the site and in the remainder of the city of
Seattle. SPD does not anticipate that they would need to increase staffing levels or provide
equipment upgrades as a result of the project, beyond the new staffing plan identified
under Affected Environment (City of Seattle’s approved plan for 200 new officers by
2020).10
11
Michael C. Lens. Subsidized Housing and Crime: Theory, Mechanisms and Evidence. January 2013.
12
Cheryl Young, There Doesn’t Go the Neighborhood: Low-Income Housing Has No Impact on Nearby Home Values.
November 2016.

Tax revenues generated directly and indirectly from development of the Fort Lawton site
(including sales tax, retail sales tax, property tax, utility tax and other fees, licenses and
permits) would be accrued and would help to offset the increased demands for police
service. In addition, SPD would continue to identify and plan for the future needs of the
department as part of the annual strategic planning and budgeting process. As a result,
significant impacts to police service are not anticipated.
Construction
During construction of the project under Alternative 1, SFD service calls would relate to
inspection of specific construction projects onsite and to respond to potential construction-
related fires, accidents and/or injuries. Site preparation and construction of new
infrastructure and buildings could also increase the risk of a medical emergency or
accidental fire that would require a response by SFD. Existing SFD staffing and equipment
are expected to be sufficient to handle any increased service needed for on-site
construction activities. Construction is also expected to result in additional traffic in the area
and potentially temporary street closures that could affect fire and EMS responses over the
short term. However, SFD indicates that this would not materially impact fire and EMS
response.13
Operation
Increases in the on-site population under Alternative 1 would be incremental over the
buildout of the Fort Lawton site and are anticipated to result in an increase in fire and EMS
calls. New park and recreation uses (particularly active recreation uses such as the multi-
purpose fields) are also anticipated to generate some increased demand for emergency
services. SFD expects that call volumes could increase with development on the Fort Lawton
site; however, the exact number of incremental new calls cannot be quantified.14
All new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the 2015 Seattle Fire Code,
which is comprised of the 2015 International Fire Code with City of Seattle amendments.
Adequate fire flow to serve the site would be provided as required by the 2015 Fire Code
and specific requirements would be adhered to regarding emergency access to structures.
While it is anticipated that new development and associated on-site population would
result in an increase in fire response and EMS calls, the SFD anticipates that they would
have the staffing and equipment capacity to continue to meet the fire and emergency
service needs on the site and in the remainder of the city of Seattle. SFD does not anticipate
13
Personal Communication with Jay Hagen, Seattle Fire Department Assistant Chief – Operations Division.
September 2017.
14
September 2017.

that they would need to increase staffing levels or provide equipment upgrades as a result
of development under Alternative 1.11
Tax revenues generated from development of the Fort Lawton site would be accrued and
would help to offset the increased demands for fire and emergency services. In addition,
SFD would continue to identify and plan for the future needs of the department as part of
the annual strategic planning and budgeting process. As a result, significant impacts to fire
and emergency service are not anticipated.
Public Schools
As noted under Affected Environment, SPS does not have standard student generation rates
but does maintain data regarding the student yield rate for all students in grades K-12 in
each part of the city of Seattle for various types of housing. The rate indicates the
percentage of students that would be generated based on the number and type of housing
units. Within the McClure Middle School area (which would include the Fort Lawton site),
the student yield rate for apartments is 2.3%, for condominiums is 1.9% and for single-
family residences is 27.6%. These student yield rates have been used in conjunction with
the number and types of housing units assumed under each of the EIS alternatives to
determine approximate number of students that could be generated by development. For
the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that senior supportive housing units would not
generate any students, and in order to provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that all
other residential units would be categorized as single-family residences since that type of
housing typically generates the greatest number of students.
Operation
Table 3.11-14 summarizes the new students generated by development on the Fort Lawton
site under each of the EIS alternatives based on the methodology described above. Under
Alternative 1, development on the Fort Lawton site would generate approximately 41 new
students.
Table 3.11-14
FORECASTED STUDENT GENERATION FOR THE FORT LAWTON SITE –
ALTERNATIVES 1 - 4
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Total Students 41 31 0 0
Source: Seattle Public Schools and City of Seattle, 2017.
As noted in the Affected Environment discussion, based on SPS student enrollment

projections, it is anticipated that Lawton Elementary would be over its right size capacity
while both McClure Middle School and Ballard High School would be below their right size
capacity during the 2020-2021 school year. It should be noted that SPS anticipates that

Magnolia Elementary and Lincoln High School would be operational by 2019, which is
expected to help absorb demand in the surrounding area and could affect the boundaries
and enrollment for Lawton Elementary and Ballard High School. It is not known which
specific grade levels new students under Alternative 1 would attend.
Based on the most current SPS student enrollment projections, it is anticipated that Lawton
Elementary and Ballard High School would exceed their right-size capacity, while McClure
Middle School would be below its right-size capacity during the 2020-2021 school year,
without development under the EIS alternatives.
For elementary students, the opening of Magnolia (with approximately 500 new seats
expected) is not yet reflected in SPS projections, since the precise impact from boundary
changes has yet to be determined. However, SPS believes the opening of Magnolia will
resolve any capacity issues expected at Lawton Elementary by 2020-21. In addition, SPS
recently obtained funding to create an expected six additional classrooms at Coe
Elementary, which is also not reflected in current projections.
For high school students, SPS has provided updated projections that estimate the opening
of Lincoln will partially resolve capacity challenges at Ballard High School, but that capacity
issues would remain by 2020-2021 (as reflected in the projections). However, SPS is
currently pursuing development of a new high school in the downtown area that would
provide further relief over the long-term.
For middle school students, SPS has stated that by adding elementary space to the area,
they could actually free up space for more middle schoolers at Catherine Blaine. SPS
estimates that with the addition of six classrooms at Coe, they could gain an additional 150
seats for that middle school service area.
In general, increases in student population over the buildout period could be addressed as
part of SPS’s annual planning processes. SPS could adjust the attendance area boundaries,
provide transportation service for these students and/or take other measures to
accommodate the number of students in excess of the right size capacity.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1, the Talaris site would not be redeveloped and no changes or impacts
to public services are anticipated.

Housing Offsite
Under Alternative 2, the Fort Lawton site would be developed in market-rate single-family
housing, and the development of affordable and formerly homeless housing would occur on
the Talaris site. Approximately 113 market-rate houses would be developed on the Fort
Lawton site and approximately 238 affordable housing units and associated community

facilities would be developed on the Talaris site. No active or passive public park areas
would be provided on the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites under Alternative 2.
Fort Lawton Site
Police Service
Construction
Construction activities associated with development under Alternative 2 could result in an

increase in demand for police services due to potential construction site theft or vandalism.
Potential construction-related increases in demand for police services are anticipated to be
lower than under Alternative 1 since few residential units would be developed on the site
and no park and recreation facilities would be constructed.
Operation
Increases in the on-site population associated with the development of market-rate single-
family housing would be incremental over the approximately seven-year buildout of the
Fort Lawton site and would be accompanied by incremental increases in demand for police
service. SPD anticipates that call volumes could increase with development on the Fort
Lawton site; however, the exact number of incremental new calls cannot be quantified.15
While new development and associated on-site population would result in an associated
increase in police service calls, it is anticipated that this increase would be less than under
Alternative 1 due to fewer residential units and lower on-site population. SPD indicates that
they would have the capacity to continue to meet the police service needs on the site and in
the remainder of the city of Seattle and does not anticipate that they would need to
increase staffing levels or provide equipment upgrades as a result of the project, beyond
the new staffing plan identified under Affected Environment.12
Tax revenues generated from development of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2
would be accrued and would help to offset the increased demands for police services. In
addition, SPD would continue to identify and plan for the future needs of the department as
part of the annual strategic planning and budgeting process. As a result, significant impacts
to police services are not anticipated.
Construction
SFD service calls are anticipated to temporarily increase during construction under
Alternative 2 and would be related to inspection of specific construction projects onsite and
15
September 2017.

to respond to potential construction-related fires, accidents and/or injuries. Potential
construction-related increases in demand for fire and emergency services are anticipated to
be less than under Alternative 1 since fewer residential units would be developed on the
site and no park and recreation facilities would be constructed.
Operation
Increases in the on-site population associated with the development of market-rate single-
family residences under Alternative 2 would be incremental over the buildout of the Fort
Lawton site and are anticipated to result in an associated increased in fire and EMS calls.
SFD expects that call volumes could increase with development on the site; however, the
exact number of incremental new calls cannot be quantified. It is anticipated that the
increase in call volumes would be less than Alternative 1 since fewer residential units would
be constructed on the site and no parks and recreation facilities would be provided. While
it is anticipated that new development and on-site population would result in an associated
increase in fire response and EMS calls, the SFD anticipates that they would have the
staffing and equipment capacity to continue to meet the fire and emergency service needs
on the site and in the remainder of the city of Seattle.16
As under Alternative 1, all new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the 2015
Seattle Fire Codes. Adequate fire flow to serve the site would be provided as required by
the 2015 Fire Code and specific requirements would be adhered to regarding emergency
access to structures.
Tax revenues generated from development of the Fort Lawton site would be accrued and
would help to offset the increased demands for fire and emergency services. In addition,
SFD would continue to identify and plan for the future needs of the department as part of
the annual strategic planning and budgeting process. As a result, significant impacts to fire
and emergency services would not be anticipated.
Public Schools
Development of market-rate single-family housing under Alternative 2 would generate new
students from the Fort Lawton site. As noted in Table 3.11-14, development under
Alternative 2 would generate approximately 31 new students, compared with 41 new
students under Alternative 1. It is not known which specific grade levels new students
would attend. Similar to Alternative 1, SPS anticipates that its surrounding schools would
have adequate capacity to accommodate new students, and would address such issues
through its annual and long-term planning processes.
16
September 2017.

Talaris Site
Police Services
Construction
Construction activities associated with development of affordable and senior supportive

housing on the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for the
Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1. Potential construction-related increases in demand
for police services could include a temporary increase in demand for police services due to
potential construction site theft or vandalism and would cease once full buildout of the site
is completed. It is anticipated that the construction site would be secured with fencing for
the duration of construction, and that existing SPD staff would be sufficient to respond to
any potential service calls resulting from construction activities. It is also possible that police
staffing and resources would be needed at times for traffic management during
construction activities.
Operation
Increases in the on-site population associated with the development of affordable and
senior supportive housing would be incremental over the approximately seven-year
buildout of the Talaris site and would be accompanied by incremental increases in demand
for police service. Increases in demand for police services under Alternative 2 is anticipated
to be similar to or less than at the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 since no parks and
recreation facilities would be provided on the Talaris site. SPD expects that call volumes
would increase with development on the Talaris site; however, the exact number of
incremental new calls cannot be quantified. While call volumes are anticipated to increase,
SPD expects that they would have the capacity to continue to meet the police service needs
on the site and in the remainder of the city of Seattle. SPD does not anticipate that they
would need to increase staffing levels or provide equipment upgrades as a result of the
project, beyond the new staffing plan identified under Affected Environment.17
As described for the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1, there is some thought that
affordable housing can result in potential increases in crime in the surrounding areas.
However, several studies and research literature have shown that the evidence indicates
that whether looking at larger public housing projects, vouchers or scattered-site public
housing, the effects on neighborhood crime are typically quite small.
Similar to the development of senior supportive housing under Alternative 1, development

on the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would include the provision of a comprehensive
package of services focused on residential stability and the well-being of residents, including
case management services provided onsite by Catholic Community Services of Western
17
September 2017.

Washington and residential counselors that would be available onsite 24 hours a day (see
Chapter 2 for details). These support services could reduce the need for police service.
Tax revenues generated from development on the Talaris site would be accrued and would
help to offset the increased demands for police service. In addition, SPD would continue to
identify and plan for the future needs of the department as part of the annual strategic
planning and budgeting process. As a result, significant impacts to police services are not
anticipated.
Fire and Emergency Services
Construction
During construction of affordable housing and senior supportive housing on the Talaris site
under Alternative 2, it is anticipated that services calls to SFD would temporarily increase
similar to Alternative 1 development on the Fort Lawton site. Existing SFD staffing and
equipment are expected to be sufficient to handle any increased service needed for on-site
construction activities. It is also possible that construction could result in additional traffic
in the area with temporary street closures, which could temporarily affect fire and EMS
responses. SFD indicates that this will not materially impact fire and EMS response.
Operation
Like development of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1, increases in the on-site
population on the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would be incremental and are anticipated
to result in an associated increase in fire and EMS calls. However, increased demand for fire
and emergency services from the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would be less than from
the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 since no new park and recreation uses would be
provided. SFD expects that call volumes could increase with development on the Talaris
site; however, the exact number of incremental new calls cannot be quantified. SFD
anticipates that they would have the staffing and equipment capacity to continue to meet
the fire and emergency service needs on the site and in the remainder of the city of Seattle.
SFD does not anticipate that they would need to increase staffing levels or provide
equipment upgrades as a result of the project.18
All new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the 2015 Seattle Fire Code.
Adequate fire flow to serve the site would be provided as required by the 2015 Fire Code
and specific requirements would be adhered to regarding emergency access to structures.
Tax revenues generated from development of the Talaris site would be accrued and would
help to offset the increased demands for fire and emergency service. In addition, SFD would
continue to identify and plan for the future needs of the department as part of the annual
18
September 2017.

strategic planning and budgeting process. As a result, significant impacts to fire and
emergency service are not anticipated.
Public Schools
As described previously, student yield rate data compiled by SPS is used to forecast the
number of students that could be generated by development on the Talaris site. Within the
Eckstein Middle School area (which includes the Talaris site), the student yield rate for
apartments is 5.9%, for condominiums the rate is 4.0% and for single-family residences the
rate is 31.1%. These student yield rates have been used in conjunction with the number and
types of housing units assumed under each of the EIS alternatives to determine
approximate number of students that could be generated by development under the EIS
alternatives. As described under Alternative 1, for the purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed that senior supportive housing units would not generate any students, and in
order to provide a conservative analysis, it is assumed that all other residential units would
be categorized as single-family residences since that type of housing typically generates the
greatest number of students.
Operation
Table 3.11-15 summarizes the new students that would be generated by development on
the Talaris site under each of the EIS alternatives based on the methodology described
above. Under Alternative 2, it is anticipated that development on the site would generate
approximately 47 new students.
Table 3.11-15
FORECASTED STUDENT GENERATION FOR THE TALARIS SITE –
ALTERNATIVES 1 - 4
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Total Students 0 47 47 0
Source: Seattle Public Schools and City of Seattle, 2017.
As noted in Affected Environment, based on SPS student enrollment projections for the
2020-2021 school year, Eckstein Middle School would be over its right size capacity while
both Laurelhurst Elementary and Roosevelt High School would be below their right size
capacity. While it is not known which specific grade levels potential new students would
attend, Laurelhurst Elementary and Roosevelt High School would have adequate capacity to
accommodate additional students generated by development under Alternative 2.
However, additional students at Eckstein Middle School would be within the boundaries of
a school that is projected to be over its right size capacity. Increases in student population
over the buildout period could be addressed as part of SPS’s annual planning processes. SPS
could adjust the attendance area boundaries, provide transportation service for these
students and/or take other measures to accommodate the number of students in excess of

the right size capacity. However, these measures are limited without any immediate plans
for construction of new middle school capacity within this area of the SPS service area.
Since SPS has no new middle schools planned in the northeast Seattle area, the potential
impacts on school service under Alternative 2 at the Talaris site would be greater than
under Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site.
including passive and active recreation areas. New affordable and formerly homeless
housing would be developed on the Talaris site, including approximately 238 affordable
housing units and associated community facilities.
Fort Lawton Site
Police Service
Construction
Construction activities for the public park under Alternative 3 could result in potential
construction-related increases in demand for police service, including a temporary increase
in demand for police service due to potential construction site theft or vandalism and would
cease once full buildout of the site is completed. Due to the amount of development on the
Fort Lawton under Alternative 3, is anticipated that temporary construction-related impacts
to police services would be less than under Alternatives 1 or 2.
Operation
The operation of new park and recreation uses on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3
would generate some increased demand for police services. SPD expects that call volumes
could increase with development on the Fort Lawton site; however, while the exact number
of incremental new calls cannot be quantified it is anticipated that call volumes would be
less than Alternatives 1 and 2 due to the amount of development on the site. SPD indicates
that they would have the capacity to continue to meet the police service needs on the site
and in the city of Seattle and do not anticipate that they would need to increase staffing
levels or provide equipment upgrades as a result of the project, beyond the new staffing
plan identified under Affected Environment.19
19
September 2017.

Construction
Construction activities associated with the development of the public park could result in a
temporary increase in demand for fire and emergency service associated with a potential
construction-related medical emergency or accidental fire that would require a response by
the SFD. However, it is anticipated that this temporary increase would be less than under
Alternatives 1 and 2 due to the amount of development on the Fort Lawton site.
Operation
New park and recreation uses on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3 (particularly
active recreation uses such as the three multi-purpose fields) would generate some
increased demand for emergency services. Although the exact number of incremental new
calls cannot be quantified, it is anticipated that the increase in demand would be lower than
under Alternatives 1 and 2 due to less development on the site. SFD anticipates that they
would have the staffing and equipment capacity to continue to meet the fire and
emergency service needs on the site and in the remainder of the city of Seattle. SFD does
not anticipate that they would need to increase staffing levels or provide equipment
upgrades as a result of the project.20
Public Schools
Under Alternative 3, the Fort Lawton site would be developed as a public park and no new
residential units would be provided on the site. As a result, no new students would be
generated by development under Alternative 3 and no impacts to public school service are
anticipated.
Talaris Site
Alternative 3 assumes the same level of residential development on the Talaris site as
described under Alternative 2, including the same mix of affordable housing and senior
supportive housing. As a result, impacts to public services from development on the Talaris
site under Alternative 3 would be the same as under Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 4 and no redevelopment would occur on the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites
at this time. Both sites would remain in their existing conditions and no impacts to public
services would result.
20
September 2017.

The following measures have been identified to address the potential public services
• All new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the 2015 Seattle Fire Code,
which is comprised of the 2015 International Fire Code with City of Seattle
amendments.
• Adequate fire flow to serve development under the EIS alternatives would be provided
as required by the 2015 Fire Code and specific requirements would be adhered to
regarding emergency access to structures.
• The portions of the site that are under construction during phased development of the
site would be fenced and lit, and could be monitored by surveillance cameras to help
prevent construction site theft and vandalism.
• A portion of the tax revenues directly and indirectly generated from development under
the EIS alternatives – including construction sales tax, retail sales tax, property tax,
utility tax and other fees, licenses and permits - would accrue to the City of Seattle and
could help offset demand for public services.
• Increases in student population over the buildout period would be addressed through
SPS’s planning processes. SPS could take any or a combination of the following actions
to match capacity and enrollment under the EIS alternatives:
o Providing transportation service to schools with capacity;
o Adding, relocating or removing programs;
o Adjusting school boundaries;
o Adjusting geographic zones for option schools;
o Adding or removing portables;
o Adding to or renovating buildings; and/or
o Opening, reconstituting or closing buildings.

• King County Metro could provide shuttle service between the Fort Lawton Project and
downtown to enhance residents’ access to services and employment opportunities.
• Van service could be provided as part of the project for senior supportive housing and
possibly for the other affordable housing onsite to enhance access to services and
employment opportunities.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase demand for school service, including at schools that
are projected to be over capacity with or without the project (e.g., Lawton Elementary
School and Ballard High School in the Fort Lawton vicinity and Eckstein Middle School in the
Talaris vicinity). This impact on school service would be greater under Alternatives 2 and 3
at the Talaris site, as SPS does not have plans for a new middle school in the northeast
Seattle area, whereas in the service area at the Fort Lawton site there are immediate plans
to add new elementary capacity, as well as new high school capacity. Although general
growth-related pressures on schools are difficult to predict further into the future, SPS is
expected to take measures to address capacity issues, including provide transportation
service, adjust attendance area boundaries or add portables. As a result, no significant
unavoidable adverse schools or other public services impacts are anticipated.

3.12 UTILITIES
This section of the FEIS describes the utilities on and near the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites.
Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS alternatives are evaluated and mitigation
measures are identified. The section was prepared by MIG|SvR in December 2017.
Key Findings
Under existing conditions, there is no demand for potable water and sewage service at the
Fort Lawton site and low demand at the Talaris site. Potable water and sewage service is
currently provided by Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) at both sites; there are no known capacity
constraints. Both sites have an existing stormwater distribution system, but no water quality
treatment or flow control facilities are located at either site. Approximately 55% of the Fort
Lawton site and 30% of the Talaris site is currently impervious surface.
During construction of Alternative 1, 2 or 3, stormwater could be impacted by erosion,

sedimentation or pollutants. A temporary stormwater control system and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) would minimize potential impacts. With development on the Fort Lawton
site, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would reduce impervious surface coverage by approximately
15%, 10% and 20%, respectively. With development on the Talaris site, Alternatives 2 and 3
would increase impervious surfaces by approximately 20%.
Alternatives 1 and 2 on the Fort Lawton site would increase sewage flows to 41,720 and
39,550 gallons per day (gpd), respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 on the Talaris site would
both increase sewage flows to 41,720 gpd. Increases in potable water demand would be
approximately equivalent to the increases in sewage flow. Although Alternative 3 does not
include residential units, potable water demand could increase depending on irrigation
needs for the multi-purpose fields.
Methodology
Information for the utilities analysis is from available City of Seattle GIS documentation and
previous environmental documents including:
• U.S. Army Corps Final Environmental Assessment for BRAX 05 Recommendations for
Closure, Disposal, and Reuse of Fort Lawton, United States Army Reserve Center
(FACID WA030, WA031, WA012), Seattle, Washington (2012);
• City of Seattle Talaris Environmental (SEPA) Checklist (2008); and
• Triad Associates 4000P Preliminary Plat Drainage Report No 10-158 (2013).
Stormwater regulation is per the Seattle Stormwater Code (SMC 22.800) and the associated
guidance in the 2016 City of Seattle Stormwater Manual. These documents identify code
regulations in compliance with the Phase I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and provide guidance for the application and design of stormwater BMPs

March 2018 Utilities
and infrastructure facilities. Regulations and design standards for sewer and water systems
are per King County Health Department and City of Seattle.
This sub-section describes existing utilities on and near the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites,
including stormwater, sewer and water.
Fort Lawton Site
The approximately 34-acre Fort Lawton site includes several existing buildings, surface
parking and infrastructure that were part of the former U.S. Army Reserve Center. City
documentation indicates that existing on-site utilities were installed between the 1920s
and the late 1990s.
Stormwater
Approximately 55% of the site is currently impervious surface, including building footprints,
surface parking and roadways (see Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 for details). The asphalt-surfaced
Texas Way crosses northwest/southeast across the site with pedestrian access provided by
an adjacent cement concrete sidewalk. Additional site circulation is provided by smaller
site access roads that connect between parking lots, building sites and Texas Way. Surface
water is collected in storm drainage structures at site parking lots, in catch basins along
Texas Way and in roadside ditches where formal curb and gutter are not present. These
flows are conveyed to two mains that run north/south across the property.
A 12-inch stormwater line that runs north/south along the east edge of the property and
an 8-inch stormwater line that runs north/south through the center of the property convey
stormwater from the site. These two conveyance lines connect at a 5-foot diameter stand
pipe where a single storm line carries stormwater from the site northward to the 144-inch
King County Metro Main where stormwater is then conveyed to King County’s West Point
Sewage Treatment Plant in Discovery Park for treatment and discharge to Shilshole Bay
(see Figure 3.12-1, Fort Lawton Existing Utilities). The existing stormwater distribution
system at the Fort Lawton site is federal government-owned (U.S. Army) and drains into
King County’s combined stormwater and sewer trunk line in Commodore Way W to the
north of the Fort Lawton site. No water quality treatment or flow control facilities are
provided onsite. Surface water is collected along roadside ditches or by stormwater catch
basins.
Previous flooding has been reported at a residence downstream of the site. This flooding
has been addressed.

North
Source: SVR Design, 2017. Figure 3.12-1
Fort Lawton Existing Utilities
Sewer
The existing sewer distribution system onsite is Army-owned and was installed in the early
1940s. Treatment for these sewage flows is performed at the King County West Point
Sewage Treatment Plant. The site is currently vacant and there is no existing demand for
sewer service.
The site includes a network of 8-inch sewer lines that convey sewage flows northward. The
flows are discharged to the 144-inch King County Metro Main which carries flows to King
County’s West Point Sewage Treatment Plant. There are no known capacity constraints in
the sewer mains near the site (see Figure 3.12-1, Fort Lawton Existing Utilities).
Water
Existing water service to the Fort Lawton site is provided by SPU. The water infrastructure
on the site includes cast iron pipes from the 1920s, asbestos cement pipe from the 1950s
and ductile iron pipe installed more recently in 1999. The site is currently vacant and there
is no existing demand for potable water. SPU owns and operates more than 1,680 miles of
water mains, eight reservoirs, sixteen pump stations, 18,920 fire hydrants and more than
188,000 service lines to serve 1.3 million regional customers.1 The SPU 2013 Water System
Plan was prepared to ensure that SPU can meet the current and future demands for
potable water as development continues in the region. It includes consumption rates,
water conservation reports, planned infrastructure and operational improvements and
SPU’s guiding policies.
The site water connection is at the SPU-owned 8-inch main line (main) along 36th Avenue
W at W Government Way. An existing 8-inch combination meter at the main, near W Fort
Street, supplies a dead end 12-inch and 8-inch trunk-and-branch on-site water system and
12-inch on-site pumping station. Existing building-domestic and fire suppression systems
are connected to the on-site system, including the 50,000-square foot Veterans
Administration Building and the irrigation system for the 90,000-square foot Fort Lawton
Cemetery offsite. There are approximately 10 fire hydrants onsite.
The 8-inch water main serving the Fort Lawton site has an estimated capacity of 1,250
gallons per minute (gpm) under fire demand condition. SPU maintains a distribution water
main, with system capacity of 1,890 gpm in 40th Avenue E, about 300 feet west of the west
boundary of the Fort Lawton site (see Figure 3.12-1, Fort Lawton Existing Utilities).
Talaris Site
The approximately 18-acre Talaris site includes several existing buildings, surface parking
and infrastructure that are part of the Talaris conference center.
1
Seattle Public Utilities 2013 Water System Plan.

Stormwater
Approximately 30% of the site is currently in impervious surfaces, including building
footprints, pathways and surface parking. Stormwater facilities on the Talaris site were
installed in the early 1960s. No water quality treatment or flow control facilities are
provided onsite. A 72-inch stormwater main traverses southwest across the site, conveying
upstream flows from the Laurelhurst and Sandpoint neighborhoods, and the waters of
Yesler Creek, to the 72-inch main in 38th Avenue NE.
Site surface water and groundwater is collected by stormwater catch basins and
foundations drains and conveyed through 6-inch, 8-inch and 10-inch distribution lines to
the 72-inch main. A 60-inch line captures overflow from the manmade pond in the center
of the site and conveys the flows to a connection at the main at NE 41 st Street. All site and
upstream stormwater flows, including the waters of Yesler Creek, are ultimately conveyed
across the Union Bay Natural Area and then discharged through an existing outfall into the
Lake Washington Plant (see Figure 3.12-2, Talaris Existing Utilities).
Sewer
Existing sewer service to the site is provided by SPU. Sewer mains on the Talaris site were
installed in the late 1940s. Due to the low density of on-site development, the existing
sewer demand is low. A 30-inch sewer main and an 8-inch sewer line cross the northwest
corner of the site and convey sewage flows from the upstream Laurelhurst and Sandpoint
neighborhoods. These two sewer lines connect at an existing manhole located onsite. From
this manhole, sewage flows are conveyed westward in a 30-inch main onsite to the 30-inch
main in 38th Avenue NE. There are no known capacity constraints in the sewer mains near
the site.
A 30-inch sewer line serves the site’s central building, and 4-inch and 6-inch lines serve the
smaller buildings. City sewer cards indicate that sanitary flows from the site’s “lodge” in the
northwest part of the site are conveyed southward through a 6-inch/8-inch side sewer
along the south edge of the site before connecting into the main within 38th Avenue NE,
immediately north of MH 025-024. The remainder of the site’s sewage flows are conveyed
to the 30-inch main onsite before being conveyed to the main in 38th Avenue NE (see
Figure 3.12-2, Talaris Existing Utilities).
Water
Existing water service to the site is provided by SPU. The site is served by two water mains,
an 8-inch dead end distribution water main that terminates on the southeast corner of 41 st
Avenue NE and NE 41st Street and an 8-inch dead end lobe of the distribution system that is
fed from a connection at 36th Avenue NE and NE 45th Street. The 8-inch dead end
distribution main terminating at 41st Avenue NE and NE 41st Street was installed in the
1920s and has an estimated system capacity of just over 1,500 gpm. This water main serves
two existing hydrants along 38th Avenue NE and a 6-inch domestic water line at the south
side of the site. There are no on-site fire lines, so the hydrants are considered to have

North
Source: SVR Design, 2017. Figure 3.12-2
Talaris Existing Utilities
impaired access. The 8-inch dead end lobe installed in the mid-1960s serves the three
water service lines along the west frontage of 38th Avenue NE (two 4-inch water service
lines and one 6-inch fire service). There are no known capacity constraints in the water
mains near the site (see Figure 3.12-2, Talaris Existing Utilities).
An analysis of the potential utility impacts of Alternative 1, the Applicant’s Preferred

Alternative, is provided below. For EIS Alternatives 2 and 3, the analyses are less detailed
and any differences between the alternatives and the Preferred Alternative are highlighted
(other aspects of these alternatives are expected to be similar to the Preferred Alternative).

Under Alternative 1, development would feature a mix of affordable housing and public
park uses on the Fort Lawton site. No development would occur on the Talaris site.
Fort Lawton Site
Stormwater
Grading activities on the Fort Lawton site for proposed redevelopment under Alternative 1
would include both cut and fill (see Section 3.1, Earth, for details). Construction activities
could result in temporary impacts to stormwater runoff. Erosion and sedimentation as well
as pollutants from construction equipment and vehicles could impact stormwater. A
temporary stormwater control system and construction BMPs would be implemented that
would address these potential impacts.
Development under Alternative 1 would include installation of new buildings, roadways,

sidewalks, surface parking and driveways at the Fort Lawton site. The development would
include transfer of land and existing easements from U.S. Army ownership to City of Seattle
ownership. The project includes identifying responsibility for maintenance of any newly
established public right of ways and associated utility and surface improvements. The City
of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) and SPU would be included in this process.
Approximately 40% of the site would be covered in impervious surfaces at project buildout,
roughly 15% less than under existing conditions (see Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 for details). A
permanent stormwater control system would be installed to manage stormwater runoff
from these impervious surfaces. This system would include additional drainage and
conveyance facilities to capture surface water runoff. In accordance with the requirements
of the Seattle Stormwater Code, these improvements would trigger on-site stormwater
management BMPs and detention/retention to meet the peak flow control standard. The
facilities could include elements such as stormwater lines, catch basins, manholes, vaults,
raingardens, bioretention facilities, dispersal trenches and/or underdrain systems. No
significant stormwater impacts are expected.

Sewer
SPU would continue to provide sewer service to the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1.
Proposed development would increase the sewage flows discharging from the site to the
sewer system to approximately 41,720 gpd2. Under Alternative 1, the existing 8-inch sewer
line that conveys flows to the 144-inch King County sewer main would be video-taped and
rehabilitated, or replaced. New distribution pipes would be installed to convey sewer flows
to the existing 8-inch connection per applicable City standards and conveyance needs. Any
additional flows conveyed to the SPU combined sewer in 36th Avenue W could require
modeling of downstream impacts. No significant sewer impacts are expected.
Water
SPU would continue to provide water service to the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1,
including to the Veterans Administration Building and Fort Lawton Cemetery offsite.
Proposed development would increase potable water demand to the site to approximately
41,720 gallons per day. Additional water would be required for irrigation for parks areas
during dry weather.
The existing potable water connection at 36th Avenue W and W Government Way would be
maintained, with modifications to the existing distribution line. Any development, lot
boundary adjustments or new parcel creation would require an approved Water
Availability Certificate issued by SPU. SPU policies for water system designs typically
require that developments and/or reconfigurations of this size provide developer installed
SPU-owned facilities. Individual fire/domestic services would be required for new
structures and facilities. If the existing dead-end water supply cannot meet required service
levels, the development may require the installation of a looped system drawing from a
second water main. No significant water impacts are expected.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1, no development is proposed on the Talaris site and utilities would
remain as under existing conditions.

Housing Offsite
Under Alternative 2, market-rate single-family housing would be constructed on the Fort

Lawton site, and a mix of affordable housing on the Talaris site.
2
Water usage (and sewer flow) demand from the EIS alternatives is based on 70 gallons per day per person and
the population estimates in Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics.

Fort Lawton Site
Stormwater
Similar to Alternative 1, construction activities for Alternative 2 could result in temporary
impacts to surface water runoff from erosion and sedimentation as well as pollutants from
construction equipment and vehicles. A temporary stormwater control system and
construction BMPs would be implemented to address these potential impacts.

sidewalks and private driveways at the Fort Lawton site. The development would include
transfer of land from U.S. Army ownership to City of Seattle ownership. The project would
include identifying responsibility for maintenance of any newly established public right of
ways and associated utility and surface improvements. The SDOT and SPU would be
included in this process. Approximately 45% of the site would be covered in impervious
surfaces at project buildout, roughly 10% less than under existing conditions and 5% more
than Alternative 1 (see Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 for details). A permanent stormwater control
system would be installed to manage stormwater runoff from these impervious surfaces,
similar to under Alternative 1. This system would meet the requirements of the Seattle
Stormwater Code. On-site stormwater management BMPs and detention/retention to
meet the peak flow control standard would be implemented. No significant stormwater
Sewer
SPU would continue to provide sewer service to the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2.
The proposed development would increase the sewage flows discharging from the site to
the sanitary sewer system to approximately 39,550 gpd. Like under Alternative 1, the
existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line would be video-taped and rehabilitated, or replaced.
New distribution pipes would be installed to convey sewer flows to the existing 8-inch
connection, per applicable City standards and conveyance needs. Any additional flows
conveyed to the SPU combined sewer in 36th Avenue W could require modeling of
downstream impacts. No significant sewer-related impacts are expected.
Water
SPU would continue to provide water service to the site under Alternative 2. Development
under Alternative 2 would increase potable water demand from the site to 39,550 gpd. The
existing potable water connection at 36th Avenue W and W Government Way would be
maintained, with modifications to the existing distribution line. No significant water
Talaris Site
Stormwater
Construction activities for Alternative 2 could result in temporary impacts to surface water
runoff from erosion and sedimentation as well as pollutants from construction equipment

and vehicles at the Talaris site. A temporary stormwater control system and construction
BMPs would be implemented to address these potential impacts.

sidewalks, surface parking and private driveways at the Talaris site. The development
would include the sale of privately held land to City of Seattle ownership. Any newly
established public right of ways and associated utility and surface improvements would be
maintained by SDOT and SPU, respectively. The existing SPU facilities on the site would
remain under the ownership and maintenance authority of SPU. Approximately 50% of the
site would be covered in impervious surfaces at project buildout, roughly 20% more than
under existing conditions. A permanent stormwater control system would be installed to
manage the stormwater runoff from these impervious surfaces. With on-site stormwater
management BMPs and detention/retention to meet the pre-developed conditions per the
Seattle Stormwater Code, there is no indication that that the existing stormwater system is
capacity constrained. Water quality treatment would be provided. No significant
stormwater impacts are expected.
Sewer
SPU would continue to provide sewer service to the Talaris site under Alternative 2.
Proposed development would increase the sewage flows discharging from the site to the
sanitary sewer system to approximately 41,720 gpd. The proposed development would
likely require rehabilitation or replacement of the existing 8-inch side sewer lines, and
construction of additional sewer facilities onsite. New distribution pipes would be designed
to convey sewer flows per applicable City standards and the added demand. The existing
SPU facilities onsite would remain under the ownership and maintenance authority of SPU.
No significant sewer impacts are expected.
Water
SPU would continue to provide water service to the Talaris site under Alternative 2.
Proposed development would increase potable water demand to the site to approximately
41,720 gpd. The existing connections at 38th Avenue NE and NE 41st Street would be
maintained. Alternatively, they would be retired and new water and fire distribution lines
would be installed, as needed, to serve site development and the increased potable water
demand. SPU fire/domestic services would be required for new buildings. The layout of
site roadways and building units would guide the requirements for water mains, hydrants
and water services, including the removal and relocation of existing facilities. A
requirement to supply a site this large with a looped water system, supplied from two
independent sources, is typical. Any development, lot boundary adjustments or new parcel
creation would require an approved Water Availability Certificate issued by SPU. No
significant water impacts are expected.

Under Alternative 3, the Fort Lawton site would be developed as public parks and the
Talaris site would be developed as affordable housing.
Fort Lawton Site
Stormwater
Similar to under Alternative 1, construction activities for Alternative 3 could result in
temporary impacts to surface water runoff from erosion and sedimentation as well as
pollutants from construction equipment and vehicles at the Fort Lawton site. A temporary
stormwater control system and construction BMPs would be implemented to address
these potential impacts
Development under Alternative 3 would maintain the existing OMS – Building 245 and
associated parking. Other pavement and buildings would be removed resulting in a
reduction of the existing impervious surfaces to less than 30% of the site (see Table 2-1 in
Chapter 2 for details). Earthmoving activities and the addition of pedestrian pavement for
site circulation would trigger on-site stormwater management BMPs and flow control. The
existing stormwater conveyance system would be maintained with facilities rehabilitated,
as needed. No significant stormwater impacts are expected.
Sewer
SPU would continue to provide sewer service to the site under Alternative 3. There would
be no additional demand for sewer service because all the existing buildings on the Fort
Lawton site would be demolished and removed except OMS - Building 245. No alterations
to the existing sanitary sewer system would be required and no significant sewer impacts
are expected.
Water
SPU would continue to provide water service to the site under Alternative 3. Potable water
use under Alternative 3 would depend on the irrigation demand for the parks uses.
Although assumed to be generally less than under Alternatives 1 and 2, water demand
under Alternative 3 could be comparable to Alternative 2 during dry months when
irrigation would be needed. SPU policies for water system designs typically require that
developments and/or reconfigurations of this size provide developer-installed SPU-owned
facilities. SPU fire/domestic services would be required for new buildings. Removal of
existing structures, realignment of existing roadways, or the incompatibility of water main
corridors could require relocating and replacing on-site water mains. If required service
levels cannot be satisfied with the existing dead-end water supply, then a looped system
drawing from an additional second source of supply could be required. No alterations to
the existing potable water system would be required and no significant water impacts are
expected.

Talaris Site
Under Alternative 3, the same development would occur on the Talaris site as under
Alternative 2 and potential utility impacts during construction and operation would also be
the same.
Under Alternative 4, no redevelopment on the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites would occur at
this time. The Fort Lawton site would remain in its existing vacant condition and the Talaris
site would remain in its existing conference center use. There would be no additional
demand for stormwater, sewer or water services and there would be no impacts on these
utilities.
The following measures have been identified to address the potential impacts on utilities
• Construction would be conducted in accordance with the conditions of all applicable

permits issued by regulatory agencies (e.g., City of Seattle, Department of Fish and
Wildlife and Department of Ecology).
• A Construction Stormwater Erosion Control Plan (CSECP) would be developed and

implemented to cover all areas of the contractor’s work including off-site areas such as
disposal sites, haul roads, all nearby property, streams and other bodies of water,
including:
o Waste materials would be transported offsite and disposed of in accordance
with applicable regulations and as noted in the CSECP.
o Construction entrances, wheel washes, street cleaning and other BMPs would be
used to prevent tracking of soils beyond the project limits.
o Stormwater from work areas would be kept separate from non-work areas.
o The locations of existing inlets and catch basins would be identified in the CSECP
and the method of protection would be described.
o Descriptions of locations, protections and covering practices for stockpiles would
be provided.

o Controls to prevent sediment, debris and other pollutants from entering surface
waters and drainage features would be provided.
• A Spill Plan (SP) would be developed and implemented to ensure that all pollutants and
products are controlled and contained.
• BMPs for concrete work would include the following:
o Cement trucks wash water would not be disposed of onsite but would be returned
to the off-site batch plant for recycling as process water; and
o New concrete work would be covered and protected from rainfall until cured.
• The use of unsealed external copper and galvanized metal would be prohibited except
where required by Code as necessary for public safety or where no feasible alternative
exists.
• BMPs would be implemented to ensure that no foreign material such as oil or fuel from
construction equipment enters surface waters and that sedimentation is minimized.
• Adequate material and procedures to respond to unanticipated weather conditions or
accidental release of materials would be available onsite.
• Contract documents would specify that equipment used for this project would be free of
external petroleum-based products while work is performed around any water
resources.
• Equipment staging or materials storage would be restricted to existing unvegetated
surfaces.
• Inspections of the erosion control measures would be conducted throughout the
construction period. This would ensure the effectiveness of the measures and
determine any need for maintenance, repairs, or additional measures.
• Disturbance would be limited to those areas necessary for construction, which would be
identified in on-site plans and marked on the site before construction begins.
• Stormwater runoff from new roads, surface parking, and other possible contaminant
sources would be collected in on-site facilities to provide water quality treatment
(Talaris Site) or flow control (Fort Lawton), as needed. These facilities could include
elements such as pipes, catch basins, manholes, vaults, raingardens, bioretention
facilities, dispersal trenches or underdrain systems.
• Measures to control any impacts of excavation dewatering on groundwater could

include: site-specific design and careful control of dewatering systems, minimizing the

extent and duration of dewatering, and infiltration of extracted groundwater (see
Appendix B for details).
No significant unavoidable adverse utility impacts are expected.

3.13 HOUSING AND SOCIOECONOMICS
This section of the FEIS describes the housing and socioeconomic conditions on and near
the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites. Potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS
alternatives are evaluated and mitigation measures identified.
Key Findings
The Fort Lawton site is presently vacant and contains no residences, population or full-time
employment, beyond employees associated with the basic upkeep and security of the site.
The Talaris site is presently a conference center with lodging and open space that is
available to rent for events and meetings, with no permanent residences on site. Both the
Fort Lawton vicinity and Talaris vicinity are less economically diverse and contain fewer
minorities compared to the overall percentages in the city of Seattle. Census Tract 57 in the
Fort Lawton vicinity and the Talaris vicinity median household incomes are above the Seattle
median household income.
At the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 1 would increase residential density; add 238 affordable
housing units, including units for people who formerly experienced homelessness; increase
the population to 596 people; align with the City’s plan for increased housing supply to
accommodate the City’s share of King County’s projected twenty-year growth; and help
address the City’s goal of making it possible for households of all income levels to live
affordably in Seattle. With proposed development, shares of the population in the Fort
Lawton vicinity by age, ethnicity and income levels are anticipated to shift towards ratios
more consistent with those citywide. No significant housing or socioeconomic impacts are
expected. No housing would be built on the Talaris site under Alternative 1.
At the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 2 would add 113 market-rate housing units to the Fort
Lawton site, increase residential density (although less than under Alternative 1), increase
the population at the site to from 0 to 565,1 and align with the City’s plan for increased
housing supply. This alternative would not help address the City’s goal of making it possible
for households of all income levels to live affordably in Seattle. With proposed development,
shares of the population in the Fort Lawton vicinity by age, ethnicity and income levels are
anticipated to remain relatively the same. No significant housing or socioeconomic impacts
are expected. Development at the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would result in impacts
like those described under Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site.
No housing would be built on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3. Housing and
socioeconomic conditions in the Fort Lawton vicinity would remain as under existing
conditions. Development at the Talaris site under Alternative 3 would result in impacts like
those described under Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site.
1 This conservatively assumes an average household size for the market-rate housing of 5, although the average
household size for owner-occupied housing units in Seattle is 2.39 (2011-2015 American Community Survey).

March 2018 Housing and Socioeconomics
Methodology
Information and analysis in this section is largely based on U.S. Census data (2011-2015,
American Community Survey, 5-year estimates), real estate data and studies and review of
the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan.
Economic factors are not listed as elements of the environment to be addressed through
SEPA in WAC 197-11-444. SEPA contemplates that general social welfare, economic and
other requirements and considerations of state policy will be accounted for when weighing
and balancing decisions on a project. However, a SEPA EIS is not required to weigh and
balance all the possible effects and considerations evaluated by decision-makers in making
final decisions about a project (WAC 197-11-448(2)). Examples of considerations that are
not required to be analyzed under SEPA are defined in WAC 197-11-448(3), and include:
method of financing proposals, economic competition, profits and personal income and
wages and social policy analysis. Furthermore, monetary costs and benefits are not to be
analyzed (WAC 197-11-450). However, given concerns raised during Scoping for the Fort
Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project EIS regarding the potential for the
affordable housing component of the project to impact local property values, a brief
discussion of these potential impacts is included in this section. This discussion is based on
pertinent real estate studies.
Fort Lawton Site
The Fort Lawton site is presently vacant and contains no residences, population or full-time
employment beyond employees associated with the basic upkeep and security of the site.
To characterize existing conditions, housing, population characteristics and employment
data are provided for the Fort Lawton vicinity and are compared to the city of Seattle as a
baseline. The Fort Lawton vicinity is defined as the U.S. Census Tract in which the site is
located (Census Tract 57), as well as the adjacent tract to the east (Census Tract 58.01) (see
Figure 3.13-1, Census Tracts Map).
While some current demographic information is available for the Fort Lawton vicinity, the
2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates generally contain the most
recent, detailed data that are available at the census tract level. Therefore, the analysis in
this section is based on this data set as opposed to the older 2010 decennial census or the
more recent 2016 ACS 1-year estimates.

Fort Lawton
Fort Lawton
Site Vicinity
Census Tracts
Talaris
Site Vicinity
Census Tracts
Source: Census 2010 TIBER/Line Redistricting Data. U.S. Census Figure 3.13-1
Census Tracts Map
Housing
The Fort Lawton site does not contain any housing units under existing conditions. Table
3.13-1 presents the number of housing units within the Fort Lawton vicinity and within the
city of Seattle, for comparison purposes. The majority of the housing supply in the vicinity is
single-family, detached housing (51.3 percent). Comparatively, 43.6 percent of housing
units in the city of Seattle are single-family detached. Housing in the Fort Lawton vicinity is
52% owner occupied and 48% renter occupied. The 52% rate for owner-occupied units is
higher than the city of Seattle’s rate of 46%.
Table 3.13-1
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS – FORT LAWTON VICINITY
FORT LAWTON
CITY OF SEATTLE
VICINITY1
Total Housing Units 5,769
315,950
Occupied Units 5,354 (92.8%)
290,633 (93.9%)
Vacant Units 415 (7.2%)
19,317 (6.1%)
Owner Occupied 2,783 (52.0%)
136,823 (46.1%)
Renter Occupied 2,571 (48.0%)
159,810 (53.9%)
Housing Units Per Structure
• 1, detached 2960 (51.3%) 137,950 (43.6%)
• 1, attached 223 (3.9%) 14,880 (4.7%)
• 2 229 (3.9%) 9,600 (3.0%)
• 3–4 262 (4.5%) 13,172 (4.2%)
• 5–9 459 (7.9%) 18,812 (6.0%)
• 10 - 19 487 (8.4%) 26,298 (8.3%)
• 20 or more 1,118 (19.3%) 94,004 (29.8%)
• Mobile home, Boat, Van 31 (0.5%)
Source: Census Bureau, 2011-2015, American Community Survey, 5-year
estimates.
Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest one-tenth.
1 The Fort Lawton vicinity is comprised of Census Tracts 57 and 58.01 – there are no housing units on the
Fort Lawton site.
Rent/Income-Restricted Housing in Seattle
The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan defines rent/income-restricted housing as “housing

with conditions that legally restrict the income of the tenants who live there and the rents
that may be charged.”2 As of June 2017, Seattle had approximately 28,600 income-
restricted affordable rental housing units citywide, which are owned by a variety of public
organizations (e.g. Seattle Housing Authority, community corporations), non-profit housing
organizations, and for-profits. The highest concentration of rent/income-restricted units
are in downtown Seattle. Most rent/income-restricted units are affordable to households
with incomes at or below one-half of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
2
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Housing, November 2016, pp. 96-97.

Development (HUD) area median income (AMI), which in 2017 is $33,600 for an individual
and $48,000 for a family of four.
The Seattle Housing Authority owns and manages over 8,000 housing units and administers
10,000 Housing Choice Vouchers, collectively serving nearly 35,000 individuals.3 The City of
Seattle Office of Housing manages funds and investments to fund the preservation and
production of affordable housing. Over 17,000 income-restricted affordable rental units
throughout Seattle have been created or preserved with support by the City; over 900
families have received assistance to purchase a first home; and emergency rental assistance
has been provided to over 7,700 households.
City Housing Plans
The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan anticipates that by 2035 Seattle will add a minimum
of 70,000 housing units (and 115,000 jobs). These estimates represent the City’s share of
King County’s projected twenty-year growth. Seattle’s comprehensive planning to
accommodate this expected growth works from the assumption that the estimates for
growth citywide are the minimums for which Seattle should plan.4 The City’s growth plan
primarily channels new housing and jobs to urban centers and urban villages. Although not
in a designated urban center or urban village, the Fort Lawton site is located within an area
designated in the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan for multi-family residential uses.5
In Seattle, there are an estimated 33 affordable rental units per 100 renter households at or
below 30% of AMI, which means that the gap of available and affordable rental units is 67
per 100 renter households in that income band. The gap of available and affordable rental
units is 44 per 100 renter households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI (cumulative),
and is 11 per 100 renter households with incomes at or below 80% of AMI (cumulative).6
More than three-quarters of households in the 0-30 percent of AMI and 30-50 percent of
AMI categories spend more than 30 percent of income on housing and more than 60
percent of households with incomes of 0-30 percent of AMI spend more than half of their
income on housing.7 Overall, about 44 percent of Seattle households of color are burdened
by unaffordable housing costs compared with 35 percent of white, non-Hispanic
households.8 The lack of affordable and available housing in Seattle leaves people with low-
incomes at risk of displacement and potentially homelessness.
To meet the affordable housing needs associated with a minimum of 70,000 housing units
being planned for by the City, the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan estimates at least
10,500 rent/income-restricted units would be needed for households with incomes of 0-30
3
Seattle Housing Authority, 2016 Annual Report.
4
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Growth Strategy, November 2016, p. 28.
5
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Citywide Planning, Future Land Use Map, November 2016, p. 41.
6
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Appendix, November 2016, page 516.
7
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Appendix, November 2016, p. 478.
8

percent of AMI. This assumes that all units affordable in this category would be
rent/income-restricted housing, given that it would be highly unlikely that the market would
produce new units affordable at this income level without subsidy or regulatory
intervention. For households with incomes 30-50 percent of AMI: 7,500 rent/income-
restricted housing units (with need met entirely by rent/income-restricted housing) or an
additional 11,500 affordable units (if need could be met with a combination of rent/income-
restricted housing and non-restricted units).9 For households with incomes 50-80 percent of
AMI: 9,500 rent/income-restricted housing units (with need met entirely by rent/income-
restricted housing) or an additional 14,500 affordable units (if need could be met with a
combination of rent/income-restricted housing and non-restricted units). Overall,
addressing the affordability needs of 70,000 new households would require production of
roughly 27,500 to 36,500 housing units affordable at or below 80 percent of AMI. This is in
addition to affordable housing to address unmet need.10
Socioeconomics
Demographics
As demonstrated by Table 3.13-2, the Fort Lawton vicinity is less diverse overall and
contains fewer minorities compared to the overall percentages in the city of Seattle. The
city of Seattle’s population is roughly 30.5% minority, while approximately 18.4% of
residents in the Fort Lawton vicinity are minorities. Asians/Asian Americans, Hispanics and
Africans/African Americans represent the largest minority populations in the vicinity.
Table 3.13-2
RACE AND ETHNICITY – FORT LAWTON VICINITY
RACE
ONE RACE
Total White Black or American Asian Native Other Two or Hispanic
Pop. African Indian & Hawaiian Race More or Latino
American Alaska & Pacific Races
Native Islander
FL
11,845 9,666 615 85 753 0 83 643 683
Vicinity1
81.6% 5.2% 0.7% 6.4% 0.0% 0.7% 5.4% 5.8%
City of
653,017 454,000 47,202 4,440 92,776 2,542 12,135 39,922 42,490
Seattle
69.5% 7.2% 0.7% 14.2% 0.4% 1.9% 6.1% 6.5%
Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey.
1 Census Tracts 57 and 58.01.
9
Availability as well as affordability must be factored in when a portion of affordable units are not rent/income-
restricted. However, it is unlikely that any sizeable number of market-rate units would be affordable in this range.
(Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Appendix, November 2016, p. 519).
10

Table 3.13-3 shows that shares of the population in the city of Seattle compared to the Fort
Lawton vicinity are the same or similar in terms of gender, persons aged 65 or older, and
persons with a disability. In the Fort Lawton vicinity, the share of population under age 18
is 2.9 percent higher and the share of the population that is female is 2.6 percent higher,
compared to those shares for the city of Seattle. In the Fort Lawton vicinity, the share of
population that is foreign-born is 7.4 percent lower and the share of the population that
speaks English less than “very well” is 6.3 percent lower, compared to those shares for the
city of Seattle.
Table 3.13-3
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS – FORT LAWTON VICINITY
FORT LAWTON CITY OF SEATTLE
VICINITY1
Total Population 11,845 653,017
• Male • 5,643 (47.6%) • 327,600 (50.2%)
• Female • 6,202 (52.4%) • 325,417 (49.8%)
% Population Under Age
18.3% 15.4%
18
Population Age 65 and
11.6% 11.6%
Older
Population with a
1,067 (9.0%) 60,663 (9.4%)
Disability
Foreign-Born Population 1,276 (10.7%) 118,225 (18.1%)
Speak English Less Than
309 (2.6%) 55,054 (8.9%)
‘Very Well’
Source: 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates.
1 Census Tracts 57 and 58.01.
Income and Poverty
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines low-income categories
as follows:11
• Extremely low-income at or below 30 percent of AMI
• Very low-income at or below 50 percent of AMI
• Low-income at or below 80 percent of AMI
These income categories established by HUD are used by states and local jurisdictions,
including the city of Seattle, for purposes of administering affordable housing programs and
funding.
Area median income, or AMI, is the annual median family income for the Seattle area (the
King-Snohomish county region, not just the city), as published by HUD, with adjustments for
household size, assuming 1 person for a studio apartment and 1.5 people per bedroom for
other units.
11
42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(2).

For purposes of comparison between the Fort Lawton vicinity and city of Seattle only, Table
3.13-4 shows the median household income as reported to the U.S. Census Bureau.12 The
Census median household income is different than and therefore not comparable to the
area median income measure used by HUD. The Census median household income based
on the 2011-2015 American Community Survey is $90,951 in Census Tract 57 and is $66,563
in Census Tract 58.01, compared to $70,594 for the city of Seattle.
Table 3.13-4
INCOME AND POVERTY INFORMATION – FORT LAWTON VICINITY
FORT LAWTON VICINITY CITY OF SEATTLE
CT 57 CT 58.01
Total Population 6,633 5,212 653,017
Total Number of Households 2,741 2,613 296,633
Median Household Income $90,951 $66,563 $70,594

Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Employment
Presently, there are no active uses on the Fort Lawton site and no economic activity is
directly associated with the site.
With unemployment rates of 2.6% and 3.1% in Census Tracts 57 and 58.01 respectively, the
vicinity contains lower ratios of unemployed people than the city of Seattle overall, at
approximately 4.1%. The U.S. Census Bureau defines employed people as all civilians 16
years old and over who worked as paid employees, worked in their own business or
profession, worked on their own farm or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers on a
family farm or in a family business. Individuals whose activity consisted of work around the
house or unpaid volunteer work for religious, charitable and similar organizations are
excluded from the ‘employed’ category.
Table 3.13-5
EMPLOYMENT – FORT LAWTON VICINITY
FORT LAWTON VICINITY CITY OF SEATTLE

CT 57 CT 58.01
Population 16 years and older 5,357 4,506 561,177
People in Civilian Labor Force 3,616 (67.5%) 3,639 (80.8%) 405,528 (72.3%)
Unemployment Rate 137 (2.6%) 138 (3.1%) 23,009 (4.1%)
12
HUD’s “area median income” (AMI) is used to determine eligibility for a wide variety of affordable housing
programs; it is not comparable with “median household income,” as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.

City of Seattle Growth Plans – Employment
The Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan plans for economic growth totaling a minimum of
115,000 new jobs within the city of Seattle by 2035. As with housing, the Comprehensive
Plan articulates how to accommodate the majority of employment growth in Seattle’s
urban centers. The Fort Lawton site is not located within an urban center or urban village,
but rather within an area designated in the Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan for multi-
family residential uses.13
Talaris Site
The Talaris site is presently a conference center with lodging and open space that is
available to rent for events and meetings. To characterize existing socioeconomic
conditions, population characteristics, housing and employment data are provided for the
Talaris vicinity, and are compared to the city of Seattle as a baseline. The vicinity is defined
as the Census Tract in which the site is located (Census Tract 41) (see Figure 3.13-1, Census
Tract Map).
Housing
The Talaris site contains three apartment buildings; however, there are no permanent
residences on the site. The apartment facilities are associated with the Talaris Conference
Center and are used for temporary lodging only.
As shown in Table 3.13-6, the site is located within Census Tract 41, a residential area
consisting primarily of detached, single-family homes (73.4% of total housing units).
Comparatively, the share of single-family housing in the city of Seattle is 43.6%. The
percentage of owner-occupied units (66.2%) in the Talaris vicinity is also far greater than
the city of Seattle’s overall share (46.1%).
13
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Citywide Planning, Future Land Use Map, November 2016, p. 41.

Table 3.13-6
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS – TALARIS VICINITY
TALARIS VICINITY1 CITY OF SEATTLE

Total Housing Units 3,115 315,950
Occupied Units 2,900 (93.1%) 290,633 (93.9%)
Vacant Units 215 (6.9%) 19,317 (6.1%)
Owner Occupied 1,921 (66.2%) 136,823 (46.1%)
Renter Occupied 979 (33.8%) 159,810 (53.9%)
Housing Units Per Structure
• 1, detached 2,287 (73.4%) 137,950 (43.6%)
• 1, attached 126 (0.4%) 14,880 (4.7%)
• 2 12 (0.4%) 9,600 (3.0%)
• 3–4 230 (7.4%) 13,172 (4.2%)
• 5–9 176 (5.7%) 18,812 (6.0%)
• 10 - 19 145 (4.7%) 26,298 (8.3%)
• 20 or more 106 (3.4%) 94,004 (29.8%)
• Mobile home, Boat, Van 0
Source: Census Bureau, 2011-2015, American Community Survey, 5 year
estimates.
Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest one-tenth
1 Census Tract 41 – there are no housing units on the project site.
Socioeconomics
Demographics
As shown in Table 3.13-7, the Talaris vicinity is less racially diverse overall and contains
lower shares of minorities compared to the city of Seattle. Seattle’s population is roughly
30.5% minority, while approximately 16.5% of residents in the Talaris vicinity are minorities.
Asians/Asian Americans and African Americans represent the greatest shares of the
minority population in the vicinity.
Table 3.13-8 shows that the Talaris vicinity population characteristics are similar to those of
the city of Seattle overall. Specifically, shares of population in the Talaris vicinity compare to
the city of Seattle as follows: 0.9 percent more male, 2.9 percent more persons age 65 and
older, 2.0 percent less persons with a disability, 1.8 percent less foreign born, and 3.1
percent less speak English less than “very well.” The share of population under age 18 is 9.8
percent greater in the Talaris vicinity compared to the city of Seattle.

Table 3.13-7
RACE AND ETHNICITY INFORMATION – TALARIS VICINITY
RACE
ONE RACE
Total Pop. White Black or American Asian Native Other Race Two or Hispanic or
African Indian & Hawaiian More Latino
American Alaska & Pacific Races
Native Islander
TALARIS
7,868 6,573 2 11 907 7 19 349 131
VICINITY1
83.5% 0% 0.1% 11.5% 0.1% 0.2% 4.4% 1.7%
CITY OF
653,017 454,000 47,202 4,440 92,776 2,542 12,135 39,922 42,490
SEATTLE
69.5% 7.2% 0.7% 14.2% 0.4% 1.9% 6.1% 6.5%
Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey.
1 Census Tract 41.
Table 3.13-8
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS – TALARIS VICINITY
TALARIS CITY OF SEATTLE
VICINITY1
• Male • 4,019 (51.1%) • 327,600 (50.2%)
• Female • 3,849 (48.9%) • 325,417 (49.8%)
% Population Under
25.2% 15.4%
Age 18
Population Age 65 and
14.5% 11.6%
Older
Population with a
581 (7.4%) 60,663 (9.4%)
Disability
Foreign Born Population 1,283 (16.3%) 118,225 (18.1%)
Speak English Less Than
432 (5.8%) 55,054 (8.9%)
‘Very Well’
Source: 2011-2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates.
1 Census Tract 41.
Income and Poverty
As presented in Table 3.13-9, the Talaris vicinity median household income of $132,917 is
nearly double the city of Seattle median household income of $70,594.

Table 3.13-9
INCOME AND POVERTY INFORMATION – TALARIS VICINITY
TALARIS CITY OF SEATTLE

VICINITY1
Total Number of Households 2,900 296,633
Median Household Income $132,917 $70,594

1 Census Tract 41.
Employment
The Talaris vicinity contains fewer individuals in the labor force compared to the city of
Seattle (66.4% versus 72.3%). As well, at 3.1% unemployment, the vicinity contains lower
ratios of unemployed people than the city of Seattle overall, at approximately 4.1% (see
Table 3.13-10).
Table 3.13-10
EMPLOYMENT – TALARIS VICINITY
TALARIS VICINITY CITY OF SEATTLE
Population 16 Years and Older 6,083 561,177

People in Civilian Labor Force 4,042 (66.4%) 405,528 (72.3%)
Unemployment Rate 190 (3.1%) 23,009 (4.1%)
3.13.2 Impacts
An analysis of the potential housing and socioeconomic impacts of Alternative 1, the

Comparison of Housing and Population Conditions Under the EIS

Alternatives
This section provides a summary comparison of housing and population characteristics

under the EIS alternatives. Each alternative is described in more detail later in this section.
Table 3.13-11 provides a summary breakdown of the number and type of housing units
under the alternatives at buildout. As shown, all three alternatives would contain the same
number and types of affordable housing units, but would differ in the location of those

units, and the amount of market-rate housing (only Alternative 2 includes market-rate
homes).
Table 3.13-11
NUMBER AND TYPE OF HOUSING UNITS - ALTERNATIVES 1 - 3
ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3
F. L. SITE TALARIS F. L. SITE TALARIS F. L. SITE TALARIS
SITE SITE SITE
NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE
Lowrise Apts. - Studios (Supportive
86 0 0 86 0 86
Senior Rental Housing)
Rowhouse Apts. – 1, 2 & 3 BR
100 0 0 100 0 100
(Affordable Rental)
Townhouses – 3BR (Affordable
40 0 0 40 0 40
Homeownership)
Rowhouses – 3BR (Affordable
12 0 0 12 0 12
Homeownership)
Single-Family Housing (Market-rate
0 0 113 0 0 0
Homeownership)
TOTAL 238 0 113 238 0 238
Table 3.13-12 summarizes the estimated population that could result with each type of
housing under the EIS alternatives. As shown, all three alternatives would contain the same
affordable housing mix and population levels, and would differ only in terms of the
additional population associated with market-rate housing (Alternative 2 only). For
purposes of this DEIS analysis, population estimates were generated for each housing type
(persons per household): formerly homeless seniors, affordable rentals, affordable
homeownership and market-rate.14
Table 3.13-12
POPULATION ESTIMATES - ALTERNATIVES 1 – 3
ALT. 1 ALT. 2 ALT. 3
F. L. TALARIS F. L. SITE TALARIS F. L. SITE TALARIS
SITE SITE SITE SITE
POPULATION
Supportive Senior Rental Housing 86 -- -- 86 -- 86
Affordable Rental 250 -- -- 250 -- 250
Affordable Homeownership 260 -- -- 260 -- 260
Market-rate Homeownership -- -- 565 -- -- --
TOTAL 596 0 565 596 0 596
14
Population estimates for rent-restricted affordable housing are based on comparable projects and are calculated
as follow:
• Senior Supportive housing – 86 residents (86 units x 1.0 resident per unit);
• Affordable rental – 250 residents (100 units x 2.5 residents per unit); and
• Affordable ownership - 260 residents (52 units x 5.0 residents per unit).

Alternative 1– Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses
Alternative 1 would include 238 residential units with residential support services, as well as
public park uses, on the Fort Lawton site. No development is assumed for the Talaris site.
Fort Lawton Site

Future redevelopment assumed under Alternative 1 would consist of three primary
construction-related activities: 1) demolition of existing buildings and demolition of some
existing utilities and paved areas; 2) construction of new site infrastructure, including
primary roadways, utilities and open space/parks; and 3) construction of new buildings and
associated parking.
Construction activities under this alternative would result in new temporary construction
employment opportunities during the approximately seven-year site buildout. Based on the
assumed buildout in 2025, construction would occur on a periodic basis over that
timeframe. Construction jobs would be discontinued once redevelopment on the site is
completed.
Operational/Direct Impacts
Housing
Under Alternative 1, the total number of residential units onsite would increase from 0 to
238. Density would increase from 0 dwelling units/acre to 7 dwelling units/acre over the
entire 34-acre site. Table 3.12-11 summarizes the proposed housing mix to be developed
under the alternatives. As shown on the table, under Alternative 1 the housing units would
include apartments with supportive services for seniors, affordable rental apartments, and
affordable homes for ownership in lowrise apartments, rowhouses, and townhouse style
units. Approximately 78 percent of the housing units would be rental housing and the
remaining 22 percent of the units would be for ownership.
The affordable housing developed onsite would support households with a range of income
levels, as detailed below.
• Senior Supportive Rental Housing for senior citizens (55 years of age and older),
including veterans, who were formerly homeless and have incomes at or below 30%
of the area median income (AMI);15
• Affordable Rental for households with incomes at or below 60% of the AMI; and,
15
Per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the FY 2017 AMI for a family of four in the Seattle-
Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) is $96,000.

• Affordable Homeownership for sale to households with incomes at or below 80% of
the AMI.
City Housing Needs

The housing provided onsite under Alternative 1 would contribute towards the minimum of
70,000 housing units anticipated to account for Seattle’s share of King County’s growth by
2035.16 It would also help address the City’s goal of making it possible for households of all
incomes to live affordably in Seattle, and reduce the unmet housing needs of lower income
households in Seattle.17 Alternative 1 would contribute towards the City’s target for 27,500
to 36,500 additional housing units affordable and available to households with incomes at
or below 80% of AMI to meet the needs associated with growth by 2035.
As noted previously, Alternative 1 would add 238 low-income housing units for households
with a range of low-income levels at a site that currently contains no housing. Of the total,
86 would be units for extremely low-income seniors (supportive housing for formerly
homeless seniors with incomes at or below 30% of AMI), and would address the need
associated with projected growth for a minimum 10,500 units affordable and available to
households with incomes at or below 30% of the AMI. The 100 rental units for low-income
households (at or below 60% of AMI) would address Seattle’s need associated with
projected growth through 2035 for a minimum of 9,500 units affordable and available to
households with incomes no higher than 80% of AMI. Overall, the addition of 238
affordable housing units would represent an approximately 0.8% increase to Seattle’s
supply of approximately 28,800 income-restricted affordable housing units.
The Magnolia neighborhood is generally a high cost neighborhood, particularly with regard
to for-sale housing. The Fort Lawton vicinity (Census Tracts 57 and 58.01) average rent in
Fall 2017 was $1,710 (9 buildings totaling 818 apartment units), compared to $1,823
citywide.18 According to Zillow, the median list price per square foot in Magnolia is $482,
which is higher than the city of Seattle average of $470. The median home value in
Magnolia is $909,000. Magnolia home values increased 10.0% between fall of 2016 and fall
of 2017 and Zillow predicts they will rise 4.4% within the next year.19 Providing affordable
housing on the Fort Lawton site would help address the City’s goal of achieving a mix of
housing types that provide opportunity and choice throughout Seattle for people of various
ages, races, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds and for a variety of household sizes, types
and incomes.20 As noted in Chapter 2, Magnolia is among the neighborhoods that used
16
17
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Housing, November 2016, p. 103.
18
Dupre + Scott Apartment Advisors, Apartment Vacancy Report, September 2017.
19
Zillow, November 2017. https://www.zillow.com/magnolia-seattle-wa/home-values/
20

restrictive covenants in the past and has remained a relatively exclusive neighborhood with
little to no access to affordable housing choices for those with low-incomes.21
Relationship to Housing in Vicinity

The additional 238 housing units on the Fort Lawton site would represent a modest increase
to the housing supply in the Fort Lawton vicinity overall (census tracts 57 and 58.01). There
are 5,769 housing units in the vicinity currently (census tracts 57 and 58.01), and this would
increase by 4.1% to 6,007 units. The redevelopment would also contribute to diversifying
the housing supply by adding multi-family housing in a neighborhood dominated by single-
family homes (currently 51.3% single-family detached in the Fort Lawton vicinity).
Alternative 1 is not anticipated to have a negative effect on established real estate values
located adjacent to or near the Fort Lawton site. Research conducted by Trulia examined
over 3,000 affordable housing developments financed over a ten-year span (1996 to 2006)
using federal low-income housing tax credits. The values of property within 2,000 feet of
the affordable housing were compared to the value of buildings further away (2,000 to
4,000 feet). The comparison showed no decline in value/square feet of real estate, except
for two cases in the Boston area and where slight declines in the values of nearby buildings
occurred, which was attributed to unique local factors. In another case (in Denver), the
value of properties located nearby low-income housing was shown to increase. Overall, the
study indicates that low-income housing development does not affect nearby home values,
particularly in cities with expensive or limited housing supply, such as Seattle.22
Socioeconomics
Under Alternative 1, the permanent on-site residential population would increase from 0 to
approximately 596 residents (see Table 3.13-12). The availability of low-income housing on
a site that has not recently contained housing could alter the demographics of the
surrounding neighborhood in several ways.
Relative to the age distribution, the percentage of residents aged 65 years and older
(currently approximately 11.6 percent in the vicinity) could slightly increase with the
addition of 86 senior citizens. The ethnic makeup of the site could also shift, although the
precise extent of change in racial and ethnic diversity onsite cannot be determined. Overall,
the proportion of minorities and immigrants in the vicinity would be expected to increase as
compared to existing conditions where the vicinity is 18.4 percent minority, compared to a
30.5 percent minority population citywide.
The addition of affordable housing to the Fort Lawton site would also have the effect of
economically diversifying the community. The median household incomes in the vicinity
21 Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, Racial Restrictive Covenants,
http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm
22
Young, Cheryl. There Doesn’t Go the Neighborhood, Low-Income Housing Has No Impact on Nearby Home
Values. Trulia’s Blog. November 2016.

(estimated $90,951 in Census Tract 57 and $66,563 in Census Tract 58.01) could be
expected to decrease.
In sum, the shares of the population by age, ethnicity and income levels that currently exist
in the Fort Lawton vicinity would be anticipated to shift towards ratios more consistent with
the city of Seattle due to the diversity of the housing supply developed on the Fort Lawton
site and the introduction of low-income residents to a relatively affluent area of the city of
Seattle.
The site would also shift from having no residential uses to having housing with associated
supportive services for low-income residents. The senior housing would be served by case
managers and residential counselors. The affordable rental housing would include building
managers and grounds keepers, constituting a minor amount of employment (see Chapter 2
for details).
Indirect Impacts
Redevelopment of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would result in a low-income
residential community together with parking, open space and some residential and
community support services. These changes would result in increased density and an
economically diversified population in the Fort Lawton vicinity. This could result in increased
spending for goods and services within the area near the site. Nearby neighborhood
commercial businesses could benefit from spending associated with residential
development on the site.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1, no new development would occur on the Talaris site. The existing uses
on the site would remain and housing and socioeconomic conditions would not change.
Alternative 2- Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable/Homeless

Housing Offsite
Under Alternative 2, it is assumed the Fort Lawton site would be sold to a private developer
for the development of market-rate single-family residences, and the development of
affordable housing and housing for formerly homeless seniors would occur on the Talaris
site. Approximately 113 market-rate houses would be developed on the Fort Lawton site
and approximately 238 affordable housing units and associated community facilities would
be developed on the Talaris site. No active or passive public park areas would be provided
Fort Lawton Site

Construction impacts under Alternative 2 would include temporary impacts from
demolition, site preparation and construction of infrastructure and single-family residential
buildings. Construction employment opportunities during the approximately seven-year site

buildout would be like under Alternative 1, with construction occurring on a periodic basis
over an extended period of time, and construction jobs being discontinued once
redevelopment on the site is completed.
Operation/Direct Impacts
Housing
Under Alternative 2, the total number of residential units onsite would increase from 0 to
113. Density would increase from 0 dwelling units/acre to 3.3 dwelling units/acre over the
entire 34-acre site. All the housing on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2 would be
single-family detached homes. These homes would likely be designed and constructed to
be marketed to high-income buyers. The average sale price is estimated at $1.5 million,
which is comparable based on listings for new construction single-family in the Magnolia
neighborhood.23
City Housing Needs
The 113 market-rate housing units provided on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2
would contribute towards meeting the City’s overall plan to provide a minimum of 70,000
units of additional housing units by 2035. However, the housing under Alternative 2 at this
location would not address Seattle’s affordable housing target associated with projected
growth through 2035.
The additional 113 market-rate housing units on the Fort Lawton would represent a
nominal increase to the supply of housing units in the Magnolia neighborhood overall.
There are 5,769 housing units in the vicinity currently (census tracts 57 and 58.01), and this
would increase by 2.0% to 5,882 units. The proposal under Alternative 2 would continue
the existing prevalence of single-family homes (51.3%) in the vicinity.
Socioeconomics
approximately 565 residents (see Table 3.13-12).24 The introduction of market-rate housing
and associated residents on a site that has not recently contained housing would not be
expected to substantially alter the demographics of the surrounding neighborhood. Rather,
existing trends in terms of age, gender, income and ethnicity would likely continue and with
minimal diversification of the Fort Lawton vicinity, which has lower shares of minorities and
higher shares of high-income households than the city of Seattle overall.
23
Zillow, November 2017. https://www.zillow.com/homes/Magnolia-Seattle-WA_rb/
24
This conservatively assumes an average household size for the market-rate housing of 5, although the average
household size for owner-occupied housing units in Seattle is far lower, 2.39 (2011-2015 American Community
Survey).

No direct jobs would be supported on the site, but increased spending on goods and
services in the larger Magnolia neighborhood would be expected from the higher-income
residents anticipated with the new market-rate single-family housing.
Talaris Site
Future redevelopment assumed under Alternative 2 on the Talaris site would require
construction-related activities associated with retaining and reusing existing buildings on-
site, as well as constructing new housing. Construction employment opportunities during
the approximately seven-year site buildout would be the same as described for the Fort
Lawton site under Alternative 1, with construction occurring on a periodic basis over an
extended period of time, and construction jobs being discontinued once redevelopment on
the site is completed.
Operational/Direct Impacts
Housing
Under Alternative 2, the total number of residential units on the Talaris site would increase
from 0 to 238. Density would increase from 0 dwelling units/acre to approximately 13.2
dwelling units/acre over the entire 18-acre site. Table 3.13-11 summarizes the proposed
housing mix to be developed under the alternatives. As shown in the table, under
Alternative 2 the housing units at the Talaris site would include apartments for formerly
homeless seniors, affordable rental apartments and affordable homes for ownership in
lowrise apartments, rowhouses, and townhouse style units in the same distribution as that
assumed for the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1. Approximately 78 percent of the
housing units would be rental housing and the remaining 22 percent of the units would be
for ownership.
City Housing Needs
Like Alternative 1, the housing provided on the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would
contribute towards the minimum of 70,000 housing units anticipated to be needed in the
city of Seattle by 2035.25 It would also help address the City’s goal of making it possible for
households of all income levels to live affordably in Seattle, and reduce over time the unmet
housing needs of lower-income households in Seattle.26 Alternative 2 would contribute
towards the City’s target for 27,500 to 36,500 additional housing units at or below 80% of
AMI to meet the needs associated with growth by 2035.
As noted previously, Alternative 2 would add 238 low-income housing units for a range of
low-income levels to a site that currently contains no housing. Overall, the addition of 238
25
26

affordable housing units would represent an approximately 0.8% increase to Seattle’s
supply of approximately 28,800 income-restricted affordable housing units.
The Laurelhurst neighborhood is an area with high housing costs/values. The average rent in
the Talaris vicinity (Census Tract 41) in Fall 2017 was $1,313 (2 buildings totaling 63
apartment units), compared to $1,823 citywide.27 The median home value in Laurelhurst is
$1,458,500. Laurelhurst home values increased 8.9% between fall of 2016 and fall of 2017
and Zillow predicts they will rise 4.5% within the next year.28 Providing affordable housing
in the Talaris vicinity would contribute towards the City of Seattle’s goal to provide
opportunity and choice throughout Seattle for people of various ages, races, ethnicities, and
cultural backgrounds and for a variety of household sizes, types and incomes.29 As noted in
Chapter 2, Laurelhurst is among the neighborhoods that used restrictive covenants in the
past and has remained a relatively exclusive neighborhood with little to no access to
affordable housing choices for those with low-incomes.30
The additional 238 housing units on the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would represent a
moderate increase to the housing supply in the Talaris vicinity overall. There are
approximately 3,115 housing units in the vicinity currently (census tract 41), and this would
increase by 7.6% to 3,353 units. The proposal would also help diversify the housing supply
by adding multi-family housing in a neighborhood dominated by single-family homes (73.4%
single-family homes in vicinity).
Socioeconomics
approximately 596 residents (see Table 3.13-12). The availability of low-income housing on
a site that has not recently contained housing could alter the demographics of the
surrounding neighborhood in several ways.
The ethnic makeup of the vicinity could shift, although the precise extent of change in racial
and ethnic diversity onsite cannot be determined. Overall, the proportion of minorities and
immigrants in the vicinity would be expected to increase compared to existing conditions
wherein the vicinity is approximately 16.5 percent minority, compared to the 30.5 percent
of minority population citywide. The addition of affordable housing to the Talaris site would
also have the effect of economically diversifying the community. The median household
income in the Talaris vicinity (estimated at $132,917, nearly double the city of Seattle
median) could be expected to decrease.
27
Dupre+Scott Apartment Advisors, Apartment Vacancy Report, September 2017.
28
Zillow, November 2017. https://www.zillow.com/laurelhurst-seattle-wa/home-values/
29
30
Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, Racial Restrictive Covenants,
http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm

In sum, as with Alternative 1 on the Fort Lawton site, the age, gender, ethnicity and income
levels that currently exist onsite would be anticipated to shift towards ratios more
consistent with the city of Seattle due to the diversity of the housing supply that would be
developed, enabling low-income households access to one of Seattle’s most affluent
neighborhoods.
The site would also shift from being a conference center with hotel uses, to housing and
associated supportive services for low-income residents. Overall economic activity and the
number of jobs onsite would likely decrease as compared to existing conditions. The
number of jobs associated with senior housing, affordable rental housing and overall
management of the development would be as described for Alternative 1. It is likely that
new residents would spend money on goods and services within the greater Talaris vicinity,
although the extent of such spending is not known.
Indirect Impacts
Under Alternative 2, the Talaris site would be developed to create a low-income residential
community with community support services. This would increase density and diversify the
population, economically, in the Talaris vicinity.
Like under Alternative 1, the proposal would not be anticipated to have a negative effect on
real estate values within the Talaris vicinity. Research indicates that low-income housing
developments do not affect nearby home values, particularly in cities with expensive or
limited housing supply, such as Seattle.31
Alternative 3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing

Offsite
Fort Lawton Site

As with Alternative 1, most of the existing buildings on the Fort Lawton site would be
demolished and removed. Site grading would occur, and passive and active open space
areas would be developed for use by the public. Overall, less construction activity would
occur on the site than under Alternatives 1 or 2, where the construction of either affordable
or market-rate housing would occur.
31
Young, Cheryl. There Doesn’t Go the Neighborhood, Low-Income Housing Has No Impact on Nearby Home
Values. Trulia’s Blog.

Operation/Direct Impacts
Housing
No housing would be built on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3. Housing conditions
in the Fort Lawton vicinity would remain as described under existing conditions. At this site,
Alternative 3 would not address Seattle’s anticipated overall housing needs or affordable
housing target associated with projected growth through 2035.
Socioeconomics
While members of the public would access the site to use newly-developed parks and open
space, no permanent residential population would be added to the Fort Lawton site under
Alternative 3. Population conditions on and in the Fort Lawton vicinity related to numbers
of people, race and ethnicity, age, gender, income, and employment would remain similar
to those described under existing conditions.
Talaris Site
same as described under Alternative 2 and potential housing and socioeconomic impacts
would also be the same.
continue to deteriorate. No changes to existing housing, population or socioeconomic
conditions on or in the site would occur. No new affordable housing would be provided,
and the site would not help address the city of Seattle’s current and future overall need for
housing, and need for housing that is affordable to low-income households and people
transitioning from homelessness. The site could be conveyed to the City or conveyed or
sold to another entity in the future, and could be developed in accordance with the uses
allowed by the site’s current SF 7200 zoning.
The Talaris site would also remain in its existing condition and no new development would
occur on the site at this time. No changes to existing housing or socioeconomic conditions
on or in the vicinity of the site would occur.
Increases in population and housing would occur gradually within the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites over the 7-year buildout period. No significant housing or socioeconomic

impacts are expected to result from any of the redevelopment alternatives and as a result,
no mitigation measures are identified.
No significant unavoidable adverse housing or socioeconomic impacts are expected.

3.14 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
This section of the FEIS describes the environmental justice-related conditions on and near
the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites. Potential disproportionate and/or adverse impacts from
redevelopment of the EIS alternatives are evaluated and mitigation measures identified.
Key Findings
Very few low-income or minority populations are located in the Fort Lawton vicinity or
Talaris vicinity, and the minority populations that do, do not meet EPA’s definition of such a
population (i.e. the minority population percentage of the affected area is not greater than
the minority population percentage in the general population). Existing environmental
health hazards could be present at both sites, including PCBs, asbestos and lead-based paint
in older existing buildings. A landfill is also located approximately 1,000 feet from the
western boundary of the Talaris site; however, there is minimal potential for migration of
methane to the site from the landfill.
Construction under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would eliminate or stabilize health hazards

associated with the older buildings at the Fort Lawton or Talaris site. Under all the
alternatives, construction activity would result in temporary impacts associated with noise,
air quality emissions, etc. These impacts would be similar to other large development
projects occurring throughout Seattle and would be carried out in compliance with the City
of Seattle Municipal Code. Therefore, the potential for disproportionately high or adverse
impacts to minorities or low-income persons during construction would be minimal.
During operation, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would include affordable housing, community

facilities and/or parks/recreation uses on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites. No significant
environmental justice-related impacts are expected from operation of these uses. The
affordable housing provided under Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site, and under
Alternatives 2 and 3 at the Talaris site could be considered a positive impact relative to
diversifying neighborhoods that are disproportionately occupied by medium to higher
income households.
Methodology
Analysis in this section is largely based on census data (2011-2015, American Community
Survey, 5-year estimates), local school district information (www.greatschools.org), and
review of other environmental elements evaluated in this EIS (air quality, noise,
transportation, etc.).
Background
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), environmental justice is:

March 2018 Environmental Justice
“the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that
no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or
policies. Meaningful involvement means that: 1. People have an opportunity to
participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health;
2. The public’s contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision-making
process; 3. Community concerns will be considered in the decision-making process; and
4. Decision-makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially
affected.”1
According to the EPA, “low-income population” means any readily identifiable group of low-
income persons who live in geographic proximity and, if circumstances warrant,
geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans)
who will be similarly affected by the proposed policy or activity.
According to the EPA, a “minority population” is considered to be present if the minority

population percentage of the affected area is greater than the minority population
percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis
(census tracts are generally considered appropriate).
Disproportionately high and adverse effect means that an adverse effect is predominantly
borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population and that the effect that will
be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population is appreciably more
severe or greater in magnitude than that borne by the rest of the population.
This sub-section describes existing environmental justice-related conditions and near the
Fort Lawton and Talaris sites, including the potential presence and composition of minority
and low-income populations and health and safety risks.
Fort Lawton Site
The Fort Lawton site is located in Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood. Land uses in the Fort
Lawton vicinity largely include single- and multi-family residential and park uses (Discovery
Park and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park). There are no current land uses that pose an
environmental health risk, such as gas stations or dry cleaners, in the immediate vicinity of
the site (see Section 3.6, Land Use, and Section 3.5, Environmental Health, for details).
The site and site area are part of the former Fort Lawton military base. The base was active
through World Wars I and II, the Korean War and into the Vietnam War. In 1968, the U.S.
Army transferred much of the base site to the city of Seattle. Approximately 46 acres was
1
EPA. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice. Accessed June 2017.

retained by the U.S. Army and used as a Reserve Center. About 34 acres of the Reserve
Center, and the subject of this EIS, is currently closed, vacant and in caretaker status by the
U.S. Army. Due to the age of the buildings remaining onsite, asbestos containing materials
(ACM), lead-based paint (LBP) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) may be present in some
of the buildings. Other past activities and facilities associated with the former military base
could also have resulted in the release of contaminates to the soil and groundwater.
However, past studies indicate that no environmental conditions have been found and no
further action is recommended on the site (see Section 3.5, Environmental Health, for
details).
Population and Income

There are no active uses and no residents on the Fort Lawton site at present. As shown in
Table 3.13-2 in Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, the vicinity contains lower
percentages of minorities as compared to the overall percentages in the city of Seattle. The
city of Seattle’s population is roughly 30.5% minority, while approximately 18.5% of
residents in the Fort Lawton vicinity are minorities (see Section 3.13, Housing and
Socioeconomics, for details).
The vicinity has a higher median household income ($90,951 in Census Tract 57 and $66,563
in Census Tract 58.01) compared to the city of Seattle’s median household income of
$70,594 (2011-2015 ACS Survey). The Fort Lawton vicinity is defined as the Census Tracts in
which the site is located (Census Tract 57) and the Census Tract to the east (Census Tract
58.01) (see Figure 3.13-1 and Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, for details).
Elementary School Characteristics

Table 3.14-1 presents the characteristics of the public elementary school that currently
serves the project area: Lawton Elementary. As shown, Lawton Elementary serves a lower
percentage of minority students than the district and state averages (approximately 28%
versus the Seattle Public School District average of 51.5% and the state average of 42%).
Approximately 11% of the students attending Lawton Elementary are characterized as low-
income and participate in free or reduced-price lunch programs compared to 33.6% of
students citywide.

Table 3.14-1
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS
Lawton Elementary Seattle Public

Parameter State Average
School Schools (K-5)
White 72% 48.5% 58%
African American 2% 14.1% 5%
Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander 6% 12.0% 7%
Two or more races 13% 12.7% 7%
Hispanic 7% 11.9% 21%
American Indian/Alaska Native >1% 0.42% 1%
Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander >1% 0.37% 1%
Students Participating in Free or 11% 33.6% N/A
Reduced-Price Lunch Program /
Students from Low-income Families
Source: www.greatschools.org, accessed October 2017 and http://www.seattleschools.org, accessed
September 2017.
Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children

On April 21, 1997, Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks, was issued, directing federal agencies to ensure that its policies,
programs, activities and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result
from environmental health risks or safety risks. The Order recognizes that children may
disproportionately suffer from environmental health and safety risks, due to the developing
neurological, immunological, digestive and other bodily systems of children. Young children
are particularly at higher risks for exposure to LBP and lead contaminated soils because of
their behavioral traits. Therefore, to the extent permitted by law and regulations, and
consistent with the agency’s mission, federal agencies were directed to (1) identify and
assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children
and (2) ensure that the agency’s policies, programs and standards address disproportionate
health risks to children that result from environmental health or safety risks. Examples of
risks to children could include increased traffic volumes and industrial or production-
oriented activities that would generate substances or pollutants children may come into
contact with or ingest. Although the proposal evaluated in this EIS is not currently
associated with a federal approvals or agencies, disproportionate risks to children are
considered in the event that federal agencies are involved in the future.
In the Fort Lawton vicinity, there are at least three childcare centers within one mile of the
site (one south of the site on Emerson Street, the second one mile east of the site and the
third less than a mile southeast of the site). Additionally, the site is surrounded by Discovery
Park and the Magnolia single-family residential area.

Talaris Site
The Talaris site is located in Seattle’s Laurelhurst neighborhood. Land uses in the Talaris
vicinity largely include commercial, institutional and residential uses along NE 45 th Street to
the north, and residential uses to the east, south and west. There is an abandoned landfill
(Montlake Landfill) located to the west of the Talaris site. No landfill deposits underlie the
project site, and past studies indicate that there is a low probability of methane migrating
from the abandoned landfill onto the site.2 Given the age of the buildings on-site, there is a
potential for ACM, LBP and PCB ballasts or other equipment to be present (see Section 3.8, Land
Use, and Section 3.5, Environmental Health, for details).
Population and Income

There are no active residential uses on the Talaris site at present; the site is used as a
conference center and contains temporary lodging facilities (a hotel). As shown in Table
3.13-7 in Section, 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, the vicinity contains lower
percentages of minorities compared to the overall percentages in the city of Seattle. The
City’s population is roughly 30.5% minority, while approximately 16.5% of residents in the
Talaris vicinity are minorities.
The vicinity has a much higher median household income ($132,917) compared to the city
of Seattle’s median household income of $70,594 (2011-2015 ACS Survey). The vicinity is
defined as the Census Tracts in which the site is located (Census Tract 41) (see Section 3.13,
Housing and Socioeconomics, for details).
Elementary School Characteristics

Table 3.14-2 presents characteristics of the public elementary school that currently serves
the project area: Laurelhurst Elementary. As shown, Laurelhurst Elementary serves a lower
percentage of minority students than the Seattle Public Schools district and state-wide
average (approximately 28% versus the district average of 51.5% and the state average of
42%). Approximately 17% of the students attending Laurelhurst Elementary are
characterized as low-income and participate in free or reduced-price lunch programs, as
compared to 33.6% of K-5 students district-wide.
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children

In the Talaris vicinity, there are at least three childcare centers within one mile of the site
(located to the east). Additionally, the Talaris Site is surrounded by the Laurelhurst single-
family residential area; Seattle Children’s Research Hospital is located to the north and
Laurelhurst Park is located approximately one quarter mile to the east.
2
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Geotechnical Report (October 2013).

Table 3.14-2
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS
Laurelhurst Seattle Public

Parameter State Average
Elementary School Schools (K-5)
White 72% 48.5% 58%
African American 4% 14.1% 5%
Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander 11% 12.0% 7%
Two or more races 9% 12.7% 7%
Hispanic 4% 11.9% 21%
American Indian/Alaska Native <1% 0.42% 1%
Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander <1% 0.37% 1%
Students Participating in Free or 17% 33.6% N/A
Reduced-Price Lunch Program /
Students from Low-income Families
Source: www.greatschools.org, accessed October 2017 and http://www.seattleschools.org, accessed
September 2017.
3.14.2 Impacts
An analysis of the potential environmental justice impacts of Alternative 1, the Applicant’s

Alternative).
Meaningful Involvement
An important component of ensuring environmental justice requires that decision-makers

afford potentially affected people (in this case, future project residents and other
community stakeholders) the opportunity to participate in and influence decisions that may
affect their environment and/or health. Decision-makers should facilitate participation, and
consider stakeholder input in their decision-making process. This type of participation is
termed ‘meaningful involvement’.3
The city of Seattle has been engaging the community in the ongoing redevelopment
planning for the Fort Lawton project and is engaging the community in the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review process for the project to ensure meaningful
involvement. On June 5, 2017, the City issued a Determination of Significance (DS) and
Request for Comments on the Scope of the EIS being prepared on the project. The DS
indicated that there would be a 21-day EIS scoping period, and that a public meeting would
be held at the Daybreak Star Cultural Center in the Magnolia neighborhood during the
scoping period. Based on feedback from residents, a second public meeting was held at the
3
EPA. Environmental Justice. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/index.html .

Magnolia Community Center, also in the Magnolia neighborhood. Meeting attendees could
provide oral or written comments on the scope of the EIS. The public was also invited to
submit written or email comments during the EIS scoping period. Scoping comments were
used to refine and inform the alternatives and analysis provided in this EIS (see Appendix A
for the Summary of the Public Scoping Process).
The opportunity for further public engagement occurred during a 45-day comment period
following issuance of the DEIS. A public meeting was held during the comment period on
January 9th, 2018 at the Magnolia United Church of Christ (see the Fact Sheet for details).
Meeting attendees were able to provide oral or written comments on the DEIS at the
meeting. The public was also invited to submit written or email comments during the DEIS
comment period. Responses to the DEIS comments are provided in this FEIS.

Under Alternative 1, assumed development would feature a mix of affordable housing on

housing. Approximately 238 housing units would be provided on the site. Public park uses
would also be provided, including active park facilities, preserved existing natural areas and
the conversion of an existing structure to a park maintenance facility. No development is
assumed on the Talaris site.
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
During construction for Alternative 1, temporary noise from demolition, site preparation
and construction of infrastructure and buildings could affect nearby populations.
Construction activities would be subject to applicable city of Seattle noise limits, and noise
mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the extent to which people are
affected by construction noise. Overall, the temporary nature of construction coupled with
restriction to daytime hours and the implementation of noise mitigation measures would
minimize the potential for significant noise impacts from construction activities and
equipment, and no significant impacts are expected (see Section 3.4, Noise, for details).
Construction activities also could affect air quality due to emissions from construction-
related sources and equipment and dust from construction activities including grading,
cutting and filling. Some construction phases could also cause odors, particularly during
paving operations using tar and asphalt. Construction contractors would be required to
comply with regulations requiring that reasonable precautions be taken to minimize dust
emissions and prohibiting air contaminants in quantities likely to be injurious to human
health, plant or animal life or property, or which unreasonably would interfere with
enjoyment of life and property. Overall, with implementation of the controls required for
the various aspects of construction activities and consistent use of best management

practices to minimize on-site emissions, construction is not expected to significantly impact
air quality (see Section 3.3, Air Quality, for details).
Prior to redevelopment activities, additional characterization, removal and proper disposal

of contaminants or hazardous materials (i.e., LBP, ACM, PCBs) would occur in buildings to
be demolished. Abatement activities would adhere to applicable regulations regarding
handling of hazardous and contaminated materials as well as conventional dust control
measures to minimize the exposure of the immediately surrounding populations and no
significant impacts are expected (see Section 3.5, Environmental Health, for details).
The construction site could also create an attractive nuisance, resulting in safety impacts,
during redevelopment. However, the areas of the site undergoing construction would be
secured and made non-accessible after-hours to avoid this potential safety issue.
Overall, the type of construction activity and impacts that would occur onsite under
Alternative 1 would be similar in nature to other large development projects occurring
throughout the City and would be carried out in compliance with the city of Seattle
Municipal Code. Very few low-income or minority populations are located in the Fort
Lawton vicinity and the minority populations that do, do not meet EPA’s definition of such a
population. Therefore, the potential for disproportionately high or adverse impacts to such
communities or persons during construction--impacts appreciably more severe or greater in
magnitude than that borne by the community at large, in this case the city of Seattle--would
be minimal.
Significant environmental health or safety risks to children in the vicinity, including from
increased traffic volumes during construction, are not anticipated (see Section 3.10,
Transportation, for details).
Operation
Site
Redevelopment of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would introduce a low-income
community on the site. The following evaluates environmental justice-related public health
impacts that could occur with operation of the project.
Redevelopment of the site under this alternative would eliminate site-related health
hazards associated with the older buildings onsite. Specifically, demolition and
redevelopment would include removal and proper disposal of LBP, ACM and PCBs that are
present or suspected to be present in many of the existing buildings (see Section 3.5,
Environmental Health, for details).
No significant noise impacts are expected during operation of the project under Alternative
1 (i.e., due to increased traffic on area roadways or due to heating, venting and air-

conditioning and mechanical equipment associated with new buildings) (see Section 3.4,
Noise, for details).
Similar to noise, no significant air quality impacts are expected during operation of the
project under Alternatives 1 (i.e., due to increased traffic on area roadways) (see Section
3.3, Air Quality, for details).
As noted previously, very few low-income or minority populations are located in the Fort
Lawton vicinity, and the minority populations that do, do not meet EPA’s definition of such
a population. Therefore, the potential for disproportionately high or adverse impacts to
such communities or persons during operation of the project under Alternative 1 would be
minimal. Development of affordable housing and park uses on the Fort Lawton site is also
not expected to result in environmental health or safety risks to children present within the
vicinity. Existing environmental health hazards (i.e., LBP, ACM and PCBs) would be removed
and properly disposed of, and no operational noise or air quality impacts are anticipated.
Traffic would increase in the vicinity, and it is statistically possible that the number of
collisions could increase. However, historical collision data show that there are no existing
safety issues in the vicinity and Alternative 1 is not expected to result in new safety issues in
the neighborhood (see Section 3.10, Transportation, for details).
The affordable housing provided onsite under Alternative 1 could be considered a positive
impact relative to diversifying a neighborhood that is disproportionately occupied by
medium to higher income households. The Magnolia neighborhood is generally an area
with high housing costs, and providing affordable housing in such a neighborhood would
contribute towards satisfying the City’s goal of achieving a mix of housing types that provide
Chapter 2, Magnolia is among the neighborhoods that used restrictive covenants in the past
and has remained a relatively exclusive neighborhood with little to no access to affordable
housing choices for those with low-incomes.
Talaris Site
Under Alternative 1 the Talaris site would not be redeveloped and no environmental justice
impacts would be expected.
Alternative 2 – Market-rate Housing Onsite; Affordable/Homeless

Housing Offsite
Under Alternative 2, the Fort Lawton site would be developed as market-rate single-family
residences, and the development of affordable and formerly homeless housing would occur
on the Talaris site. Approximately 113 market-rate houses would be developed on the Fort
4 Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Housing, November 2016, p. 100.

Lawton site and approximately 238 affordable housing units and associated community
facilities would be developed on the Talaris site. No active or passive public park areas
would be provided on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2.
Fort Lawton Site

Construction
Construction impacts would be similar to Alternative 1 and would include temporary
impacts from demolition, site preparation and construction of infrastructure and buildings.
and air quality mitigation measures would be implemented. Overall, the temporary nature
of construction coupled with restriction to daytime hours and the implementation of
mitigation measures, would minimize the potential for impacts. As noted for Alternative 1,
very few low-income or minority populations are located in the Fort Lawton vicinity and the
minority populations that do, do not meet EPA’s definition of such a population. Therefore,
the potential for disproportionately high or adverse impacts to such communities or
persons during construction would be minimal. Significant environmental health or safety
risks to children, including from increased traffic volumes during construction, are also not
anticipated (see Section 3.10, Transportation, for details).
Operation
Site
Redevelopment of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2 would introduce market-rate
single-family residences on the site. As such, no readily identifiable group of low-income
persons would be directly affected by the proposed project. The homes would likely be
designed and constructed to be marketed to high-income buyers. The average sale price is
estimated at $1.5 million, which is comparable based on listings for new construction single-
family in the Magnolia neighborhood.5 Existing neighborhood demographic trends are
expected to continue, with lower percentages of minorities anticipated to live in the new
market-rate housing compared to the City overall. Therefore, no positive environmental
justice related-impacts are anticipated.
Vicinity
As noted previously, very few low-income or minority populations are located in the vicinity
and the minority populations that do, do not meet EPA’s definition of such a population.
Therefore, the potential for disproportionately high or adverse impacts to such
communities or persons during operation of the project under Alternative 2 would be
minimal. Development of market-rate housing on the Fort Lawton site is not expected to
result in environmental health or safety risks to children present within the vicinity. Existing
environmental health hazards (i.e., LBP, ACM and PCBs.) would be removed and properly
disposed of, and no operational noise or air quality impacts are anticipated. Traffic would
5 Zillow, November 2017. https://www.zillow.com/homes/Magnolia-Seattle-WA_rb/

increase in the vicinity, and it is statistically possible that the number of collisions could
increase. However, historical collision data show that there are no existing safety issues in
the vicinity and Alternative 2 is not expected to result in new safety issues in the
neighborhood (see Section 3.10, Transportation, for details).
Talaris Site
Construction
Construction impacts on the Talaris site would be similar to Alternative 1 and would include
temporary impacts from site preparation and construction of infrastructure and buildings.
No buildings would be demolished and removed; however, some of the buildings that could
contain LBP, ACM and PCBs would be renovated. Surveys for these hazardous would be
conducted prior to renovation and remodeling activities; and hazardous materials would be
remediated and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations if discovered.
and air quality mitigation measures would be implemented. It is unlikely that methane is
migrating from the abandoned landfill onto the Talaris site. Therefore, proposed
construction would not release this gas and no special measures would be needed to
address methane migration with proposed development under Alternative 2. Overall, the
temporary nature of construction coupled with restriction to daytime hours and the
implementation of mitigation measures would minimize the potential for impacts. As noted
for Alternative 1, very few low-income or minority populations are located in the
Laurelhurst vicinity and the minority populations that do, do not meet EPA’s definition of
such a population. Therefore, the potential for disproportionately high or adverse impacts
to such communities or persons would be minimal. Significant environmental health or
safety risks to children in the vicinity, including from increased traffic volumes during
construction, are not anticipated (see Section 3.10, Transportation, for details).
Operation
Site
Redevelopment of the Talaris site under Alternative 2 would introduce a low-income

community on the site. As mentioned above, redevelopment of the site under Alternative 2
would include renovation of buildings that could contain LBP, ACM and PCBs. Surveys for
these hazardous materials would be conducted prior to renovation activities; hazardous
materials would be remediated and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations if
discovered. Therefore, no hazardous conditions would remain during operation of the
project (see Section 3.5, Environmental Health, for details).
No significant noise impacts are expected with operation under Alternative 2 (i.e., due to
increased traffic on area roadways or due to heating, venting and air-conditioning and
mechanical equipment associated with new buildings) (see Section 3.4, Noise, for details).

No significant air quality impacts are expected with operation under Alternative 2 (i.e., due
to increased traffic on area roadways) (see Section 3.3, Air Quality, for details).
Development of low-income housing on the site would not be expected to result in

significant environmental health or safety risks to children that would visit and use these
facilities/amenities. Alternative 2 would not change the roadway network onsite and no
safety impacts are anticipated.
Vicinity
communities or persons would be minimal. Development of a low-income community on
the Talaris site is not expected to result in environmental health or safety risks to children
present within the vicinity. As noted previously, existing environmental health hazards (i.e.,
LBP, ACM and PCBs.) would be remediated, and no operational noise or air quality impacts
are anticipated. Traffic would increase in the vicinity, and it is statistically possible that the
number of collisions could increase. However, historical collision data show that there are
no existing safety issues in the vicinity and Alternative 2 is not expected to result in new
safety issues in the neighborhood (see Section 3.10, Transportation, for details).
The affordable housing provided onsite under Alternative 2 could be considered a positive
impact relative to diversifying the Laurelhurst neighborhood, which is disproportionately
occupied by higher income households. Providing affordable housing on the Talaris site
would help address the City’s goal of achieving a mix of housing types that provide
Chapter 2, Laurelhurst is among the neighborhoods that used restrictive covenants in the
past and has remained a relatively exclusive neighborhood with little to no access to
affordable housing choices for those with low-incomes.
Alternative 3 – Public Park Uses Onsite; Affordable/Homeless Housing

Offsite
including passive and active recreation areas. Approximately 238 affordable housing units
and associated community facilities would be developed on the Talaris site.
Fort Lawton Site
Construction
Development of new park uses on the Fort Lawton site would result in temporary impacts
from demolition, site preparation and construction of infrastructure and buildings.
6 Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Housing, November 2016, p. 100.

Construction-related impacts would include additional amounts of air pollution due to dust
and emissions from construction equipment and vehicles; increased noise levels from
construction activities; vibration associated with construction activities and vehicle
movement; and increased traffic associated with construction vehicles and construction
workers. Overall, construction-related impacts to off-site and on-site populations would be
temporary in nature and are anticipated to be less than under Alternative 1. Therefore, the
potential for disproportionately high or adverse impacts to low-income or minority
communities or individuals would be minimal.
Operation
Site
Redevelopment of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 3 would introduce park and open
space uses on the site. Redevelopment would eliminate site-related health hazards that are
associated with Fort Lawton’s older buildings. Specifically, demolition and redevelopment
would include removal and proper disposal of LBP, ACMs and PCBs that are present or
suspected to be present in many of the existing buildings, like under Alternative 1 (see
Section 3.5, Environmental Health, for details). No significant noise or air quality impacts
are expected to result with operation under Alternative 3 (i.e., due to increased traffic) (see
Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Section 3.4, Noise, for details).
Development of park and open space uses on the Fort Lawton site are not expected to
result in significant environmental health or safety risks to children that would visit and use
these facilities/amenities. Alternative 3 would change the roadway network onsite;
however, no safety impacts are anticipated.
Vicinity
communities or persons with operation of the project under Alternative 3 would be
minimal. Development of park and open space uses on the Fort Lawton site also would not
be expected to result in environmental health or safety risks to children present within the
vicinity. As noted previously, existing environmental health hazards (i.e., LBP, ACM and
PCBs) would be removed and properly disposed of, and no operational noise or air quality
impacts are anticipated. Traffic would increase in the vicinity, and it is statistically possible
that the number of collisions could increase. However, historical collision data show that
there are no existing safety issues in the vicinity and Alternative 3 is not expected to result
in new safety issues in the neighborhood (see Section 3.10, Transportation, for details).

Talaris Site
same as described under Alternative 2 and potential environmental justice impacts would
also be the same.
Alternative 4 - No Action Alternative
condition. The property would not be conveyed by the U.S. Army to the city of Seattle per
the BRAC process and used for affordable housing and public park uses. The City would
terminate its lease of the property and the Army would resume maintenance of the site and
facilities. Buildings and infrastructure would likely continue to deteriorate, and hazardous
materials associated with the buildings would not be removed or properly disposed of at
this time. The Talaris site would also remain in its existing condition and no new affordable
housing would occur on the site at this time. It is anticipated that no disproportionately
high or adverse impacts to low-income or minority populations would result under
Alternative 4. The opportunity to provide affordable housing in the Magnolia or Laurelhurst
neighborhoods, and the positive impacts of diversifying a neighborhood that is
disproportionately occupied by higher income households, would not be realized.
Although no significant environmental justice related impacts have been identified, the
following measures would minimize related impacts. These measures apply to all the
alternatives unless otherwise noted. Legally-Required Measures are measures that are
required by code, laws or local, state and federal regulations to address significant impacts.
Measures Proposed as Part of Project are measures incorporated into the project to reduce
significant impacts. Other Possible Measures are additional measures that could be
implemented to address impacts, but are not necessary to mitigate significant impacts.
• All construction activities would be required to comply with city of Seattle Municipal
Code regulations related to air quality and noise.
• Abatement, remediation, and disposal of any hazardous materials on site would occur in
accordance with local, state, and federal regulations prior to start of construction or
demolition activities on site.
• The areas of the site undergoing construction would be secured and non-accessible
after hours to prevent the creation of an attractive nuisance that could result in
safety/public health impacts to the residential populations near the site.

No significant unavoidable adverse environmental justice impacts are anticipated.

Chapter 4
Key Topic Areas/

Updated Information and Analysis
CHAPTER 4
KEY TOPIC AREAS /
UPDATED INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
A public comment period was provided for the Draft EIS (DEIS). 1001 written comment
letters/emails were received and public testimony was provided at a public hearing by 82
individuals1. All the comments that were received, as well as responses to the substantive
comments, are provided in Chapter 5 of this Final EIS (FEIS).
Many comments identified common subjects; these have been termed “key topic areas” in
this FEIS. Rather than provide a similar response to each comment that shares a common
theme, this chapter of the FEIS identifies the key topic areas that are related to the
elements of the environment used in SEPA (WAC 197-11-444); provides a discussion for
each area; and responds to the most often asked questions. Responses to specific
comments in Chapter 5 of this FEIS which pertain to these key topic areas are contained in
this chapter and commenters are referred here. Additional information and analysis that
has been prepared since publication of the DEIS is also summarized in this chapter.
The following key topic areas/areas of updated information and analysis are discussed in
this chapter of the FEIS:
4.1 Alternatives
4.2 Public Services
4.3 Recreation and Open Space
4.4 Transportation
4.5 Opportunity for Public Input
4.6 Cumulative Impacts
4.7 Rezone Criteria Analysis
4.1 Alternatives
Additional Alternatives
During the DEIS public comment period, many comments were received requesting the
analysis of additional alternatives for the Fort Lawton site, including a higher density
1
Please note that the number of comment letters listed in this chapter differs from the number of commenters in
the FEIS Cover Letter. In this chapter, the number of comment letters counts those signed by multiple individuals
as one comment letter (in Chapter 5, responses are provided to the comments in the letter only once). In the
Cover Letter, each commenter who signed a letter is counted.

March 2018 Key Topic Areas & Updated Information
affordable housing alternative, a school alternative, a Discovery Park alternative and other
land use alternatives. These other possible alternatives are discussed below.
The Fort Lawton EIS analyzes the potential impacts of the four alternatives listed below.
These alternatives feasibly attain or approximate the Applicant’s (Seattle Office of
Housing’s) objectives and purpose and need for the project, as described in Chapter 2.
• Alternative 1 - Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses Onsite
(Preferred Alternative);
• Alternative 2 - Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing
Offsite;
• Alternative 3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing Offsite;
• Alternative 4 - Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative.
Higher Density Affordable Housing Alternative

A large volume of commenters urged the City to increase the amount of affordable housing
being provided in the plan for the Fort Lawton site, citing a variety of reasons, from the
growing crisis of homelessness to climate change.
The Fort Lawton site could accommodate a higher, or lower, housing density than described
in the EIS. However, SEPA does not require that every possible variation or alternative be
evaluated. The density described in the EIS was selected for a number of reasons, including
the importance of creating a residential community that is compatible with adjacent uses,
and limitations on the scale of resources available for affordable housing development. The
number of affordable units under the Preferred Alternative (238 units) does exceed the
amount proposed in the 2008 Redevelopment Plan, which included 85 units of homeless
housing and six units of affordable ownership housing.
School Alternative
Some comments urged that school uses be allowed at the Fort Lawton site, and should be
evaluated in the EIS. However, as described above, when determining what uses might
comprise the permitted uses at the site, SEPA does not require that all potential land uses
be considered. Furthermore, SPS determined that it would be unable to meet federal
Department of Education requirements for a public benefit conveyance for construction of
a school. In particular, SPS determined that it would not meet the criteria related to
financial ability and immediate need.
After the EIS scoping period ended, the SPS board passed a resolution expressing interest in
finding ways to possibly include SPS facilities in the redevelopment. In response, the City
offered SPS the opportunity to pursue ownership of a portion of the Fort Lawton site
proposed to be devoted to active recreation under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1),
subject to SEPA review and agreement on terms of SPS participation in the plan. This option
is described in Chapter 2 under Alternative 1. SPS currently does not have fully formed
plans for development of a school on the Fort Lawton site. Should SPS pursue this option in

the future, it would need to conduct additional, separate environmental review of their
school proposal.
Discovery Park Alternative

The Fort Lawton site is a former U.S. Army Reserve Center and is presently owned by the
U.S. Army. The site is not currently located in Discovery Park, rather it is situated adjoining
the east edge of the park. Some commenters requested that the site be used exclusively as
a park and become a part of Discovery Park. Alternative 3 devotes the entire Fort Lawton
site to park use. Regardless of whether the site would be called Discovery Park or
encompassed within Discovery Park jurisdiction, the use of the site would be for park
purposes.
Under Alternative 3, approximately 34 acres of passive and active park and recreation uses,
including three multi-purpose fields, would be provided on the Fort Lawton site (see Chapter 2
for details). This alternative would retain portions of the site in natural areas (e.g., the forest
areas in the north and south portions of the site), similar to Discovery Park; however, the entire
site would not be in natural areas. Incorporation of the entire Fort Lawton site into Discovery
Park was not included as an alternative in the EIS because SEPA requires that EIS
alternatives feasibly attain or approximate the Applicant’s objectives for a project. This
request does not meet the Applicant’s objectives for the proposal listed in Chapter 2, which
include, “Help meet the high public demand for active recreation space.” Therefore, the
request for a Discovery Park alternative is not carried forward in this EIS.
It should be noted that under Alternatives 1 and 3, approximately 4.7 acres of land owned
by the U.S. Army on the west edge of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park.
Under Alternative 2, this approximately 4.7-acre area could be retained as private open
space or purchased by the City for public use.
Other Alternatives
Requests were made for consideration of other possible uses at the site, including:
• An off-leash dog area;
• Give land to a Native American Indian tribe; and
• Include a different mix of uses (e.g., commercial, retail and services).
As stated above, SEPA does not require that all potential land uses be considered in a re-use
plan. The EIS considers a range of park and housing uses, but not all other possible uses.
Alternative 1 currently includes significant acreage for passive and active recreation, which
could include an off-leash dog area. As noted previously, the City is currently working with
SPS on an opportunity for SPS to acquire six acres for active recreation to meet the needs of
both SPS and the broader public. Both the City and SPS are committed to a future process
that incorporates public input regarding the programming of this space when funding
becomes available for development. If this process identifies specific uses with additional
impacts, further SEPA review would be conducted.

Off-Site Location for Alternatives 2 and 3
As an example of other possible sites where affordable and formerly homeless housing
could be developed by Office of Housing, and approximate their objectives for the project
(e.g., to provide affordable and formerly homeless housing and open space area), an off-site
alternative was conceptually analyzed in the EIS under Alternatives 2 and 3 to provide an
example of the types of environmental impacts that would be shifted from the Fort Lawton
site to another site in the City of Seattle.
During scoping for the EIS, the Office of Housing determined that the Talaris site, located in
the Laurelhurst neighborhood in northeast Seattle, was a viable candidate for a potential
off-site location under Alternatives 2 and 3. This was because the 17.8-acre Talaris site was
one of the few large, contiguous sites available in a residential area of Seattle that would
meet certain of the Office of Housing’s objectives for the project (see Chapter 2 for the
Applicant’s objectives for the project).
After publication of the DEIS, Quadrant Homes (Quadrant) agreed to purchase the Talaris
site. The sale of the Talaris site is currently not complete, and Quadrant’s development
plans are in initial stages. If Quadrant completes the purchase of the site and applies for
permits from the City, additional SEPA review of their project would be necessary.
Given Quadrant’s development plans for the Talaris site, the property is less likely to be
available for the City’s proposed affordable and formerly homeless housing. However, the
analysis of this off-site location in the EIS under Alternatives 2 and 3 remains valid because,
as described above, potential redevelopment of the Talaris site was studied as an example
of a possible off-site alternative. The Talaris site was used to analyze probable adverse
impacts that would be expected with redevelopment of affordable and formerly homeless
housing at off-site locations in the City; in other words, the analysis could be applicable for
other sites, in addition to the Talaris site. As allowed by SEPA, this analysis under
Alternatives 2 and 3 is less detailed than the analysis of redevelopment of the Fort Lawton
site under Alternative 1 – the Preferred Alternative. Should the Talaris or another site
ultimately be selected for affordable and formerly homeless housing, additional more
detailed SEPA review of the off-site location would be required.
Also, as discussed in Chapter 2, EIS alternatives create an envelope of potential

redevelopment; these alternatives are intended to represent a reasonable range of land
uses and densities to address the Applicant’s development objectives for the site, the
existing regulatory framework, and economic factors. As the environmental review and land
use approval process associated with the project proceeds, the Proposed Action chosen by
the decision-makers may include components of some or all three of the alternatives for
the Fort Lawton project. However, it is assumed that the scope of the Proposed Action that
is ultimately approved will be within the range of assumptions and impacts studied in the
EIS. Thus, development of the Talaris, or another off-site location need not be part of the
project that is ultimately approved.

4.2 Public Services
Police Service
Several commenters suggested that with proposed development under Alternative 1 at the
Fort Lawton site, Seattle Police Department (SPD) would be unable to respond to the
increased demand for police services. Below is a response to these comments.
Section 3.11, Public Services – Affected Environment, describes the existing police service
to the Fort Lawton site by the Seattle Police Department (SPD) West Precinct and to the
Talaris site by the SPD North Precinct. The impacts of the EIS alternatives on police service
are analyzed in Section 3.11, Public Services – Impacts.
Can the Seattle Police Department respond to increased demand for service under the EIS
alternatives?
As described in Section 3.11, Public Services – Impacts, SPD anticipates that it would have
the capacity to continue to meet the police service needs at the Fort Lawton site or Talaris
site. SPD does not anticipate that it would need to increase staffing levels or provide
equipment upgrades due to the project, beyond the City of Seattle’s approved plan for 200
new officers by 2020 2. Therefore, no significant impacts on police service are expected
under the EIS alternatives.
Public Schools
Several commenters raised questions regarding the increased demand for school services
from new students on the Fort Lawton site and how that would impact schools in the
Magnolia area. As part of the FEIS, Seattle Public Schools (SPS) was requested to provide
updated information on its enrollment projections and anticipated projects and planning
that would affect school capacity around Fort Lawton.
Section 3.11, Public Services – Affected Environment, describes the existing Seattle Public
Schools (SPS) facilities that would serve the Fort Lawton site and vicinity and Talaris site and
vicinity; Section 3.11, Public Services – Impacts, analyzes the impacts of the EIS alternatives
on public schools; and Section 3.11, Public Services - Mitigation Measures, identifies
mitigation measures.
Can Seattle Public Schools accommodate the increased demand for school services from new
students that could reside on the Fort Lawton site under the EIS alternatives?
As noted in Section 3.11, Public Services – Impacts, development on the Fort Lawton site
would generate approximately 41 new students under Alternative 1 (Alternative 2 would
generate approximately 31 new students and Alternative 3 would generate no students).
Based on the most current Seattle Public Schools (SPS) student enrollment projections, it is
2 Personal Communication with Alyssa Pulliam, Seattle Police Department Finance, Policy and Planning. September
2017.

anticipated that Lawton Elementary and Ballard High School would exceed their right-size
capacity, while McClure Middle School would be below its right-size capacity during the
2020-2021 school year, without development under the EIS alternatives. While the specific
grade-levels of any school-age children of Fort Lawton residents are unknown, new students
would increase enrollment beyond current projections. SPS anticipates that Magnolia
Elementary and Lincoln High School (which are both currently under construction) will be
operational by 2019 and are expected to help absorb demand in the surrounding area.
For high school students, SPS has provided updated projections that estimate the opening
of Lincoln will partially resolve capacity challenges at Ballard High School, but that capacity
issues would remain by 2020-2021 (as reflected in the projections). However, SPS is
currently pursuing development of a new high school in the downtown area that would
provide further relief over the long-term.
For elementary students, the opening of Magnolia Elementary (with approximately 500 new
seats expected) is not yet reflected in SPS projections, since the precise impact from
boundary changes has yet to be determined. However, SPS believes the opening of
Magnolia Elementary will resolve any capacity issues expected at Lawton Elementary by
2020-21. In addition, SPS recently obtained funding to create an expected six additional
classrooms at Coe Elementary, which is also not reflected in current projections.
Several commenters questioned whether the creation of more capacity at the elementary
level will create future capacity challenges at the middle school level. SPS has stated that by
adding elementary space to the area, they could actually free up space for more middle
schoolers at Catherine Blaine. SPS estimates that with the addition of six classrooms at Coe,
they could gain an additional 150 seats for that middle school service area.
Finally, if necessary, SPS could adjust the attendance area boundaries; provide
transportation service for students; add or remove portables; add or renovate existing
buildings; and/or take other measures to accommodate the additional students. Therefore,
no significant impacts on schools are expected under the EIS alternatives.
4.3 Recreation and Open Space
Some comments that were received on the DEIS raised concerns about potential impacts to
Discovery Park from redevelopment under the EIS Alternatives. The following is a response
to these comments.
Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space – Affected Environment, describes existing
recreation and open space uses on and near the Fort Lawton site; Section 3.8 Recreation
and Open Space – Impacts, analyzes potential impacts from redevelopment of the EIS
alternative; and Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space – Mitigation Measures, identifies
mitigation measures.

How would the EIS alternatives impact Discovery Park?
As noted in Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space – Impacts, redevelopment under
Alternative 1 would result in approximately 586 new residents on the site, an increased
demand for parks and recreation facilities and increase use of nearby parks (e.g., Discovery
Park, Commodore Park, Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park, etc.). The City of Seattle’s level of
service (LOS) for parkland was used to estimate the level of demand that could be
generated by redevelopment under Alternative 1, which would be approximately 4.7 acres
of parks and recreation facilities.
Under Alternative 1, approximately 21.6 acres of public parks and recreation facilities would
be provided on the Fort Lawton site, including approximately 18.3 acres of passive and
active recreation areas, which would help fulfill the increased demand for park and
recreation facilities. Approximately 13.0 acres would be provided for passive uses such as
picnicking and viewing and would include the preservation of existing wooded areas in the
north and south portions of the site. Approximately 5.4 acres would be developed for active
recreation, including two unlit, multipurpose fields. In addition, up to 4.7 acres (of the 13.0
acres in passive recreation areas) of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion
of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park and increase the overall acreage of
the park.
Under Alternative 2, the Fort Lawton site would be redeveloped for new market-rate
housing which could accommodate approximately 263 residents. No new park or recreation
facilities would be developed on the site. Approximately 18.6 acres of the site would be in
open space that would include areas for private yards on individual building lots. Based on
the City’s LOS guidelines, new residents would generate a demand for approximately 2.1
acres of parks and recreation facilities. This demand could be fulfilled by use of the 4.7 acres
of land on the western edge of the site as private open space or purchase of this land by the
City for public use. However, if this area was directed to some other use by the U.S. Army, it
could result in some level of increased recreation demand by on-site residents at nearby
parks such as Discovery Park, Commodore Park and Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park.
Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be developed as a public park and no
housing would be developed on the site. A total of 17.0 acres of the Fort Lawton site would
be provided for passive recreation uses and 7.6 acres of the site would be developed for
active recreation, including three unlit, multi-purpose fields (versus two multi-purpose fields
under Alternative 1). Similar to Alternative 1, up to 4.7-acres of forest land owned by the
U.S. Army in the west site area would be incorporated into Discovery Park. The provision of
passive and active recreation facilities on the site owned and operated by SPR would
increase the amount of area and number of facilities that would be in the SPR inventory,
and provide an additional amenity for nearby residents and the entire City of Seattle.
Section 3.2, Biological Resources - Impacts, and Appendix C discuss the potential impacts of
the EIS alternatives on wildlife that use Discovery Park. They note that with preservation of
existing forested habitat areas in the north and south parts of the site in their natural

condition under Alternatives 1 and 3, wildlife habitat and corridors for wildlife movement
between Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Discovery Park would be preserved. This
wildlife habitat/corridors would not be preserved under Alternative 2. Under all the action
alternatives, indirect impacts to retained habitat and wildlife would increase due to
increased human activity. There could be a permanent displacement of certain wildlife
species less tolerant of urban uses from the Fort Lawton with proposed development.
Section 3.6, Land Use – Impacts, describes the possible land use impacts of the EIS
alternatives on Discovery Park. Proposed development under the Action Alternatives would
result in an intensification of uses and an increase in activity levels on the site and in the
vicinity, including at the park. Overall, the proposed residential and park uses on the Fort
Lawton site are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on Discovery Park, due
to the compatibility with the park uses, layout of uses, provision of buffers/separation, and
the lack of vehicular/pedestrian connection to the park.
4.4 Transportation
Several transportation-related comments were received on the DEIS. The most common
comments or questions related to impacts at the Magnolia neighborhood access points,
traffic operations at W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W, the effect of potential bridge
closures, and the availability of transit service. Additional transportation analysis has been
conducted for this FEIS to respond to these key comments and is summarized in the
responses below. The full analysis is contained in Section 3.10, Transportation, and
Appendix I.
What impacts would the Fort Lawton project have on the Magnolia neighborhood access
points, including traffic operations at W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W?
The relative effect of project trips at the three primary access points to the 15th Avenue W
corridor: at W Emerson Place/W Nickerson Street, W Dravus Street and the Magnolia Bridge
were studied in this FEIS. The analysis showed that project-generated trips would constitute
a small percentage of trips through each intersection. Project trips are expected to be
highest at the W Emerson Street/W Nickerson Street ramp, which is the closest access point
to the Fort Lawton site. However, the peak hour tripsforecast to be about 1.4% of total
trips during the AM peak hour and about 3.6% of total trips during the PM peak
hourwould have a small effect on the intersection operation.
New analysis was performed to assess the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection.
The analysis determined that the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection currently
operates at LOS F and would operate at LOS F in the future with or without development
under Alternative 1 (the EIS alternative with the greatest trip generation). Trips through this
intersection under Alternative 1 in 2030 would be a small proportion of the overall
intersection traffic, estimated to range from 1.2% to 2.1% of the total traffic. An additional
mitigation measure has been added to the FEIS as follows:

monitoring indicates they are warranted. Funding for future improvements would need
to identified and prioritized against other city needs at that time. SDOT prioritizes
signals based on a variety of factors, including crash history, expected growth, equity
and potential for partnering with developers.
(See Section 3.10, Transportation, for details.)
What transportation impacts would the project generate with closure of Magnolia Bridge?
SDOT commissioned a study in Fall 2017 to evaluate the effect of emergency closure of
Magnolia Bridge due to a natural disaster, and to identify measures to address the
transportation impacts3. Elements of the study included development of an Emergency
Bridge Closure Transportation Plan to address transportation needs immediately following a
catastrophic event, and development of a Short-Term Transportation Plan to improve the
resilience of the transportation system in advance of such an event. While the City has
recognized the need to plan for a catastrophic event that could affect access options for the
Magnolia neighborhood, the proposed redevelopment at the Fort Lawton site would have
no effect on those plans. The trips that the EIS alternatives would generate are a small
percentage of total trips through the access points and would not affect the findings or
recommendations of the SDOT report.
What transit service is currently available to serve proposed development at the Fort Lawton
site, and what service is proposed in the future? Would the EIS alternatives significantly impact
transit service?
The Fort Lawton site is directly served by King County Metro Transit (Metro) Route 33.
Metro Route 24 has stops about 1,800 feet from the site. An average peak hour demand of
2 to 3 transit riders per bus that serves the neighborhood is projected in the EIS for
Alternative 1, which is the EIS alternative that would have the highest level of demand. The
EIS analysis concludes that the existing bus service that serves the site is adequate to
accommodate this additional demand.
Additional clarifying information and analysis on the expected impacts of the EIS
alternatives on transit service is provided in this FEIS. The results of this analysis indicate
that while some buses may be “standing room only” during periods of peak ridership, on
average they have available capacity. It should be noted that while Metro’s Long-Range
Plan 4 does not indicate significant planned capacity changes for the local bus routes that
serve Magnolia, Metro continuously monitors ridership on its buses and adjusts routes and
3 Heffron Transportation, Inc., November 10, 2017.


schedules to meet shifts in demand. Updates are implemented twice per year, in March and
September.
(See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details.)
4.5 Opportunity for Public Input
A number of comments received during the DEIS public comment period raised concerns
about the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIS, particularly verbal comments at
the DEIS Public Meeting. Other comments related to the noticing for the Laurelhurst
neighborhood, and the ability to comment on development at the Talaris site under
Alternatives 2 and 3. Following is a discussion of the opportunities for public comment on
the DEIS.
What opportunities for public comment were provided during the scoping process for the EIS
and following issuance of the DEIS?
Chapter 2 indicates that on June 5, 2017, the City issued a Determination of Significance
(DS) and Request for Comments on the scope of the EIS. A 21-day EIS scoping period was
provided, and two public meetings were held during scoping (on June 19, 2017, and June
21, 2017) to provide opportunities for the public to learn more about the Proposed Actions
and to provide input on the scope of the EIS. Public comments were accepted in writing at
the meetings and in writing throughout the scoping period.
Following issuance of the DEIS, a public comment period was provided to gather comments
from agencies, tribes and the public on the document. SEPA requires a minimum 30-day
public comment period on a DEIS; Office of Housing elected to provide a 45-day extended
public comment period to afford additional opportunity for public comment. As required by
SMC 25.05.535, a public hearing on the DEIS was held on January 9, 2018. Opportunities for
verbal and written comments were provided at the hearing and for written comments
throughout the DEIS comment period. Eighty-two (82) commenters provided verbal
comments at the hearing. Everyone who signed up to speak at the hearing was given the
opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, some people who wished to speak may have been
discouraged by the number of commenters and nature of comments at the meeting.
Comments on the DEIS were also accepted in writing, and all comments—written and
verbal—will be given equal weight. Some commenters disagreed with the location choice
for the public hearing. The Magnolia United Church of Christ was selected as the venue for
the meeting because of its convenient location, high quality sound system for ease of
hearing public comments, and capacity to accommodate a large number of people (in
excess of the number of attendees at previous meetings held during the EIS scoping period).

What noticing to the Laurelhurst community was provided on the SEPA review for the Fort
Lawton project? What further SEPA review of the Talaris site will be provided?
Noticing focused on the Fort Lawton site because it is the location of the re-use plan. The
City is not proposing development at the Talaris site. It is acknowledged that the Laurelhurst
Community Club (LCC) was not individually notified about the Fort Lawton DEIS.
As described in Chapter 2, additional, more detailed SEPA review of the Talaris site, or
another off-site location, would be required should that or another site be selected for
affordable and formerly homeless housing by the City. The Office of Housing has committed
to prepare an EIS, with an opportunity for public comment on the draft document, if
development is proposed by the City at the Talaris site.
What further environmental review and opportunities for public comment will there be on the
Fort Lawton proposal?
In 2012, the U.S. Army issued a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the closure, disposal and reuse of Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center
based on the 2008 Fort Lawton redevelopment plan. The U.S. Army will provide additional
NEPA review of the updated redevelopment plan that is selected by the City.
Seattle City Council approval will be required for several actions related to the Fort Lawton
project, including: the updated redevelopment plan; a rezone of portions of the Fort Lawton
site from SF 7200 to LR2 (M1); public property conveyances from the Army to the City of
Seattle, sale of parcels designated for housing development and execution of necessary
easement agreements; and funding for acquisition and development. City Council meetings
are open to the public and public comment regarding proposed Council actions is generally
allowed.
4.6 Cumulative Impacts
Several commenters questioned whether cumulative impacts were discussed in the DEIS, as
required by SEPA.
Cumulative impacts are impacts of the proposed action (in this case, development of the
Fort Lawton project at the Fort Lawton site) together with other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future actions. When impacts of an action are viewed individually,
they may appear minor, but when considered collectively (cumulatively) with the impacts of
other actions, especially over a period of time, the impacts can be more significant. The
purpose of the cumulative impacts analysis is to ensure that decision-makers consider the
full range of consequences for the proposed project, including the proposed project’s
incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on the environment.
As described in Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies – Affected

Environment, the Fort Lawton site is surrounded by existing residential development in the

Magnolia neighborhood to the north and east, and existing public park uses in Discovery
Park to the south and west. Magnolia is an established residential community with minor
new development in the recent past, and minimal potential for growth at present or in the
foreseeable future. Discovery Park is a natural area park with limited new development in
the recent past, and minimal plans for additional development at present or in the
foreseeable future. Similar to the Fort Lawton project, any nearby development would be
required to comply with City of Seattle zoning and other development regulations. As a
result, no significant cumulative impacts are expected with development of the Fort Lawton
site together with any other development near the site. This is consistent with the
conclusion reached regarding cumulative impacts in the 2012 Army NEPA Environmental
Assessment for the project 5.
Certain sections of the Fort Lawton EIS discuss the cumulative impacts of the Fort Lawton
project in the context of growth in the larger vicinity, the entire city and the region (e.g.,
Section 3.3, Air Quality, 3.4, Noise, Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and
Policies, Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, Section 3.10, Transportation, Section
3.11, Public Services, Section 3.12, Utilities, Section 3.13, Housing/Socioeconomics, and
Section 3.14, Environmental Justice). Below is a summary of the cumulative impacts
analysis for these elements.
Air Quality
Section 3.3, Air Quality, and Appendix D analyze the air quality impacts of the Alternatives
1, 2 and 3. The analysis notes that during construction and operation of the Fort Lawton
project these alternatives would result in an increase in GHG emissions, including from
additional heating and traffic-related activity. Due to the type and level of development, the
air quality impacts from project traffic are not expected to be significant. Because GHG
emissions result in global rather than localized impacts, GHG emissions from the Fort
Lawton and the Talaris sites were combined for a cumulative analysis. Predicted GHG
emissions from all the EIS alternatives would fall below Washington State Department of
Ecology’s threshold of significance; therefore, no significant cumulative GHG impacts are
anticipated.
Noise
Section 3.4, Noise, and Appendix E analyze the noise impacts of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
during construction and operation. During construction, these alternatives, together with
any other development in the larger Fort Lawton vicinity, would result in a temporary
increase in noise due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of construction
materials. During operation, increases in traffic noise are expected to result from all
development alternatives. Increases in noise under all the development alternatives,
5 Recommendations for Closure, Disposal and Reuse of Fort Lawton, United States Army Reserve Center (FACID,
WA030, WA031, WA012), Seattle, WA, July 2012, p. 4-69.

together with any other development in the larger vicinity, are not anticipated to be
significant relative to City and State regulatory criteria.
Land Use
Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, discusses the indirect/cumulative
impacts under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, and indicates that redevelopment on the Fort Lawton
site would contribute to the cumulative residential and employment growth in the
Magnolia area. The increase in on-site population (residents, employees and visitors) would
contribute to a cumulative increase in activity levels in the area. The increase in population
could also result in an increased demand for goods and services. It is anticipated that most
of this demand could be fulfilled by businesses near the sites in the Magnolia area.
part, on the new population at the Fort Lawton site, some new development in the area
could be indirectly generated. However, as noted previously, there is little developable land
in the area, and any development/redevelopment indirectly generated by development of
the Fort Lawton site would likely occur incrementally over time. New development in the
larger vicinity would be controlled by existing development regulations. As a result,
significant indirect/cumulative land use impacts are not anticipated.
Recreation and Open Space

Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, evaluates the impacts of the EIS alternatives
relative to the existing citywide demand for park and recreational facilities. As described in
this section, the growing population in Seattle has placed demands on the public park
system and has impacted the active recreation resources available through Seattle Parks
and Recreation (SPR). The EIS evaluates the Fort Lawton EIS alternatives relative to the
City’s adopted LOS standards and need for new parkland by 2035. Overall, residential
development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is not expected to result in significant impacts on
recreation and open space given the proposed open space and recreation areas under these
alternatives (see Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, for details on the proposed open
space and recreation areas). And, substantial parks and recreation facilities would be
provided at the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 1 and 3 that would also help satisfy the
citywide demand for parkland by 2035.
Transportation
As described in Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I, the DEIS transportation
analysis applied an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes to account for cumulative
impacts through year 2030, with trips generated by other new development. The assumed
background growth rate is considered to be conservatively high when compared to
historical traffic trends in the area that show a decline in traffic volumes over the past
decade. Background growth of 1% per year over 13 years is also at the high end of the
growth assumptions typically applied to analysis of new development projects in Seattle.
Trips forecast to be generated by the project were added to the No Action Alternative
traffic volumes that reflect the assumed background growth to evaluate the cumulative

impacts on traffic operations of the Fort Lawton project and other new development.
In addition, new analysis was performed for this FEIS to evaluate the cumulative impacts at
the W Emerson Street/Gilman Avenue W intersection. The same assumed background
growth rate was used in this new analysis as was used for the DEIS analysis (1%) (see
Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details).
The analyses conclude that no significant transportation impacts are expected with
development of the EIS alternatives, together with the assumed background growth.
Public Services
Section 3.11, Public Services, analyzes the police, fire and school service impacts of the EIS
alternatives in the context of the service provided to the service areas and the city as a
whole.
Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on the Fort Lawton site, together with any other
development in the area, would result in increased demand for police and fire/emergency
services during construction. This demand would be temporary, is not expected to be
substantial, and would cease once development is completed.
Increases in on-site population with development on the Fort Lawton site under
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in an increase in demand for police and fire/emergency
services, as well generate new students that would attend public schools. There would be
no new on-site population under Alternative 3; however, the provision of new park facilities
could generate some increase in demand for police and fire/emergency services. New
students from the Fort Lawton project would attend Lawton Elementary School and Ballard
High School, which together with other projected enrollment at the schools, are projected
to be over capacity 6. Service purveyors are expected to be able to accommodate the
increased demand for services from the cumulative development; therefore, no significant
cumulative public services impacts are anticipated.
Utilities
As described in Section 3.12, Utilities, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would increase demand for
sewer and water service from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) at the Fort Lawton site. New
sewer and water distribution pipes would be required to serve the project. SPU is expected
to have adequate sewer and water capacity to serve the project together with any other
development in the area. Wastewater from the Fort Lawton vicinity is conveyed to King
County’s West Point Sewage Treatment Plant on the edge of Discovery Park for treatment.
This treatment plant is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the projected service
6 The analysis of school service in the EIS was based on existing school right size capacity information and five-year
(through 2021) student enrollment projections for the schools that serve the Fort Lawton site.

population through year 2026 7. SPU expects water supply to be adequate to serve the City’s
existing and forecast population for at least the next twenty years8.
Housing and Socioeconomics

Section 3.13, Housing/Socioeconomics, compares the EIS alternatives to the City’s plan for
increased housing supply, and specifically to City affordable housing targets to address
existing unmet need as well as future needs associated with of King County’s projected 20-
year growth.
At the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 1 would increase residential density; add affordable
housing units; increase the population; align with the City’s plan for increased housing
supply to accommodate the City’s share of King County’s projected twenty-year growth;
and help address the City’s goal of making it possible for households of all income levels to
live affordably in Seattle. With proposed development and any other development in the
vicinity, population in the vicinity by age, ethnicity and income levels are anticipated to shift
towards ratios more consistent with those citywide.
At the Fort Lawton site, Alternative 2 would increase residential density; add market-rate
housing units; increase the population at the site; and align with the City’s plan for
increased housing supply. This alternative would not help address the City’s goal of making
it possible for households of all income levels to live affordably in Seattle. With proposed
development and any other development in the vicinity, population in the vicinity by age,
ethnicity and income levels are anticipated to remain relatively the same.
No housing would be built on the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 3. This alternative
would not align with the City’s plan for increased housing supply, nor help address the City’s
goal of making it possible for households of all income levels to live affordably in Seattle.
With no action at the site and any other development in the vicinity, population in the
vicinity by age, ethnicity and income levels are anticipated to remain relatively the same.
Environmental Justice
The Section 3.14, Environmental Justice, analysis indicates that very few low-income or
minority populations are located in the Fort Lawton vicinity and the minority populations
that do, do not meet EPA’s definition of such a population.
Under all the EIS alternatives, construction activity would result in temporary impacts
associated with noise, air quality emissions, etc. These impacts together with the impacts
from any other development in the area, would be carried out in compliance with the City
of Seattle Municipal Code. Therefore, the potential for disproportionately high or adverse
7
Recommendations for Closure, Disposal and Reuse of Fort Lawton, United States Army Reserve Center (FACID,
WA030, WA031, WA012), Seattle, WA, July 2012, p. 4-58.
8
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, Utilities appendix, November 2016, p. 573.

cumulative impacts to minorities or low-income persons during construction would be
minimal.
During operation, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would include affordable housing, community

facilities and/or parks and recreation uses on the Fort Lawton site. No significant
environmental justice-related impacts are expected from operation of these uses together
with impacts from any other development in the area. The affordable housing provided
under Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site could be considered a positive impact relative to
diversifying a neighborhood that is disproportionately occupied by medium to higher
income households and would better align with the economic and minority composition of
the entire city.
4.7 Rezone Criteria Analysis
Comments were received from neighborhood groups on the need to provide an analysis of
the rezone criteria contained in SMC 23.34 in the EIS. One of the Proposed Actions for the
Fort Lawton project is City Council approval of a rezone of portions of the Fort Lawton site
from SF 7200 to LR2 (M1) zoning. This rezone would be required for Alternative 1, but not
for Alternatives 2 and 3. Proposed development on the Talaris site under Alternatives 2 and
3 would require a rezone from SF 5000 to lowrise residential zoning (e.g., LR2 (M1)) and a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
In response to comments on the DEIS, a discussion of the City of Seattle’s rezone criteria
that relate to a rezone of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 is provided in this FEIS
(including SMC 23.34.007, SMC 23.34.008, 23.34.010, 23.34.011, 23.34.013, 23.34.014 and
23.34.018). As described in Section 4.5, Opportunities for Public Input, in this chapter,
should the Talaris site be selected for affordable and formerly homeless housing by the City,
the Office of Housing has committed to prepare an EIS, which could include a rezone criteria
analysis.
(See Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, for the rezone criteria
analysis at the Fort Lawton site.)

APPENDICES
Chapter 5
Comment Letters and Responses

CHAPTER 5
COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES
This chapter of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) contains comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and
provides responses to the comments.
1001 written comments letters/emails were received and public testimony was provided at a
public meeting by 82 individuals during the DEIS public comment period.1 All the comments
that were received, as well as responses to the substantive comments, are provided in this
chapter of the FEIS. Comment letters/numbers appear in the margins of the letters/testimony
and are cross-referenced to the corresponding responses. Comments and responses are
grouped in the following categories: Letters (Agencies, Groups, and Individuals), Public Meeting
Forms and Public Meeting Testimony.
The following comments were received on the DEIS:
Letters - Agencies
1a. Department of Ecology
1b. King County Metro
Letters - Groups
2. Discovery Park Community Alliance
3. Friends of Battelle/Talaris
4. Friends of Discovery Park
5. Habitat for Humanity
6. Housing Development Consortium
7. Laurelhurst Community Club
8. Magnolia Community Club
9. Master Builders Association
10. Real Change
Letters – Individuals
11. Katya Adams 15. Damon Agnos 19. Alison
12. Scott Adams 16. Elaine Albertson 20. Craig Allegro
13. Matt Adkins 17. Suha Alevizatos 21. Deanne Allegro
14. Celena Adler 18. Zach Alexander 22. Justin Allegro
1
Please note that the number of comment letters listed in this chapter differs from the number of commenters in
the FEIS Cover Letter. In this chapter, the number of comment letters counts those signed by multiple individuals
as one comment letter (and responds to the comments in that letter only once). In the Cover Letter, each
commenter who signed a letter is counted.
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-I Chapter 5

March 2018 Comment Letters and Responses
23. Lindsay Allen 69. Molly Beaudoin 114. Tim Brincefield
24. Anson Allseitz 70. Lisa Beaulaurier 115. Marilyn Brink
25. Scott Alspach 71. Joe Beavo 116. Ben Broesamle
26. Grace Amend 72. Dan Becker 117. Eric Bronson
27. Jane Anau 73. Jennifer Beetem 118. Kyle Brooks
28. Lindsay Andersen 74. Larry Benefiel 119. Vernon Brown
29. Sarah Andersen 75. Barbara Bengtsson 120. Amanda Brown
30. Kyle Anderson 76. Bob Bennett 121. Emily Weaver
31. Christine Anderson 77. Patricia Benton Brown
32. Stephanie Anderson 78. Julie Berard 122. Richard Brown
33. Claire Andrefsky 79. Todd Berard 123. Rodney Brown
34. Jennifer Andrews 80. Todd Berard 124. Kate Brunette
35. Helen Angell 81. Jessi Berkelhammer 125. Margaret Brunger
36. Dustin Anglin 82. Maya Berkowitz 126. Mark Brunson
37. Anonymous 83. Keara Berlin 127. Ken Bryan
38. Anonymous 84. Barbara Bernard 128. Ken Bryan
39. Anonymous 85. Laura Loe Bernstein 129. Ken Bryan
40. Anonymous 86. Athena Bertolino 130. Ken Bryan
41. Anonymous 87. Tina Beveridge 131. Mason Bryant
42. Anonymous 88. Shaun Bickley 132. Smitty Buckler
43. Anonymous 89. William Bielawski 133. Patrick Bufi
44. Kaitie Anthony 90. Natalie Biner-Wittke 134. Glen Buhmann
45. Ellen Archibald 91. Brian W Bird 135. Darby M. Bundy
46. Jim Arrowsmith 92. D'Anne Bissell 136. Michelle Burce
47. Lisa Ascher 93. Anna Black 137. Ken Burgess
48. Jennifer Aspelund 94. Mark bloome 138. Benjamin Burke
49. Suzanne Asprea 95. Angela Blums 139. Trina Burke
50. Walker Aumann 96. Stephanie Boegeman 140. Tarik Burney
51. Tea Austen 97. Derek Boiko- 141. Carol Burton
52. Kaya Axelsson Weyrauch 142. Carol Burton
53. Shary B 98. Allison Bolgiano 143. Veronica Bush
54. Jennifer Bacon 99. Alex Bond 144. Michael Byers
55. Taylor Bailey 100. Charles Bond 145. Amy Campbell
56. Tamar Bailey 101. Greg Bond 146. Brian Campbell
57. Aloe Bailey 102. Scott Bonjukian 147. Colin Campbell
58. Max Baker 103. Jean M. Boris 148. Deborah Campbell
59. Jessica Balsam 104. Linda Bothell 149. Elizabeth Campbell
60. Sonia Balsky 105. Nick G Botner 150. Fred Campbell
61. Kathryn Banke 106. Tyler Boucher 151. Jon Campbell
62. Geri Ann Baptista 107. Aaron Bowersock 152. Raven Campbell
63. Linda Bard 108. John D Braitsch 153. Terri Campbell
64. Lisa Barnes 109. Sean Brennan 154. Mark Canright
65. Michaela Barrett 110. Bryan Brenner 155. Rebecca Canright
66. Marilyn Bates 111. Cheryl Brenner 156. Denise Capen
67. Serena Batten 112. Gene Brenowitz 157. Susan and Gary
68. Colin Bayer 113. Raleigh Briggs Carlson
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-II Chapter 5

158. Kim Carmel 201. Brad Coulter 244. Catherine Dichter
159. Lucas Carpenter 202. Sara Coulter 245. Barbara Dingfield
160. Erin Carper 203. Sara Coulter 246. Lydia Dobrovolny
161. Heidi Carpine (sp?) 204. Gene Counts 247. Suzanne Dolberg
162. Julie Carr 205. Lilian Coutts 248. Mackenzie Dolstad
163. Constance Carroll 206. Debra Covert- 249. David Donovan
164. Bruce D. Carter Bowlds 250. Reilly Donovan
165. Sue Cary 207. Kristy Crabtree 251. Carolyn Draper
166. Charlotte Casey 208. Pat Craft 252. John Dulaney
167. Margaret Casey 209. Don Crevie 253. Brian Duncan
168. Caesar Castro 210. Kate Criss 254. Roxanne Duniway
169. Curtis Cawley 211. Nina Crocker 255. Sue Duvall
170. Cassandra Cawley 212. Sarah Croft 256. Patricia Eamon
171. Neil Cebara 213. Laura Crotty 257. Debby Eastman
172. Scott Chancellor 214. Lynne M Crowder 258. Rae Eaton
173. Paul Chapman 215. Jessie Culbert 259. Madeleine Eddy
174. Judith Iliana 216. Aleksandra Culver 260. Mike Eddy
Villanueva Chavez 217. Spike Curtis 261. Mia Edera
175. Bart Cheever 218. Warren Cutlip 262. Nicholas
176. Darby Cheever 219. Tiare D Efthimiadis
177. Jack Cheever 220. Seattle D 263. Susan Eggleton
178. Jack Cheever 221. Matt Dalessio 264. Jonathan Ehrich
179. Kelley Chen 222. Greg Dandeles 265. Natasha Ehrlich
180. Jennifer Cheng 223. Gregory M. 266. Michael Eliason
181. Kath Chinn Dandeles 267. Leslie Elliot
182. Ashley Clark 224. Channing Daniel 268. Cindy Arends
183. Bryan Clark 225. Shannon Danielson Elsberry
184. Jamie Clausen 226. Emily Darling 269. Andrew Engelson
185. Lindsey Clibborn 227. Jean Darsie 270. Susan Eramia
186. Mary Kay Clunies- 228. Patricia David 271. Ericka
Ross 229. Cody Davis 272. Asako Esperum
187. Shelly Cohn 230. Jim Davis 273. Asako Esperum
188. January Colacurcio 231. Johnathan Davis 274. Destinee Evers
189. Matthew J 232. Maddie Davis 275. Alicia Eyler
Colasurdo 233. Annette de Soto 276. Ed Faccone
190. Amy Colbert 234. Cheryl DeBoise 277. Kelly Fahlman
191. Tara Comer 235. Jacque Decker 278. Kristen Faiferlick
192. Catherine Conolly 236. Stephen E 279. Kelda Fairleigh
193. Bob Cook DeForest 280. Kelsey Fatland
194. Terry Cook 237. Asphodel Denning 281. Laura Felice
195. Terry Cook 238. Monica Depiesse 282. Erin Fenner
196. Valerie Cooper 239. Rebecca Deutsch 283. Robert S. Fenwick
197. Chris Copley 240. Rebecca Deutsch 284. Jeff Few
198. Patricia Corbin 241. Rahul Dhar 285. Richard Figinski
199. Jill Corrales 242. Matteo Di Giulio 286. Elizabeth Filep
200. David Corry 243. Joshua Diaz 287. Janyce Fink
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-III Chapter 5

288. Matthew Finnell 329. Shaun Glaze 370. Rob Harrison
289. Tara Fischer 330. Demian Godon 371. Nichole Hart
290. Shary Flenniken 331. Andrew Golden 372. Donna Hartmann-
291. Tim Fliss 332. Eldan Goldenberg Miller
292. Beree’s Flynn 333. Jennifer Goldman 373. Erika Haskell
293. Colm Flynn 334. Michael Goldman 374. Claudia Heiden
294. Gregory Flynn 335. Kelley Goldmanis 375. Bron Heintz
295. Drew Foerster 336. Norman M 376. Susan Helf
296. Mark A. Foltz Gonsalves 377. Yoav Helfman
297. Leah Ford 337. Mikhaila Gonzales 378. Nicki Hellenkamp
298. David Forrest 338. Richard and Carol 379. Laura Heller
299. Amy Forston Goodall 380. Megan Helmer
300. Veronica Foster 339. John Gosink 381. Marnie Hendrix
301. Meaghan Fox 340. Susan Gossman 382. Sharon Hennessy
302. Melissa Fox 341. Chris Govella 383. Ian Hepburn
303. Jozef Engel Szwaja 342. Jon Grant 384. Eric Herbig
Franken 343. Sam Grantham 385. David A. Herrick
304. Kira Franz 344. John Green 386. Pete Higgins
305. Trista Winnie 345. Julie Green 387. Edward Highfield
Fraser 346. Cheryl Gregory 388. Collin Hinshaw
306. Jonathan Frazier 347. Marc Grenly 389. Josh Hirshland
307. Polly Freeman 348. Alison Grevstad 390. Suzanne Hittman
308. Dana Fried 349. Alexandra Griffith 391. Monika Holm
309. Max Friedfeld 350. Gerald A. and 392. Tim Holmgren
310. Nick Fuller Annette K. Grimm 393. Andrew Holtzclaw
311. Rob Fuller 351. Karen Grimm 394. A.J. Honore
312. Danielle Gaerden 352. Robbie Grimm 395. Amy Hooey
(sp?) 353. Geneva Griswold 396. Shanta Horlander
313. Will Gagne- 354. Nell Gross 397. Alisa Horwitz
Maynard 355. Nell Gross 398. Jamie Hoskinson
314. Heidi Gainer 356. Sandy Gunder 399. Sara Hospador
315. Robert Gale 357. Austin Gunsauley 400. Janice Hougen
316. Kevin Gallagher 358. Monika D 401. Donna Howard
317. Matt Gangemi Guzikowska 402. Oralea Howard
318. Tom Garcia 359. Christina Hall 403. Jared Howe
319. Wayne Garrow 360. Brad Halverson 404. Dee Anna Hulbert
320. Ann Gateley 361. Erik Hammen 405. Emily Hunnicutt
321. Ahmed Gaya 362. Chong Han 406. Ami Huntley
322. Hugh Geenen 363. David Handa 407. Katie Hurley
323. Amanda L. 364. Eric Handstad 408. Matt Hutchins
Gemmill 365. Madeline M. 409. Matt Hutchins
324. Bruno George Hanhardt 410. Matt Hutchins
325. Donovan Gesting 366. Amy Hansen 411. Matt Hutchins
326. Judi Gibbs 367. Stacey Hanson 412. Isa Hutchinson
327. Susan Gilbert 368. Tanya Hanson 413. T Ingraham
328. Dionna Glaze 369. Matthew Harding 414. Claire Ireba (sp?)
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-IV Chapter 5

415. Carol Isaac 459. Barbara Kiley 503. Dan Liebling
416. Margaret Isaac 460. Michael Kiley 504. Jill Lightner
417. Abigail Isquith 461. Louis Kim 505. Mark Linsey
418. Joy Jaber 462. Colleen Kimsey 506. Lesa Linster
419. Cheryl Jacobs 463. Valerie Kinast 507. Sarah Lippek
420. Kathryn Jacoby 464. Kimberly Kinchen 508. Meredith Lirman
421. Marilyn Jarrell 465. David Kirkeby 509. Bri Little
422. Stan Jeffs 466. Bryan Kirschner 510. Howard Litwak
423. Brad Jencks 467. Beret Kischner 511. Alice Lockhart
424. Joe 468. Joe Klonowski 512. Sarra Loew
425. Cynthia Johnson 469. Mike Knezevich 513. Steve Lovekin
426. Thomas Johnson 470. Linde Knighton 514. Briana Lovell
427. Emily Johnston 471. Vasiliy Kochergin 515. Sammy Low
428. Mose Johnston 472. Ekaterina 516. Jessica Lucas
429. Calvin Jones Kochergina 517. Scott Luchessa
430. Jett Jones 473. Sara M. Koenig 518. Benjamin Lucking
431. Justin Jones 474. Kate Koliha 519. Benjamin D. Lukoff
432. Kim Jones 475. Bryce Kolton 520. Sonja Lund
433. Nelly Kakulya 476. Gary Konop 521. Tom Lux
434. Summer 477. Bryan Kopel 522. Kevin MacDonald
Kakuomoto 478. Bill Korbonits 523. Marti MacDougall
435. Jessica Kamin 479. Conrad Kornmann 524. Kate Macfarlane
436. Robert Kaminski 480. Rodney Kreps 525. Melroy Machado
437. Kathleen Kapla 481. Dustin Kreutz 526. Ahna Machan
438. Kaeley Kaplan 482. Ken Kroemer 527. Clair Magula
439. Ryan Kartheiser 483. Walt Kuciej 528. Jean Maier
440. Andrew Katz 484. Hal Kussick 529. Sean Mallon
441. Laurie Kavanagh 485. Dale Kutzera 530. Brian Mankinen
442. Barbara Kavanaugh 486. Keith Kyle 531. Michele Marchi
443. Josh Keeler 487. Amy Lakhani 532. Davida Marion
444. Pamela Keeley 488. Tom Lang 533. Jonathan Mark
445. Courtney Keen 489. Ian Langer 534. Steve Marquardt
446. Phoebe Keleman 490. James L. Larsen 535. Anthony Marris-
447. Kathryn Keller 491. Marc Lawrence Swann
448. Bryan Kelley 492. Celeste Lawson 536. David Marshall
449. Alison Kelly- 493. David Lawson 537. Stuart Marshall
Rostholder 494. Jessie Lawton- 538. Carly Martin
450. Alex Kelsey Crane 539. Doris Martin
451. Mary Ann Kelson 495. Justin Lee 540. Marcos Martinez
452. K. Kennell 496. Emily Leedy 541. Denis
453. Erin Lillis Kent 497. Nancy Lehwalder Martynowych
454. Nicholas Kent 498. Shannon Leslie 542. Mary
455. Kristine Kershul 499. Grant H. Leum 543. Whitney Mason
456. Jerry Kessinger 500. Sharon LeVine 544. Marla Master
457. Yih Pin Khoo 501. Haoquan Li 545. Anne Mathews
458. Barbara Kiley 502. Lars Liden 546. Mycah Mattox
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-V Chapter 5

547. Liz Hills Maxfield 587. Andy Miller 631. Neal Nuckolls
548. Liz Hills Maxfield 588. Anne Miller 632. Ezra Nuite
549. Liz Hills Maxfield 589. Gordon Miller 633. Brendan O'Connor
550. Kevin Maxon 590. Kathryn Miller 634. Brendan O'Connor
551. Sue Maxon 591. Ashley Millett 635. Kari O'Driscoll
552. William Maxwell 592. Ashley Millett 636. Nero O'Reilly
553. Catherine Mayhew 593. Nicholas Mirra 637. Melody O'Seadna
554. William Gagne 594. Leah Missik 638. Lis O’Donoghue
Maynard 595. Patricia Moe 639. Josh Oakley
555. Clarence McAllister 596. David Moehring 640. Daniel Ojalvo
556. Amanda McCaffrey 597. Rick Mohler 641. Gabrielle Olivera
557. Doyle McCarthy 598. Johannes 642. Eliot David Olson
558. Dave McCaul Mohrmann 643. Kathryn Olson
559. Margaret 599. Lyle Moise (sp?) 644. Susan Oneil
McCauley 600. Patrick Mondello 645. Guy Oron
560. Morgan 601. Colleen Monette 646. Chelsea M Pagan
McClanahan 602. Donna Moniz 647. Nathan Page
561. Tim McConnell 603. Jen Moon 648. Nicole Palczewski
562. Victoria 604. KJ Moon 649. Rebecca Demarest
McCormick 605. Cary Moon Panzer
563. Victoria 606. Robert Moore 650. Leah Papernick
McCormick 607. Teresa Moore 651. Jung Park
564. David McDaniel 608. Debra Morrison 652. Alison Park-
565. Jennifer McDowall 609. Lyle Morse Douglas
566. Toni McElroy 610. Charlie Morss 653. Alex Parkman
567. Deborah Brown 611. Linda C Morton 654. Amanda Parnell
McGarry 612. David Moser 655. Adina Parsley
568. James S. McIntosh 613. Cliff Mountjoy- 656. Zoe Parsons
569. Chuck McKeever Venning 657. James Pasch
570. Juanita McLaughlin 614. Matthew Moyano 658. Giulia Pasciuto
571. Bronwyn McNutt 615. Claudine Murphia 659. Pat
572. Garland McQuinn 616. Meaghan Murphy 660. Arthur R. Patterson
573. Megan 617. Melissa Murphy 661. Jason A. Paul
574. Bruno Mello 618. Kathy Mutchler 662. Todd Paulson
575. Jeremy Mendonsa 619. Miller Myers 663. Dave Pearson
576. Finn Menzies 620. Ramez Naam 664. Beatrice Peaslee
577. Aaron Merhoff 621. Risa Nagel 665. Anna Pedroso
578. Aaron Merhoff 622. Izumi Nance 666. Casey Peel
579. Christine Merker 623. Chad Newton 667. Gabe Pelly
580. Nancy Mero 624. Chad Newton 668. Melissa
581. Richard Mesmer 625. Molly R. Nixon Pennington
582. Scott Meyer 626. Karen Noar 669. Aaron T. Perez
583. Michael 627. Ty Nolan 670. Lynn Perry
584. E. Michaels 628. Bill Nordwall 671. Abby E Peterson
585. Nikita Milani 629. Baird Nuckolls 672. Eric Peterson
586. Scott Miles 630. Neal Nuckolls 673. Kimberly Phan
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-VI Chapter 5

674. Ethan Phelps- 718. Susan Reilly 760. Karen Schneider
Goodman 719. William Reilly 761. Karen Schneider
675. Shannon Phillips 720. Rae Rein 762. Arwen Schreiber
676. Susan G. Phinney 721. Don Reising 763. Jen Schripsema
677. Owen Pickford 722. Linda Reiter 764. Dave Schuldt
678. Cindy Pierce 723. Brian Retford 765. Ari Schumer
679. Natasha Pietila 724. James Reynolds 766. Nathan Schumer
680. Eliza Pittner 725. Jordan Reynolds 767. Penelope Scordas
681. John Platt 726. Serena Rice 768. Ben Scott
682. DeAnna Poling 727. Shawn Richards 769. Shaun Scott
683. Ira Pollock 728. Rob Ricketts 770. Ann Scranton
684. Bonnie Porter 729. Yucca Rieschel 771. Edward Seafeldt
685. Bonnie Porter 730. Chad Rinehart 772. Margie Seafeldt
686. Mark Porter 731. LaVar Riniker 773. Allegra Searle-
687. Mary Jo Porter 732. LaVar Riniker LeBel
688. Alan Potter 733. Phil Ritter 774. Roseann Seeley
689. Sarah Power 734. Michael Roberto 775. Michael Seiwerath
690. Albert H. Powers 735. Kim K. Roberts 776. Carrie Sellar
691. Harold Pratt 736. Jason Robideau 777. Alain Semet
692. Meredith Preston 737. Roxanne Robles 778. Marva Semet
693. Elizabeth Pring 738. Diana Rocha 779. Phil Sewell
694. Gayle A. Puccinelli 739. Dawn Rodney 780. Amit Shah
695. John Putre 740. Marissa Lynn 781. John Shao
696. Amanda Qu Roesijadi 782. Greg Shaw
697. Greg Quetin 741. Christine Walsh 783. Aaron J. Shay
698. Jamal Raad Rogers 784. Mesa Sherriff
699. Thomas Rakes 742. Trace Ronning 785. Becky Shields
700. Jane Rall 743. Gilbert Rooth 786. Jeannine Shingler
701. Jane Rall 744. Jennifer Rooth 787. Miya Cohen-Sieg
702. Heather Ralph 745. Todd B. Rosin and Ross Sieg
703. Maya 746. Betsy Ross 788. Jenette Sifuentes
Ramakrishnan 747. Chuck Ross 789. John Sillcox
704. Kevin Ramsey 748. Diane Rudholm 790. Laura Silverton
705. Erin Rants 749. Tere Ryder 791. Tyler Simpson
706. Anton Rapo 750. Abe Saeed 792. Brian Sindel
707. Dorothy Rasener 751. Lindsay Saeed 793. Avani Singh
708. Rachel Ravitch 752. Andres Salomon 794. Egill Skall
709. Annie Raymond 753. Saunatina Sanchez 795. Egill Skall
710. Kim Raymoure 754. Andrew Sang 796. Erica Sklar
711. Helen read 755. Bradley Scarp 797. Pob Sloat
712. Whitney Rearick 756. David Scheer 798. John Vander Sluis
713. Simha Reddy 757. Gilbert Scherer 799. Carolyn J Smith
714. Leslie Reed 758. Steve 800. Clark G. Smith
715. Irene Reep Schimmelman 801. George D. Smith
716. Joni Reeves 759. Gwynne 802. Jennifer Smith
717. Nicole Reid Schnaittacher 803. John Smith
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-VII Chapter 5

804. Postyn Smith 849. Kara Sweidel 890. Stevie
805. Travis Smith 850. Nick Szumlas VanBronkhorst
806. Jessica Smits 851. Joe Szwaja 891. Miranda Vargas
807. Jeff Snyder 852. Vicky Tamaru 892. Natasha Varner
808. Andrew Soderland 853. Rosalind Tan 893. Zoe Vartanian
809. Daniel Sohn 854. Charles Tang 894. Lindsay Vigor
810. Melissa 855. Erica Tarrant 895. Laura Villarreal
Sokolowsky 856. Emily Taylor 896. Lada Vishtak
811. Ruth Solnit 857. Gretchen Taylor 897. Richard Visick
812. Troy Sorensen 858. Jason Taylor 898. Tina Vivio
813. Nicole Southwell 859. Karen Taylor 899. Ramen Vohra
814. Cameron Sparr 860. Patrick Taylor 900. Adit Vohra
815. Erica Sponsler 861. Anne Thomas 901. Kathleen Volkman
816. Jennier Spriggs 862. Jan Thomas 902. Stephanie Vollmer-
817. Patricia Springer 863. Peter Thomas Juhl
818. Brent Stach 864. Wendy Thomas 903. Clay Vredevoogd
819. Amanda Stanek 865. Chase Thompson 904. Nellie Waddell
820. Megan Stanley 866. David Thompson 905. Ann K. Wagner
821. Neil Starkman 867. Schuyler 906. Susan and Jeff
822. Neil Starkman Thompson Walker
823. Richard Starnes 868. Matt Tilghman- 907. Susan and Jeff
824. Mary Steele-Klein Havens Walker
825. Karen Stefano 869. Patricia 908. Judy Walker
826. Cyrena Stefano Timmerman 909. Lawrence Wallman
827. Stephanie Stein 870. Phyllis Tobias 910. Ashleigh Walls
828. Jake Steinberg 871. Phyllis Tobias 911. Annie Walters
829. Tonya Ricks Sterr 872. Martha Tofferi 912. Curtis Walton
830. Lori Stevens 873. Dan Tollefsen 913. Amanda Wanner
831. Rachel Stevens 874. Spencer Tordoff 914. Amanda Wanner
832. Libby Stevenson 875. Arthur Torelli 915. Rian Wanstreet
833. Erin Stewart 876. Jane Towery 916. Aiden Ward
834. Lindsay Stewart 877. Alexander Tran 917. Alan Ward
835. Erik Stinson 878. Janis Traven 918. Benjamin Ward
836. Elliot Stoller 879. Chris Trimis 919. Dorota Ward
837. Steph Stone 880. Cheryl Trooskin- 920. Ian Ward
838. Ian Strader Zoller 921. Jay Wardle
839. Kesterson Strople 881. Doug Trumm 922. Lauri Watkins
840. Kesterson Strople 882. Jeffrey Tucker 923. Corrie Watterson
841. Lucinda Stroud 883. Hilary Turnberg 924. Tara Weaver
842. Terri Suess 884. Max Turner 925. Storme Webber
843. Hannah Sullivan 885. Teresa 926. Beckett Weeks
844. Max Suman Underwood-LeMoine 927. Jason Weill
845. Noelle Sun 886. Elizabeth Uselton 928. Heather Weimann
846. James Sutter 887. Lisa Valent 929. Colin Weinbender
847. Karen Sutton 888. Janice Van Cleve 930. Michele Weingeist
848. Joseph Swain 889. Kelly Van Gelder 931. Oliver Weisert
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-VIII Chapter 5

932. Gordon Werner 947. Marian Wineman 961. Janet Young
933. Erica N. West 948. Andrew Witkowski 962. Melinda Young-
934. Linda Whang 949. Karleen Wolfe Flynn
935. Alex White 950. Shirley Wong 963. Krysta Yousoufian
936. Jacob Wicks 951. Mary Wong 964. Jennifer Yu
937. Raandi Wiebe 952. Kjerstin Wood 965. Iulia Zavodov
938. Jeremy Wilkening 953. James Woodley 966. Marc Zawislak
939. Susan Wilkening 954. Nancy Worssam 967. Kathy Zeim
940. Sean Wilkins 955. Daniel 968. Julia Zelman
941. Steven Wilkins Worthington 969. Susan Zeman
942. Jesse Willard 956. Shane Wyatt 970. Lu Zeng
943. Dana williams 957. Tom Wyliehart 971. Josh Zimmerman
944. Bill Williamson 958. Zhu Zhu Xiao 972. Patricia Zoberst
945. Olivia Williamson 959. Pauline Yerkovich 973. Leah Zoller
946. Judith Windleharth 960. Larry Yok
Public Meeting Forms
1. Charles Bond 10. Jon Grant 20. Sue Olson
2. Kate Brunette 11. Heather Herbst 21. Elizabeth Poh
3. Tony Bulpin 12. Tim Hesterberg 22. Dave Schuldt
4. Lindsay Butler 13. MD Hordman 23. George Schweikart
5. Kristina Croonquist 14. Melissa Hyatt 24. Randy Simon
6. Mike Eliason 15. Cheryl Jacobs 25. Daniel Sohn
7. Rob Fusco 16. Sonia Lei 26. Lyon Terry
8. Adrian Fussell and 17. Zach Lubarsky 27. Camilla Walter
Diana Yelton 18. Jon Meier 28. Heather Weimann
9. Tim Gould 19. Gabriella Moller
Public Meeting Testimony (in order spoken)

1. Laura Villarreal 17. Terra Anderson 35. Jessica Westgren
2. Terry Cook 18. Catherine Hinrichsen 36. Karen Nims
3. Vince Stricherz 19. Oona Kelly 37. James Mdden
4. Charles Redell 20. Angela Compton 38. Clark Bathum
5. Erin House 21. Hillary Coleman 39. Susan Russell
6. Elizabeth James 22. Helen Gilbert 40. Shelly Cohen
7. Jeff Snyder 23. Henry Noble 41. Tiffani McCoy
8. Aden Nardone 24. Erica West 42. Richard Gambino
9. Nicki Olivier 25. Carol Issac 43. George Smith
Hellenkamp 26. Brooke Brod 44. Neal Lampi
10. Rachel Ludwick 27. Mark Foltz 45. Jenny Allen
11. Dimitri Groce 28. Charles Bond 46. Sharon Jones
12. Dan Cantrell 29. Nick Woods 47. Tim Hesterberg
13. Alexander Froehlich 30. Allison Bolgiano 48. Lisa Sawyer
14. Patricia Akiyama 31. Tara Millerberry 49. Keaton Slonsky
15. Ethan Phelps- 32. Greg Shaw 50. Shawn Hosford
Goodman 33. Amy Bailey 51. Lisa Barnes
16. Carissa Knipe 34. Laura Lou Bernstein 52. Mary Van Bronkhorst
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-IX Chapter 5

53. Raven Campbell 63. Anitra Freeman 73. Rye Bey
54. Mike Eliason 64. Janis Traven 74. Kevin Reynolds
55. Daniel Ammons 65. Lisa Evans 75. Lee Colleton
56. Chris Sanders 66. Valerie Cooper 76. Matthew Long
57. Iulia Zavodov 67. James Jarosz 77. Dan Hernbrott
58. Susan Helf 68. Alouin Semet 78. Mary Steeleklen
59. Terri Suess 69. Doug Woos 79. James McIntosh
60. Joseph Lachman 70. Alice Lockhart 80. Judy Willson
61. Myra Lara 71. Melissa Hyatt 81. Bradley Scarp
62. Doug Conrad 72. Steven Buckminster 82. Andrew Sang
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 5-X Chapter 5

LETTER 1a
1
1,
cont.
LETTER 1b
1
1,
cont.
LETTER 2
Direct Phone (206) 447-6407

Direct Facsimile (206) 749-1935
[email protected]
January 29, 2018
Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Ms. Lindsay Masters

Office of Housing
City of Seattle
P.O. Box 94725
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project issued on December 14, 2017
Dear Ms. Masters:
This law firm represents the Discovery Park Community Alliance (“DPCA”) on matters
related to the Seattle Office of Housing’s (“Housing’s”) Fort Lawton Redevelopment proposal.
This letter provides DPCA’s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared
for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project (“DEIS”) prepared by
Housing and issued on December 14, 2017.
In September 2017, we sent a letter to you on behalf of DPCA setting forth reasons why
Fort Lawton should be preserved as a public park. A copy of the letter is enclosed as 1
Attachment A. We never received a response from Housing to our letter.
On January 9, 2018, Housing held a public meeting to accept comments on the DEIS.
The public meeting was so crowded that very few supporters of DPCA or residents of the area
surrounding the Fort Lawton site had any opportunity to speak, let alone even get into the
building. The demonstrated public interest in the proposal and lack of opportunity for public 2
participation in the single public meeting necessitates additional public meetings to comment on
the DEIS to ensure that comments from diverse community members are fully heard and
considered.
This letter incorporates the comments in our September 2017 letter by reference and sets
forth additional reasons why the DEIS does not meet the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”), Chapter 43.21C RCW.
Fort Lawton presents a rare opportunity to provide additional public park space that
Seattle’s rapidly growing population desperately needs. The current DEIS ignores the
environmental benefits that preservation of Fort Lawton as a park would have, and ignores the 3
adverse environmental impacts that development of hundreds of units of housing on one of the
City’s last remaining opens spaces will have. As set forth below, the DEIS is deficient for the
52933246.4
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 2
following reasons: (1) Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are not “reasonable alternatives” required by
SEPA; (2) the DEIS fails to disclose and analyze significant adverse impacts associated with the
Seattle Public School uses at Fort Lawton; (3) the DEIS fails to fully evaluate numerous
environmental impacts of the four alternatives; (4) the DEIS fails to address the irreconcilable
3,
conflicts between the preferred Alternative 1 and the federal government’s Defense Base Closure
and Re-alignment Act of 1990 (“BRAC”) process, as well as the federal government’s cont.
considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
For all of these reasons, DPCA is asking Housing to revise the DEIS to fully and fairly
consider the environmental impacts of the project before issuing a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (“FEIS”).
1. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are not “reasonable alternatives” as required by SEPA.
The DEIS does not comply with the requirements of SEPA because it fails to propose
“reasonable alternatives” to the preferred Alternative 1 and fails to provide the City of Seattle, as
the decision maker, with sufficient information to make a reasoned decision between the four
alternatives.
The underlying purpose of SEPA is to avoid environmental degradation, to preserve, and

even to enhance environmental quality by requiring the actions of local government agencies to
be based on sufficient environmental information and be in accord with SEPA’s substantive
polices. RCW 43.21C.030(2), .030(1), .060. To accomplish this, SEPA requires preparation of
an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) to provide the decision maker with “sufficient
information to make a reasoned decision.” Citizens Alliance To Protect Our Wetlands v. City of
Auburn, 126 Wn.2d 356, 362, 894 P.2d 1300 (1995). The process of preparing an EIS
is intended to assist the agencies and applicants to improve their

plans and decisions, and to encourage the resolution of potential 4
concerns or problems prior to issuing a final statement. An
environmental impact statement is more than a disclosure
document. It shall be used by agency officials in conjunction with
other relevant materials and considerations to plan actions and
make decisions.
WAC 197-11-400(4).
An adequate EIS clearly, concisely, and impartially describes a proposal’s significant

impacts and environmentally preferable alternatives, including mitigation measures. WAC 197-
11-400(3), 400(4). The EIS must be reliable and backed by sufficient environmental analysis.
WAC 197-11-400(2)-(3). The EIS must be prepared early enough to inform and guide decision
makers, rather than simply rationalize or justify decisions already made. WAC 191-11-406. See
Barrie v. Kitsap County, 93 Wn.2d 843, 613 P.2d 1148 (1980). SEPA seeks to inform and guide
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 3
decisions in part through the consideration of “reasonable alternatives,” which are defined by the
SEPA regulations as:
an action that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s

objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of
environmental degradation. Reasonable alternatives may be those
over which an agency with jurisdiction has authority to control 4,
impacts, either directly, or indirectly through requirement of
mitigation measures. (See WAC 197-11-440(5) and 197-11-660.) cont.
WAC 197-11-786.
If there is information on significant adverse impacts that is essential to a reasoned choice

among alternatives and the costs of obtaining such information are not exorbitant, the lead
agency must obtain the information and include it in an environmental impact statement. WAC
197-11-080(2). See Methow Valley Citizens Council v. Regional Forester, 833 F.2d 810 (9th Cir.
1987).
Housing states that “[t]he purpose of the project is to create an affordable, livable
community with safe, high quality housing options for those with low or no incomes, and to meet
the growing demand for open space and recreational opportunities.” DEIS at p. 2-18. Housing
selected Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative, which calls for the construction of 238 units of
high-density affordable housing and limited park uses on the Fort Lawton site.
The DEIS provides three alternatives to the preferred Alternative 1, none of which are
“reasonable alternatives” as required by SEPA for the reasons discussed below. Alternative 2
proposes development of 113 market-rate single-family units on the Fort Lawton site with no
park space, and off-site affordable housing at the Talaris site. Alternative 3 propose a public
park on Fort Lawton, and off-site affordable housing at the Talaris site. Thus, Alternatives 2 and
3 rely entirely on the feasibility of developing 238 units of affordable housing at the Talaris site.
5
The DEIS fails to evaluate any other potential off-site location for affordable housing
besides Talaris, stating that the Talaris site:
is included only as an example of a possible off-site alternative for

the affordable and formerly homeless housing. It is provided in
order to conceptually analyze probably adverse impacts that would
be expected with redevelopment at that site or other off-site
locations in the City. Additional more detailed SEPA review of
the Talaris site, or another off-site location, would be required
should that or another site ultimately be selected for the affordable
and formerly homeless housing.
DEIS at p. 1-1 (emphasis added).
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 4
Under the DEIS, Alternatives 2 and 3 do not present “reasonable alternatives” because
there is absolutely no information in the DEIS that allows a decision maker to make a reasoned
decision as to whether the off-site affordable housing of those alternatives, combined with the
proposed uses of the Fort Lawton site, could feasibly attain or approximate the affordable 6
housing objectives of Alternative 1, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of
environmental degradation. See WAC 197-11-786. This vital information is not difficult or
expensive to obtain. Housing could identify and evaluate specific sites in Seattle in addition to
Talaris that offer opportunities for affordable housing development to offer feasible alternatives
to the proposed Alternative 1.
Furthermore, as raised in our September 2017 letter, Housing’s reliance on acquiring the
Talaris site – one of the most expensive properties in the City (last sold for $15.6 million in
2000) and zoned for single-family residential use – for off-site affordable housing as the only
alternative that would preserve Fort Lawton as a public park is inherently unreasonable.
Moreover, it is now impossible.
This month, it was publically announced that Quadrant Homes has agreed to buy Talaris 7
and proposes building 63 single-family homes on large lots on the site, estimated to sell for about
2 million dollars each. 1 With Talaris off the market and no other off-site opportunities identified
or evaluated by Housing for affordable housing, Alternatives 2 and 3 cannot meet the definition
of “reasonable alternatives.” Without Alternative 3, the only alternative that would provide park
space, the DEIS utterly fails to address the adverse environmental impacts that development of
hundreds of units of housing will have on some of the last remaining open space in the City.
The lack of reliable analysis of the preferred Alternative 1 against Alternatives 2 and 3
suggests that the DEIS is simply rationalizing or justifying a decision already made by Housing
to pursue 234 units of affordable housing at Fort Lawton without regard for reasonable 8
alternatives that would avoid the irreversible environmental degradation that Alternative 1 will
cause. This is impermissible under SEPA. WAC 197-11-406 (EIS “will not be used to
rationalize or justify decisions already made”).
Without Alternatives 2 and 3, only preferred Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 of “no-

action” remain. SEPA mandates that the “no-action” alternative be evaluated and compared to
the other alternatives. WAC 197-11-440(5)(b)(ii). The EIS must “[p]resent a comparison of the
environmental impacts of the reasonable alternatives, and include the no action alternative.”
WAC 19-11-440(5)(b)(vi). An EIS that evaluates only a proposed Alternative and no-action 9
alternative may be deemed inadequate for not analyzing a sufficient range of alternatives. Town
of Woodway v. Snohomish Cty., 180 Wn.2d 165, 171, 322 P.3d 1219 (2014) (“growth board
found that the county’s EIS was faulty because it did not consider multiple alternatives . . . —the
only alternative it considered was no change at all.”); Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. Cent. Puget
1 See https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattles-largest-batch-of-single-family-homes-in-decades-is-
pitched-for-oasis-site/.
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 5
Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 159 Wn. App. 148, 152–53, 244 P.3d 1003 (2010) (noting
that the Growth Board found an EIS inadequate because it did not analyze a sufficient range of
alternatives).
Alternative 4 is not a reasonable alternative to the proposed Alternative 1 because it does

not attain any of the objectives of the proposal. WAC 197-11-786 (a reasonable alternative is 9,
“an action that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objectives”); Friends of First cont.
United Methodist Church v. City of Seattle, 130 Wn. App. 1031 (2005) (decision not reported in
P.3d) (alternative was not reasonable because it did not attain the project goals). Under
Alternative 4, Fort Lawton would remain in its existing condition, not serving any public open
space, recreational, or housing purposes and, therefore, not fulfilling any of the objectives of
Housing’s Fort Lawton Reserve Center Redevelopment Project.
Because Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are not reasonable alternatives, as defined under the
SEPA rules, proposed Alternative 1 is the only real alternative left in the DEIS. With
Alternative 1 standing alone with no reasonable alternative to compare its environmental impacts
against, the DEIS accomplishes nothing more than rubber-stamping approval of Housing’s
proposed Alternative 1. This is inadequate under SEPA. See WAC 191-11-406. See Barrie v.
Kitsap County, 93 Wn.2d 843, 613 P.2d 1148 (1980). The entire purpose of an EIS is to provide
reasonable alternatives of a reasonable number and range to provide essential information on
adverse environmental impacts that allows for a reasoned choice among alternatives. 10
Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce Cty., 124 Wn.2d 26, 41, 873 P.2d 498 (1994) (“There must be a
reasonably detailed analysis of a reasonable number and range of alternatives.”). The DEIS for
the Fort Lawton Reserve Center Redevelopment Project fails to meet this standard because it
offers only one feasible alternative: preferred Alternative 1. Contrary to SEPA, the DEIS leaves
no opportunity for a reasoned choice among other alternatives that could be feasibly attained or
approximate the project’s objectives.
Housing should, at a minimum, revise the DEIS to offer and evaluate “reasonable
alternatives that would mitigate adverse effects of proposed actions on the environment,” as
required by SEPA. WAC 197-11-030(1)(g). The alternatives should include at least one off-site
alternative that could feasibly attain or approximate the goals of the project. See WAC 197-11-
400(5)(d). To have fully evaluated the impacts to the environment, the DEIS should include at
11
least one reasonable alternative that preserves all of Fort Lawton as public park space. If
preservation of Fort Lawton as a park must be tied to the provision of affordable housing,
Housing should propose an off-site location that presents a feasible opportunity for development
of affordable housing.
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 6
2. The DEIS fails to disclose and analyze probable significant adverse impacts associated
with Seattle Public School uses at Fort Lawton.
On November 20, 2017, the City of Seattle and Seattle Public Schools (“SPS”) entered
into a Partnership Agreement 2 whereby the City and SPS agreed to a collaborative partnership to
“jointly achieve unique opportunities for developing SPS facilities, including SPS [sic] in the
Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan.” The detailed agreement includes provisions for a joint
development agreement, partnership and financial commitments, and mobility planning. While
the agreement sets forth plans to utilize a portion of the Fort Lawton property for a range of
school-related uses, the DEIS states that the environmental impacts of such a partnership would
be evaluated at a later date. DEIS at p. 2-8. This position is untenable under SEPA. SEPA
12
requires that a proposal identify all the related and interdependent pieces of the proposal.
Actions are related if they are dependent on each other. In this case, SEPA dictates that
Alternative 1 and the SPS proposal must be considered together as one proposal in the same
environmental document. See WAC 197-11-060(3)(b).
SEPA requires agencies to disclose the reasonably foreseeable impacts of its proposals.
The disclosure of impacts related to SPS uses is governed by WAC 197-11-080, which
necessitates additional disclosure, or a worst case analysis be advanced, concerning the impacts
of SPS uses at Fort Lawton.
3. The DEIS fails to evaluate numerous significant, adverse environmental impacts of each
of the proposed alternatives.
In addition to the failure of the DEIS to provide reasonable alternatives to preferred

Alternative 1, as described in Section 1 above, the DEIS is inadequate in its analysis of numerous
adverse environmental impacts of each of the alternatives. Without sufficient analysis, it is
impossible for a decision maker to make a reasoned decision on the proposal. The deficiencies
of the DEIS in its analysis of adverse environmental impacts are summarized below. Revision of
the DEIS before publishing the FEIS is required to address each of these deficiencies.
a. Land Use
The DEIS does not adequately address the land use issues accompanying its preferred
Alternative 1, or Alternatives 2 or 3. As the City acknowledges, the Fort Lawton property is
currently zoned Single-Family 7200, surrounded by areas zoned 7200 and SF 5000, with
minimal Lowrise 3, NC1 and NC2 to the southeast. Even if the City rezones the Fort Lawton
13
area away from single-family, such a rezone would remain inconsistent with the rezone factors in
the Land Use Code and cut against many of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Development in the Fort Lawton area of high-density housing will have irreversible negative
2 The agreement is titled, “Seattle Public Schools and City of Seattle Public Process Partnership Agreement: School
District Facilities, Fort Lawton, Memorial Stadium, and Seattle Center.”
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 7
impacts, and will undermine the growth in urban centers and urban villages envisioned by in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Key Findings in the Land Use section of the DEIS (§ 3.6) state:
Alternative 1 would require that a portion of the Fort Lawton site

be rezoned from the existing SF 7200 zoning to Lowrise residential
zoning (e.g. LR 3)
...
Alternative 1 and 2 [sic, believed to refer to Alternatives 2 and 3]
would require that a portion of the Talaris site be rezoned from SF
5000 to lowrise residential zoning; a Comprehensive Plan
amendment would also be required.
In the DEIS’s discussion of the fact that both sites require a rezone under one or more of
the alternatives, Housing has not met its obligation to weigh and balance the provisions of the
rezone criteria laid out in SMC 23.34. SMC 23.34.007.A. The Code states:
The most appropriate zone designation shall be that for which the
provisions for designation of the zone type and the locational
criteria for the specific zone match the characteristics of the area to
be rezoned better than any other zone designation. 14
SMC 23.34.008.B.
Specifically, the Code states that an area zoned single-family may not be rezoned to
multifamily. SMC 23.34.013. A rezone to something more intensive than single-family is not
appropriate unless the City Council determines the single-family zoned area does not meet the
criteria for single family designation. SMC 23.34.010.
The rezone criteria also indicate a gradual transition between zoning categories is
preferred. SMC 23.43.008.E. The City’s proposal to alter the zoning of the Fort Lawton site is
not in alignment with the rezone policy of gradual transition, as evidenced by the City’s Figure
3.6-3; a rezone would dramatically alter the greater Fort Lawton and Magnolia area.
When discussing the rezones that would be required for both sites under Alternatives 1, 2
and 3, the DEIS states that the applicant will prepare a rezone proposal for Alternative 1, and
City Council approval would be required. The DEIS relies speculatively on future actions, such
as amendments to Subchapter II of SMC 23.42, and summarily states that “the relationship of the
project to the criteria in SMC 23.34.008 will be evaluated” when an application for a rezone is
made. This does not adequately address the Code’s rezone criteria. While the DEIS addresses
some aspects of the rezone criteria—describing the historic land use patterns and current
zoning—it does not provide a reasoned and complete analysis of how such a rezone application
would conform to the Code. Given that a rezone would be pivotal to using either Fort Lawton or
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 8
Talaris for affordable housing development, Housing’s failure to specifically address the rezone 14,
criteria in SMC 23.34 fails to provide the decision maker with information needed to make a cont.
reasoned decision on the proposal.
With respect to the Talaris site (or some other, unidentified site for off-site affordable
housing), the DEIS again fails to analyze the criteria for rezoning the site from Single-Family
5000 to Lowrise. The Talaris site is surrounded by areas zoned primarily SF 5000, with some
NC2 and LR3 to the north. The City of Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates future land 15
use of Talaris as single-family residential, not Lowrise. As with the Fort Lawton site, without
any analysis of the rezone criteria and feasibility of a rezone, it is impossible for Housing to
make a reasoned decision among preferred Alternative 1 and Alternatives 2 and 3.
b. Recreation and Open Space
The DEIS fails to address how its alternatives conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and other goals for open space, points raised in our September 2017 letter. City policies include,
“[p]reserve and reclaim park property for public use and benefit, and ensure continued access to
parkland for the growing population,” with goals of considering “retaining City-owned 16
properties that are in environmentally critical areas as natural areas.” Comprehensive Plan (P.
3.6); id. at 70 (LU 17.26). Developing Fort Lawton with affordable or market-rate housing
works against the identified policy to “[e]nhance wildlife habitat by restoring forests and
expanding the tree canopy on City-owned land.” Id. at 142 (P 3.4).
The DEIS forecloses a park-only alternative. The DEIS points out that, during the
scoping process, requests for a park-only alternative were turned away because such an analysis
did not further the City’s mission to increase affordable housing within the City. DEIS at p. 2-8.
However, the Comprehensive Plan states it is a policy of the city to “[m]ake the most of the
limited available land by developing parks and open spaces so that they can accommodate a
variety of active and passive recreational uses.” Comprehensive Plan at 140 (P 1.13). The City 17
has a unique opportunity in the Fort Lawton site to demonstrate its commitment to open space
and recreation for all future residents. The significance of open space is apparent now more than
ever, as Seattle is one of the fastest-growing cities in the country. Housing’s decision to
disregard a park-only alternative, and to disregard the opportunity to increase Discovery Park by
nearly ten percent, demonstrates a lack of commitment to its stated objective of preserving open
space.
Despite the fact that the 1986 Discovery Park Master Plan is not binding on
Fort Lawton, 3 Fort Lawton, as part of the former base, is inextricably linked to Discovery Park.
Housing does not provide adequate analysis of how developments at the Fort Lawton site – 18
either affordable housing or market-rate housing – complement or impede the future of
Discovery Park. Nor does the DEIS contemplate how forfeiting open space plans at Fort Lawton
3 The City acknowledges that this was stated in Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council v. City of Seattle, 155
Wn. App. 305 (2010).
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 9
may negatively impact development within Discovery Park itself in the future. Such an analysis
is important for understanding the future of Discovery Park, the future of open space in Seattle,
and the potential for future efforts to chip away at the park.
In the 1972 Discovery Park Master Plan, the following statement was made:
In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to

carve out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various
civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the
future be structures and activities without number for which, it will
be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The
pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to 18,
the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the cont.
park will be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central
purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be
accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character
and objective of the park. There must be a deep commitment to the
belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open
space. 4
While Fort Lawton is not presently part of Discovery Park, the spirit of this quote
resonates today. Housing should evaluate at least one reasonable alternative that preserves
Fort Lawton as a public park space, which may include the provision of community services
such in a park setting. 5
c. Transportation
The DEIS does not adequately address transportation concerns relating to traffic, public
transit, and parking. Additional review and analysis of these effects is important in order to
provide an accurate picture of how development on either site will cause transportation-related
impacts. The DEIS’s consideration of adverse impacts on transportation is deficient in the
following ways:
 The DEIS fails to reasonably analyze impacts to local intersections. By focusing on a

limited number of street intersections, the DEIS has not adequately addressed the full scope
of the impact of additional cars on the existing over-burdened transportation infrastructure in 19
the area surrounding Fort Lawton. The DEIS states that Alternative 1 would generate an
estimated additional 1,260 vehicle trips per day going to and from the Fort Lawton area.
DEIS at p. 3.10-9. It concludes that no significant traffic impacts are anticipated at the
4 Discovery Park Master Plan, Fort Lawton Park Plan (1972) (emphasis added), available at:
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/ParksAndRecreation/Parks/masterplan1.pdf
5 The BRAC process provides the City with the opportunity of pursuing a Public Benefit Conveyance for park use.
See BRAC Manual Section C.5.4.10.
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 10
Fort Lawton site because all studied intersections are expected to continue to operate at “LOS
B,” which is an acceptable level of operation. DEIS at p. 3.10-10. The DEIS chose four
intersections to evaluate for purposes of traffic volume. 6 DEIS at p. 3.10-3. Housing expects
these study area intersections to handle direct access to and from the site, but the DEIS fails
to account for impacts to other important access roads in the greater Magnolia area. These
include Commodore Way—an existing two-lane, winding road through residential area that
is already overburdened, and W. Emerson Pl and Gilman Ave. W., both of which provide 19,
irreplaceable access to Fort Lawton. Impacts with respect to traffic on these roadways have
not been addressed. Magnolia is served by a finite number of access points, which already cont.
experience congestion. The addition of approximately 600 new residents, and approximately
1,200 new vehicles per day, will have a significant impact both on ingress and egress to the
site for residents and visitors, as well as to the surrounding area and existing residents.
Housing should provide a more thoroughly analysis of these impacts, expanding its traffic
review to include greater numbers of streets and intersections.
 The DEIS fails to reasonably analyze cumulative traffic impacts. The assessment of
Alternative 1 also fails to disclose and analyze cumulative adverse impacts caused by
pipeline projects and anticipated growth in the greater Magnolia area. The DEIS states,
“there is little growth from new development expected in the immediate vicinity.” DEIS at
p. 3.10-4. However, this assertion ignores the effects of the Mandatory Housing
Affordability zoning changes and changes to accessory dwelling unit regulations on the 20
immediate vicinity. It also undercuts the City’s goals of ensuring there are sufficient services
and resources for residents, by anticipating there will be little growth from the new
development. Beyond City policy changes, public and private developments in the Interbay
area will very likely impact transportation and public services, yet the DEIS does not account
for such impacts. A thorough disclosure and analysis of the potential adverse traffic impacts
on the greater Magnolia community has not been developed. The analysis must disclose and
assess reasonably foreseeable growth and density changes in the vicinity of the proposal.
 The DEIS fails to reasonably analyze traffic impacts at Talaris or another site.
Similarly, the DEIS did not adequately discuss the impacts of traffic near the Talaris site. It
concludes that development at Talaris would only result in a less than one second delay at
two intersections, which Housing does not consider a significant impact. However, two
intersections near Talaris will operate at LOS F and E (which constitute the worst ratings and
indicate poor traffic operations with long delays). Additional information describing how the 21
City expects to mitigate increases in traffic is necessary to provide a more adequate picture of
how development at Talaris will affect the transportation grid. The DEIS provides no
analysis of traffic impacts on any other off-site location for affordable housing.
6These four intersections are: (1) 40th Avenue E/Texas Way; (2) Discovery Park Boulevard/Texas Way; (3) W
Government Way/36th Avenue W; and (4) Discovery Park Boulevard/34th Avenue W.
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 11
 The DEIS fails to reasonably analyze impacts to bus routes. The information provided in
the DEIS demonstrates that public transit service will be inadequate to serve anticipated
demand. Presently, only one bus line services the area—the Metro Transit 33. King County
Metro’s Long Range Plan does not anticipate adding additional bus routes: “[T]he existing
level of local bus service is planned to remain through its long range planning year of 2040.”
DEIS at p. 3.10-5. Alternative 1 is expected to accommodate approximately 596 new
residents. DEIS at p. 2-21. One bus line cannot adequately accommodate this increase in
demand. The DEIS does not adequately account for the impact of only one bus route on 22
future residents and traffic congestion. The Long Range Plan’s identification of “frequent”
bus service by 2040 does not constitute adequate consideration of transit impacts—and with
full build-out at Fort Lawton expected by 2025, potential frequent service by 2040 does not
adequately address or mitigate impacts. The DEIS lists Metro Route 24, half a mile away
from the site, as a bus route for consideration. However, it is unrealistic that hundreds of
residents, many of whom will be senior citizens, will be able to walk a half mile for the
transit they must rely on.
 The DEIS fails to reasonably analyze impacts to residential transit trips. The DEIS cites
2010 Census date for the fact that 25% of residential trips in Magnolia occur by transit.
Based on this projection, it concludes the existing bus service would be adequate, which
overlooks the reality that many senior citizen residents may not drive, many residents may 23
not own vehicles, and many residents may not have a driver’s license. The fact that 25% of
residential trips in Magnolia occur by transit right now is not a transferrable fact in light of
the proposed uses at Fort Lawton. The DEIS does not adequately disclose and assess the
impacts of increased transit demand as a result of the proposal.
 The DEIS fails to reasonably analyze the feasibility of bike share programs. It is not
realistic for the City to incorporate bike share programs as an adequate measure of alternative
means for residents to transit in and out of the Fort Lawton area. As described above, many
residents will be senior citizens who will not be able to utilize bike share programs.
Furthermore, the topography of the area, distance to resources and services, and practicality
generally do not lend themselves to assuming residents of the new development will use a 24
bike share program. As stated in the September 2017 letter, expansion of bike lanes and
routes is not envisioned by the City in the area around Fort Lawton. It is unlikely that young
children and/or their parents will be able to utilize a bike share program to ride to the grocery
store or carry out other essential errands. Mitigation of this kind is not realistic.
 The DEIS fails to reasonably analyze parking impacts. The DEIS also raises issues with
respect to parking and does not fully address them. Under Alternative 1, 266 parking spaces
would be provided, with peak parking demand ranging from 257-294 spaces, indicating
parking demands would exceed available parking. DEIS at p. 3.10-12. The DEIS concludes
that no significant impacts are expected as a result, citing that the parking demand from the 25
affordable housing could be addressed through parking management strategies. DEIS at p.
3.10-12. Yet there is no adequate disclosure or analysis of these parking management
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 12
strategies, and how they might truly mitigate parking concerns. In order to fully understand 25,
the impacts of development under Alternative 1, additional disclosure and analysis is cont.
required.
d. Historic and cultural preservation
The Fort Lawton property has a long history of use as a forested natural area and a
military base. Development of housing on the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 1 and 2 is
inconsistent with both the current use of the site and the historic context of the site. Nor is it in 26
alignment with City policies to allow multifamily development on a property that was
historically public and located in a single-family residential area. See SMC 23.34.008.F.1.g; see
also Comprehensive Plan at 66 (LU G14 aims to “[m]aintain the city’s cultural identity and
heritage”).
The disclosure and assessment of historic and cultural resources on both properties is
inadequate. The DEIS concedes that buildings on the Fort Lawton site may be eligible for
Landmark designation. DEIS at p. 3.9-1. The DEIS continually describes the historic nature of 27
the Fort Lawton area, but concludes that the existing buildings lack significant associations,
design characteristics or prominence, or do not meet the threshold of 25 years to qualify for
landmark designation. However, the DEIS indicates at least one hall, Harvey Hall, could meet
the criteria for Seattle Landmark. The impacts of designating Harvey Hall or Leisy Hall as
landmarks and converting the Fort Lawton to high-density housing is not adequately studied in
the DEIS.
The DEIS fails to adequately address the potential impacts on the Fort Lawton Cemetery.
Under “other possible measures” of mitigation, the DEIS mentions the potential of retaining
undeveloped buffer to avoid affecting the integrity of the Cemetery setting by the introduction of
new built environment elements. DEIS at p. 3.9-15. It is unclear from the DEIS how the
introduction of hundreds of housing units and hundreds of new residents would impact the
setting of the Fort Lawton Cemetery. Particularly, under Alternative 2, market-rate housing
28
would be built directly across the street, seemingly tens of feet away from the cemetery. The
effects of this action are not adequately discussed. Additionally, the Fort Lawton Cemetery is
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The DEIS does not explore how
the addition of housing at Fort Lawton, affordable or market-rate, would impact the Cemetery as
a historic piece of the greater Fort Lawton area.
Talaris was already designated as an historic landmark by the City of Seattle in 2013, and
is eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places. DEIS at p. 3.9-8. The DEIS
points out that alterations to the existing site would be inconsistent with the siting and design of 29
existing buildings and the surrounding neighborhood. DEIS at p. 3.9-13. Taking into account
the fact that Certificates of Approval would need to be obtained for alterations to the site, these
impacts contribute to the unreasonableness of Talaris as an alternative site.
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 13
e. Biological Resources
The DEIS does not adequately disclose and analyze probable significant adverse impacts
on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The DEIS acknowledges that permanent displacement of certain
wildlife “less tolerant of urban uses” may occur, but states that past military use of Fort Lawton 30
and conference center uses at Talaris may also have impacted these species. SEPA requires a
prospective, not retrospective, analysis of how the proposal will impact biological resources,
including wildlife.
In order to make a reasoned choice among alternatives, there must be a sufficient

disclosure of biological resources, such as wetlands, and a comprehensive assessment of how the
proposal would impact those resources. The DEIS summarily concludes that wetland or stream
features may be present. However, it concludes, “additional studies would be needed to
document wetlands and/or streams and their required buffers in the north portion of the site.”
DEIS at p. 3.2-2. Such information should be provided now to assist with understanding impacts 31
to biological resources. Relying on “preliminary site plans” the DEIS concludes no direct
impacts to known wetlands will occur. Yet it acknowledges that the boundaries and
classifications of the wetlands would need to be re-verified. DEIS at p. 3.2-8. The DEIS’s
treatment of wetland and similar biological resources is inadequate on its face.
The DEIS fails to disclose and adequately address adverse impacts on wildlife at both
Fort Lawton and Talaris. The DEIS states that Great Blue Herons have been found on or near
the site in the past, but does not describe how development at Fort Lawton might impact Great
Blue Heron in the future. Also, the DEIS describes that site plans would avoid directly impacting 32
a Bald Eagle nest tree, and surrounding areas, but bases its conclusion on “preliminary site
plans” only. SEPA requires that additional information be obtained and disclosed with respect to
probable significant adverse impacts to both listed and de-listed species, including the Bald
Eagle.
The potential for permanent displacement of species during and after construction is not
adequately discussed, nor is the potential for disruption during breeding season. Fort Lawton is
adjacent to over 500 acres of open park space that serves as wildlife habitat. The DEIS must
address potential adverse impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat at the Fort Lawton site in 33
relation to Discovery Park. The Fort Lawton property presents a rare opportunity to restore
wildlife habitat and provide contiguous wildlife habitat within Seattle. See Comprehensive Plan
at 68 (LU 17.2, 17.20 Aim to promote and protect contiguous wildlife-habitat areas).
f. Earth
The DEIS fails to adequately disclose the potential for landslides as a function of existing
steep slopes and erosion hazards at the Fort Lawton site. This is a serious concern for
34
neighboring residential properties.
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 14
The DEIS also fails to adequately disclose and analyze the risk of methane migrating
from the neighboring landfill onto the Talaris site. It concludes that the risk of methane
migration is considered low, and that no impacts are expected under Alternatives 2 or 3. The 34,
potential for adverse impacts to human health is significant. The Talaris housing area would cont.
include numerous children and elderly with potential health issues. A more thorough analysis of
this threat is important to understand the potential adverse impacts on the health and safety of
future residents at the Talaris site.
g. Noise
The DEIS fails to adequately address the adverse impacts of noise under all of the
Alternatives. The DEIS states that because the Fort Lawton site is vacant, “the only existing
sources of noise are wildlife that use the site and occasional maintenance of the facilities.” DEIS
at p. 3.4-2. The DEIS identifies increases in noise from construction, including clearing and
grading, demolition, and construction, but states these are “temporary increases in noise.” But 35
with build-out occurring over several years, these impacts would be far from temporary. The
DEIS does not adequately disclose and analyze the increased noise that will result from
constructing a high-density development containing hundreds of housing units in what is now a
quiet open space.
h. Public services
The DEIS does not adequately disclose the impact on public services or the lack thereof
for both sites. Specifically, the DEIS does not provide sufficient analysis of how on-site services
will mitigate the need for a level of increased responsiveness on the part of local law
enforcement. The DEIS contemplates that certain services will be provided on-site, including
case management services by Catholic Community Services of Western Washington and
residential counselors. DEIS at p. 3.11-12. The DEIS cites to these services as possible 36
mitigation for the need to utilize police service, but does not adequately address how these
services will work to prevent involvement by law enforcement, or serve medical needs. Any
influx of nearly six hundred people to a small area will require an increased local law
enforcement presence. An increase in elderly residents and children will also require additional
medical services in close proximity to the site.
The DEIS also fails to disclose probable adverse impacts on public schools.
Overcapacity of schools is an issue at both sites: Fort Lawton Elementary school will be over-
capacity, as well as Eckstein Middle School near Talaris. While the DEIS does identify that the 37
Seattle Public Schools (SPS) anticipates opening additional schools near Fort Lawton, the DEIS
does not adequately address how and exactly when SPS may exercise its ability to accommodate
growth, including adjusting attendance area boundaries and meeting requirements of providing
additional transportation services.
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 15
i. Aesthetics/Visual Resources
The DEIS does not adequately disclose and analyze the amount of localized light spillage
to areas adjacent to the Fort Lawton or Talaris sites. Additionally, shadow documentation is
provided in the DEIS Appendix G, but such documentation does not adequately describe the
effects of shadows from both sites onto surrounding areas in a way that is understandable and
accessible. It is difficult to discern from the documentation the effects of increased shadows
from new development under Alternatives 1 and 2 at Fort Lawton on neighboring areas to the 38
North and East. Furthermore, shadow documentation is not provided for the Talaris site where
site plans—showing housing built up to the property line (Figure 2011)—would likely result in
impacts to neighboring areas with respect to shadows. Such a design is a dramatic change from
the present configuration of the site, and the impacts on neighboring areas to the Talaris site are
not adequately disclosed and analyzed.
j. Housing
The DEIS’s disclosure and analysis of housing impacts is inadequate. The DEIS states
that no significant housing impacts are expected to result from any of the redevelopment
alternatives, in spite of the fact that over 200 housing units will be added to the Fort Lawton
and/or Talaris sites under Alternatives 1-3, which includes an area that has historically never
hosted housing (Fort Lawton) or hosted housing on the scale it is projected to host (Talaris).
The DEIS fails to adequately describe how high-density residential development at Fort
Lawton makes sense based on its lack of designation as part of an Urban Center or Urban
Village. Such growth cuts against the City’s goal to grow in designated Urban Centers or Urban 39
Villages. Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan has goals of accommodating “a majority of the City’s
expected household growth in urban centers and urban villages” and “a substantial portion of the
city’s growth in hub and residential urban villages.” See Comprehensive Plan at 28, 32 (GS G2
and GS 2.3); see also id. at 42 (LU G1 aims to “[a]chieve a development pattern consistent with
the urban village strategy”). While the area is designated for multi-family residential uses in the
Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan, implementation of Alternative 1 remains inconsistent with the
City’s Urban Center and Urban Village Strategy.
4. The City has failed to follow requirements under federal law.
a. The City has failed to follow BRAC procedures.
The City’s DEIS is predicated on contracting with both Catholic Community Services
(“CCS”) and Habitat for Humanity (“HH”) as service providers and housing construction and
management partners. However, this assemblage of housing partners is not what the original 40
Notice of Intent (“NOI”) contemplated in 2007. The Preferred Alternative is also a distinctly
different project in configuration, programming and overall scope.
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 16
In 2006-2007, 55 organizations submitted proposals as part of the NOI process. BRAC

procedure affords all organizations a fair opportunity to submit proposals and have them
evaluated on equal footing. Today, the Seattle Housing Authority is no longer the master
developer at Fort Lawton. Instead, HH has expanded its role as the lead housing partner at
Fort Lawton. The Office of Housing has simply ignored BRAC procedure and is now embracing 40,
a different master developer and a different housing proposal altogether. cont.
BRAC procedure warrants that the NOI process be re-opened to competitive bidding and
that a new RFP solicitation process be undertaken to allow the many other stakeholders and
providers who are players and entrants in the homeless and low-income housing fields to
participate in the process.
b. The City cannot incorporate and reasonably rely upon the previous NEPA
Environmental Assessment for SEPA purposes.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and
Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) may no longer be relied upon by the City, HUD,
the Department of the Interior or the Corps because they are based on a different project than
what is now proposed among the EIS Alternatives. The FONSI relied upon an earlier Traditional
Disposal and Reuse Alternative (“TDRA”). The October 18, 2012 FONSI was based on a
smaller amount of total housing units (216) and a completely different range and size of housing
types. Thus, the EA and FONSI were based on an analysis of different environmental impacts.
41
The TDRA anticipated demolition of all existing structures, and the construction of 125
market-rate units ranging from smaller to large market rate single-family homes, 85 homeless
units and 6 low-income townhomes. In contrast, none of the DEIS Alternatives mirror that
proposal. Alternative 1 contemplates more housing units than that studied by the Corps (238
units). Alternatives 2 and 3 also each contemplate 238 housing units off-site. An increase in the
number of total units to be constructed, the change in footprint or size of those structures, and
their associated environmental impacts, is a fundamental change in a proposal that requires that
any pre-existing environmental analysis be revisited. For these reasons, the City cannot
incorporate and reasonably rely upon the previous NEPA Environmental Assessment. See WAC
197-11-635. The City acknowledged this fact in the DEIS by stating, “. . . updated National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review . . .” will be required. DEIS at IV.
c. The Corps cannot rely on the DEIS as currently configured
Under NEPA, the Military Departments must identify and consider the proposed action
and reasonable alternatives and their respective environmental impacts. Not only does the City
42
acknowledge in the DEIS that prior NEPA review is inadequate, to the extent that the Corps
intends to rely on the City’s flawed SEPA alternatives analysis in support of a new FONSI or
ROD, that analysis is flawed for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, the City’s
January 29, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
Page 17
Redevelopment Plan cannot be given substantial deference under BRAC regulations and federal 42,
law. cont.
5. Conclusion.
For all of the reasons set forth in Sections 1 through 4 above, Housing should host
additional public comment sessions and revise the DEIS to provide reasonable alternatives and a
full analysis of the environmental impacts of all of the alternatives. At least one of the
reasonable alternatives should provide for the preservation of the entire Fort Lawton site as a 43
park space – the alternative that will have the least adverse environmental impacts and provide
the greatest number of environmental and widespread community benefits. The BRAC process
provides a pathway for accomplishing this objective while also accommodating homeless
assistance services, other than housing, on or off-site.
Sincerely,
CC: DPCA
Enclosure: Attachment A – September 2017 Letter

ATTACHMENT A
44
44,
cont.
44,
cont.
45
45,
cont.
46
47
47,
cont.
48
49
50
51
52
52,
cont.
53
54
55
56
56,
cont.
57
58
58,
cont.
59
LETTER 3
8
9
10
11
LETTER 4
From: Friends of Discovery Park
Email Address: [email protected]
Subject: Fort Lawton DEIS Comment from Friends of Discovery Park
Dear Councilmember Bagshaw.
The following statement is a consensus opinion by the Board of Trustees of the Friends of Discovery Park
regarding the nearby Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center (FLARC) parcel, currently undergoing review by
the City of Seattle’s Department of Housing.
We believe that the Army Reserve parcel in its entirety should be incorporated into Discovery Park. To
accomplish this, we urge that all man-made structures at the site be removed and the site be completely
reforested with native trees and understory.
The 30 acre Army Reserve property is now heavily urbanized, with many acres of paved surfaces,
buildings, and overlapping fences. As such, it is distinctly unfriendly to the wildlife that lives and 1
reproduces in the nearby forests of Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. The property is uniquely situated
between the Kiwanis Ravine and the larger green spaces of Discovery Park. Growing a forest across this
site would create a much- needed wildlife corridor between the ship canal, the Ravine, and Discovery
Park.
We recognize that there are a variety of competing interests for the use of this property. Suggestions
include an environmental learning center (the option we most favor), housing, or other uses like
playgrounds, baseball fields, and tennis courts. If one or some combination of these uses become
implemented, we ask that any man-built environment on the site be appropriately and sensitively sized
allow a forested canopy to developo, using a mosaic of legally protected indigenous plant communities
distributed across the entire property.
In conclusion, we believe the best use of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve property would be full
incorporation into Discovery Park and management according to its Master Plan.
Sincerely,
Board of Trustees of the Friends of Discovery Park
Phil Vogelzang, president
LETTER 5
From: Gail Luxenberg
Subject: Ft. Lawton housing
Habitat for Humanity is honored to be a partner in the City of Seattle’s proposal to develop affordable
housing at Ft. Lawton. Magnolia is a desired location for all homeowners. Our Habitat homeowners,
who are at 30-60% of AMI, will have the opportunity to live in an area that is close to jobs, with
transportation at the corner, and with services and schools to support their families. In addition, they
will have all the advantage of living in a beautiful place with Discovery Park in the backyard. Our Habitat
homeowners are dedicated and supportive neighbors as those who testified at recent hearings 1
demonstrated. They are medical assistants, bank tellers, nurses, pharmacy assistants, early childhood
educators, veterans, and the list goes on. Without Habitat they could not afford to buy their own home
in King County. Each will welcome the life changing opportunity to live at Ft. Lawton. We are
supportive of the City of Seattle and the Office of Housing.
Gail Luxenberg, CEO

Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King County
560 Naches Ave SW, Suite 110, Renton, WA 98057
206-673-4537 – www.habitatskc.org
LETTER 6
January 2, 2018
Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
City of Seattle
PO Box 94725
Seattle, WA 98124
RE: Support of Affordable Housing Development at Fort Lawton
Dear Lindsay Masters,
The Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County (HDC) thanks the City of
Seattle for recognizing that a safe and secure place to call home is vital for people of
all incomes by including affordable rental homes and homeownership opportunities in
your vision for the redevelopment of Fort Lawton. We fully support affordable housing
being developed at Fort Lawton (Alternative 1 in the DEIS) and encourage the city to
move forward with this vision.
HDC is a nonprofit membership organization representing 150 private businesses,

nonprofit agencies, and public partners who are dedicated to the vision that all people
should live in a safe, healthy, and affordable home in a community of opportunity. We 1
very much appreciate Seattle’s work toward achieving this vision. As the Office of
Housing continues to develop its vision for Fort Lawton, we urge you keep affordable
housing as a major component.
The Fort Lawton property presents an incredible opportunity to leverage surplus federal
land to help meet our community’s growing affordable housing need and bring more
parks and open space to the Magnolia neighborhood. HDC looks forward to our
continued work together creating and increasing access to safe, healthy, and
affordable homes all across Seattle. Developing new affordable homes at Fort Lawton
is an important step towards that goal.
Best regards,
Nicki Olivier Hellenkamp Sara Wamsley

Mobilization and Policy Manager Policy Associate
LETTER 7
Peter J. Eglick
[email protected]
January 29, 2018
Via email ([email protected]

and [email protected])
Lindsay Masters
City of Seattle
Office of Housing
PO Box 94725
Re: Preliminary Comments on Behalf of The Laurelhurst Community Club Regarding the
Fort Walton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
Dear Ms. Masters:
The following initial comments are submitted on behalf of the Laurelhurst Community
Club (LCC), a nonprofit Washington corporation, concerning the Fort Lawton Army Reserve
Center Redevelopment Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). For a century, the
Laurelhurst Community Club has represented the interests of its members, the Laurelhurst
community, in matters concerning land use, development, and transportation. LCC is governed
by a twelve member Board of Trustees, drawn from the community and representative of 1
Laurelhurst’s approximately 4500 residents.
In usual circumstances LCC would not necessarily comment on this DEIS concerning a
proposal so geographically removed from its boundaries. It is doing so in this instance because
the DEIS purports to provide SEPA review for “Alternatives” 2 and 3 involving intense
development on the Talaris (former Battelle) site. As explained below, the portions of the DEIS
that address this are fundamentally flawed and inadequate.
DEIS review of intense Talaris site development has been carried out on a stealth basis.
Its inclusion as a proposed development alternative in the DEIS occurred without compliance 2
with basic SEPA procedures including notice to agencies and known community stakeholders in
the site.
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3130 Seattle, Washington 98104

telephone 206.441.1069 • www.ewlaw.net • facsimile 206.441.1089
EGLICK & WHITED PLLC
January 29, 2018
Page 2 of 5
For example, the various notices leading up to issuance of the DEIS made no mention of
Talaris. DEIS Technical Appendix A contains elaborate documentation of scoping process
notices given to Magnolia residents at their home addresses, but no such measures were
undertaken for Laurelhurst residents. The DEIS Chapter 6 Distribution List does not include in
2,
its list of “Local Agencies” the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board and does not list Friends
of Battelle or the Laurelhurst Community Club as organizations to which the DEIS was cont.
circulated for comment. In fact, LCC only learned about the DEIS intense Talaris site
development proposal a few days ago by happenstance and has not been able in the few days
available to bring to bear the expert consultant comment that would otherwise be incorporated
here.
As a result of these and related fundamental shortcomings the DEIS was not prepared in
accordance with WAC 197-11-455. LCC reserves all rights in this regard.
The DEIS states: “In considering potential off-site locations for Alternatives 2 and 3,
Office of Housing determined that property in the Laurelhurst neighborhood in NE Seattle, the
Talaris site was a good candidate. The Talaris site, which was recently put on the market, is one
of the few large, contiguous sites available in a residential area of Seattle that would meet the
Office of Housing's objectives and the purpose and need for the project.” However that Office of
Housing evaluation apparently did not include basic research concerning the legal status of the
site. DEIS at 2-6. The procedural shortcomings in preparation of the DEIS are paralleled by its
substantive fundamental flaws. One such flaw is in the DEIS’ failure to disclose the status of the
site vis a vis LCC which has a long history of involvement in it.
The site’s status includes LCC’s legal rights as a beneficiary and holder of covenants
running with the Talaris site, established per the “Settlement Agreement and Covenants Running
with the Land” recorded by Talaris’ predecessor, Battelle Memorial Institute, on the property 3
under King County Recording No. 9111150998. As a result of this binding, recorded Settlement
Agreement the site is subject to covenants running with the land governing its development and
use. Per the Settlement Agreement, LCC has the right to enforce those covenants. The DEIS
Talaris development proposal assumes a rezone of the site, but certain of the Settlement
Agreement covenants apply regardless of the site zoning.
Issues concerning use and development of the site and/or the Settlement Agreement have
been the subject of at least three superior court lawsuits over the last four decades involving LCC
and the site owners. All of this is a matter of legal record, readily found in superior court files
and the land records for the Talaris site. It is therefore particularly disappointing that the DEIS
provides none of this information which directly informs on the non-feasibility of such intensive
development of the site.
The DEIS description of the Talaris site’s status under the Seattle Landmarks
Preservation Code is also deficient. The Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board’s 2015 minutes 4
mentioning prior designation of the site and the “controls and incentives” process are cited/noted

January 29, 2018
Page 3 of 5
in passing. That designation includes not just specific buildings but the site as a whole. However,
there is neither full description of the landmark nomination and the Board’s designation decision
based on it, nor useful discussion of their scope and broad effect. The mistaken impression given
is that the designation is not a significant obstacle to intensive development along the lines of
Alternatives 2 and 3. However, as a matter of law and fact, it is. Landscape elements, 4,
roadway/access configurations, and the like are not only subject to the Settlement Agreement,
but are also subject to preservation per the landmark designation. See DEIS Section 3.6-40. The cont.
DEIS mentions this in passing, but does not provide decision-makers a reasoned discussion of
what these protections mean and the consequences both for the Talaris site and for the City’s
landmarks program were the City to sweep them aside as the DEIS suggests can occur. In
addition to compliance with City code as a factor, the Seattle landmarks program’s federal
certification, which periodically comes up for renewal, depends on showing a record of
implementation. This could be questioned if a significant site designation such as for the Talaris
site could be as easily swept aside as implied by the DEIS.
Per WAC 197-11-792(1)(b)(ii) EIS alternatives are supposed to be “reasonable courses of

action.” WAC 197-11-786 defines “reasonable alternative” as “an action that could feasibly
attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased
level of environmental degradation.” Had proper scoping notice been given and had that notice
included entities with a recorded legal and/or regulatory interest in the site, such as LCC, they
would have explained that the Talaris site does not meet this definition. Further, the targeting of 5
the Talaris site is particularly ill-advised, even odd, when considered in light of the City’s current
and longstanding ownership of Magnuson Park. Magnuson Park conspicuously was not selected
for “alternative” consideration, even though it is a large holding, is already owned by the City,
and contains substantial areas less encumbered and more suited as an alternative than the Talaris
site.
The DEIS states that:
Potential redevelopment of the Talaris site is studied only as an example of a possible

off-site alternative. It is provided in order to conceptually analyze probable adverse
impacts that would be expected with redevelopment at that site or other off-site locations
in the City. As allowed by SEPA, the analysis of the Talaris site is less detailed than the
analysis of the Fort Lawton site. Additional more detailed SEPA review of the Talaris
site, or another off-site location, would be required should that or another site ultimately
be selected for the affordable and formerly homeless housing.
DEIS at 2-6. What is missing from this statement is a clear commitment that the “additional
more detailed SEPA review of the Talaris site” would require preparation and circulation for
comment of a new DEIS – not just adoption of an MDNS or Addendum. If this acknowledgment 6
were included in the Fort Lawton FEIS it would go far to address concerns. In its absence, the
Fort Lawton EIS must be recognized as inadequate with regard to its review of the Talaris
development alternatives.

January 29, 2018
Page 4 of 5
The DEIS analysis is skewed by repeated references such as the one quoted below to
“environmental justice” as a factor supporting intensive Talaris development:
The site would not be redeveloped at this time, and environmental justice conditions
would continue as under existing conditions. The opportunity to provide affordable
housing in the Laurelhurst neighborhood, and the positive impacts of diversifying a
neighborhood that is disproportionately occupied by higher income households, would
not be realized.
DEIS at 1-16.
Such references are political statements rather than objective analyses of recognized
environmental factors that are properly included in an EIS.
Further, the DEIS offers only flimsy bases unsupported by valid comparative data for its 7
“environmental justice” premises. The “study” relied upon in the DEIS is not a typical peer-
reviewed academic study, but combines historical reportage with advocacy journalism. Further,
what it reports concerning the past history of racially restrictive covenants throughout the City of
Seattle does not support the DEIS assumption that Laurelhurst is currently a venue for true
“environmental injustice”. The economic realities attendant to a neighborhood with numerous
water views and other amenities of value in the post-“Boeing bust” real estate market do not
equate to “environmental injustice.”
The DEIS assumes without analysis that any “environmental injustice” in Laurelhurst,
e.g. in the form of a scarcity of affordable housing, is a consequence of covenants and
discrimination of almost 100 years ago. At the same time, the DEIS fails to acknowledge or
analyze the far more immediate effect of City policies and approvals. For example, the City has
allowed demolition of affordable housing in Laurelhurst, such as Laurelon Terrace, over the
strong objections of LCC. In general, the City’s zoning actions and approvals of Major
Institution expansions, causative agents for loss of affordable housing, are not recognized at all.
Meanwhile, the DEIS improperly includes politically expedient, unfair and inflammatory
accusations that any lack of affordable housing in the Laurelhurst neighborhood is the
community’s fault and a product of bigotry.
Finally, it appears that the DEIS consideration of traffic with regard to intensive Talaris
development is based on “quick and dirty” analysis without detailed fresh data to take into 8
account the effects of recent developments. This is a fundamental shortcoming especially for a
street system known to be heavily impacted already, with failing intersections.
The DEIS should be revised and recirculated for public comment before an FEIS is 9
issued. Failure to do so could result in litigation that would have not been necessary but for the

January 29, 2018
Page 5 of 5
fundamental and needless flaws in preparation of the DEIS and in the failures to give notice to 9,
obvious local agency and community stakeholders.
cont.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Eglick
cc: Laurelhurst Community Club

LETTER 8
For Immediate Release

January 19, 2018
Consistent with its mission "to monitor private or governmental activities that
affect the quality of live in Magnolia and to take appropriate action to further or
protect the interests of the community," the Board of Trustees of the Magnolia
Community Council (MCC) voted on Tuesday, January 16th, 2018, to support
Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Development.
The fate of the Army Reserve site at Fort Lawton has been a topic of intense
interest to the Magnolia community over the course of many years. The MCC
Board has reviewed the process and alternatives, and joins in supporting the
Preferred Alternative of affordable housing and new park land so that we may be
proactive stakeholders in solving community concerns for transportation
improvements, bringing amenities to the site, and building a welcoming
community for all.
1
The Board of Trustees will continue to engage with the community to bring
forward suggestions and solutions that will make this project a success.
Community members are encouraged to engage in careful reviews of the options
and provide written comments as provided below:
• The City of Seattle is holding a 45-day com m ent period that

extends through 5:00 PM January 29 th , 2018. Com m ents m ay
be subm itted via em ail to [email protected] or via m ail
to: Lindsay Masters, Office of Housing, PO Box 94725, Seattle,
W A 98124-4725. These com m ents will help the City to
im prove the com pleteness, accuracy, and objectivity of the
analysis.
Contact: http://magnoliacommunitycouncil.org/contact/
LETTER 9
1
LETTER 10
1
LETTER 11
From: Katya Adams
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment
To Whom It May Concern,

To the extent the DEIS is accurate, the results of the DEIS confirms the general public opinion that Fort
Lawton should remain available to the public. Privatization of this jewel of a piece of land is irresponsible
public policy.
Fort Lawton is so integrated with Discover Park that the public does not realize that it is a separate piece
of property. To the average member of the public, Fort Lawton and Discovery Park are one of the same.
Just as people walk through Discovery Park to see the majestic western views of Puget Sound and the
Olympic Mountains, people also visit Fort Lawton to enjoy its sweeping views of Salmon Bay and Puget
Sound. The view from Fort Lawton cannot be found on any other piece of public property.
The uncontestable largest impact of Alternatives 1 and 2 are not even mentioned in the DEIS.
Specifically, the DEIS says nothing of what the public will lose as a result of the privatization of prime
public land to benefit a few individuals. 1
The Fort Lawton property has long been used a forested natural area. It is inconsistent not only with the
current use of the area but also the unique, history of the location to allow multifamily development on
a property that was historically public. Fort Lawton is public and it is unique. Privatization of this land
will forever deprive the public of a rare treasure. Sure, Seattle needs additional housing, but the cost of
ripping Fort Lawton from the hands of the public does not justify the inconsequential and ephemeral
effect on the current need for housing.
Seattle has many needs, not just housing. Seattle suffers from a lack of parks for its current population.
My three children play sports year round. Their leagues struggle to find adequate places to practice, 2
often being forced to divide fields to give at least some field time to every team. Not providing more
fields deprives children of the ability to fully engage in healthy activities. We need fields for the current
population. A build-at-any-cost approach (i.e., Alternatives 1 and 2) only exacerbates the problems the
city already has.
Further, Alternatives 1 and 2 are inconsistent with Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan and the Seattle
Municipal Code (SMC).
3
Alternative 3 is clearly the best alternative of the choices given. Alternative 3 balances the need for
additional housing while addressing the lack of field space in Magnolia and the surrounding
neighborhoods. Some may argue that Alternative 3 is too expensive due to the cost of acquiring 4
alternative land for affordable housing. Such arguments, however, fail to recognize the value of the Fort
Lawton land and what the public loses. The myopic plan to tear Fort Lawton from the public’s hands to
add a minute and temporary benefit toward housing goals is alarmingly irresponsible.
In addition, the DEIS fails to take into consideration the Discovery Park Master plan. This failure is
documented in other public comments being submitted and won’t be repeated here. As such, the DEIS 5
is incomplete and inadequate to satisfy SEPA.
The DEIS also ignores the cumulative impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 when considered with other past,
present, and foreseeable future actions. For example, the DEIS fails to take into account at least the
following: (1) the arrival of Expedia to Interbay; (2) the effect on traffic in light of recent traffic revisions
(the DEIS is based on data from Magnolia roads prior to recent lane restrictions that were 6
implemented); (3) the effect of zoning changes resulting in higher density; (4) pending legislative
changes with respect to land use in Magnolia; (5) the upcoming school capacity problems, even after the
opening of Magnolia Elementary and Lincoln; and (6) the inevitable loss of the Magnolia Bridge, which
the City of Seattle has noted is “subject to catastrophic failure” at the next earthquake and which is not
planned to be replaced.
The DEIS also fails to consider the effect of the proposed Fort Lawton development on the remainder of
Magnolia, such as the sole three access points from outside the neighborhood, especially in light of a 7
failure of any of the bridges that connects Magnolia to other neighborhoods.
The DEIS also makes significant factual errors, such regarding the views of Fort Lawton and the Fort
Lawton cemetery and a lack of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Of particular concern is that
statements in the DEIS appear to perpetuate the myth that Magnolia is exclusive and expensive, with no
8
access to affordable housing for those with low incomes. The facts, however, show that Magnolia is
basically average for Seattle when it comes to the cost of living.
It is clear that Alternatives 1 and 2 will have significant impacts and will require significant, expensive
mitigation. The addition of hundreds of residents in a high-density development will drastically impact 9
an area now zoned as single family.
One of the most concerning parts of the DEIS is that it is misleading, presumably so as to garner public
support for a project that will deprive the public of use of this valuable land. Specifically, the DEIS
indicates that there will be units of housing for homeless seniors. However, it has later come to light
10
that the housing would not be limited to seniors. This misleading of the public is deeply concerning.
I also take issue with listing of the Talaris site for Alternative 3. It appears that the site was selected
simply for optics, namely, to make it seem like the most reasonable alternative was not, in fact,
reasonable. This is simply not true and the selection of Talaris is misleading, apparently intentionally so.
There are numerous alternatives for affordable housing, both in and around Magnolia and in other
neighborhoods, especially large portions of land that can be rezoned for residential use. While 11
alternatives may require the purchase of property, there was clearly no effort to examine any
reasonable alternatives has been put forth. Given the cost to the public of Alternatives 1 and 2,
alternatives involving the purchase of land for affordable housing should have been explored.
As one example, a very reasonable alternative would be to place a school on Fort Lawton, which is
desperately needed. A school would serve many more people than a small number of houses. The
surrounding land could be used to fill the current needs for athletic fields and other space for active
recreation, of which there is a severe lack in Magnolia. While the city went through the motions of 12
considering a school, they asked the School Board the wrong questions and, consequently, did not get
accurate answers. As such, there was never any real consideration of a school on the property. This
failure of the city officials to sincerely consider a school on the property is very concerning.
In summary, Alternatives 1 and 2 in the DEIS are unreasonable due to their cost to the public and the 13
impacts that will require substantial and significant mitigation. Of all plans put forth, developing Fort
Lawton into a park or incorporating it into Discovery Park, with affordable housing being placed at
better location is the clear winner in almost every dimension. A school surrounded by parks would be an
even better alternative that should have been considered in the DEIS (e.g., with the land first being used 14
as athletic fields until the School District can finance the construction of the building). The city should
not allow Fort Lawton to be privatized for a minute and temporary effect on housing numbers at the
expensive of depriving the public of this jewel.
Best Regards,
Katya Adams
LETTER 12
From: Scott Adams
Subject: Comments on DEIS for Fort Lawton Redevelopment
To Whom It May Concern:

Fort Lawton is, for all intents and purposes, a component of Discovery Park, even if it is not officially
designated as such. It is directly adjacent to Discovery Park and, for all practical purposes, is used by the
public as park land. Many people currently use the land at Ft. Lawton for recreation. On any given day,
you will find people using Ft. Lawton to exercise, play with their dogs, fly kites, picnic, or otherwise enjoy
its magnificent views of Puget Sound, Salmon Bay, the Salmon Bay bridge, and the surrounding hills. No
public space in Seattle has the unique views in the middle of nature as Ft. Lawton.
1
Alternatives 1 and 2, if implemented, would deprive the public of this unique and majestic space,
instead giving the land to private parties. Any public official involved in this project should visit Ft.
Lawton to see what the public would lose if Alternatives 1 and 2 are implemented. While Alternatives 1
and 2 are certainly well-intentioned and understandable given the difficulties Seattle faces with its rapid
growth, the benefits afforded a few private individuals does not even come close to justifying the loss to
the public.
Taking Various Environmental Impacts as they appear in the DEIS, the following are some notable
points:
Section 3.6 (Land Use)

In Section 3.6, the DEIS concludes that “New park facilities (particularly multi-use fields) would result in
increased activity levels on the site, greater than under Alternative 1.” The DEIS also concludes that
activity levels under Alternative 2 “would be less than Alternative 1.” In other words, Alternative 3
provides clear advantages to the public over Alternatives 1 and 2. This is undeniably a correct conclusion
in the DEIS.
2
However, the DEIS does not adequately convey the magnitude of the advantages of Alternative 3 over
Alternatives 1 and 2 with respect to land use. Magnolia and the surrounding neighborhoods currently
lack sufficient playing field capacity. As a youth soccer coach, I experienced this first hand when, due to
a lack of field capacity, my teams were able to practice only one hour per week on half of a reduced-size
soccer field. The players wanted additional practice time, but space was simply unavailable. There is
simply no other public land in the area that can address this current need for additional field capacity.
When taking into account the current growth projections of Magnolia and surrounding neighborhoods
due to upzoning and other land use changes, the advantages of Alternative 3 over Alternative 1 and 2
become abundantly clear. Simply put, Magnolia and the surrounding areas desperately need additional
multi-use fields to accommodate both the current needs and future needs. Alternatives 1 and 2 2,
exacerbate the problems caused by the current lack of multi-field infrastructure by adding additional cont.
families into the area without accommodate for the additional families’ needs for public infrastructure,
such as multi-use fields.
The DEIS also contains an error with respect to Alternative 4. According to the DEIS, land use for
Alternative 4 “would continue as under existing conditions.” This is an incorrect statement. As a
frequent visitor to Discovery Park, as the population of Seattle grows, more and more people visit Ft. 3
Lawton, either for parking to visit Discovery Park or to use the land at Ft. Lawton. Thus, given current
growth trends, public activity at Ft. Lawton will increase under Alternative 4. Given small amount of park
space in Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 4 would also hold advantages over Alternatives 1 and 2 with
respect to land use.
Section 3.7 (Aesthetics/Visual Resources)

The impacts to the Aesthetics and Visual Resources clearly favor Alternatives 3 and 4. The land at Ft.
Lawton provides majestic views of Puget Sound, Salmon Bay, the Salmon Bay bridge, and the
surrounding hills. These views are unique to Ft. Lawton and not available in any other public space.
Alternatives 3 and 4 preserve these views for the public whereas Alternatives 1 and 2 deprive the public
from these views through the privatization of public land and the additional private structures that
would be constructed.
The DEIS contains many factually incorrect statements that require correction. For example, under
Alternative 3, the DEIS states that “[n]o view impacts are anticipated since no building development
would occur on the site.” This is clearly erroneous. Under Alternative 3, there would be significant and
substantial positive impacts. The unique majestic views of Ft. Lawton are obstructed in places by the
existing structures on the site. The removal of these structures would open up the views from many
vantage points, thereby improving the public’s access to views available from no other public space. This
would give the public more access to views of Puget Sound, Salmon Bay, the Salmon Bay Bridge, and the
Ballard Locks.
4
With respect to Alternatives 1 and 2, the DEIS states “[n]o significant view impacts are expected,
including on vies protected by the city.” This statement is also clearly erroneous. Alternatives 1 and 2
would both allow for many additional structures to be placed on the land. These structures will block the
views from most vantage points. While views may be available from some vantage points under
Alternatives 1 and 2, the views available to the public will be extremely limited under the current plans.
Not only will the amount of space from the views are available significantly decrease, but the views
themselves will be limited by structures, vegetation, and vantage point.
In summary, with respect to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Alternative 3 provides significant and
substantial advantages over the remaining alternatives. Alternative 4, while trailing Alternative 3 by a
significant amount, also provides significant and substantial advantages over Alternatives 1 and 2.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are severely detrimental to the Aesthetics and Visual Resources at the site due to
the harmful effects on the public’s enjoyment of the unique view of Puget Sound, Salmon Bay, and the
surrounding landscape and landmarks.
Section 3.8 (Recreation/Open Space)
The impacts listed in the DEIS unquestionably favor Alternatives 3 and 4, with Alternative 3’s impacts
being significantly better than Alternative 4 and Alternative 4 being significantly better than Alternatives
1 and 2.
To begin, Alternative 3 includes more than 34% park and recreation facilities than Alternative 1. This
breaks down to Alternative 3 providing (relative to Alternative 1) 31% more space for passive recreation
and 49% more space for active recreation. The positive impact of Alternative 3 is especially notable
given the dire lack of space for active recreation in the area. Given the current inadequacy of park and 5
recreational facilities in the area which will be exacerbated by the current population growth in the area,
the additional 34% park and recreation space provides a clear benefit over Alternative 1.
The comments on Alternative 4 are misleading and understate the benefits of Alternative 4 over
Alternatives 1 and 2. Specifically, while it is true that no additional park or recreation demand would be
satisfied, the DEIS fails to recognize that Ft. Lawton is currently used by the public as park and
recreational space. Thus, while not as beneficial as Alternative 3, Alternative 4 goes a long way toward
satisfying demand in the area.
Similarly, the comments on Alternative 1 and 2 are misleading and fail to state negative impacts of the
Alternatives 1 and 2 with regards to recreation and open space. As noted, Ft. Lawton is currently used as
recreational space by the public, even if it is not officially designated as such. Environmental impacts
need to address not only the impacts of what is being added, but the impacts of what is being taken 6
away. Alternatives 1 and 2 remove much space from the public use. This is a significant negative impact
that needs to be addressed by quantification of the amount of space now available to the public related
to the amount of space that would be taken away.
Section 3.9 (Historic and Cultural Resources)

The DEIS contains factual errors and inadequate analysis. For example, the DEIS states that “[t]he
adjacent Fort Lawton Cemetery would not be indirectly (e.g., visually) affected by redevelopment under
Alternative 1.” This factual statement is clearly erroneous. Fort Lawton Cemetery overlooks Fort Lawton
and has many of the same views of Puget Sound, Salmon Bay, and the surrounding landscape and
landmarks. Similarly, large portions of the cemetery are visible from Fort Lawton. There is a forest
buffer, but it is thin and the views are highly visible through the buffer. All of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
would significantly affect these views.
Taking the changed views of Fort Lawton Cemetery into account, Alternative 3 clearly has positive 7
impact, Alternative 4 has little or no impact, and Alternatives 1 and 2 have negative impacts. Alternative
3 would open up views of the cemetery, whereas Alternatives 1 and 2 would close views of the
cemetery from much of Fort Lawton. Given the historical significance of the cemetery, these impacts are
significant.
With respect to views from the cemetery, Alternative 3 would provide views over public park land
whereas Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide views over private residences. It goes without saying that
views over park land are a benefit (relative to the current state) whereas views over private residences
are a detriment.
In addition, the DEIS fails to take into account historical significance of the site for Alternatives 1, 2 and
3. Being a military fort during significant historical periods (e.g., the 20th century), development on the 8
site requires consideration of the impacts as they pertain to the historical significance of the site. While I
am not a historian and do not feel qualified to evaluate such impacts, analysis from qualified needs to be 8,
performed to ensure the cost of losing a historical site outweighs the benefits. The DEIS is deficient in
this regard.
cont.
Section 3.10 (Transportation)

The DEIS is woefully inadequate and inaccurate regarding transportation. The analysis in the DEIS is
faulty, resulting in substantially underestimating negative impacts on traffic.
To begin, the analysis summarized in the DEIS was based on data gathered before major traffic revisions
in Magnolia that have resulted in significant additional traffic congestion. These revisions include lane 9
reductions and bike lane additions on the roads near Fort Lawton (Emerson Street, Gilman Avenue, and
Government Way). As such, the analysis has incorrect data and, therefore, necessarily results in
unreliable conclusions.
The errors in the transportation analysis reflected in the DEIS are such that they underestimate the
actual effects for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. For example, it is well-known that after the above-mentioned
traffic revisions, there has been a noticeable increase in traffic congestion on the revised roads. The
draft DEIS does not take into account the effect on traffic on the revised roadways. There will clearly be 10
a significant negative for Alternatives 1 and 2, and a negative impact by Alternative 3, with Alternative
3’s negative impact possibly being insignificant due to the likely use of the park occurring during off-
peak hours. The magnitude of the Alternative 1 and 2 proposals needs to be analyzed based on the
current roads, not past roads.
, the traffic estimates during peak hours are unjustified and appear to be clearly erroneous. For
example, Alternative 1 proposes 238 housing units. Given the poor public transportation available (i.e.,
only bus service to downtown Seattle), it is likely that automobiles will be needed for a significant
amount of the households. The DEIS estimate of 64 AM peak-hour trips is clearly a significant 11
underestimate of the actual numbers, likely due to extrapolation from data of other areas of the city
that do not compare due to significant differences and a failure to take into account not only traffic
leaving the new households, but employee and vendor traffic coming into the area at peak times.
Similar errors are likely present for the peak PM traffic estimates.
Further, the DEIS inaccurately states that existing bus service is adequate to handle the increase in
ridership in Alternatives 1 and 2. The current bus service is currently at and often over capacity. Riders
frequently are unable to board busses that arrive already full. While Fort Lawton is at the beginning of
the line for the 33 bus, meaning that residents of Fort Lawton will be able to board, there will be 12
additional times when citizens further down the line will not be able to board due to the increased
ridership caused by Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not include any plans for addressing
the significant negative impacts on current levels of bus service.
One of the most glaring errors in the DEIS concerns a lack of consideration of the Magnolia Bridge.
Currently, there are three roads into Magnolia, with most of the traffic entering on the Magnolia Bridge.
The City of Seattle has studied the bridge’s construction and concluded that the Magnolia Bridge is
“subject to catastrophic failure” at the next earthquake
(https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bridges-stairs-and-other- 13
structures/bridges/magnolia-bridge-planning-study). No current plans to replace the Magnolia Bridge,
even in the event of failure, are in place. In other words, while scientists are unable to pinpoint exactly
when the Magnolia Bridge will fail, it is inevitable and not speculative that it will, with no replacement
available. When it fails, one hundred percent of traffic to and from Magnolia will use either the Dravis
13,
Street or Emerson Street entrances to the neighborhood.
cont.
The DEIS fails to take into account traffic projections for the time after failure of the Magnolia Bridge.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will clearly add traffic to the neighborhood. Given the volume that will be
entering/exiting Magnolia on Emerson Street (the closest entrance to Fort Lawton), it is unreasonable to
add such a volume of housing without any way of addressing the impact the additional housing will have 14
on post-Magnolia-Bridge-failure traffic. If Alternatives 1 and 2 are to be seriously considered, those
plans need to also include measures to address the traffic added by the additional housing and requisite
environmental impact statements need to address such measures.
Another error in the DEIS is a failure to state the positive impact on transportation of Alternative 3.
Specifically, automobile traffic currently avoids travel through Fort Lawton due to poor road
maintenance (potholes) and harsh speed bumps near the southeast entrance. These issues would likely 15
be addressed by Alternative 3 without the adverse impact of additional traffic in the area.
Yet another error in the DEIS is that it fails to take into account peak time traffic generated by a school
on the property. The city has reached agreement with Seattle Public Schools to allow six acres for a new
school under Alternative 1. While a school is desperately needed for the neighborhood, especially if new
housing is going to be added, to be adequate for SEPA, a DEIS must take a school into account.
16
Generally, considering the impacts of each alternative on traffic, Alternative 3 is clearly the most
beneficial. It helps alleviate current traffic issues without exacerbation caused by additional housing.
Section 3.11 (Public Services)

Of the alternatives that involve development of Fort Lawton, Alternative 3 has the least increased
demand of police, fire, and other public services. This is acknowledged in the DEIS. It is well known that
the City of Seattle lacks sufficient public resources, especially police resources. No alternatives have any 17
measures for addressing increased demand for public services. Therefore, the effect on public services
should be given significant weight in the decision making process.
It should also be noted that, for Alternatives 1 and 2, the DEIS states that “Seattle Police Department
(SPD) has the capacity to meet the increased police service needs.” This is clearly erroneous. It is well- 18
known that SPD lacks capacity to meet the current needs, let alone additional needs caused by
additional housing, especially homeless housing which is known to require additional police resources.
The effects on the public schools are also significantly understated in the DEIS. A projection of 41
students clearly understates the number of students. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument
that the projection of 41 students is correct, Magnolia schools are currently at capacity and projected to
be over capacity, even with the re-opening of Magnolia Elementary. These projections don’t even take 19
into account the upzoning trend in Magnolia and other factors resulting in increased density. There is
simply insignificant school infrastructure for the current population. Alternatives 1 and 2 lack any
measures to address this issue. Any plan to add substantial housing in the neighborhood without the
addition of a school is simply irresponsible.
Moreover, the city has reached an understanding with Seattle Public Schools to include six acres for the
purpose of putting a school. The DEIS does not take into account any school on the Fort Lawton
property, thus the DEIS is inadequate for the current plan. For Alternatives 1 or 2 to be at all reasonable,
they must include plans for a school on or off the property to absorb the additional students. The DEIS
20
fails to address (1) the negative impacts if no school is added and (2) the impacts of a school if one is
added. In other words, the DEIS fails to adequately address the environmental impacts of a new school
20,
or lack thereof. cont.
Section 3.13 (Housing and Socioeconomics)
The DEIS fails to take into account the temporary nature of the affordable housing that Alternative 1
provides. With its location and majestic views, the current plan will effectively create single family
homes and townhomes valued at over $1 Million each, based on current house prices in the
neighborhood. Once this land becomes private, the housing will no longer be affordable. While Habitat
for Humanity has measures in place to encourage properties to remain affordable (e.g., right of first
refusal should an owner sell), such measures will be ineffective at Fort Lawton to keep the housing
affordable. As an example, even though Habitat for Humanity has a right of first refusal to purchase a 21
property that an owner wishes to sell, there is no incentive for Habitat for Humanity to do so. Their
money would be much better spent purchasing properties without majestic views of Salmon Bay and
Puget Sound to go further in providing affordable housing. Similar effects can be seen with any property
in Fort Lawton that will be conveyed to a private party, whether an organization or individual.
In other words, the nature of the property at Fort Lawton means that it is only a matter of time (likely a
relatively short amount of time) before the housing at Fort Lawton goes from being affordable to not
affordable. The statement in the DEIS that “The new housing would contribute towards meeting the
City’s overall housing plans and targets for affordable housing based on anticipated growth by 2035” is
likely false since the housing additions are unlikely to remain affordable by 2035. Consequently, any
benefits caused by this ephemeral addition of affordable housing should be weighed minimally in the
decision making process.
Summary
While the DEIS is inaccurate and ineffective for its intended purposes, the information it does accurately
contain clearly favors Alternative 3. Alternative 3 provides both affordable housing while preventing the 22
transfer of a unique public space into private hands. For these reasons, I sincerely urge those involved to
proceed with Alternative 3 (possibly with the addition of a school).
Sincerely,
Scott Adams
LETTER 13
From: Matt Adkins
Subject: Supporters for Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton!
Hello,
Please see the attached petition that includes a list of neighbors who support affordable housing at Ft.
Lawton (Alternative 1). The neighbors listed in the petition live quite near to Magnolia and Ft. Lawton 1
and are great supporters of affordable housing there.
Thank you!
Matt Adkins
Queen Anne
We Support Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
We support the construction of affordable housing at the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center site
in Magnolia as outlined in the Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) .
We know that Seattle is facing a terrible homelessness crisis that is forcing many of our
neighbors to live without a home. The land that will be given to the city for free in this project
presents a great opportunity to bui ld at least 238 homes to be used by our neighbors.
Letter sent to : OH_Comments@seattle .gov by January 29, 2018

https://www.seattle.gov/housing/ft-lawton
Name Neighborhood
.1U Q·I ·t 4.J k ,: ·1,1t r
()\ s (JV\
We Support Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
We support the construction of affordable housing at the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center site
in Magnolia as outlined in th e Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS).
We know that Seattle is facing a terrible homelessness crisis that is forcing many of our
neighbors to live without a home. The land that will be given to the city for free in this project
presents a great opportu nity to build at least 238 homes to be used by our neighbors.
Lette r sent to : OH_Comments @seattle.gov by January 29, 2018

https://www.seattle.gov/housing/ft-lawton
Name Neighborhood
LETTER 14
From: Celena Adler
Subject: Fort Lawton
I am writing to express my support to build affordable housing at Ford Lawton. I have been a Seattle 1
resident since 2009 and am deeply affected by Seattle's housing crisis.
Thanks,
Celena Adler
LETTER 15
From: Damon Agnos
Subject: Housing at Fort Lawton
Ms. Masters,
1
I support the proposed housing at Fort Lawton and encourage the city to be more aggressive in
developing housing on the site. 238 units is too few! This is a great opportunity when land is at a 2
premium to develop a large amount of housing at an affordable price.
It is unacceptable that so many in our city lack housing while we debate whether some of the city's
wealthiest residents will be unduly inconvenienced by the provision of this basic right, or whether some
people may not want to see a few buildings in a small sliver of their 500-acre park. My family loves
Discovery Park and will enjoy it more knowing that it is being used to provide housing to those who
wouldn't otherwise have it.
3
Finally, regarding any concerns about transit access/services for those housed there, I'd note that I work
in public defense and can assure you that my houseless and housing-insecure clients (of whom there
are many, cycling constantly through the jail for crimes of poverty, at great cost to their well being and
the city coffers) would be thrilled to live at Fort Lawton.
Thank you.
Damon Agnos
1503 E. Denny Way
Seattle, WA 98122
LETTER 16
From: Elaine Albertson
Subject: Resident Writing to Support Ft. Lawton Housing Development in Magnolia
Hello,
I'm writing to strongly support the development of affordable housing at Ft. Lawton in Magnolia. I'm a
Seattle resident, and my mother has lived in Magnolia for 10 years so I'm a frequent visitor of the
neighborhood. Our family strongly supports the development of affordable housing in the Magnolia
neighborhood.
Unfortunately I have a work conflict with the public meeting next week, and frankly the hateful rhetoric
from our neighbors at the last meeting has my shy and timid mom scared off from going to more public 1
hearings on this. However, I hope that the City does pursue this project despite the pushback from a
vocal minority of neighborhood residents. Building this affordable housing is common sense, and is the
right thing to do for neighbors in need.
I hope the City can hold a hard line on continuing the development of the affordable housing project at
Ft. Lawton despite any pushback from the privileged few in the Magnolia neighborhood.
Thanks so much for your work on this.
All my best,
Elaine Albertson
Seattle Resident, Daughter of Magnolia Resident

7311 Roosevelt Way,
Seattle WA 98115
LETTER 17
From: Suha Alevizatos
I have lived in Magnolia for 22 years and want to provide my support to have Fort Lawton pulled into
Discovery Park. The fact that the rest of Seattle is being overly developed, it is nice to know that there 1
is one large location where the public can go and enjoy the nature.
Do not develop Fort Lawton. I support pulling it into Discovery Park.
Suha Alevizatos
LETTER 18
From: Zach Alexander
Subject: I support affordable housing at Ft lawton
Hello, I am writing to support building affordable housing at Ft Lawton. Our city badly lacks affordable 1
housing and the solution, among other things, is to build more housing.
thanks!
-zach alexander, seattle resident
LETTER 19
From: Alison
Hi Lindsay,
Will there be any other public hearings on the DEIS for the Fort Lawton project, or a record of the
comments? The venue was so small, I’m not sure if you were aware that many people were turned away 1
at the door (including myself.)
Thank you!
Alison
LETTER 20
From: Craig Allegro
Subject: Fort Lawton Meeting Hijacked - 1/9/18 at 6pm
I attended both meetings last year. Neither meeting allowed for public comment. We had to physically
take the microphone away in order to speak. Some spoke in favor and against the low income and
homeless housing and some proposed alternative uses – park, high school. At a point the microphone
was turned off mid-speech. The crowd chanted to have it turned back on and more continued to speak
but the crowd began to drown them out. It was apparent any opposing point of view did not want to be
heard.
Last night’s meeting was completely different. They actually said we want to hear what you have to say 1
and the purpose of this meeting is public comment. Sounds fair right? WRONG! This was a coordinated
effort. I arrived at 5:50pm. The room was already filled with limited standing room. I signed up to
comment. By 6pm the entry was full and people were crowed outside unable to enter. I immediately
began to notice that those in attendance seemed very different than the past meetings (I also attended
back in 2008/2009). Many were wearing “Homeless for Fort Lawton” stickers on their shirts. I live in
Magnolia and only recognized about six or so neighbors inside.
Then the public comment began at about 6:15pm. Speakers were called up in threes. The first few all
spoke in favor of the homeless and low income housing. The next few the same. Then more of the
same. After each speaker there was loud clapping and cheers like I had never seen or heard before
(even snapping of fingers in unison after specific comments). It also became apparent that almost none
of those in attendance live in Magnolia. Those stuck outside (likely actual residents of Magnolia as I was
receiving texts from a neighbor outside) asked to have the volume turned up because they could not
hear. I listened for over two hours while waiting to have my chance to speak. I must have listened to 35- 1,
40 people speak. Not a SINGLE opposing point of view and only about four or five who spoke live in cont.
Magnolia. Myself and other fellow neighbors stood in disbelief. The meeting had been hijacked! These
were activists. They were organized and they arrived early to fill the room so those who lived in
Magnolia would have difficulty attending and most all signed up to speak (most with written speeches)
so that neighbors or opposing views would not be heard. It’s now about 8:30pm and I still had not been
called to speak. The room was half full at this point and few neighbors remain. I left after another break
not knowing if or when I would have a chance to get speak. More importantly I realized that even if I
did, this room would not listen. The process failed. Myself and other neighbors left feeling defeated
and without a voice. Shameful.
Craig Allegro
LETTER 21
From: Deanne Allegro
FLRC,
Please do not develop homeless housing at Fort Lawton. You say the homeless housing is for veterans 1
and seniors, yet you can’t discriminate who lives there which would allow drug addicts and convicted
criminals to live there.
Magnolia is an isolated neighborhood where the majority of households are families. I’m concerned 2
about the safety of our children and cannot support this.
Thanks, Deanne
LETTER 22
From: Justin Allegro
Please consider the attached.

Justin Allegro
(703) 340-7553
December 14, 2017
Lindsay Masters
700 5th Avenue, #5800
Re: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Ms. Masters:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impacts Statement
(DEIS) for the Fort Lawton redevelopment proposal (proposal).
I am a resident of the upper Queen Anne neighborhood, I own a single-family home with my wife, and
have a child at Coe Elementary in the Seattle Public School District with another soon to enter the public 1
school system.
With the inclusion of a critical change, I enthusiastically support alternative 1 in the DEIS and find
alternatives 2, 3, and 4 to be completely unacceptable to address Seattle’s affordable housing and
homelessness emergency.
The opportunity to redevelop Fort Lawton in a way that tackles head on the city’s affordable housing
and homeless crisis is too great to pass up. But as currently drafted, I worry alternative 1 is vulnerable
to successful opposition because of the treatment of the potential for adverse impact associated with
overcapacity within this cluster of Seattle Public Schools. The DEIS identifies a variety of potential 2
actions within the city’s purview that could minimize or mitigate the impacts of potentially dozens of
additional students in an already overcrowded cluster. In the midst of the current contentious school
boundary conversation for this cluster, any of the actions identified in the EIS to address school
crowding will only add fuel to the fire.
I strongly disagree with the SPS’s positioning that it cannot satisfy Department of Education conveyance
criteria, given that fiscal constraints prevent Seattle from adding needed additional capacity every year.
SPS also determined that because this cluster currently has ongoing capacity investments (new Magnolia
3
school, capacity upgrades at Coe and QAE), Education would not convey the land. All of the ongoing
capacity actions in this cluster will all be in place by 2019, six years before any new students are brought
into the cluster from this redevelopment and there will be a financial need and an immediate need to
address additional capacity.
Nevertheless, if SPS maintains this position, the city must modify alternative 1 and remove from the
open space conveyance the appropriately sized contiguous acreage for a new school, and keep this
acreage in undeveloped federal ownership. In such a scenario, SPS and the city can reevaluate its ability
to satisfy the federal criterial for school conveyance in the next 5-15 years. If there are any other
alternative scenarios that would not preclude a school in this location in concert with the
4
redevelopment, it is in the city’s best interest to find a way to make this happen so that the
redevelopment can proceed.
Thank you for your efforts in this proposal, and please consider my recommendation.
Sincerely,
Justin Allegro
(703) 340-7553
[email protected]
LETTER 23
From: Lindsay Allen

Subject: Housing – Vital Need for Ft. Lawton
Hello,
I am writing to support including affordable housing at Fort Lawton. In a time when Seattle's affordable
housing needs are greater than ever, this surplus land presents a unique opportunity to both house
people affordably and create valuable community assets in the form of new parks and open spaces. 1
Seattle desperately needs more affordable housing. Please ensure that future development of the site
helps meet this need.
Thank you,
Lindsay Allen
LETTER 24
1
LETTER 25
From: Scott Alspach
Subject: Please build more affordable housing units at Fort Lawton
Please build more affordable housing units at Fort Lawton

1
LETTER 26
From: Grace Amend
Subject: In Support of Housing at Fort Lawton
Good evening,
My name is Grace and I am emailing in my support of the housing units at Fort Lawton. Our city is
experiencing a housing crisis and our most vulnerable community members are at risk of being displaced
out to a resource-limited suburb or to the streets. While many opposing this project argue that the
location of Fort Lawton is isolated--I'd argue that it is significantly less isolated than a far-flung suburb
hours away from the city. We must make room for ALL people in Seattle and Fort Lawton provides a
1
unique opportunity to build homes near the city center for neighbors that would have no chance of
securing housing in this impossible market.
I work with families and children in a hospital setting who cannot afford to live near the care they need
to survive. I'm know that many people in opposition have been stewing in fear with classist assumptions
about the neighbors they choose not to welcome. Don't let their vitriol deter a project that would give
families, children, and older folks access to life saving and life changing resources.
I urge your office to move forward with the construction of these units without delay--and to increase
the housing units built on the land. 240 units is not enough. Please think of what type of community 2
you want to foster--one that welcomes neighbors in need or one that bows to money and power
working to keep people out.
Thank you for your time,
--
Sarah (Grace) Amend, MSW, LSWAIC
[email protected]
LETTER 27
From: Jane Anau
Subject: Fort Lawton Housing
Hello,
I'm writing to state my strong support for building low income housing in this space. I also support 1
housing that will include on-site support services. The land is currently not used and we have so many
people in our city who cannot afford housing. I wish the plan was to build even more housing units. 2
Best,
Jane Anau
2111 E John St #201
Seattle 98112
LETTER 28
From: Lindsay Andersen
Subject: In support of affordable housing development at Fort Lawton
Dear Seattle Office of Housing,
I am a Seattle city homeowner writing to express my support for the affordable housing development
proposed for the Fort Lawton site in Magnolia. Creating more affordable housing in Seattle should be a 1
top priority for the city right now and I hope this development will be able to move forward.
Thank you,
Lindsay Andersen
LETTER 29
From: Sarah Andersen
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Proposal
Hi,
I'm writing you to reconsider the proposed housing redevelopment plans for the remaining Fort Lawton 1
land. As a Magnolia resident, I'm very much against the current proposal of creating further mass
development in Magnolia. Magnolia is a small, tight-knit community with limited ins/outs to the
community. The existing infrastructure cannot support mass development as it's already becoming more
and more difficult to get into and out of Magnolia due to only 3 entrance/exits points, one of which is 2
long overdue for replacement (the Magnolia Bridge). Supporting this new housing development without
addressing the current infrastructure issues will only create more issues for the city of Seattle. Instead, I
ask that you abandon the redevelopment proposal and instead dedicate the land to Discovery Park.
Nature and public land is a dying commodity. Please rethink this proposal as it's only going to further 3
destroy our beautiful city.
Regards,
Sarah Andersen
LETTER 30
From: Kyle Anderson
As a resident and neighbor to Discovery Park, my family and I have a huge interest in the Fort Lawton
redevelopment as it will greatly affect our daily lives. We chose to live in Magnolia for how it currently is
and have worked really hard to establish and maintain a great community here. I vote NO on the
1
redevelopment and I would like to keep it the way it is. If it has to be redeveloped, I would vote that
market rate housing is located here so that people who choose to live here can choose to do so and will
be a positive to the magnolia community. This is not a money thing, it’s what I think is best for the
current community.
-Kyle Anderson
LETTER 31
From: Christine Anderson
Dear Lindsay,
I am a new Magnolia resident, and I am in favor of "Alternative 1" Mixed Income Affordable Housing." I
purchased my first home, which is a condo close to the entrance of Discovery Park. My husband and I
1
chose to purchase a home in Magnolia so our young son could have a safe place to grow up. I had
envisioned him having some freedom as a young teen and being able to play in the park without
constant adult supervision.
I am aghast at some of the proposals for a mega-complex of low income. I do not believe that our
community's schools, police, and roads could handle that influx of low income housing. Please keep low 2
income housing in reasonable numbers and resist the urge to build thousands of units in the park.
Thank you,
Christine Anderson
LETTER 32
From: Stephanie Anderson
Subject: Development of housing at Fort Lawton
I am a resident of Magnolia. I am against any high density building at Fort Lawton. If the land is up for
grabs I would like to see the park expanded. There can never be enough green space in the city. I 1
moved to Magnolia 14 years because it was a nice, quiet and small community. I moved from Issaquah
which lost its small town charm to overdevelopment of high density housing. I believe you should only
take into consideration comment by actual residents of Magnolia for the decision whether or not to
proceed. We can already see the impact of the construction of the apartment buildings in
2
Interbay/Dravus to the traffic at one of only 3 entries into Magnolia.
Thanks for taking my comments
Stephanie Anderson
Magnolia resident
LETTER 33
From: Claire Andrefsky
Subject: Magnolia mixed income housing
Hello,
I recently heard that there is an opportunity to have mixed income housing developed in Magnolia for
families and older adults who are experiencing homelessness. Thank you for considering this. We as a
city have lost a lot of affordability and sense of community with the addition of so many financially
inaccessible complexes built. But furthermore the cost of living in Seattle is decreasing diversity—socio
1
economic diversity. Unfortunately socio economics also have some correlation to age, gender, and
ethnic diversities; mixed income housing is one of the evidence based practices known to provide an
opportunity to level playing fields and to enrich cultures.
Thank you for considering this proposal. I would love to these also in my Ballard neighborhood.
Claire Andrefsky, LSWAIC
509-339-3918
LETTER 34
From: Jennifer Andrews
I support a wholistic approach to this redevelopment which includes desperately needed School land
-in order for housing developments to be successful appropriate educational infrastructure must be in
place. I support Seattle Public Schools being included in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton
-this development feeds to neighborhood Schools which are the most rapidly growing and are already at
capacity with over-capacity projections within a few years.
-we support Seattle Public Schools in having an opportunity to control a portion of the development
which will enable them to operate play fields which will have immediate benefit to their sports
programs as well as support the high demand from recreational leagues. When they are able to identify
funding to build a School educational facility in the future, we support the opportunity for Seattle Public 1
Schools to transform this land into a School campus.
-it is imperative that the City and Seattle Public Schools work together to find every opportunity to
support educational infrastructure as the City grows
-the cost of purchasing land is the number one deterrence to Seattle Public Schools being able to keep
pace with the growth in student population. this opportunity for the School district to partner with the
City for substantially discounted land is unique and our City must ensure that it only be able to house its
residents but that there are adequate educational opportunities as well.
LETTER 35
From: Helen Angell
Subject: I Support Fort Lawton
I am writing in support of the proposed affordable housing at Fort Lawton. We desperately need
affordable housing in this city, and this is an amazing opportunity for Seattle to build new housing
without expanding the city's concrete footprint. The neighbors of Fort Lawton who worry this will bring 1
crime to their neighborhood should remember that stable housing prevents crime and saves lives, and
makes all of us a healthier community. I strongly support this proposed project.
Helen Angell
West Seattle
LETTER 36
From: Dustin Anglin
Subject: Support Bold Action for Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
One of the many reasons I voted for so many amazing progressive candidates is that Seattle has a real
chance to show the US and the World at large what a tech-boom city can do to be a real force for
change in the way we handle housing for all income groups.
I urge the city council and mayor to study any option for Fort Lawton that focuses on increasing housing,
especially for low-income households that have been largely under-served in our present economic
boom. 1
It's time to ask the privileged classes to give back and support housing for all. We must build more
housing and continue to offer the options to lower income groups so we can all enjoy the beautiful,
booming city that Seattle has become.
I know you will do the right thing and look forward to supporting efforts like this in the future.
Thank You!
Dustin
Dustin Anglin
[email protected]
401 9th Ave Apt 103
Seattle, Washington 98109
LETTER 37
From: Anonymous
Subject: crs sn says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
Dear Office of Housing staff:
This email contains comments on the Fort Lawton DEIS.
We’re grateful to you for being a champion of affordable housing and human services, and we share
your deep concern for vulnerable Washingtonians.
As you know, the city of Seattle faces two humanitarian crises: homelessness and climate change. It is
clear from the project outline and the DEIS that the city has considered the Fort Lawton project mainly
as it pertains to housing affordability; it failed to consider the scope and immediacy of the climate
emergency. This has led to a recommendation of an absurdly small number of units of affordable 1
housing on the Fort Lawton Site.
For just two or three more years, we have the chance to avoid making the world a strikingly harder
place, because we have the chance to forestall the most devastating effects of climate change. In
Seattle, this means that we absolutely cannot afford the trend of working people being pushed out of
the city and into ever-longer and higher carbon commutes. This disparity will only increase as Seattle
leads on climate while surrounding areas lag. Put simply, a speedy move to a much more dense,
walkable, and livable Seattle is one of our last best chances for meeting climate goals for Seattle and the
region.
In this context, we believe that the DEIS and the project plan needs to consider the following:
•The project plan and the DEIS should include an alternative with much higher density, comparable to
the density of other affordable housing projects in the city. Ideally the increased density should apply to 2
all types of housing on the site, including the affordable ownership housing (Habitat for Humanity).
•For each alternative, the DEIS needs to consider and compare, over the lifetime of the buildings, the
GHG contribution of people living in a dense, transit-rich urban environment, compared to the long
3
single-car commutes and high-carbon lifestyle if working people are pushed outside the city -- the
“Auburn” alternative discussed in the hearing on January 9th.
•For the affordable ownership housing (Habitat for Humanity), the Habitat deed restriction should
ensure that the housing remain as affordable housing even if re-sold, and that there is the opportunity 4
for redevelopment at increased density while retaining housing ownership for the Habitat owners.
•If the site is ultimately developed at the very low density of 238 units on 7.3 acres, building plans
should as much as possible allow for additional buildings or increased height to be accommodated on 5
the site in the future.
We also urge that the city move quickly to develop the “alternative” Talaris site -- affordable housing
should not be an either/or. Affordable housing at the Talaris site, within walking distance of the UW 6
light rail station, can be a big climate win as well.
I am one of the displaced. I'm looking at Bellingham because I can't afford Seattle (or Oly, which is newly
"seattle priced" for housing). I'm a state employee. This is shameful - if I'm struggling, what about
7
everyone else?!
Sincerely yours,
crs sn
LETTER 38
From: Anonymous
Subject: says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
as it pertains to housing affordability; it failed to consider the scope and immediacy of the climate 1
emergency. This has led to a recommendation of an absurdly small number of units of affordable
region.
2
the density of other affordable housing projects in the city. Ideally the increased density should apply to
GHG contribution of people living in a dense, transit-rich urban environment, compared to the long 3
should as much as possible allow for additional buildings or increased height to be accommodated on
5
Sincerely yours,
LETTER 39
From: Anonymous
Subject: N/A
Leave the park alone

1
LETTER 40
From: Anonymous
Please consider the lack of facilities and limited opportunities that exists with developing Fort Lawton as
affordable housing. As one who needs the bus to go everywhere, the Metro Line #24 and #33 will not
be enough to support the growth. Also, the local grocery store serves a socio-economic status that is
not the same for those where affordable housing is their only option.
For example, to go to Albertson’s is a 10 minute bus ride to a three block walk, while Fred Meyer is a 1
transfer from the #33 to the #31 to the #40. The Metro support isn’t there, neither are the local
business. Think about those that will live there, one needs to be able to get to places and Metro isn’t
there. Magnolia is a waste-land when it comes to public transportation and an Uber ride to Fred Meyer
is $10 to $12 each way.
Thank you for reading.
LETTER 41
From: Anonymous
Our city has a homelessness crisis where we have people dying on the streets because they can't afford
a place to live in Seattle. Let's accept Fort Lawton from the federal government to create desperately 1
needed low income housing as well as a maintenance facility and park land. We can't afford to pass up
this gift and have more people die.
LETTER 42
2
LETTER 43
1
LETTER 44
From: Anonymous
LETTER 45
1
LETTER 46
From: Jim Arrowsmith
Subject: Comment on Ft Lawton redevelopment proposal
As a retired city planner (from King County Metro) living in Seattle, I have reviewed the four current
proposals for redevelopment at Ft Lawton. In light of the severe shortage of affordable housing in
Seattle, the paucity of affordable land on which to place affordable housing, the disparity in locations of
affordable housing, and the need to act quickly to expand the available stock of affordable housing, I
strongly support Option 1.
Option 4, No Action, would fail to take advantage of this unique opportunity

Option 3, Public Park with off-site affordable housing, would needlessly place a park next to a much 1
larger and more extensive park; there is currently no shortage of available parkland in this vicinity.
Pushing the affordable housing component off-site would severely damage the viability of being able to
address the affordable housing shortage, given the cost of acquiring other land and lack of adequate
budget to do so. What funding the city does have available should be spent frugally and wisely.
Option 2, Market rate housing on-site and affordable housing off-site, fails as noted above to adequately
address the city's affordable housing crisis, and simply would add more market-rate housing, of which
there is no shortage.
I am aware of the Habitat proposal to construct some of the affordable housing, and can attest to the
clean attractive designs of other Habitat housing in the Seattle-Kng County area. I am also aware that
the high cost and shortage of land in this area has stymied Habitat's ability to continue to provide high
quality affordable housing locally. This is a prime opportunity which, under Option 1, will be to the city's
and local community's benefit.
Jim Arrowsmith
LETTER 47
From: Lisa Ascher
Subject: Yes to mixed income homes in Ft.Lawton
Dear Lindsey,
I hope the city moves forward with housing seniors and mixed income persons and families in Fort 1
Lawton. While I am so frustrated that the number of homes that could become available is only in the
200s, we have to do it without delay and get going in whatever way we can. I thought the city council
was committed to each district contributing to finding housing for our neighbors. This is a start, although 2
measly in my opinion.
As a resident of Magnolia I am proud to support this goal however I can. Please get people in homes as
soon as possible. And PLEASE provide services seniors need, and whatever services other residents may
3
need. Work with the city to up the bus service. Just make it happen. And, let us know how we can
support you and the new residents however we can. I'd like to be a part of it.
Best,
Lisa Ascher
LETTER 48
From: Jennifer Aspelund
Subject: Ft Lawton
Our parks in Seattle are cherished by all. Please do not build housing of any kind on this property this
land should be a park where ALL citizens can enjoy this beautiful area . 1
Jennifer Aspelund
LETTER 49
From: Suzanne Asprea
Subject: Affordable housing at Fort Lawton: YES
Anyone who's been living and working in Seattle over the past five years knows that we have a housing
and homelessness crisis on our hands.
Even those of us lucky enough to have bought property in years past are getting priced out of our
neighborhoods by million-dollar townhomes. So, how can low-income people afford to live in this city if 1
we don't provide housing solutions that serve Seattle's most vulnerable populations?
Doing nothing is not an option and we don't need more luxury housing. I support the city's proposed
affordable housing development at Fort Lawton. Low-income people are not a threat to the park, or the
surrounding neighborhood--they are an important part of this community.
Thank you,
Suzanne Asprea
98122
LETTER 50
From: Walker Aumann
Subject: Fort Lawton comments
Greetings Office of Housing:
I am writing to express my strong support for building affordable housing at Ft. Lawton. I urge the City to 1
expand the scope of the EIS to cover an additional option where more housing is constructed so that
more of our lower income and formerly homeless neighbors can have access to stable, affordable 2
housing.
I believe that the City has a moral obligation to take bold action to address the crisis of homelessness
and housing insecurity that affects Seattle and our entire region. The answer to homelessness is
housing.
The demand for housing for all income ranges is greater than Seattle’s current housing stock can
accommodate. But this gap is the greatest for the households with the lowest incomes — individuals 2,
and families making 0-30% AMI. According to the Housing Development Consortium, in 2016 Seattle
cont.
was short by 17,161 units for households in this bracket, and this gap will widen to 27,481 units by 2030
if we don’t act now.
To close this gap, I believe the City should be building low-income housing in every neighborhood of
Seattle. Option 1 at Ft. Lawton is one small step in the right direction. We can’t wait any longer. Please
approve and expand upon option 1. Housing is a human right.
Sincerely,
Walker Aumann
LETTER 51
From: Tea Austen
Subject: Affordable housing at Fort Lawton--YES, please!
As a resident in the north part of Seattle, I see every day the effects of our skyrocketing housing costs--
tent cities popping up overnight, so many people sleeping in cars, homeless children and families. As a
volunteer at Mary's Place I come face to face with the working poor--those who have jobs, but still
cannot afford housing.
Affordable housing is one of the biggest issues facing the city right now, and it seem to just be getting
worse. 1
Please add my voice to those supporting affording housing and housing for seniors as part of the Fort
Lawton redevelopment project. I am sure you are getting pushback from the neighbors, but this is one
of the better possibilities for addressing an urgent problem that affects us all. We don't have endless
options here, this is a good opportunity to actually make a difference. Please move forward on this
project.
Sincerely,
Tea Austen
LETTER 52
From: Kaya Axelsson
Subject: In support of Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
I am writing to urge the City of Seattle to study an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically
more housing, preferably without privatization. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-
income households are being pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into
homelessness in record numbers.
1
In the midst of this crisis, the City should be considering bold steps to create more public and deeply-
affordable housing. Instead, the City's Preferred Alternative devotes the large majority of the land to
recreation and surface parking, passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds or thousands more
affordable homes, and to drastically rebuild our depleted public housing stock..
Surplus public land should be used for public goods, not sold off to developers. Please move forward
with building housing at Fort Lawton - with more homes, and more public ownership, than is currently
being considered.
Thank you.
--
Kaya Axelsson
MPhil University of Oxford
Department of Political Science and International Relations
Co-Founder Seattle Neighborhood Action Coalition
LETTER 53
From: Shary B
Subject: Shary B says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton
As you know, the city of Seattle faces two humanitarian crises: homelessness and climate change. It
is clear from the project outline and the DEIS that the city has considered the Fort Lawton project
mainly as it pertains to housing affordability; it failed to consider the scope and immediacy of the
climate emergency. This has led to a recommendation of an absurdly small number of units of 1
affordable housing on the Fort Lawton Site.
1,
region. cont.
I am urging the city of Seattle to continue to push forward on this important, necessary option to
relieving a small portion of our homeless crisis.
Sincerely yours,
Shary B
LETTER 54
From: Jennifer Bacon
Subject: Fort Lawton Affordable Housing
Hello.
I strongly support the use of the Fort Lawton property for low-income housing. There is an incredible
shortage of affordable housing in this city, and the idea that the city might turn down free land ear-
marked for that purpose is mind-boggling. 1
The homeless are some of the most vulnerable members of our community, and they should not be
denied any chance at a more stable life because they are viewed by some as "undesirable".
Thank you.
Jennifer Bacon
LETTER 55
From: Taylor Bailey
I am writing to voice my support in turning the unused Fort Lawton buildings into affordable housing for
low-income Seattleites. With the ever-increasing cost of living in Seattle, the city has a duty to provide
affordable housing options that are in ALL neighborhoods of the city, not just those neighborhoods that
will have the least resistance from neighbors. The housing first model has been shown to work to reduce 1
the number of people experiencing homelessness and the many factors that can accompany
homelessness. In order to practice housing first, though, we need to take these opportunities to create
housing from our existing, unused structures. Creating this opportunity for low-income folks is a step in
the right direction for Seattle's mission to combat inequality at all levels of our social and political
institutions.
Thank you for your time.
Best,
Taylor Bailey
5609 2nd Ave NW #24
Seattle, WA 98107
206-949-8983
LETTER 56
From: Tamar Bailey
Subject: Tamar Bailey says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
clear from the project outline and the DEIS that the city has considered the Fort Lawton project mainly 1
housing on the Fort Lawton Site. For just two or three more years, we have the chance to avoid
making the world a strikingly harder place, because we have the chance to forestall the most
devastating effects of climate change. In Seattle, this means that we absolutely cannot afford the trend
of working people being pushed out of the city and into ever-longer and higher carbon commutes. This
disparity will only increase as Seattle leads on climate while surrounding areas lag. Put simply, a speedy
move to a much more dense, walkable, and livable Seattle is one of our last best chances for meeting
climate goals for Seattle and the region.
single-car commutes and high-carbon lifestyle if working people are pushed outside the city -- the 3
should not be an either/or. Affordable housing at the Talaris site, within walking distance of the UW
6
Sincerely yours,
Tamar Bailey
LETTER 57
From: Aloe Bailey
Subject: In Support of Housing at Fort Lawton
As a lifelong resident of King County and current resident of Seattle, I want to write in to show my
enthusiastic support for the city's proposal to build affordable, supported housing for low-income,
senior, veteran, and homeless residents.
1
Despite the NIMBY-ist, unempathetic attitudes of some of the wealthy Magnolia homeowners, I believe
that the city's continued dedication to creating affordable housing and community for our neighbors
that struggle the most is how I want my city's government to allocate funds and resources.
Thank you very much for your time, and happy new year.
Sincerely,
Aloe Bailey
LETTER 58
From: Max Baker
I am very much a fan of this development. Taking existing developed land and transforming it into
housing, especially for those in need, seems like a no brainer. I hope you can look past the comments 1
from people who are really looking to keep poor people out of Magnolia, and recognize the project's
many benefits to the city and its people.
LETTER 59
From: Jessica Balsam
Subject: Ft. Lawton site
To whom it may concern:
I am in support of the plan to add low-income housing to the Ft. Lawton site in Magnolia. I am a West
Seattle homeowner who sees the desperate need for varied levels of housing in our city. We cannot 1
count on private developers to come through for our city’s vulnerable populations. The city must step in,
sometimes over the chorus of NIMBYs, to do the right thing.
Thank you,
Jessica Balsam
253-219-5999
LETTER 60
From: Sonia Balsky
Lindsay Masters,
more housing. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income households are being
pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers.
In the midst of this crisis, the City should be considering bold steps to create more affordable housing. 1
Instead, the City's Preferred Alternative devotes the large majority of the land to recreation and surface
parking, passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes.
Surplus public land should be used to serve the needs of the people of Seattle. And there's no greater
need than affordable housing. Please study an option that makes full use of Fort Lawton for housing.
Thank you.
Sonia Balsky
[email protected]
1110 8th Ave, Apt 903
LETTER 61
From: Kathryn Banke
Subject: Ft Lawton comments
I am writing to express my ongoing concern with the proposed options for Fort Lawton development.
Adding more housing without simultaneously increasing school capacity is completely nonsensical given 1
the current demographic trends in Magnolia/Queen Anne and existing overcrowding that will NOT be
relieved via the planned re-opening of Magnolia Elementary School in 2019. I continue to support
inclusion of Seattle Public Schools in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton. Ideally SPS should be able to
control a portion of the development that could then provide space to build a school or other
educational facilities in the future as funding permits. Projections show that growth in the student 2
population is only going to continue to rise, and this is a unique opportunity for SPS to partner with the
City of Seattle to acquire substantially discounted land to expand its footprint.
In addition, I remain concerned about the addition of low-income housing in Fort Lawton even aside
from the concern about rising school overcrowding. The site is not conveniently located for either access
to the rest of Magnolia (for shopping, as an example) or to the rest of the City of Seattle. It seems 3
counterintuitive to spend millions to locate a population in this spot of the city, particularly without any
concrete plans or funding to increase services and access to those services for this community.
Best,
Kathy
LETTER 62
From: Geri Ann Baptista
Email Address: N/A
Subject: N/A
1
I support Option 3 for Fort Lawton. No buildings should be constructed at the site.
Geri Ann Baptista
Seattle
LETTER 63
From: linda bard
Subject: Jan 9 th fort meeting
Clearly the meeting was
A preplanned hijacking
To show opinions of one group

1
Everyone's voice, for or against, should be Heard on such an important Issue of 34 acres use that will
Affect the area for years To come The worst part is I left feeling unclear because I was unable To even
question regarding alternatives Shameful undemocratic stacked Deck of a meeting with one agenda
represented Why even have a comment meeting when it is clearly rigged?
Regards,
Disappointed in Seattle
LETTER 64
From: Lisa Barnes
Subject: regarding Ft. Lawton redevelopment proposal
This is to officially state that I am in favor of Alternative #1 for the redevelopment of Ft. Lawton.
I appreciate the city’s attempts to listen to community feedback and incorporate fixes (notably, adding 1
acreage for the school district to consider a new building in the future, as well as additional park space).
At the most recent public meeting, many people suggested adding even more units of affordable 2
housing. And some folks have concerns about the lack of shopping nearby. I don’t know how truly
feasible it is, but I do wonder about the possibility of constructing buildings with space for groceries (a 3
small store) on the ground floor (and/or other amenities?); and, of course, adding more units couldn’t
hurt!
Thank you for your efforts.
Best,
Lisa Barnes
Program Manager
Queen Anne Helpline
311 West McGraw
Seattle, WA 98119
phone 206-282-1540
fax 206-282-2304
LETTER 65
From: Michaela Barrett
Subject: DEIS Comment for Fort Lawton Redevelopment
I am writing in support of the redevelopment of the Fort Lawton property into affordable housing at the
highest density congruent with the geography of the area. This is a rare opportunity for Seattle to get a 1
great deal on a public housing project and should not be squandered because a few property owners are
whining about bogeymen damaging their unearned property appreciation.
Michaela Barrett
98188
LETTER 66
From: Marilyn Bates
Subject: Fort Lawton Low Income Housing
The city needs to find another place to put this housing. There are no services here for them. The closest 1
grocery store is Metropolitan Market...I can't afford to shop there! I am resentful that at all of these
meetings, ACTUAL Magnolia residents cannot get into them, because of the activists brought in to make
it look like this is what we want and the news media going along with it! If anyone would talk to 2
Magnolia residents, the majority do not want this.
Find a place that has easier access to services needed for the people!
Keep Fort Lawton part of the park for everyone to enjoy.

3
Marilyn Bates
Magnolia resident
LETTER 67
From: Serena Batten
Subject: Ft. Lawton
Hello,
I'm writing in support of the project to turn Ft. Lawton into low-income housing. Residents of all income
levels deserve decent housing. Seattle is an expensive city, placing disproportionate impact on low- 1
income residents. I urge the City to vote in favor of the project.
Thank you,
Serena Batten, 98122
LETTER 68
From: Colin Bayer
Subject: please make fort lawton into affordable housing.
I’ve lived in the Seattle area since 1990, when my family and I moved here from across the country. the
state of the economy has me terrified that people close to me are going to be forced to either move or
live on the street. after moving progressively farther out of town over the past decade, my elderly
grandfather (a former engineer), uncle, and aunt (both former computer programmers), all long-time
residents and renters, moved to Michigan this year because they couldn’t afford to stay here any more.
between untimely joblessness and a landlord aggressively hiking their rents, my immediate family has
narrowly avoided eviction multiple times in the past year.
and we’re the lucky ones; despite growing up poor, I’ve got a CS degree from the UW and enough
money to spare to help us through the jolts. most of my friends, working retail, clerical, and security 1
jobs, don’t have the same luxury.
quite frankly – after the Council stopped the HOMES tax while insisting that their problems with it were
that it didn’t do enough and didn’t go far enough, then proceeded to continue sitting on its hands – I
don’t have much faith that the City is going to do enough to address the housing crisis. if it allows the
Fort Lawton plan, modest as it is, to be killed again by perennial agitators and wealthy single-family
homeowners, I’m going to doubt that it has the ability to do anything.
I love this city and can’t imagine living anywhere else. please give me, and poor Seattleites like me,
some hope that their love is requited. thank you for your time.
Colin
LETTER 69
From: Molly Beaudoin
Subject: Please include a school
It seems crazy that long term benefits are not being considered for Ft. Lawton. Subsidized housing
should be built near transportation hubs not in Ft. Lawton. A high school is desperately needed in the 1
area to accommodate students living in Queen Anne and Magnolia.
Molly Beaudoin
LETTER 70
From: Lisa Beaulaurier
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Lisa Beaulaurier
[email protected]
5015 44th Ave S
LETTER 71
From: Joe Beavo
Subject: Comments regarding Affordable Housing
To whom it may concern,
Please add me to the list of people being kept informed about the "Ft Lawton Affordable Housing 1
Project".
From what I have seen to date, any of the current options at Ft Lawton that provide more affordable
housing for various categories of homeless people is a big improvement over most other ideas I have 2
heard. In short I STRONGLY approve of a plan that allows substantial low cost or free safe housing at Ft
Lawton.
Sincerely, Joe Beavo
[email protected]
LETTER 72
From: Dan Becker
Subject: Support low income housing at Lawton
I’ll keep it brief. Seattle has both a practical and a moral imperative here. And it’s completely obvious
what it is. Do the right thing. Support affordable housing. Seattle needs it more than anything right now. 1
Dan Becker
306 NW 78th St Seattle
LETTER 73
From: Jennifer Beetem
Subject: In favor of Fort Lawton adorable housing
To the Office of Housing:
Seattle is in acute need of more affordable housing stock and I strongly support DEIS Alternative 1 to
construct of 238 units of affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
1
I write as a low income, car-less resident of Capitol Hill who has made the difficult decision to plan to
leave Seattle this spring after nearly a decade here, because I cannot afford rent above $600/month and
the commercial rental market no longer meets the needs of residents like me. To house everyone,
Seattle needs to build more public affordable housing and the affluent, less-diverse neighborhoods will
need to be brave and welcome economically and ethnically diverse new neighbors.
Also, if the soil is safe for gardening, I strongly urge the Fort Lawton redevelopment plans to include
significant areas for P-patch style kitchen gardening in the park land areas to allow residents to offset
the logistical hurdle of the only nearby grocery store (Metropolitan Market) being quite expensive. 2
Growing my own produce in the warm season the last few years had made a big difference in my ability
to eat a healthy diet on a tight budget and gardening together strengthens communities.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Beetem
915 E Harrison St Apt 110
Seattle, WA 98102
LETTER 74
From: Larry Benefiel
This should not happen with access to Magnolia as is. The recent changes to W. Emerson, just east of
Gilman Ave. W, has created a nightmare. The backup to the intersection at the RR tracks has reached 1
the Ballard Bridge at times. To back up onto the bridge is already possible. Diversion to W. Dravus has
left that exit also a nightmare at times.
Besides, there is no affordable grocery store in the area. I drive from Magnolia to Ballard to shop for
2
necessities. I’m sure you will hear this from others.
Cordially,
Larry Benefiel
4317 29th Ave. West
Seattle
LETTER 75
From: Barbara Bengtsson
Subject: Barbara Bengtsson says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
1
region.
3
Sincerely yours,
Barbara Bengtsson
LETTER 76
From: Bob Bennett and Sue Boivin
Subject: Ballard residents input - Fort Lawton housing proposal
We would like to go on record as being in opposition to the proposed low income/senior housing at Fort
Lawton.
The reason is that this is a poor location from two key standpoints.
The site is poor in terms of potential negative impacts on nearby Discovery Park and the adjacent
neighborhood of Magnolia itself. 1
Surely we can find a location for this needed housing that is not compromised by factors such as those
above. We realize that the Fort Lawton location has positive location attributes for those seeking a job
being near the city center but that dos not outweigh the large downsides of the location.
We ask you to withdraw this proposal and work to get as many people in the city "on board" with your
next proposal by avoiding sensitive areas like Fort Lawton.
Thanks,
Bob Bennett and Sue Boivin
2824 NW 58th St
Seattle, WA. 98107
LETTER 77
From: Patricia Benton
Subject: Discovery Park, Magnolia, proposition to turn part of Fort Lawton & Discovery Park into
Homeless Encampment, Please Do Not!
Thank you for reading my email. I am opposed to the idea of turning part of Discovery Park and Fort 1
Lawton into a homeless encampment and/or homeless housing.
I moved to Magnolia in 2002, and it was a safe environment. In the past years we have seen a huge
increase in crime, illegal drug use and areas littered with drug use needles, etc. It's simply sad what has
happened to our Magnolia neighborhood (and Seattle) and it will only get worse if we bring more 2
homeless encampments and housing for homeless here to Magnolia. Crime in Magnolia has risen to
surprising heights, and will get worse if homeless housing is brought into Discovery Park and Fort
Lawton.
Why is Seattle allowing other states to send their homeless and drug using people here to Seattle? It is
happening at greater rate every year. Those states don't want the financial or social burden to take care 3
of their own. That is wrong! We have residents who have worked and lived their entire lives here,
paying taxes, and when they need help it's not so easy to get help, yet we allow those who come here
just for the "free benefits" Seattle offers to them, we open arms to them? The Emerald City is in serious 3,
decline, look around. "Go to Seattle, free living and no reason to rehab yourself and look for work, and
you can do drugs and sell drugs there."
cont.
To the point of the Discover Park Fort Lawton proposal to provide homeless encampment, housing, etc,
here are some thoughts Magnolia residents have shared, and I agree:
1.The Park has already become somewhat overrun. People leave litter, people hiding in bushes smoking
weed, tents and hammocks installed, ongoing vandalism of trees.
2.We do not have sufficient Police protection here in Magnolia now! So, we have little to no
enforcement of illegal drug use at Discovery Park, no enforcement of alcohol use in the parking lots, 4
park and beach areas. They leave needles scattered everywhere including where children play,
unsanitary belongings are left behind possibly spreading disease of many kinds, safety hazard for
innocent children playing in the park.
3.Who will regulate the registered sex offenders who are allowed into the homeless housing? 5
4.It has been said many times that the Seattle Housing Authority and HUD do not show backbone when
it comes to monitoring the residents and ensuring they are not breaking the Law! It is not fair to the
low-income tenants who are clean and trying to better their situation, and it is not far to the community
to allow a drug dealer to live in housing paid for by the tax payers. They are dangerous and carry guns
to protect their drugs and business of selling illegal drugs. They attract dangerous people to the housing 6
complex, and we all are at risk of their crimes against innocent children and adults and our property, we
pay to live in this community and do our best to keep it clean of crime and drugs, they do not pay the
price.
5.When the bad stuff begins, who is going to take control of the situation? Will the City evict people and
7
enforce the law? They don't do it now. There will be an increase in traffic, overcrowding and increase in
crime here in Magnolia. Already we have only 3 entrances to Magnolia and those entrances are
extremely traffic heavy already.
8
6.If Senior Housing was in the plan, I could support that as long as it does not attract criminal elements. 9
7.A new Public School would also be good for this community and I support. 10
8.Why doesn't the City of Seattle consider working on restoring Discovery Park and Fort Lawton and use
11
the restored buildings as a conference center? Make it a destination with beautiful environment. This
would generate revenue for the city and not spread more crime.
9.Are there other areas of the city being considered for homeless housing? Why the push for Magnolia? 12
10.What about the building restrictions imposed on the land in 2008 as a result of a lawsuit? Those
restrictions are still there. 13
11.Fort Lawton and Discovery Park could be combined to make a Regional Park for all to enjoy. We
14
could bring revenue to the city, it has great potential for years to come.
12.A new Public School would also be good for this community and I support. I support the approach to
this redevelopment that which includes desperately needed School land:
•In order for housing developments to be successful appropriate educational infrastructure must be in
15
•This development feeds to neighborhood schools which are the most rapidly growing and are already
at capacity with over-capacity projections within a few years.
•We support Seattle Public Schools in having an opportunity to control a portion of the development
funding to build a school educational facility in the future, we support the opportunity for Seattle Public
Schools to transform this land into a school campus. 15,
•It is imperative that the City and Seattle Public Schools work together to find every opportunity to cont.
support educational infrastructure as the city grows
•The cost of purchasing land is the number one deterrence to Seattle Public Schools being able to keep
pace with the growth in student population. This opportunity for the school district to partner with the
City for substantially discounted land is unique and our city must ensure that it only be able to house its
I am sympathetic with those who lose their homes, but the truth is many of those on our streets in
Seattle don't want to work, there are many who were sent here for the benefits, they are engaged in
illegal drug activity, and they commit crime! I lost my job 14 months ago due to layoffs in healthcare,
yet I use all my savings to continue to pay my RE taxes, and live frugally so I can pay my mortgage, RE
taxes, and buy food heat, lights & utilities, etc. I've been working full-time for 40 years, don't commit
crime, don't do or sell drugs. I get no help from Seattle. 16
Please consider options other than homeless housing for Discovery Park and Fort Lawston. Homeless
housing is not the best option considering the crime it will bring to our community. Magnolia offers a
clean community of working adults who pay dearly, many children live here. Please consider the
opinion of those of us most affected by the City decision. I hope the City of Seattle will make good
choices going forward. Thank you.
Kindly,
Patricia
LETTER 78
From: Julie Berard
Subject: NO ON ANY FORT LAWTON REDEVELOPMENT WHATESOEVER
Dear Lindsay,
As a Magnolia resident for 18 years, I am vehemently opposed to ANY housing development at Ft. 1
Lawton, and urge the city to adopt it as park space. This means alternatives 3 and 4 only. Building
without any infrastructure would further congest our schools and overload our out roads that are
already over capacity. 2
The site, park, and neighborhood simply does not have the infrastructure to support housing in the area.
In addition, the recently passed park independent taxing authority is supposed to increase park space in
the city. With the Ft. Lawton opportunity, the city should keep its promise to the citizens who approved 3
the initiative to do so and build affordable housing at another site.
Kind Regards,
Julie Berard
LETTER 79
From: Todd Berard
Subject: NO ON ANY FORT LAWTON REDEVELOPMENT WHATESOEVER
Dear Lindsay,
As a Magnolia resident for 15 years, I am vehemently opposed to ANY housing development at Ft. 1
Lawton, and urge the city to adopt it as park space. This means alternatives 3 and 4 only.
The site, park, and neighborhood simply does not have the infrastructure to support housing in the area. 2
In addition, the recently passed park independent taxing authority is supposed to increase park space in
the city. With the Ft. Lawton opportunity, the city should keep its promise to the citizens who approved 3
the initiative to do so and build affordable housing at another site.
Kind Regards,
Todd Berard
LETTER 80
From: Todd Berard
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment :: NO!
I am a lifelong Magnolia resident and neighbor of the Fort Lawton property. I reviewed the Draft EIS for
the Fort Lawton Redevelopment and have several comments:
Other Reasonable Alternatives

The Talaris alternative is not reasonable or legitimate. The Talaris site is an unreasonable alternative as
the cost of the property is prohibitive. Legitimate alternatives would include sites that are feasible and
attainable. Although the Talaris site is a similar size and would accommodate a similar redevelopment, 1
the stated goals could be met on smaller parcels located throughout Magnolia, the vicinity, or the city.
Existing structures should be considered as practical and feasible alternatives rather than proposing new
construction only.

The DEIS dismisses the Discovery Park Master Plan. Page 3.6-47 states: the 1986 Master Plan created no
enforceable right or duty. It is unreasonable to not consider the Discovery Park Master Plan as the park
is located immediately adjacent to Fort Lawton. The Master Plan is integral to the existence and
operation of the park and contains specific guidance regarding development within and around the 2
park. The DEIS fails to disclose that the Fort Lawton redevelopment proposals are inconsistent with
provisions of the Discovery Park Master Plan. Many scoping comments requested that the Discovery
Park Master Plan be considered as any development of Fort Lawton would have a direct significant
impact to Discovery Park.
In contrast to the Discovery Park Master Plan, the City of Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan is quoted
repeatedly throughout the DEIS. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan also has no enforceable right or duty. A
comprehensive plan is not usually legally binding. A community's ordinances must be amended in order 2,
to legally implement the provisions required to execute the comprehensive plan. The DEIS should not cont.
contain references to only selective plans for guidance. It is unreasonable to apply the enforceable right
or duty standard solely to the Discovery Park Master plan and not to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The
DEIS is incomplete unless all relevant plans and policies that pertain to Fort Lawton are considered.
Cumulative Effects
Various conclusions included in Alternative 1 ignore the cumulative impacts that result from the
incremental impact of the proposal when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions and population increases. Page 3.10-4 states there is little growth from new development
expected in the immediate vicinity. Currently, legislation is proceeding which will significantly increase
population density in the vicinity as well as the City as a whole. The effects of the implementation of
3
Mandatory Housing Affordability zoning changes and changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations
have not been adequately addressed in the Draft EIS. Specifically, future development of the Interbay
corridor and Expedia headquarters will also significantly impact transportation and public services. The
analysis in the DEIS underestimates the effects of the action alternatives on the community and should
identify and mitigate obvious growth and density changes foreseeable in the near future.
Transportation
The DEIS study area includes only intersections in the immediate vicinity of Fort Lawton (page 3.10-10).
The DEIS does not adequately consider and analyze significant traffic and transportation impacts to the
4
community of additional traffic that will result from the Fort Lawton proposals. Magnolia is served solely
by three access points which are where congestion occurs. The DEIS Magnolia study area should include
the impact of the redevelopment to the access points in addition to the neighborhood streets
surrounding Fort Lawton. Furthermore, the DEIS should address the impacts of the redevelopment on
the aging Magnolia bridges. The DEIS study should include impacts in the event that one or more of the
5
bridges fails or is out of service.
Magnolia Housing History

1
The DEIS oversimplifies and misrepresents Magnolia's housing history. The DEIS asserts on Page 3.14-
9 thatMagnolia is among the neighborhoods that used restrictive covenants in the past and has
remained a relatively exclusive neighborhood with little to no access to affordable housing choices for
those with low- incomes. Although certain plats may have had such restrictive covenants in the past,
most plats in Magnolia had no such covenants according to Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project,
Racial Restrictive Covenants as cited on page 3.13-16. Many areas in Magnolia were affordable to all 6
income levels and the plats in the immediate vicinity of Fort Lawton had no racial restrictive covenants.
The Draft EIS ignores the fact that Magnolia was home to three large significant military installations for
many years up until the late 1960s. Besides Fort Lawton, the Pier 91 Naval Station, United States Coast
Guard Base, fishing, maritime, railroad, and lumber industries housed many diverse and low income
6,
populations in Magnolia. A more complete study of Magnolia housing history should be included or the cont.
selective historical data mentioned should be deleted as it is incomplete and misleading.
The DEIS is incorrect in its assertion that Magnolia has little to no access to affordable housing choices.
As an example, the Seattle Housing Authority currently operates two affordable housing sites within
7
walking distance of Fort Lawton: Fort Lawton Place with 24 affordable apartments as well as the
Pleasant Valley Plaza Apartments with 41 affordable apartments.
Magnolia Housing Cost

The DEIS is contradictory when it states on page 3.13-15 that The Magnolia neighborhood is generally a
high cost neighborhood... The support given indicates that average rent of $1,710 in the Fort Lawton
vicinity is actually lower than the average citywide. In addition, the median list price per square foot 8
given for Magnolia is only 2 1/2% higher than the city of Seattle average. Given the facts provided in the
DEIS, Magnolia in fact appears to be an average cost neighborhood in Seattle and not the high cost
neighborhood described. A more accurate depiction is needed.
Conclusion
From reading the DEIS in its entirety, it appears that it was determined that the proposals will have no
significant impacts and no mitigation is necessary. The addition of approximately 600 residents to Fort
Lawton in a high density development with the provision of services for 85 units will indeed have a 9
significant impact in an area that is now zoned single family. The DEIS fails to consider practical and
feasible alternatives and underestimates the effects of the preferred alternative to the surrounding
area.
DEIS COMMENT LETTER #2

1. I am a resident of Magnolia and I have some comments about the Draft EIS for the Fort Lawton
Redevelopment:
Supportive Housing
The DEIS states on Page 2-17 that an objective of the proposal is to provide Approximately 85 units of
permanent supportive housing for homeless seniors, including veterans. When questioned at an EIS
10
scoping meeting, Steve Walker of the Office of Housing stated that the supportive permanent housing
would not be limited to seniors or veterans. He stated that the housing would only "target" seniors as
well as veterans of any age.
The DEIS fails to accurately describe the supportive housing. The EIS should clearly identify the
population served by the supportive housing.
Flawed Alternatives
The DEIS lists four alternatives. Alternative #2 and Alternative #3 describe on Fact Sheet ii the
construction of homeless and affordable housing at the Talaris site. Page 1-1 states that This site is
included only as an example of a possible off-site alternative for the affordable and formerly homeless
housing. The DEIS also states that the Talaris site is provided in order to conceptually analyze probable 11
adverse impacts.... and that Additional more detailed SEPA review of the Talaris site, or another off-site
location, would be required should that or another site ultimately be selected for the affordable and
formerly homeless housing. WAC 197-11-786 states that "Reasonable alternative" means an action that
could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or
decreased level of environmental degradation. The State Environmental Policy Act Handbook states For
public projects, alternative project sites should also be evaluated. An example that is only conceptual
does not meet the definition of an alternative project site and is not a reasonable alternative as the
Talaris site cannot ultimately feasibly be selected. The City has shown no intent to build affordable
11
housing at Talaris. The City does not own Talaris and has not made an attempt to purchase it. In fact, the
Seattle Times reported on January 19, 2018 that there is an agreement for Quadrant Homes to purchase
the site for market rate homes. Alternatives #2 and #3 are not bonafide, feasible, or reasonable. The City
has misled the public with the Talaris alternatives and has spent substantial taxpayer funds on a site
that they never had any intention of considering.
In addition, Alternatives 2 and 3 are not reasonable alternatives as the City did not engage with the
Laurelhurst community. The City did not send out scoping notices, solicit comments, or hold meetings 12
near the Talaris site as they did with the Magnolia community. Without outreach to the neighboring
community, there can be no constructive, realistic analysis of the site and renders the evaluation invalid.
The DEIS fails to analyze reasonable alternatives as required under WAC 197-11-786 and also fails to
evaluate an alternative project site as described in the SEPA handbook. The EIS should identify
reasonable alternatives that meet the stated objectives of the project. The DEIS is incomplete without 13
discussion and disclosure of both the rationale and citations for the use of an unfeasible, conceptual
example rather than actual feasible
alternatives that could be selected.
Discovery Park
The Friends of Discovery Park has issued a position paper below which I support:
We believe that the Army Reserve parcel in its entirety, should be incorporated into Discovery Park. To
buildings, and overlapping fences. As such, it is distinctly unfriendly to the wildlife that live and
reproduce in the nearby forests of Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. The property is uniquely situated 14
between the Kiwanis Ravine and the larger green spaces of Discovery Park.
Growing a forest across this site would create a much needed wildlife corridor between the ship canal,
the Ravine and Discovery Park. We recognize that there are a variety of competing interests for the use
of this property. Suggestions include low income housing, a school and other uses like playgrounds,
baseball fields and tennis courts. If one or some combination of these uses become implemented, we
ask that any man-built environment on the site be appropriately and sensitively incorporated into a
forested canopy, using a mosaic of legally protected indigenous plant communities distributed across
the entire property.
incorporation into Discovery Park and management of it according to the Discovery Park Master Plan.
LETTER 81
From: Jessi Berkelhammer
Subject: Jessi Berkelhammer says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
housing on the Fort Lawton Site. 1
region.
2
3
Sincerely yours,
Jessi Berkelhammer
LETTER 82
From: Maya Berkowitz
Subject: Affordable housing at Fort Lawton
I support affordable housing at Fort Lawton. We desperately need affordable housing in Seattle! Please
be brave and work as hard for the poorest folks in our city as you do for the rich. This is an opportunity 1
to do the right thing for all Seattleites and invest in affordable housing in this city!
Thank you,
Maya Berkowitz, MPH
p: 612.791.0360
LETTER 83
From: Keara Berlin
Subject: Thank you for the Fort Lawton plan
Hello,
I am a Seattle resident, and I am very pleased to see how wonderful the Fort Lawton redevelopment
plan is. I appreciate the inclusion of affordable housing for seniors, veterans, and families. I love the fact
1
that natural areas will be preserved and park space will be added. I think this plan is perfect, and it has
my full support. Thank you so much for your work so far!
Sincerely,
Keara Berlin
[email protected]
LETTER 84
From: Barbara Bernard
Subject: Ft. Lawton redevelopment project
I oppose the proposed housing development adjacent to Discovery Park, as there does not seem to be 1
sufficient infrastructure in place regarding the density. Specifically, service needs such as easily
accessible and affordable grocery shopping, more frequent and added routes for public transportation
and reducing traffic back ups along 15th that inevitably cause back ups through interbay and into Dravus 2
and Emerson street bridges.
Ideally, it would be best to add the last parcel of Fort Lawton to Discovery Park as a whole. 3
Barbara Bernard
3010A 31st Ave W
LETTER 85
From: Laura Loe Bernstein
Subject: Build as much as you can
Dear Office of Housing,
Please build as much as you can at Fort Lawton.

I’m a U District renter, queer, pale Latinx, musician, bus driver, and I want housing insecurity addressed 1
through more housing supply.
This land is a rare opportunity and allowing Magnolia residents to act like they live in a gated community 2
and have power to dictate who lives in their neighborhoods is disgusting. This is not geographic equity.
Also, please consult with indigenous communities about their desires for this land and prioritize
3
members of these communities for housing through affirmative marketing.
- Laura Loe Bernstein
98105, D4 resident
LETTER 86
rom: Athena Bertolino
Subject: Highly Oppose Ft. Lawton Redevelopment Plan
As a Magnolia resident, daily public transit rider, mother, and professional in the environmental and
public health field I want to state for the record that I highly oppose the proposed plan for
redevelopment of the Ft. Lawton property. I am fully aware of the homeless crisis in Seattle and 1
supportive of initiatives to increase housing and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). However, placing
the proposed housing in a location that is so completely removed from access to services makes no
sense at all and does nothing to help the issue. It is one of the most remote parts of Seattle, considered
a "transit desert" by one report. As a daily rider of the #33 bus, I can attest to the limited and largely
frustrating lack of transit. For someone in the new housing development to access medical services,
2
jobs, or even groceries, is two to three transfers away. How does this help? Even to get to Magnolia
Village takes two separate buses from that location. Even if a new bus route were to be added, it does
not change the fact there are no services within walking distance. Again, how does this serve the
community?
The EIS that was conducted is confusing in the sense that the alternative options were not even real 3
options given the recent sale of the Talaris site. Furthermore, the recent arson at the Ft. Lawton facilities
4
point to the fact the city can't even maintain security at the vacant site, let alone one filled with people.
This is not an "not in my backyard" issues, this is what would most benefit the people in need and what
is the longer term comprehensive plan for the city. I am fully supportive of homeless housing in 5
Magnolia if it were developed along interbay where there is better transit access and more services. I
am also supportive of development of the Ft. Lawton site (although would also be supportive of
integrating it into the park), and think the idea of creating a high school there is a viable one. In sum, 6
the city should think very hard about this decision and I highly suggest a better alternative is found.
Kind regards,
Magnolia Resident
LETTER 87
From: Tina Beveridge
Subject: Fort Lawton Development
Unlike many of my neighbors, I have no problem with the idea of developing Fort Lawton into housing
or multi-use property.
1
However, I do object to it being used for the sole purpose of housing all low-income residents. The
buses that go out to that point do not all run 24/7, are rarely on time, and there is very little in the way
of services within a reasonable walking distance. There is no walkable (reasonably priced) grocery store. 2
As it stands, the proposal is to move a large number of low income or homeless people into a very
isolated area of the city with no services and unreliable transportation. That is a recipe for many
problems.
I think many of my neighbors believe that the idea behind this is to hide the homeless in a part of the
city that is not as visible to tourists. I hope they are incorrect because that is an abhorrent idea that 3
serves no one well. If that is not the purpose, council members should go on record saying that that is
absolutely not their intention.
If the area must be developed (and I do agree that all options must be considered for the density of the
city)---I would like to suggest mixed income housing with zoning for businesses and services that could
serve the low income population. An actual grocery store. A non-profit medical clinic. 4
Counseling/mental health services. And some homes subsidized and others sold or rented at market
value.
If that is not a possibility, I would like to see Fort Lawton annexed into Discovery Park and the buildings
put to use by the Park District or the property given to the Duwamish people and annexed into the
5
property that is currently Daybreak Star Cultural Center. If you must use the property for housing
homeless people, I think Native and veteran people should be at the top of the list.
Thank you
Tina Beveridge
LETTER 88
From: Shaun Bickley
Please take action on the housing crisis to build as much affordable housing at Fort Lawton as possible. 1
Thank you,
Shaun Bickley
District 7
LETTER 89
From: William Bielawski
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment - More Housing
Hello,
I am writing to voice strong support for the construction of the maximum feasible amount of affordable
housing as part of the Fort Lawton redevelopment. Even the 238 units discussed under Alternative 1
falls far short of the site's potential. 1,000 or even 2,000 units could be placed on a lot that size. City-
owned housing with guaranteed affordable rent in perpetuity would be the best possible use of this
land. 1
Seattle's population has grown significantly over the last several years, and the unhoused population has
grown as well. These trends only promise to continue into the future. Market-based housing solutions
have failed to create sufficient affordable housing to meet the city's needs. Any available publicly owned
land should be developed into publicly-owned affordable housing.
Thank you,
William Bielawski
1222 Summit Ave, Seattle WA

LETTER 90
From: Natalie Biner-Wittke
Subject: Opposition of Proposed Homeless/Subsidized Housing Development in Fort Lawton Army
Reserve Center
Dear Sir/Madam,
My name is Natalia Biner-Wittke and I am a business owner, tax payer, voter and resident of Magnolia. I
am reaching out to you now because the issue of redevelopment of Fort Lawton has resurfaced and I am
deeply concerned about what’s being proposed, specifically incorporating subsidized/homeless housing
in this area.
1
Should this decision come to pass, this beautiful public green space will undoubtably be infiltrated by
the same elements as I have seen occur in Belltown, where my business is. There will be mounds of
garbage, needles, drug use, assaults and the safety of park goers will be compromised. Mothers bring
their children to the park daily, women run alone on its trails, it is currently a safe place for our citizens
to enjoy. Discovery Park/Fort Lawton is not a place for homeless/subsidized housing.
Most importantly, there must be appropriate resources for the proposed community to be able to thrive
in order for this to make sense. Walkable discount grocery stores, treatment facilities, public 2
transportation (there is only one bus in and out of Magnolia). In addition, if the crime increases in our
neighborhood because of this, our property values will go down, as will the amount of money the City 3
can collect in property taxes. The city will also have to increase its police resources to address these
issues. All of these consequences will certainly effect the way our residents vote. 4
I ask you to be thoughtful in this matter and find an appropriate solution that properly addresses all the
needs of the proposed communities, such a the City of Burien, that has the land, facilities, public
transportation and resources to host communities like those proposed for the Discovery Park/Fort
Lawton redevelopment. 5
I hope my opinion matters in some small way, because I know that many of my neighbors feel the same
way and we will be attending the public hearing so our voice can be heard.
Respectfully,
Natalia Biner-Wittke
Owner
LETTER 91
From: Brian W Bird
Subject: I support using Fort Lawton to provide housing opportunities for low income and homeless
people.
I am a Seattle resident and I strongly support the proposed use of Fort Lawton to provide housing
opportunities to the many low-income, disadvantaged, and homeless members of our community.
Please choose the path that would uphold Seattle's reputation as a progressive city and demonstrate 1
forward thinking leadership in these times of increasing disparity and countless systemic barriers to
social and economic mobility for poor and low-income people.
Please favor economic justice over the arguments of the wealthy and privileged who seek to maintain
their isolation from the realities of the have-nots in our community. It is the responsibility of
government to work for all of the people.
Sincerely,
Brian W Bird
LETTER 92
From: D'Anne Bissell
I am in support of alternative #1. We have lived in Magnolia for the past twenty-five years and welcome
others to live (248 or more), play (expansion of Discovery Park) and become a contributing member of 1
this community. It will only be a more inclusive, diverse, safe, and vibrant place for all residents!!
Thanks D’Anne Bissell
LETTER 93
From: Anna Black
Subject: Fort Lawson redevelopment
Hi there,
I fully the redevelopment of Fort Lawson into a community to serve those that need it most: homeless
seniors, low income families, those that are still struggling most in Seattle. Please help this dream 1
become a reality for the underserved in our city.
Best regards,
Anna Black
LETTER 94
From: mark bloome
Subject: Ft Lawton low income and homeless
For years i worked at saving discovery park. I led and financed the team that dealt with the West Point
Sewer extension. And later financed and led the effort to find an acceptable solution to the proposed
Peoples Lodge. I write this because i am a person who by past actions, not just talk, has been involved
with this wonderful asset, Discovery Park. The intentions of Sally Bagshaw, the mayor, and city council to
locate both low income housing and homeless senior citizens adjacent to the park represents on
multiple levels, a significant risk to the Park and its users. For example: Seniors as they get older and go
into various stages of dementia, frequently lose all control of their emotions and many are prone to
violence. These poor souls will be living adjacent to the park and likely wondering about in the park. I
1
can state with a high degree of certainty that damage to either the citizens or the park is going to
happen; while the exact nature, is unknown and that the future actions of the City of Seattle will never
be to remove the facility no matter the nature of the problem. It will not be fiscally or politically
possible. Further and it is a fact, the homeless and older citizens lose control of their bowels. And the
diseases that emanate from excrement are a serious health threat to both the humans, especially
children, and to the wildlife in the park. Further that these seniors with dementia at various stages will
not be placed in fully assisted living facilities as those facilities are very expensive and also the staffers at
the proposed homeless development are likely not to be willing or able to recognize these conditions. I
know this because i have been a partner in several senior housing facilities and staffing is a significant
problem. Thanks
LETTER 95
From: Angela Blums
Subject: Response to Fort Lawton development proposal
Hello,
I am writing to share my thoughts on the Fort Lawton redevelopment project. I believe that building
new housing adjacent to Discovery Park will destroy the integrity of the park and would not adequately
serve the needs of the proposed residents. Even before I moved to Magnolia, Discovery Park was one of 1
my favorite places in Seattle. After purchasing a home here this summer, my husband and I have visited
the park multiple times per week. It is a quiet sanctuary away from the bustle of the city. Many Seattle
residents visit the park for just this reason. New housing does not belong next to the park.
Not only will new housing units of any kind comprise the quality of this precious nature area, this
location is completely inappropriate for low-income housing. The lack of public transportation and poor
proximity to affordable grocery stores and medical facilities would not serve the needs of low-income
families and senior citizens. There are many other more appropriate places to build new housing, for 2
example in Magnolia village, there are several areas that could be redeveloped that would better meet
potential residents' needs. I urge you to consider another alternative to new housing that will both
protect the park and be suitable for our new neighbors in Magnolia.
Angela Blums, PhD
LETTER 96
From: Stephanie Boegeman
Subject: In favor of Ft. Lawton project
Hello,
I wanted to submit a comment regarding the Fort Lawton Redevelopment proposal currently being
considered. I am all in favor of efforts to provide more affordable housing in Seattle. Here is why.
I myself live in Ballard. I'm a mother of twin preschoolers. My husband and I both work part-time,
balancing the need to make an income and provide care for our children. We definitely don't make
enough to live in Ballard in normal circumstances; however we are lucky enough to have the
connections, support network, and creative hustle to make this happen. Not everyone is lucky enough
to lean heavily on the safety net of generous & kind friends, neighbors, coworkers, and family in order to
1
live in this increasingly unaffordable housing market.
I left Seattle for 5 years, from 2011 to 2016. And it's alarming and telling to see all of the tents and
floating makeshift homeless communities that have popped up in my absence. This can't be a city just
for the rich and privileged. Published, peer-reviewed research has shown that *everyone* in a
community, rich and poor, suffers with increasing income inequality.
We have a civic duty to provide the opportunity for everyone to thrive. Please prioritize the creation of
more affordable housing in Seattle, starting with Fort Lawton. Let us be the best version of ourselves,
and heed this advice:
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
With hope, resilience, and optimism,

Stephanie Boegeman
voter, community member, citizen, mother, activist, and person
LETTER 97
From: Derek Boiko-Weyrauch
Hello,
My name is Derek Boiko-Weyrauch and I am writing in support of the proposal to build affordable
housing at the Fort Lawton site in Magnolia. As a Seattle homeowner, I believe that everyone should
1
have a place to live in our city, especially in light of the rising costs of housing and increasing
displacement, and I believe that this proposal is a good start for ensuring housing for all.
Thank you,
Derek Boiko-Weyrauch
Seattle, WA
LETTER 98
From: Allison Bolgiano
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to support re-developing the Fort Lawton parcel of land in Magnolia to include more than
200 units of affordable housing alongside open space. The opportunity for the City to receive free land
and develop it into affordable housing is one that must not be passed up. More than 8,000 people are
homeless in Seattle and thousands more are severely cost-burdened by their rents. One unexpected
medical bill or car repair could tip them into homelessness. Land is one the biggest costs when it comes
to building housing; free land for housing is a blessing we cannot pass up. We cannot let some people's
fears - of homeless people, of supposed property crime, of traffic, of low-income people, of
development, or of change - force our City to forgo the opportunity to develop affordable homes at Fort
Lawton.
After reading public comments submitted in response to a previous round of the DEIS and published in
The Stranger, I am appalled by the NIMBYism expressed by some of my fellow Seattleites. I was
particularly dismayed by a commenter who said that she feared that Magnolia would start looking like
Pioneer Square. First off, Pioneer Square, is a great neighborhood. Secondly, I think this woman is saying
that she doesn't want to see hundreds of homeless people in Magnolia like in Pioneer Square. 1
Fortunately, if affordable housing is built at Fort Lawton, she won't have to see homeless people in
Magnolia - she will see housed people. If you don't want people to be homeless (or you don't want to
see homeless people), then build housing for people.
The Fort Lawton parcel is federal land, land that once was home to the Duwamish people, and it could
become City land. It does not belong to any one person or people from any one neighborhood. Magnolia
should not control what happens with this valuable piece of land. The fact that 11,000 people are
homeless in King County is everyone's problem. It's not a problem that you can shove out of your
neighborhood - doing so only makes it worse. I urge the City of Seattle to use long-range, big-picture
thinking and not collapse into the complaints of a wealthy neighborhood.
People are suffering on our streets. We have an opportunity to build affordable housing for some of
them (on free land) at Fort Lawton. We are morally obligated to build housing to scale on this site. We
owe it to the 8,000 Seattleites who had no where to call home last winter.
Thank you,
Allison Bolgiano
Resident of First Hill
Tenant of below-market rate affordable housing
Full-time employee of Bellwether Housing
2014 Whitman College Graduate
Former resident of Wallingford, Rainier Beach, and Ballard
LETTER 99
From: Alex Bond
Subject: Please build housing at Fort Lawton
The option to build affordable housing at Fort Lawton is a good one. We are in a housing and
homelessness crisis and the city needs to act. Building housing won't threaten the beautiful park or
overwhelm transportation options (though if you want to increase investment in transpo anyways, you'll 1
find no disagreement from me) so there's no downside to building it. The current Fort Lawton land is
basically unused now anyways so why not put it to use and help folks get housing they can afford. Please
build!
Thanks!
Alex Bond
1520 NE 90th St
Seattle WA 98115
LETTER 100
From: Charles Bond
Subject: More Housing at Fort Lawton!
I've heard you folks are getting swamped with angry homeowners who want no new housing in 1
Magnoila.These people are racist, classist and barely deserve to be called Seattlites.
Please build this desparately needed public housing! Please build thousands of units!
We can't in good conscience stand buy and not build housing in a homeless crisis like we are in now! "
2
LETTER 101
From: Greg Bond
Subject: Fort Lawton as opportunity
I support the usage of Fort Lawton for affordable housing, which is sorely needed here in Seattle. While 1
the proposal to add over 200 units is a nice start, we need to be building thousands of affordable
housing units, not hundreds.
With skyrocketing rents (I'm a single parent, and my tiny 2-bedroom has gone up $570 in the last 2
2
years) pushing everyone out, the only way forward is building tens of thousands of affordable housing
units inside the city.
Start with Fort Lawton. Make it a 2,000 unit affordable housing program next to one of our greatest
parks. Build a new school there to add capacity to our overflowing schools. People are going to keep 3
moving to Seattle, and if we don't build new affordable housing inside the city, it means we will all get 3,
pushed out. cont.
Represent me. Build more housing. 4-6 floors with corner store. Thank you.
LETTER 102
From: Scott Bonjukian
Subject: "Support for Fort Lawton
I fully support the the proposed affordable housing development at Fort Lawton. This is areal chance to
immediately address our housing and homelessness crisis. Please move the plan forward as quickly as
1
possible.
I would also encourage the City to expand its proposal and at least double, if not triple, the number of 2
units proposed to provide a greater positive impact.
Thanks,
Scott Bonjukian
LETTER 103
From: Jean M. Boris
Subject: Proposed Development at Discovery Park
To the Office of Housing and the City Council,

Discovery Park is a true gem for the citizens of Seattle. It provides peace and respite for those of us
who are surrounded by city noise, traffic, and lights. It is so important with our dramatic increase in
population to have a place in nature where the spirit can be renewed and space can be developed for
activities and exercise.
We are in a crisis in Seattle, many more people, limited space for them to live. For those who are
renting 450 square foot apartments, they desperately need the outdoors, recreation and beauty. Many
cities have been fortunate to have city officials with foresight to set apart green areas and develop them
for the generations to come. Prospect in San Diego; Golden Gate in San Francisco; and Central Park are
just a few examples of parks which were set up for their present citizens and for the future. Today each
1
of these parks is well developed, carefully planned, and treasured and appreciated for the generations
who have had access. They are consistently used and provide priceless outdoor experiences for all,
regardless of income.
The housing crisis is real. I appreciate all ideas to ease the problem. However, using part of the area
which could be added to Discovery Park will not noticeably impact our concerns and once done, what
could be a grand plan for Discovery Park, will be impossible to retrieve.
I entreat you to think of the present and also of the future. Discovery Park is a gem and can be so much
more with the additional space. Please think of the future and of your legacy. We will continue to have
increased population in the area. We will never be able to replace this important piece of property for
all of Seattle and the surrounding area.
Please reconsider the housing plan.
Sincerely,
Jean M. Boris
LETTER 104
From: Linda Bothell
I am writing in response to the EIS put forth by the city for the future development of the final
remaining Fort Lawton property held by the Army. Citizens have been very vocal in their response to
the city's choices for the development of the property.
This comes at a time of overwhelming growth of the city, far exceeding the plans that were laid out at
the beginning of the Growth Management Act. We have experienced the best and the worst of the
consequences of the sudden growth of a city at the beginning of the 21st Century. There has been
mismanagement, under the table deals, HALA, sudden billionaires, sky high cost of living, rapidly rising
rents and property values and property taxes, onerous zoning changes, forced growth in target
neighborhoods, homelessness, drug abuse, displaced families, gentrification, discrimination, clashing
politics, a city of micro units, apts, condos with no place to park, and high rises, downtown living, tear
down the old, build the new, tear down highways and tunnels and build new tunnels that carry less
traffic, on and on, big city ills. All of this unimagined a few short years ago.
The city has to make choices. So far, I have seen poor choices. We have laws and rules against
loitering, littering, sleeping on the street, urinating and defecating in public, drinking and drugging in
public and in parks, overnight camping in parks, cutting down trees, decimating public property. We
have public safety laws to prevent communicable diseases, laws regarding dumping of our garbage.
Yet all of these rules are being broken and unenforced. I am temporarily living in Europe and citizens 1
here have said to me, how can this happen in a world class booming city in the richest country in the
world? We have the knowledge, finances, ability the where with all to handle these problems without
sacrificing irreplaceable forests and park land that is now being handed to the city. Where do you find
that opportunity? Uncontrollable growth and the simultaneous once in a lifetime opportunity to expand
a huge greenbelt in the middle of the city?
We should not build a few scattershot economy houses and huts next to precious park land and let the
off-the-grid squatters who "discover" the park and take over the invaluable forest as their garbage dump
for the parks department to clean up. As a matter of fact, squatters are already Discovery Park. The
neighboring surround does not have the infrastructure, and the city is aware of that fact. Real estate in
Seattle is too high to add affordable housing. Admit it. Admit that the growth and the ensuing
problems are out of control without enforcing laws already written. Become realistic in caring for the
mentally ill, the opiate users, and enforce the laws on the books in handling those who flaunt the laws.
If truly there are only four choices for the remaining land at Fort Lawton, it has to be to leave it as park
land and develop and improve it for the use and pleasure for all.
My fear is that this is yet another missed opportunity to truly help the poor and disenfranchised when in
actuality it is just another example of the city providing opportunity for developers to profit.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Bothell, 1728 Magnolia Blvd West
Seattle, WA 98199 206-282-0290
LETTER 105
From: Nick G Botner
Subject: Ft. Lawton Redevelopment
I am a Magnolia home owner and I have read through all of the provided material on the proposed
redevelopment measures. While I have no concerns about living near affordable housing or homeless 1
shelters. I do have concerns about the lack of services for families and individuals who need affordable
housing here in Magnolia. The primary response I have read is the affordable housing individuals
typically have cars. They can drive to affordable grocers and stores. Unfortunately, getting in and out of
Magnolia is reduced to a few access points. Traffic at these points is already a nightmare at peak times. 2
And with the current state of the redesign of the bridge at W Emerson Place, cars are lining up even
further.
Magnolia is an expensive and isolated community in Seattle. I would support this measure if we could
either fix the public transportation or have services in Magnolia that affordable housing tenants can also
3
afford. It makes no sense to me to provide affordable housing, but no one can afford to live in the
neighborhood.
As it stands now, I do not support the current proposal and would rather see either more park services, 4
schools used in this space instead.
Nick G Botner
3116 W Emerson St
Seattle WA
LETTER 106
From: tyler boucher
Lindsay Masters,
I urge the City of Seattle to explore an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more housing. I
am a regular user of Discovery Park on foot and on bicycle, and I've always wondered why the old
barracks were kept vacant. There are so many people's lives can we improve by providing them with
place to live! I think the park will become more user friendly with more people there (sometimes it's
kind of lonely) and it could be such a neat community as a piece of Magnolia on the whole.
In addition to this, Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income households are being 1
In the midst of this crisis, the City should be considering bold steps to create more affordable housing.
need than affordable housing. Please study an option that makes full use of Fort Lawton for housing. It's
the best course of action for the city to use all available space to house people; especially a place so
special as Fort Lawton.
Thank you.
Tyler
tyler boucher
[email protected]
762 N 65th St
LETTER 107
From: Aaron Bowersock
Subject: Fort Lawton - Affordable housing
Hello,
My name is Aaron Bowersock and I've lived in Magnolia for the past two years, and we've all seen the
evidence of Seattle's housing crisis. We have an opportunity right now to do something tangible, and
use Fort Lawton land as affordable or public housing. I mean affordable. We know that for-profit
building developers will not solve the housing crisis, as we see new units go up, and remain uninhabited 1
because the population can no longer afford the rent. Housing has increased in Seattle, year over year,
and we have consistently mis-used our resources.
Fort Lawton will have an immediate impact, if used for affordable or public housing.
Thank you
Aaron Bowersock
LETTER 108
From: John D Braitsch
Subject: Fort Lawton housing
Greetings,
I am writing to advise that I am entirely in support of utilizing Fort Lawton for affordable housing. Amid
the housing and homelessness crisis in Seattle, a space like this is ideal for creating part of the problems'
solution! Everyone deserves to live in a safe, healthy, and affordable home.
Every Seattleite is - or should be - aware of the dire situations of homelessness and unaffordable
housing in our city. As a financial professional, I have looked at the problems from several angles and
can see as well as any that it is truly a simple supply vs demand issue. More housing = lower prices =
more affordable housing = reduced homelessness. Per Maslow, secure housing is a basic need for every
human. Anyone who regards their property values or irrational fear of the poor over the basic needs of
another human is not someone I want to know.
I have spent many days happily wandering the adjacent park and the Fort Lawton land itself. It is a
beautiful area of the city that is accessible by vehicle or transit. I see absolutely no reason why this 1
unused parcel should remain dormant while there are people in desperate need of housing. With new
housing, the natural spaces would be unaffected while the developed land would actually have some
purpose! I see it as a simple win-win.
I have heard there is some push-back from local homeowners and am disturbed and saddened by this.
Kudos to those who were here to buy a home before prices skyrocketed or are so highly compensated
that they can actually afford a home in the current market. However, they bought only their land, not
the entire neighborhood. To fix the current problems in the city will require all communities pitching in -
making sacrifices, if they choose to see it that way. An affluent neighborhood is not exempt - arguably,
they owe more by nature of their ability to give more - and any resident should be ashamed to block a
humanitarian measure like creating affordable housing on unused land.
When considering affordable housing at Fort Lawton, please consider that beyond property values and
unsupported fear of homeless folks, we are talking about the lives of actual humans - people who need
help more than any others in our community - and we have an ethical obligation to make every effort
for them.
Thank you & best regards,

John D Braitsch
206.605.6909
LETTER 109
From: Sean Brennan
Subject: Ft Lawton
Our community needs are met with the proposed joint venture development between Habitant for
Humanity and Catholic Housing. Seattle is experiencing a chronic shortage of affordable housing and 1
effective care for senior members of a growing homeless population. This is a just project located on an
ideal property.
LETTER 110
From: Bryan Brenner
It has taken me some time to write this email because I do wonder if city officials actually care how a
Magnolia resident living next to the Fort Lawton feels. I am a reasonable person and have questions for
1
the project planners, but they go unanswered. This whole process has been very frustrating.
Frankly, I want a school in the Fort Lawton area. Additional parks and soccer fields would be a great 2
addition to this area. If I knew teachers teachers, blue collar workers, single parents with kids, etc. were
going to move into the area, I would welcome it. I do not welcome sex offenders and drug addicts. 3
Sincerely,
Bryan Brenner
LETTER 111
From: Cheryl Brenner
Good afternoon,
I would like the Fort Lawton area designated for additional park and a school. I do not want housing at
this time because I do not believe the city has properly addressed the issues of infrastructure. The city
cannot guarantee that the potential residents will be families with children or people down on their
luck. If there is any chance the residents could be sex offenders or drug addicts, I would never agree to
this proposal. We have enough of an issue with this already living next to Discovery Park. Transients
and thieves sleep in the park or steal from the neighbors in this area and use a footpath on 34th Ave W 1
to get down to the locks to make a quick getaway from police. This has been reported to police by
neighbors.
If you told me teachers, secretaries, welders, assistants, or plumbers would be living nearby...single
mothers with children...I would approve. As of now, the city has chosen avoid answering questions. I
can’t approve or vote for something without full details in writing.
I would have loved meetings with the city where residents could ask questions and receive answers. 2
Since they/you are only taking comments, I say NO to housing in Fort Lawton.
Thank you,
Cheryl Brenner
LETTER 112
From: Gene Brenowitz
Subject: Fort Lawton DEIS
I feel very strongly that Seattle needs both affordable housing and an increase in available natural and
recreation lands. The population of the city is growing rapidly and the number of people living in
apartment type dwellings is skyrocketing. Because of this we need more open space recreation
facilities. I support Alternative 3 which would maximize open space and recreational use of land in the 1
Discovery Park/ Fort Lawton area. This proposal would also provide for affordable housing off site thus
allowing both needs to be addressed.
Gene Brenowitz, M.D.

LETTER 113
From: Raleigh Briggs
Subject: Build Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton!
Hello,
I'm writing in to support the building of affordable housing at Discovery Park's Fort Lawton. I am a
homeowner and a mother in Greenwood. I have lived in Seattle for over a decade and a half, and in that
time alone I have seen a swell in the number of houseless and low-income people struggling daily to
survive--as well as an increase in the wealth of the folks who often walk right by them. Now, we have a
chance to build homes for many vulnerable folks at no burden to the taxpayer, and people are saying
no? Because why?
This is madness. We are a civilization; we cannot dispose of human beings simply because they are poor.
We cannot shift them around from camp to camp until they take the bus out of town or freeze to death.
We cannot turn our backs on our neighbors the minute they need something from us. I understand that 1
the folks in Magnolia don't want poor people living in "their" park. I need to challenge that there are
already hundreds of people living (and sometimes dying) in our parks because they have no shelter. How
is that better?
Finally, I'd like to point out that Ft. Lawton was all supposed to be returned to the Tribes following the
Ft. Lawton takeover in the 70's by Native activists. The city ended up only 'giving' back the portion that
the Daybreak Star cultural center sits on. Native peoples are the highest demographic experiencing
homelessness in the city/county. This land has never "belonged" to the wealthy people of Magnolia.
Building homes for our marginalized neighbors is really the least we can do to make things right and just
in our city.
Thank you for your time. Take care,
Raleigh Briggs, Greenwood, Seattle
LETTER 114
From: Tim Brincefield
Subject: In Favor of Affordable Homes at Fort Lawton
Hello,
I am writing to express my support for the city's vision to include affordable housing at Fort Lawton. In a
time when Seattle's affordable housing needs are greater than ever, this surplus land presents a unique
opportunity to both house people affordably and create valuable community assets in the form of new 1
parks and open spaces.
We need to take full advantage of every opportunity to meet our affordable housing need. Please
ensure that future development of the site includes affordable homes.
Thank you,
Tim Brincefield
12020 6th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177
LETTER 115
From: Marilyn Brink
Subject: Comments... Fort Lawton Redevelopment
I wholeheartedly support the Preferred Alternative 1 (Mixed Affordable Housing and Park Uses) of the
Seattle Office of Housing Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) for the 29 acre parcel at Ft. Lawton 1
near Discovery Park. As the Scoping Process continues, I believe there are a few more contingencies
worthy of inclusion:
1. Continued conversation concerning all areas of progress in the redevelopment with current
residents of land adjacent to the Ft. Lawton proposed site… this might include Town Hall meetings and 2
circulating progress report at all stages, and easily available responses to all questions and concerns;
2. Investigation of providing nearby ancillary commercial services (grocery stores, etc.); 3
3. Studies of current and projected vehicle traffic and parking alternatives; and, 4
4. Projected impact on area schools. 5
I am a senior, living in low income housing, a parishioner of St. James Cathedral, and, an active
participant in serving marginalized individuals. So, it goes without saying I was interested in learning
more about Ft. Lawton redevelopment for the benefit of those I serve. That was my introduction to
learning about the project. I attended the January 9, 2018, Public Hearing, and met so many, many
people. Most, including members of various organizations and institutions concerned with providing
housing for the “un homed” and vulnerable, low income individuals and families, and some current
residents of Magnolia, were energetically supportive the Ft. Lawton redevelopment. And there were
several neighbors of Ft. Lawton who, although they wanted to help the underprivileged, were
legitimately concerned about what they see are negative aspects (i.e. increased traffic flow and
congestion, etc.) of the dramatic change in their environment that would be brought about if the
6
redevelopment were completed. I believe it is tantamount to the success of this project that all
concerned maintain open and uncensored communication. If completed, this project will inherently
create diversity in the neighborhood. And, as Thomas Berry says…
"Diversity is the magic. It is the first manifestation, the first beginning of the differentiation of a thing
and of simple identity. The greater the diversity, the greater the perfection.
Two days ago, I “walked the Ft. Lawton” site. I saw Metro Bus #33 make several trips in and out; I saw
a beautiful landscape, delineated by trees; I saw the future. It was easy for me to imagine a new, vibrant
community there. Please move forward with this project. And, let me know if there is anything I can do
to help.
Marilyn Brink
910 Marion St. #308
Seattle, WA 98104
LETTER 116
From: Ben Broesamle
Subject: Fort Lawton - Support of Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1)
Hello,
1
I'm writing to support the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) for Fort Lawton Redevelopment.
I am worried about minimizing automotive traffic to what should be a natrual reserve-focused area.
To that effect:
Please work with King County Metro to expand Route 33 service to the 'Texas Way and W Government
Way' stop. Please work with SDOT to improving bicycle access to this site.
2
Anything we can do to reduce the impact of increased population and the negative effects of more
automotive traffic to what should be a natural reserve-focused area (north of W Government Way and
west of 32nd Ave W) would be great.
I support the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) because:

1) the Preferred Alternative redevelopment does not expand the currently developed or paved
footprint, in fact the proposal contracts paved space on net by creating more space for "Seattle Parks
and Rec uses" on the south side of the project;
2) It provides a reasonable amount of density for an otherwise isolated location with 238 units of 3
well managed affordable housing, 52 units of which are for new homeowners;
3) it does not detract from what should be the natural reserve-focus of Discovery Park.
Thank you,
Ben
Ben Broesamle
Magnolia resident starting in 2006
LETTER 117
From: Eric Bronson
Subject: Fort lawton EIS Comment
Look this is just ridiculous. We're in the worst housing and homelessness crisis in Seattles history. We all
know it. And we know the way out of that crisis: build more housing of all types.
This proposal needs to have 1000 units, not the proposed 250. The environmental impact needs to be
assessed not just at the level of minutia. The environmental cost of doing nothing should also be
modeled. The number of additional miles driven by people forced to relocate ever farther from their 1
jobs in Seattle. The use of resources of single family zones is much higher per capita than in denser
housing.
Build the housing. Build it big. And stop pretending that option "do nothing" doesn't have a serious
adverse impact on the environment
LETTER 118
From: Kyle Brooks
1
I'm writing in support of the planned housing project at Fort Lawton. The only way to fight our housing
crisis is to build more housing. Ideally, we would build more than 240 units, but 240 is better than zero. 2
Thanks
Kyle Brooks
LETTER 119
From: Vernon Brown
Subject: Supporting Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
According to the City of Seattle, 40,000 low income households here currently spend more than half of
their income on housing. To address its housing needs between now and 2030, Seattle will need 27,500
more homes for the lowest income people, according to the Housing Development Consortium. The
most recent available numbers show that around 8,500 people are experiencing homelessness in 1
Seattle. A city survey found that 93 percent of those asked would move inside if safe, affordable housing
was available.
I believe that Fort Lawton is an important part of efforts to reduce the housing crisis in our city. Please
build more housing.
Vernon Brown
3210 SW Avalon Way, #304
Seattle, WA, 98126
LETTER 120
From: Amanda Brown
Subject: Support for Fort Lawton redevelopment – Alternative 1
Hello,
I am writing in support of the Fort Lawton Redevelopment. This project is of critical importance at a time
when Seattle is facing a massive housing crisis. This is the best possible use of surplus public land.
1
We need all possible resources devoted to addressing the housing crisis, and this is am amazing resource
to be redeveloped. We need more housing so diverse people can live in Seattle, not just wealthy people.
I urge you to move forward with Alternative #1 and developing affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
Sincerely,
Amanda Brown
LETTER 121
From: Emily Weaver Brown
Subject: Discovery park low income and homeless housing
I’m a photographer and I often shoot at discovery park and I love the raw beauty there. My immediate
first reaction when I heard about the proposed low income houseing was “oh not in my beautiful park”.
I didn’t understand that Fort Lawton wasn’t park of the park or that a large swatch of the land would be 1
free if it was used for low income housing. Now that I know the facts I know this is a remarkable
opportunity and that the city should take avantave of. Please don’t let the residents of magnolia
determine policy for the whole city. That space belongs to everyone and their fears are totally
unfounded.
Thank you
LETTER 122
From: Richard Brown
Subject: Fort Lawton. Lindsay Masters
Lindsay Masters, Office of Housing, PO Box 94725, Seattle, WA 98124-4725
Hi Lindsay, I am sure many people will be bombarding you with emails about this project.
I feel like the right thing will end up working out, I have owned a home in Magnolia for 20 years and
have enjoyed the Park and Fort Lawton, I love all the old buildings even the garage and maintenance
buildings and would love to see those stay and be used to help support the artist communities , we as
Photographers and artists can hardly find space anymore and are being pushed far out of the city. I am a
1
commercial photographer and have lost my studios to Mercer Street, Ballard turning into a mecca and
development on Elliott Avenue taking my space away.
I would in a heart beat rent any of the old buildings at Fort Lawton for a studio space much like there
have been some at Magnuson park, however those are now so expensive and limited in size.
Thank you for all your hard work on this project.
Richard
LETTER 123
From: Rodney Brown
Subject: Fort Lawton housing project
Hello,
I am a Magnolia resident, and I support the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. I also believe that the
EIS has adequately studied the alternatives and their potential impacts. Thank you for doing the work. 1
Rodney Brown
LETTER 124
From: Kate Brunette
Subject: Build affordable housing at Fort Lawton
I am writing to express my STRONG support for Option 1 (building 200 units of affordable housing) at 1
the publicly owned Fort Lawton lot. In fact, we should be building thousands of units, not hundreds. The 2
affordable housing crisis is impacting thousands in our city. I personally had to leave my affordable
apartment after the rent increased $400 in the two years I lived there. Without investing in more
affordable housing, more and more people will continue to get priced out of the city. High land values 3
are one of the biggest barriers to development of affordable housing, so when we have free land
available, we MUST take advantage.
Best,
Kate Brunette
LETTER 125
From: Margaret Brunger
Subject: Margaret Brunger says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
region.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret Brunger
LETTER 126
From: Mark Brunson
Subject: Fort Lawton DEIS Comment
As you know, we are facing a massive housing shortage in Seattle, which is especially affecting our
fellow Seattlites experiencing houselessness. It is imperative that our city acts on our responsibility to
facilitate much more new housing at all income levels. It is especially important for the city to provide
housing affordable to those without a home. Every part of our city bears the responsibility to add
housing for those of all incomes, no matter how wealthy its residents. I strongly support deeply
affordable housing both in my neighborhood of Capitol Hill as well as in every part of Seattle.
1
It is unfortunate that the effort to build affordable housing in Fort Lawton was thwarted a decade ago
and I certainly hope that we won't have to look back to this decision with the same regret. We must not
pass up this chance to maximize the efficacy of our city's housing funds by using all public lands at our
disposal. To that end, I urge our city to build even more housing at Fort Lawton than currently proposed.
If that cannot be done as part of this project, please make sure that the city is able to build even more
housing on the additional Fort Lawton land that is not part of this proposal.
I also urge SDOT to add frequency to buses serving Magnolia and the city should consider zoning for a
walkable retail district nearby to provide access to neighborhood goods and services. Everyone in our 2
city deserves to live in a walkable community with mobility to access jobs and services throughout our
region.
Sincerely,
Mark Brunson
Renter and Voter
Capitol Hill, Seattle
LETTER 127
From: Ken Bryan
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment – transportation infrastructure comments
The Draft EIS says that the proposed housing development would add another 1500+ cars a day going to
the Fort Lawton Area. I am very concerned about the impact the proposed housing development would
have on the already overburdened transportation infrastructure in the Magnolia neighborhood. I do not
1
believe the city has addressed this issue realistically.
The W Emerson/Gilman corridor is already overburdened and cannot support this additional traffic!
Permanent, two-way bike lanes were created on W Emerson Pl approaching Gilman Ave W and on
Gilman Ave W in 4Q of 2017. This reduced the westbound traffic arriving at Gilman on Emerson from
two lanes to one lane. As a result, long traffic backups on W Emerson Place, previously unknown, are
now common at all times of the day. During the evening commuting time, traffic commonly backs up 2
along W Emerson from Gilman Ave W all the way to 15th Ave! I hope this was not the city's intent. This
corridor cannot support another 1500 cars per day! Clearly the primary road into the area of the
proposed housing development does not have capacity to support the forecasted additional traffic
volume.
Commodore Way, a winding two-lane road through a residential area is already quite busy, especially
during commuting hours, and also cannot support significant additional traffic. Commodore Way does
not have the capacity to safely accommodate 1500+ new cars arriving each day, or even a fraction 3
thereof. Increasing traffic in this residential area would be dangerous to residents. Clearly the secondary
road into the area of the proposed housing development does not have capacity to support the
forecasted additional traffic volume.
There is only one bus line to the area, the 33 bus. This is insufficient and,according to the Draft EIS,
Seattle Transit does not have plans to add additional bus service. This would force low income residents 4
to either buy, insure, and operate a car (expensive) or use insufficient and infrequent bus service. This is
neither practical nor fair.
The Draft EIS section on Transportation also makes the ridiculous proposal that low income residents
could use a bike share program for transportation to and from the area instead of cars or buses. This is
neither practical nor realistic. No low income residents, their children, or seniors living in the proposed
supported housing are going to ride a shared bike to Fred Meyer in Ballard to buy groceries and then
carry the groceries home in a backpack or bike baskets, riding uphill on Emerson and Gilman, in the rain,
5
in the cold, or the dark! This is a ridiculous proposal and should be removed from the Draft EIS as
unworkable and impractical.
The Fort Lawton redevelopment area is not accessible by public transportation for the additional
residents proposed in the Draft EIS. The proposal for residents to use a bike share program is laughably
unrealistic. The existing roads into the neighborhood, already overburdened, cannot support the over
1500 additional cars per day that the Draft EIS says would come to the area. 6
Lack of suitable transportation infrastructure now and in the forseeable future is one strong reason this
area should NOT be developed into residential housing of any kind. The entire parcel should be
7
incorporated into Discovery Park to preserve open green spaces for the benefit of all current and future
residents of Seattle.
Sincerely,
Ken Bryan
LETTER 128
From: Ken Bryan
Subject: Fort Lawton redevelopment - the land should be made part of Discovery Park
In the early 1970's Seattle's civic and government leaders demonstrated vision and courage. With 535
acres of land at their disposal, they did NOT turn it into housing developments or shopping malls.
Instead, they created open, natural space that all Seattle residents could enjoy. Forty-five years later,
their children and grandchildren can still enjoy Discovery Park, despite the city's significant growth,
thanks to their vision and courage.
We now have a unique opportunity to expand Discovery Park's natural space by nearly 10%. Yes, Seattle
has a homeless problem at the moment. Yes, Seattle has a shortage of affordable housing at the
moment. Most Seattle residents, including Magnolia residents, want more housing solutions and are not
opposed to affordable housing in Magnolia. However, let's keep things in perspective. These are
problems of the moment and I believe both of these problems can be fixed in the near future by
concentrated and coordinated civic and government action. Addressing less than one tenth of one 1
percent of Seattle's affordable housing shortage by building on this land is throwing away a legacy for
future generations to address a near term problem.
We need to have the same vision and courage that Seattle's leaders had in the early 1970's. Seattle will
continue to grow. There will be less and less open space in all parts of our city. We should PRESERVE the
Fort Lawton redevelopment land as part of Discovery Park, returning it to nature so that, forty-five years
in the future, our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy open spaces in an even more crowded
and developed city.
I respectfully ask the Department of Housing, the Seattle City government, and the City Council to
demonstrate the vision and courage to incorporate the surplus military land into Discovery Park and
return it to nature. Do it for our children and grandchildren.
Sincerely,
Ken Bryan
LETTER 129
From: Ken Bryan
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment - how to prevent it from being a magnet for a tent city or
shantytown?
If the City's plan is implemented and there is an 80+ bed residential unit for seniors/veterans/homeless
offering "services", how will the operator of the facility and the City of Seattle ensure that no 1
shantytown or tent city springs up around the facility to take advantage of the "services" offered?
Thank you, Ken Bryan
LETTER 130
From: Ken Bryan
Subject: Proposed housing and assisted living units - how to prevent sex offenders from moving in?
Dear Housing Department,

How do you plan to prevent convicted sex offenders from obtaining, buying, or moving into either the 1
proposed ownership units, the proposed rental units, or the proposed assisted living facility?
Thank you
Ken Bryan
LETTER 131
From: Mason Bryant
Subject: I support Fort Lawton low income housing
I'm writing to voice my strong support for the city's vision for Fort Lawton is an affordable, community
for homeless, veterans, and seniors.
1
This is exactly what Seattle needs to continue providing housing in an increasingly un-affordable city.
Thank you! --Mason Bryant, 3519 E. Spruce St.
LETTER 132
From: Smitty Buckler

We have a housing problem here. I do not think it is a problem of not enough housing but affordable
housing. I am seeing so much new construction at unaffordable rates for 90% of the city. The only
people who seem to be able to afford to live here are people who are coming from other places. I love
my city. I always have. Yet, I am saddened by the decision making which is causing this city to loose all 1
that makes it special. Do I want to see more affordable housing? Yes, 100%. I also do not want to see a
bunch of cardboard houses built on top of a historical site/ park. I believe that the city needs to take
some more time to look at this and to consider options.
I would support keeping the current buildings as housing options. I live at Cooper Artist Housing. We
have a huge wait list to get into the building as do all the affordable artist housing projects in this city.
The Youngstown Cultural Center downstairs is thriving. This is a project that was made by the people of
this city, not by the city itself. In order to keep the quirky artistic nature of this city we need to have 2
more opportunities for artists. I would be all for utilizing this opportunity to create affordable artist
housing next to a beautiful park which is ripe for artistic muse.
Please consider using this opportunity to create more affordable artist housing in the city while
continuing to preserve our beautiful parks and historical sites. Thank you.
In solidarity,
Smitty, smittybuckler.com
LETTER 133
From: Patrick Bufi
Subject: Fort Lawton Public Meeting January 9, 2018
Please read in its entirety: Fort Lawton Public Meeting
Was I at the Tuesday, January 9, 2018 Magnolia United Church of Christ Public Hearing? Yes, I was
there. Never been to a public hearing where the signup sheet was packed with 40+ “Pro” speakers
before any “Con” speakers could sign up. This sign up was said to begin at 6:00 PM yet the “Pro” were
in there way ahead of time stacking the deck. Not fair to actual Magnolia. This was a cooked up deal. A
rally rah-rah carrying signs that mostly say, “Hooray for our side.” What a lopsided joke. Also a young
woman was at the front door handing out archaic zoning flyers intended to zone all neighborhoods the
same. What? In addition, I have never been to a public hearing where they had cookies, varied cheeses,
crackers, drinks, and coffee. This was more like a private “Pro” party than a chance to create a balanced 1
opportunity for public opinion/view. In addition, two of the Real Change “Pro” speakers sounded like
they celebrated a bit too much before showing up, some of their speech was almost incoherent. I
stopped buying papers from them because the last two I bought were a year old. They are selling papers
I already bought before. What a swindle.
Moreover, how can all of these so called…help me now “Pro” down and outs afford so many tattoos,
piercings, Starbucks drinks, and cell phones? It is very odd.
The City of Seattle will have to factor us Magnolia residents into their Tiny House budget/building
expense. The city will have to reimburse those of us that will have to get CPA’s and Tax Attorneys to 2
figure out how much the city owes us in property tax refunds and equity resale losses.
This being said, I think a tiny homes development at Fort Lawton could work. However, for this to work
there needs to be a real political conversation, a real solid plan and real sustainable action. The
gathering I described above does not bode well for this situation coming to a sustainable conclusion.
Lawmakers need to finally be accountable and get solid Seattle results. The “Let’s have a meeting”, high 3
salary, tax and spend days are over. Time to make things work the way elected leaders were voted in to
do so. To respond to this crisis in anything less than a thoroughly thoughtful manner will only break the
situation further.
If a tiny homes development is approved for Fort Lawton, adequate time and attention must be paid to
creating a plan for this that will not further destroy the quality of the life and beauty of our city. Part of
the reason that I would want for there to be a tiny house enclave at Fort Lawton is that it would not only
provide homes for those that need them but that it would also provide those that live there a more 4
intangible and invaluable commodity of peace. I hope that peace would give each individual a moment
to take a breath, get their footing, and create a direction and a way to be in community that is more of a
choice than a reaction.
In addition, to create that, we need to create more than just a development of “tiny homes.” We need
to create a “tiny community” around those homes. Infrastructure for more public transportation,
employment, schools, healthcare (walk-in clinics), and affordable grocery stores must be available. This
absolutely has to be part of the planning. Our Magnolia community, as it stands now, is already at
capacity. There are only three automobile ways in and out of Magnolia and they are already at
maximum congestion capacity. Please do not make an impossible commute more impossible. 5
For these homeless communities within existing neighborhood frameworks to work, they need to have
permanency. For permanency to be achieved, change needs to be sustainable. For sustainability to be
achieved, planning must occur. Halfway addressing the homelessness problem is worse than not
addressing it all for in our current world of exploding growth in Seattle, none of us has time, money or
energy for re-work. We must get it done right the first time. And we cannot help some by hurting
others.
Many Magnolia residents left Tuesday's meeting early, frustrated and tired of waiting for their turn to
address city staff. They fear that housing the homeless so close to their families puts public safety at risk.
I myself have had to install outside cameras due to afternoon “doorknob rattling” and our next-door
frightened neighbor had to call her husband to come home one afternoon due to disturbance. And I
have recognized some faces from Tent City Five because I shop at Dravus QFC. 6
From a Heather Graf article, "I'm a father of two. I have an 11-year-old and an 8-year-old, and my first
instinct as a parent is to protect them. And when I'm told criminals, drug addicts, sex offenders may be
living within a mile-and-a-half of my home, it concerns me," said a Magnolia resident.
The Office of Housing said it has ruled out the option of building a school on the Fort Lawton site, but
beyond that, a final decision on the redevelopment plan is not expected until this summer. 7
No school? No way? Magnolia schools are already at full capacity. Pay attention!
Thank you for including my email letter in your decision making process,
Patrick Bufi
In Magnolia since 1994
206-972-9340
January 29, 2018
--
Dr. Patrick L. Bufi, ND, BS, CRT, RCP.
3417 Evanston Avenue, Suite 517
Seattle, Washington, 98103.
206-972-9340.
LETTER 134
From: Glen Buhmann
Subject: Comments on Fort Lawton development
Hi:
I live in Seattle in the Green Lake neighborhood and regularly go do Discovery Park with my kids, dog, 1
etc. I am strongly in support of building housing on the Fort Lawton site. In fact, I think the city must
2
require that the development builds 100’s of homes, a large percentage of which are affordable and low
income housing. Also, zone it for multi-use so that there can be a neighborhood with businesses to
support those homes and the rest in the neighborhood.
3
Do not let the existing homeowners in this low-density, high-income area veto housing for Seattle when
it is needed so desparately.
Let it be built!
Glen Buhmann
Green Lake, Seattle
LETTER 135
From: Darby M. Bundy
Subject: Please Support Fort Lawton Housing!
Thank you for giving the public some time to voice an opinion. We are in desperate need for more
housing and Fort Lawton provides a FREE space to do so with close access to other services like the
Ballard Food Bank, Urban Rest Stop, major bus routes and more.
1.Please give all citizens an equally weighted 'vote'. Discovery Park and this opportunity for designating
1
uses for Fort Lawton belongs to the citizenry of Seattle and not to one neighborhood and its concerns.
2.The land at Fort Lawton, since by federal law is free to the City of Seattle if the city uses it to house
those experiencing homelessness, should be used for that purpose. The homeless use buses for
transportation and the road system can handle buses. This kind of transportation reduces the use of
2
cars on Seattle streets.
3.The land at Fort Lawton was at one time in the 1970's expected to be given to our Indian population,
but instead they received only the Daybreak Star portion. We now have a disproportionately large
number of Indians among our homeless population, because they are really the original owners from 3
whom the land was taken, and because we are well aware of their history in this new age, we can do the
most ethical and moral of things and provide the Indians with all that they need to house their
homeless, and also their low income who need affordable housing.
4.In addition, all our people experiencing homelessness should have priority use since the fiscal savings
will be considerable, and since the life expectancy of our county homeless is 47 years as of November 4
2017. By law, the U.S. government will give the entire piece to the City of Seattle for FREE if it is used on
behalf of our people experiencing homelessness, so it is a fiscally important arrangement.
Therefore, I am asking that we use the land to house the homeless. If an EIS requirement is something
4,
that prevents you from writing such an option, I suggest that you begin one rather than rest on the fact
that you want to have a quick decision. Homelessness is deadly. cont.
Sincerely,
Darby M. Bundy
6737 16th Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98117
206.478.7284
[email protected]
LETTER 136
From: Michelle Burce
Subject: Yes to Fort Lawton Housing
Hello,
I would like to register my strong support for the housing project proposed for the Fort Lawton site. This
is a great opportunity to begin addressing the housing and homelessness crisis in Seattle in a very
economical way for the city. This is a thoughtful design, a great use of space, and a wonderful project 1
that I fully support.
Thank you.
Michelle Burce
Seattle Resident
LETTER 137
From: Ken Burgess
Subject: Fwd: Fort Lawton Redevelopment – feedback
Good Afternoon,
First, I mistakenly sent this from another email address, please ignore that of my recall did not work.
I wanted to send my comments on the Fort Lawton redevelopment as a private citizen and resident of
Seattle. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. Personally I don't believe housing is the
best option for this location. I believe that the private residences inside Discovery Park from the vacated
military housing is already detrimental to the natural park environment. This additional space at the
boundary to discovery park should be, at the most, a limited impact development. Compared to other
large American cities like New York City, Seattle has a meager amount of green space. Once space is lost 1
to housing development it is unlikely to ever revert to open space again. So while I understand that
there is a crisis for housing now, it is a short term crisis. Any forward movement on building affordable
housing will most likely coincide with a national recession and downturn in the growth in the city. At the
same time the surge in apartment construction will have come to fruition. The market will adjust to the
current demand. If you believe a recession and economic slowdown are not likely, review economic
1,
trends in the history of America. We're approaching peak probability for a recession given the time
since the previous recession.
cont.
I believe the city could incentivize development of additional housing stock in order to let the market
make affordable housing more readily available. This could be in the form of prioritizing project review
and permitting for developments with affordable housing, or in general non-single family developments,
especially ones along major routes. A recent discussion pointed out that the best affordable housing
comes distributed amongst market rate housing. A plan that follows that model does not allow the 2
community to scape goat the development by saying, "see crime - it's that low income area" or similar
issues. Where I grew up in CT that was called "the village" or Welle's village. It was a low income
affordable housing community, and it did have that reputation. Parents wouldn't let their kids go there
to visit friends, you were warned to stay away, it became a focus on police who were always patrolling
and became a hot button for race and economic relations.
The urbanist generated a very good article (as they do so many) focused on Seattle's North Sounder line.
It outlines the case for more in city stops to spur commuters to utilize the sounder train. One located
near Fisherman's terminal or on the Ballard side of the train bridge was particularly compelling. The key
to affordable housing isn't to force it into locations, but to increase viable commuting options allowing 3
the housing region to expand. Seattle understands this by their focus on ST3. I for one was fine with the
car tab fees knowing I was buying a future where our city was like Boston, or New York, and you could
live 40 minutes away by rail in any direction; commuting by car was unusual. My point is, ST3 and
market realities are going to make housing more affordable.
Beyond losing the space for a potential park, I'm also severely concerned about school capacity. My first
child is matriculating into Kindergarten this upcoming fall. I have another 2.5 years behind this one. The
future does not look good. While I chose to settle in the location I am in because the public school 4
system was good and I was relatively close to work, the quality of Seattle's schools and the ability for it
to remain a good system is in question. Based on recent reports not guaranteeing a school capacity fix
in some form is not meeting the state court requirement to fully fund the education system.
If you must move forward with developing the former Fort Lawton site please consider moving forward
with infrastructure improvements prior to the development. Government Way is in terrible road
condition, especially around the 32nd avenue area where it goes through an S-curve by Seven Hills
running store. The segment down the hill towards Gilman (S-SE) is equally rutted and cracked; not fit for
the additional traffic. The intersection of Gilman and Emerson was recently reworked to make it more
bike friendly which is great, but serious consideration should be given to relieving this choke point 5
coming into Magnolia by widening the bridge to allow a left turn and right turn lane entering Magnolia.
Alternatively, or additionally, Commodore way lacks defined edges, and Fort Street between
Commodore and Government lacks middle lane markers. This path has significantly increased in traffic
flow since the bike lane restricting occurred and should be improved as Commodore will become even
more significantly busy once any development of Fort Lawton occurs. Leaving Magnolia the 15th st
overpass that allows traffic onto Nickerson (towards SPU) or onto the ballard bridge to ballard would
benefit from widening. A low cost option is to create a right turn (Nickerson bound) and straight/left
(ballard bound) lane marker. Slightly widening the area that is on land after passing over the bridge
5,
section and formally marking this would increase traffic flow out of Magnolia during high traffic times. cont.
Another request is that if any development does occur that it be pushed to the furthest point from the
park to allow the largest buffer from the nature that exists there. Put low development elements
against the edges, like sports fields or parks. If possible combine the road that leads into Fort Lawton
with the current city street directly next to the fenceline; that will reduce the impact of having parallel
6
streets and double the pavement. Ensure that as much tree canopy is built into the development as
possible; where possible expand the natural state of Discovery Park outward.
I can see how a large available space in the middle of the city can seem like the perfect solution to the
problem of the moment. Housing affordability in Seattle needs to be addressed. But the average rental
price in Seattle dropped by $50 for the first time in a long time, the effect of the market adjusting to
today's reality. Losing the opportunity to turn this area into additional green space and to ensure the
space is available for Seattle Public School capacity issues would be a large mistake. Focus on transit to 7
allow a larger radius of residents to easily get into the city. Accelerate the Northgate station opening,
this is where the efforts should be focused to impact affordable housing. The government can still
partner with private social equality groups to run programs to help disadvantaged people, but the
damage or removing the park and school options for Fort Lawton is too great for the minimal gain being
proposed.
Last I would request that your decision process be transparent. While you have completed an EIS, I
cannot find the logic in how you determined this site would be used for affordable housing and where
affordable housing ranked in city priorities and other competing demands. Show the logic of your
decision; how city needs are prioritized, how all city needs were vetted against use of this parcel of land,
what the public input was, how your plans were adjusted to address public comment/concerns. 8
Transparency will hopefully breed acceptance. Thank you for letting me be part of the Seattle process.
For this reason, I am determined to stay part of this community, unless I have to leave to ensure my
children are given a good public education. I cannot afford private schooling, and I was raised to believe
in public education, so if Seattle continues to ignore the capacity problem, my family will be forced to
leave this great city.
Thank you,
Ken Burgess, 4436 30th Ave W., 206-313-1343
LETTER 138
From: Benjamin Burke
Subject: Fort Lawton Land Use
Hi, just want to add my voice to the discussion. I strongly support including Seattle Public Schools in the
use of the Fort Lawton land in Discovery Park. With already rampant overcrowding in schools, and more
1
and more young families moving to the area every year, we will soon be in desperate need for land like
this for school use. Please don't let this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity pass us by!
Thank you, Benjamin Burke

LETTER 139
From: Trina Burke
Subject: Support for Affordable Housing and Services for the Homeless at Fort Lawton
I am writing to voice my strong support of the City's plan to partner with Habitat for Humanity and build
52 affordable housing units at the old Fort Lawton. As a regular visitor to Discovery Park, I have often
wondered why the area of Fort Lawton hasn't been used for this purpose given the City's lack of
affordable housing and current state of emergency regarding homelessness. Every day, I drive by
Nickelsville Ballard and the Lichton Springs Tiny House Village and hope that we can do better for our
neighbors experiencing homelessness. The current planto provide supportive housing with on-site
services for homeless seniors, including veterans; affordable rental housing for low-wage households,
including families with children; affordable homeownership opportunities for low-income families would
go so far to alleviate much of the suffering these folks are experiencing. In addition, access to the good
schools in Magnolia, proximity to public transportation, and a beautiful natural environment are what
these folks need to get on their feet. In addition, the redevelopment would turn what is currently a set
of run-down old buildings and cracked and overgrown roadways into a useful, vibrant community full of
people--And that's what I want to see when I visit Discovery Park with my family. It seems like a win for
everyone involved!
I have heard that there is a small but very vocal group of homeowners and citizens opposed to this plan
for redevelopment. Frankly, I find their opposition to be racist and classist and driven foremost by self- 1
interest in their own perceived "safety" and the preservation of their property values. Unfortunately,
given the 55,000 or so people who are expected to move to Seattle annually, there is simply not enough
room to preserve their enclaves of single-family dwellings where they don't have to mix with neighbors
from different economic classes or backgrounds. There are too many people who work in Seattle who
can't afford to live here--people who do the jobs that support and serve these middle-to-upper-class
NIMBYs every single day. And, whether they like it or not, the thousands of people experiencing
homelessness in Seattle are their neighbors, too.
As someone who lives in proximity to both Nickelsville Ballard and the Lichton Springs Village, I can say
with confidence that the residents have been excellent neighbors and I have no added concerns about
safety due to their presence. I have seen no appreciable increase in crime or drug activity in my area and
I believe any such fears to be unfounded and without factual evidence.
I hope the City will do the right thing and move forward with the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan.
Thank you,
Trina Burke
9222 6th Ave. NW
Seattle, WA 98117
LETTER 140
From: Tarik Burney
I fully support the proposed plan for low income housing at Fort Lawton. Seattle needs more affordable 1
housing!
Tarik Burney 98112
LETTER 141
From: Carol Burton
Subject: comments on Fort Lawton DEIS
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Lawton Army Reserve site
I prefer Alternative #1, affordable housing and open space. Given the homelessness crisis in Seattle and 1
King County I’d like to see more housing being built, but recognize there is neighborhood opposition to
any housing at FLARC. And i wish the construction could start sooner than 2021, though I know there
are many permits and other hurdles to overcome. Including active park space in the proposal will also
2
help to fill a real need in the city.
I appreciate that Alternative #1 keeps the tree buffer along 36th Ave West on the east boundary of the
site - this will help to maintain the character of that neighborhood. Keeping the existing forested area to
the north and south of the site will keep the existing wildlife corridor between Discovery Park, Kiwanis
Ravine and Commodore Park. We know that many animals such as raccoons, coyotes, and other small
mammals us this corridor; herons and eagles can fly between the wooded areas. There is also an
opportunity through Green Seattle Partnership to remove invasive plants and restore native vegetation
in the wooded areas on FLARC. The Directors Rule regarding construction within the great blue heron
nesting area protects that species from undue construction activity, and neighbors will be checking that
those restrictions are followed.
Complaints have been made that there is no transit or businesses nearby, but this is incorrect. Bus #33 3
runs through FLARC and #24 runs a few blocks away. Between these 2 routes there is service
approximately every 15 minutes with connections to Queen Anne, Ballard and University District on
Gilman Ave W and 15th Ave West. There is a commercial zone nearby, within about 5 or 6 blocks, with a
coffee shop and a number of stores and medical offices. There is a grocery store relatively close (
Metropolitan Market), and grocery stores accessible by bus (Albertsons in Magnolia Village).
Schools are not really an issue, especially elementary school. Magnolia Elementary is scheduled to open
in 2019, and housing construction won’t start until 2019. A local group is hoping for a high school at
Fort Lawton and the city is working with Seattle School District on that.
Alternative #2 would mean many, closely spaced single family homes that will most likely sell for $1
million or more. More impervious surface, no additional public open space, more private vehicles
causing pollution and contributing to climate change, and we are still stuck with housing that most
people cannot afford. This option has the highest greenhouse gas emissions of the 4 alternatives, there
would be no public open space, the VA building would need tot be relocated at considerable cost.
Alternative #2 is the worst of the 4 alternatives. 3,
cont.
There is confusion about whether FLARC property is part of the Discovery Park Master Plan - The Court
of Appeals decided that it is not. Constructing housing at FLARC and an active park does not in any way
detract from the current Discovery Park - we already have private housing and private roads within
Discovery Park.
Build Alternative #1 affordable housing at FLARC - it is sorely needed, the land is free making more
money available for housing. I predict that the opposition will fade away as people get used to the idea,
plus I’m sure the opposition is a vocal minority of Magnolia residents.
Carol Burton
4052 Williams Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
206-691-1298 (home)
206-459-5788 (cell)
LETTER 142
From: Carol Burton
There are a couple of errors in the DEIS, maybe minor but they seem to indicate that the contractor did
not actually visit the site - not good, it means there are questions on the validity of the rest of the DEIS. 1
The DEIS states there is a commercial zone nearby at "Government Way and James St". The commercial
area is at Government Way and Jameson St. James St is in downtown Seattle, a long way from Fort
Lawton. It also states that there are no gas stations or dry cleaners near Fort Lawton - not correct.
There is a Shell gas station at Government Way and 34th Ave. about 3 blocks form Fort Lawton, anybody 2
driving to Fort Lawton via Government Way would not miss it. There is a dry cleaners at Government
Way and Jameson St in the above mentioned commercial area.
Carol T Burton
206-691-1298
LETTER 143
From: Veronica Bush

Subject: Veronica Bush says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
region.
3
5
Sincerely yours,
Veronica Bush
LETTER 144
From: Michael Byers
Subject: Ft Lawton
As a Seattle resident I support Habitat for Humanity's planned development of Ft Lawton. As a mortgage
professional who works with Habitat for Humanity homeowners I am daily reminded how these efforts
are a real preservation of affordability in Seattle.
1
Please stand up to the NIMBY objections and support this development of affordable housing. How
better to repurpose the past military installation of a repressive empire than use it to support some of
the more vulnerable members of our population.
Do the right thing,

Michael Byers
5525 S Norfolk St
Seattle, WA 98118
LETTER 145
From: Amy Campbell
I was at the meeting last night and have been looking at the plans online. I have one question - I am
wondering if the athletic fields in the plan will be field turf and include lights?
1
We need year round fields available to families who currently live in the neighborhood and those who
will eventually move into the new housing planned for the land.
Sincerely,
Amy Campbell
2341 Rosemont Pl. W
Seattle WA 98199
LETTER 146
From: Brian Campbell
Hello-
I’m strongly in support of the proposal to use the Fort Lawton site for deeply affordable housing - as 1
many units as possible.
In the midst of an unprecedented housing crisis, which exacerbates an already-terrible homelessness

epidemic, it is deeply shameful that so many residents of such a rich neighborhood would oppose a
practical, sensible approach to help the issue. 2
We can’t kick the can down the road forever. NIMBYism will ensure that Seattle continues to spiral out
of control of working residents. We need to start building affordable units as quickly as possible, and
Fort Lawton is the ideal place to start.
-Brian Campbell
LETTER 147
From: Colin Campbell
Subject: In support of Fort Lawton Housing Development
I'm writing today in support of the proposed housingdevelopment at Fort Lawton. As a fourth
generation Seattlite I know what makes Seattle an amazing city is our generosity, welcoming spirit and
progressive values. Thousands of our King County neighbors are sleeping on the street in freezing
weather while land and federal funding sit on the table. If the city allows federal money that could be
used to build affordable housing to go away it will be a travesty. An opportunity to build on currently 1
unused property that is not currently green space or available to private developers is one that may not
appear again. This is an emergency level crisis and turning our backs on residents who need our help
most is exactly what the president and his party want and the city should take this opportunity to make
clear what our values are.
On this note I would also like to express my desire that more housing be considered. 200 units is an
excellent place to start and will make untold difference to hundreds of people. But the property could
include more and we should work to take full advantage of this opportunity to get as many people into 2
housing as possible. Housing first is the only longterm strategy that can end this crisis and we need to
begin work now to make that a reality.
BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOW
Colin Campbell
(425) 306-9901
LETTER 148
From: Deborah Campbell
Subject: Comment on the Fort Lawton DEIS
Greetings,
My name is Deborah Campbell, and I am a longtime resident of Seattle. I am writing to register my
strong support for Alternative 1 at Fort Lawton: Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses
Onsite. I concur with other residents who have advocated for a far greater number of affordable housing
units on the site.
I attended the January 9th hearing and have conducted a limited review of the DEIS document itself. I 1
am very familiar with the Government Way entrance to the site and its surrounding neighborhood, and
have a limited familiarity with the project site.
My reasoning:
•The housing crisis within the City of Seattle, as well as throughout the region demands that bold and
swift action be taken. The City's preferred alternative has been well researched, will add affordable
housing, and will not have a significant negative impact on the area.
•Alternatives 2 and 3 do not honestly seem to be valid alternatives to expand affordable housing in the
city since there are currently no plans to develop the Talaris site. The expansion of affordable housing is 2
paramount to addressing the housing crisis.
•Alternative 4 is most certainly does nothing to address the need for housing in Seattle.
•Taking advantage of the opportunity to acquire the land for free would represent a huge boon to the
project, freeing funds for other uses.
•Viable and available sites to increase housing density should be sought out throughout the city. 3
•The organizational partners that have been identified for Alternative 1 have excellent track records and
will add great value to the project.
Thank you very much.
LETTER 149
From: Elizabeth Campbell
By reference I am incorporating herein my comments from the scoping process and also those
comments which were contained in foster peppers letters related to the scoping and related to the DEI
1
else for the Fort Lawton redevelopment project.
An area of concern I have is that there has been an extreme failure to consider the various projects that
are coming in to the Magnoli a community and particularly those that affect its axis points. These were
not considered in the DEIS analysis for the project. There is a large plan to expand the Port of Seattle 2
property at Fisherman’s Terminal, none of that was included, the impacts from the traffic it will
generate and the number of people that will be coming flowing through the Emerson access point for
Magnolia as a result of that project.
In addition there is the whole matter of the sound transit light rail project for Ballard to downtown. That
affects the Emerson axis point and it affects the Dravis Street access point. There is even a plan that it
3
may run through 21st Ave. with storage 20th Ave., West and Gilman that there would be construction in
that corridor that would affect the access to the fort lot new property for a number of years. Where was
the analysis of that?
In addition there is the whole matter of the sound transit light rail project for Ballard to downtown. That
affects the Emerson AccessPoint and it affects the Dravis Street access point. There is even a plan that it
may run through 21st Ave. with storage 20th Ave., West and Gilman that there would be construction in
4
that corridor that would affect the access to the fort lot new property for a number of years. Where was
the analysis of that?
Likewise there is the matter of the Magnolia bridge, not even that it would be replaced but that it
would be shut down in the near future. No analysis was made of that eventuality which affects the
Emerson and gravis access points to Magnolia. In addition the port of Seattle is also planning a major
expansion of the Northbay property as well as perhaps development along the Interbay corridor. The 5
port of Seattle is not alone in proposing projects up-and-down the Interbay Corredor between Emerson
and Garfield. These would have an effect on traffic in and out of Magnolia. This was not considered in
the DEIS.
There are also problems with the infrastructure over by the port lot and property, discovery Park, and
the LawtonWood area that recently cost a substantial amount of profit money to just make some Band-
Aid fixes. I noticed that there was no economic analysis of this project whatsoever. Where is the
6
financial plan other than some generalities about possible financial vehicles for developing it but no hard
numbers. I believe a project of this size As well as being a project reviewed under NEPA and SEPA that a
financial plan is required for it.
--
Elizabeth Campbell, MPA
LETTER 150
From: Fred campbell
Subject: Fred campbell says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

your deep concern for vulnerable Washingtonians. 1
place, because we have the chance to forestall the most devastating effects of climate change. In 1,
cont.
region.
3
Sincerely yours,
Fred Campbell
LETTER 151
From: Jon Campbell
Email Address: [email protected] Subject: Support for Housing at Four Lawton
Hello,
I'm writing to express my strong support of the project to build housing on the Fort Lawton site. While i
do not think the project as currently proposed goes nearly far enough given the city's affordable housing
and homelessness crisis, it is a REAL opportunity for the city to do at least something to address the 1
affordable housing shortage. It is imperative that the city doesn't cave the whining and concern-trolling
of some of the city's wealthiest residents who are opposing this project.
Thank you,
-Jon Campbell
LETTER 152
From: Raven Campbell
Subject: Support all the housing possible at Fort Lawton
Hi,
I'm writing to comment that, in the interest of regional livability, as much affordable housing as possible
should be constructed at the Fort Lawton site. I spoke at the meeting earlier this month in support. I
am here to reiterate that this housing is necessary.
Neighborhoods like Magnolia need to have affordable housing placed within them. Considering that this
1
is an enormous opportunity, it should not go unseized.
If anything, there should be 2,380 homes proposed, not 238. But it's still an important project even at
that size.
Please build affordable housing there, as soon as possible. It would show a true commitment to both
the housing emergency and the climate emergency.
Thanks
Raven Campbell
LETTER 153
From: Terri Campbell
Subject: Homeless Housing at Fort Lawton
Hello,
As a 5th generation Seattlite, I am appalled at what had happened to this city. My Great Great
Grandfather Ward would be appalled, as well. (Yes, Ward Street and Ward House.)
I am absolutely in favor of building affordable housing on this land. This is a golden opportunity for the
1
city to do something meaningful and get people off the streets. It's the right thing to do. We should
have affordable housing in every neighborhood.
Seattle used to inclusive. What happened? Property values?
Sincerely,
Terri Campbell
LETTER 154
From: Mark Canright
Subject: Mark Canright says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
region.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Canright
LETTER 155
From: Rebecca Canright
Subject: Rebecca Canright says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
region.
light rail station, can be a big climate win as well.As a college student, I ask you to please take climate
change action seriously. Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely yours, Rebecca Canright
LETTER 156
From: Denise Capen
Subject: Re: Ft Lawton-NO Do not do this!!
I sent this response last summer to offer my feedback on the proposed housing at Ft. Lawton. I have
never received a response or seen the impact reports that I requested below. Open space is so needed
in Seattle, as well as a JR. High on Magnolia so our kids don’t have to be transported up to Queen Anne. I
1
urge you to focus on the full needs of Seattle and Magnolia. Homeless can be housed anywhere. They
don’t need pristine open space. Plus, I urge you to focus on infrastructure before any more housing is
approved. It is hard to get to work up 15th now! You are making Seattle a terrible place to work and 2
raise a family. Not everyone who wants to live here can or should. We need to start develping new
urban centers that attract families…. not force more and more people in a tiny space. I am really getting
frustrated about this. I have written to Sally many times and she just ignores any responses she doesn’t
like. Sally there are 3 ways on and 3 ways off of Magnolia. Adding housing is only going to make things 3
very very difficult to get to work and activities. You don’t live here. Come see for yourself trying to get
off!!
On Jun 26, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Denise Capen <[email protected]> wrote:

I just heard that you are planning to redevelop Ft. Lawton to use it for low income and homeless people 4
and I am 100% against that idea.
Seattle has not gotten a grip on the drug and crime caused by drugs and I do not want to see that
culture infused into the heart of Magnolia where the queen of all parks resides for all of Seattle to enjoy. 5
Can you imagine the heart break of addicts with knives wandering around in Discovery Park?
How would it be policed and citizens protected. The idea is absolutely irresponsible. Ft. Lawton is not
near a grocery store and the closest one is the most expensive in the city. Residents could walk no
where for services. There are tons of empty buildings around the county that could be used to house the 6
homeless in a much more suitable location. There are many, many seniors, families with children and all
of us who would be put at serious risk with the mentally ill free to roam our beautiful parks and streets.
We buy here for a reason and I think you should support a comfortable and safe place for your citizens
to live. You are understaffed on the police force, do not enforce the laws equally, are too lenient with
drug users, pushers and the mentally ill. Until you provide services for them it is unhelpful to just stick
them somewhere especially when it impacts us so greatly. Our Met Market was robbed today. An 7
innocent man was knifed to death in lower Queen Ann a few days ago. When are you going to realize
this is the result of lawlessness, encouraging homeless to come here and giving SHARE the job of helping
the homeless. They only can pay themselves if the keep the homeless problem alive and well.
The National Environmental Policy Act Sec. 101 (42 USC 4331) tells us that the Federal Government, in
cooperation with Sate and local governments, needs to use all practicable means and measures,
including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calcculated to foster and promoste the general
8
welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive
harmony, and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans. In order to fulfill that you must:
1. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
2. assure for ALL Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing
surroundings:
3. attain the WIDEST range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or
SAFETY, or other UNDESIREABLE and UNINTENDED consequences 8,
4. preserve IMPORTANT HISTORIC, cultural and natural aspects of our natural heritage, and maintain, cont.
wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and a variety of individual choice;
5. achieve a balance between population and resources use which will permit HIGH standards of living
and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and
The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a healthful environment and each person has a
responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.
A low income housing for homeless is not a reasonable use of the land right next to Discovery Park. The
impact to the parks wildlife would be grave not to mention the impact to all of us living here.
Therefore, I am requesting the following studies be executed to ensure best use of this land. Dog owners
have been begging Parks and Recreation for a much bigger Dog Park. All of Seattle comes here to walk 9
and exercise their dogs. There is no off leash space to do that.
1. How this impacts the Heron Reserve.

10
2. Water use for increased residents when we already have issues with the water. 11
3. Infrastructure to support increased buses, cars
12
4. Air and soilquality-please study how this will impact Discovery Park
5 Noise to our wild life in the park-please study how this will impact Discovery Park 13
6. Best land use for the space /BEST for ALL Citizens-Please study what is needed by the majority not
14
what YOU NEED.
7. Increased light and glare for our wildlife and hikers in the area 15
8.Transportation studies of the impact to our streets and also how far residents would have to travel for
services! That really increases traffic 16
9. Traffic
10. Parking
11. Safety of our citizens-Please study how increased crime and drug use will impact the citizens who
pay a fortune to live here. 17
12. Police protection -we already don’t have enough!! I feel very unsafe already.
13. School impact-we are already missing a JR. HIGH!! Our schools are overcrowded as it is. We need 18
more schools.
14. Sewer impact 19
15. Water runoff 20
16. Availability of Government services.
21
Thank you for entertaining our written comments.
Denise Capen
LETTER 157
From: Susan and Gary Carlson
Subject: Fort Lawton property
We support having the Fort Lawton property being added to Discovery Park. More clean, safe and 1
sanitary park property will be important for the future in the City of Seattle. Magnolia, Queen Anne, and
Ballard have been mismanaged by the City with allowing tents, drugs, increased crime and continued
blight in the neighborhoods. It is a shame to see this beautiful city in such sad condition. People in need 2
should be provided adequate shelter options, but not tents and public sewage and garbage strewn all
over. The proposed solutions are preposterous and way too costly. This matter should be subject to a
vote by citizens of the affected adjacent neighborhoods. Susan & Gary Carlson, Magnolia
3
LETTER 158
From: Kim Carmel
Subject: Please continue to consider school inclusion for Fort Lawton redevelopment in Magnolia
I wanted to add my voice to those requesting the inclusion of school property in the Fort Lawton 1
redevelopment project.
My FIRST choice is no development in that area. I'd rather preserve as much natural park land as 2
possible.
But, if development is inevitable, as it seems to be, please do keep in mind the continued growth in our 3
schools, as we welcome new families to the neighborhood. I support a holistic approach to this
redevelopment which includes desperately needed school land. In order for housing developments to
4
be successful appropriate educational infrastructure must be in place. I support Seattle Public Schools
being included in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Kim Carmel
LETTER 159
From: Lucas Carpenter
Subject: Build That Discovery Park Housing
I’m a King County Resident. 1

Build affordable housing. Build Free Housing for the homeless.
Build the thousands of units that area can support and not the measly hundreds currently planned. 2
Thanks, Have a Nice Day
Lucas
LETTER 160
From: Erin Carper

Subject: Ft Lawton
Hi,
As someone who lives just down the street from Ft Lawton (3305 W Thurman St), I wholeheartedly
support housing in that area. I feel lucky to live in Magnolia without making 6 figures, and would love to 1
share the wealth. I of course love Discovery Park too, but it doesn’t seem that this will impede on the
already huge amount of land in that park.
My one concern is for affordable services in the neighborhood...Met Market is the closest grocery store
and is definitely not cheap, and while there is an Albertsons it isn’t very easy to get to without a car, or if
you have a physical disability. Would also hope to see a few more bus lines if this goes in but we are 2
lucky to have an easy route downtown with the 33 and 24. Maybe just a few more midday and late night
runs would be necessary.
Great idea and I hope the NIMBYs in the neighborhood eat their words when it is built and they see
firsthand the people that will benefit :)
Thank you,
Erin Carper
LETTER 161
1
LETTER 162
From: Julie Carr
Subject: Fort Lawton EIS public feedback
It is possible to be for affordable housing at Fort Lawton and still have concerns about the development.
(I think that point was sorely missed during the public hearing on 1/09/18.) The city needs to be held
accountable to improve the infrastructure in Magnolia before this housing goes in. Because who will
1
suffer the consequences several years down the road? Certainly not the city. It will be the residents of
Magnolia, including the residents of the new affordable housing. And then do we just hope the city has
the money and the will to help fix it?
The EIS is not an accurate portrayal of the impact to Magnolia’s infrastructure. First, the EIS states 2
adding the 152 non-senior housing will only add 41 more kids to Lawton. That seems low.
Next, the EIS states 1,200 new daily vehicle trips is not a significant number. I would disagree. Did the
city really evaluate the roads in the immediate area (they are small, narrow, low capacity roads) and
further out where roads have been recently modified for bike lanes (Gilman and Emerson)? There are
already backups leaving Magnolia in the morning and coming back in the evening. Did the city evaluate
the heavy traffic into Magnolia on a nice weekend day when people from all over the city descends on
Discovery Park? It says collisions will increase with the increase in traffic, but it won’t cause any safety 3
issues. That doesn’t make sense. It states the additional riders on Metro buses isn’t a problem because
there is plenty of room at Discovery Park to get on. Did you analyze further on down the route where it
is already overcrowded? My husband often rides that route and says that people are already turned
away because the bus is full. In fact, some people have been putting together carpools because there
isn’t enough room on the bus. We need more bus service already, before additional riders.
Finally, the EIS states that adding 600 people to the population will require more policing and states that
the Seattle Police Department has the capacity for it. SPD doesn’t have the capacity for Magnolia now,
so how will they have it with the new population? We have one police officer for all of Magnolia and he
4
is frequently called to help in other neighborhoods.
The city of Seattle owes it to Magnolia and the new residents to fix the EIS and get it right and put in
writing the infrastructure improvements that are needed. Yes, put affordable housing in at Fort Lawton, 5
but let’s do it right and be honest as to the infrastructure changes that need to happen first.
Thank you,
Julie Carr
4576 35th Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199
[email protected]
LETTER 163
From: Constance Carroll
I am in support of Alternative 3.
1
Connie Carroll
LETTER 164
From: Bruce D. Carter
Subject: Fort Lawton Reserve Center
I am writing to recommend the preferred option #1. I feel that the mixed uses among affordable
housing, sports fields which at become a school site and park additions best meet the needs of our 1
Magnolia Community. I recommend that the public housing be structured and supported in such a
fashion that the residents will be assisted with job training, therapy and structure, as appropriate, to 2
enable the to move on into our community.
Sports fields should go a long way to meet our extensive local demand and provide a setting that will be 3
protected from the wind and much warmer on windy days than Smith Cove Park.
I trust that bus service to the park will be improved to provide housing residents access to work and 4
shopping opportunities.
Thank you,
Bruce D. Carter
206-285-5556
LETTER 165
From: sue cary
Please add my voice to those urging the City to do the right thing and develop the proposed mix of
affordable housing on the surplus land at Fort Lawton. It is critical to take advantage of this opportunity 1
to support the goal to provide a mix of housing opportunities throughout our City. If not now, when?
Thank You!
LETTER 166
From: Charlotte Casey
I'd like to throw my respectful opinion into the mix as to what should be done with the Fort Lawton
empty buildings. I'd like to see a high school go in there. Our schools are so overcrowded in Magnolia, it
is shocking. We moved here from elsewhere and the first day I took my kids to their new elementary
school I was absolutely stunned by the sheer amount of children and noise. I don't think it is conducive
to healthy learning environment. The overflow into portables leaves a HUGE safety issue because it
means the main school cannot be locked as they need access to restrooms. In this day and age of school
violence that is massive concern.
1
Furthermore Magnolia children and now seemingly going to be forced to bus an hour to Wallingford to
go to High School as Ballard renegotiates the district boundaries.
Magnolia has NO high school since the last one closed. Fort Lawton could be the perfect solution to our
lack of high school combined with Magnolia Elementary reopening.
I understand the need for low income housing but I don't think Discovery Park is the place for that. I
think it should be utilized as a vibrant place for our future generations to learn.
Thank you for listening.

Charlotte Casey - Magnolia Resident
LETTER 167
From: Margaret Casey

Subject: RE: FORT LAWTON RE-DEVELOPMENT
I was unable to attend the Jan. 9, 2018 hearing on the Fort Lawton re-development planning. I have
submitted comments at previous community meetings/hearings.
I continue to support Alternative 1.

Finding land both in Magnolia and at the Talaris site are great opportunities to add to our much needed
1
subsidized housing units. We cannot waste this/these opportunities by adding to the housing stock for
populations that are more able to afford “market rate” possibilities.
I continue to strongly oppose Alternative 2.

The LAST thing we need on Magnolia is more “market rate” housing!
RE school development at this site:
I still have not heard any comparison to needed inventory for additional schools in different areas across
Seattle. Is Magnolia THE MOST IN NEED of new school development? On the scale of things, perhaps
comparatively speaking, Magnolia already may have its fair share.
1
RE additional park space:
Again, prove to me that Magnolia does not already have its fair share of park space. On the scale of
things, perhaps comparatively speaking, Magnolia already may have its fair share.
Thank you,
MARGARET CASEY
2202 28th Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
206.778.6798
LETTER 168
From: Caesar Castro
I as a register voter, I don’t like the idea of a development for homeless or any other kind of
development at Fort Lawton. That decision should be made by the residents of Magnolia. Magnolia can 1
use the buildings for extending classroom use, meetings felicity's, or arts and craft.
Caesar Castro
LETTER 169
From: Curtis Cawley

Subject: Curtis Cawley says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
Seattle, this means that we absolutely cannot afford the trend of working people being pushed out of 1,
the city and into ever-longer and higher carbon commutes. This disparity will only increase as Seattle cont.
region.
Thank you for your consideration of the proposals laid out here, I hope to see them included in the final
plan for Fort Lawton!
Sincerely yours,
Curtis Cawley
LETTER 170
From: Cassandra Cawley

Subject: Affordable housing
The housing market for Seattle is currently outrageous. With rent rising in downtown and all
surrounding areas, and the homelessness problem growing alongside this, we need affordable housing
to give people a chance to stay in the city that was their home before rising costs drove them away. 1
People with jobs in seattle should be able to afford a place to live near their work as well.
LETTER 171
From: Neil Cebara
Subject: Urging YES to the Ft. Lawton Redev. Project
Dear City of Seattle,

I want to lend my SUPPORT for, and express the importance and urgency of, the FT. LAWTON
REDEVELOPMENT Project. (https://www.seattle.gov/housing/ft-lawton)
I urge the city to approve this free gift from the U.S. Government to create a diverse, mixed-income
community with housing for homeless individuals and families and market rate housing, as the original
plan was designed. 1
I support transitioning as many homeless people as possible into warm, stable housing. And developing
this project to house our fellow, yet homeless, Seattlites is the right and humane thing to do.
Thank you very much for supporting intelligent moves towards addressing the crisis of homelessness in
an environment of soaring rents.
Sincerely,
.
Neil Cebara
117 32nd Ave. E. Madrona Seattle WA 98112
LETTER 172
From: Scott Chancellor
I am writing to express my vehement opposition to "Alternative 1" (i.e., Mixed Income Affordable
Housing and Public Park Uses Onsite) outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Study - Fort Lawton 1
Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project (12-14-2017). This plan does not come anywhere near
meeting the needs of the existing community or, more importantly, the people who would likely live in
the proposed development. As has been made clear by many others, this area of Fort Lawton is far
removed from amenities (e.g., affordable grocery, childcare, healthcare, schools, and entertainment) 2
and jobs that would help to support potential inhabitants. Further, it is served by inadequate public
transit, which this plan does not address whatsoever.
While Alternative 1 may look appealing to some at a quick glance in that it is a low-cost option on a large
parcel of land within the city limits, all of that fades away if one really stops to think about what living 3
here would be like for these potential inhabitants without a massive investment in infrastructure and
services. I am a single parent who lives near the proposed development, and I am fortunate enough to
have a reliable vehicle, child care, and a job with a flexible schedule--if I did not have these, I would
never have considered moving here, as I would not be able to live here comfortably. For many years, I
lived near the heart of Seattle (Denny and Aurora) with my two small children and no vehicle, and that
was extraordinarily difficult--I cannot even begin to imagine what it would have been like if I had been
located out here near Fort Lawton without any of the amenities that I had at that location. Reading this
plan, I wonder if any of the people who worked on it have ever been in a similar position to those who 3,
would live here under Alternative 1 or have thought deeply about what the day-to-day existence those cont.
individuals and families would be like at this specific site vs. any of the many other more centrally-
located options--if they have, it certainly does not come through in their proposed plan. I am fairly
certain that the people who worked on this plan will take offense to my saying this, but Alternative 1 is
truly awful and makes me wonder if they are at all aware of the distinction between doing the right
thing and doing things right. The people that designed this alternative had an opportunity to do some
good here and completely blew it with a half-baked plan.
As a result of the numerous gaps in Alternative 1, I am in support of "Alternative 3" - Public Park Onsite;
4
Affordable and Homeless Housing Offsite. If that doesn't work, then sell the land to a developer who will
build multi-million dollar homes on this land and use the property tax money to further fund affordable
housing in a location that makes *at least a small bit of sense* for the people who need it.
5
Sincerely,
Scott Chancellor
--
Scott A. Chancellor
206.554.1414
[email protected]
LETTER 173
From: Paul Chapman
Subject: Build Affordable Homes at Fort Lawton!
Hello,
I am writing to express support for the city's plan to build affordable homes at Fort Lawton. Affordability
in Seattle is a crisis, and we need to do more to address the problem. Using this surplus land to both 1
house people affordably and create new parks and open spaces is a win.
I strongly encourage Seattle to stay the course and build affordable housing on the site.
As an alternative, I would also accept a decision for the city to redevelop the site as high-end homes and 2
use the proceeds to build affordable housing elsewhere in Magnolia.
Thank you,
Paul Chapman
3509 Densmore Ave N
Seattle, 98103
LETTER 174
From: Judith Iliana Villanueva Chavez
Subject: Supporting affordable housing at Ft Lawton
I am writing to support the proposed redevelopment of Fort Lawton for affordable housing. Among the
alternatives on the EIS, I support alternative one although I would much prefer the city build or allow
much more housing at the site.
Our city has a major housing affordability crisis, and our planet is facing catastrophic climate change. For
both of these reasons we need denser cities. Our city controls land use policies, and should encourage 1
developments such as this. In addition, many more people of all backgrounds and income levels should
have the chance to live near Discovery Park, which is a public good.
Please take this opportunity to create more affordable housing, and please go much farther than this
timid proposal: add a 0 to the end of the proposed units.
Judith Iliana Villanueva Chavez

7941 49th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98118
LETTER 175
From: Bart Cheever

Subject: No Housing Development in Fort Lawton!
I DO NOT support the city’s proposal to build a housing development in Fort Lawton. 1
This development is bad for Magnolia.
There is no infrastructure to support this kind of development
•We do not have space in the public schools for even the folks who already live here, and nowhere to 2
build new schools.
•We only have one part-time police officer assigned to Magnolia.
3
•The roads are already backed up at rush hour – it recently took me 30 minutes just to get across the 4
Ballard Bridge. And one of the three bridges has been condemned.
•Our bus line is also already regularly at capacity. 5
This development is bad for low income people.

There is no infrastructure here to support low income and homeless people. This is essentially just a
plan to warehouse poor people in a remote and out of the way place with no access to services. 6
This development is bad for Seattle.
Most importantly, this land should be used to expand Discovery Park to benefit ALL RESIDENTS of this
city.
•Discovery Park is one of the city’s jewels whose value will only increase as Seattle becomes denser and
more populated. Once buildings are built on this parcel it will be gone forever. We need to think about
not only people living now but how our children and their children will live in this city 10 or 100 years
from now.
•Homelessness is a serious problem in New York and San Francisco but no one would think for a
moment about building housing in Central Park or Golden Gate Park.
•Along those lines, Golden Gate Park is 1017 acres, Central Park is 843 acres (a full 6% of Manhattan.
Discovery Park is only 500 acres which is constantly under threat from development.
I’d like to close with two quotes. The first is from the city of Seattle itself, in the opening section of it’s
brilliant master plan for Discovery Park, and I feel like it directly addresses the situation we are currently
facing:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to
provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be 7
structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal
site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They
must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer
serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be accepted which are
in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a deep
commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open space.”
And finally from John Muir:
“Everbody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give
strength to body and soul alike”
Seatlle is at a turning point in our history. Discovery Park is the last natural area in the city, where
people can go to experience nature on a daily basis, worked into their daily lives and not just on a few
weekends a year. This is the last parcel of Fort Lawton which could be added to the park, and once it has
been developed it will be gone forever. I urge you to resist the pressure for development and do the
right thing for Seattle’s future generations.
Bart Cheever
Magnolia
LETTER 176
From: Darby Cheever
Subject: No Development in Fort Lawton!
Dear City Council,

My name is Darby Cheever, and I believe you should not put any development in Fort Lawton! This 1
should be left as a wild space.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Sincerely,
Darby Cheever
LETTER 177
From: Jack Cheever
Subject: No Development in Fort Lawton!
Dear City Council,

My name is Jack Cheever. I think that there should not be a development in Fort Lawton. 1
Sincerely, Jack Cheever
LETTER 178
From: Jack Cheever
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Support Option 3
I urge you to support option 3 for any development in Fort Lawton. The land should be converted to 1
natural park land and folded into Discovery Park.
LETTER 179
From: Kelley Chen
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment! Yes!
Hello there,
My name is Kelley, I've lived in Seattle for 7 years, and I am writing to you today to speak out in support
of the redevelopment of Fort Lawton. I am sure you are well aware of the positives this project will 1
create for the city and the stability it will provide to those who desperately need it. And that land for
these kinds of affordable housing projects do not come along that often, especially ones without a hefty
price tag on them.
I think the majority of the concerns of those opposed to this project are a little misguided. Assuming
their arguments of the lack of "affordable" grocery stores in the area and the lack of transportation are
rooted in their concerns for the proposed tenants daily lives, I would suggest they ask a homeless
person whether they would prefer to walk to a grocery store 2 miles away (once a week) and return to a
safe and warm home OR if they would prefer to continue living out of their cars or commuting to work
in Seattle 4 hours everyday. There are those who think the residents will be heavy drug users and violent
offenders. Although in a few cases, these might be the people who need the help the most, these
people would most likely not get through the tenant screening processes.
Maybe those against this development are afraid of lowering property values in their neighborhood or
maybe they are afraid of change. These are all valid concerns, but they are not enough reason to deny
this opportunity to create such a positive change in the lives of those who need it. I believe the needs of
the many override the desires of the few. And this city, as evidenced by the overwhelming support at
the Magnolia Church, believes it too.
My parents moved to Issaquah 20 years ago with dreams of creating a better life for themselves and a
positive future for me and my brother. We moved there when houses were more affordable and the city
was still growing. Our whole family benefited greatly from the supportive community, easy access to
beautiful park trails, and being able to attend one of the top public school districts in the state. After
moving to and then coming home from college, driving through town I saw many new apartment
buildings going up in my neighborhood. I saw the forested hills being cut down for the highlands 1,
development, and even my old hangout spot - the parking lot in front of the Taco Bell was gone (and in
cont.
its place was a building, how dare they!) I hated seeing it change so much, it felt as if it wasn't my home
anymore.
But looking introspectively, I realized how selfish I was being. If a group of people had told my parents
there wasn't enough room for our family back then, it wouldn't have been fair. How could I disapprove
of anything that provided the same opportunities and comfort to our family to anyone else who had the
same dream as our parents? This is how I feel about our affordable housing crisis in Seattle a
hundredfold. These are people working and suffering more than I ever will because I was lucky enough
to be born into a middle class family with a strong support system and they were not. If I have learned
anything from being around people living well below their means, it is that they are the most giving and
most generous to others because they know what it's like to truly struggle and being supportive of each
other is the only way to get through it. It is our responsibility as a city and as individuals to emulate that
sentiment through our actions.
Thanks for taking the time to go through all the comments and considering all the ramifications of this
redevelopment. I hope you decide to bring this project to fruition and continue to do so for other
projects that are also sorely needed.
Kelley Chen
LETTER 180
From: Jennifer Cheng
Subject: In favor of the Fort Lawton Affordable Housing plan.
Hello,
In the midst of this crisis, the City should be considering bold steps to create more public and deeply- 1
affordable homes, and to drastically rebuild our depleted public housing stock.
being considered.
Thank you.
Jennifer Cheng
LETTER 181
From: Kath Chinn
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevlopment
Dear Sir:
This email is in response to the request for comments on the Fort Lawton Redevelopment in lieu of
attending the public hearing on January 9th.
Firstly, no one in this neighborhood believes that the City is actually interested in feedback. We've gone
through this attempt to develop that land before, we hired a lawyer and it was decided at that time to
stop it. Now you bring it up again and plan to put low income housing here. I attended the last series of 1
hearings at Daybreak Star Center. It was all show and no listen. Verbal comments were not wanted, we
forced the issue anyway. Oh, come over to the side of the room after our 'show and tell' and write your
notes on a piece of paper. Is this payback time?
I advocate that homeless families be spread around the City. It's healthier socially for them and
community. For every new apartment building, make these builders house one family in need. I'm sure
they can afford it, they have profits aplenty. Maybe none of you are old enough to remember the South
Chicago Housing Projects and others like it around the country. Ironically one in New Orleans was called
2
the Magnolia Project. I saw the Chicago projects having lived in the area when I was young. They were
notorious for crime and blight. Drugs, rats, roaches and random shootings were the norm. That is what
you will visit upon us in your ignorance and laziness in handling the homelessness issue. Read your
history in regards to urban planning please.
Finally, why do you plan to use Habitat for Humanity and Catholic Services to provide the building and 3
resources? Have you seen the quality of the homes HforH builds? They are cheap and will soon be
trashed. The fees that are supposed to be coming in to the city coffers to cover homelessness from the
massive large scale apartment building around the city should overwhelm you with funds. Where is that 4
money going? Are you even collecting it, as I've heard it is not happening?
No one in this neighborhood is in favor of living next to a housing project. If that counts for anything
with you, this will stop immediately. Build a school, or let the Federal Govt sell it to developers to build 5
homes that are consistent with the neighborhood.
KB
LETTER 182
From: Ashley Clark
Subject: Support for Ft. Lawson housing from District 7 resident
I am writing to express my strong support of building affordable housing at Ft. Lawton. I urge the City to
expand upon the current plan for 238 units, so that more of our lower-income and formerly homeless
neighbors can have access to stable, affordable housing. I believe that the City has a moral obligation to
take bold action to address the crisis of homelessness and housing insecurity that is afflicting Seattle and
our entire region. Fundamentally the answer to homelessness is housing.
accommodate. But this gap is the greatest for the households with the lowest incomes — individuals 1
and families making 0-30% of Area Median Income. According to the Housing Development Consortium,
in 2016 Seattle was short by 17,161 units for households in this bracket, and this gap will widen to
27,481 units by 2030 if we don’t act now.
Seattle. The Ft. Lawton plan is one small step in the right direction. We can’t wait any longer. Please
approve and expand upon the current plan. Housing is a human right.
Sincerely,
Ashley Clark
District 7 resident (98109)
LETTER 183
From: Bryan Clark
Subject: In favor of housing at Fort Lawton
Hello,
My name is Bryan Clark, and I grew up a stone’s throw from Fort Lawton. (My family still lives there, and
I’m now living in Ballard.) I’m writing to you in support of the Fort Lawton Redevelopment efforts, to
build affordable housing for seniors and families.
I grew up with the happy privilege of wandering around Discovery Park, watching the fish ladder at the
Locks, or riding my bike around the neighborhood.
The Fort Lawton Redevelopment project sounds wonderful. I am in full-throated support of this project.
Housing in Seattle is far too expensive - and Fort Lawton has just been sitting there ever since I was a
kid, and this sounds like a wonderful way to improve the lives of hundreds of families who are struggling
to get by in Seattle.
Fort Lawton’s been an empty, open space, that to me always seemed like a place where the Army
parked their vehicles.
On some of the counterarguments to the Fort Lawton Redevelopment:
• “We could use the park space. Turn it into a children’s camp or something.” Discovery Park is
already massive. I grew up a couple blocks from it, and still find spaces in there that I never did
1
as a kid. It’s huge! I love Discovery Park, but affordable housing is so much more important than
adding more park space adjacent to an already-massive park. In fact, I feel that affordable
housing right next to the park is a wonderful idea - those families would benefit to have such
easy access to walks in the forest. I grew up going to summer science camp in Discovery Park --
there’s plenty of room already for children’s camps in the existing park.
• “It’s not the right place, there aren’t enough busses. The nearest grocery is too pricey.” Well,
over time, I betcha those busses will get scheduled! Also, QFC, Fred Meyer, Albertson’s - those
are all within a 10-15 minute drive. You know what else Magnolia has to offer these families? A
massive, beautiful park. Acres of soccer and baseball fields, just over the hill. A public pool with
the best waterslide. A cozy library, and a real bookstore! Bike rides along the bluff. Wonderful
schools like Lawton and Blaine.
• “It’s going to ruin the community that we have here.” Nope. Fort Lawton’s been an empty,
kinda-creepy facility for a long time, and bringing families and seniors to the area is a marked
improvement over a parking lot for Humvees.
Thank you for the work that you’re doing to make a place for seniors and families in Discovery Park. It’s
deeply needed in this city, and I thank you for organizing, planning, and working to make this affordable
housing available.
Bryan Clark
[email protected]
LETTER 184
From: Jamie Clausen
Subject: I support building low income housing at Fort Lawton
I am a resident of Northwest Seattle who is desperately concerned about the homelessness crisis in
Seattle. We need to get people off the streets and into housing and neighborhoods north of the Ship 1
Canal should be carrying the lion’s share of that burden to help correct for the lack of racial and
economic integration in our city. These 240 units are a great start. Lets build these and then lets build 2
10 times as many more.
Jamie Clausen
751 N 75th Street
Seattle, WA 98103
LETTER 185
From: Lindsey Clibborn
Subject: vote in SUPPORT of housing at Ft. Lawton
I would like to put a vote in support of housing at Ft. Lawton. We need more affordable housing in
Seattle and the city’s current MHA proposals via HALA are developer friendly and only going to add
market rate housing while ruining neighborhoods & some currently affordable housing. 1
Fort Lawton has space and should be maintained as something FOR the community and I can’t think of a
better gift than providing much needed housing for our devastating homeless population.
LETTER 186
From: Mary Kay Clunies-Ross
Subject: Ft Lawton Housing
Dear City Planners,
I am writing as a Magnolia resident to state my strong support for the City's vision of redeveloping Fort
Lawton as an "affordable, livable community that creates opportunities for those with low incomes to
live in the Magnolia neighborhood."
1
Our city desperately needs more housing opportunities for low-income working families, and I'm
pleased that Magnolia may be able to be a small piece of the solution. Magnolia has excellent amenities
and access to transit, downtown, other neighborhoods and excellent schools. Discovery Park is an
extraordinary treasure, and it's exciting to know we'll be able to share it with more families.
The plan that the city has laid out, including the focus on homeless seniors and low-income families, is a
nice fit for existing Magnolia neighborhoods. Fort Lawton is ideally positioned to be part of Seattle's
1,
solution for affordable housing, and everyone will benefit by developing this land for housing. cont,
Thank you and best of luck in your work,

Mary Kay Clunies-Ross
LETTER 187
From: Shelly Cohn
Subject: Fort Lawton listserv

Please add me to the Fort Lawton listserv. 1
Sincerely,
Shelly Cohen 😃
LETTER 188
From: January Colacurcio
Subject: Support for School at Ft. Lawton Site
Hello:
As a Magnolia resident and Seattle Public School parent, I'd like to voice my support for a portion of this
Ft. Lawton land to be dedicated to use by Seattle Public Schools for a school site.
Please keep the following in mind:
-The city and district need to provide educational infrastructure, we need space and Ft. Lawton is a rare
opportunity to provide that.
1
-Any development in the Ft. Lawton area will feed to neighborhood schools which are the most rapidly
growing and are already at capacity with over-capacity projections within a few years.
-I believe it is the responsibility of the City and Seattle Public Schools to work together to find every
opportunity to support educational infrastructure as the city grows
Thank you,
January Colacurcio
Magnolia resident and parent since 2001
LETTER 189
From: Matthew J Colasurdo
Subject: Yes to Affordable Homes at Ft. Lawton
I am writing and asking for your continued efforts in building affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
Affordable housing is desperately needed to meet the housing crisis we are now in and that beautiful 1
area of Fort Lawton can be and should be transformed for this purpose. You have my full appreciating
and support.
Many Thanks,
Matthew J Colasurdo
Building Manager
Eagles Apartments
Bellwether Housing
LETTER 190
From: Amy Colbert
Subject: Ft Lawton Redevopment
Every year St. James Cathedral holds a memorial Mass for the Homeless of the county who have died on
our city streets and in our shelters. This year 127 names were read. I consider this a scandal and a
disgrace that should not be tolerated in a city that boasts the most cranes in the nation.
I am myself a retired widow living in a small bungalow in the Ravenna neighborhood. For the last six
years I have been housing homeless transgender women, and we are presently a family of six. While I
am doing what I can in this housing emergency, it is sadly limited. I feel we as citizens of this fine city 1
have not so much a homeless problem as a hospitality problem.
Therefore I fully endorse the Preferred Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site with its 85 units for
homeless seniors with support services. That may not solve the problem, but it is certainly a step in the
right direction that could reduce the number of names to be read at our annual memorial mass.
Amy Colbert
[email protected]
5531 25th Ave NE
Seattle WA 98105
206-523-6185
LETTER 191
From: Tara Comer
Subject: N/A
I live a block away from Ft. Lawton/Discovery Park and I fully support Alternative 1 in the Ft. Lawton 1
Redevelopment Plan.
Thank you,
Tara Comer
LETTER 192
From: Catherine Conolly
Subject: Fort Lawton EIS
I am a Magnolia resident and support use of this property for low income housing. 1
Catherine Conolly
2580 Magnolia Blvd W
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 193
From: Bob Cook
To City Government,
I strongly support the acquisition of Fort Lawton property for low-income housing. There is a huge
shortage of affordable housing in the city, and it would be unconscionable for the city to turn down this
opportunity.
1
The homeless are some of the most vulnerable members of our community. As a doctor, I know that the
single most important thing that can be done for the health and well-being of these folks is to have
stable housing. Homeless folks should not be denied the chance at a less chaotic life because they are
thought by some to be “undesirable”.
Thank you,
Bob Cook
Seattle Resident
LETTER 194
From: Terry Cook
Hi,
This email is to express my support for the City's preferred plan for Fort Lawton. Actually, after the
meeting last night, I think the city should take advantage of the momentum and add even MORE 1
housing. Now is the time! Pro-housing people are mobilized and will support it.
Not many people spoke last night against the development, but I heard some people near me
complaining about traffic. I do think it's weird that the DEIS didn't look at the impact this development
would have on the 3 ways in/out of Magnolia (bridge, Dravus, Emerson). These intersections do get
backed up, although market-rate housing is what's caused the problem thus far (and will continue to 2
make it worse), so to blame it on this development is a bit weird. Is there any way the city could
evaluate those intersections, and publicize any future plans for improving them?
Thank you for all of your work on this project!

Terry Cook
zip 98199
LETTER 195
From: Terry Cook
Subject: Please develop affordable housing in Ft Lawton
I work downtown. Every day I see people sleeping on the sidewalks and in door fronts. Seattle is a rich
city. We should provide basic needs to our people.
Recently, 20 to 30 new UNafforable housing units were added to the Ft Lawton area in Discovery Park 1
after the city sold the land to developers. Meanwhile, every time there is a proposal for affordable
housing, there is a fight. Where do the city's priorities lie?
Fort Lawton is an unequalled opportunity for the city to build affordable housing on accessible land.
PLEASE develop affordable housing there!
Thank you,
Terry Cook
98199
LETTER 196
From: Valerie Cooper
Valerie Cooper, [email protected] I submit the following comments

:
I support all uses of Fort Lawton that include the inclusion of Seattle Public Schools utilization of a
portion of the land. I DO NOT support selling the land to a private developer as the local educational
infrastructure could in no way support such a development and subsequent increase in children.
While the November 2017 Memorandum if Understanding between the City and SPS is encouraging, the
continued support for the school district to be included in the Fort Lawton redevelopment plans and
maintaining the opportunity to apply for the 6 (or more) acres they have designated at Fort Lawton will
be integral.
-I support a wholistic approach to this redevelopment which includes desperately needed School land -in
order for housing developments to be successful appropriate educational infrastructure must be in
place. I support Seattle Public Schools being included in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton -This
development feeds to neighborhood schools which are the most rapidly growing and are already at 1
Schools to transform this land into a school campus.
-The cost of purchasing land is the number one deterrence to Seattle Public Schools being able to keep
Thank you,
Valerie Cooper
LETTER 197
From: Chris Copley
Subject: YES to affordable homes in Discovery Park
Good morning.
I am writing to encourage the city to proceed with developing affordable housing at Fort Lawton. More
and more people – ordinary people with ordinary incomes – are being pushed out of their apartments as
landlords take advantage of rising incomes in Seattle. This a good business opportunity for landlords, but
it’s a catastrophe for renters making less than the average Seattle income.
It seems to me that Discovery Park is large enough that a mixed-use development of affordable housing
could be built, including on-site services and commercial space (affordable groceries, a community
center, health care, restaurants), without negatively impacting the open parkland and community
feeling in Magnolia.
Forty years ago, I was alarmed about hunger in America. Today I am alarmed about affordable housing
for ordinary Americans.
1
For three years I worked in Magnolia near the Village, and I very much enjoyed the neighborhood. There
was a small-town feel, where people greeted each other in the streets and watched out for each other.
Also, I’ve been to Discovery Park a few times. I’ve walked the park’s paths for miles and miles. The park
is so extensive, I still have not seen all there is to see.
Now I work for Bellwether Housing, and every day I talk with people about their need for affordable
housing. Single moms, retirees on a fixed income, people struggling to get out of homelessness, young
adults with low-paying service-sector jobs – I talk to all sorts of people looking (sometimes desperately)
for a home. Some of them cry as they talk with me, their situation is so acute.
As rents continue to rise in Seattle, the city should take advantage of available land to infill with
affordable apartments so ordinary citizens have a place to call home.
Chris Copley
Property Management Administrative Assistant

bellwether housing
Opportunity. Community. Home.
Office: 206.623.0506 | Fax: 206.623.9404
www.bellwetherhousing.org
LETTER 198
From: Patricia Corbin
Subject: “Public Comment” for Fort Lawton
I just left your meeting, which was well attended by the community and individuals that work for public
agencies. WHAT A JOKE!!!! I left the meeting early after I listened to 12 people (most of whom don’t’ 1
live in and pay taxes) in Magnolia tout their reasons in support of the EIS and plan.
Let me be clear – this writer is NOT in support of this plan for many reasons. All the agency folks see this
as a chance to secure their jobs for the foreseeable future, use VALUABLE public land that will ultimately
be trashed and create even more crime in our neighborhood. The problem in this City isn’t affordable 2
housing – it is transportation! Get that fixed and this problem will start resolving.
I DO NOT come from money. My parents barely lived paycheck to paycheck. But I grew up in Seattle. I
paid my way through college – not financial aid of handouts and have worked hard since I was 17 years 3
old. Yep, I bought a house in Magnolia, raised my kids here and now they are raising their children here.
We are not in favor of your plan.
The public comment tonight was orchestrated to prohibit those with strong negative feelings toward the
plan from speaking out. What we heard tonight is NOT the collective opinions of those in the
neighborhood. I am a real estate agent; I work and live in this neighborhood and I talk to lots of people.
I can assure you this is NOT true public opinion. But we also know how public agencies manipulate
4
these meetings to document that a public meeting was held and public comment was taken. This
community is disgusted by this process.
I would be happy to provide very specific reasons why I am opposed to this plan, but at this point, it
would be a waste of my time as I know it will not be considered or addressed.
Patty Corbin |Broker

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/WALL ST GROUP
[email protected]
M |206-999-6870 O | 206-284-8989
LETTER 199
From: Jill Corrales
Subject: DEIS Fort Lawton comment
I am a resident of Magnolia and I have some comments about the Draft EIS for the Fort Lawton
Redevelopment: Supportive Housing The DEIS states on Page 2-17 that an objective of the proposal is to
provide Approximately 85 units of permanent supportive housing for homeless seniors, including
veterans. When questioned at an EIS scoping meeting, Steve Walker of the Office of Housing stated that 1
the supportive permanent housing would not be limited to seniors or veterans. He stated that the
housing would only "target" seniors as well as veterans of any age. The DEIS fails to accurately describe
the supportive housing. The EIS should clearly identify the population served by the supportive housing.
Flawed Alternatives
housing. The DEIS also states that the Talaris site is provided in order to conceptually analyze probable
could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or 2
decreased level of environmental 3 degradation. The State Environmental Policy Act Handbook states
For public projects, alternative project sites should also be evaluated. An example that is only
conceptual does not meet the definition of an alternative project site and is not a reasonable alternative
as the Talaris site cannot ultimately feasibly be selected. The City has shown no intent to build
affordable housing at Talaris. The City does not own Talaris and has not made an attempt to purchase it.
In fact, the Seattle Times reported on January 19, 2018 that there is an agreement for Quadrant Homes
to purchase the site for market rate homes. Alternatives #2 and #3 are not bonafide, feasible, or
reasonable. The City has misled the public with the Talaris alternatives and has spent substantial
taxpayer funds on a site that they never had any intention of considering. In addition, Alternatives 2 and
3 are not reasonable alternatives as the City did not engage with the Laurelhurst community. The City
did not send out scoping notices, solicit comments, or hold meetings near the Talaris site as they did 3
with the Magnolia community. Without outreach to the neighboring community, there can be no
constructive, realistic analysis of the site and renders the evaluation invalid. The DEIS fails to analyze
reasonable alternatives as required under WAC 197-11-786 and also fails to evaluate an alternative
project site as described in the SEPA handbook. The EIS should identify reasonable alternatives that 4
meet the stated objectives of the project. The DEIS is incomplete without discussion and disclosure of
both the rationale and citations for the use of an unfeasible, conceptual example rather than actual
feasible alternatives that could be selected. Discovery Park The Friends of Discovery Park has issued a
position paper below which I support: The following statement is a consensus opinion by the Board of
Trustees of the Friends of Discovery Park regarding the nearby Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center
(FLARC) parcel, currently undergoing review by the City of Seattle’s Department of Housing. We believe
that the Army Reserve parcel in its entirety, should be incorporated into Discovery Park. To accomplish
this, we urge that all man-made structures at the site be removed and the site be completely reforested 5
with native trees and understory. The 30 acre Army Reserve property is now heavily urbanized, with
many acres of paved surfaces, buildings, and overlapping fences. As such, it is distinctly unfriendly to the
wildlife that live and reproduce in the nearby forests of Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. The property
is uniquely situated between the Kiwanis Ravine and the larger green spaces of Discovery Park. Growing
a forest across this site would create a much needed wildlife corridor between the ship canal, the Ravine
and Discovery Park. We recognize that there are a variety of competing interests for the use of this
property. Suggestions include low income housing, a school and other uses like playgrounds, baseball
fields and tennis courts. If one or some combination of these uses become implemented, we ask that
any man-built environment on the site be appropriately and sensitively incorporated into a forested 5,
canopy, using a mosaic of legally protected indigenous plant communities distributed across the entire cont.
property. In conclusion, we believe the best use of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve property would be full
could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or
decreased level of environmental 3 degradation. The State Environmental Policy Act Handbook states
For public projects, alternative project sites should also be evaluated. An example that is only
conceptual does not meet the definition of an alternative project site and is not a reasonable alternative
as the Talaris site cannot ultimately feasibly be selected. The City has shown no intent to build
affordable housing at Talaris. The City does not own Talaris and has not made an attempt to purchase it.
In fact, the Seattle Times reported on January 19, 2018 that there is an agreement for Quadrant Homes
to purchase the site for market rate homes. Alternatives #2 and #3 are not bonafide, feasible, or
reasonable. The City has misled the public with the Talaris alternatives and has spent substantial 6
taxpayer funds on a site that they never had any intention of considering. In addition, Alternatives 2 and
3 are not reasonable alternatives as the City did not engage with the Laurelhurst community. The City
did not send out scoping notices, solicit comments, or hold meetings near the Talaris site as they did
with the Magnolia community. Without outreach to the neighboring community, there can be no
constructive, realistic analysis of the site and renders the evaluation invalid. The DEIS fails to analyze
reasonable alternatives as required under WAC 197-11-786 and also fails to evaluate an alternative
project site as described in the SEPA handbook. The EIS should identify reasonable alternatives that
meet the stated objectives of the project. The DEIS is incomplete without discussion and disclosure of
both the rationale and citations for the use of an unfeasible, conceptual example rather than actual
feasible alternatives that could be selected.
Discovery Park The Friends of Discovery Park has issued a position paper below which I support: The
following statement is a consensus opinion by the Board of Trustees of the Friends of Discovery Park
the City of Seattle’s Department of Housing. We believe that the Army Reserve parcel in its entirety,
should be incorporated into Discovery Park. To accomplish this, we urge that all man-made structures at
the site be removed and the site be completely reforested with native trees and understory. The 30 acre
Army Reserve property is now heavily urbanized, with many acres of paved surfaces, buildings, and
overlapping fences. As such, it is distinctly unfriendly to the wildlife that live and reproduce in the
nearby forests of Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. The property is uniquely situated between the
Kiwanis Ravine and the larger green spaces of Discovery Park. Growing a forest across this site would
create a much needed wildlife corridor between the ship canal, the Ravine and Discovery Park. We
recognize that there are a variety of competing interests for the use of this property. Suggestions
include low income housing, a school and other uses like playgrounds, baseball fields and tennis courts.
If one or some combination of these uses become implemented, we ask that any man-built environment
on the site be appropriately and sensitively incorporated into a forested canopy, using a mosaic of 6,
legally protected indigenous plant communities distributed across the entire property. In conclusion, we cont.
believe the best use of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve property would be full incorporation into
Discovery Park and management of it according to the Discovery Park Master Plan.
In summary I am against providing low income housing for homeless at Lawton Park or anywhere in
Magnolia.
Thank you,
Jill
Jill Corrales
c: 206-271-8271
[email protected]
LETTER 200
From: David Corry
Subject: Please build Fort Lawton housing!
Hello,
I’m writing in support of building housing on Fort Lawton. Seattle needs to move quickly to support the
thousands of unhoused individuals we have in our city, and this is an incredible opportunity to build
1
public housing and make a step in the right detection.
Option 1 is the best option of those proposed, but I also want to say that we should be trying to make
the best use of that space, and build as many units as possible. 200 is far too few, and I read that ten 2
times as many units could fit on that land. Please increase it!
Thanks,
David Corry
303 Harvard Ave E
Apt 103
Seattle WA 98102
LETTER 201
From: Brad Coulter
Subject: Ft Lawton Comment
I prefer Alternative 3 (Park on-site). 1
Brad Coulter
Brad Coulter
President/Co-Founder
(206) 391-1271
LETTER 202
From: Sara Coulter
Subject: Question: [FORTLAWTON]
Re-sending this question to the correct address, thanks!

Quick question on this – page 26 lists transportation / traffic impacts.
Was this study done before or after the bike lanes were added along Gilman Way? Traffic has been 1
significantly impacted at that intersection (with lots of backups) so would that portion of the study need
to be re-done? http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bike-
program/trails-upgrade-plan/interbay-trail-connections-project
Thanks!
~Sara Coulter
LETTER 203
From: Sara Coulter

Subject: Fort Lawton DEIS Comments
First off, thank you for including SPS in your current discussions and future planning for the Ft Lawton
site.
Here are my comments for the DEIS.
My preference for the site is Alternative 3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing Offsite
(with the inclusion of land/school use for Seattle Public Schools). Six acres is a great start in planning for 1
capacity & a thriving, equitable public school system; however, I would love to see 12-15 acres provided
so an Environmental Learning School could be housed there.
Here are my concerns/additions to the DEIS:

1. Community input supports the Alternative 3 (park only with no housing added). If you have data that
speaks otherwise, please let me know. ALL data I have seen supports a park only option over the city’s
housing plan (with or without a school added). For your reference:
a. Please see the attached two pictures as reference of a poll taken (the poll was started by a
Magnolia Community Council member). 2
b. Here is a link to the poll: https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=74758513.
c. Data from this poll is consistent with the MCC meeting on 1/22/18, where the vast majority of
attendees supported a park-only option (the meeting host asked for a raise of hands and recorded the
numbers on the board).
2. Schools in Magnolia are already over capacity. For you to assess that SPS has space for any
students added with housing at Ft. Lawton is incorrect and not supported by data!!! Please study the
direct, indirect, and cumulative impact of the city’s proposed on school capacities. Magnolia Elementary 3
is set to open at full capacity (with mostly Queen Anne students). McClure Middle School is set to be
OVER capacity within the next 2-3 years.
3. Transportation: please re-study transportation and expand your geographical scope of the
intersections to study. Traffic has significantly increased with the addition of the bike lanes in the last
couple months):
a. A 12/14/17 email to me from Lindsay Masters said this: “The key intersection affected by the
bike lane on Gilman Way (at Emerson Street) is not in our study area, so unless the bike lane has caused 4
traffic to divert to other routes, then it would not have affected our study. They are in the process of
putting it in, so the effects will likely be worse now and then temper with time. If there are still issues
when we start our FEIS process, we could do a new count at the east edge of our study area and
determine if it did have an effect.” Please re-do and expand the traffic study since the bike lanes have
been added.
b. Magnolia has a unique traffic pattern based on the fact it only has 3 exit/entry points… this is
unlike other neighborhoods in Seattle so the scope of your study must change accordingly. Emerson is
now down to one lane (due to the bike lanes added), Dravus has so much new congestion due the new
apartments, and the Magnolia Bridge is expected to be closed for years (bringing Magnolia down to 5
TWO entry/exit points). There are no hospitals in Magnolia…. How is one expected to get to the
Emergency Room when the 3 (going down to 2) Exit points are blocked with traffic?
c. See here for more info on the Magnolia Bridge closure:
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bridges-stairs-and-other-
structures/bridges/magnolia-bridge-planning-study and here
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/BridgeStairsProgram/bridges/MagnoliaBridge
TrafficMaintenance.
6
d. See here for more info on the bike lanes: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-
programs/programs/bike-program/trails-upgrade-plan/interbay-trail-connections-project.
4. Talaris: If the Talaris property is in escrow, it is not a feasible alternative for the city to
purchase. Are you able to take it off the EIS entirely since it is not realistic by any means (this is
extremely confusing for people!)?: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattles- 7
largest-batch-of-single-family-homes-in-decades-is-pitched-for-oasis-site/
5. West Point Treatment Plant: the sewage treatment plant is already over capacity, with 2017’s
failure dumping millions of gallons of sewage into Puget Sound! This is just awful and lets please make
sure it doesn’t happen again. Please study the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact of the proposed 8
housing in relation to the West Point Treatment Plant. Specifically, environmental impacts are of
concern, but please study financial ones as well. See here: http://mynorthwest.com/696062/west-
point-treatment-plant-study-july-2017/
6. Public Safety: many of the neighborhood meetings have brought up safety concerns. These
have not been addressed by your office. Please study the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact of the
proposed housing and the potentials for increased crime, mental health issues, etc? How are these
issues going to be supported when the proposed site is next to a 500+ acre park? How will the park be
policed?
(Currently, it is VERY HARD to report safety issues and illegal encampments because there limited roads 9
(no location markers). The beauty of the park is that it is hundreds of acres of natural land. This makes
it impossible to police. How will adding formerly homeless/low income housing along the park’s
boarder be dealt with??? Neighbors have brought up the examples of Highpoint (increased gang
activity, robberies and assault) and Magnuson Park (a woman was shot and killed by SPD because she
would not drop two knives). Is there a model that exists in the U.S.A. (or entire world) where
homeless/low income housing has been put next to a 500+ acre park?
7. Please explain why the city has not gone to bid for new partners this time around (you are using 10
the same ones from 2005-2008).
8. As the density of Seattle increases, parks and green space become MORE important. There are
more and more people living in small spaces without yards… they need access to public parks and green
space for their happiness, health & well-being. If the city values green space for all of its inhabitants
(especially children) let’s increase those spaces whenever possible & let’s keep them safe for ALL to 11
enjoy. Discovery Park is a regional park meant to be used by people living in and visiting a vast
geographical area… let’s do our best to protect it! Please study the direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts of Alternative 3 by providing the maximum amount of parkland for all to enjoy.
9. Can you please clarify who is eligible to live in the housing for formerly homeless people? Is it
only for seniors and veterans? Will they be screened for criminal history? Who enforces the conduct at 12
the housing units? There is much confusion surrounding this!!!
10. This is an area rich with history, including the Ft Lawton Cemetery that borders the Fort Lawton
Land in question. Please study the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact of the proposed housing with
respect to the historic cemetery it borders. The cemetery receives respectful care and maintenance.
13
Families come to visit loved ones and honor our veterans. On the edge of the cemetery is the Olivotto
grave marked with a broken column representing a life broken in half. Nearby rests the German POW
Alfred Marquardt.
Thanks for your time!
Sincerely,
Sara Coulter
206-335-2576
LETTER 204
From: Gene Counts
Subject: Citizen Comments on Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Draft EIS
Dear Ms. Lindsay Masters and Whom Else It May Concern:

In my opinion, the proposed development does not take into consideration the impact it will have on
our neighborhood, and has not been addressed in the draft EIS. Particularly the ingress/egress from our
neighborhood bounded by Government Way to the south and 36th Avenue West on the north, consists
of approximately 150 single-family residences is exclusively via 36th Avenue West. Adding 238 new 1
residences will more than double the size of our community, and more than double traffic and other
infrastructure burdens. No provision is made in the EIS for preserving, let alone mitigating this huge
increase in population.
Also in my opinion, any redevelopment should strive to preserve the physical barrier (the existing berm
and security fencing) that protects our sub-neighborhood on its west side. All traffic to and from the 2
Reserve Center Property should remain on West Texas Way, and not accessed via 36th Avenue West.
Also the EIS does not address the negative impacts of other new and planned City and developers'
projects. The recent bike lane expansion has already seriously disrupted vehicular traffic onto and off of
Magnolia, and as the huge new multi-unit apartment buildings near Dravus come on line, not to
mention the all the properties along Government way that are being developed into multui-family units
the impacts will only grow more insufferable. The routine development pattern here in our 3
neighborhood is razing existing single-family residences and replacing them with two or more much
larger homes. The neighborhood is already growing faster than the rare infrastructure improvements
can accommodate. And now you seriously think the neighborhood and its services can support more
than doubling our neighborhood?.
So I strongly object to this housing proposal
Gene Counts
4511 35th Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 205
From: Lilian Coutts
Subject: Fort Lawton Land Use
Hello Office of Housing,
As a resident of Seattle, I strongly believe that the unused former army plot of land at Fort Lawton
should be used for affordable housing.
I am deeply disturbed and saddened by the growing rates of homelessness in Seattle, especially
considering how high rent has become in the last few years. I think that the city needs to create more 1
affordable housing for low income residents.
Thank you for all the hard work that you do.
Best,
Lilian Coutts
LETTER 206
From: Debra Covert-Bowlds
Subject: Fort Lawton plan
Dear Mayor Durkan and City Planners,

I like the plan to develop Fort Lawton for reasons laid out. We need to diversify our neighborhoods, and 1
offer more low income and affordable housing throughout our city. Part of this specific plan must
include an expanded public transport system as I experience Magnolia to be one of the most difficult
2
places to get to in the City, as well as nightmarishly congested during peak times.
I am disturbed by efforts of certain communities, i.e., the wealthier ones, who are actively opposing
mixed housing plans, particularly plans to produce more low income housing. We citizens cannot be
NIMBYs, perhaps subconsciously due to prejudices rooted in racism and classism. One of my favorite
people in my neighborhood is our Real Change Vendor, Avery, who is fondly referred to as the Mayor of
3
Greenwood. I want him to have opportunities to live anywhere he chooses in this out-of-control over-
priced city.
Sincerely yours,
Debra Covert-Bowlds
523 North 84th Street
Seattle, WA 98103
[email protected]
LETTER 207
From: Kristy Crabtree
Subject: Fort Lawton Comment
Hello,
I am a Magnolia resident. I live on 23rd off Dravus and I want to express my support for the preferred
alternative. In the five years I’ve lived here I’ve only seen prices skyrocket. I myself, a 10 yr career
professional in information management, could only afford my house after I converted it to have unit
below to rent out.
This city needs more affordable housing.
My partner is a vet that served at Fort Lawton, so I know the space and the potential there. I would 1
advocate for even more housing than proposed.
I can also speak to the need for housing as a landlord. I rent out a modest one bedroom unit, and was
shocked after I put one ad on Craigslist that I got over 100 applications! People were desperate to find
something. There is a need for affordable housing in this city, please create a legacy for Seattle and
uphold our reputation as a city that cares and takes care of our own. Housing is a human right.
Kristy Crabtree
2853 23rd Ave W, Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 208
From: Pat Craft
Subject: Lawton/Discovery Park
To Whom It may concern
I am against development of housing in Fort Lawton, Return the area to Expand Discovery Park!
After reviewing the Seattle documents proposing development, and attending the city sponsored
meetings I am now against the City proposal for housing.
To illustrate my point, there was No reason to hold that recent meeting in Magnolia the other night. It
was a total Farce as a neighborhood focused meeting. But it was a brilliant display of democracy. Which
means, to have your voice heard, use it. And I’m using my voice now.
To Recap, that supposed Community meeting, in reality went down this way. Several Social Services
Organizations coordinated their efforts. They brilliantly arrived early, and in large numbers, and
strategically signed up for nearly all of the time slots for Public comments. And they expressed their
passions, and concerns, and perspectives directly to the City Officials in attendance. And they hoped to 1
make an impact.
In fact, Sally Bagshaw went to her very next Council Conference and told members she now believed
1000 units was an even better idea.
That evening Magnolians were strategically shut out of the Public Comments, save for a few who could
wait three hours. They were sorely under represented. Magnolians are the most intimate neighbors to
this proposal and their knowledge of Magnolia deserves a critical and supportive review.
And unfortunately, many remarks at the City meetings also included directly disparaging the residents of
Magnolia. And when that is recorded at the meeting, by the City stenographer for the Public record,
there is no rebuttal, nor spot fact checking, nor context. Public comments are simply duly noted, and 2
then marked as pro or con to building the development. For instance, the City officials sat silently and
allowed the Public to repeatedly refer to it as Free land. And several individuals demanded, “the City
must take advantage of this “Free land.” In fact, only a small portion might be construed as free.
It is disingenuous to pit Magnolians interest in supporting social services against the City efforts to
steam role a poorly planned housing idea. No mater how many years have been fixated on it. Good Real
Estate investments are based on Location, location, and location. And taking an isolated section of an 3
amazing City asset for a wistful idea is irresponsible. There can be No logical, nor empirical, nor
anecdotal comparisons made between investing in Yesler Terrace and the back side of Discovery Park.
Geographically, Magnolia is surrounded by water on three sides, and it sits away from any major flow of
city commerce or services. Magnolia has only three roadways out, and all three involve compromised 4
bridges. Magnolia has limited City support in transit, police, fire, and social services and endures over
capacity schools. As demonstrated by going online, and examining what the City refers to as “Heat
Maps” for City investment/Budget wide, for both current and future spending and you will see that 5
Magnolia has long been left out of all of these discussions. This particular level of City investing should 5,
demand far better locations. cont.
Magnolia, Queen Anne and Interbay need schools. And at the same time, the City could expand the
incredibly unique Discovery Park.
Years of chasing a bad idea in life, does not make it a good idea. 6
I say, do not develop “Affordable Housing” here, Expand Discovery Park.
Sincerely,
- Pat Craft
LETTER 209
From: Don Crevie
Lindsay Masters,
I am writing to urge the City of Seattle to adopt an plan for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more
housing. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income households are being pushed
out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers.
parking, passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes. 1
Although I live on Capitol Hill and not Magnolia, Capitol Hill has been expected to deal with an undue
portion of Seattle's homeless population because too many neighborhoods north of the ship canal
refuse to accept any responsibility in solving this crisis. This is a city-wide crisis ans it should include city-
wide solutions. Thank you.
Don Crevie
[email protected]
704 E Thomas St Apt 107
LETTER 210
From: Kate Criss
Subject: Public Comment - Fort Lawton Housing
To the Office of Housing,

I am a 6-year resident of Magnolia with two children, one of whom attends Lawton Elementary and the
other Kaleidoscope School in Magnolia. I live within walking distance to Discovery Park and the Fort
Lawton site. I wholeheartedly support the installation of any affordable and homeless housing and 1
services at Fort Lawton. Affordable and homeless housing is desperately needed in Seattle and I will
embrace any new neighbors who come to live in Magnolia.
Sincerely,
Kate Criss
--
Kate Elizabeth Criss
LETTER 211
From: Nina Crocker
Subject: Yes Fort Lawton Housing
Please proceed with the proposed project and boldly expand your vision to introduce new proposed
projects all over the city to put in the pipeline to further address the growing crisis I have visited the
Greenbridge King County housing community and feel that it represents the very best of what a mixed 1
income housing development ought to be. There is retail, a school, library, community center and
beautiful open space with parks and playgrounds.
Please do all of this and more!
Nina Crocker
LETTER 212
From: Sarah Croft
Subject: Comments on Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project
My name is Sarah Croft and I live in Magnolia. I have read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project, and I would like to express my support 1
for Alternative 3.
I strongly support the construction of affordable housing in Seattle, but I believe the Talaris site is a 2
better location for it due to the accessibility to transportation as well as schools. I'm concerned that with
Alternative 1 or 2 that the squeeze on the school district will be significant, and that it puts students at a 3
disadvantage to be living so far away from their schools. Low income folks too will need to commute
from further away and have less access to regular public transportation. Magnolia already has
transportation issues due to its location, and I dislike putting low-income people at further 4
disadvantage. I appreciated the attention to both these issues in the Impact Statement.
If another alternative had to be voted for, I favor alternative 1 over 2 or 4, but still have the same 5
concerns.
Thank you for your consideration, and good luck with your project.
Sarah Croft
3229 35th Ave W
LETTER 213
From: Laura Crotty
Subject: Fort Lawton Housing Development
Please reconsider the prospect of develop affordable housing in Fort Lawton.

1
Magnolia simply does not have the public transportation, services or amenities to support this type of
development.
Fort Lawton is a valued preserved natural habitat that is enjoyed by communities that reach far beyond 2
Magnolia’s borders.
There are other areas that are better suited for the further development of affordable housing including
Seattle’s downtown area.
These areas not only provide government services, transportation & jobs to support the development of 3
a housing community, but avoid destroying Fort Lawton, one of Seattle’s essential green spaces that
make our city so unique and special.
Sincerely,
Laura Crotty
LETTER 214
From: Lynne M Crowder
Subject: N/A
Please add Fort lawton to Discovery Park. I've lived here for 25 years and I have always considered the 1
fort to be part of the beauty in DP.
Thank you,
Lynne M Crowder
LETTER 215
From: Jessie Culbert
Subject: Please Support Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
My husband is a carpenter and I'm a real estate agent, and we know that it's too late for us, as a middle-
class working family, to buy a home in Seattle. However, it's not too late to help people with lower
incomes and less means with a bold plan like the one proposed for Fort Lawton.
1
Thank you.
Jessie
Jessie Culbert
[email protected]
LETTER 216
From: Aleksandra Culver
Hi,
I am writing, as a Seattle resident and homeowner, to express my strong support for using the Fort
Lawton site for affordable housing and supportive housing for people who are currently homeless.
Seattle is one of the US's wealthiest cities. While some of us get to walk around in tropical biosphere
gardens, others sleep in doorways, or spend so much on rent that they can barely afford food. SHA's
waiting list is so long that some people die before they get housing. We have a moral obligation to do
everything in our power to improve this situation. 1
The only way to house more people is to build more homes. Sites like Fort Lawton, that can be
intensively developed without displacing any existing residents, are a rare gift, and we must make the
most of it. Every unit of affordable housing we build here is a person who does not need to move to
Federal Way to afford the rent, even though they commute to Seattle for a minimum-wage job. Every
unit of supportive housing we build is a person who no longer has to be homeless.
Sincerely,
Aleksandra
LETTER 217
From: Spike Curtis
My name is Spike Curtis, and I attended the public hearing earlier this evening on the Fort Lawton
development plan DEIS.
I'm writing to express support for developing the site, and to encourage the Office of Housing to
consider increasing the number of affordable housing units on the site. 34 acres so close to the rich
economic and educational opportunities of Seattle's center is a rare gem. Obtaining a similar amount of
land with similar opportunities with a small plot here and there would take an incredible amount of time
and money. Without even upping the zoning density, many more units could be placed on site.
With Discovery Park literally next door there isn't a high priority need for additional park land in the
area. 1
Infrastructure challenges like transportation are within our means to tackle, especially if we prioritize
public transportation and bicycles.
Seattle is in the midst of a housing shortage, and we need to work all fronts to surmount it. It's
especially important to work from the bottom of the income distribution, where the effects of the
housing crisis are most deeply felt. The preferences of people at the high end of the distribution should
take a back seat to the very real need for stable shelter as the foundation for people to live and
contribute to our community.
Thanks for your consideration.

Spike
LETTER 218
From: Warren Cutlip
Greetings!
I would like to express that the city needs to utilize every asset available to solve the housing and
homelessness crisis including renovating Fort Lawton. We can’t let NIMBY naysayers dictate what is best 1
for the entire city and the greater area. Keeping desperate and vulnerable persons off the streets will
make families safer and reduce crime.
Thank you for your time and consideration,

Warren Cutlip.
LETTER 219
From: Tiare D
Subject: Please build housing on Fort Lawton!
Seattle needs all the housing we can get, before we become San Francisco. 1
Tiare Dickinson in city council Dist 7
LETTER 220
From: Seattle D
Subject: Ft Lawton aka the future Jungle.
I'm all for helping the less fortunate and meeting them where they are but there isn't enough oversight
+ foresight being put into this plan. Giving away the remaining untouched land in Seattle, destroying
hiking and green areas, and not taking into consideration our surrounding communities safety and well-
1
being is NOT a good idea. Providing housing in this location is asking for another LITERAL jungle situation
as well as statically increased crime rate... and with the current policing status of magnolia: the closest
precinct being west (that already covers ALL of downtown and having one detective IN THAT PRECINCT
(YES I SAID ONE DETECTIVE) on top of very few patrols that cover magnolia already because of an
understaffed and over worked police dept. Increased property crime and potentially predatory crimes to
2
hikers, joggers, men, women and children in this area would be a very serious risk. Not from the low
income families and vets that will be incoming and want to better themselves but the transient
population that will follow. Building homes isn't solving any problems INCREASE THE BUGET FOR
3
MENTAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE and find a different location (try sodo) and build apartment homes that
can fulfill the same needs.
- Magnolia Resident
LETTER 221
From: Matt Dalessio
Adding my voice to the pile in enthusiastic support of affordable housing! We must help our
neighbors,not abandon them and stick our heads in the sand. We cannot let this beautiful city keep 1
heading down the path to becoming a gated community for the wealthy.
Proud Seattle resident,

-Matt Dalessio
LETTER 222
From: Greg Dandeles
Subject: Don't Give Away Our City's Treasure for a 0.5% Solution to the Homeless Problem!
The current proposal to house the homeless in a park that is the jewel of the city and at least 5 miles
from the nearest services or affordable retail is an incredibly short-sighted example of political 1
expedience that does not solve the problem it claims to address, but rather, introduces dozens of new
problems that would plague Magnolia, Discover Park, and those housed in the proposed site for
decades.
This is, at best a “Band-Aid” approach to a very real problem in Seattle. It doesn’t solve homelessness or
the housing crises, but it will look like something is being done to appease voters. This proposal would
house 0.5% of King county’s homeless population, but cost us an incredible treasure. Discovery Park is a
unique urban park in the United States in part because of its remoteness. Of all the places in the city,
why on earth would we house the homeless in this beautiful and virgin place that Seattleites travel to
get away from the problems of urban Seattle? The answer is, again, one of political expedience.
Politicians can take land that costs them nothing and use it to claim they solved homelessness. The land
may not have an immediate financial cost, but we would literally be giving away part of Seattle’s most 2
beautiful and important cultural sites. Introducing former homeless residents to an area without
services, no lighting, no clinics, no hospitals, just open, green spaces would destroy that open space
without providing reasonable housing for the homeless! We are going to spoil Discovery Park for a 0.5%
solution to a problem? A Band-Aid approach to fix a social problem only to look good on a resume is not
going to serve future generations. Let’s protect the jewel of the city. It is dear, it is precious, and once
given away, it’s gone! If we truly want to help the homeless, let’s spend the money to come up with an
actual proposal that has an impact! The proposed Fort Lawton redevelopment plan is a political stunt
that creates more problems than it solves!
Concerned Magnolia Resident
LETTER 223
From: Gregory M. Dandeles
Subject: No to Intentionally Housing the Homeless in Discovery Park rather than near Services
I am completely understanding of the incredible housing challenges facing Seattle, and think
government funded affordable housing is absolutely the answer! The idea that we should house the
homeless in Discovery Park, however, seems like a half measure that would create a number of
1
unintended consequences without making even the smallest of dents in the the homeless population of
Seattle. The arguments that these services would be provided to veterans, families, and the elderly is
also a bit manipulative. I myself am a veteran who served for 12 years in the US Air Force. I have been
on multiple deployments and am considered 60% disabled by the VA. I also used a VA loan to purchase a
house near Discovery Park, which I love for its peacefulness, for it’s natural setting, and for the feeling of
safety and serenity you have there even in the evening hours.
Discovery Park is not like New York’s Central Park and any other large urban park, which are generally
beautiful by day but frightening and dangerous at night. Discovery Park is removed enough from the city 1,
to feel like it is a world away. The idea of building a homeless shelter inside such a park seem so cont.
ludicrously out of touch with the spirit of the park or the problems that face so many other urban parks
in this country that I wouldn’t believe it were possible.. that is if the land were not being given to the city
by federal government. This is a low cost, painless way for the city government to look like it is fixing an
out of control problem. The fact is, however, that this shelter would only house 200 of the 10,000
homeless currently living in King County. The idea that this plan would would radically change the nature
and feel of Discovery Park to make a 2% dent in the Seattle homeless population must give the city
pause. Living two blocks away from this proposed site, I cannot understand how this would be place that
would even make sense for a homeless shelter. This neighborhood is extremely suburban without
services. It has a low walk score and is not surrounded by any retail, businesses, clinics, or job
opportunities. 2
If you want to help with the homeless, devote the resources to a plan that makes sense. To enact such a
contentious and ineffective plan simply because the land is free is exactly the kind of action that betrays
the trust of residents. We want solutions not politically expedient PR stunts that cause more unintended
consequences than intended ones.
Sincerely,
Gregory M. Dandeles
3208 W. Fort St
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 224
From: channing daniel
Subject: Support for low-income housing at Fort Lawton
I'm writing to contribute my comments supporting low-income housing, and lots of it, at Fort Lawton.
The fact that this is even controversial, given the level of homelessness Seattle is currently experiencing,
is emblematic of the nation's current struggle with privilege and prejudice and racism.
Seattle's mayor even declared a formal state of emergency in this area. There is definite, unusual,
1
elevated, unprecedented need. People are being gentrified out of their homes.
My understanding of the Fort Lawton situation is that the federal government has been attempting to
gift this property to the City of Seattle for years, with the catch that we have to use it for low-income
housing.
So we have definite need, and one definite solution (of many needed), that is perfect, especially timing-
wise.
I understand that this will change the character of the neighborhood. Yes, and some will experience loss
and they should and will grieve their loss. However, neighborhoods change, for many reasons, and my
personal emotions about my personal loss shouldn't drive policy about whether or not we torture
people experiencing homelessness by not only keeping them homeless, but insisting that they are now
forever so tainted by it that they cannot be good neighbors.
The insistence on keeping "low income people" out of prosperous neighborhoods is making the situation
worse every day. 1,
cont.
Seattle has stepped up as a moral leader to the nation, embracing our immigrants and hopefully making
some headway on our racist roots. Please use the decision in front of you as an opportunity to deliver
on the promise of a sanctuary city, or progressive values: People matter more than property.
Thank you for accepting public comments. Many of us are watching this decision carefully. My best to
you during this stressful time. I imagine reading all these comments can be draining, especially given the
level of vitriol I'm sure you encounter.
Thank you for all you do,

channing daniel
[email protected]
403 23rd Ave E, 98112
LETTER 225
From: Shannon Danielson
NO TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
YES TO PUBLIC SCHOOL 1
Thank you
LETTER 226
From: Emily Darling
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Project
Office of Housing,
Please count my voice in support for the Fort Lawton Redevelopment project. This city needs a variety of
mid to low-income housing and supportive housing with services in every neighborhood. Housing is a 1
human right.
Thanks,
Emily
Emily Darling
[email protected]
LETTER 227
From: Jean Darsie
Subject: It is time for action - I support building affordable housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
In my opinion, the option must be the one that includes dramatically more housing at Fort Lawton. This
opportunity must not be lost as it will not come again.
Be bold, have courage.
Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income households are being pushed out of the
1
city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers.
The City should be considering bold steps to create more affordable housing. Instead, the City's
Preferred Alternative devotes the large majority of the land to recreation and surface parking, passing
up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes.
Surplus public land should be used to serve the needs of the people of Seattle. And THERE'S NO
GREATER NEED THAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Please study an option that makes full use of Fort Lawton
for housing.
Thank you.
Jean Darsie
LETTER 228
From: Patricia David
Subject: Affordable housing
I am in favor of building affordable housing units as proposed in Magnolia. It simply is the right and just
thing to do to provide housing for the thousands of homeless and families who are struggling paycheck 1
to paycheck because of the exorbitant cost of rent in Seattle.
Patricia David
LETTER 229
From: Cody Davis
Subject: Opposition to housing at Ft Lawton
Hello,
I am staunchly against any housing at FT Lawton. The infrastructure simply cannot support it. In our area
there are not enough schools, buses, affordable grocery stores, entrances in/out of our neighborhood 1
etc. This is a terrible idea and should be stopped.
Thank you,
Cody
LETTER 230
From: Jim Davis
Subject: Support for Option 1 of Ft Lawton Development Options - Build Affordable Housing
I attended the Ft Lawton Affordable Housing public meeting on Tuesday, January 9. I live in Magnolia
1
and have lived here for numerous years. I support Option 1. I do not support Options that kick the can
down the road to a theoretical Talerus site. I believe we should eventually build affordable housing at
the Talerus site also. Thank you for presenting the information at the public meeting. 2
Jim Davis
Magnolia Resident
LETTER 231
From: Johnathan Davis
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Comments
Hi There,
I think the Fort Lawton redevelopment is a critical part of making Seattle affordable for everyone!
Magnolia and every other traditionally single family Seattle neighborhood needs to start taking on new
1
density to drive down prices. Thank you for fighting to make this a reality!
Johnathon Davis
LETTER 232
From: Maddie Davis
Subject: Please build affordable housing at Fort Lawton
I am a Seattle resident and frequent visitor of Discovery Park and the Fort Lawton area. I am just writing
to say I strongly support the City's plan to build affordable housing for low income families, seniors, and 1
the homeless in that area. This seems like a wonderful way to start tackling Seattle's housing crisis!
Thanks!
Maddie
Maddie Davis
Email | LinkedIn | 360.991.4620
LETTER 233
From: Annette de Soto
Subject: Public comment on Fort Lawton, please add it to Discovery Park, no development
Hello,
I write today to support the addition of Fort Lawton to Discovery Park and to oppose any development
for housing, schools, etc.
Discovery Park is a rare gem that Seattlites from all over the city can enjoy. It is a place of refuge for
animals and humans alike. Bringing in housing or additional development that would add traffic and
noise to the park would negatively affect the park and the environment.
Our society already suffers from a nature deficit, too few families get to experience anything close to the
wild. Discovery Park is a place where people can escape the noise and traffic of the city and even get an
experience of wildlife. Developing the property adjacent to critical habitats would risk losing those
precious environments.
This is a rare opportunity to add to rather than detract from a beautiful piece of our planet. Please
consider future generations and expand rather than harm what little wilderness is left in our city. 1
I have served as an Executive Director for Human Services and Educational organizations so I am well
aware of the needs for services for individuals struggling with homelessness, poverty, and the
overcrowding in schools.
However, I also volunteer hundreds of hours leading public programming at Discovery Park. The
families and visitors who join my nighttime hikes or owl walks come from all over our city and region.
They come from a wide variety of countries of origin and economic backgrounds. But they all share an
awe for the beauty of the park and especially the feeling of wilderness it provides. Increasing noise,
especially at night would harm this habitat and change the character of this special place. Please follow
the lead of those who had the bravery and foresight to preserve rather than develop Discovery Park and
add Fort Lawton to the park. There are other places we can build schools and housing but there is not
another park like Discovery.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter,

Annette de Soto
LETTER 234
From: Cheryl DeBoise
Subject: Yes to affordable housing at Fort Lawton
Hello,
Thank you,
Cheryl DeBoise
LETTER 235
From: Jacque Decker
Subject: Comments on the Fort Lawton Proposal
I strongly support designating the Fort Lawton land as part of Discovery Park. The current park is one of
our city's treasures and on many days that large park is crowded with no parking spots available and
Seattlites enjoying every square inch. An expansion to include the Fort Lawton land would be an
1
investment in the future growth of the city, ensuring there are green spaces for years to come.
Furthermore, Magnolia is already growing in density at a rate it can't support. Our schools are severely
over-crowded. Did you know that Blaine has lost half of its playground to portable classrooms? Lawton 2
has had to split classes and is also out of space. If and when Magnolia Elementary opens, it will be open
at or over capacity!
Additionally, there are only three ways in and out of the island of Magnolia and both experience 3
considerable backups.
If the comment period is merely a formality and the housing is already in the works (as suspected by
many Magnolia residents), then please, Please, PLEASE do the following prior to the housing
development: 1) Add another bridge in and out of Magnolia. A bridge over the ship canal to Ballard or
across the train tracks near the armory would allow residents access to hospitals, jobs, and amenities
such as shopping that Magnolia lacks due to its size. 2) Support placing the light rail along 20th Ave W 4
and under the ship canal bridge instead of 15th Ave W. This would also allow Magnolia residents access
out of Magnolia. 3) Work with the Seattle School District to add schools to the Magnolia cluster. We
need our own dedicated middle school and high school to support our large population of children.
Thank you,
Jacque Decker
LETTER 236
From: Stephen E DeForest
Subject: FW: Draft EIS Fort Lawton Army Reserve
The following comments are submitted to help the City improve the completeness, accuracy, and
objectivity of the analysis of the draft EIS for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Development.
I urge the City to substantially increase the number of housing units in Alternative 1. There is far too
little affordable and supportive housing in our City. Real estate prices continue to climb, and available 1
land becomes scarcer each month. The result is that middle and low wage earners (teachers, police and
fire employees, day laborers, etc.) are being forced to relocate to the suburbs and beyond. The number
of homeless in encampments and on the streets continues to grow, notwithstanding that a
homelessness crisis was declared two years ago. And this Army Reserve property is free to the City.
When the City negotiated the purchase of the Capehart housing property in Discovery Park from the
Navy, it made a commitment to replace that housing with affordable housing at FLARC. The relevant
language in Ordinance 122502 includes “the City is committed to providing at least one-for-one
replacement of the Navy’s personnel housing”, and “the City is working to obtain the former Fort
Lawton Army Reserve for use including the development of housing incorporating low and moderate 2
income housing in excess of the 66 units at Capehart.”
If Alternative 2 (Market Rate Housing Onsite: Affordable and Homeless Housing Offsite), Alternative 3
(Public Park Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing Offsite Development), or Alternative 4 (No
Action), such action would clearly violate Ordinance 122502.
At the public meeting on January 9, 2018 at the Magnolia United Church of Christ, a significant number
spoke in favor of increasing the number of housing units at least 5 times the number that is described in
Alternative 1, and pointed out that a much larger number could be built under present zoning laws. This
is an opportunity for the City of Seattle that should not be squandered! Also, a larger population of 3
residents could encourage an expansion of the stores currently adjacent to the east entrance to
Discovery Park that offer needed services.
I have lived in Magnolia for more than 30 years, and I am a frequent user of Discovery Park.
This email contains information that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the employee or agent authorized to receive for the intended recipient, you may not copy,
disclose or use any contents in this email. If you have received this email in error, please immediately
notify the sender at Fox Rothschild LLP by replying to this email and delete the original and reply emails.
Thank you.
LETTER 237
From: Asphodel Denning
Subject: Asphodel Denning says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

region.
• The project plan and the DEIS should include an alternative with much higher density,
comparable to the density of other affordable housing projects in the city. Ideally the increased 2
density should apply to all types of housing on the site, including the affordable ownership
housing (Habitat for Humanity).
• For each alternative, the DEIS needs to consider and compare, over the lifetime of the buildings,
the GHG contribution of people living in a dense, transit-rich urban environment, compared to 3
the long single-car commutes and high-carbon lifestyle if working people are pushed outside the
city -- the“Auburn” alternative discussed in the hearing on January 9th.
• For the affordable ownership housing (Habitat for Humanity), the Habitat deed restriction
should ensure that the housing remain as affordable housing even if re-sold, and that there is
the opportunity for redevelopment at increased density while retaining housing ownership for
4
the Habitat owners.
• If the site is ultimately developed at the very low density of 238 units on 7.3 acres, building
plans should as much as possible allow for additional buildings or increased height to be 5
accommodated on the site in the future.
Sincerely yours,
Asphodel Denning
LETTER 238
From: Monica Depiesse
Subject: Low income housing at Fort Lawton
Hello.
shortage of affordable housing in this city, which is expanding our homeless population, and the idea
that the city might turn down free land ear-marked for that purpose is perposterous. 1
Thank you.
LETTER 239
From: Rebecca Deutsch
Subject: Rebecca Deutsch says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

For just two or three more years, we have the chance to avoid making the world a strikingly harder 1
region.
In this context, we believe that the DEIS and the project plan needs to consider the following: • The
project plan and the DEIS should include an alternative with much higher density, comparable to the 2
density of other affordable housing projects in the city. Ideally the increased density should apply to all
types of housing on the site, including the affordable ownership housing (Habitat for Humanity).
3
6
Sincerely yours,
Rebecca Deutsch
LETTER 240
From: Rebecca Deutsch
Lindsay Masters,
In cities, there's no more important climate issue than affordable housing: pushing people out of the city
means more people driving instead of taking transit, biking, or walking. People in dense urban
neighborhoods have half the carbon footprint of the average person, while people in suburbs have
double.
1
Thank you.
Rebecca Deutsch
[email protected]
722 12th Ave E
LETTER 241
From: Rahul Dhar
Subject: Ft Lawton
Hello,
I am mailing to let you know that I am supportive of the Ft Lawton project. With the massive growth in
the city and its decreasing affordability (now 6th most expensive, per KIRO7), more affordable and low 1
income housing is desperately needed. The Ft Lawton project will not solve the problem, but it will take
a needed step.
Sincerely,
-Rahul
Capitol Hill
LETTER 242
From: Matteo Di Giulio
Subject: Seattle Housing Crisis
I would like to see 2000 units on this property. I support option 1. 1
Sincerely,
Matteo Di Giulio
Seattle Resident
LETTER 243
From: Joshua Diaz
Subject: Fort Lawton project
Hello, folks reviewing the public comment emails for the Fort Lawton project!
My name is Josh Diaz. My wife, young child, and I live in Seattle -- the south side now, but we've been in
a few different places since landing here a few years back. We love it. One of the things that we love is
that Seattle had -- for a short while after we arrived -- housing that was affordable, accessible, and full of 1
beautiful neighborhoods with history, character, and a strength of community that felt like home. Even
in the short time since we arrived, housing like that has become harder and harder for our friends, our
coworkers, and our neighbors. Please, please -- go ahead with the Fort Lawton project. Make it bigger! 2
Do more of it!
As someone lucky enough to have recently purchased his first home, I am grateful that I was able to
afford something that was mine, that was decent, that was in a place I was excited to be a part of. But
seeing empty homes sitting with half a million dollar price tags, rents for luxury condos climbing, and
neighbors and coworkers feeling pressured to leave to the suburbs or other cities makes my heart ache.
We can do better. It's the right thing to do. People first. 3
Please, please, please: proceed with Fort Lawton, and find as many ways to build affordable housing,
public housing, cooperative housing, you name it. Property values will find a way to increase but nobody
came here to live in a gilded tower.
Joshua Diaz & the Diaz Family

LETTER 244
From: Catherine Dichter
Please make affordable/low income housing at Fort Lawton. 1
Catherine Dichter
Seattle voter
Ballard resident
LETTER 245
From: Barbara Dingfield
To: Office of Housing
From: Barbara Dingfield, 3201 Magnolia Blvd W, Seattle 98199
I have been a resident and homeowner in Magnolia for 10 years. I have been a resident of Seattle since
1972. Having worked both in the real estate industry, as a planning professional for the City of Seattle
and as a board member of numerous local nonprofit organizations , I am acutely aware of challenges for
Seattle residents to secure affordable housing.
I am therefore supportive of the City pursing the Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Park alternative 1
for Fort Lawton. It is a unique opportunity to have the ability to develop a significant amount of public
land for housing. While I love Discovery Park and the natural, park environment it offers, the current
size of the park is fully adequate, in my opinion, for public enjoyment. The ability to develop new
housing for people of low and moderate income within the City is imperative if we are to continue as a
City which enables people of all incomes to live here
LETTER 246
From: Lydia Dobrovolny
Subject: FORT LAWTON ARMY RESERVE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT DEIS
In the Fort Lawton project, the city has a unique option to expand wonderful Discovery Park. Please
don't squander this opportunity. Option 3 allows for the highest value and best use of this land by 1
preserving greenspace for all current and future residents of our city.
LETTER 247
From: Suzanne Dolberg
Subject: I support the use of Ft Lawton for low-income housing
To whom it concerns:
As noted in the subject line, I strongly support the use of the Fort Lawton property for low-income
housing. The idea that the city might turn down free land ear-marked for low-income housing is absurd
to me, particularly when people are dying in the streets. 1
Do the right thing and accept this gift and turn it into affordable housing.
Thanks,
Suzanne Dolberg
LETTER 248
From: Mackenzie Dolstad
Subject: Public Comment: Fort Lawton
TO Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to voice my support for the City of Seattle’s proposal to develop the former Fort Lawton site
into affordable housing. I enjoy Discovery Park, and also recognize that our city, and many residents
therein, are facing a crisis of affordability. We should be taking every opportunity available to create
housing (without compromising our parks and natural areas, themselves important in ensuring equity
and quality of life for all residents), especially when those opportunities also correspond with the other
amenities that the city has to offer – our parks are a treasure, and affordable housing near one of our 1
most iconic will provide a living experience that doesn’t castigate housing-challenged individuals and
families as second class citizens.
I strongly encourage the City to pursue the development of the site as affordable housing.
Thank you,
Mackenzie Dolstad
West Seattle Homeowner
LETTER 249
2
3
4
LETTER 250
2
LETTER 251
From: Carolyn Draper
Subject: I support low-income housing at Fort Lawton
I urge you to move forward with your redevelopment plan for Fort Lawson. Seattle urgently needs
affordable rental housing for low-income people and people of color, who often face additional
obstacles in finding suitable housing. We also have inadequate resources for helping our city's homeless 1
population and this redevelopment plan could make a dent! For families who are able to locate suitable
rental housing, homeownership often still feels out of reach. We need accessible and equitable options
for homeownership for low-income people and families.
Please move forward with this project!

Sincerely,
Carolyn Draper
LETTER 252
From: John Dulaney
Subject: I support the affordable housing at Fort Lawton
Hi, there.
We should build affordable housing at Fort Lawton. This is the Right and Just thing to do. 1
John.
LETTER 253
From: Brian Duncan
Subject: I support affordable housing development at Ft. Lawton site
I fully support the maximum proposed affordable housing plan at the old Fort Lawton site.
Do it right, provide services, transit, etc., but go as big as possible and leverage this public property 1
opportunity.
Thank you.
Brian Duncan
7307 21st Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98117
206-679-1219
[email protected]
LETTER 254
From: Roxanne Duniway
Subject: Ft. Lawton

I strongly believe that in the long term it is best for the last parcel of Ft. Lawton to be used as park space,
as originally intended. Discovery Park is for everyone and is especially important for those who do not
have the means to get out to the wilderness easily and often do not even have a back yard because of 1
the increasing number of apartments and condos. An opportunity like this to expand the park as
originally envisioned will never come again. As population increases, we need parks more than ever.
Roxanne Duniway
LETTER 255
From: Sue Duvall
Dear City of Seattle decision makers on the use of Fort Lawton,
I am writing to urge you to use the Fort Lawton land for affordable housing. As you know, the loss of
affordable housing in Seattle (and the lack of replacement housing at a reasonable price) is a huge
problem that our city faces.
I have been a renter here for over 20 years. Unfortunately, I will need to continue to rent until I die. My
income (largely from working for non-profits) has fluctuated greatly over the years, and it has never
afforded me the ability to buy into the housing market. Now, with the massive increase in housing
prices, I know that I will never be able to own a home here. This is certain.
As a result, I am at the mercy of the landlords and will continue to be. While there are some landlords 1
who are kind and reasonable (such as my current one), they nonetheless need to raise the rents every
year (as mine does - and will again in the near future given the estimated 17% increase in property taxes
that will happen this year). Cost-of-living or salary increases do not accompany or offset these rent
increases, however. Many jobs do not provide these, including mine. Therefore, in order to cover
housing costs (which are more than 50% of my income currently), I have no choice but to dip into my
meager savings for retirement.
How will I pay for housing when I'm no longer able to work? I don't really know. At the moment, all I'm
able to consider is how to keep a roof over my head for the present. I don't have children or
grandchildren (or a rich aunt!) who will take care of me when I get old. And, I'm not sure I will ever meet
someone who can support me either. I have to take care of myself.
I don't wish to be homeless, but I am at risk to be so. If not within the next few years, then certainly
within the next decade or when I'm a senior citizen.
Judging from conversations that I have had with many of my single friends in this town, I am not alone in
feeling this way. I know many people here who worry about how they will continue to live in this place
they call home.
For this reason, I think it's essential to use the land at Discovery Park to build housing that individuals on
1,
fixed or limited income can afford. In order to make up for the large affordable housing deficit, such
housing needs to be prioritized. It can't simply be required for only 20% of a new building's units or
cont.
made optional because developers can just choose to pay a fee and avoid building it altogether.
My city needs developments that are 80-100% affordable in order to make up the deficit. My city needs
housing that offers stabilized rent for people as they age. My city needs to prioritize keeping the city
livable for all kinds of people, not just those with large bank accounts.
With the public land available at Fort Lawton, Seattle has been given a wonderful opportunity to make
something lasting and useful for the community. Please do the right thing and not squander this.
Thanks,
Sue Duvall
LETTER 256
From: Patricia Eamon
Subject: Fort Lawton land
I am writing to express my support for the development of housing for the homeless and low income
individuals at Fort Lawton. The estimates for this year's count point to 11,000 or more individuals living
unhoused in our midst. We must address this crisis by taking advantage of every available opportunity,
and this land offers a good start. Please don't let another service open to those living at the margins be
undone by NIMBYism. 1
I teach at a youth re-engagement center in Shoreline, and many of my students are housing insecure,
homeless, aging out of foster care. Many of my students at Mission Creek Correctional Facility for
Women had been homeless. I have been barely housed myself, and getting/staying housed is difficult
for even highly skilled people in a terrifically cruel housing market.
I urge you to take this unused land and use it for the benefit of our community as a whole.
Thank you,
Patricia Eamon
LETTER 257
From: Debby Eastman
Subject: Discovery Park
I oppose the proposed housing development adjacent to Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine and prefer 1
you support adding the last parcel of Fort Lawton to Discovery Park.
Thank You,
Debby Eastman
206-297-0251
LETTER 258
From: Rae Eaton
Subject: I support affordable housing at Fort Lawton
I am a Seattle resident (zip code 98103) writing in support of building affordable housing in the Fort
Lawton space, especially building spaces for homeless seniors. Providing affordable housing within city 1
limits will help both with income diversity and, most likely, environmental concerns surrounding
commute length.
Thank you for listening to my comment,
Rachel E.
LETTER 259
From: Madeleine Eddy
Subject: Fort Lawton / DiscoveryPark
To whom this may concern:
As a resident of Magnolia, I am writing to let you know that I do not support the proposal to develop
the area into a multitude housing types.
1
I do however support the option for expanding the area into a wild life preserve/ Park.
Best regards,
Madeleine Eddy
LETTER 260
From: Mike Eddy
Subject: Ft. Lawton Redevelopment: Magnolia residents deserve greater consideration, HS, community
services, affordable housing, transportation solutions
Mayor Durkan, members of the Council, City staff, and residents of Seattle,
Here’s my “executive summary.” Details follow.
1. Those directly effected by changes in Ft. Lawton were not heard in proportion to the impacts on
them. They should be.
2. There is a win-win for FL redevelopment in the form of a high school, affordable housing, and
community services and development planned by the City and residents of the community impacted
3. Transportation and local services need to be addressed with any FL option. Mass transportation,
bike/ped marketing, and local services are the answer.
Details
1. I am a Magnolia resident who was not able to attend the January 9 Ft. Lawton Redevelopment
meeting. We have a newborn and first grader and I used up one of my valuable “passes” to attend from
6-7P to understand what was being proposed and give the input of a reasonably typical Magnolia family,
but I could not even get in the door at 6P. I later learned that a special interest group of members from
outside the community had organized to take over the meeting, effectively disallowing those most
directly effected to fairly represent ourselves. These meetings should be designed such that no single 1
SIG is allowed to dominate the meeting. The time should be divided and weighted proportionate to
those impacted, negatively and positively. My hope is that the concerns and considerations of Magnolia
residents will be given the greatest weight in both community meeting and online comments. I have
appended a NextDoor community discussion to this message.
2. The region’s schools are already busting at the seams and Magnolia is no exception. The City did
itself a big disservice by selling Queen Anne HS and other schools to commercial interests. The costs in
this market to acquire and build schools will always leave us behind. Our children, their future, and the 2
future of the city suffer for this. We have a unique opportunity with FL to define our future in an
economically, environmentally, and socially equitable manner. See attached for discussion about a HS,
housing, and services at FL.
3. Various studies show up to 1,000 people are moving to Seattle every week with the bulk of
them seeking to locate with easy access to the downtown core. SOVs are not the answer. I believe the
City is generally on track to solve these issues. My hope is that I’m in the majority with this belief, but I
suspect this is not a majority feeling in the region. I created a petition to put bike lanes across the 520
bridge in 1991. We finally got it 26 years later. Things take too long. We need to accelerate mass transit
and bike/ped and related solutions for moving people and goods. This will require marketing and 3
unprecedented cooperation and collaboration with agencies and stakeholders all along the I-5 corridor.
For Magnolia that means services at Ft. Lawton, something like light rail sharing or expanding on the
lines from Edmonds through Interbay to downtown, and marketing to help everyone understand
investment today eliminates costs and increases opportunities tomorrow.
LETTER 261
From: Mia Edera
Subject: Please Provide Affordable Housing
To Whom it May Concern,

Thank you for your work on this development - I hope to see this underused property help the under-
served! 1
expand upon the current plan for 238 units, so that more of our lower-income and formerly homeless 2
neighbors can have access to stable, affordable housing.
and housing insecurity that is afflicting Seattle and our entire region. Fundamentally the answer to
homelessness is housing.
accommodate. But this gap is the greatest for the households with the lowest incomes — individuals
and families making 0-30% of Area Median Income. According to the Housing Development Consortium, 3
in 2016 Seattle was short by 17,161 units for households in this bracket, and this gap will widen to
This is a great opportunity to increase transit to magnolia and this is the best chance to get the busses
due to the increase in ridership from the development.
Sincerely,
Mia Edera
LETTER 262
From: Nicholas Efthimiadis
Hello,
I'd like to submit a comment in support of the proposal to build affordable housing or for housing for
those experiencing homelessness. Discovery Park is enormous; this is not a land grab. I'd like to see the
number of units maximized- are we not in the midst of a sustained housing affordability crisis? It makes
sense to provide affordable housing in direct proximity to one of Seattle's best green spaces and
schools, and despite what some naysayers harp on, the location is not underserved by transit, it is close 1
to a number of bus lines with access to downtown's regional network. Furthermore, I see Magnolia no
more isolated than a successful example of affordable housing in a park: Sandpoint/Magnuson Park
where significant affordable housing has and will continue to be built in (and with similar neighborhood
demographics: wealthy landowners!).
-A U District denizen, Seattle native, and Master in Urban Planning student.
Nicholas Efthimiadis
LETTER 263
From: Susan Eggleton
Subject: Ft Lawton development and EIS
Hello. I am a resident of Magnolia and would like to voice my opposition to alternative 1 (mixed use
affordable housing) at Ft Lawton. I prefer that Discovery Park be enlarged. We do not have enough 1
green space in Seattle - and I don't believe the site is an appropriate site for the plan in alternative 1.
Transportation and services are just two issues.
In addition, in my opinion, the City has not been open to listening to Magnolia neighbors. At the
meeting this summer there was no opportunity for discussion/questions until the microphone was taken 2
over by neighbors. The meeting this month was stacked with activists from outside the neighborhood
who made it appear that the audience was in favor of alternative 1, when that was not necessarily the
case.
Susan Eggleton
5441 40th Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 264
From: Jonathan Ehrich
Subject: Comments on Fort Lawton proposal
Hello,
I've been a resident of the city of Seattle for 10 years now - renting for 9, and my wife and I purchased a
home last year. I would like to strongly encourage the city to maximize the amount of housing -
particularly affordable housing - that they can get on the Fort Lawton property. It's clear that Seattle is
still not doing enough to build our way out of our current housing crisis, and also still not doing enough
to generate housing targeted at the poorest residents of the city. I want to make sure as much housing
1
as possible on this property is focused on getting homeless residents back into homes, or helping make
sure that residents don't slip into homelessness. If anything, the proposed 200 units does not seem like
enough - in an ideal universe, I would like to see a much denser proposal, with fewer houses and
replacing them with taller apartment buildings or non-luxury condos in order to provide more housing.
However, in this case I'm willing to compromise and support the proposal on the table in the hopes that 2
it will come to fruition sooner than later.
Thanks for listening to my feedback,
Jonathan Ehrich
2114 30th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98144
--
Jonathan Ehrich, Ph.D.
LETTER 265
From: Natasha Ehrlich
Subject: Low income housing
As a homeowner who pays taxes and paid a lot for their dream home, I would like to make sure it
remains a dream. I have heard there’s no discretion with sex offenders and low income housing. I live 1
down the street from Discovery Park and would hope that is not true, as I have two little girls. Safety is
my concern. I also worry about the correct placement of low income people in a more affluent
neighborhood. I have no problem sharing the neighborhood. It’s to be expected in a large city, but you
need to make sure you are not putting the tenants in a situation where they feel insecure or unhappy.
Not to mention, they call Magnolia an island for a reason. I assume a lot of these tenants will rely on 2
public transportation. Does Magnolia have the capability to support that? Thanks for listening. Please
do listen to current residents as you would want someone to hear your voice. Natasha Ehrlich
LETTER 266
From: Michael Eliason
Lindsay Masters,
Surplus public land should be used to serve the needs of the people of Seattle. And there's no greater 1
need than affordable housing. We must maximize the opportunities for affordable housing in Seattle.
The city of Amsterdam is presently planning to add 50,000 new housing units in the next decade.
Imagine a re-configured Fort Walton with a broad mix of dense housing - enough to support grocery
stores, transit. Social housing, market rate housing, baugruppen, cooperatives. We could provide space
for thousands of homes on just the presently paved areas of fort lawton, preserving the existing tree
canopy and provide open space.
And we need to look beyond Ft. Lawton - the Talaris site, the Roosevelt Reservoir could both add homes
for thousands, while preserving half of these parcels as open space.
The city needs to go big on affordable housing. We must build a movement that moves beyond HALA.
Vienna has its 'wohnbauoffensive' - the apartment construction offensive. They're *increasing* housing
production by 30%, building 9,000 affordable housing units PER year, streamlining permitting and codes
to facilitate the construction of new housing. 1,
cont.
We must follow suit. We can be a beacon of progressive housing policy. Or we can let the status quo
continue to push out those that can't afford million dollar homes and $3,000 rents. Please look at an
option that drastically upzones and increases housing potential in these sites.
Thank you.
Michael Eliason
[email protected]
LETTER 267
From: Leslie Elliott
Dear City of Seattle Housing Commission,

As a Seattle native, a Magnolia resident and lover of a Discovery Park, I strongly support putting low
income and affordable housing at the Ft. Lawton site. While the location has some accessibility
1
challenges, I certainly believe these can be addressed. Perhaps setting aside space for a possible
community-run shop — along the lines of the largely volunteer-run shops in many UK villages — may
further help. I look forward to welcoming new residents to Magnolia.
Sincerely,
Leslie Elliott
2332 W Newton #1
LETTER 268
From: Cindy Arends Elsberry
Subject: I Support Affordable Housing Development at Fort Lawton
1
I am a Magnolia resident in support of new affordable and low income housing in Magnolia at Fort
Lawton. I hope you find a way to provide an even greater number of units than the plan now for 240, 2
given the severity of the lack of affordable housing and homelessness crisis in Seattle. Please consider
additional needs that may follow, such as more/better bus access, the need for more school capacity 3
and supportive services as needed for formerly homeless seniors. 4
Cindy Arends Elsberry
LETTER 269
From: Andrew Engelson
Subject: Comments of Fort Lawton
Dear city officials:
I'm writing in support of the proposed low-income housing project at the former Fort Lawton site near
Discovery Park. Seattle is facing a housing affordability crisis, and more than 8,500 people are homeless
in this city. This project would provide inexpensive housing for 569 people, and I support it 1
enthusiastically. I'm a longtime Seattle resident who treasures taking my daughters to Discovery Park.
This project would in NO WAY interfere with that experience, and I would welcome additional projects
of this nature on city property at or near Seattle parks.
Sincerely,
Andrew Engelson
--
Andrew Engelson
[email protected]
Seattle, WA USA
phone: +1 206.455.3623
Editor of Cascadia Magazine www.cascadiamagazine.org exploring ideas and culture from the Pacific
Northwest. Sign up for the free Cascadia Daily e-mail newsletter!
LETTER 270
From: Susan Eramia
To Whom it my concern,
I would like to ask you to please add the Fort Lawton area to Discovery Park. This was the original
Master plan for Discovery Park.
Discovery Park represents the largest city park and largest open space in a large, booming city becoming
more dense by the week. There is no realistic prospect of ever adding a space of similar size inside the
1
city should this one be whittled away by development. Discovery Park, and its close proximity to the
heart of downtown Seattle can, and does benefit many people who want to do more than just get away
from urban pressures, they want to get to the freedom of open country. It would be truly unfortunate
disaster to not follow the original master plan for Discovery Park.
Sincerely
Susan Eramia
Magnolia Resident
LETTER 271
From: Ericka
Subject: Ft Lawton
1
Please add Ft Lawton property as additional park and school property or leave as is.
This area does not have the infrastructure, school capacity or appropriate grocery stores within a 2
reasonable distance.
Ericka
LETTER 272
From: Asako Esperum
Thank you for this opportunity to take public comments. I would appreciate it very much if you could
take this seriously, and not ignore some of our thoughtful comments. Thank you.
I would like to state that I am all for providing homeless/low income people a place to stay. I have heard
from many researches that there are enough beds to cover all of the homeless people in city of Seattle.
There is not enough communication between organizations, and some people refuse to be placed
1
inside. Therefore, the actual need or solution is NOT the lack of housing/beds.
Developing homeless/low income housing in Fort Lawton really does not help anyone in the end. First of
all, Fort Lawton is so isolated that it would be very hard for people to receive help and support of any
kind; food bank, job support, transportations, doctors, grocery stores, community centers, etc. This
location does not offer easy access to Ballard or North or East of Seattle. Please come and see for
yourself, and notice that there is no affordable grocery stores within walking distance, no easy public
transportations, and you would feel so isolated with NO support. Very similar situation with the low
income housing at Magnuson Park. I have heard that people are having tough time with no support after 2
the city placed people in, causing a lot more problems in the end. Yet here you are again, building more
there, and at Fort Lawton too...? Where is the help and support (more transportations, schools, grocery
stores, clothing and food help) you mention often in EIS? I don’t see it!! That is why I don’t believe you
would provide it at Fort Lawton either. You build, place people in, then leave them with no support.
People are struggling because of that.
If you truly would like to help those in need, please consider infrastructure for them as well!!!!!
There are better locations to build homeless/low income housing for people in need. Please consider
building near public transportation, grocery stores and support groups. Oh, that sounds like Memorial 3
Stadium is a GREAT place for homeless/low income housing! There is QFC across the street, many bus
lines and light rail accessible, and jobs/support groups are ALL RIGHT THERE already!!! Why would you
build a high school there? That would be a DISASTER with drugs and criminal activities for teen kids.
Please don’t do that for our children. Swapping the places with Fort Lawton sounds AMAZING, and over
1000 of community members agreed and sign the petition. Please consider families who take it to their
hearts, our children are our future! 3,
cont.
Build homeless/low income housing at the Memorial Stadium where people could get help and support
they need. Build high school at Fort Lawton because there is no high school for the cluster since the city
took away Queen Anne high school years ago. This is the time to make it right. YOU can make it right this
time!
Please be wise and support ALL of the people in the city. Not just homeless or low income families.
Please don’t discriminate community members who are working hard to pay you taxes so that you can 4
get paid being in the office planning for the ENTIRE city and people. WE are also important in this
community.
Thank you.
Asako Esperum
LETTER 273
From: Asako Esperum
Return Fort Lawton to Discover Park and restore wilderness there! It is more important and beneficial to
the area to have wild restorations, if not, environmental education center there.
1
Park first!
Asako Esperum
LETTER 274
From: Destinee Evers
Subject: Affordable Housing
Hello,
I am writing to voice my support of affordable housing at Fort Lawton.

1
It’s critical that we create space in our city for people of all resources.
Destinee Evers
M: (206) 853-354
LETTER 275
From: Alicia Eyler
Subject: Affordable Housing at Discovery Park is a great idea
Hello,
I’m writing to voice my support for building affordable housing at Fort Lawton. Every possible unit of
affordable housing will help mitigate the housing crisis in our city. Please help Seattlites stay sheltered.
1
I particularly like that this affordable housing development will have access to good schools and the
Children will benefit from high-quality public education.
Alicia Eyler
Seattle resident
LETTER 276
From: Ed Faccone
I vote for retaining the property as a park for all to use.

And NOT for a homeless housing development.
1
Ed Faccone
LETTER 277
From: Kelly Fahlman
Subject: Against Option 1 for Fort Lawton, please expand the park
Dear City of Seattle;
I am writing in regards to the options for Fort Lawton in Magnolia. I am not in favor of "preferred option 1
1" as there is limited bus access, over crowded schools, and very few resources in this area of the city.
I am in favor of adding soccer fields and expanding Discovery Park, we need more open space in our 2
increasingly densified city.
Sincerely
Kelly Fahlman
LETTER 278
From: Kristen Faiferlick
Subject: We Need Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
To the Office of Housing and City Council,
Finding a solution to Seattle's homeless crisis is a huge challenge, but we have an opportunity to make a
dent in it. I highly encourage the Office of Housing and City Council to consider Fort Lawton as an option
to house hundreds of our city's most vulnerable individuals.
Finding new options will always require bold and creative action, and we need this now more than ever.
Seattle's unused or underused lands should be used to serve the needs of the people of Seattle. And
1
there is no greater need than affordable housing. Please study an option that makes full use of Fort
Lawton for housing, and don't be dissuade by individuals and groups that consider homeless people less
deserving of housing than themselves. We are a community, and it is our duty to dedicate our resources
to lift up our most vulnerable. This is the time, and this is the place.
Thank you.
Kristen Faiferlick
LETTER 279
From: Kelda Fairleigh
In order for housing developments to be successful appropriate educational infrastructure must be in

1
place. I support Seattle Public Schools being included in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton.
Kelda Fairleigh
LETTER 280
From: Kelsey Fatland
My name is Kelsey Fatland and I both work as a 3rd grade teacher at Lawton elementary and am a
Magnolia Resident. I recognize the need for affordable housing and/or free housing for people
experiencing homelessness and support the redevelopment of Fort Lawton to meet this need. However,
1
classrooms throughout Magnolia are already at or above capacity. Please don’t consider any
redevelopment plan that does NOT also provide a plan for a school. The accessibility to wrap around
services such as education, counseling, and healthcare would be the key to success for our low income
families.
Thanks,
Kelsey Fatland
LETTER 281
From: Laura Felice
Subject: Proposed affordable housing development at Fort Lawton
I am a Seattle city resident writing to express my support for the affordable housing development
proposed for the Fort Lawton site in Magnolia. I feel that creating more affordable housing in Seattle 1
should be a top priority for the city right now and I hope this development will be able to move forward.
Thank you!
Laura Felice
5803 Renton Ave S
Seattle, WA 98118
LETTER 282
From: Erin Fenner
Subject: Support for building affordable housing at Fort Lawton
I attended Tuesday's public hearing, and was so glad to hear so much public support for building
affordable housing units on the Fort Lawton site.
Out of the preferred alternatives, I support option 1, but I want to add that I hope the city can find a way
to build more than the proposed ~200 units. We need about 10,000 new affordable units in the city
ASAP to begin to address the crisis of homelessness and housing insecurity.
As we're all aware, our city is in the midst of a housing crisis. I live on Capitol Hill and so many of my
neighbors are homeless and struggling to get by. Providing a home is a first step for our whole
community to begin recovering in this crisis. The folks in Magnolia who are concerned about safety
might just not understand that the safety of the whole Seattle community is at risk if we don't provide 1
more affordable housing immediately -- because people will continue to be at risk of exposure and
violence that is more likely when you are experiencing homelessness.
With new affordable housing, the Magnolia community will likely become even more robust culturally
with more economic diversity, foot traffic, and diverse housing options.
I hope our community also supports bringing more bus routes to the area and business incubator
options so the community gets a chance to see their community flourish even more.
Thanks for considering my comment.
Erin Fenner
Summit Avenue, Seattle
LETTER 283
From: Robert S. Fenwick
I am in adamantly in favor of using Fort Lawton redevelopment to create affordable housing or housing
for those experiencing homeless. The city must do what ever it can to protect those most vulnerable and 1
those priced out of housing due to Amazon headquarters and other corporate developments.
Robert S. Fenwick
LETTER 284
From: Jeff Few
Thank you.
Jeff Few
[email protected]

LETTER 285
From: Richard Figinski
Subject: Ft. Lawton Development
Hello,
I am writing to express support for the plans to utilize land in the area that was formerly Fort Lawton to
develop affordable housing. I have spent the last year working on the frontlines of the housing crisis and
know that at the root of all of these problems, the lack of income-restricted housing is the biggest
barrier. There is no amount of Rapid Rehousing money that is going to make even a small dent in our
housing crisis if there are no affordable homes to get folks in that program into. As somebody who at
one point was a housing navigator for nearly 40 families, I can say with a degree of certainty that in most 1
cases, using Rapid Rehousing to get unhoused families into market-rate homes simply resulted in the
families returning to shelter a month or two after the RRH stipend ran out with a fresh eviction and new
traumas.
By allowing this development in Ft. Lawton to go forward, our city can for once take a step toward a
solution that will actually benefit unhoused individuals and families here in Seattle.

Richard Figinski, Seattle resident
LETTER 286
From: Elizabeth Filep
I agree with the city's preferred option—to build affordable housing at Fort Lawton. First, this will result
in 238 total housing units at a currently vacant site. I have lived in Seattle for 30 years, I have lived in 5
neighborhoods total, I have never experienced a need like we currently have in this city to house
homeless, low income, and middle income residents. I currently live on Capitol Hill and I am confronted
with a population everyday that would benefit from affordable housing. Furthermore, I visit Discovery 1
Park often especially in the spring and summer to run, hike, and enjoy the natural world it has to offer. I
do not agree with residents who think this would impact this access, the beauty, wildlife, and everything
else wonderful about Discovery Park. Please consider my request to build affordable housing at the Fort
Lawton site.
Sincerely,
Ms. Elizabeth Filep
Current Seattle Resident
308 E Republican Street
LETTER 287
From: Janyce Fink
Subject: Fort Lawton Draft Environmental Impact Statement / DEIS Public Comment Period
Dear Madame/Sirs:
I have lived in Magnolia since 1998 and welcome the opportunity to explain my reservations regarding
the above-referenced, proposed, redevelopment project. I moved to Seattle in 1994 and have carefully
watched the impact of increasing Discovery Park foot and vehicle traffic, the sale of the large houses on
the top bluff, and the lack of concern the city and animal control has relative to unlawful camping (last 5
years), unlawful use of the park as an "off-leash dog run" (which began in 2009) throughout the entire
park, and the lack of resources provided by the city to improve the park and its educational centers.
1
I will forego discussing how I feel about the current City Counsel members who routinely promote more
taxes on those who may own a home in Magnolia but are NOT a member of the 1%-2%'s (who are not
negatively impacted by our ever increasing property and business taxes), continued development of
properties that are not suitable for their intended use(s), and their refusal to take into account that
Magnolia (and Seattle as a whole), as it appears today, is under tremendous pressure to provide decent
public, fully funded, schools for our children. Having grown up in Ann Arbor, MI, I am wholly aware of
growth issues and fully funding public schools.
In any event, the ONLY alternative I can support, and even then it's not wholeheartedly, is Alternative #3
- more park-related development. And I only vote for this alternative because we need more open air,
clean, educational opportunities for our children to learn how to preserve natural habitat anywhere ... 2
including within the middle of an almost-major metropolitan city. I repeat - I can get behind this ONLY if
the City Council funds Alternative 3 in a way that is not on the backs of the middle class who remain, for
now, inside the city proper.
Thank you,
Janyce Fink
3050 West Viewmont Way West
P: 206.679.0565
LETTER 288
From: Matthew Finnell
Subject: More Housing In Fort Lawton
more housing, without privatization. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income
households are being pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in
record numbers.
In the midst of this crisis, the City should be considering bold steps to create more public and deeply- 1
being considered.
Thank you.
Matthew Finnell
609 Thomas St.
Seattle, WA 98109
LETTER 289
From: Tara Fischer
Subject: I Support Low-Income Housing at Fort Lawton!
Please choose the path that would uphold Seattle's reputation as a progressive city and demonstrate
social and economic mobility for poor and low-income people. 1
Thanks,
Tara Fischer
LETTER 290
From: Shary Flenniken
Subject: public comment - Ft Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project
To:
Lindsay Masters, Office of Housing
[email protected]
Regarding the potential Fort Lawton Projects – public comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project
Dear Ms Masters;
I am full-time caregiver to my husband, who has early onset Alzheimer’s, so I do not have a lot of time to
write a detailed comment. However, I want you to know that I have been a Magnolia resident since the
fifties, living near the Magnolia Bridge, and acutely feeling the impact of development in this
neighborhood.
In addition, hiking in Discovery Park is one of the few joys left in my husband’s life, and is key to his
continuing physical health. Furthermore, we make use of all community amenities such as the
community center and local churches. The nature of the community and its future is important to me, 1
and I have done my part as a community member – serving as a Magnolia Community Club/Council
Board member, and a Seattle Emergency Management trained Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) volunteer.
I strongly support Option 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
I am pasting in below the Friends of Discovery Park position, which I agree with.
Thank you for contributing to an honest decision that is best for our community.
Sincerely,
Shary Flenniken
[email protected]
1502 Thorndyke Ave W, Seattle, WA 98199
206-283-9435
The following statement is a consensus opinion by the board of Friends of Discovery Park regarding the
Army Reserve parcel, located adjacent to the NE corner of Discovery Park, currently undergoing review
by the City of Seattle’s Department of Housing.
1. The 30 acre Army Reserve property is a heavily urbanized parcel, consisting primarily of paved
surfaces, multiple buildings, and many overlapping fences. As such, it is distinctly unfriendly to the
wildlife that live and reproduce in nearby Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. We urge that the site
should be developed with the primary objective of maximizing or at least improving the ability of urban
wildlife to live within it and migrate through it.
2. To this end, we believe the best and most appropriate use of the property is to incorporate the
entire acreage into Discovery Park and manage it according to its master plan. These 30+ acres
represent a rare and unique opportunity to add substantially to the park. The Army Reserve property is
uniquely situated between the Kiwanis Ravine and its Great Blue Heron rookery and the larger green
space of Discovery Park. Creating a forested canopy within this site would create a much-needed wildlife
corridor between the ship canal, the Ravine and Discovery Park. Turning the Army Reserve site into an
old growth coniferous forest would be the least expensive and most acceptable option available to the
City, requiring only minimal infrastructure demolition and reforestation investments.
3. We recognize that there are many competing interests for the use of this property. Suggestions
include low income housing, a school and “park” uses like baseball fields, tennis courts and off leash dog
zones. Should one or some combination of these uses be implemented, we ask that any man-built
environment on the site be appropriately and sensitively incorporated into a forested canopy, with a
mosaic of indigenous plant communities distributed across the entire property, providing a continuous
belt of coniferous and deciduous old growth trees covering the site and providing optimal migrational
pathways for the Great Blue Herons of Kiwanis Ravine and other wildlife.
4. There are many overlapping fences currently in place which inhibit wildlife migration between
adjacent green spaces. Especially egregious is the fencing near the the Ohman parcel, which represents
the only direct connection between Kiwanis Ravine and Discovery Park. We urge removal of all fencing
currently in place (except that which abuts the cemetery), as these create unnecessary obstacles to
smaller ground-based wildlife migration in the area.
5. We support the expansion of Discovery Parks footprint (and managed according to its Master
Plan) to include all Army Reserve land west of Texas Way - see below*. This reconfiguration of property
lines will allow a more integrated management of the forest communities that straddle current property
lines.
6. We support naming Texas Way South to be designated a Park Boulevard.
7. It is said the City intends to retain the vehicle maintenance shop in the extreme NE corner of the
property. We understand the desire to keep and use this facility. Should this become the primary shop
for the Park and others nearby, we ask that consideration be made to closing the current maintenance
shop within the park, reducing further the urbanized footprint present there. Also, the paved surface
surrounding the Army Reserve shop is too large, measuring over 3 acres. If the shop becomes active, we
ask that the paved surfaces surrounding it be significantly reduced to allow incorporation of more forest
into the area. *All of the BRAC surplus land west of Texas Way in Section 15 and Section 10 south of the
Veteran’s Administration reserved land and in Section 10 southwest of the land reserved to the
Veteran’s Administration.
End of FoDP position paper. www.seattlediscoverypark.org

LETTER 291
From: Tim Fliss

Subject: Support for more affordable housing at Fort Lawton Redevelopment
Hello,
I am writing in whole-hearted support for redevelopment of the Fort Lawton site for affordable housing.
The site has so many benefits. There is no displacement risk because no one currently lives there. The 1
surrounding area is very low density for being not far from downtown Seattle. The plan should in reality
be far more ambitious in supporting more residents given Seattle's housing and homeless crisis. The site
has excellent short, flat and safe bike routes to job centers in South Lake Union, UW, downtown and
2
elsewhere via the Ship Canal Trail, the InterBay connections project, the Burke-Gilman trail and other
resources. While transit times are relatively long considering the distance, the service and travel times
are no worse than other similar locations.
I own a house near a similar converted military base at Sand Point, and based on what I've seen there,
I'd suggest some improvements to the plan (or possibilities for the future). As I said above, such sites can
support more ambitious plans to provide housing for more people. More mixed use amenities (grocery
stores, pharmacy/convenience stores, day care, community centers and recreation centers, etc.) and 3
smoother connections to the surrounding neighborhoods would all be positive things to encourage at or
near the site.
With respect to the Talaris site, that site does have better access to transportation (a short bike ride to
UW Link, or via the 75 bus). It has proximity to job centers at UW and via transit Northgate, Lake City,
South Lake Union and Downtown. The Talaris site could also support greater density than is planned. 4
The city should find a way to bring a lot of affordable housing to both sites with room for many more
people. With reasonable designs, it should be possible to do so while still maintaining green space and
any other concerns.
In any case our housing need is immediate and large, particularly for our low-income neighbors. The city
5
is failing everyone by allowing so much land area to continue to be dedicated to single-family housing
and low-density uses.
Tim Fliss
10343 38th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125
LETTER 292
From: Beree’s Flynn
Subject: Yes to Affordable Homes at Ft. Lawton!
Hello,
opportunity to both house people affordably and create valuable community assets in the form of new
1
Thank you,
Beree's Flynn
3050 31st Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 293
From: Colm Flynn
Dear City,
Please go ahead with the proposal to develop supportive housing for seniors and affordable housing for
low-wage families in the disused Fort Lawton military buildings.
Please consider the families, seniors and other low-income, and middle-income renters who have so few
places to live in our city. Our city is experiencing a desperate homeless crisis. We are losing affordable
accommodation every month. Affordable housing for 600 won't stop the crisis by itself, but it would be a
merciful start.
1
And please don't give in to the nimbys. Change is threatening, especially for those of us lucky enough to
be insulated from the crisis. It's easier to oppose uncertainty than support it. The city needs to consider
the greater good of the greater number, not the noisiest few. Seattle can't afford to do nothing in order
to indulge the complaints that it, "Isn't the right time". It's too late to save thousands of Seattle families
from losing their homes, but we can make a start by building these new homes for 150.
Thank you,
--
Colm
LETTER 294
From: Gregory Flynn
Subject: Comment on Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment
Good morning…
I would like to echo my wife’s below comments regarding the proposal to build affordable housing at
the Ft Lawton Army Reserve Center site. Affordable housing is one of the biggest concerns facing our
city today, as you well know. The growing inequity in income and affordability as our city grows should
be addressed head on by all who are capable. While it shouldn’t be limited to, it certainly should include
building more affordable housing where we can.
1
As Melinda mentioned below, we lived right next to Lake City Court for three years. Never did we have
to be concerned with the neighbors in that housing. Every neighborhood in Seattle is going to have to
step up to help address this issue. I know you are facing a lot of pressure from residents of Magnolia on
this issue, but hope that you will make the right choice, and help some more people find their way into
stable housing. It’s the right thing to do.
Thank you,
Gregory Flynn
Seattle, Washington
---------- Forwarded message —————

From: Melinda Young-Flynn <[email protected]>
Date: Jan 7, 2018, 2:41 PM -0800
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Hello,
I'm unable to make the public comment event on Tuesday night, so I'm writing now to urge you to move
forward with efforts to build affordable housing at the Ft. Lawton Army Reserve Center site. As our city
continues to face a homelessness and affordability crisis, this is an excellent use of this land.
I am a long-time renter in Seattle who is fortunate to have good landlords and a manageable commute
to my job downtown. Too many people are not living the same experience. Our city must take steps to
ensure everyone has the opportunity to afford a roof over their head in this city. Low-wage workers in
particular in Seattle should not be forced to live in Federal Way and spend several hours a day on buses 1,
getting to work. cont.
I lived right next to Lake City Court, the 2011 green-built affordable housing complex, for a number of
years and I found it to be a great experience. The complex was well kept up. There were lots of young
families there, with kids playing in the playground regularly. All of my interactions with the people who
lived there were positive. And I never once felt unsafe when I was walking by the complex. I was happy
to know that the City of Seattle was providing this kind of living space for families who are below the
poverty line and for seniors and people with disabilities on fixed incomes.
1,
Using this land in Magnolia for affordable housing is quite simply the right thing to do - economically, for cont.
the sake of our communities, and for the sake of the well-being of the people in our city who have been
left behind by the economic growth and wealth that many long-time residents of Magnolia and Ballard
enjoy. I hope that the Office of Housing does the right thing and moves forward even if there is a strong
NIMBY outcry.
Thank you,
Melinda Young-Flynn
Seattle, Washington
LETTER 295
From: Drew Foerster
Subject: Make all Ft Lawton green space join Discovery Park
I am a Magnolia resident. I do not agree with any move to build on green space. Natural habitat
1
desperately needs protection. When we humans need more habitation, we can just build pre-existing
structures higher.
Sincerely,
Drew Foerster
3218 34th Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 296
From: Mark A. Foltz
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment – DEIS Comments
I am writing a brief note to support Alternative 1 for Fort Lawton redevelopment in the strongest
possible terms.
In 2017, with Seattle facing an epic crisis of housing affordability and homelessness, we cannot be
squandering precious opportunities to use public land to build homes for people. 1
Moreover, in 2017, with thousands of people moving to Seattle every month, we’ve run out of room for
suburban style subdivisions of detached single family homes. There is no more land being made! When
we have the opportunity to add homes to our residential neighborhoods, we must use denser “missing
middle” housing types like those in Alternative 1.
The other alternatives presented cannot be considered as serious proposals, regardless of how a
minority of Magnolia residents may feel. Using this land for single family homes or a park is not just 1,
terrible urban planning, it’s morally indefensible. cont.
I would ask the following be included in the analysis of the preferred alternative, based on Alternative 1:
1. The preferred alternative should assume LR3 rezoning for all developable land to maximize the
2
development capacity, and LR3 zoning should be implemented via the legislative process.
2. The preferred alternative should consider duplexes or triplexes in addition to townhomes to

increase the number of homes built, as the cost of construction is not that much higher. This should be 3
balanced with the desire to allow residents to build wealth through homeowner equity - depending on
what types of housing appreciate more.
3. The preferred alternative should set a specific trip reduction requirement in the transportation
mitigations, including use of vanpool, car share and bike share. Adding 1,260 daily vehicle trips and
4
2,000+ metric tons of GHG per year (proposed with Alternative 1) is a negative environmental impact
that must be mitigated.
4. Further, the final EIS should assess the pedestrian and bike connections to downtown Ballard
and propose mitigations to improve them, as this is the nearest urban village with comprehensive
services 5
(groceries, health care, pharmacy, etc.) Improving walking and biking conditions on the Fort Lawton site
itself does no good if the connections to destinations and services off-site are poor.
5. Surface parking is a waste of land and money, increases the impermeable surface (contributing
to combined sewer overflows), and contributes polluted water to Puget Sound. In light of the
mitigations proposed in #3 and #4, the preferred alternative should reduce the area dedicated to 6
surface parking. For the remaining parking, the final EIS should mandate stormwater treatment through
bioswales and other pollution mitigation measures.
6. The city should work with local cultural resources, such as the Daybreak Star Indian Cultural
Center, as well as communities that the development will serve to help program shared spaces, make it 7
contextually sensitive, and make it feel welcoming to its residents.
Thank you for consideration of my comments. I look forward to the Open House on January 9.
Mark A. Foltz
Member, Welcoming Wallingford
3635 Burke Ave N
[email protected]
Welcoming Wallingford is a community of Wallingford residents and allies who welcome more
neighbors and say “YES! in our backyard.” Our vision is a more equitable, sustainable, and inclusive
Wallingford and Seattle.
CC: CM Bagshaw (D7)
LETTER 297
From: Leah Ford
Subject: We need more housing!
Hello,
I am writing in support of the plan to build affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
I think it would be a huge mistake to pass up this opportunity to keep lower-income Seattleites in the
city, and off the streets. To build this housing would almost certainly guarantee that some of the
eventual occupants avoid homelessness - a real threat for people being priced out of Seattle right now.
It would be a great step forward for the city to build affordable housing on this site. 1
It would make no sense to give up this opportunity in favor of maintaining parkland - Discovery Park is
already huge, and this housing project would bring even more people to the park: residents who
eventually occupy the units, as well as friends and family who visit them.
To build market-rate housing would be a cruel joke.
thank you,
-Leah Ford
126 20th ave E, Apartment C
Seattle WA 98112
LETTER 298
From: David Forrest
Lindsay Masters,
Instead, the City's Preferred Alternative devotes the large majority of the land to recreation and surface 1
Thank you.
David Forrest
[email protected]
LETTER 299
From: Amy Forston
Subject: Fort Lawton should be developed
I am a frequent user of Discovery Park and appreciate what it is. Affordable housing going in next to it
will NOT change that. It will not change the quality of the land, but better our community in reducing
the homeless population and in turn help clean up our streets. Housed citizens are citizens that can 1
begin to contribute to our workforce!
I am pro- Fort Lawton development for the betterment of Seattle and King County.
Yours,
Amy Forston
8224 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98115
206-566-8923
LETTER 300
From: Veronica Foster
Subject: Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton is Necessary!
Lindsay Masters,
pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers. Having
worked at FareStart, it’s so important to think of the human beings that are affected by this crisis. I met
students every day at work who have been through hell and back just to have a roof over their heads.
The time is now to take action. The easier it is to have housing, the easier it will be to live their lives the
way lucky people like us get to live every day! 1
Thank you,
Veronica Foster
Veronica Foster
[email protected]
LETTER 301
From: Meaghan Fox
Subject: Fwd: Preferred Alternative for Fort Lawton Redevelopment
My views and opinions on the Ft Lawton redevelopment mirror that of Lindsay Saeed (email below). 1
Please listen to Magnolia residents and consider DEIS Alternative #3.
Best regards,
Meaghan Fox
Magnolia Resident
206-679-2107
---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Lindsay Thome <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 3:08 PM
Subject: Preferred Alternative for Fort Lawton Redevelopment
To: [email protected]

I write in support of DEIS ALTERNATIVE #3 (34 acres of public park) for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve
Center redevelopment. This is the preferred alternative of the majority of Magnolia residents.
We are tired of the cities unpreparedness and lack of proper planning before moving forward with
initiatives. DEIS Alternative #1 (diverse mix of affordable housing units) doesn't properly address
Magnolia's infrastructure deficiencies. It's no secret that we already have a bevy of obstacles that need
solving before we can even start to think about diving into such a project.
Transportation options on and off Magnolia are minimal. Traffic is getting exponentially worse,
especially with the unnecessary bike lanes that were recently added without community engagement.
Restaurants and retail establishments struggle to stay in business. Emergency resources and
employment opportunities are limited. There is minimal police pressence in the area, while crime is
undoubtably on the rise. The public schools (namely middle and high) are at full capacity with no
functional plan in sight. Ideally Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center would be used for a middle and high 2
school along with playfields and public parks, but that doesn't seem to be an option. These crises are not
being properly addressed, and residents of Magnolia and the surrounding area will be left to pick up the
pieces if DEIS Alternative #1 is approved.
I attended the redevelopment meeting on January 8, 2018 and was literally sick to my stomach after
witnessing how particular city official(s) highjacked the proceedings. It was clear that well a orchestrated
collection of activists and advocates for affordable housing were brought in to silence Magnolia
residents. Wouldn't it have made more sense to hear what Magnolia residents and business owners
think about the options at hand?
As a mother of two young children who lives near the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center, PLEASE think
about the logistics and move forward with DEIS Alternative #3.
Thank you,
Lindsay Saeed
425-503-3276
LETTER 302
From: Melissa Fox
Subject: Ft Lawton Redevelopment plan
Hello,
I wanted to write in support of the redevelopment plan for Ft Lawton. I believe that reusing the area for
low income and homeless housing is a great use of this space. Of the four preliminary alternatives raised 1
in the August 21 comment readout, I am in support of Alternative 1 – Mixed Income Affordable Housing
and Public Park Uses.
Thank you!
Melissa Fox
Seattle Resident, 98122
LETTER 303
From: Jozef Engel Szwaja Franken
Lindsay Masters,
pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers.hh
My wife and I were fortunate enough to be able to afford buy three years ago as community college
instructors: most of of our colleagues are not as lucky, and if we had waited even one year longer we
would have been priced out. We know we are lucky, and we want public policies that will work for the
majority of people less lucky than us. 1
Thank you.
Jozef Engel Szwaja Franken

[email protected]
LETTER 304
From: Kira Franz
Hello Seattle government,

I hear that the Fort Lawton project, which has been expected to help add to low-income housing supply
in Seattle, has gotten a lot of negative commentary recently. I wanted to add my feelings to the positive
side of things.
1
One of the most critical issues in Seattle today is the affordability of housing. Anything that improves
the stock of affordable housing is a good thing, I say. And I say that as someone who already owns a
house and pays taxes in Seattle.
Thank you!
-Kira
Kira Franz
975 20th Ave
Seattle WA 98122
LETTER 305
From: Trista Winnie Fraser
Seattle is experiencing a housing crisis and there is no reason the proposed 238 units should not be
built. Further, considering the Fort Lawton site is 34 acres, the proposed number of units should be in
the thousands. Seattle has the worst per-capita rate of homelessness in the country and you know
what? The answer to homelessness is affordable housing.
1
being considered.
Thank you,
Trista Winnie Fraser
LETTER 306
From: Jonathan Frazier
Subject: Fort Lawton comments: the time is now, the place is here
Dear public engagement staffer,

Unfortunately I had to skip the Fort Lawton meeting earlier this week due to a last-minute commitment,
but I still wanted to reigster my opinion. 1
Obviously we have a housing crisis, obviously we have a big plot of land here in Fort Lawton. Finish up
the DEIS and get the project built!
The most important change I would suggest is taking a serious look at a higher build alternative to
deliver more units for a greater variety of income levels in a greater variety of forms, from studios to 2
family-sized 3brs. Alternative 1 is too small and too narrowly focused. Alternative 2 is especially
inappropriate to suggest new luxury sf7200 construction during the housing crisis.
As the DEIS wraps up please retain room for flexibility to do more to solve our critical need for homes. I 3
don't think anybody is going to be perfectly happy with the final result, but overall the project seems to
be on the right track.
Thank you,
Jonathan Frazier
LETTER 307
From: Polly Freeman
Subject: Polly Freeman says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

region.
comparable to the density of other affordable housing projects in the city. Ideally the increased density 2
should apply to all types of housing on the site, including the affordable ownership housing (Habitat for
Humanity).
the GHG contribution of people living in a dense, transit-rich urban environment, compared to the long
should ensure that the housing remain as affordable housing even if re-sold, and that there is the
4
opportunity for redevelopment at increased density while retaining housing ownership for the Habitat
owners.
plans should as much as possible allow for additional buildings or increased height to be accommodated 5
on the site in the future.
Let's act now to provide desperately needed affordable housing and also reduce climate disruption by
giving people a place to live that doesn't require long car commutes!
Sincerely yours,
Polly Freeman
LETTER 308
From: Dana Fried
With Seattle in crisis mode trying to find affordable housing for its residence, and with swathes of Fort
Lawton and Discovery Park already given over to ridiculous single-family homes, it's absurd to suggest
that we shouldn't build some kind of affordable or mixed-income, high-density housing on the proposed
site. 1
Let's move towards a more affordable Seattle by building affordable housing in the city, instead of
continuing to force those with working-class incomes out of the city.
--Dana Fried
Fremont, Seattle, WA
LETTER 309
From: Max Friedfeld
Subject: Affordable housing at Ft Lawton
Hi, my name is Max and I’m a Seattle resident. I support the affordable housing site at ft Lawton. In fact I
think we need many more such developments since many people in the city are being forced out from 1
the expensive housing and renting markets.
Max
LETTER 310
From: nick fuller
Subject: Fort Lawton redevelopment
I think the redevelopment would be good for the neighborhood. I have concerns about why they want
to build single family rather than duplex's. The market has changed and the absorption rate for town
homes in magnolia is good. Wouldn't building more town homes make it so we can have more 1
subsidized housing? Seems like a good idea. Thanks for your time.
nick fuller
LETTER 311
From: Rob Fuller
Subject: Ft Lawton Plan
Dear City of Seattle;
This email is to voice my support for the redevelopment plan as a resident of Magnolia and a board
member of Habitat for Humanity Seattle. 1) Affordable Housing is a huge issue. 2) a scaled site like this is
rare for Habitat to come across. 3) the project has a nice blend of ownership, subsidized rental and 1
senior homeless units. 4) It is important that the future face of the city is not just for the affluent like
myself and we support housing for the jobs that are here.
Thank you for your consideration

LETTER 312
LETTER 313
From: Will Gagne-Maynard
Subject: Support for EIS Alternative 1
Hello, I would like to express my support for EIS Alternative 1 at Fort Lawton. Seattle is currently in the
midst of a housing crisis, which is leading to a boom in homelessness and loss of housing for low-income
people.
1
This is an opportunity to build public housing at a minimum of cost to the city due to the available free
land. It would be criminal to avoid this opportunity to build housing for our population that is hurting
the most from Seattle's growth.
Will Gagne-Maynard
LETTER 314
From: Heidi Gainer

Subject: Heidi Gainer says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
walkable, and livable Seattle is one of our last best chances for meeting climate goals for Seattle and
the region.
•The project plan and the DEIS should include an alternative with much higher density, comparable to 2
3
ensure that the housing remain as affordable housing even if re-sold, and that there is the opportunity
•If the site is ultimately developed at the very low density of 238 units on 7.3 acres, building plans 4
5
Sincerely yours,
Heidi Gainer
LETTER 315
From: Robert Gale
Subject: Comment of Fort Lawton DEIS
I have reviewed the DEIS for the Fort Lawton Redevelopment project and am in favor of proceeding with
Alternative 1. This seems like a very reasonable, modest and beneficial use of the surplus Fort Lawton
property. The Magnolia neighborhood is very unaffordable for anyone but very high-income families,
and rising property values means that only very large, luxury homes get built there. The addition of
rental and for-purchase housing for families earning 60% and 80% of median income will allow middle
income families (such as teachers and first responders) to afford to live in the Seattle in modest sized
1
homes. Including some apartments for formerly homeless seniors will help provide some relief to the
homelessness crisis in a way that should not be threatening to any existing Magnolia residents. I also
appreciate that the plan increases open space and decreases impermiable surfaces compared with the
current use.
Robert Gale
5222 NE 74th St
Seattle, WA 98115
LETTER 316
1
region.
Humanity).
4
owners.
Sincerely yours,
Kevin Gallagher
LETTER 317
From: Matt Gangemi
Subject: Ft Lawton
I’ve heard that the reason we’e limited by the number of units is that the SEPA documents didn’t
consider more units. How long will we let ourselves damage our environment in because of a document
named for “environmental impact”?
Every home built in the city represents farms, forests, and fields in the far suburbs *not* being
bulldozed for single family homes, with their cars and driveways and fertilizer-intensive lawns, and their 1
extra miles of sewer pipes and roads and sprawling schools and malls.
We live in a city. When will we stop being afraid of building enough housing to support our city? It’s the
height of bureaucracy to hide behind an environmental document on this decision.
-Matt Gangemi
LETTER 318
From: Tom Garcia
Subject: Magnolia, Discovery Park and Poverty
With all due respect, and after long and painful consideration, I have to say I oppose the current
proposal for use of the former army reserve facility as a homeless shelter. This is a poor area for
placement of such a facility. I have a number of reasons, and perhaps some suggestions. I'll try to keep
this brief.
Let me start by saying that I have been a resident at this address since 1984. I have seen tremendous 1
change. I have a background in Psychology and a career in data processing. I retired early, started a
business and have been an advocate for the poor, elderly and disabled in my community for years. I am
knowledgeable in a number of fields. I was born and raised in Chicago on the south side of town, so I
understand poverty, racism and hate. My birth name is Casimiro Thomas Garcia. I'm as American as
apple pie, but that name was like wearing a target in Chicago of the '50's.
Magnolia is an isolated and quiet part of town. The infrastructure is old. We don't even have sidewalks
and gutters on my street. I doubt the hydrants in the park still work. The fires in LA this year should
serve as a serious warning, they were reputedly started by homeless people in the woods. We face
2
serious fire danger here every 4th of July. We have no substantial police, fire or medical facilities on the
hill to match such a facility. There are only 3 roads in and out, and one of them is slated to be torn down
3
(Magnolia Bridge). 15th Ave W has become a nightmare to drive on.
There was a very good proposal a few years ago to do a land swap with the county and state, to move
the state armory off of 15th and take that land back under city control. I believe that proposal was
scrapped because of the conversion of the rail lines in Tacoma, but it should still be a very viable idea.
That armory is in the wrong place and needs to move before the next earthquake. From what I
currently understand, Magnolia bridge must also be replaced in that timeframe. All of this seems to
have been delayed by the Bertha mishaps, but the timeframe is as urgent as replacement of the viaduct.
The funding problems only get worse with delay, especially if that earthquake gets here before we are
ready.
Finally, I knew Bernie Whitebear personally. Our city has a debt of honor. Our city entered into an
4
agreement with United Indians of All Tribes. We've broken our word to these people, again and again.
We forced them to abandon their dreams and plans for this very piece of ground out of pure
unadulterated mean spirited greed, blaming everything from parking regs to public unrest. This land
was sacred to them, after we had taken everything else. These are the first people who were denied
even a reservation! Worse, we took it by force and gave them a worthless IOU. How dare we put our
needs in front of that agreement? Can you live with that? Bernie died knowing he had been lied to, but
still hoping that one day his people would have some of their land back.
Our failure on both these issues is manifest and growing. I watched the tragedy of Cabrini Green
personally. I understand that good intentions often have unintended consequences, especially when
solutions are half baked. Don't shove the homeless problem to the periphery. Don't reach for anything
that seems like an easy or obvious solution without first looking to the potential fallout.
Your biggest problem here will be funding, right? And scale. And expertise! You can't have a solution
without adequate funding, and you are still getting your arms around that. Your challenge, should you 4,
decide to meaningfully address it, will be to provide for all the needs of this displaced population, not
cont.
just housing. Housing is not even the start of what is needed to put these lives back in order. Poverty
and dysfunction grow together, and homelessness is one of the trailing indicators of the problem set.
You have to address this at the roots. Throwing money at it will only assuage your conscience.
I'd be glad to consult and help toward a solution.
Tom Garcia, Owner
Seattle Home Computer Repair
4024 36th Ave W,
206.227.3502 Mobile and Text
LETTER 319
From: Wayne Garrow
Seattle, King County, and The Puget Sound are growing. The need for low income housing is driving
homeless numbers up as the cost of living rises. It would be irresponsible to not provide more low 1
income housing. I lrefer it be mixed with all ages and family sizes but if the residents wish to be elitest
perhahps at least low income senior citizen housing could be made.
Sincerely,
Wayne Garrow
LETTER 320
From: Ann Gateley

I am writing to express my overwhelming support for the plan to develop Fort Lawton with affordable
housing. Seattle is in the midst of a housing crisis. We can not afford not to act. I’m a veteran teacher in
Seattle (Ballard) , and a single parent. More and more my students are being forced out of their school
community because their families can no longer afford to live in Seattle. My children and I live with my 1
parents, without that we would have to leave the greater Seattle area. It’s a shame when teachers
cannot afford to live whereabouts teach, but it is an ABOMINATION to allow the voices of rich white
homeowners to squash a desperately needed project. Homelessness is a crisis in Seattle. We MUST act
to create more affordable housing now.
Sincerely
Ann Gateley
Teacher, Salmon Bay K-8
LETTER 321
From: Ahmed Gaya
Subject: Ft Lawton Redevelopment
Hello,
I am writing to express my strong support for the redevelopment plans at Ft Lawton. This plan would 1
use city resources responsibly to create more housing in the city. I am very satisfied with the city's draft
eis.
- Ahmed
LETTER 322
From: Hugh Geenen
I am writing to urge the City of Seattle to create a bold new vision for affordable housing now and for
the future.
The City could create an alternative for Fort Lawton that includes more housing than what is currently
planned. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels. Low-income households are being pushed
out of the City. The most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers.
parking, passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes. I encourage the City
to reconsider.
How might a Fort Lawton plan for maximizing public housing provide positive environmental outcomes? 1
A sound strategy for fighting climate change would include the following: Create dense, walkable
neighborhoods close to transit and parks.
This ensures there is overlap between environmental and social justice outcomes. In Seattle, over 70%
of land around parks one acre or larger is zoned single-family. You would make Discover Park accessible
and used by building housing right next door to it.
Thank you.
Hugh Geenen
Ballard, WA
LETTER 323
From: Amanda L. Gemmill
Good afternoon,
I learned today of the Seattle City Council vision regarding Fort Lawton and wanted to take a moment to
comment on this plan. I am relatively new to Seattle having only moved here 6 years ago, but the rapid
change, and those getting left behind, are undeniable. I applaud the planners for this bold vision and
enthusiastically support the fruition of this plan. Discovery Park is a true gem of the city and I know
many are concerned that its integrity and sanctity will be compromised by this plan. I disagree. I feel
the Ft. Lawton area is a perfect place for creating this housing and these programs precisely because of
its beauty and sanctity. Further, it is still accessible to central Seattle services (though I would argue bus 1
service, particularly in the evenings could be expanded) but does not impede on higher density, higher
market rate lands. It is a tenable, actionable, affordable plan and I feel one that is moving us in the right
direction in addressing the epidemic of homelessness affecting our region. I know there will be a lot of
opposition to this plan as Magnolia is a very staunch community dedicated to protecting its interests.
But the safety, health, and humanity of all Seattle citizens and neighbors must be protected too, at all
costs. Our houseless neighbors deserve a place here, in the city and in our “backyards”.
Amanda L. Gemmill, CPC
Insurance Specialist- Central Business Office
[email protected]
LETTER 324
From: Bruno George
Subject: I'm priced out of Capital Hill; Seattle must build housing in Ft Lawton
Seattle's housing affordability has affected me by pricing me out of my Capital Hill apartment, where the
rent went up by 56% in four years. I now live in a shared apartment Northgate, with all my belongings in
a 9x14 bedroom. I now travel hours by bus to services I once walked to.
Please use the land at Ft. Lawton to build affordable housing. People in Seattle are being pushed into
homelessness and pushed out of the city. Apartments offered by Capitol Hill Housing, to name just one
slow-moving and over-burdened nonprofit, go to the first caller. Calling their phone line is a game of
milliseconds, like winning a radio call-in show. Seattle has to increase its stock of affordable housing. The
odds of getting an affordable apartment should be better than those for winning the Powerball lottery.
1
The market is not going to provide affordable housing. Investors build and sell luxury apartments, often
one-bedrooms since those are the highest rent per square foot. And although the idea of building
affordable housing alongside the expanded light rail is a good one, why should working class people have
to live in the distant hinterlands, along the farthest light rail stops (not even built yet)? We deserve to
live in the city too. Seattle is fast becoming priced like New York or London. The land belongs to the city,
not to the homeowners of Magnolia. I am 55 years old and living in a 108-square-foot rented room. I and
others like me deserve affordable living space in the city where we work. Sincerely,
Bruno George
LETTER 325
From: Donovan Gesting
Lindsay Masters,
Office of Housing.
I would like to request that you please use the Lawton land for the people in need with the mixed
homeless/elder/affordable housing model. As a native Seattleite I would like to see the city direct its 1
efforts to those who will be here in 20 years not the development opportunist.
--
Donovan Gesting
9949 Rainier Ave S Seattle, WA 98118
206.483.7919
[email protected]
LETTER 326
From: Judi Gibbs
Subject: Ft Lawton
Please add the land at Ft. Lawton to Discovery Park. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to add 30
acres to Discovery Park.
1
Please put the low-income, homeless, and affordable housing elsewhere in the city. I favor the low-
income and homeless housing—and I’d be happy to see the city pay for land for it elsewhere. I really
want the 30 acres used to enlarge Discovery Park.
~Judi Gibbs
4338 32nd Ave. West
Seattle 98199
Dem PCO 36-1701
LETTER 327
From: Susan Gilbert
Subject: Discovery Park plans-- no on low income housing
Regarding the plans for Discovery Park area low income housing. I would vote for either a school with 1
parkland, or if that's not feasible, an expansion of Discovery Park. This is not an area that would make 2
sense for low income housing. This is a once in a life-time opportunity to make it a grand Park. The
Magnolia city council did not poll Magnolia residents and do not speak for a large group of people who
are against low income housing in that location. There are many opportunities to place low income 3
housing in a more appropriate location near support services. Thank-you for listening. S.
LETTER 328
From: Dionna Glaze
Subject: Fort Lawton development for the homeless
I am a resident of Queen Anne.

I am concerned that a Magnolia resident's voice in this might carry more weight with the City than
anyone else's in this city regarding the development of Fort Lawton. Seattle is making a separate count
of those 'voting' from Magnolia. Discovery Park and Fort Lawton are not owned by the Magnolia 1
neighborhood. They are owned now by the City of Seattle and the federal government respectively. We
should all be able to equally enjoy the park, and we should all be equally able to voice an equally
counted vote for what to do with the land.
If anything, that land at Fort Lawton should be developed for the benefit of the Indians who first lived on
this land and are now economically struggling. Our most in need should be given first priority for safe
housing since the count of the homeless is showing that their average age of death, last derived in
November, was 47 years old. This death rate is preventable by a number of public policy changes, and 2
this is one of them.
And the land is FREE. If we act on behalf of the houseless.
Please act to defend and empower our most defenseless instead of bowing to the rich and greedy.
-Dionna Glaze ZIP 98119
LETTER 329
From: Shaun Glaze
Subject: I support housing for Fort Lawton
Hi Lindsay Masters,
We have an opportunity for building affordable housing on free land from the federal government- this
is such a rare event we should seize this opportunity.
I am not eligible for affordable housing. I live in upper Queen Anne (above SPU) with my wife, kiddo, and
live-in nanny. We're a dual income family that makes over $200,000 a year. The only direct benefit that
building affordable housing will have on us is that we will have more income diversity and new
1
neighbors- and I am very excited about this prospect. There our indirect benefits of this, too. People
who might have otherwise died without a home will have a place to live. Without housing people die.
We are being given a FREE parcel of land (not even a park) that the federal government by law must give
the City of Seattle. if the city uses the land to house the people experiencing homelessness, this will
address the huge homelessness crisis while also benefiting the public health of our communities. It
would also be a huge win- to take land that was once used to facilitate such pain and to rehabilitate it
for the public good.
I know that this decision is somehow contentious. Some people want to leave the land alone, turn it into
a park, or build a new school. I have a child- so I can get the appeal of a new school. The truth is that this
decision is a life-or-death decision for so many and I support the earlier EIS that that building a school
elsewhere seems most appropriate. The lief-or-death nature of this decision is reflected is the average
age of death being mid-life for people experiencing homelessness. This death rate is preventable by a
number of public policy changes, and this is one of them.
2
Finally, I want to underscore the importance of applying a racial and social justice equity lens to your
review of the public commentary on this project. Seattle states it has a commitment to social justice and
racial equity, with most local government departments including such language in their website and
annual reports. Most people who are experiencing homelessness or are accessing affordable housing
resources are White- though a the percentage people of color experiencing homelessness are
disproportionate to our percent of the general population. I am deeply concerns that if the Fort Lawton
decision does not include housing that even more people of color will be left behind.
Thank you for your consideration,
Shaun Glaze
LETTER 330
From: Demian Godon
Subject: affordable housing at Fort Lawton
Hi,
As a Magnolia resident and home-owner for almost 20 years, I strongly support efforts to create more
affordable housing at Fort Lawton and urge the city to move quickly to make this happen.
For too long the only development in Magnolia has been tearing down small houses and building giant
new houses where the same number of people continue to live in them - that is, development that 1
caters to the ultra wealthy. This is forcing many residents either on to the street or out of Seattle far
from jobs. We need desperately need more high quality affordable housing for the many Seattle
residents who are not wealthy.
Best regards,
-Demian
LETTER 331
From: Andrew Golden
Subject: I support housing at Fort Lawton
I am writing to express my support for the proposed housing project at Fort Lawton, and hope as many
units as possible can be built. As a renter, I believe Seattle needs far more housing stock to help stabilize
and lower rental prices to combat homelessness and economic eviction. And this stock needs to be 1
spread out across the city. This project is a perfect opportunity to expand housing in Magnolia. Please
move ahead on this project.
Thank you,
Andrew Golden
Ballard resident (98107)
LETTER 332
From: Eldan Goldenberg
Subject: We can and should build much more housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
The city is absolutely doing the right thing by using the windfall of precious land at Fort Lawton to build
more housing, but we should be much more ambitious. The amount of space the current Preferred
Alternative gives to surface parking is particularly disappointing - that's the worst possible land use.
Neighbors have raised the location's limited transit service as an objection, and under the status quo 1
that would be a problem - but the best way to address that is to build much more housing, which will
provide the demand to support large frequency and span-of-service improvements. This would benefit
not only new Fort Lawton residents, but also the people already living in the Magnolia neighborhood,
who are somewhat left behind by existing bus service.
Yours,
Eldan Goldenberg
Eldan Goldenberg
[email protected]
LETTER 333
From: Jennifer Goldman
I am writing to enthusiastically support housing development at Fort Lawton, including the construction
of affordable housing, as soon as possible. I am a public school teacher in Seattle, and so many families
need safe, stable places to live. I don't know how anyone in good conscience can delay or oppose
housing construction when some of our schools have homeless rates over 20%. I also believe strongly in
the need to have mixed income, dense, and affordable housing throughout all of our neighborhoods. All
residents and families benefit from diverse communities that give many options of places to live. I'm a
resident of Bryant and appreciate that our neighborhood has been able to build housing developments 1
in former military property. I'm glad to know and have neighbors from the Burke Gilman apartments,
Magnuson Park/Solid Ground housing, etc. I'd love to create more spaces for homes in our city, and Fort
Lawton is one important spot. I'm also a science teacher with an environmental science background, and
have absolutely no reservations about the environmental impact of this project. We are lucky to live in a
city with a rich network of parks, and dense housing helps us preserve green space while sharing our city
with everyone. Change is hard, but change that makes room in our neighborhoods for more people to
have homes is the best kind. Thank you for doing all you can to make the most of this opportunity to
create homes.
Jennifer Goldman
LETTER 334
From: Michael Goldman
Subject: Fort Lawton affordable housing
Please provide for the maximum affordable housing units at Fort Lawton. It is the highest priority of all 1
the issues brought before the Office of Housing.
Thank you,
Michael Goldman
Seattle, WA
LETTER 335
From: Kelley Goldmanis
Alternative 3, more park please.

-Kelley Goldmanis 1
3905 W Hooker St.
Seattle, WA 98199 (actual Magnolia resident)
LETTER 336
From: Norman M Gonsalves
Subject: Ft. Lawton
I absolutely support affordable housing opportunities that this project proposes to serve. I also wonder 1
if there’s a component the city can implement to offer educational opportunities in urban ecology and a
summer outdoor school program for children who will live here. Please green light this much needed 2
affordable housing and keep up the momentum, this city needs more of it.
Thank You-
Norman M Gonsalves
LETTER 337
From: Mikhaila Gonzales
Subject: Mikhaila Gonzales says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
1
region.
Humanity).
the GHG contribution of people living in a dense, transit-rich urban environment, compared to the long 3
should ensure that the housing remain as affordable housing even if re-sold, and that there is the 4
owners.
Sincerely yours,
Mikhaila Gonzales
LETTER 338
From: Richard and Carol Goodall
Subject: Comments regarding development of Ft. Lawton property
My wife and I would like to strongly endorse Alternative #1 of the currently proposed actions concerning
the development of the Ft. Lawton land. This seems to us to be the only responsible future use for this
land.
We are both long-term residents of Magnolia and live near the site under consideration. I am also a
long-term volunteer for Habitat for Humanity and can comment on the portion of the housing that they
would provide. I have done the construction work and I have also served on the committee that selects 1
the people who get to have the houses. There is a lot of competition to get Habitat for Humanity
houses as there are far more applicants than houses, so the process was highly selective. The people we
chose were low income but they had stable employment and little or no debt. They were ambitious and
were people that we thought would be a good addition to a community. We would be happy to have
them as our neighbors in Magnolia.
Dick and Carol Goodall

LETTER 339
From: John Gosink
Subject: Fort Lawton housing development
Hello,
I live at on 35th and Government Way, adjacent to the proposed housing development and I am in favor
of the city’s plan. The development will add some traffic directly in front of our house, but that is a
small price to pay to help those less fortunate than ourselves.
The median home price to income ratio has skyrocketed in recent years leaving reasonable housing out 1
of reach for many. Magnolia is in affluent neighborhood. Those with more have a moral obligation to
support those with less.
Please move forward with your current housing development plan.

Thank you.
-John
LETTER 340
From: Susan Gossman
We live in a congested, rapidly growing city and our city parks are wonderful havens to this crowding.
New York City would never build low income housing in Central Park and Vancouver would not allow 1
low income housing in Stanley Park so why is Seattle considering building in Discovery Park? Please find
another location for low income housing.
Susan Gossman
Seattle, WA
LETTER 341
From: Chris Govella
Subject: Fort Lawton needs affordable housing
The federal government handed control over to local ownership so that it's original inhabitants might
decide how to best use the land. Bernie White Bear and native American activists staged an occupy
protest to assert the right of indigenous people as original inhabitants with a voice in the process. This
act showed us local ownership could mean more than simply Magnolia residents or the City of Seattle.
And now that the City is collecting statements on land use, I urge officials to remember the expansive
1
definition of local ownership. What Seattle needs is more resources for affordable housing, for
communities that face the pressures of the real estate market and cannot hold together. Fort Lawton is
a valuable space for people of all economic ability to come together. A unique open space for children to
play in it's parks and admire the natural resources. A space where people can come, stay, and contribute
to the cultural vibrancy for generations to come.
Please include affordable housing as a requirement for developing this land.
Thank you,
Chris Govella
1517 Edwards Ave
Fircrest, WA 98466
LETTER 342
Greeting,
I am writing to urge the City of Seattle to study an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more
housing, preferably without privatization. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income
households are being pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in
record numbers.
1
Surplus public land should be used for public goods, not sold off to developers. Please move forward with
building affordable housing at Fort Lawton - with more homes, and more public ownership, than is
currently being considered.
Thank you.
--
Jon Grant
[email protected]
206-353-9740
LETTER 343
From: Sam Grantham
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment comments
As a Seattle resident and new Magnolia resident, I support Option 3 from the draft study, that of
additional parkland added to the beautiful Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine park areas. Discovery Park
1
has been a favorite destination of many people I know and was certainly a draw for me in particular. In
addition to being beneficial both physically and mentally, recent studies have shown that natural areas
can be economically beneficial to cities (see
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343515000433 for an example study). I would
love to preserve this land and also possibly add school facilities so that we could see our Seattle school 2
children use the park as a way to get into nature.
If Option 3 is not under consideration anymore, I would suggest Option 2 for the Fort Lawton area.
While housing our homeless residents is a worthy endeavor, I do not think the Fort Lawton area is a
good option for multiple reasons: First is simply that Magnolia, and that area of Fort Lawton in
particular, are very isolated. There are few local services and stores in that area that would be helpful or
beneficial to a lower income household. The only grocery store within walking or biking distance is the
Metropolitan Market, which if you've ever shopped there know that the prices can be astoundingly high.
There are also, to my knowledge, no discount stores for clothes or household goods nearby. In addition,
and possibly the most troubling, there are relatively few connections to the rest of the city. Personally, I 3
don't use a car, just busses and a bicycle, and I have found getting around and out of Magnolia without a
car to be harder than any other part of Seattle that I've lived in. I would hate to burden the low income
inhabitants with the additional burden to purchase and maintain a car to be able to get around as they
need! Locating homeless and low income housing in a more central area of the city, where the city
could ensure they have excellent access to the city's services and amenities, would set everyone up to
succeed, which we all want!
Thank you for listening and if you have further comments, questions, or concerns, feel free to contact
me. Thanks!
-Sam Grantham
LETTER 344
From: John Green
Subject: Housing in Fort Lawton
To whom it may concern
Using the remaining parcel of Fort Lawton for housing of any kind would be a mistake on the order of
missing out on Forward Thrust in the 60’s. Please do not be part of such an epic blunder.
This park is a regional treasure and protecting it through expansion is critical. The health of this great 1
city does require affordable housing and solutions to housing the homeless but it will increasingly
require open and even wild spaces. I would hope that housing issues could be addressed in Interbay of
other areas of the city.
Thank you,
John Green
LETTER 345
From: Julie Green

I strongly oppose the proposed housing development adjacent to Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine and
urge you to support adding the last parcel of Fort Lawton to Discovery Park. 1
This is not a Magnolia issue it’s a city wide issue. To miss a chance to expand this regional treasure
would be a historical mistake.
Thank you for considering
Julie Green
LETTER 346
From: Cheryl Gregory
Subject: I support Alternative 1 for Fort Lawton Redevelopment!
Dear Ms. Masters:

I am a resident and homeowner in Magnolia and I am voicing my support for the Fort Lawton
Redevelopment Project, and specifically, Alternative 1, as presented in the EIS. This alternative provides
much-needed mixed-income housing for Seattle and gives Magnolia a chance to help contribute
solutions and diversify our community.
Many of us in Magnolia have benefited from the changes in our city. Property values have increased in
the double digits. Many high earners have also seen wage increases. These gains have not been
equitable though and are leaving many middle-class and low-income residents behind. For example:
• Median rent for a one-bedroom in Seattle is now between $1,300 and $1,900. And while
median rent in Washington has increased 17 percent since 2006, median income has increased just 7
percent, according to data compiled by the state Department of Commerce.
• That income increase has also been uneven: between 2010 and 2015, the number of Seattle
residents earning $75k+ grew at a rate 11x faster than those who earn less. 1
The result is that many in our Seattle community are struggling. This manifests itself in various ways,
including moving out of the city, downsizing, or moving into homelessness. About 78 percent of people
in this country report that they live paycheck to paycheck so stability can be fragile. Stable housing is
especially critical for families. Stable housing decreases economic stress and food insecurity, helps keep
families together (and keep kids out of the child welfare system), reduces the rates of domestic violence
and alcohol dependence, and limits school changes among children. To address its housing needs
between now and 2030, Seattle will need about 27,500 more homes for people making the lowest
incomes, according to the Housing Development Consortium. For people with higher incomes but who
are still making less than area median income, the city will need another 20,000 units.
All the things I outlined previously comprise the problem statement – housing is a key element to
building strong families and communities and we need more of it in Seattle. What can we do in
Magnolia?
I hear complaints about homeless people in our neighborhood. I hear complaints about people living in
their vehicles. I don’t hear very many solutions. This is a clear solution that we can help implement.
This is an amazing opportunity to turn property (that is provided for free!) into stable housing. It's also a
chance for us enrich our community and welcome others' whose life experiences may be different.
The affordable rentals would be designated for people making up to 60 percent of area median income
or $57,600 for a family of four. The housing for purchase would be for people making up to 80 percent
1
area median income or $72,000 for a family of four. To put this in context, Seattle teachers with eight
years experience and a master's degree earn roughly $64,000. These are hard-working people that have
every right to live in Magnolia.
In sum, I believe many of us that live in Magnolia hold similar values – a commitment to our family,
community. A belief in equity and dignity for all. The Fort Lawton redevelopment is a chance to
enhance our community and help provide opportunity for others. It’s not a zero sum game – it doesn’t
require sacrifices on our part. We rise by lifting others.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Best,
Cheryl Gregory
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 347
From: Marc Grenly

Subject: Fort Lawton Support
Hello..
I just wanted to be another Seattle resident voice in support of this project. I'm fully in support of the
city taking a very proactive roll in building new affordable and subsidized housing and even increasing
taxes on residents to do it if need be. Please make this project happen and happen well so it can be a 1
shining example of good housing practices that be repeated in other parts of the city.
Cheers
--
Marc Grenley
LETTER 348
From: Alison Grevstad
I would like to voice support for alternative 1. I support the possibility of Seattle Public Schools being a
possible partner in a portion of the use of the space, and of leaving the portion of the property 1
designated for parks as open space (both for recreational and environmental preservation areas).
I believe that the city could address issues of transportation and amenities that this group of residents
will have need of, such as child care, bus service, car or bike share parking and access to a reasonably
2
priced food service/distribution location, whether it be a non-profit commissary, traveling food vendor,
shared kitchen or community learning & gathering space, small store or café.
Sincerely,
Alison Grevstad
LETTER 349
From: Alexandra Griffith and Rombod Aghakhani
Subject: Magnolia Discovery Park
I would like to add my comments re housing proposals in Magnolia re a Discovery Psrk land use. My
husband and I are requesting that you follow the wishes of Friends of Discovery Park. We believe in the 1
Discovery Park Community Alliance and support them. We choose/ want option 3. Thank you in
advance.
Alexandra Griffith & Rombod Aghakhani
LETTER 350
From: Gerald A. and Annette K. Grimm
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopement
As 30 year residents of Magnolia we strongly oppose the City's Vision for Fort Lawton. We certainly
agree that we as a city/community need to find and provide housing opportunities for those with low
incomes, but Fort Lawton is not the place. Access to the proposed area is not serviced by public
transportation. Residents would have to walk a number of blocks to access public transportation which
is very limited in all of the Magnolia neighborhood. Access to needed services such as grocery stores,
1
(only one grocery store is nearby and it carries high cost items), gas stations, (only one gas station is
nearby and it has expensive gas), pharmacies, banking centers, medical facilities, etc. are not readily
available. This is not a 'not in my backyard' letter, but a real concern that this plan would put those it
intends to serve at a very unfair advantage and a strain on their already limited resources.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Grimm, Annette K. Grimm
Emerson St. Seattle, WA
LETTER 351
5
6
LETTER 352
From: Robbie Grimm
Subject: Do Not Ruin Discovery Park
I grew up in Magnolia and discovery park was a huge part of my childhood. My friends and I would go
play hide-n-seek, whiffle ball, football or other fun games all by ourselves. It’s a safe place for children
and a safe place where women jog alone without fear.
Now imagine being a parent and seeing your little boys/girls peddle away on their bikes to go to an area
where there knowingly is heroin, meth, sex, rape, and more being performed in that very same park.
Would you let your kids go there knowing that activity is going on? This will devastate a nature
1
sanctuary.
Housing the homeless at Fort Lawton doesn’t just put them there. It invites them to overtake one of the
few pure parks left in Seattle. The repercussions will be dozens of tents, drugs, rape and other crime and
when that first rape of a women jogger or abuse of a child happens (which it will).... that will rest solely
on your shoulders for the rest of your life.
Stop ruining Seattle’s parks. I understand this is a major crisis. But ruining parks for people to enjoy
safely is the opposite of helpful.
RG
LETTER 353
From: Geneva Griswold
Subject: Geneva Griswold says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
region.
Humanity).
owners.
Sincerely yours,
Geneva Griswold
LETTER 354
From: Nell Gross
Subject: Fort Lawton development
Please continue with the plan to build new affordable housing for those experiencing homelessness and
for low income residents at Fort Lawton! I consider myself privileged to live in Seattle and this is an
opportunity for our city to take responsibility for extending the privilege to those most marginalized. 1
Please do not give in to arguments from the few who do not see that the solution to homelessness is
housing. We must build housing and make it widely and easily available so that our city can be as strong
as its most vulnerable resident.
Thank you for your consideration!
Nell Gross
Seattle, WA 98126
LETTER 355
LETTER 356
From: Sandy Gunder
We are strongly in favor of the plan that includes the new Habitat for Humanity housing and the low
income senior housing. We cannot continue to reject these projects in certain neighborhoods. We all 1
need to share and contribute. And we cannot let this land revert to the government, who will surely
resell to high end developers. We must take advantage of this opportunity for our low income citizens.
LETTER 357
From: Austin Gunsauley
Subject: Build Affordable Housing at Ft. Lawton
Hi,
I am writing to express my support of affordable housing at Ft. Lawton. 1
The site in question is over 33 acres -- 200 units isn't nearly enough. 2000 units is a more reasonable
number, especially considering the ongoing housing crisis, and the close proximity of open space at
Discovery Park that does not require further investment.
2
Access to housing is a human right. People without homes are dying in this cold winter and the City of
Seattle owes it to its citizens to do everything it can to improve their welfare. The problem will not go
away without the construction of additional housing in locations like Ft. Lawton.
Austin Gunsauley, 98107
LETTER 358
From: Monika D Guzikowska
Subject: Fort Lawton housing decision
Dear Ms. Masters,

I am writing to weigh in on the city's use of the unused property on Fort Lawton. I'm a licensed
independent clinical social worker (LICSW) at Harborview Medical Center, where I serve as a mental
health provider for adults in our community. Many of our clients are living under (sometimes
considerably so) the median area income and some are homeless. In my work as a mental health
clinician I have observed how inadequate or tenuous housing affects the mental health of my clients. So 1
often I support folks through the stress and anxiety of not having a permanent home and am stunned
how much healthier and happier they are almost immediately when they are fortunate to find
permanent and affordable housing.
As as citizen I am deeply worried about Seattle's growing income inequality and as a clinician I am
certain that choosing to turn the unused Fort Lawton land into affordable housing is the right decision
for our city and for my clients.
Thanks for your consideration!
Warm Regards,
Monika
___________________________
Monika Guzikowska, LICSW
Mental Health Care Coordinator (BHIP)
Family Medicine Clinic
VM: 206.744.1447
LETTER 359
From: Christina Hall
Please continued forward with plans to create low income housing at Fort Lawton. As a city we
desperately need more low income housing. We are on the verge of becoming a city only the very
wealthy can afford. As a mid-wage earner, I struggle to afford rent in Seattle and can only imagine how
incredibly challenging it must be for someone making less than the average wage. I understand you 1
have had some push back on the project, and as someone who has lived in Seattle for over 25 years, and
seen drastic change in the cost of living, I strongly urge you to continue to do everything possible to
keep Seattle a livable city for everyone and that means creating housing that our low income residents
can afford.
Thank you,
Christina Hall
(206) 550-1682
LETTER 360
From: Brad Halverson
Subject: Opposed to Ft Lawton use for homeless or poverty level residents
Good morning,
I will not be able to attend the Ft Lawton redevelopment meeting tonight. And so here’s my
feedback……I am strongly opposed to Ft Lawton being developed for homeless and/or poverty level
residents.
Why? Do I care about helping homeless and those in poverty? Yes!
Putting people down on their luck in a section of town, as beautiful as Discovery Park is, is irresponsible.
In fact, it is inhumane, maybe even mean.
People that are already in harms way need easy access to medical services and other support services if
1
they are to take the next step in their lives. The neighborhood around Ft Lawton has NONE of this. And
when a person has to take a long bus ride from Ft Lawton and make 2 stops or connections, at what
point does it just become too much work and time for them to get help?
If you want to find a place for the homeless and people in poverty to live, establish spaces right on bus
lines, near places where they can get quick medical attention, where they are able to get food from a
food bank, where they can find job leads or get job training.
Ironically, there is discussion around a new High School at the crumbling Memorial Stadium at Seattle
Center. Even this would be a better place for them than next to sleepy Discovery Park. There are many
bus options and it is closer to many of the services they need…shoot, a short bus ride away
Ft Lawton should be used to expand park land and nature education, considered for a High School to
serve Magnolia and Queen Anne, among other things. 2
I ask the City of Seattle leadership to look at maps and take note of locations that would be better suited
to build housing for people in need. Get them close and right next to the services that are important for
them to take the next step.
Thank you,
Brad Halverson
resident of 98199
LETTER 361
From: Erik Hammen
Subject: I support low income housing at Discovery Park
1
thanks for your time
Erik Hammen
Seattle
LETTER 362
From: Chong Han
Subject: Yes to affordable Homes at Ft. Lawton
Hello,
I work in the affordable housing industry. We have to try to slow down the rent increases. Ft Lawton has
valuable space for affordable housing. I hear it's been a ten year legal battle on housing there. Magnolia 1
folks wants to protect Discovery Park, but this development is not being built there.
As far as I know, that area will not have an upzone. 2
We need affordable housing everywhere in Seattle to relieve the pressures of unaffordable rent 3
increases. Everyone has to admit that rent is too high. We must all agree on that.
Thanks,
Citizen.
LETTER 363
From: David Handa
Email Address: [email protected] Subject: Fort Lawton DEIS
I am opposed to the current plans by the City of Seattle for reuse of Fort Lawton. The original Discovery
Park Master Plan (1972) for the park stated at any release of additional fort property was to be included
as part of the park. In fact, the idea of using park land for other uses was anticipated in the language of
the Master Plan:
“Primary Function — Central Purpose: The primary role of this park in the life of the city is dictated by
its incomparable site. That role should be to provide an open space of quiet and tranquility for the
citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the
rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring. It should be
accepted that this park cannot satisfy all of the recreational needs of all of the citizens of Seattle. It can
only complement the other elements in the park system. This park should not be asked to serve too
many functions. It will best serve this city if it is permitted to serve one primary function and to serve
that function well.
1
Future Structures and Activities: In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve
out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities.
There will in the future be structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this
park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest
single threat to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so
fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those
structures should be accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of
the park. There must be a deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site
than as an open space.”
There is no doubt housing is a major concern for Seattle today, but we must not lose sight of this
significant and only dedicated nature park in Seattle. It is my wish that this property be added and
incorporated into Discovery Park, as all of the other previous Army and Navy property has been. To do
otherwise is incredibly shortsighted.
Sincerely,
David Handa
Seattle, WA
LETTER 364
From: Eric Handstad
I would like to voice my support for more housing in Ft Lawton specifically, and all around Seattle in 1
general. I support alternative 1, although I think instead of two hundred units, we should be looking at
building two thousand. If the city really believed homelessness is an emergency, it would be doing 2
everything in it's power to build more housing.
Thank you,
Eric Handstad
LETTER 365
From: Madeline M. Hanhardt
Subject: Ft. Lawton - PRO Public/Affordable Housing
To Whom It May Concern (especially our city leaders,)

I'm writing to express my enthusiastic support of using the available land at Ft. Lawton on public and
affordable housing options. There are many examples that indicate when we invest our spaces, our
resources, our money, and any other tool available in those individuals and communities who most need
our help, the entire community, in this instance, the entire city, benefits. Using this land on housing is
the not only the logical choice, it's the most humane choice. Taking care of one another is the most
moral, most Christian, most ethical, and overall best choice the city can make here. We can also look to
Utah as a relevant example that proves when we provide housing to the homeless and shelterless it
decreases longterm/chronic homelessness and even joblessness. Providing housing to the poor and
disadvantaged also saves cities, states, and countries money in the long term.
Outside of arguments of practicality, housing is a human right. It is absolutely inexcusable and morally
reprehensible that Seattle, one of the wealthiest cities in the world, saw over 100 people die due to
causes related to chronic homelessness. Many of our city's own residents could individually pay for
these problems to no longer exist tomorrow if they wanted to. But what happens? The state of
1
emergency our city has been in for two years now continues. We continue to sweep the problem away.
We continue to serve $500 fines to people who already have nothing. This is disgusting.
I sincerely hope that Seattle's electeds live up to their campaign promises of taking care of the city's
most vulnerable. To do this, their actions must speak louder than their words. We need to become more
devoted to justice than we are to law and order. We need to become more devoted to equity than we
are equality.
With that, I strongly urge the city to do the right thing. Use Ft. Lawton for good - for housing.
Sincerely,
Madeline M. Hanhardt
Seattle's District 4
206.733.0146
LETTER 366
From: Amy Hansen
Subject: Amy Hansen says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

region.
Humanity).
owners.
plans should as much as possible allow for additional buildings or increased height to be accommodated
5
Sincerely yours,
Amy Hansen
LETTER 367
From: Stacey Hanson
Subject: In support of affordable housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers. As my
husband and I are two of the tech employees who are essentially contributing to this crisis by simply
living our lives - recently purchasing a home in the Montlake neighborhood for our growing family - it's
critical to me to see that I proactively act to get more people housed, not fewer.
In the midst of this crisis, Seattle is getting a FREE gift of land from the federal government, and the City
should be considering bold steps to create more affordable housing. Instead, the City's Preferred
1
Alternative devotes the large majority of the land to recreation and surface parking, passing up an
opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes. It does not matter that these aren't
perfectly situated near transit, these should be HOMES where PEOPLE can LIVE instead of living on the
street. Any argument otherwise is another shameful effort to improve the living conditions of the
(mostly wealthy, white) already-housed at the expense of the homeless.
Thank you.
Stacey Hanson
[email protected]
LETTER 368
From: Tanya Hanson
I'm writing to express my complete support for affordable housing at Fort Lawton! Seattle desperately
needs more housing that people can actually afford, and this is a unique opportunity to put a dent in
1
that and help our fellow Seattlelites who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Please build
affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
Thank you,
Tanya Hanson
LETTER 369
From: Matthew Harding
Subject: Alternative 1
I am a Land's End resident. I support alternative 1 because Seattle needs more affordable housing. We
already have a wonderful, enormous park with a brand new playground. We couldn't ask for more from 1
this neighborhood. We should share what we have.
-Matt
LETTER 370
From: Rob Harrison
Lindsay Masters,
Instead, even the City's Preferred Alternative devotes the large majority of the land to recreation and
surface parking, passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes. Specifically,
1
the Fort Lawton site offers the possibility of a truly innovative forward-looking settlement--a Passive
House District like Vauban in Freiburg, Germany. Vauban—also on the site of a former army barracks—is
a new district of 5,000 dwellings, all meeting the rigorous Passive House standard. The Fort Lawton site
doesn't need to be that big, but 234 units, considering the magnitude of the housing issue in Seattle,
seems ridiculously few.
Thank you.
Rob Harrison
[email protected]
1133 18th Ave, Apt 32 WA, Washington 98122
LETTER 371
From: Nichole Hart
Subject: Public Comment: Fort Lawton
We desperately need more affordable housing, so that is the proposal I support for land use at Fort
1
Lawson. A new park would be lovely, but priority must be given to addressing the housing crisis.
Thanks,
Nichole Hart
(Shoreline/Seattle, WA)
LETTER 372
From: Donna Hartmann-Miller
Hi -
I've been trying (thru a link that went to Lindsay Masters) to get an answer to a question before I submit
my comments on the Lawton development. Regarding the Fort Lawton alternatives, I am curious what is
the total capacity in gallons that the stormwater/utilities CAN handle safely. Is there someone who can
1
answer this? I looked in the DEIS and couldn't find this info and then I looked for a Public Utilities
contact info and can't identify that either. If you could help me, I would appreciate it.
Thank you, Donna
- Donna Hartmann-Miller
Have a lovely day!
""Live so that when your children think of fairness, caring, and integrity, they think of you."" - H. Jackson
Brown, Jr. "
LETTER 373
From: Erika Haskell
Democracy and our elected officials have failed us. It is very evident this group doesn't want to hear the
opinions of the community and instead want to shove this issue down our throats. 1
I adamantly appose turning Fort Lawton into a homeless facility. This is precious space in the city and
should be utilized in a much more productive manner. There is only one bus line that goes to this area of
Magnolia, the #33. This bus only runs about every 30-45 minutes. There are also NO SERVICES in this
area. The closest grocery store is half a mile away, and given the proposed plan is to put senior homeless 2
people here, that is not going to work. Also, this grocery store is high end Met Market, which is more
expensive than Whole Foods. Also not a right fit for homeless seniors. There needs to be further analysis
of the impact to Magnolia by turning Fort Lawton into a homeless facility. I also think it is time the city
looks to Olympia for alternative homeless housing. Olympia has all of the resources to aid this 3
population, it would make most sense to put the homeless close to those services.
I am a big proponent of making this into a high school! There is a huge classroom shortage in Magnolia - 4
look at Blaine Elementary and the number of portables. These kids are then slotted to go to Ballard High
School which is also at max capacity. Why not renovate the existing structures at Fort Lawton and make
5
it into a high school? Its time the city re-calibrates its focus and attends to the youth and future of our
society and invest money into it.
--
Erika Haskell
[email protected]
206-999-7865
LETTER 374
From: Claudia Heiden
Subject: Fort Lawton / Discovery Park
I’ve been a homeowner in Magnolia for the past 19 years.

I am very concerned about the city’s decision to put low income housing in Discovery Park for the 1
following reasons:
-the Park is very isolated from services.

-the closest grocery store is high end - Metro Market - and I can barely afford to shop there. Where will
2
they shop?
-we need to maintain this beautiful park as open space for the city to enjoy. 3
-with low income housing there it may impact the serenity of the park and possibly bring more crime.
4
We already have seen an increase in crime and don’t need more.
-we need housing for low income but they should be in areas with more service access nearby (like
Interbay for example) -having low income housing will no doubt decrease home owners equity.
5
-many of us would prefer a school over low income housing as another school in Magnolia is much 6
needed.
-not everyone who lives in Magnolia was given an opportunity to voice their opinion on the 7
development of our beautiful park. I know I did not receive a survey or anything in the mail.
I am not against helping those in need for low income housing. I just don’t feel Magnolia Discovery Park
is the right place for it. 8
I hope the city decides an another alternative.
Thanks.
Claudia Heiden
LETTER 375
From: Bron Heintz
Hello,
parks and open spaces. 1
Thank you,
Bron Heintz
2225 1st Ave Apt 301
Seattle, WA 98121
LETTER 376
From: Susan Helf
Hello,
I am writing to support Alternative 1 for low-income housing at Fort Lawton. However, the proposed 1
240 units are completely inadequate to meet the needs of some 8,500 now living on the streets.
I urge you to redo your plan and build at least 1,000 units on the site. You will get more push-back from
the Magnolia NIMBYs, but do not give in to them. The surplus Army land at Fort Lawton provides a
fabulous opportunity to house a significant number of families, seniors and veterans. Don't bother 2
appeasing the Magnolians, who will continue to sue the City over ANY low-income housing plan.
Susan Helf
Greenwood
LETTER 377
From: Yoav Helfman
Subject: We need more housing! Fort Lawton is a fine choice.
Lindsay Masters,
Yo! We need more housing. Not later, now. I am an amazon employee fresh to the city after graduating
from university of Michigan in April 2017. Me and my cohort bring in literally so much fucking money to
your city its crazy. We are happy to keep skyrocketing the cities economy forward but you need to build
more housing to make the growth sustainable. Cmon! This is a defined problem with a defined solution.
1
Thank you.
Yoav Helfman
[email protected]
LETTER 378
From: Nicki Hellenkamp

Subject: Surplus land at Ft. Lawton for affordable homes – yes!
Hello,
1
Thank you,
Nicki Hellenkamp
11234 57th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98178
LETTER 379
From: Laura Heller
Hi there,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I do not support the homelessness plan A that's proposed
for Fort Lawton. The plan A is way too aggressive for a family neighborhood. I have an elementary aged
child, and am surrounded by neighbors with elementary aged children. Keep this area family-friendly.
What I would like to see:
1 - Mixed use housing that includes a mix of affordable housing for senior and veterans, housing
affordable to our police officers, teachers, service and blue collar workes as well as some market rate 1
housing.
2 - Improved street layout so that the streets are more porous with neighborhoods. I'd like to have
better access to the bus lines rather than the 1/2 mile walk to the nearest bus stop from my house. The 2
current plan just re-uses the current street layout.
3 - Land set side for the school system. With increased density, there needs to be educational capacity. 3
4 - Protect the trees of the area. Don't just cut down all the trees. Or at least make an effort to protect
our ecosystem in an increasingly urban environment. This could be re-planting trees. This could be 4
more porous surfaces to help combat rain water runoff.
5 - Ensure energy efficient housing standards to mitigate the impact of greater urbanization. 5
Discovery Park already has an element of people using drugs, leaving used needles, and tents that the
current plan will only make things worse. There was a news article that the back of an Everett area 6
Home Depot had large piles of used needles behind it. Let's not bring that to my neighborhood.
While I agree that we have a homelessness problem, the city seems to not be addressing the root
causes. Why the sudden increase in the last 5 years? Let's tackle that. This problem won't get better 7
unless the root causes are addressed.
Please consider these points.
Thank you and best regards,

Laura Heller, resident and parent
LETTER 380
From: megan helmer
To accuse single family dwellings as being discriminatory of class is simply inaccurate. Fort Lawton and
Discovery Park is a public city gem. It's one of the few public parks that you can get turned around in the 1
trees if the sun is isn't out. Challenging the eroding landscape with more people near public park space is
not the answer.
Better public and affordable transit can move people easily from work school and home. Why are we
looking to what few park and green spaces we have left for low income housing? Park space is not the 2
place.
LETTER 381
From: Marnie Hendrix
NO low income housing here!!!

1
Make it a school or something useful.
Or consider lowering our property taxes - for tarnishing our neighborhood with homeless and low 2
income housing.
Do you have that in your neighborhood?
Marnie Hendrix
206 459 0225
LETTER 382
From: Sharon Hennessy
Hello,
Thank you,
Sharon Hennessy
1624 Boren Ave
apartment 805
Seattle, WA 98101
LETTER 383
From: Ian Hepburn
Subject: Ft Lawton DEIS
I would like you to know that I support Alternative 1 for Ft Lawton. Also, that SPS acquiring the 6 acres 1
for future school use is very important.
Ian Hepburn
3905 W Briarcliff Ln
Magnolia, Seattle
LETTER 384
From: Eric Herbig
Subject: Eric Herbig says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

As you know, the city of Seattle faces two humanitarian crises: homelessness and climate change. It is 1
Seattle, this means that we absolutely cannot afford the trend of working people being pushed out of cont.
region.
Humanity).
3
owners.
Sincerely yours,
Eric Herbig
LETTER 385
From: David A. Herrick
Subject: N/A
Yes, my backyard is in Magnolia and I support the City of Seattle's (applicant) preferred alternative for
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment. Seattle has (sadly) joined the big leagues when it 1
comes to the homeless population here. We need solutions to not simply combat this problem but
try to get ahead of it.
Unfortunately, both Fort Lawton and the proposed alternative strawman (Talaris site) are ringed by
affluent neighborhoods that will fight tooth and nail against this type of proposal. We must take a longer
term approach as well as finding novel methods to alleviate their discomfort regarding proximity to
homeless populations. If Seattle is to remain a world class city in light of its current (some would say
manic) development, low income alternatives where opportunities arise (like Fort Lawton and Talaris)
must be seized.
For the record, even though I feel that Magnolia has many amenities, but no one would deny that Fort 1,
Lawton (now Discovery Park) is the jewel in its crown. I am there at least weekly. However, Discovery cont.
Park's master plan is so restrictive (a good thing) that if these 34 acres were folded into the park, there
would be no consideration of a development at any future date. Keep it separate and get it done.
My interest in the homeless population stems from a decade of cooking for the homeless at both
Operation Nightwatch and St. Clouds (Neighborhood Cooking Foundation).
I look forward to hearing that the DEIS's preferred alternative was selected.
Cordially,
David A. Herrick, C.P.A (ret.)
2307 29th Avenue West
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 386
From: Pete Higgins
Subject: Fort Lawton land use
Hello,
I would like to express my support for using the Fort Lawton property for affordable housing and public
space. Viable land near the downtown Seattle core is getting scarce and I do not think that building a
few dozen large luxury homes is a good use of the space when it could house a whole new community. 1
Please use this as an opportunity to make Seattle a better place for all rather than just an attractive
investment for the wealthy.
Thank you,
Pete Higgins
LETTER 387
From: Edward Highfield
As a Seattle resident, I fully support the use of Fort Lawton as low income housing. 1
Edward Highfield
523 Broadway E, Apt. 509
Seattle, WA, 98102
LETTER 388
From: Collin Hinshaw

Subject: Support for Affordable Housing at Ft. Lawton
Hello,
I was so pleased to read an article https://seattle.curbed.com/2018/1/9/16869150/fort-lawton-

magnolia-affordable-housing about the wonderful proposed plans, and opposition to said plans. I write
to you with my support for your plan that includes affordable housing for seniors and vets. I also like the
idea of doing some market rate housing as well (I believe they do something similar in the Greenbridge
redevelopment in south West Seattle/ White Center) mixed in, as I think this helps tie everyone together
to make a stronger, diverse community, and also then helps it resist the stigma of being called a
"project". 1
It is incredibly rare to have land like this available in the city so it is important to me that we keep
DIscovery Park as it is, but also important to utilize it for low income housing. I encourage you to move
forward with your plans and do not listen to the NIMBY's that seem to gather in flocks.
More affordable, mixed with market rate housing!
Thank you,
Collin Hinshaw
9429 Olson Pl. SW
Seattle, WA 98106
425-466-1756
LETTER 389
From: Josh Hirshland
Hello—
My name is Josh Hirschland and I’m a Ballard resident. I just wanted to write in support of the plan to
build affordable housing at Fort Lawton as identified as the preferred option in the Draft EIS. As you are
well aware, Seattle’s rapid growth has created affordability issues affecting the most vulnerable in our 1
community. This project could be a positive step towards making things better for all Seattleites.
LETTER 390
From: Suzanne Hittman
Subject: Statement for Ft. Lawton Reserve Draft EIS
My name is Suzanne Hittman. I am a resident of Seattle's First Hill Neighborhood. I want to register my 1
support for the Draft EIS as presented by the City of Seattle. However, the number of low
income/affordable housing recommended for the site should be increased. One of the deterrents
frequently mentioned when proposals come forward for low income/affordable housing is the lack of
available land. Now we have these 30 some acres which will become available to the city, at the 2
conclusion of this process, negating the deterrent of the lack of available land. I urge the city to move
forward with its planning and consider greater of this housing.
Suzanne Hittman
725 9th Ave. Apt. 901
Seattle, WA 98104
LETTER 391
From: Monika Holm
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Monika Holm
[email protected]
215 10th Ave E
LETTER 392
From: Tim Holmgren
Subject: Ft. Lawton and Discovery Park
Hello...
The most rational and globally equitable course of action on this matter is to annex the Ft. Lawton 1
acreage to Discovery Park.
The low income housing option creates a setup to fail circumstance for the target low income audience.
This option would isolate these people economically, as the location is not well served by mass transit 2
and is miles from businesses/ centers of employment, let alone a grocery store.
The market rate housing option would benefit mainly wealthy developers, while disadvantaging the
existing neighborhood’s inhabitants. One can foresee worsening traffic jams on 36th Avenue, Nickerson
Street and in Interbay as a result of the overnight addition of 238 households’ cars on these and the
3
remaining two arteries in and out of Magnolia.
Likewise, this location is far from ideal for a new school. The location is distal, rather than central from
the population of potential students. And, as above, additional traffic on Magnolia’s narrowing arteries 4
will worsen a situation that is even now becoming more difficult to live with.
The “Park” alternative will best serve the interests of everyone in the neighborhood and for Seattle.
Reasonable and rational planners will decide to implement the Park option, as described in the EIS. 5
Tim Holmgren
LETTER 393
From: Andrew Holtzclaw
Hello-
I wanted to express my concern regarding the proposal to use Fort Lawton as a site for low income and
homeless housing. Fort Lawton, and Magnolia in general, is a poor fit for such a site, due to the lack of
necessary infrastructure needed for a population that often do not have reliable transportation. The lack
of buses, and more importantly lack of walkability, would create in effect an island that would be 1
difficult to serve by the city, and difficult to survive for the inhabitants. I'm concerned that the city is
considering sticking them in the far corner of Magnolia as a "out of sight, out of mind" practice, as
opposed to handling this a way that would serve the affected community better.
Fort Lawton should be preserved as historical sites, and should be considered to be added as part of 2
Discovery Park.
Thank you,
Andrew
LETTER 394
From: A.J. Honore
Subject: Support for Affordable Housing within Fort Lawton Redevelopment
Good Day,
I am a resident of Seattle and I support affordable housing within what used to be Ft. Lawton. The city is
1
desperately short of affordable units.
Many thanks,
AJH
A. J. Honoré
Seattle Greens
LETTER 395
From: Amy Hooey
Subject: Draft EIS for Fort Lawton

I am a Magnolia parent of two young children. I live right next to Fort Lawton. I am incredibly concerned
about the lack of space in our public schools in Magnolia/Ballard/Queen Anne already, and adding so
much more housing without addressing room for school growth is absolutely imperative. It would be
beyond irresponsible and reprehensible to not address.
Key points I am adamant about, as a Magnolia homeowner and parent of two young children who will
be attending Seattle Public Schools:
-I support a wholistic approach to this redevelopment which includes desperately needed School land
-in order for housing developments to be successful appropriate educational infrastructure must be in
-This development feeds to neighborhood schools which are the most rapidly growing and are already at
capacity with over-capacity projections within a few years. 1
Schools to transform this land into a school campus.
-The cost of purchasing land is the number one deterrence to Seattle Public Schools being able to keep
Thank you,
Amy
LETTER 396
From: Shanta Horlander
As a resident of Magnolia where this park is located, I definitely have comments regarding this
Redevelopment. I am not in support of this low income housing project in this Ft. Lawton area.
We pay a lot to live here because while close to the city, we live near many beautiful parks and in a
clean, wholesome neighborhood that I and many others value. While not all people who need low
income housing will create a mess, many do based on my experience of living in the downtown area
(Belltown) near low income housing buildings. The amount of garbage and needles etc that are left by
people who have had trouble keeping a home is VAST. To then offer them housing in one of the most
protected neighborhoods in the area, doesn't seem right. The amount of rubbish that will be left in the
park and in the neighborhoods will grow exponentially We want to keep the neighborhood clean and a
safe place for the kids to play in. That park is such a beautiful haven of space and nature and tranquility
that it will be a shame to see it used by people who, I believe statistically, do not take good care of their
surroundings. 1
This does not mean that these people should be ignored or denied help, but to take such a pristine
place and put them in it is just looking for a downgrade of that area. I do agree that there will be some
low-income people that are an exception to this rule. But, it is not worth losing what is there for the
few that would take care of it properly and be grateful for it by leaving it in a beautiful condition. I
believe a different area needs to be found for this low income house project. I believe getting them in
to training and getting them into good paying jobs where they can afford a regular priced home/
apartment is the answer. And raise their ability to care for a home which will also raise their self esteem
which will be a greater gift to them.
Please do not put the low income house project in our neighborhood or park.
Thank you!
Shanta Horlander
LETTER 397
From: Edward Highfield
As a Seattle resident, I fully support the use of Fort Lawton as low income housing. 1
Edward Highfield
523 Broadway E, Apt. 509
Seattle, WA, 98102
LETTER 398
From: Jamie Hoskinson
Good Afternoon,
As it was too crowded to attend the meeting on Tuesday, January 9th, 2018 I am emailing to let you
hear a view from an actual Magnolia resident. My husband and I have lived in Magnolia since June of
2004 and are now raising our 4 kids here. Our children attend Lawton Elementary and I volunteer as
Lawton's Community Outreach coordinator. As the community outreach coordinator I have worked to
help the families in need at our school with food scarcity and providing essentials and gifts to help over
the holidays. I have seen first hand the struggles that low income families face in our city.
I do not think that you had a very good representation of our neighborhood at the Tuesday meeting.
Special interest groups were very vocal and worked I would say effectively to try and drown out the
1
voice of the local residents. I think that it behooves the city to listen to what the citizens of different
areas have to say. I think unfortunately that the city has historically in the past made minimal effort to
hear from citizens of areas because citizen views differ from Seattle City government views. Please
remember that the city should work for all citizens not just a minority of citizens that the city decides is
important. With that said I want to say up front that I am not against housing being built at Fort Lawton.
However right now I think that before housing is built that there are many important elements that
require addressing and solutions before you can responsibly move forward.
We are over capacity at all of the schools in Magnolia! We are bursting at the seams and our teachers
are being worked to the bone. Education suffers when there are too many students per teacher and
building. Building housing that will inevitably bring more children to the Magnolia neighborhood
without a solution in place for educating all the children in the area is detrimental to all. I know first
hand that many of the low income students require extra services at school and currently the funding is 2
not there to provide adequately for them. The city should be working in partnership with Seattle Public
Schools to build a school at Fort Lawton that would serve new children coming to the area from the new
housing at Fort Lawton and to alleviate over crowding in the rest of the neighborhood. Please give all
children a chance to thrive during their school years!!
Another important area that has been overlooked and brushed aside is the impact to traffic in Magnolia.
Magnolia is unique in that we have three ways to enter and exit. One of ways to enter is the Magnolia
bridge which is old and will not survive when we have an earthquake. The traffic nightmare was
tremendous when we lost one entrance/exit in Magnolia when the Emerson Street Overpass was
redone. Police had to be hired to handle the increased volume of traffic on Dravus street. The city just 3
recently finished the majority of bike lanes on Government way and the result was a lane reduction on
Emerson Street that has added significant time to travel. The city does not agree that the added time to
travel is significant but then again they are not the ones sitting in it multiple times a day up to seven
days a week. With more housing will come more traffic. The city must address this before it builds
housing. It is ridiculous to have it take more than 20 minutes to drive from Magnolia into south Ballard
because the city has redesigned roadways to accommodate bikes. The commute before was under 10 3,
minutes. More cars will surely increase this traffic. cont.
One last area that should be mentioned is that Magnolia is pretty cut off from many services that low
income housing folks need. The affordable grocery store is not really within walking distance.
Counseling and medical services are not abundant in Magnolia. Furthermore we do not have our own
4
food bank. These are by no means insurmountable problems but things that should be addressed
upfront. Hopefully addressing upfront we can come up with solutions that would benefit those that
may come to live in housing at Fort Lawton.
Hopefully the city remembers that all citizen's views should be considered carefully and without bias. I
5
think that you will find the citizens of Magnolia can add value to the project and make the outcome
successful if you listen.
Thank you very much!
Jamie Hoskinson
LETTER 399
From: Sara Hospador
Subject: Affordable Housing by any means necessary!!
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Sara Hospador
[email protected]
1529 NW 58th St Apt C
LETTER 400
From: Janice Hougen
Subject: Fort Lawton Support Affordable Housing
I am writing to voice support for the affordable housing option for Fort Lawton, including the units for
homeless seniors. 1
Seattle needs more affordable housing, including Magnolia. This is a valuable opportunity that should
not be lost.
Thank you.
Janice Hougen
833 NE 123rd Street
Seattle WA 98125
Sent from my iPad
LETTER 401
From: Donna Howard
Subject: Fort Lawton redevelopment plan comments
To Whom it may Concern,

I am a resident of Seattle and have a son in the Seattle Public School system.
I’m writing to let you know that I am strongly in favor of turning the Fort Lawton buildings into
affordable housing and for preserving the land for animal habitat and public park use. My son goes to
school with many low income students and I know some of their families. I have learned about the
hardships they go through to find housing, and know that many of them are forced to move away from
the city because of disappearing accommodations that are bought and converted by developers. 1
Our community is not only made up of Microsoft millionaires and Amazon programmers. Our
community must also care for our teachers, our bank employees, our wait staff and bus drivers. If
people can’t find affordable places to live, we will continue to lose key members of our society.
In addition, my son has a strong affinity for the outdoors, so we spend a lot of time taking advantage of
Seattle's public spaces. As the city becomes more crowded these spaces do too. We need to be
cognizant of the ratio of people to public space, and the necessity for people to have access to nature in
order to thrive.

LETTER 402
From: Oralea Howard
Subject: Support of redevelopment plan
Hello. I think the redevelopment plan is a good one and I support the creation of affordable and low- 1
income housing here.
Thank you,
Oralea Howard
LETTER 403
From: Jared Howe
Subject: Jared Howe says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

as it pertains to housing affordability; it failed to consider the scope and immediacy of the climate 1
region.
6
Sincerely yours,
Jared Howe
LETTER 404
From: Dee Anna Hulbert
Subject: Ft. Lawton
Seattle desperately needs more affordable housing! I am fully in support of the City of Seattle's plan for 1
Fort Lawton, and hope to see it become a reality.
Many thanks,
--Dee Anna Hulbert
206-724-6600
LETTER 405
From: Emily Hunnicutt
Subject: Comments on Fort Lawton Redevelopment
Hello
I would like to leave the following comment in regards to the Fort Lawton Redevelopment plan. I have a
number of concerns related to the ambiguity of many details of the plan, primarily due to the isolated 1
nature of the Magnolia peninsula and the challenge of appropriate transit that senior and low-income
populations require.
Magnolia is already an isolated area that is under-served by public transit. I choose to take public
transportation from Magnolia to Downtown Seattle daily and due to the inconsistent level of service to
the area, I would find it extremely challenging if I was not able-bodied or did not have access to a variety
of other options (my own car, Lyft, Uber, reachnow,etc). I face regular issues with Magnolia's bus
routes. Either the 19 does not show up at all or, I am on a packed a 24 bus that snakes through the
entire Magnolia neighborhood. These bus lines are frequently late and are infrequent. Once, on the
worst traffic day I've ever seen, I walked the 4.5 miles home from downtown. It's not that it can't be
done but, when walking means planning an extra hour or two to get where you need to be, it's not a 2
viable option for people who are wage dependent or not able-bodied.
Transit to/from Magnolia is neither reliable or fast and I find it difficult to believe that any low-income
community tucked into the most isolated region of Magnolia at Fort Lawton would be successful
without ready access to public transportation. The proposed options only mention the addition of new
bus stops but for what bus lines? How will the amount of people in this new development affect the
existing bus routes? Is the city committed to providing more frequent and reliable transportation to
Magnolia as a whole? Will you extend the service of the 19 bus to longer hours or more frequent? Or
2,
will it only prioritize the Fort Lawton community? cont.
If families are moving into this redevelopment, how does this impact the surrounding school system?
Right now, children are bused in and out of Magnolia. Even with the reopening of Magnolia Elementary, 3
we still could face overcrowding in the neighborhood with the influx of new people and young families.
I've read the proposed plan for a new Magnolia bridge which highlights the impacts of losing 1/3 bridges
into the neighborhood. If an earthquake occurs and the Magnolia bridge is taken out of commission, can 4
the community handle the added traffic created by a high density community in the NW corner?
There are so many unanswered questions about the impact of this development on the Magnolia
community but it's not hard to see that Magnolia is not the easiest neighborhood to reach without your
own vehicle. It's also not the most accessible to public services, grocery stores, drug stores or medical
facilities. I choose to live in Magnolia because I can afford the added expenses and time it takes me to
get places and get what I need. If I could not afford that, then the location would be a serious drain on 5
my well being. If this area is being opened to people that have no where else to go, then they should be
given the support of reliable transportation and community services that are nearby, not an extra 3
miles away from from everything and so far, the plans put forth do not detail the impacts of how Seattle
plans to do this.
Thank you.
Emily Hunnicutt
LETTER 406
From: Ami Huntley
Don't listen to the rich white homeowners raising a fuss about their property values going down if this
gets built. I'm sure they'll be fine. Our thousands of houseless neighbors struggling with scarce
1
affordable housing availability, however? They need all the help they can get. Seems like a no-brainer to
me. I say YES, go ahead with the construction of affordable housing - the more the better. 2
Sincerely,
Ami Huntley
LETTER 407
From: Katie Hurley
Ms. Masters,
I support the proposed housing at Fort Lawton and encourage the city to be more aggressive in
1
developing housing on the site given the great need for housing.
It is extremely upsetting and unconscionable that so many in our city lack housing while we inquire
about whether some of the city's wealthiest residents will be unduly inconvenienced by the provision of
this basic right, or whether some people may not want to see a few buildings in a small sliver of their
500-acre park. My family loves Discovery Park and will enjoy it more knowing that it is being used to
provide housing to those who wouldn't otherwise have it. 2
Finally, regarding any concerns about transit access/services for those housed there, I'd note that I work
in public defense and can assure you that my houseless and housing-insecure clients would be thrilled
to live at Fort Lawton.
Thank you,
Katie Hurley
LETTER 408
From: Matt Hutchins
Subject: Yes, More Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
I am writing to urge the city to create not just 200 units, but 2000 dwellings at Fort Lawton. Instead, the
City's Preferred Alternative devotes the large majority of the land to recreation and surface parking,
passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes. 1
Matt Hutchins
[email protected]
Seattle, Washington
LETTER 409
From: Matt Hutchins
Subject: More housing at fort Lawton
I support the housing plan for fort Lawton, with exception of one detail. There should be an extra zero
1
on the end of the number of dwellings planned.
Let’s provide thousands not hundreds of new homes! 2
Matt Hutchins
www.CASTarchitecture.com
ph. 206.256.9886
LETTER 410
From: Matt Hutchins
Subject: Lawton
Please don’t stop at 238 units. It is twelve acres! Thousands, not hundreds of households could live
there, without any negative impact!
1
We’re in a massive housing shortage, and here the city could make a big difference!
Build a neighborhood, not a project!
Thanks!
--
Matt Hutchins, AIA CAST Architecture
LETTER 411
From: matt hutchins
Subject: 10 times the benefit!
I support the housing plan for fort Lawton, with exception of one detail. There should be an extra ZERO
on the end of the number of dwellings planned.
1
Let’s provide thousands not hundreds of new homes!
That is a worthy use of Office of Housing funds and Our land. There are very few opportunities we have
to make this big of an impact, so let’s go fo it!
LETTER 412
From: Isa Hutchinson
Hello,
I'm a Seattle resident. I live in the Phinney neighborhood, at the corner where N 46th St becomes
Market St.
I want to submit that I fully support the effort to build affordable housing on the old Fort Lawton land. It 1
is important step in getting more homeless people a stable and healthy living situation.
Thank you for accepting my comments,
Isa Hutchinson
LETTER 413
From: t ingraham
Subject: N/A
I believe 20000 affordable housing units for the puget sound area is not even enough given that wages 1
stagnated as far back as 40 years ago. Please support all affordable housing projects.
LETTER 414
1
LETTER 415
From: Carol Isaac
Subject: Fort Lawton - 'vote' on Housing for the Homeless and Affordable Housing
Thank you for giving the public some weeks to voice an opinion.
1.Please give all citizens an equally weighted 'vote'. Discovery Park and this opportunity for designating 1
uses for Fort Lawton belongs to the citizenry of Seattle and not to one neighborhood and its concerns.
2.The land at Fort Lawton, since by federal law is free to the City of Seattle if the city uses it to house
those experiencing homelessness, should be used for that purpose. The homeless use buses for
2
transportation and the road system can handle buses. This kind of transportation reduces the use of
cars on Seattle streets.
3.The land at Fort Lawton was at one time in the 1970's expected to be given to our Indian population,
but instead they received only the Daybreak Star portion. Because we now have a disproportionately
large number of Indians among our homeless population, because they are really the original owners 3
from whom the land was taken, and because we are well aware of their history in this new age, we can
do the most ethical and moral of things and provide the Indians with all that they need to house their
homeless, and also their low income who need affordable housing.
4.In addition, all our people experiencing homelessness should have priority use since the fiscal savings
will be considerable, and since the life expectancy of our county homeless is 47 years as of November
2017. By law, the U.S. government will give the entire piece to the City of Seattle for FREE if it is used on
behalf of our people experiencing homelessness, so it is a fiscally important arrangement. 4
Therefore, I am asking that we use the land to house the homeless. If an EIS requirement is something
that prevents you from writing such an option, I suggest that you begin one rather than rest on the fact
that you want to have a quick decision. Homelessness is deadly.
Sincerely,
Carol Isaac
Seattle, WA 98119
LETTER 416
From: Margaret Isaac
Subject: Fort Lawton Affordable Housing Proposal
To Whom It May Concern;

I'm a Magnolia resident, writing in support of the affordable housing proposal for the redevelopment of
Fort Lawton. I think it is critically important that we expand affordable and supportive housing options
1
for low-income Seattle residents, and think that this site is a wonderful location in which to do this.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Margaret Isaac, MD
LETTER 417
From: Abigail Isquith
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Abigail Isquith
[email protected]
7722 19th Ave NW
LETTER 418
I am writing on behalf of myself and two others with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) who
would like to be considered as you plan the Fort Lawton development. MCS is a medical
condition characterized by extreme sensitivity to the chemicals emitted from everyday products.
People with MCS (currently 12 percent of the U.S. population) get sick from common building
materials such as press-board, carpets, paints, and adhesives. When exposed to these chemicals
we experience a host of symptoms, including asthma, migraines, muscle spasms, heart
arrhythmias, and mental confusion. We need special safer construction materials, which has
made virtually all the low-income housing projects in the area inaccessible to us.
I, Joy Jaber, am a senior now (age 65), and while not exactly homeless, the limitations MCS has
imposed on my housing situation have been severe. As a renter in and around the Seattle area
for the past 29 years, I have had landlords sell houses or condos out from underneath me seven
times in the past twenty years. Each time this happens it results in a period of extreme stress and
sometimes even homelessness in that searching for a new place is like looking for a needle in a
haystack. At least 99 percent of existing dwellings are not accessible to us due to new
renovation, mold, fragrance contamination from a variety of scented products, and pesticides. A
typical housing hunt for me includes looking at over 100 places before finding one that will be
even semi-tolerable. So I live with the constant anxiety and dread of it happening again, since I
am renting a privately owned condo. I no longer have the stamina or health to go through that
again and need a secure place to age peacefully without fear of being kicked out.
For example, when unable to find suitable housing in Seattle, I went to the first planning meeting
for the low-income Rose Ballen development on Vashon Island, but was unable to sign up due to
1
the nature of the construction materials. I also looked at the Ferncliff low-income development
on Bainbridge Island and couldn’t spend more than five minutes in the model house, due to
fumes from the new carpets, paint, and manufactured wood.
Amy Davis is also a low-income senior who has lived and worked in Seattle for over forty years.
She has been unable to find housing she can afford that does not make her ill.
We would like to request that there be a separate corner of the development devoted to safely
built units (perhaps a fourplex?) that specifically fit the needs of environmentally sensitive
individuals. This means not just “green,” but low- to zero-VOC in most materials. An example
of a public housing project specifically for MCS people is Ecology House in San Rafael,
California. A local example of successful implementation of specialized housing for people with
asthma are the Breathe Easy Homes at Highpoint in West Seattle. A similar concept could be
followed for housing for those with MCS, with specific attention to using low/no-VOC products.
We would happily donate time to research and project manage elements specific to MCS to help
mitigate any burden on the City.
We are particularly drawn to the Fort Lawton site for its proximity to the Sound and the resulting
cleaner air quality. Please help us to end the stress around housing that hangs over our lives due
to the nature of our illness.
Sincerely,
Joy Jaber Contact Information:

Amy Davis Joy Jaber –
Tina Sederholm Amy Davis –
LETTER 419
From: Cheryl Jacobs
Subject: DEIS Ft Lawton Army Reserve Comment
The comments I want to provide are in urging the City to work with the School District to evaluate the
capacity in nearby schools with the influx of residents to Magnolia. I am in support of affordable housing
at Ft Lawton – but only if this project includes a holistic view at the services serving these residents on
the outskirts of a community away from services. Schools are a service too, and area schools are at or 1
beyond capacity, while still not complying with the McCleary ruling, so looking at 10-year projections for
school capacity is necessary to not overload public schools and create a capacity and educational crisis
with the addition of these new residents to the area.
Thank you.
Cheryl Jacobs, AIA, LEED AP
Senior Associate
P 206 441 4522
D 206 388 4218
LETTER 420
From: Kathryn Jacoby
Subject: Support for Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Kathryn Jacoby
[email protected]
LETTER 421
From: Marilyn Jarrell
Hello - in response to the 4 alternatives for Ft Lawton Redevelopment, the best alternative is NO
HOUSING on the site. I have been a resident of Magnolia since the 1970's and attended many meetings
regarding use of different areas in Fort Lawton. The long-range plan for Discovery Park has always been
that when Army / Government land was decommissioned at Fort Lawton, the land would become part
of Discovery Park. Many people through the years have consistently argued and fought for that plan. 1
This Fort Lawton property is not the appropriate place for housing. With all of the growth of Seattle, it
is imperative to maintain park, open spaces. In addition, these open spaces need to be safe and not
become camping areas for any population. When these spaces are lost to development, they will never
be returned to park land. Please do not develop this Fort Lawton acreage.
Thank you
Marilyn Jarrell
LETTER 422
From: Stan Jeffs
Subject: Please add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park
Thank you for the opportunity to comment regarding the proposed development at Fort Lawton.
I have known that area for 20 years. It's a beautiful, pristine, rural area of an ever-increasing urbanized 1
Seattle. I truly hope that Fort Lawton is annexed to Discovery Park, saving this land from development.
Any major city needs a place for our souls to take refuge, a place to rest from the busyness of our lives.
Thanks again!
Best regards,
Stan Jeffs
LETTER 423
From: Brad Jencks
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Brad Jencks
[email protected]
4911 Burke Ave N
LETTER 424
From: Joe
behalf of the the homeless youth of Orion center, I implore you to move forward with the low income
housing development at Fort Lawton. A large portion of the youth we serve are from families unable to
secure housing, and are thus cast off on their own for survival. There is no reason not to move forward
with the development; some housing is better than no housing, regardless of whether it is an ideal 1
location. Don’t let Seattle become a city exclusively for the rich. Please consider the children who’s
families are unable to find homes.
Thanks,
Joe
LETTER 425
From: Cynthia Johnson and Tim Humes
Subject: Fort Lawton Comments
Lindsay Masters,
Re:Open comment period till Jan 29,2018
I propose keeping the park a park. We will never get land adjacent to this park again. The city is already
making canyons (4 to 7 story buildings by re-zoning ) of Ballard ,University district, and Phinney. I don’t
think we need to do that with Discovery Park. This park land is a stunning gem of wilderness in a large
metropolitan city that should be saved much as Central Park has been saved. Would you build low
income homeless housing in Central Park or Golden Gate Park ? We need to think about future 1
generations.
Yes, I know we need homeless and low income housing, but it should be built elsewhere to prevent
ruining this rare urban park.
Currently, the way the city is going about low income housing is to give the developers all the 2
advantages, (time limited)and zoning changes. Yet, the housing is still expensive.
Another concern is that there are no services nearby for those who would live in these low income
housing units. It’s such a long distance to any amenities. The Metropolitan Market isn’t conducive to 3
low-income shopping. Also the bus service is very limited.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Johnson
Tim Humes
LETTER 426
From: Thomas Johnson
Subject: Support Fort Lawton housing!
I'm writing in full support of maximizing the use of our Fort Lawton public lands for desperately needed
additions to our housing stock. The land belongs to all of us and there is no better use than to provide 1
stable homes for any and all residents of the entire city regardless of present housing condition or
location. More of this please, for the currently homeless and for us all! Thanks for taking my comment.
Thomas Johnson
84 Union Street
98101
LETTER 427
From: Emily Johnston
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Emily Johnston
[email protected]
2418 E.Aloha
LETTER 428
From: Mose Johnston
Subject: Mose Johnston says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
region.
2
3
Sincerely yours,
Mose Johnston
LETTER 429
From: Calvin Jones
Subject: I Support MORE Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
My name is Calvin Jones and I'm a Seattle renter in District 3. I am writing to urge the City of Seattle to
study an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more housing. Every unit of affordable
housing built at Fort Lawton brings us one more family to welcome as our neighbor. 1
We have a moral obligation to do as much as we can about this housing crisis. Fort Lawton is an
opportunity that we simply cannot pass up.
Thank you.
Calvin Jones
Calvin Jones
[email protected]
1408 E Union St, Apt 602
SEATTLE, Washington 98122
LETTER 430
From: Jett Jones
Subject: Fort Lawton 240 > 0
Hi,
I'm writing in support of the planned housing project at Fort Lawton. The best way to fight our housing
and homelessness crisis is to build more housing that is available to those without shelter. Strong
integrated neighborhoods are ideal, relative to the outcomes in projects - but I hope the outcome of any 1
development can directly benefit the most vulnerable in our city.
That is to say, ideally we would build more than 240 units, but 240 is better than zero. 2
yes in our back yard,
-jett jones ALUV resident
LETTER 431
From: Justin Jones
I am in support of the affordable housing development plan for Fort Lawton. Please continue moving 1
forward with this plan.
--
Thanks
Justin Jones
LETTER 432
From: Kim Jones
Subject: Fort Lawton housing plan
I am writing in support of the plan to add housing at Fort Lawton. If anything I feel there is the
opportunity and space to add more housing and services rather than less. Seattle should grasp this rare 1
opportunity to add low-income and workforce housing in the core of the city.
Thank you,
Kim Jones
West Seattle
LETTER 433
From: Nelly Kakulya
Good afternoon. I usually don't send in comments, but I felt it was necessary for this project. I attended
the neighborhood meetings and while the first two did not allow for public comments, I was appalled at 1
how the third meeting was loaded with representatives from housing advocacy groups, and didn't truly
represent the opinions of the people who live in Magnolia.
I want to make sure my vote is counted against option #1 on the DEIS. I think the current plan for the
low income and homeless housing is a mistaken one for this location. I'm sure you've received lots of
comments speaking to the fact that the amount of families this project would bring into the
neighborhood would flood an already overloaded school system. A new elementary school is being 2
opened in 2018/19 to alleviate the overcrowding in the two current elementary schools, and this new
school will basically be full when it opens. What was the point of opening a new elementary school to
decrease class sizes, and then bringing potentially hundreds of new school age children into the
neighborhood? We would be right back to where we started, overcrowded classes.
Another thing the DEIS doesn't correctly address is traffic. While the DEIS talks about the impact in the
immediate area surrounding the Fort Lawton Redevelopment, it doesn't look further away. What about
an impact to Magnolia as a whole? What about the impact it would have on the three access points to 3
Magnolia, which are already congested? What about the impact the additional traffic would have on
the Magnolia Bridge which is already failing and will need to eventually be replaced?
I understand all the people calling for an action to build homeless and low income housing. I agree that
something should be done, and maybe instead of wasting money on a DEIS that's filled with
inaccuracies, that money could have been spent on housing, but I don't think building low income and
homeless housing on this piece of property is the answer for this space.
4
My vote would be to have the Fort Lawton Redevelopment space be used for a school. I understand
that plan is very complex, has a lot of moving parts, and may not be an option, but I wanted to express
my opinion that a High School on that property would be a phenomenal way to use that space.
Currently Magnolia HS students are looking at an hour long commute to Fremont for HS is they're
moved from Ballard. It would be amazing to have a local HS that could serve Magnolia HS students as
well as students beyond the neighborhood.
My second choice vote is to have the property be absorbed by Discovery Park. That's what people
already use the space for, and with it's placement, this seems like a great choice. Maybe even some 5
open ball fields for baseball and soccer would be exciting.
I hope that the voices of Magnolia residents is heard and respected, and this project is moved to 6
another property.
Nelly Kakulya
Magnolia resident
LETTER 434
From: Summer Kakuomoto
Subject: Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravin housing
To whom it may concerns

I strongly oppose the proposed housing development adjacent to Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine and 1
that I support adding the last parcel of Fort Lawton to Discovery Park.
Please DO NOT allow more housing development! 2
Summer. I. C. Kuo
LETTER 435
From: Jessica Kamin
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment and SPS
Dear Office of Housing leadership,
I am writing to voice my strong support for Seattle Public Schools being included in the redevelopment
process for Fort Lawton. I believe it is a primary responsibility of both the City and School District to
work together at every opportunity to provide adequate educational facilities to meet the ever-
increasing demand. In particular, the Fort Lawton site offers an exceptional opportunity, as it 1) is in an
1
area where schools are at-capacity and approaching over-capacity rapidly; 2) helps overcome the huge
hurdle of land purchase costs with substantially discounted land. More pointedly, I believe it would be
an irresponsible appropriation of taxpayer money and the vacant space to develop housing on the Fort
Lawton site without the educational infrastructure needed.
On a separate but related note, I strongly urge you to consider the fitness of the Fort Lawton site in a
holistic manner, taking into account the way people actually live and the services and infrastructure
needed for a successful community. Cheap land is only a good value if it helps meet the needs of the
City in a way that does not entail undue development expense or expenditure of resources to make it
2
viable. This is particularly important when seeking to serve more vulnerable and low-income
populations, as easy-access to bus lines, reasonably-priced groceries, medical care, government offices,
and suitable employment are all extremely important to daily living and not currently supported by the
Fort Lawton site and surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, homeless, refugee, or low-income
residents that could be potentially accommodated at the Fort Lawton site would be set up for not one,
but two, major transitions in the happy even that their circumstances allowed them to step out of
subsidized housing, since the surrounding neighborhoods are prohibitively expensive. It would seem
wise and caring to these members of our community to seek a location for housing that would 1) be 3
located nearer existing infrastructure as detailed above; and 2) nearer more permanent housing
solutions that are closer to being affordable once they transition out of subsidized housing.
In sum, I ask that the Office of Housing take a long and holistic approach to the Fort Lawton site
development by seeking to meet educational needs in partnership with the Seattle Public Schools, and
by seeking to build functioning communities with realistic evaluation of the suitability of the Fort Lawton
4
site for any housing, and particularly subsidized housing.
Sincerely,
Jessica Kamin, Ph.D.

3800 36th Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 436
From: Robert Kaminski
Subject: Fort Lawton Project
Dear Seattle Office Of Housing,
I am writing to express my whole-hearted support of the proposed project at Fort Lawton. I believe this 1
is a small step towards a meaningful solution of the homelessness and housing crisis in our city. In fact, if
anything, I hope this project would be expanded in scope to build even more housing on the site, 2
commensurate with the crushing need for housing.
I also would like to voice some suggestions for improving the project. I think it would be incredibly
helpful for the future residents -- and the City's climate/environmental goals -- to include solar energy
3
on the site. This will help keep energy costs low, in addition to reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, I
hope that the Office of Housing works with King County Metro to re-route and increase frequency of the
bus lines that serve the area. This would help connect the residents to the rest of the community, and
help keep residents from the restrictive financial burdens of car ownership. And, of course, help reduce 4
carbon emissions.
I also believe that this site can house many of the city's currently unhoused Native American population,
which makes up the most disproportionate slice of those experiencing homelessness. The City originally
made a promise to the Native community to return Fort Lawton to the tribes after the occupation in the 5
70's, only to break that promise like so many others in Seattle history. The site's proximity to the
Daybreak Star Center, one of the largest Native cultural spaces in the region, makes this even clearer.
Thank you and have a wonderful week,

Robert Kaminski
LETTER 437
From: Kathleen Kapla
Subject: Proposed Fort Lawton Redevelopment
Dear Seattle office of housing:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed for Latin redevelopment. With so few
green or potentially green spaces remaining in the city, this land should be re-purposed for park land. It
should be incorporated into the existing Park and an alternative should be found for the proposed
housing needed.
I fully support the city’s efforts to create low income housing opportunities; however this is not the
appropriate place for that housing. Please consider using the park for its intended purpose, which the
city very expressly set out in its master plan for the park. The original planners foresaw that pressures
like this would arise and expressly addressed them in case they were forgotten:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to
provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be 1
structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal
site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the single greatest threat to the park. They
must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer
serve at central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be excepted which are in
harmony with the overall theme, character, and objective of the park. There must be a deep
commitment to the believe that there is no more valuable use of the site then as an open space.”
If the members of the city Council, the office of housing, and the mayor herself or to go to the park on
any day, they would see for themselves how the citizens of the city need and thrive on the open space
this park provides. I urge you not to restrict the open space we have even further by using the Texas
Way land for housing development. I urge you to consider the long-term benefits of returning the space
to park purposes. Consider the legacy it would create for the city. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Kapla
LETTER 438
From: Kaeley Kaplan
Subject: housing for the homeless
The city of Seattle should ABSOLUTELY use the Fort Lawton space for low-income housing.
I'm a primary care physician, and if my patient's don't have stable housing they are sicker, more likely to 1
be admitted to the hospital, more likely to use drugs, etc.
Do it!
Kaeley Kaplan, MD
Resident First Hill Family Medicine
LETTER 439
From: Ryan Kartheiser
Hello,
I am a Seattle resident and am writing in support of the Fort Lawton development and turning it in to
low income housing. We desperately need more low income housing, please do not pass up this 1
opportunity.
Best,
Ryan Kartheiser
LETTER 440
From: Andrew Katz
Hello,
I am writing to express my support for the city's plans to build supportive housing for seniors and vets,
affordable workforce rental housing, and affordable homes for purchase at the derelict Fort Lawton site.
In a time when Seattle's affordable housing needs are greater than ever, this surplus land presents a
unique opportunity to both house people affordably and create valuable community assets in the form
of new parks and open spaces. As a city and community we must overcome our collective fear of change
and seize this chance to make a dent in our housing shortage and homelessness crisis.
Folks making less than Seattle' median income are being driven from the city in great numbers. More
people live unsheltered in Seattle now than have ever before been documented. Magnolia's alleged 1
isolation and distance from downtown pale in comparison to that of the outlying areas of King and
Pierce Counties where lower-income residents would likely scatter, once displaced economically from
Seattle.
Creating affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site is the environmentally, economically, sociologically,
and morally sensible thing to do.
ensure that future development of the site includes affordable homes. This proposal is a good start. I
hope we have an opportunity in the future to support even more affordable housing units on this 34-
2
acre site.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
Andrew Katz
731 Federal Ave E
Seattle, WA 98102
LETTER 441
From: Laurie Kavanagh
Subject: Keep Fort Lawton affordable and livable
Given that Seattle has the 3rd largest homeless population in the nation, we must ensure affordable and
livable housing for all. Please ensure that Fort Lawton is used for low-income housing. Our city and our 1
people need this.
Thank you,
Laurie Kavanagh, MPH
LETTER 442
From: Barbara Kavanaugh
Subject: Please move forward with low income housing at Ft. Lawton
I strongly support providing low income housing to our citizens and urge you to strongly support the Ft.
Lawton housing program. 1
We are as strong as our weakest link.
Thank you,
Barbara Kavanaugh
LETTER 443
From: Josh Keeler
Subject: Re: Discovery Park
I am strongly in favor of including Low income housing as part of the plan for Discovery Park.
I live on Queen Anne Hill and often use Discovery Park. I see no reason why such a resource should not
include affordable and low income subsidized housing. That the City of Seattle has a great location for 1
housing answers the question where would we put the funds collected from developers who are being
allowed to develop more densely in urban villages.
Thank you,
LETTER 444
From: Pamela Keeley
Subject: Fort Lawton Housing Development
Seattle’s neediest citizens should be given first priority for safe and affordable housing! Our growing and
profoundly immoral crisis of homelessness must be addressed by public policy and new housing at Fort
Lawton would be one measure within reach. Native people lived on this land for 10,000 years, yet (if
they weren’t murdered outright) they were made homeless by European colonizers only 200 years ago 1
and “lucky” survivors have been suffering ever since. Poverty and homelessness are endemic in urban
and reservation communities alike. It is incumbent upon the City of Seattle, which bears the name of
Chief Sealth, to prioritize Natives in any housing development at Fort Lawton.
Thank you.
Pamela Keeley, RN
4402 S. Ferdinand St.
Seattle, WA 98118
LETTER 445
From: Courtney Keen
Hello,
Just a quick note to ask that the property at Fort Lawton is used for AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!! People
who work in our city and do not make enough to live here deserve to have more options. As of right
now there are NO options. The waiting list to get into affordable housing is years long and the problem 1
that this presents needs attention right now. Creating affordable housing is the only way to start
combating the homeless crisis our city finds itself in.
Thank you,
Courtney Keen
LETTER 446
From: Phoebe Keleman
Dear Ms. Masters,
As a resident of Magnolia, I would like to voice my strong support for the adoption of Alternative 1 in 1
the DEIS for the Fort Lawton site. I would, in fact, love to see even more affordable and low-income
housing included on the huge acreage available, but if this is the best we can get for now I'll take it. 2
Upon moving to Seattle a decade ago, I found myself frequently taking advantage of both Magnolia and
Discovery Parks. When I was priced out of Lower Queen Anne two years ago, I stumbled across a
surprisingly affordable apartment down the street from Lawton Elementary and looked forward to being
close to the parks that I so enjoy.
During my first weeks exploring Magnolia as a resident, I took a walk to the locks via Texas Way. Having
worked for one of the largest human services providers in the city, I took one look at the shuttered and
vacant buildings of the Fort and wondered why they hadn't been converted to at least temporary
emergency housing if not permanent affordable housing. Space, which is so sorely needed in our
community, is being almost criminally wasted currently by leaving that already developed space 3
underutilized.
The few concerns I heard voiced at the forum on January 9th were, in my estimation, voiced by people
who have no idea what actual "low-income" individuals look like. Having dedicated my life to nonprofit
and government employment, I've technically been "low-income" my entire working life, as have most
of my friends who are actors, artists, and other nonprofit employees who keep our city functioning and
vibrant. I would find living at Fort Lawton, where there's only one direct bus line, no less convenient
than living in my current apartment half a block from a main thoroughfare - where there is only one
direct bus line. If you choose to live in Magnolia, you do so knowing transit will be limited. Hopefully, the
development of Alternative 1 would increase demand enough in the area that we'd see at least a higher
frequency of buses in the area.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.

Best regards,
Phoebe Keleman
4235 27th Ave W #5
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 447
From: Kathryn Keller
Please move forward with Option 1 of the EIS to put low income and supportive housing on that land
which can be made available to Seattle by the federal government. It is time to use land for public
purposes based on where we as a city are out of balance. That is the balance of housing that is required
to put a roof over residents’ heads and so that people of all incomes can live in our community. The 1
public interest is in supporting people who do not have the means. Those of us who are making it fine
should not be getting more parks in an area that has a huge tracts of green.
LETTER 448
From: Bryan Kelley
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Bryan Kelley
[email protected]
LETTER 449
From: Alison Kelly-Rostholder
Subject: Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Dear Elected Officials,

Please build affordable housing on this vacant site. As you know, seattle is experiencing record levels of 1
homelessness and prices for renting and buying are still increasing. We need more affordable housing.
Thanks,
Alison Kelly-Rostholder
LETTER 450
From: Alex Kelsey
I am writing to voice my support for the proposal to provide affordable housing at the Fort Lawton site.
I believe in a Seattle that offers opportunity, love, and compassion to all who choose to live here,
regardless of wealth, status, or background.
1
Even with the privilege of a steady income and flexible schedule, I have experienced firsthand the
struggle of trying to find housing in the Seattle market. Days spent driving to dozens of open houses
with 50 other people at each one, every person ready to hand over that $40 application fee, battling for
the single occupancy, only to spend hundreds of dollars in application fees for apartments you won't get
and can barely afford.
Our need for affordable housing is greater than ever, and by turning this unused public land into
affordable homes for the residents of our city we make a small step towards what our ultimate goal
1,
should be: a safe, healthy, and affordable home for everyone. cont.
This crisis cannot wait, and it cannot be thought of as "not our problem". Every member of this
wonderful and diverse Seattle community should be here to say "you are our neighbors, and you
deserve a safe place to live."
Alex Kelsey
8103 Greenwood Avenue N
Seattle, WA 98103
LETTER 451
From: Mary Ann Kelson
Subject: Expansion of Discovery Park
I support Fort Lawton to be added to Discovery Park. The City recently lauded the donation of property
adjacent to Schmidt Park. The addition of Fort Lawton would have the same if not more benefits to this
1
sadly overcrowded City
I also believe that making Fort Lawton a low income / homeless area is discriminatory, marginalizing and
darn right mean. Successful low income and homeless housing requires infrastructure such as consistent
and frequent transportation, grocery and other stores, and health care clinics and transportation. None 2
of these services are available. I doubt any business would find it profitable or desirous to be so far from
a steady stream of a variety of customers.
Mary Ann Kelson
Magnolia
LETTER 452
1
LETTER 453
From: Erin Lillis Kent
Subject: Ft Lawton development plan
I am writing to express my concern at the plan to develop part of Discovery Park. I am a Magnolia
resident and frequent visitor of DP with my family for many years. It is one of the most beautiful open
spaces in the city, a haven wor wildlife and a haven for Seattleites. It is a tribute to our city that this
piece of land has remained wild and free in the spirit of the original master plan the city developed for
Discovery Park:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas
of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for
special activities. There will in the future be structures and activities without
number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at 1
no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat
to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will
be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those
activities and only those structures should be accepted which are in harmony
with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a
deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site
than as an open space.”
This park is special, unique in the US for such a big, booming city to have the open space for urban
residents to enjoy. I urge you to rethink development for the good of long-term Seattle; there is no
more valuable use of this site than as an open space.
Sincerely,
Erin Lillis Kent
LETTER 454
From: Nicholas Kent
Subject: Ft Lawton land
Dear City of Seattle
As a resident of Seattle and specifically magnolia I would like to support the initiative to build a school 1
on the contested land at discovery park. I am opposed to the plan to build homeless housing due to the
lack of bus lines, grocery stores and access to services needed to help people in need.
2
This is a short note as much has already been written that I cannot add to. Building homeless shelters is
a bad idea in this location.
Thank you for listening.

Nicholas Kent, Ed.D
LETTER 455
From: Kristine Kershul
Subject: Opinion re Fort Lawton Redevelopment
Yes, Seattle needs housing for the homeless. This housing also needs to be in a logical area with the
1
necessary access to services and affordable options for transportation, groceries, clinics, and other basic
needs.
However, Seattle is also growing at a phenomenal rate and to retain part of what makes Seattle
attractive all of us need to preserve and expand green spaces. Discovery Park is a beautiful space and is
being carved apart in small, but impactful ways. Expanding the park with the inclusion of the the Fort
Lawton Reserve area offers something for every Seattle resident and future generations.
If the Reserve were to be developed with multiple housing units it will be lost to Seattle forever. There
is a viable option for homeless and low-income housing per the Redevelopment plan. Please opt for 2
that area and retain and expand the Discovery Park area for all Seattle residents. Please have the vision
to recognize that green spaces and parks are critical to our city and as long as there is another viable
option for the building of these housing units do not further erode the Discovery Park/Fort Lawton open
space option.
Sincerely,
Kris Kershul
---
Kristine Kershul
Bilingual Books, Inc.
(206) 284-4211
[email protected]
www.bbks.com
LETTER 456
From: Jerry Kessinger
Subject: Jerry Kessinger says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
1,
walkable, and livable Seattle is one of our last best chances for meeting climate goals for Seattle and the cont.
region.
3
Sincerely yours,
Jerry Kessinger
LETTER 457
From: Yih Pin Khoo
Subject: I support Fort Lawton redevelopment to add affordable housing
Hi,
I 100% support the development of Fort Lawton as a Mixed Income Affordable Housing & Park. We need
1
affordable housing in all neighborhoods throughout the city, and Magnolia is a severely lacking in this
area.
Thanks,
Yih Pin Khoo

LETTER 458
From: Barbara Kiley
Subject: Please never sell any more City of Seattle-owned property--not even to Habitat for Humanity
families!!!
Seattle land is valuable and will only be more valuable in the future. It is of limited quantity and must be 1
preserved. Unwanted land should at most be traded for more useful parcels of equal value.
Public lands belong to each of us throughout the City. The Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center property 2
should be added to Discovery Park and also perhaps a small portion be used as an environmental high
school. Every Seattleite could adventure into the park and the school could welcome students from all 3
over the City.
LETTER 459
From: Barbara Kiley
Subject: Only public rental housing should be at Fort Lawton Army Reserve Cen
If that property does not become a park (with perhaps some used as a high school) then it should be 1
high quality public housing with rents controlled by the City. Low income families, with documented
work history, should be welcomed. There the workers, who provide the backbone of our City services,
could live without the long commutes now necessary to more affordable areas. Priorities should be
2
given to City employees and other public workers such as teachers, police, firemen. Medical personnel
and refuse collectors are just some non-public workers who should be considered, as their work is also
fundamental to Seattle functioning.
Not tenements, not “housing projects”, not single occupancy residences, not “slums in the making” but
simple quality family homes, like those originally built in surrounding Magnolia and resembling military
housing of the past. Affordable rents would become an income stream continuing for decades after the
necessary building bonds were paid off. If the homes were built in sections and rented when finished,
the first sections could pay for the last built.
This huge tract of land should be carefully used as an investment in Seattle’s future. Habitat for 3
Humanity homes can be built on smaller parcels throughout the City and transitional housing for Seniors
and Veterans should be located near the Navigation center and other services.
Please don’t rush the decision making and be short-sighted. Make the right choice for Seattle for our
children, grandchildren, and their children.
Thank you, Barbara Kiley—Magnolia grandmother

LETTER 460
From: Michael Kiley
Subject: Discovery Park Adjacent Housing Development
While housing development is certainly needed by the city of Seattle, I oppose the housing proposed on
the property adjacent to Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine. 1
Housing may be located many places.
This is a one time, unique opportunity to add to the beautiful, natural respite that is Discovery Park. 2
Please do the right thing.
Michael Kiley
4052 32nd Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 461
From: Louis Kim
Dear City Council Members,
As a health care provider at Harborview Medical Center, I am deeply committed to the well-being of our
mission population and underprivileged citizens of Seattle. It is important and right that we provide for
our fellow citizens regardless of socioeconomic status. However, using Discovery Park/Fort Lawton for
the goal of improving conditions for our homeless simply does not make sense. It is a BANDAID, not a
programmatic solution. It merely offers the short sighted goal of creating a place to sleep for our
homeless population, but only sets up for subsequent failure: there is no potential for meaningful
employment, healthcare, mental health services, social services or affordable food/meals. It strands and
isolates these individuals from the city center where existing and copious infrastructure and social
1
services are available. I know from extensive professional experience that meeting the needs of
homeless men and women are complex and require addressing the deeply rooted psychosocial issues
that create homelessness. Please do not go for the "easy fix" that "looks good on paper" but will fail
miserably to actually help those who we intend. Please do not bandaid a problem for the sake of
soundbites that appear humane and genuine in the news media, but actually do a disservice to the
people we are trying to help. Please do not destroy our strong sense of community in Magnolia for a
solution that does not solve the problem.
As a father of three young children, ages 8, 4, and 1, I speak for the SILENT MAJORITY whose work or
parental duties prevented attendance at the recent public hearing at Magnolia United Church. I speak 2
for the mainstay of law-abiding mothers and fathers of Magnolia when I strongly urge you to dismantle
any plans to create housing for the homeless population in our family-oriented, middle class
neighborhood. We are already well-familiar with the blight of homelessness, crime, and drug dealers in
Magnolia. In recently years, meth-cooking RVs and dramatic upticks in crime and violence has become a 2,
new and terrible "norm" in Magnolia. We, the caretakers and most vested people in the community, cont.
are desperately working with law enforcement and neighborhood watches to blunt the impact of an
overpopulated and under-resourced homeless and vagrant population. We are angry and tired of
dealing with these issues in an area of Seattle that should be a bed-room community and safe haven for
children and mothers. Instead we feel like we are on the front line of the inner-city battles. Please DO
NOT ESCALATE this urban nightmare by mandating homeless housing in our beloved Magnolia. Rather, I
kindly ask you to SUPPORT the proposals that our very community has vociferated marked interest: 3
More parks and recreation space; a high school for our children; a city sponsored fair-market housing
community that can finance homeless and low-income housing off site in areas more appropriate to this
under-resourced group as has been proposed via the City Council.
The special interest groups that wish to bring homeless housing to Magnolia have no concept of what
the social and medical needs of this population truly needs if they think stranding them miles from
affordable food, healthcare, employment, and all important social services is an optimal solution.
Working with homeless patients and families daily at Harborview for over a decade has taught me the
4
value of proximity to the necessary and significant resources this group requires. Let's find the right
place for our homeless citizens. A centralized location better than Magnolia area must be found.
Please do not UNDERESTIMATE the thousands and thousands of Magnolia denizens who vehemently
OPPOSE HOMELESS HOUSING in Fort Lawton. Let's work together to bring the right proposal for Fort
Lawton in a collaboration of community and city council that aligns our incentives and avoids conflict or 5
legal battles. Please help Magnolia defuse the existing crime and drug problems rather than
complicating it. Please empower your citizens in Magnolia by hearing our collective voices and solving
the homeless problem in a win-win manner, not by alienating an entire community.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Respectfully yours,
Louis Kim
1533 Magnolia Way W
Seattle WA 98199
LETTER 462
From: Colleen Kimsey
Subject: Please use Fort Lawton for affordable housing!
Seattle needs more affordable housing, and this is a rare opportunity to build more. Please take 1
advantage of it.
LETTER 463
From: Valerie Kinast
Subject: Fort Lawton housing EIS
I strongly support affordable housing at Fort Lawton. I strongly encourage the City to provide housing
for Native Americans there to contribute toward reconciling with our past of taking over indigenous
lands. The knee jerk reaction might be that Fort Lawton is too isolated of a location. Compared to Kent
and other affordable places in the region Fort Lawton is very near to the Native American cultural and
social facilities of Seattle - steps away from Daybreak Star center and 45 min. by bus and 25 min. by car 1
to downtown. (Compared to the distances people drive when they live on reservations that's not much!)
If the City is truly committed to race and social justice, administrative and financial resources should be
dedicated to getting projects like Native housing and the canoe house at SLU built. It's not enough to
earmark money and then throw up our hands because the community doesn't complete the project.
The legacy of governmental injustice begs true reconciliatory action and Fort Lawton is a good place for
it.
Valerie Kinast
4250 Fremont Ave N, Apt B
Seattle, WA 98103
LETTER 464
From: Kimberly Kinchen
Hello,
I just want to re-iterate my support of the development of affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
Seattle is well into a housing crisis. As is so often the case, this crisis hits poor people, people of color,
and women especially hard. Meanwhile, people far, far better off wring their hands over views or
neighborhood character or other features that, because they have grown accustom to the, they believe
they have some unassailable right to them.
Nearby neighbors should be able to voice concerns. When those concerns present legitimate, clear
safety and environmental issues they should be heard. But none of the issues raised by opponents of 1
this plan are so compelling as to override the desperate need this city has for more housing. No where
near.
200-plus units is just a drop in the bucket. But in a crisis, especially in a crisis, every drop counts.
Put affordable housing first at Fort Lawton.
Kimberly Kinchen
Capitol Hill
LETTER 465
From: David Kirkeby
Subject: Opposed to Ft Lawton Low Income Housing
My name is Dave Kirkeby. I am a resident of Magnolia and I write to you to express my opposition to
building a low income housing complex in Ft Lawton/Discovery Park. I was not able to attend the town
hall meeting about this as I actually have a job and could not get off work early enough to attend. All
accounts I have read said that meeting was packed with homeless activists, enough to where the actual 1
residents of the Magnolia neighborhood couldn’t get their voices heard. In the future, please consider
holding these meetings later in the evening or on weekend afternoons so the people that actually have
jobs and pay taxes can attend and have their voices heard. I am opposed to this type of development
for the following reasons:
1) Ours public schools in Magnolia, Ballard, and Queen Ann are already completely overcrowded. Piling
more people into the farthest, most unaccessible corner of Magnolia will only press the existing schools
to pile even more kids into the classrooms. There is an active proposal right now to make half of 2
Magnolias kids move from going to Ballard High School to somewhere in Wallingford, which is not
geographically very far, but incredibly to get to from Magnolia. Without adding another elementary,
middle, and high school, this new housing development will break the existing school structure.
2). Ft Lawton / Discovery Park is one of the most isolated parts of the entire city. Its basically an island
3
with limited public transit service in and out, no grocery stores, no convenience stores, and really
nothing that can be walked to. I assume most people in low income housing don’t have their own cars.
With limited bus lines, how will these people get anywhere? Will we hire more police officers to patrol 4
Magnolia? Will we build another fire station in the area? The traffic congestion in Magnolia is already 5
insane with only three ways in and out. If the Magnolia bridge were to ever collapse or become
structurally unstable, it would be a nightmare. Piling more people into the furthest reaches of the 6
neighborhood makes zero sense. Besides, the money spent on this development could be/should be
spent on re-building or at least renovating the Magnolia Bridge.
3). New York City has Central Park. San Francisco has Golden Gate Park. Chicago has the entire Grant
Park + Millennium Park area (a massive waterfront property). These are massive parks that these cities
have wisely set aside for their citizens and heavily used by all citizens of all income levels. Discovery
Park could be our version of this. There is no much we could do with Discovery Park to make it a real
destination and something Seattle could be proud of that rivals these other cities parks. The dumbest 7
thing we could do is ruin Discovery Park with low income housing. It has so much potential as a large
city park and we should be investing in more managed landscaping, actual attractions, museums,
cultural centers, etc…. All of the things that make Central Park, Golden Gate Park, and Grant Park so
great and so heavily used by those cities.
4). Property values will almost certainly decline for the homes nearest this new low income housing
development. Nobody will want to buy a home that is close to a low income housing project. Fewer
potential buyers, leads to lower competitive bids for a house, which leads to lower property values.
People who poured hundreds of thousands of dollars of their hard earned money for down payments
8
for the privilege to buy a home in a great neighborhood like Magnolia will get screwed. People who pay
insane property taxes, people who take care of their landscaping and renovate old crumbling houses
and make them beautiful and more valuable for the benefit of everyone, will get screwed. Why should
8,
their property values be put at risk? cont.
I am a moderate Democrat and understand that we need to pay taxes to help support our less fortunate
citizens, but there are limits to that political philosophy. The Seattle City Council seems willing to test
those limits and they may find there are a lot more citizens (even liberal Democrats) in this city that are
fed up with these rampant extreme left wing ideas. Anger and concern about Donald Trump has a lot 9
more people interested in voting this year than in the past. Getting involved in city politics to put a stop
to these extreme liberal ideas is just as important as getting involved to vote against Trump and the
extreme right wing ideas.
Dave
LETTER 466
From: Bryan Kirschner
Subject: Comment on Fort Lawton DEIS
We are writing to comment on the Fort Lawton Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
1.Among the four options presented in the DEIS, we strongly endorse “including affordable rental and 1
ownership and formerly homeless housing” as included in Alternative 1. We strongly oppose failure to
include such housing on-site at Fort Lawton.
2.We strongly endorse greatly increasing the number of housing units on site. The scale of need in our
community now argues for thousands rather than hundreds of units. With continued growth expected 2
by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), under-developing the site at this time would be a tragic waste
of an opportunity to proactively invest in equity and access to opportunity. (1)
3.In the strongest possible terms we urge city staff, the Mayor, and Council to build a plan that fully
embraces the City’s obligations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) under the Fair Housing Act.
This includes “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome
patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity based on protected characteristics” and “taking meaningful actions that, taken together,
address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living
patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.” (2)
Recommendations for local governments include assessing “Contributing Factors of Segregation,” 3
including “Land use and zoning laws,” “Location and types of affordable housing,” and “Community
opposition.” Access to “low poverty neighborhoods,” “environmentally healthy neighborhoods,” and
“Patterns in disparities in access to opportunity” are recommended considerations. (3)
We believe failure to include substantial amounts of affordable housing onsite at Fort Lawton would be
a shocking abdication of AFFH and contrary to the City’s commitment to racial and social justice:
(A) The Fort Lawton site sits around and about West Lawton Street, Texas Way, and 36th Avenue
West. This area sits in the Magnolia neighborhood. This area sits in Census Tract 57. (4)
(B) This area is designated by the City as a “higher access to opportunity, lower risk of
displacement” area. This area may be described as a “high opportunity area.” (5)
(C) This area is more than 500 meters from a freeway or comparable high-traffic road, the scientific
consensus threshold for significantly less exposure to harmful traffic-related pollutants; thus, this area
may be called a “healthful area” relative to many other areas of the city. (6)
(D) The percentage of people below the poverty line in Seattle according to 2016 American
Community Survey (ACS) estimates is 13%. In Census Tract 57 it is 3.4%. This difference is outside the
sampling margin of error; thus, this area may be described a “low poverty area.” (7)
(E) City-wide median annual household income according to 2016 American Community Survey
(ACS) five-year estimates is $75,458. In Census Tract 57 it is $102,760. This difference is outside the
sampling margin of error. This area may be described as a “high-income” area. (7)
(F) The percentage of White (one race) persons in Seattle according to 2016 American Community
Survey (ACS) five-year estimates is 69%. In Census Tract 57 it is 83%. This is outside the sampling margin
of error. This area may be described as a “white” area. (7)
(G) By visual scan of the City’s zoning maps, Census Tract 57 appears to be overwhelmingly zoned
Single Family 5,000 (or single-family larger lot). (8) The percentage of 1-unit detached homes in Seattle
according to 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates is 43%. In Census Tract 57 it is
69%. This difference is outside the sampling margin of error. (7) This area may be described as one with
a greater percentage of residential land with exclusionary zoning. 3,
(H) According to the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, the Magnolia neighborhood has a
cont.
documented history of racially restrictive covenants. (9)
(I) According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) “[a]n assessment of
Fair Housing would evaluate any barriers that arise from zoning policy.” (10) “Impediments to fair
housing choice” include “[c]ommunity resistance when minorities, persons with disabilities, and/or low-
income persons first move into white and/or moderate- to high-income areas.” (11)
(J) The city-wide percentage of Black or African-American alone persons in Seattle according to
2016 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates is 7.1%. In Census Tract 57 it is 0.8%. This
underrepresentation of African-Americans in a white, high income, high access to opportunity, low
poverty, healthful area is outside the sampling margin of error. (7)
(K) According to the 2015 American Housing Survey (AHS), in the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) area the following groups are significantly less likely to live in 1 unit detached homes than
white alone households: Hispanic households; Black households; immigrants who arrived after 2005. (7)
(L) According to the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) the following groups have a
significantly lower median income than that of Census Tract 57: Hispanic households; Black households.
(7)
(M) Comments in the public record appear to express explicit or implied animus toward low income
people, a preference to exclude non-affluent people from affluent areas, hostility toward persons with
addiction or mental illness, or negative racial and socio-economic stereotypes (see appendix for a
representative, not exhaustive list). (13)
(N) We urge the City to assess public input from the area as potential evidence of “community
opposition” and “community resistance” to free and open access to housing by low income persons and
members of protected classes in this high-opportunity, healthful, low poverty, high-income, white,
exclusionary zoned, historically intentionally segregated areas. We urge the City to treat such
opposition and resistance as positive evidence for including low-income housing on site at Fort Lawton
to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in the face of social or other pressure that may prevent it from
occurring otherwise in the area.
Thank you for your consideration. Please make the most of this rare opportunity to help people in
3,
urgent need now and to remediate an as yet un-remediated history of exclusion. cont.
Bryan Kirschner & Holly Ferguson
1608 N 49th St, Seattle, Washington 98103
Appendix: Selected comments on Fort Lawton (13)

Creating a homeless or subsidized low income area in the middle of an affluent neighborhood just
doesn’t make sense.
What’s the research on Projects [sic] built abutting affluent areas—there probably is none, because the
idea is so bad.
The homeless and low income folks should be served on the outskirts of the city, where property values
are lower and there can be access to neighborhood services. Please don’t waste this valuable resource.
Under Alternative 1, what guarantees would I and my neighbors have that the very character of our
safe, family-centered neighborhood would not change for the worse?
I have concerns about potential increased crime, creating safety issues for our kids, noise, disturbance of
our properties, and lack of integration with the existing community.
There are many, many seniors, families with children and all of us who would be put at serious risk with
the mentally ill free to roam our beautiful parks and streets. We buy here for a reason and I think you
should support a comfortable and safe place for your citizens to live.
Sources
(1) https://www.psrc.org/whats-happening/blog/region-planning-18-million-more-people-2050
(2) https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/AFFH-Fact-Sheet.pdf
(3) https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Assessment-of-Fair-Housing-Tool-For-
Local-Governments-2017-01.pdf
(4)
http://seattlecitygis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=bf93420ee86147e9ba6de9cad
ecfc57e
(5) www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2273984.pdf
(6) https://www.healtheffects.org/
(7) https://census.gov/
(8) www.seattle.gov/dpd/research/GIS/webplots/Smallzonemap.pdf
(9) http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants.htm
(10) https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/FR-5173-P-
01_Affirmatively_Furthering_Fair_Housing_RIA.pdf
(11) https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Assessment-of-Fair-Housing-Tool-For-
Local-Governments-2017-01.pdf
(12)https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Housing/Footer%20Pages/Fort%20Lawton%20Ri
ght%20Sidebar/Appendices%20-%20Fort%20Lawton%20DEIS.pdf
LETTER 467
From: Michael and Beret Kischner
We were distressed to hear on the radio this morning that the Council may approve (or perhaps has
approved) a development plan for Fort Lawton that does not require on-site affordable units, with the
developers instead getting to pay into a fund to put affordable housing somewhere else. This is not a
way to make the city a place where a diverse population of people on different steps of the economic
1
ladder are welcomed and enabled to live. It takes us a further step away from the socially conscious and
progressive city we once were. If you haven't yet approved this plan, please don't. If you already have,
please reconsider! Thank you.
Michael and Beret Kischner
1227 20th Ave. East
Seattle, WA 98112
Tel. 206 329-7730
LETTER 468
From: Joe Klonowski
Subject: In support of Fort Lawton
I support the proposal to build affordable housing units in Fort Lawton. 1

Thanks!
Joe Klonowski
2105 5th Ave
#1209
Seattle, WA, 98121
LETTER 469
From: Mike Knezevich

Hi,
I am writing in support of affordable housing at Ft. Lawton. We need massive investment in affordable 1
housing in Seattle. In fact, if we can increase the number of units at Ft. Lawton to over 500, that would
be awesome. If we want a city that has housing for all income levels, we need to do as much as possible 2
to provide affordable housing.
I also wish to state my support for putting multifamily housing at the Talaris site in Laurelhurst, and on
the Roosevelt reservoir site. Also, I live near Magnuson Park, and I notice that there is a large lawn at
Sand Point Way NE and NE 65th St that would be able to handle several hundred units of affordable 3
housing. It is next to the existing affordable/homeless housing that already exists in Magnuson Park.
thanks,
Mike Knezevich
9205 49th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115
LETTER 470
From: Linde Knighton
Subject: Ft. Lawton
By law this is all supposed to go to house the homeless. So, do it already. Recycle shipping containers
into cottages for families and seniors and disabled. Build nice, permanent tiny houses. Make it look good 1
enough to impress the Nimbys. We need to house 11,000 plus Seattleites, so get to it.
Linde Knighton
2445 NW 57th st., Seattle, WA 98107
LETTER 471
From: Vasiliy Kochergin

Fort Lawton is, for all intents and purposes, a component of Discovery Park, even if it is not officially
designated as such. It is directly adjacent to Discovery Park and, for all practical purposes, is used by the 1
public as park land. Many people currently use the land at Ft.
Lawton for recreation.
One of the most glaring errors in the DEIS concerns a lack of consideration of the Magnolia Bridge.
Currently, there are three roads into Magnolia, with most of the traffic entering on the Magnolia Bridge.
The City of Seattle has studied the bridge’s construction and concluded that the Magnolia Bridge is
“subject to catastrophic failure” at the next earthquake
(https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bridges-stairs-and-other-
2
structures/bridges/magnolia-bridge-planning-study).
No current plans to replace the Magnolia Bridge, even in the event of failure, are in place. In other
words, while scientists are unable to pinpoint exactly when the Magnolia Bridge will fail, it is inevitable
and not speculative that it will, with no replacement available. When it fails, one hundred percent of
traffic to and from Magnolia will use either the Dravis Street or Emerson Street entrances to the
neighborhood.
The effects on the public schools are also significantly understated in the DEIS. A projection of 41 3
students clearly understates the number of students. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument
that the projection of 41 students is correct (which I find hard to beleave), Magnolia schools are
currently at capacity and projected to be over capacity, even with the re-opening of Magnolia
Elementary.
These projections don’t even take into account the upzoning trend in Magnolia and other factors
resulting in increased density. Mu kinds goes to school and I see an increasing number of students in the
area. 4
Did someone counted number of portables that are already installed in Magnolia to just cope with
current number of students. There is simply insignificant school infrastructure for the current
population.
Alternatives 1 and 2 lack any measures to address this issue. Any plan to add substantial housing in the
neighborhood without the addition of a school is simply irresponsible.
The DEIS inaccurately states that existing bus service is adequate to handle the increase in ridership in
Alternatives 1 and 2. The current bus service is currently at and often over capacity. I'd encourage
authors of the document to try to board route 33 before it exists Magnolia in morning hours or in core
downtown area at night rush hours. Riders including myself frequently are unable to board busses that 5
arrive already full. While Fort Lawton is at the beginning of the line for the 33 bus, meaning that
residents of Fort Lawton will be able to board, there will be additional times when citizens further down
the line will not be able to board due to the increased ridership caused by Alternatives 1 and 2.
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not include any plans for addressing the significant negative impacts on current
levels of bus service.
Proposed development plan will take public land away from people, add additional tall on schools,
public transportation and roads. This plan needs a revision and should address realities of neighborhood 6
and not serve as a populist platform for politicians.
Magnolia resident, Vasiliy Kochergin.
LETTER 472
From: Ekaterina Kochergina
Subject: Seattle's Plan to Build Affordable Housing in Magnolia
My name is Ekaterina Kochergina and I am a citizen of Unites States. Resident of Magnolia neighborhood
of Seattle.
I recently read an article about the meeting held on January 9th 2018.
1
I say no to privatizing public land by putting housing in the heart of Discovery Park!
This beautiful public land needs to be used and enjoyed by All and not just by 235+units of housing! The
need to house homeless and low income population is great so is the lack of capacity in our public 2
schools!
It is very sad to find out there are over 8,000 homeless people in the Seattle area. They need to be
helped. However, putting 235+ housing units in Discovery park will not solve the homeless problem in 3
Seattle but it will change Discovery Park forever.
I vote to build a great public school with athletic fields/facilities that can be enjoyed by all for 4
generations to come!
At this moment part of the proposed Discovery park redevelopment is Habitat for Humanity Housing
which is a great program that allows low income people eventually own their house.
But in case of Discovery Park we cannot allow privatizing of the public land here!
5
This million dollar land will be given away for free to eventually be privatized and sold at the market
value.
The city of Seattle can build a school in the Discovery park and receive this land for free. It doesn't have
to be housing.
There is a plan to build a public school in the Seattle Center with no room for athletic fields in the near
future. That is where our kids might be going to high school. Imagine morning and afternoon commute
6
and trying to find any parking.
This school needs to be build in Discovery Park with lots of room for athletic fields and environmental
learning oportunities.
And the housing needs to be build in the Seattle Center where much more support services will be 7
available.
True Seattle for All!
Let the City Council know what you think Magnolia! Submit your comments!
LETTER 473
From: Sara M. Koenig
Subject: Ft. Lawton development
I am writing about the possibility of a school site in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton. I support a
wholistic approach to this redevelopment which includes desperately needed School land. I applaud the
plans for housing development, but in order for housing developments to be successful appropriate
educational infrastructure must be in place.
I support Seattle Public Schools being included in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton, as this
development feeds to neighborhood schools which are the most rapidly growing and are already at
capacity with over-capacity projections within a few years. I also support Seattle Public Schools in having
an opportunity to control a portion of the development which will enable them to operate play fields
which will have immediate benefit to their sports programs as well as support the high demand from 1
recreational leagues. When they are able to identify funding to build a school educational facility in the
future, we support the opportunity for Seattle Public Schools to transform this land into a school
campus.
I hope that the City and Seattle Public Schools work together to find every opportunity to support
educational infrastructure as the city grows. The cost of purchasing land is the number one deterrence
to Seattle Public Schools being able to keep pace with the growth in student population. This
opportunity for the school district to partner with the City for substantially discounted land is unique
and our city must ensure that it only be able to house its residents but that there are adequate
educational opportunities as well.
Sara M. Koenig, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biblical Studies

Seattle Pacific University and Seminary
LETTER 474
From: Kate Koliha
I am a Seattle resident and I support the affordable housing plan for Fort Lawton. 1
Kate Koliha
LETTER 475
From: Bryce Kolton
Hello,
I'm Bryce Kolton, a current resident in Ballard near the ship canal. I'm writing to express my strong
support for Fort Lawton to be redeveloped for affordable housing and / or mixed use. Fort Lawton has
good transit access via routes 33 and 44 to the rest of the city, supporting higher density with less need 1
for vehicle parking. Located near one of Seattle's best parks, and in a great school district, Fort Lawton
would be a great place to expand housing in our land-strapped city. Don't listen to NIMBYs in Magnolia;
expanded housing options is the right way to go here.
Thank you,
Bryce Kolton
[email protected]
LETTER 476
From: Gary Konop
Subject: Comment on FLARC redevelopment
Dear Ms. Masters,

This is in response to the Seattle Department of Housing’s request for public comments on the
redevelopment of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center (FLARC) parcel.
As a Magnolia resident who lives directly across from the main entrance to Discovery Park, I request that
the City of Seattle honor the Discovery Park Master Plan, which was adopted by City leaders in 1972,
1974, and 1986 and has been ratified in many City ordinances, resolutions, and other City created
master plans since.
1
The FLARC parcel in its entirety, should be incorporated into Discovery Park. All man-made structures at
the site be removed and the site be completely reforested with native trees and understory.
the Ravine and Discovery Park. I recognize that there are a variety of competing interests for the use of
this property, but I believe the best use of this precious property for the citizens of Seattle would be its
full incorporation into Discovery Park and management according to its Master Plan.
The FLARC property is a natural extension of the existing park, and developing it into hundreds of
housing units would not only stress the surrounding environment but also run against the goals of the 2
original Master Plan.
Thank you for acknowledging my request.
Sincerely,
Gary Konop
Magnolia
LETTER 477
From: Bryan Kopel
Subject: Support Homeless Housing in Fort Lawton
Please do not allow a few wealthy NIMBY's to squander this opportunity for our city to build much-
needed housing. This public land is a rare opportunity for the city to build affordable housing 1
inexpensively, and we must take it.
Sincerely,
Bryan Kopel
LETTER 478
From: Bill Korbonits
Subject: DEIS Fort Lawton
I am in favor of alternative 3, for the Fort Lawton Reserve Center to be turned into parkland for
Discovery Park.
Forests can be replanted, the last large size area for new parkland in Seattle. This will improve wildlife
habitat. 1
It is not an appropriate area for new housing of alternative 1 or 2. That can be found elsewhere, such as
the Talaris site.
Bill Korbonits
3763 W Commodore Way (near the park)

Seattle, WA 98199
206-715-6205
LETTER 479
From: Conrad Kornmann
Affordable housing or additional park space are in the best common interest I think. Please, no market 1
rate housing.
LETTER 480
From: Rodney Kreps
Please do use this space to create housing. I understand that some people have fears that something
bad might happen that wouldn't happen otherwise because of the proposed occupants, but compassion 1
should outweigh statistically groundless fears.
Peace and Blessings, Rodney Kreps
LETTER 481
From: Dustin Kreutz
Subject: Ft. Lawton
I am in favor of building affordable housing. I do not believe 200 goes far enough. I support building 1
2000. In the mean time let's get this done.
Thank you.
LETTER 482
From: Ken Kroemer
Subject: Housing in Discovery Park
I live in Magnolia. I am very much against any housing in the Fort Lawton property. The best and wisest
use is to return it to open space and incorporate into our wonderful Discovery Park. This is what the
1
local residents overwhelming want.
Ken Kroemer
LETTER 483
1
LETTER 484
From: Hal Kussick
Subject: Ft Lawton Redevelopment Comments
Lindsay Masters
Office of Housing
PO Box 94725
Dear Ms. Masters

I would like to express my opinion and concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of Ft Lawton.
My family resides at 3718 W. Lawton Street, which abuts the Ft. Lawton site, immediately to the north.
We will be directly affected by any redevelopment plans. 1
Many of the neighbors here, including myself favor plan 3, the park.
I was at the Jan. 9, 2018 public hearing. It seemed like the city packed the room with people strongly in
favor of redevelopment for homeless and low income housing. This was much different than the first
meeting which may have been more representative of the neighbors. I am not necessarily totally
opposed to this plan(option 1), and I am certainly not opposed to living with people of possibly less
means than myself, however, it was very obvious that the "vibe" at this meeting was intimidating to
anyone who might speak out less than enthusiastically for that option.
Quite frankly, it is very easy for anyone who is not directly affected by this plan to stand on their soap 2
box and be vocally in favor of "option 1" - the city's preferred plan. Simply keeping score of the numbers
for or against is of really no meaning as it's easy to be for anything if it doesn't affect you. I also felt in
this second meeting like there was a overt air of contempt for the perceived "wealthy" Magnolia
residents. If anyone dared complain about the city's preferred plan they were booed or shouted down.
Virtually none of those strongly in favor have any skin in the game, so to speak, and so I believe their
opinion should be less important in the consideration of this project than those truly affected by it. If I
lived even three blocks away, I would likely be much more supportive as well, as it would have no
negative effect on my day to day life. It's easy to call out "NIMBY" when it's not in your back yard.
This is not about keeping people of less means out of the area. It’s about rapidly changing the character
and density of the neighborhood and subjecting the immediate neighbors to a very lengthy and likely
disruptive construction process and increased congestion. The city has given no assurances that the
process will be anything less than painful and disruptive to those who live there now.
The Construction process could take up to 7 years, I believe it said in the EIS. That's a lot of noise(I
3
believe work is allowed to begin at 7am 6 days a week). Truck traffic and congestion on Government
Way, particularly where it intersects with 36th Ave. W. will certainly dramatically increase. Also,
construction worker parking and traffic is bound to increase along 36th Ave W. along the eastern side of
the site.
This plan does go against existing zoning laws in the area . Many people have chosen to live in Magnolia,
and this area around Ft. Lawton in part because of its uncongested character. I understand that there is
a pressing need for affordable housing, but is it possible to do something more in line with the current
neighborhood zoning? Additionally if we do support the current city preferred plan, there is no 4
assurances that there wouldn't be a push for the city to further densify the site now or in the future. At
the Jan. 9th meeting there were many people including a city council member- again I would add- with
no immediate relationship to the area, calling for a thousands of units to be placed there; and "too bad"
for anyone who doesn't feel that way.
I think it's worth mentioning, as well, any densification project on the Ft. Lawton site would not
positively affect property values- regardless of what a city sponsored study might say. Many people have 5
their live savings and much of their retirement plans tied up in their houses' value.
Plan 3; developing a park is my preferred option. I am very much against "Plan 2", selling it to private
developers. I think with some assurances that the scope of the plan would be limited to where it is
now(including no new school construction), and signage to limit traffic during construction and after on
36th ave W, as well as maintaining and enlarging the greenbelt around the site, low income housing and 6
housing for homeless seniors and vets(By-the-way; the city has not assured anyone, I understand, that
these will exclusively be the homeless populations to be housed there) it could become much more
acceptable to those, including myself and others who live immediately adjacent to the site, than it is
right now.
Sincerely,
Hal Kussick
3718 W Lawton St.
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 485
From: Dale Kutzera
Subject: Ft Lawton
Hi,
I understand you are taking comments on Ft. Lawton.
My comment it to preserve the existing mid-century buildings in the center of the parcel. I believe these 1
were offices of some kind, and feel they could be restored and put to good use, either as dormitory style
house for homeless, or a school for Magnolia, or as apartments.
I believe these buildings should be maintained as part of any plan. The large areas around the building
should be developed with housing at a variety of price points. Very expensive homes/townhomes with a 2
view could be sold profitably to pay for apartments or congregate housing for no/low income residents.
I do not believe that using a larger parking lot and shed for the parks department (due north of the mid-
cetury buildings) is a wise use of land. That activity could be situated elsewhere in the park. 3
Regards,
Dale Kutzera
LETTER 486
From: Keith Kyle
Hi,
I’d like to voice my support for the Fort Lawton redevelopment with one caveat: It is not ambitious
enough - there is space for thousands of units and we are choosing to build hundreds. Please consider 1
adding units to the plan - there is a housing crisis on.
Thank You,
Keith Kyle
LETTER 487
From: Amy Lakhani
Hello there,
I understand Seattle Public Schools has the opportunity to apply for the 6 acres designated at Fort
Lawton. I support a wholistic approach to this redevelopment, which includes desperately needed
school land. In order for housing developments to be successful, appropriate educational infrastructure
must be in place. I support Seattle Public Schools being included in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton.
1
This development feeds to neighborhood schools which are the most rapidly growing and are already at
It is imperative that the City and Seattle Public Schools work together to find every opportunity to
support educational infrastructure as the city grows.
Sincerely,
Amy Lakhani
Magnolia resident
Mom to Kai (6) and Leena (3)
LETTER 488
From: Tom Lang

Please reconsider the proposed development at Fort Lawton. 243 units of housing is not enough. In light
of the homelessness crisis we face, and the nature and size of the parcel in question, the city should be 1
taking this opportunity to bring online 1000 units or more of affordable housing.
Tom Lang
LETTER 489
From: Ian Langer
Subject: Affordable Housing Fort Lawton Park
Not building affordable housing units during a housing and homelessness crisis would be a disgrace for 1
our city.
Concerned Seattlite,
Ian
LETTER 490
From: James L. Larsen
Subject: Add Ft. Lawton to Discovery Park
As a resident of Magnolia, and an educator working on ways to connect children and families with 1
nature, I wanted to comment on the need to add Ft. Lawton to Discovery Park.
Nature deficit disorder is becoming rampant in our society in both children and adults. Research has
shown the need for increased opportunities to get people outside, especially as technology and
screen/device time increases. Often the ability to go outside and connect with nature is tied to the
2
availability of safe and easily accessible sites, like Discovery Park. Adding Ft. Lawton to the available area
of DP will provide more opportunity for Seattleites to get out into nature to relieve stress as well as
connect with nature to better understand the importance or one's place on this planet.
Using the Ft. Lawton area for even more housing, even low-income housing as noble as that is, will
lessen the safety, accessibility and usefulness of Discovery Park by putting an undue load on it with the
3
added infrastructure needed to support a larger population directly adjacent.
I encourage you to follow enlightened cities that look to increase greenbelts and access to nature--add 4
Ft. Lawton to Discovery Park.
It's the right thing to do.
Best,
James L. Larsen
Magnolia
[email protected]
LETTER 491
From: Marc Lawrence
Subject: Re: Fort Lawton Housing
Affordable housing is definitely needed in Seattle. I think there should be housing built on the site. To
what level of affordability needs to be researched. I think transit could become a real issue for people 1
that rely entirely on buses. People need to have reasonable commutes in order to keep jobs and have a
life.
So, housing: yes, but be realistic with who this housing is meant for. 2
Sincerely
Marc Lawrence
LETTER 492
From: Celeste Lawson
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment-DEIS
Hello,
I am a 10 yr resident of the Magnolia neighborhood writing to comment on the plans for Fort Lawton. I
feel that our city is really doing a disservice to our children. Schools in Magnolia and in other near by
1
neighhoods are OVERFLOWING. Population is increasing, housing development and re-zoning is making
way for more people but what about the kids?? Where does the city expect for these kids to go to
school, and what about more options for morning & after school care programs?? As an example: I was
at the Magnolia Community Center this week and was told that there is currently 100 children on the
waiting list for the after school care program!! What is our city doing to address issues like these?? We 2
need more space for our children!! More schools, more Community Centers!! Doesn’t the city care
about the future for our kids?
Thank you,
Celeste Lawson
LETTER 493
From: David Lawson
This is a comment on the draft EIS for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project. I
cannot be present at tomorrow night's meeting, but want to share my opinion.
1
I am a longtime Seattle resident and own a single-family home in the city. Just over the last five years,
I've watched housing in the city rapidly move from expensive to completely unaffordable for all but the
very wealthy. We are in a full-blown housing crisis. The private- and public-workers that power our
economy have nowhere to live. The artists and musicians that this city once nurtured are moving out.
The few options that our lowest-income residents used to have are now gone. We need more housing
at all income levels, and the need has rapidly become desperate.
While much more will be needed, Fort Lawton is one of the best opportunities we have in the short
term to provide housing in quntity. We need to take advantage of it. I support the Preferred Alternative
in the short term, and would like the city to explore options for permitting even more housing than is
currently planned in the Preferred Alternative.
Opponents' objections on the basis of crime and drugs are offensive and detached from reality. The 1,
project will not trigger some sort of crime wave. Communities with a similar mix of income levels cont.
elsewhere in Seattle and in other cities are appealing and safe places.
Residents will have transit access on Metro route 33. What's more, their presence will likely trigger an
increase in service for route 33 under Metro's Service Guidelines, benefiting all of eastern Magnolia.
Even further improvements in service are planned by Metro in the long term. Route 33 allows residents
without cars to access all essential services, in most cases without a transfer.
While further park land in Magnolia sounds appealing, reserving land for parks in the face of a housing
crisis like the one we face now would be the height of irresponsibility, and confirm that Seattle wishes to
be a city reserved for the wealthy. Please take this opportunity to house as many people as possible, in
both publicly and privately developed housing.
Thank you for considering this comment as part of the EIS process.
David Lawson
[email protected]
LETTER 494
From: Jessie Lawton-Crane
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Jessie Lawton-Crane
[email protected]
11244 24th Ave NE Seattle, Washington 98125
LETTER 495
From: Justin Lee
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Justin Lee
[email protected]
LETTER 496
From: Emily Leedy
Subject: Comments for Ft Lawton Re-development
Please include my comments as a current resident of Magnolia and parent of 3 young children.
Education is critical in the development of our children. We have to nurture and grow our children for
them to become productive community members in the future. Schools are the foundation of their
education. Our children need schools that are not overcrowded and properly funded are an important
part of our children's' education. Seattle needs to put children first as they are the future. If Seattle
continues to not fund education and ignore the schools becoming overcrowded and not even
1
attempting to solve the problem we, young tax paying families are not going to stay. I'm not against
lower income housing development, when done in a SMART, forward thinking way. I do not think that
isolating lower income, especially older folks back in the park is smart. They would be disconnected
from the community and become a potential hotbed for trouble. I would rather have habitat for
humanity homes mixed within the neighborhoods, so they can truly be part of the community. I realize
this may not be possible, but that's my ideal solution. More realistically and also a huge and just as 2
important need, we are in desperate need of a middle and high school. Ft Lawton is a dream location
for that purpose- location, cost of land, fits the geographic need area well...the list goes on)! Then use 3
the remaining area for some low-income single family homes as a test case- BUT there needs to be a bus
that reaches them and any needed services available... Maybe middle and high school students could
4
also help older residents with lawn care or painting as service work. There needs to be a way to connect
these folks to the community. I believe it can be done, but not at the expense of a city full of kids that
also need an education.
The cost of purchasing land is the number one deterrence to Seattle Public Schools being able to keep
pace with the growth in student population. This opportunity for the school district to partner with the 4,
City for substantially discounted land is unique and our city must ensure that it only be able to house its cont.
residents but that there are adequate educational opportunities as well. It is imperative that the City
and Seattle Public Schools work together to find every opportunity to support educational infrastructure
as the city grows.
Emily Leedy, Magnolia resident
LETTER 497
From: Nancy Lehwalder
Subject: Re: Discovery Park Housing
Dear Friends,
I would like to add my vote in favor of affordable housing at Discovery Park. 1
In fact, I would add "No Income" housing options for the homeless as well.
I live in the U district, where I find the homeless curled up on our sidewalk as I leave the house, and I
work on Capitol Hill, where homelessness is most apparent.
Every night, thousands of our fellow citizens sleep on the streets without adequate shelter, and they 2
need and deserve our protection.
Please do what you can do offer shelter to our most vulnerable citizens.
Thank-you,
Nancy Lehwalder
LETTER 498
From: Shannon Leslie
Subject: Seattle needs MORE affordable housing!
Hello,
Thank you,
Shannon Leslie
320 NE 56th St
Seattle, WA 98105
LETTER 499
From: Grant H. Leum
Hello,
I am writing as a current resident of the University District and five-year long resident of Seattle. I am
writing to urge the City of Seattle to pursue an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more
housing, preferably without privatization. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-
homelessness in record numbers. As we progress through yet another winter in which little is being
done to ameliorate the conditions which the thousands sleeping outdoors must endure, the image of
Seattle as a bastion of progressivism is rightly called into question. 1
affordable homes, and to drastically rebuild our depleted public housing stock.
being considered. This is a moral imperative and it calls for a bold, humanistic stance.
Thank you,
Grant H. Leum
LETTER 500
From: Sharon LeVine
My family is emphatic that the Fort Lawton property should be incorporated within Discovery Park.
While " low income" housing and a school may be a worthy causes, either one can be established on
any of a number of other sites that won't affect the number of park acres that are needed for Seattle's
rapidly growing population.
The following statement from the Friends of Discovery Park reiterates the sentiments of our family:
"3. To this end, we believe the best and most appropriate use of the property is to incorporate the
entire acreage into Discovery Park and manage it according to its master plan. These 30+ acres
represent a rare and unique opportunity to add substantially to the park. The Army Reserve property is
1
uniquely situated between the Kiwanis Ravine and its Great Blue Heron rookery and the larger green
space of Discovery Park. Creating a forested canopy within this site would create a much-needed wildlife
corridor between the ship canal, the Ravine and Discovery Park. Turning the Army Reserve site into an
old growth coniferous forest would be the least expensive and most acceptable option available to the
City, requiring only minimal infrastructure demolition and reforestation investments.
Park space is essential to providing a better " quality of life" for urban citizens and urban wildlife.
We implore City Officials to ensure that this rare opportunity to add more, "green" park space is
embraced so that Seattle residents can enjoy a larger Discovery Park for hundreds of years to come.
LETTER 501
From: Haoquan Li
Subject: about the Fort Lawton development plan
Hi, I am a resident of Magnolia. Recently I learnt that a club called "Magnolia Community Council" (MCC)
have expressed their opinion on the Fort Lawton development plan to the city, saying that they approve
the low-income housing plan. I would like to add that, MCC is not a representative body of the 20,000+
residents of Magnolia. It is a club, not an elected community council, and it should not presume to
represent itself otherwise to the city. I believe the public view is opposite to that of MCC -- we don't 1
want the low-income housing in Fort lawton; we want it to be part of the discovery park. There is a
recent online poll supporting my statement here (https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=74758513, or
see attached screenshot if you cannot access that link) -- 58% of the 325 voter in Magnolia vote for "no
affordable housing" while only 21% voted for yes. Please, do not take the word from the so-called
"Magnolia Community Council" for the public view from the Magnolia residents. Thank you!
Best regards,
Haoquan Li
LETTER 502
From: Lars Liden
marked for that purpose is mind-boggling.
1
- Lars Liden
LETTER 503
From: Dan Liebling
I support the city's goal to redevelop the Fort Lawton property into housing and other residential
affordances. Obtaining plots for substantial redevelopment is economically unfeasible, so the Ft Lawton 1
property provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create housing units at scale. We are already
seeing the market benefits of additional housing units on the market: despite continued growth in
Seattle, rent prices are beginning to stabilize.
When developing this property it is important to remember the advice of the great urbanist, Jane
Jacobs: diversity of land use is important. Merely putting housing here is not enough: businesses that 2
will serve the Magnolia community will be integral to the success of the project.
LETTER 504
From: Jill Lightner
Subject: in support of low income housing at Fort Lawton
Our city desperately needs more low income housing in every one of our neighborhoods, and that
should include Magnolia. The plan that I have seen will protect Discovery Park's beauty and wildness 1
beautifully while providing affordable housing for a range of ages, family sizes and incomes. It's a chance
to do what is right for our current residents and our future growth.
Thanks for your time-
Jill Lightner 98118, with dear friends and senior in-laws in 98109
LETTER 505
From: Mark Linsey
Subject: I support Alternative 1 of Fort Lawton DEIS
I am a 30 year resident of Magnolia and am in support of the Preferred alternative to the Fort Lawton
1
DEIS. I encourage the City to look at even more affordable housing at the site, and also beef up Metro 2
service to the site, including a circulator bis to Magnolia Village.
3
Thank you
Mark Linsey
[email protected]
LETTER 506
From: Lesa Linster
Subject: Please add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park!
Hello,
I am a home and business owner living in Magnolia with three kids. We would like to voice our support 1
for adding Fort Lawton to Discovery Park and not building the affordable housing in that location. We
are all for affordable housing and support it in many ways, but there is a major overcrowding issue in
the schools already, not to mention no middle school with soon to be four elementary schools spilling
2
into McClure. The resources for families that would live there are limited and this seems to be being
pushed through because it’s been worked on for so long versus actually being the best fit. Please take 3
into account the voice of those that live in this community rather than force a square peg into a round
hole.
Thanks,
Lesa
Lesa Linster
Linster Creative 206.550.1200
LETTER 507
From: Sarah Lippek
Subject: PLEASE SUPPORT low-income housing at Fort Lawton
Dear Councilmembers,
I write in strong support of low-income housing at Fort Lawton. We are in the midst of a genuine
housing crisis, and the character and future of the city are at stake. Please, demonstrate the values for
which you were elected, and do whatever you can to address the severe shortage of affordable housing
1
by moving ahead with the maximum possible number of affordable, below-market-rate units on the Fort
Lawton site.
Warm regards,
Sarah Lippek, attorney
Seattle resident
LETTER 508
From: Meredith Lirman
Subject: Fort Lawton Plans
To Lindsay Masters:
Please consider using the unused land at Fort Lawton in Seattle’s Magnolia neighborhood to create low
income housing. I believe, considering our current housing crisis and high rates of homelessness that
continue to climb, that we must create more low income housing and that this would be the most 1
appropriate use of the unused land. I have lived in Seattle my whole life and hope that in the future it
will be a city that people of all income levels will be able to live in.
Thank you for your service to the city and for your time.
Best,
Meredith
LETTER 509
From: Bri Little
Subject: Ft. Lawton Development--We need housing NOW
Hello,
I am an organizer and writer at Real Change Homeless Empowerment Project. I am writing my support
for the Ft. Lawton Housing Development Plan in Magnolia. There is no reason to deprive hundreds upon 1
hundreds of our city's most vulnerable people (chronically homeless youth, elderly and people of color)
their right to the basic need of housing.
The residents of Magnolia who are against this development feel such because they do not want to see
the reality that many of us in Seattle have to face--we are in the midst of a crisis. People are dying on the
streets, and now is the time for solutions. We have been too late for so many, but there is still time to 1,
do the right thing for people who are still suffering. cont.
I urge you to move forward with this housing project so we can begin to show our unhoused neighbors
we care, and to invest in making our city a healthy place for everyone to live.
Thank you,
Bri Little (she/her)
Advocacy and Organizing Associate
Real Change News
96 S Main St., Seattle, WA 98104
LETTER 510
From: Howard Litwak
Email Address: [email protected] Subject: Affordable housing in fort Lawton
As a seattle resident (3001 10th ave west), I want to say that I support the plan for affordable housing 1
100%. This community is desperate for more affordable housing
LETTER 511
From: Alice Lockhart
Subject: Alice Lockhart says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!
leads on climate while surrounding areas lag. Put simply, a speedy move to a much more dense, 1,
walkable, and livable Seattle is one of our last best chances for meeting climate goals for Seattle and the cont.
region.
We also urge that the city move quickly to develop the “alternative” Talaris site -- affordable housing 6
Having attended the meeting on January 9th, I know there is huge community sentiment for a denser 7
option. Please be bold in response to the climate and housing emergencies!
Sincerely yours,
Alice Lockhart
LETTER 512
From: Sarra Loew
Hi all,
In the midst of a homelessness epidemic, we should take any opportunity we have to increase
affordable housing in Seattle. Please use the Fort Lawson land to develop affordable housing on the site, 1
using the current proposal that would add 238 housing units.
We need more housing for people!
Thanks,
Sarra Loew
98102
LETTER 513
From: Steve Lovekin
Subject: Fw: Fort Lawton Development
Dear Sirs and Madams:
I am writing to endorse Alternative 3 of the proposed Fort Lawton Development, for the following 1
reasons:
1. The proposed preferred Alternative 1 will do little of nothing to solve the problem of homelessness in
Seattle. The majority of the people who would be moving there are not likely to be truly homeless.
According to the EIS, there will be 75-100 units of "affordable rental units, for families earning 60% of
the "area median income." The area median income for the Seattle area is $89,600. Therefore, the
families that would move in (there is no discussion in the EIS how many people constitute a "family")
would be earning $53,760 per year. 2
There will also be 50 units of "affordable housing for families" earning 80% of the area median income.
Therefore, the families that move in to those units would be earning $71,680 per year. People earning
these levels of income are not homeless. They may be living somewhere else, but they are not
homeless.
The only homeless people Alternative 1 will help are the "formerly homeless seniors" mainly veterans, in
86 "senior supportive apartments." This is not to say that such people should not be provided homes, 3
but it is not necessary to completely redevelop the Fort Lawton land to help this number of people.
I urge you not to be overly influenced by the vocal interest groups that showed up at the meeting in
Magnolia on January 9, 2018. Various advocates for the homeless arrived very early and monopolized 4
the meeting, basically preventing anyone with a different opinion from having a meaningful say. I also
urge you not to put too much weight on the fact the Magnolia Community Club endorses Alternative 1.
While they have the right to express their opinion, they are not an elected representative body for all 5
Magnolia residents.
2. Seattle needs more parkland for the physical and mental health of its residents. We should be
looking forward 50 to 150 years to these needs of our grandchildren and great grandchildren. It may be
politically expedient to accede to voices calling for more "affordable housing", but open space in which
the population can rejuvenate by connecting with nature is going to be much more important in future
years. Housing will eventually deteriorate in the next 50 years (see Yesler Terrace), but parkland will only
6
get better. The rejuvenation of the former Army housing area in Discovery Park is a good example of
what can be done to create old growth woodland which succeeding generations can enjoy. The EIS
states that Seattle will need "approximately 40 acres of parkland by 2035." See the EIS, page 2-19. At
Fort Lawton alone we have available 34 acres of that requirement. Please go to Discovery Park on any
weekend, even during the worst weather, and see how the parking lots are full and the trails all heavily
used. Observe also, that cars come from all over the region, not just Magnolia, with many from out of
state. Discovery Park is truly a regional park, and the opportunity to add 34 acres to it should not be
missed.
3. The EIS is clearly written with a bias to Alternative 1. It glosses over such things as the need for
schools to accommodate the additional children who will live at Fort Lawton. It admits that the local
public schools are already at their limit, but has no real answer for that problem other than to say the 7
Seattle Public Schools will solve the problem with more high schools. How that is likely to solve the
problem of overcrowded elementary schools it does not say.
The EIS also glosses over the inconvenient fact that there are few amenities in Magnolia which will
benefit low income individuals. The Fort Lawton site is far "off the beaten track." The nearest grocery
store is the Metropolitan Market, and extremely high end and very expensive place to buy toilet paper or
anything else. The EIS states that residents will be encouraged to use bicycles, but I seriously doubt that 8
they will want to do a week's grocery shopping by bicycle; they will have to use their cars. This is contrary
to the city's stated intent to get people off the road and into alternative transportation.
It is also troubling to read in the EIS a certain criticism of the local residents of Magnolia. Without citing
any authority, it that Magnolia has a history of "racially restrictive covenants prohibiting one or more
groups of people based on race, ethnicity or national origin from settling in that area." EIS, page 2-19. As
you may know, racially restrictive covenants were outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948 in the
case of Shelley Kramer, 334 US 1 (1948). I doubt that anyone alive in Magnolia today has a clue that they
are the beneficiaries of racially restrictive covenants, and would be insulted to learn that the city thinks
9
them so. The residents of Magnolia are a progressive bunch, and all races and ethnic groups are
represented within its environs. I believe it is wrong to base a city's policy decision about where to place
new housing on the concept that the local residents must somehow make up for a policy that was
outlawed 70 years ago, if it even existed here then.
I also saw nothing in the EIS that addressed how the affordable housing would stay "affordable." If the
residents are the owners, what prevents them from later selling at market price? 10
Another issue that was not addressed is how stable Catholic Housing Services and Habitat for Humanity
are. What will happen to the new units, both rental and owned, if either or both of these organizations 11
go out of business or decide that they no longer wish to be involved in maintaining the project?
For all of the above reasons I urge you to implement Alternative 3 of the Fort Lawton proposed plan. 12
Sincerely yours,
Osgood S. Lovekin
3602 W. Barrett St., Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 514
From: Briana Lovell
Email:[email protected]
Subject: support housing at Fort Lawton
I
I’m writing to express my strong support for the city’s proposed plan. Our city is facing rapid
gentrification and exploding costs to both buy and rent homes. We simply cannot let the privileged
few “haves” who own in wealthy neighborhoods like Magnolia act to exclude the people who make
this city an interesting and wonderful place to live. This project should include as many residences as
possible - many more than proposed -ideally with mixed use development to create a new
neighborhood in its own right. The future of our city is at stake-do we let the rich opponents of change 1
get their way, or do we build a city for everyone? If there is opposition from marginalized
communities, I hope the city will listen. But if it’s the same tired arguments from the richest among us,
I hope the city will simply document and move on as planned. This is only one small SMALL step in
addressing the massive inequities in our society and in our city.
Thanks,
Briana Lovell
LETTER 515
From: Sammy Low
Subject: Asphodel Denning says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

housing on the Fort Lawton
S Site.
region.
comparable to the density of other affordable housing projects in the city. Ideally the increased
2
density should apply to all types of housing on the site, including the affordable ownership
housing (Habitat for Humanity).
the GHG contribution of people living in a dense, transit-rich urban environment, compared to
the long single-car commutes and high-carbon lifestyle if working people are pushed outside the 3
city -- the“Auburn” alternative discussed in the hearing on January 9th.
should ensure that the housing remain as affordable housing even if re-sold, and that there is
the opportunity for redevelopment at increased density while retaining housing ownership for 4
the Habitat owners.
plans should as much as possible allow for additional buildings or increased height to be 5
accommodated on the site in the future.
Sincerely yours,
Sammy Low
LETTER 516
From: Jessica Lucas
Subject: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment
I'm in favor of the Fort Lawton Redevelopment. It's a good use of vacant land. Seattle needs to house
those who are living outside and this is a good way to do that. I really appreciate the thought that has 1
gone into the housing project, preserving the wildlife habitat, and bringing parts of this land back for
use by the public.
Thank you, Jessica Lucas
LETTER 517
From: Scott Luchessa
Subject: Ft. Lawton Redevelopment DEIS Comments
I am a resident of Magnolia and a certified ecologist. I support Alternative 1, the preferred alternative.
It is clear that a proposed development plan would need to be provided and approved by the City
Council before the development could proceed. Here are some additional comments relative to 1
Alternative 1 and a more detailed development plan that I would encourage any proponent and the City
Council to address:
As part of sustainable, livable, walkable development please consider:
•Whether proposed parking is sufficient and the best configuration to accommodate the number of
residents and visitors. To reduce stormwater runoff, incorporate low impact development techniques, 2
such as bioretention and rain gardens to parking schemes.
•Use part of the land for a P-patch for residents and neighbors. 3
•Provide footpath connections to 36th Ave W. 4

•To reduce potential greenhouse gases during construction and operation, other possible mitigation
measures could be to require maintenance and enhancement of the north and south forest areas, such
5
as removal of invasive plants (English ivy, knotweed, Himalayan blackberry) and under planting long-
lived coniferous trees.
•Consider changing zoning to allow even greater density (e.g. Lowrise 2) than the proposed 238 units
and expedite construction. Seattle is in the midst of an affordable housing and homelessness crisis. 6
People need safe and affordable housing NOW!
•Landscaping should use native plants only, which are adapted to existing soils and climate and drought
tolerant. Use of native plants commonly found in the Puget Lowlands also will help blend the project 7
into the existing forest types found in Discovery Park.
•A thorough Environmental Site Assessment must be completed to assess the presence and extent of
any potential contamination/hazardous materials present in the buildings that will be demolished and
8
around above ground storage tanks. Any hazardous materials must be removed to minimize potential
exposure to future and existing residents of Magnolia.
I look forward to a more diverse Magnolia.

Sincerely,
Scott Luchessa
Certified Ecologist
Ecological Solutions, Inc.
4013 32nd Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199
(206) 841-3801 (cell)
LETTER 518
From: Benjamin Lucking
Subject: I support preferred alternative #1
Hi,
I was at the EIS hearing earlier this month but did not make a comment. I support the preferred
alternative #1, because it is a rare opportunity to get free land for affordable housing in a city where
1
land is hard to come by.
Thanks for such a well run meeting and explanation of the public comment process.
Best,
Benjamin Lucking
LETTER 519
From: Benjamin D. Lukoff
Subject: Comment of DEIS for proposed Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project
Dear Ms. Masters,

I am writing to formally comment on the proposed FLARC Redevelopment Project DEIS.
I support Alternative 1 – Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses Onsite (Preferred 1
Alternative). If it is possible for Seattle Public Schools to make use of some of the property as well, as
discussed in the DEIS, so much the better.
I do not support any of the other alternatives.
I would also like folks to be aware that while Magnolia has the reputation of being against this project,
Magnolia is not a monolithic neighborhood. There are many residents who oppose this. There are also 1,
many who are in favor. The former are often louder than the latter. But there is plenty of support in the cont.
neighborhood for this project.
Thank you,
Benjamin D. Lukoff
3216 29th Ave. W.
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 520
From: Sonja Lund
Greetings,
I am writing to express my support for converting the Fort Lawton property in Magnolia into affordable
housing for our neighbors who are struggling to afford living in our wonderful city.
Seattle is changing. I have grown up in the area and the city is not the same as it was when it was young,
but I do not see this change as necessarily negative. With greater prosperity we have greater
opportunities to be a city that truly cares for its most vulnerable. Building affordable housing is one way
to do that, and the Fort Lawton land is a perfect place to start. The land is available, near a beautiful
park which provides free recreation to all and multiple bus lines into downtown. (I work near Magnolia 1
and rely on those buses myself.) Studies show that blending low-income and high-income families
together into one community helps alleviate the poverty experienced by the poorer families in the
neighborhood; providing affordable housing is an investment in all of Seattle's people.
As a city we often fall victim to our infamous "Seattle process" where we identify a problem, talk about
it for years, and then do nothing. This is an opportunity for the city to take decisive action to help
vulnerable families, get unhoused seniors into homes, and make a clear statement that this is a city for
all, not just the rich. Please convert Fort Lawton into affordable housing.
Regards,
Sonja Lund
LETTER 521
From: Tom Lux
Subject: Tom Lux says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
1,
place, because we have the chance to forestall the most devastating effects of climate change. In cont.
region.
Sincerely yours,
Tom Lux
LETTER 522
From: Kevin MacDonald
Subject: Supporting the homeless
Please move forward with the plans to support low income housing at Fort Lawton!! 1
Kevin MacDonald
2515 East Spring St.
Seattle, WA 98122
LETTER 523
From: Marti MacDougall
Subject: Ft. Lawton Affordable Housing
I am in favor of Alternative #1 and support the City going forward to build housing for low income
individuals and families. I particularly support the for-purchase housing for those in the 80% of median 1
HH income levels. This group is rarely served by Affordable Housing initiatives.
Thank you,
Marti MacDougall
3236 34th Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 524
From: Kate Macfarlane
Subject: Comment on DEIS for Fort Lawton Redevelopment
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong support for development of affordable housing at Fort Lawton. If any
changes are made to the preferred alternative, I believe they should increase (not decrease) the number
of housing units created.
I am a lifelong resident of the City of Seattle, a regular visitor to Discover Park, and a frequent patron of
1
nearby businesses along Commodore Way. Although I do not live in Magnolia, I am renter who has
experienced first hand the rising costs of housing in Seattle. This is an important project that affects
housing affordability citywide.
Vacant surplus lots of this size are incredibly rare in Seattle. I urge the city not to let this valuable
opportunity go to waste.
Kate Macfarlane
98122
LETTER 525
From: Melroy Machado
Subject: Feedback Discovery park and Fort Lawton
I am opposed to the proposed housing development adjacent to Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine and
I DO support adding the last parcel of Fort Lawton to Discovery Park. 1
Regards,
Melroy Machado
Magnolia
LETTER 526
From: Ahna Machan
Subject: Fort Lawton Arm Reserve Development
As a resident of Seattle, I am writing to voice my support that the For Lawton Army Reserve Center be
1
redeveloped to provide Affordable Housing and Park Uses - Alternative 1. We need both in Seattle.
Thank you.
Ahna Machan
--
Ahna Machan
206.300.6185
"To pay attention, this is our endless and proper work."
--Mary Oliver
LETTER 527
From: Claire Magula
Subject: Yes to Affordable Homes at Fort Lawton
Hello,
I am writing in strong support of developing affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
Our city is in a time of unprecedented growth and we need affordable housing built at every available
opportunity.
As someone who lives in affordable housing and works for an affordable housing developer, I can
personally and professionally attest to the incredible impact and importance that affordable housing has
on making opportunity accessible to people of all incomes and backgrounds.
Affordable housing drives economic development, economic integration, and strengthens public safety.
As a culture, we need to move past inaccurate stereotypes that conflate affordable housing with failed
historic public housing projects, incorrect perceptions of people with limited economic resources, and
insufficient recognition of the systematic social structures that dis-proportionally marginalize and 1
burden the most vulnerable people in our communities.
Every community, every neighborhood in the city needs to share the responsibility for making sure
everyone in Seattle has a safe, stable home. That means all of us and that means Magnolia, too. What
an amazing opportunity for Magnolia to graciously welcome and be inclusive of the diversity that makes
our city possible.
I would encourage and invite anyone who does not have a personal, first hand relationship with
affordable housing to come see for yourself. Ask to a visit an affordable housing development.
Volunteer for a housing organization. Develop connections with people who are living in affordable
housing. Spend time with us and you will see affordable housing is creative, innovative, sustainable,
resilient, and doing incredible, necessary, and urgent work.
Sincerely,
Claire M.
Claire Magula
LETTER 528
From: Jean Maier
Hello City of Seattle,

Below is a letter template that I agree with. My personal 2 cents?
I am one of the many people who has already been displaced by the lack of any reasonably affordable
housing. When our landlord needed our place for his son, we had few options. I have lived within the
city of Seattle since 1974, when I first arrived here as a UW student, up until fall of 2016. Our options
were further limited as we had dogs. Now we are living in unincorporated Snohomish County, my
partner spends over two hours a day commuting. When I lost my Seattle job, my options to find a new
job have been extremely limited, which has further limited our options to move because first last
deposit!
Many of my renter friends who are in moderate pay jobs have gone through similar experiences.
Younger people have better options to find roommates and keep a toe hold in Seattle, this is not as
viable an option for older people. Most people looking for roommates are young and not interested in 1
old fogies over 50.
When we lived in Seattle, we loved to walk in Discovery Park, but we always thought that the emptying
military housing was such a great future option for Seattle housing. I hear that some people think that
Magnolia is a bus desert, and so not suitable for lower income housing. Yes, that is easy to think - if you
live in Seattle, especially well served areas like Ballard, Wallingford, Rainier Valley. But have you tried to
catch the bus from South Snohomish County? From Renton? In my Seattle job, I had a co-worker coming
in from her affordable Renton home that allowed her to work for peanuts
in Seattle. Her bus ride was over an hour each way, with transfers. Worse on weekends/holidays. For
anyone faced with "affordable" options outside of Seattle, the bus from Magnolia is wonderful! (And
trust me, I have taken the bus to and from Discovery Park)
Please build the maximum housing / lower income housing at this site. Realistically, this is such a great
option to take advantage of.
Thank you,
Jean Maier 1974 - 2016
ex-pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
more housing, preferably without privatization. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels:
low-income households are being pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into
homelessness in record numbers. In the midst of this crisis, the City should be considering bold steps
to create more public and deeply-affordable housing. Instead, the City's Preferred Alternative devotes 2
the large majority of the land to recreation and surface parking, passing up an opportunity to build
many hundreds or thousands more affordable homes, and to drastically rebuild our depleted public
housing stock.. Surplus public land should be used for public goods, not sold off to developers. Please
move forward with building housing at Fort Lawton - with more homes, and more public ownership,
than is currently being considered.
LETTER 529
From: Sean Mallon
I attended the Public Meeting/Hearing regarding the subject project last night (1/9/2018). However, I
left approximately an hour and a half in after it became clear that homeless advocates (and Seattle
Socialists) had monopolized the comment sign in sheet. Very few, if any of those who spoke while I was
1
there actually live in the Magnolia neighborhood. News stations had it correct, that many residents left
early and frustrated. Although I believe many of the homeless advocates have the best of intentions,
they do not understand the remoteness and lack of services in this area. Note; I live less than 500’ from
the proposed project (3522 W Lawton Cir). It is simply bad planning to place disadvantaged people in
such an out of the way location without the necessary support and general services. This cannot be
rectified by simply adding a couple extra busses a day or transport service that could decline with lack of 2
funding (with the non-profits). Many used the buzz word “integration,” but this is far from the case. In
fact, residents of this development would be very much isolated. I was not a fan of converting the office
housing into single family residential, but two wrongs do not make a right.
Other issues; Even after the opening of the new (or old) elementary school, the K-5 schools are already
expected to be over capacity. I don’t even want to think about how crowded the Middle Schools will 3
become (Katherine Blaine and McClure). There is no plan to address this issue. While I think absorbing
Ft. Lawton into the park (maybe keeping the park maintenance shed and associated parking) is the best
scenario, I would support a school option. I understand there are obstacles (including the federal
government) and zoning issues to work around. I would even support somehow leveraging the property
to obtain funding for homeless/low income housing in a more appropriate location. I know this
proposal has been on the table for approximately 10 years, however it is the only option that has been
explored in depth. It appears as though the City made a hasty decision and stuck with it essentially 4
backing itself into a corner. How can we bide more time to figure out a solution that truly works? For
the record, and despite my line of work, I am not in favor of all of the land being sold to a private
developer (unless it is a very small percentage whereas those funds can be utilized in acquiring land or
housing for homeless/low income in an appropriate location).
Should this project unfortunately move forward, I have many other concerns. First and foremost is the
ability of the City and the non-profits to effectively determine who can reside in the housing.
Historically, the first wave of tenants or home owners are well vetted, but this generally slips as time
goes on and next generation tenants are allowed in. Who will that ultimately be; people with a history
of drug abuse, sex offenders, individuals with mental health issues. There are some people who end up 5
in a homeless predicament based on terrible luck, medical conditions, or tragedy, however for many it
was a result of personal choices (i.e. criminal activity, drug use, or shear lack of motivation). How will
the latter be weeded out, now and in the future? It is also my observation that these facilities
deteriorate rather quickly. This can be observed at numerous locations around our City. What are the
neighbors’ recourse if this becomes the case? Although I’m not naïve to think that property values in 6
6,
the immediate vicinity will be impacted, including my own (I’ve already seen on family put their home
cont.
on the market due to this proposal), safety is my number one concern. I have two daughters ages 9 and
6. They walk, or ride bikes, up and down 36th to their friends. I would be heartbroken if they or any
other neighborhood kids were unable to do this as a result of the Ft. Lawton housing project. 7
Unfortunately, I lack confidence that the City and non-profits relying on mostly donations can effectively
manage this “out post.”
Please make this comment part of the record and keep me on the informed list. Sincerely,
8
Sean Mallon, P.E.
LETTER 530
From: Brian Mankinen
Subject: Fort Lawton/Discovery Park
Please add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park (including an appropriately large dog off-leash area), rather 1
than developing it for housing and/or a school.
If you do develop Fort Lawton for low income housing, PLEASE 1/ conduct all Environmental and Traffic 2
Impact Studies, and 2/ make appropriate ongoing funding for local (Magnolia) police patrols a
prerequisite requirement. 3
Thank you.
Brian Mankinen
LETTER 531
From: Michele Marchi
Subject: Ft. Lawton
I am a resident of Magnolia. I am against the proposed development at Ft. Lawton and would support
keeping it as a park for the community. Once a massive development goes in there, the park is gone
forever. The current structures at Ft. Lawton could be converted for recreational use for all the
community to enjoy. 1
The Magnolia Community Council does not support the community. I am against what they are
supporting. They provided no community input or notice to Magnolia residents.
My vote would be to keep it and integrate into Discovery Park. 2

Michele Marchi
LETTER 532
From: Davida Marion
Subject: Yes yes yes to affordable housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
Seattle's housing shortage is pushing our most vulnerable populations into homelessness, and forcing so
many folks that make Seattle an amazing place to live out of the city. We needed to address this
problem ten years ago, but there's still time. I would love to see the Seattle consider adding dramatically
more affordable housing units at Fort Lawton; surplus city land should be used for the needs of the 1
people. This is a great opportunity for us to do the right thing by the folks of Seattle who need it the
most.
Please study an option that makes full use of Fort Lawton for housing.
Thank you so much for your time and attention.
warmest,
davida marion
Davida Marion
[email protected]
216 26th Ave S Apt 2
LETTER 533
From: Jonathan Mark
Subject: comment on Fort Lawton DEIS
This is a comment on DEIS for Fort Lawton redevelopment.

I am writing to support to support Alternative 1 with affordable housing provided on site.
As noted on p. 2-19, the Magnolia neighborhood has not been providing affordable housing choices and
its composition is the result of a history of racially discriminatory covenants. Alternative 1 will have a
beneficial impact on the neighborhood's participation in Seattle's community effort to solve the problem
of lack of affordable housing. 1
Also, p. 2-19 discusses the benefit of addressing the City's adopted Level of Service (LOS) of 8 acres of
parkland per 1000 residents.
However, the City's 2017 Open Space Plan (p. 82) indicates that the City's long-term acquisition strategy
is focused on addressing walkability gaps. Increasing the size of Discovery Park is relatively ineffective in
addressing these walkability gaps, compared with other locations where new parklands could be
1,
acquired. So we would argue for a lower priority on adding parklands to Discovery Park, vs. the high
priority on adding affordable housing. cont.
Best regards,
Jonathan Mark
1154 Federal Ave. E
Seattle, WA 98102
[email protected]
LETTER 534
From: Steve Marquardt
Subject: I support Affordable Housing at Ft Lawton
Seattle Office of Housing would be making a mistake to not develop housing on this large 28-acre lot
that fell into its lap. Affordable housing providers face great difficulties acquiring land in Seattle’s 1
supercharged market; to not put this site to its highest and best use would be a shame. If we were sizing
the affordable housing to present need, rather than the need of a decade ago–when 200-some units
was first proposed–then we’d be building even more affordable housing on the site, which has several 2
qualities to commend it:
• Next to Seattle’s largest park;
• Near two public schools;
• Route 33 stops within the site;
3
• Ballard Locks provide walking access to Ballard (and Route 44). I strongly alternative 1, the
preferred alternative.
Steve Marquardt
5223 S Othello
Seattle WA 98118
ph (cell): 206-972-3830 e-mail: [email protected]
LETTER 535
From: Anthony Marris-Swann
Hello,
Thank you,
Anthony Marris-Swann
1515 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122
LETTER 536
From: David Marshall
Subject: Ft. Lawton Opportunity
Hello,
Thank you,
-------------------------------
David Marshall
206.295.6020
LETTER 537
From: Stuart Marshall
Subject: Comments on Fort Lawton DEIS
Hi, I perused the Fort Lawton DEIS and have a couple comments and suggestions. I’ll try to be succinct.
Pardon me if this comes across as abrupt.
1. Can you add analysis of how much the new low income residents would interact with existing
community residents? I could imagine this being done by various means. You could model how many
low-income versus middle/high-income people live within 100 feet of a resident. This posits that people
interact most with others who live in close proximity. The current proposals for the FL and Talaris sites
would have (a mix of) low income people in a relatively confined space. So while they would nominally
be integrated into the Magnolia or Laurelhurst neighborhoods, the actual exposure of different income
classes would be low. This seems like a major flaw in all the proposals. 1
I suspect that urban development and academic communities have other ways to measure integration
of communities. I proposed residents within 100 feet of each other, but I would encourage you to see if
there are better measures.
Put another way, your current proposals would create pockets of low income (albeit a mix of different
grades of low income). While the communities might bump shoulders at grocery stores and elementary
schools, they would still be largely segregated. This seems like bad planning. I’d suggest analyzing this
and addressing it.
2.Why isn’t there an option of having the sites have a mix of low-income PLUS market rate? I understand
the desperate need for more “affordable rental” and “affordable ownership”, but you’re omitting 2
obvious options of mixing market rate and affordable.
3. Why not have an option of mixed (affordable and market rate) at both sites, Fort Lawton and
Talaris?Maybe this is address somewhere in the doc, but it seems like a significant omission. Why on 3
earth are you pitting the Magnolia and Laurelhurst communities against each other (at least the NIMBYs
thereof)?! Let’s have an option of developing both.
I understand that my questions 2 and 3 beg major changes to the DEIS, but they still ought to be
addressed. I also really encourage you to do the analysis for point 1 because I think you’re in danger of
4
creating segregated pockets of poverty in either or both locations. BTW, I’m really impressed with how
thorough the DEIS is. There’s a shocking (in a good way) amount of detail and analysis.
Thanks,
Stuart (Seattle resident)
LETTER 538
From: Carly Martin
Hello,
I would like to provide feedback on the Fort Lawton EIS. I am a Magnolia resident and support the
alternative that includes mixed income housing and a park, as well as 6 acres of playing fields to be
shared with the school district. There should be more land set aside for the school district, if possible.
1
Regarding the housing, I think affordable senior housing makes a lot of sense here. I have a parent in
affordable SHAG housing in Olympia, and it has been a godsend for her. I hope other seniors can have
more access to affordable options, particularly near nature and grandchildren. I also support affordable
rental housing. I do not think this is a good location for 30% AMI supportive housing, but it is hard to tell
from the proposal what exactly would go here. I would support more 50%-80% rental housing, to help 2
keep retail and other service sector workers in the area without pricing them out of Seattle. This is not a
good location for supportive housing, as it is far from other important services. 3
While I support more family size rental units and affordable homes, I am very concerned about
overcrowding at the schools. Even with Magnolia Elementary opening, it will only relieve current
crowding issues, and more development is only going to exacerbate the capacity pressures. The City
needs to work hand-in-hand with the school district to respond in partnership to the growth. The Office
4
of Housing can't keep funding more affordable housing without recognizing the impact it has on schools,
and needs to work collaboratively with the school district to provide realistic estimates. This location is
ideal for affordable family housing, which is something our City needs. However, we should be
preserving MORE THAN 6 acres of land for playing fields/future school. If we don't do it now, this
opportunity is lost.
Thank you for your good work on this project. I know it isn't easy, but it's worth it for the long term.
Carly Martin (Magnolia resident)
LETTER 539
From: Doris Martin
Subject: FT Lawton
I am a concerned Seattle citizen, and very unclear about the suggested alternatives. It is a poor idea to
house homeless in Discovery Park. There are always issues of sanitation and safety, either real or
1
perceived. Our beloved Discovery Park benefits greatly both families and the general public, and should
be safeguarded as our natural treasure. So if we are forced to these 4 alternatives, I would choose #4,
the no action alternative.
Also, I am confused by the phrase "develop entire park as a public park." Isn't it a pubic park already,
2
and what needs to be developed? Doing as little as possible seems like a good idea to me.
Doris Martin
8750 16th Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98117
206.789.6828
LETTER 540
From: Marcos Martinez
Subject: Support housing at Ft Lawton
I support the construction of low income housing at Fort Lawton. The availability of this land presents an 1
obvious and sensible solution, and in fact I think we should be building more than the proposed 238 2
units that are proposed.
I’m pleased that some apartments are specifically set aside for seniors, as this is a growing and often
3
neglected segment of the population. A senior center at this location would also be a good idea.
Marcos Martinez
LETTER 541
From: Denis Martynowych
Subject: Denis Martynowych says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

your deep concern for vulnerable Washingtonians. 1
region.
Sincerely yours,
Denis Martynowych
LETTER 542
From: Mary
Subject: Absolutely No Criminals!
As a homeowner a few blocks from this site. My fear is for children #1 and all the residents if you are not
100% sure that these people are Safe without any violence in their records. We bought in this area and
1
paid top dollar and high taxes - we struggle to afford living here because our priority was safety!!!!! We
are terrified people could be harmed since they are allowing criminals
LETTER 543
From: Whitney Mason
Subject: Comments re Fort Lawton redevelopment EIS
I was unable to attend last eve’s meeting, and I understand that very few Magnolia residents were able
to speak, thus my email to share concerns. 1
I am open to redeveloping a portion of the existing Fort space/bldgs to increase housing options, and I
am very supportive a school scenario to support the neighborhood’s growing student population.
I am very concerned that the neighborhood’s & City’s existing infrastructure can’t/won’t support the
volume of people/issues that you are currently proposing to house/support – overcrowding will not
solve the issues that are currently on the table to address with this redevelopment, but most likely serve 2
to amplify them. Please have the necessary support in place prior to moving forward, and please be
sensitive/alert to appropriate density per the space & existing services.
Thank you for considering these concerns.
Whitney Mason
Magnolia resident - born at Fort Lawton, raised in Magnolia, QAHS graduate and returned to
Seattle/Magnolia in 2003.
206.310.3985
LETTER 544
From: Marla Master
Subject: Limit the development to no more than the 238 proposed units in Alternative 1.
I attended the public comment meeting on Jan. 9 and would like to add my own thoughts. 1
I am in support of Alternative 1.
My concern overall is density and it's impact on Discovery Park. Many people at the meeting were
advocating for even more housing than the 238 proposed units. I do think Seattle needs more housing -
but not at this location! Discovery Park should not bear the brunt of years of failed and mismanaged
efforts to create affordable housing in Seattle.
You would think that at 534-acres Discovery Park is big enough - but wildlife needs vast spaces - and we
need the peace and solitude it brings. Discovery Park is accessible to everyone. People come from far
and wide to enjoy its natural beauty. It is the crown jewel of Seattle. 2
Dense development along the fringes will certainly impact the natural habitat.
I look at President Trump and his willingness to sacrifice the natural spaces that belong not only to the
U.S., but the planet as a whole. This lack of thinking for the long-term will certainly haunt the country in
the future. I ask that the City of Seattle looks towards the future to protect the ecosystems and
biological diversity at Discovery Park and limit the development to no more than the 238 proposed units
in Alternative 1.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
Thank you,
Marla Master
LETTER 545
From: Anne Mathews
Subject: Support for affordable housing at Fort Lawton
Hello,
I’m a lifelong Seattle resident and a former affordable-housing renter (via the ArtSpace program). Many
of my family members and friends - artists, laborers, social workers, teachers, entrepreneurs, students -
have by necessity availed themselves of the dwindling affordable housing supply in this city, in an
increasingly desperate attempt to keep a foothold in the city they contribute to.
I am writing to say that affordable housing has been a godsend to my family and community, and to the
arts and working-class communities of this city at large. Given that the majority of Seattle's non-tech
working people can no longer afford the exorbitantly high rents in the region, this city should be doing
every last thing possible within its power to increase the supply of truly affordable housing stock in the
city. This is an emergency, not time for already-comfortably-housed residents to debate perfect-world 1
scenarios. People are freezing to death in the streets. Children are growing up in vehicles and tents. This
civic reality is unconscionable
My understanding is that certain neighbors are opposed to locating this affordable housing
development in their community. To this I would say: Do you prefer homeless encampments? Because it
literally is an either-or proposition. People are losing their shelter because of Seattle’s cutthroat
development, landlord greed, unfettered international and domestic real-estate investment schemes,
and the city’s unwillingness or inability to take effective action to help its most vulnerable residents,
who are on the losing ends of all the above equations.
Thank you for your time, and for the opportunity to comment on this issue.
Anne Mathews
LETTER 546
From: Mycah Mattox
Subject: Fort Lawton and crazy housing prices in Seattle
I would like to say that Fort Lawton should be developed to help support lower income families.
These people deserve to have some assistance in the ridiculous housing market in Seattle. 1
The complaints against this are unfounded and straight up hateful.
Lower income families should have the same opportunities as everyone else.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.

LETTER 547
From: Liz Hills Maxfield
I support option #3 for the Fort Lawton Redevelopment and I'm pretty sure that if my neighbors had all
the information from the meetings they would support option #3 as well. Discovery Park is too big of 1
gem to not preserve or add to. We will never get another opportunity to add to Discovery Park again. It
is the right choice for Seattle. Affordable housing can go in anywhere. There is only one Discovery Park.
LETTER 548
Wanted to make sure my opinion was expressed since our community council did not take poll.
1
Our family is completely against the idea of putting the homeless housing Development in the park.
Their is no infrastructure to support it- schools, transportation, roads, shopping, police.
The park is a place where families spend time in nature. Bringing homeless individuals will make it
unsafe for families. We moved to Magnolia from an unsafe neighborhood (that was once VERY safe)
near a DESC run homeless housing project. We were told repeatedly that there would be no sex- 2
offenders there. That we could call if we saw anything dangerous. That they would be great neighbors. It
was all lies. They ended up housing 10 violent, likely to re offend men in our neighborhood. When we
saw one of them beating a women in front of our home and children they did nothing. We called
911...they did nothing. It was completely unsafe for our young family. How will these people be
screened that are planned to move into Fort Lawton? We cannot count on the state or city or any 3
homeless agencies to tell us the truth or make any promises.
Turn the fort Lawton area of the park into a nature preserve that can be used for education and 4
scientific study or add the much needed high school.
I moved to Magnolia because it was a great place for families. If this Development is approved that WILL 5
change without question.
LETTER 549
As a neighbor of Fort Lawton I want to let you know that I support option #3 for the Fort Lawton
redevelopment. The land should be added to the park and the park preserved. It is a city treasure. 1
Adding affordable housing or market rate housing to the site will dramatically change the spirit of the
park.
The school land in option #1 is a red herring as the sales district won't be able to get the money to build 2
a school in the time needed to alleviate the school capacity issues the new affordable housing will cause.
We've also got new traffic problems on the Emerson bridge due to the new bike lane. Adding so much 3
more housing will only worsen the issue.
Lastly, this is the only chance we will get to increase our beloved Discovery Park. 4
LETTER 550
From: kevin maxon
Hi Seattle!
I grew up in the Seattle area and am now living in Interbay / Magnolia.
It's really tragic the state our city is in right now with regards to housing. It would be an absolute failure
of the city and the people that make the city up if we failed to take the opportunity that Fort Lawton
presents us.
We need affordable housing! The market won't do it naturally - the city has to. The city doing it is 1
expensive, and Fort Lawton is the chance we have now.
It's a beautiful area mostly populated by the very wealthy. We need more economic diversity. Seattle
cannot continue its history of North/South segregation. Magnolia is beautiful but it's a cesspool
culturally.
Please, please move forward with Fort Lawton, for the sake of the neighborhood and the sake of the
city!
Love,
Kevin
LETTER 551
From: Sue Maxon
Subject: Homeless housing
What a fantastic idea of using 7 acres of public land for low income and homeless people.
This is a good start to helping our communities and our neighbors. 1
Discovery Park is such a beautiful area, but it definitely can be shared for a greater good.
Sincerely,
Sue Maxon
Kirkland
LETTER 552
From: William Maxwell
Subject: Comments to Fort Lawton Draft EIS
William J. Maxwell
4815 Gilman Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
E-mail: [email protected]
January 29, 2018
Lindsay Masters
City of Seattle Office of Housing
PO Box 94725
Dear Ms. Masters,
My name is William J Maxwell and I own residential properties that are approximately 1 block from the
proposed Fort Lawton redevelopment. I attended the June 19th & 21st, 2017 meetings and the January
9th, 2018 meeting. Respectfully is my response to the requested comments to the Draft Environmental 1
Impact Statement (DEIS).
After reading the entire DEIS report, I strongly support Alternative 3 to make the area an extension of
Discovery Park, as laid out on page 2-45 of the DEIS. My concerns are as follows:
1) Open Space. While the need for affordable and supportive housing is great, the need for open space
is equally as great, as evidenced by the number of people migrating to the Seattle area. Once it is 2
developed, that opportunity is gone.
2) Lack of Services. The area is isolated, and lacks the services needed for an affordable and/or 3
supportive option that would otherwise be available near an Urban Village.
3) Transportation/Access. Magnolia has only three access points that are already congested. The DEIS
did not address these access points, only the intersections immediately adjacent to Fort Lawton. The
DEIS should include a study of the impacts on transportation and access if/when one of the three 4
bridges fails. In addition, the access points are already over capacity and there is ongoing development
in the Interbay area along with Expedia growth that is yet to come that was not addressed in the DEIS.
4) Demography of Residents. If Alternative 1 were to move forward, another major concern is supported
by the language on page 2-35 of the DEIS highlighted in red.
(These Housing Case Managers would meet with residents to identify their supportive service needs,
provide case management services, crisis intervention, eviction prevention, advocacy and linkages to
community resources, and encourage participation in meaningful activities.
5
Case managers would also
leverage outside behavioral health services, including chemical dependency treatment and/or mental
health services, and bring providers onsite whenever possible. )
It frightens me to bring in a large number of adults who potentially are in a crisis situation, struggling
with drug and alcohol addiction and have mental health issues. To house them next to a long
established FAMILY neighborhood is beyond negligent. What happens if there is not adequate funding
for the case workers? Who is responsible after the case workers go home? Will convicted felons and sex
offenders be allowed to live on-site? Will alcohol and drugs be tolerated at the facility?
These along with a list of other questions, I would have expected to have answered and recorded at the
public meetings, but they were not. The city’s bias for Alternative #1 with no consideration for the
community is very obvious. The siloed nature of the Scoping meetings, were designed to ignore the
voice of the people who are the most AFFECTED, the people that live and own property next to the
proposed Alternative 1 development. The neighbors and community members should have been
allowed to speak in a forum setting to the experts so everyone could hear their responses. The last
6
meeting (Jan 9,2018) on the DEIS, in which low income/homeless housing activists “somehow” arrived
VERY early as to fill up nearly every space on the sign up sheet for public comment, borders on political
corruption. The venue was too small, leaving most of the AFFECTED HOMEOWNERS unable to get in the
front door. Of the nearly 80 people that spoke, I counted only 3 people from the immediate
neighborhood (adjacent to the proposed development) that even had the opportunity to speak.
In addition to the public meeting shams, is the misrepresentation (in writing) that the Talaris site was to
be the property of choice, should Alternative 1 not be adopted. Buried on page 1-1 of the DEIS it states:
“Potential redevelopment of the Talaris site is also studied in this DEIS. This site is included only as an
example of a possible off-site alternative for the affordable and formerly homeless housing.” Then it,
7
that being Talaris, is specifically mentioned 732 more times in the DEIS as a viable alternative. Now that
the Talaris site is in the process of being sold to a California developer (but was never really an
alternative), it should be disclosed as to what other actual sites the city might be looking at as options
for Alternative #2 and/or #3. The DEIS was never accurate in identifying reasonable alternatives.
Whether it’s being misled with the Talaris site or the way the public meetings were handled, I question
the existing leadership’s capability to make informed, intelligent, and non-political decisions. After 8
reading what Sally Bagshaw wrote in the January 24th edition of the Magnolia News, I suspect that the
real driving factor for ramming this forward is time...
She also stated “I appreciated hearing many voices in support of the affordable housing investments at
Fort Lawton.” Most of those voices were imported by the city to the meeting. Some were the homeless, 8,
the homeless advocates and the developers who have no interest in the community outside of their cont.
own pocketbooks. If Sally and the city’s leadership really ever intend to make a smart decision, have a
face-to-face meeting with the affected homeowners.
Regards,
William Maxwell
LETTER 553
From: Catherine Mayhew
Subject: Ft. Lawton
T.W.I.M.C
My name is Catherine Mayhew and am a citizen of Seattle. I am writing to urge the City of Seattle to
study an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more housing, without privatization. Seattle's 1
housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income households are being pushed out of the city, and
the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers. Please do what you can to help
the crisis.
Catherine Mayhew
LETTER 554
From: William Gagne Maynard
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
William Gagne Maynard
[email protected]
LETTER 555
From: Clarence McAllister
1
I walk through Discovery Park frequently. Please add the old State Militia area to the rest of Discovery
Park.
Thank you,
C O McAllister
LETTER 556
From: Amanda McCaffrey
Subject: Please Provide Affordable Housing
Thank you for your work on this development - I hope to see this underused property help the under-
served!
1
expand upon the current plan for 238 units, so that more of our lower-income and formerly homeless
neighbors can have access to stable, affordable housing.
and housing insecurity that is afflicting Seattle and our entire region. Fundamentally the answer to
homelessness is housing.
and families making 0-30% of Area Median Income. According to the Housing Development Consortium,
in 2016 Seattle was short by 17,161 units for households in this bracket, and this gap will widen to 2
This is a great opportunity to increase transit to magnolia and this is the best chance to get the busses
due to the increase in ridership from the development.
PREFERRED OPTION: Option 1
Amanda McCaffrey
[email protected]
LETTER 557
From: Doyle McCarthy
Subject: Support Nickelsville
My name is Doyle and I’m a Seattle native, resident, and renter.

No matter who you are or where you live in Seattle, part of your daily life is thinking about our housing
crisis. Whether you’re housed or unhoused, experiencing instability in your housing or thinking about
how you’ll never be able to buy a house, or wondering about the property value of the house you do
own, it’s at the forefront of everyone’s mind.
Part of what comes with living in a city is these questions and concerns—space is at a premium. But with
over 1,000 people moving to our city every week and a housing crisis that has left far too many
displaced and unable to afford any housing, to say nothing of stable housing, we need to take action
now.
My community, faith, and family have always taught me that ensuring safety and stability for the most 1
vulnerable in my community is how we create a city that doesn’t leave people behind, that offers
generosity in the face of suffering. Affordable housing created for people experiencing homelessnes is
necessary now.
In Ballard, fear of property value was a chief complaint, but during the time that Nickelsville was
situated there, property value not only failed to decline, it skyrocketed. Fear for the neighborhood
dominated those public hearings, but two years later, residents of Nickelsville kept their word to leave
and did so in spite of the fact that the vast majority of their neighbors—renters and homeowners in
Ballard—would have happily invited them to stay.
Instead of giving in to fear, I hope you’ll consider that all of us might be just one accident, one health
crisis, one layoff away from needing support from our community. If that day comes for me, I’d want to
know that people were with me—not against me.
LETTER 558
From: Dave McCaul
Subject: In Support of Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Dear Office of Housing:

I am a Seattle resident who spends weekends hiking through Discovery Park. Allocating space at Fort
Lawton for low-income folks is exactly the kind of solution that Seattle needs during our current
homelessness crisis. My son attends school at Licton Springs Elementary, which is within blocks of a tiny
1
house village, the Awake Church, and the Aurora Commons -- in other words, it's a high concentration of
folks who have fallen on hard times. We all know Aurora Avenue is not the safest place in Seattle, but
imagine how much less safe it would be had the city and the church not fought for these housing and
community solutions? Where would these people go without these safe spaces designated for them? I
have had zero negative encounters with the folks in this area: these are the people who are trying to
help themselves and work for a better life. I only wish I could do more for them. 1,
cont.
We cannot wish poverty and homelessness away -- we need immediate solutions, and I only wish the
city's plans for Fort Lawton included even more space for low-income folks.
Thank you for reading.
Dave McCaul
12012 Evanston Avenue N
Seattle, WA 98133
LETTER 559
From: Margaret McCauley
Subject: I support housing at Ft. Lawton
We need more housing in Seattle. Ft. Lawton is a great place for more! I love the park. It has has housing 1
in it since before it was a park. Housing, particularly affordable housing is the perfect use for the space.
Margaret McCauley
Seattle, WA 98144
LETTER 560
From: Morgan McClanahan
Subject: Public Comment
Hello,
Please consider revitalizing Fort Lawton as affordable housing units. As a local social worker, I see this
move as not only advantageous for the growing homeless population funneling from low income renters
unable to find affordable housing near their places of work, but also for the public's view of the city's
response to this huge issue. 1
Please put livelihood over luxury, and turn this area into affordable housing. There are enough market
rate units across this city and following the light rail that people can't afford and developers' pockets are
so full already.
Thank you,
Morgan
LETTER 561
From: Tim McConnell
Subject: Please improve Seattle's housing situation
Regarding Fort Lawton Redevelopment, http://www.seattle.gov/housing/ft-lawton,
Please use the Fort Lawton land to help the city and the region. Our region can build and manage 1
thousands of affordable housing units to improve the lives of homeless and underpaid community
members. Focus the resources that disrupt and antagonize our homeless toward improving their
conditions.
Choose Alternative 1 with a goal of delivering as many units as possible. 2
Please lobby for significant taxes on rental, secondary, and income properties to help fund resources for
3
affordable housing throughout King county.
Thanks,
-Tim McConnell, Kirkland
LETTER 562
From: Victoria McCormick
Subject: Revitalize Affordable Homes at Ft. Lawton!
Hello,
1
Thank you,
This used to be a bustling suburb that was a vivital force of American troops! Let the veterans that
served you well retire here.
Victoria McCormick
LETTER 563
From: Victoria McCormick
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Victoria McCormick
[email protected]
200th and Meridian
Graham , Washington 98338
LETTER 564
From: David McDaniel
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Comments
Greetings City of Seattle,

I am writing to provide my comments on the Fort Lawton Redevelopment proposed near Discovery Park
in Magnolia. I am in favor of building a development here to house homeless, affordable housing and
other options for folks in need. There are simple ways to solve the transit issues by adding a bus route.
The fact that there is even debate about this usage bothers me. I'm a resident of the area and live on
13th Ave W and Gilman so this development will impact me as a resident and owner. Having fewer
1
homeless people on the street is a win for everyone.
Please move this forward, the NIMBYs in Magnolia are not at risk here-- there's not a need for more
parkland in Magnolia and there are plenty of use cases of these developments done well. There's such a
need for things like this in Seattle I have trouble understanding why it's such a problem.
Best Regards,
David McDaniel
LETTER 565
From: Jennifer McDowall
Subject: Ft Lawton & Discovery Park
I support adding the last parcel of Fort Lawton to Discovery Park. This is a park that is visited by 1
thousands from all over the area and we need to keep that a public benefit, not a development for
housing.
LETTER 566
From: Toni McElroy
Subject: Please add me to the list to receive updates on the fort Lawton project 1
N/A
LETTER 567
From: Deborah Brown McGarry
Please build affordable housing and housing for homeless people at Fort Lawton. It is badly needed and 1
Fort Lawton would be a great site.
Thank you.
Deborah Brown McGarry
8618 NE 88th st
Seattle, WA 98115
LETTER 568
From: James S. McIntosh
Subject: Comments on Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
From: James S. McIntosh

2806 31st Ave. W.
Seattle, WA 98199 [email protected]
To: Lindsay Masters

Office of Housing
PO Box 94725
Subject: Comments on Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
Dear Lindsay and Seattle Office of Housing Personnel,
I am writing today to express my concern about an impending decision which will be made in the not
too distant future by the City in regard to the future of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property
bordering the northeast corner of Seattle’s Discovery Park.
Many of us firmly believe that all the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property should be added to
Discovery Park and the Seattle Parks System.
We support Alternative 3 – All Public Park with Affordable Housing in Seattle built in areas with more
1
services.
Affordable Housing Versus Public Parklands

Many are saying the city needs the housing and affordable homes. Others are saying that the land
should be turned over to the Seattle Parks System and Discovery Park as originally intended.
This is to present an alternative which we believe will work for everyone:
300+ New Affordable Homes in Seattle – YES!
All of Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property Added to Discovery Park – YES!
Affordable Housing
The need is more than ever. As population has increased in the Seattle area the cost of housing has
increased astronomically. Every night there are thousands of people left homeless on city streets. What
we are experiencing is a catastrophic failure of the current socio-economic system. Something needs to
be done and right away!
Open Space
As the city grows and population density increases, open space will become increasingly more valuable.
For many reasons open space is an extremely vital resource. Psychologists, Sociologists and people in
the Environmental movement began to recognize this as early as the mid 1800’s. It’s part of the human
condition that people just need the open space. We must think of generations yet to come.
Discovery Park with its magnificent views and vistas and sweeping landscapes offers just that Open
Space. This truly is a very special place, a sacred place, away from the trappings of urban existence a
place of quiet and tranquility.
Having been developed by visionaries in the early 1970s who saw the need for a unique and natural park
in an open space environment Discovery Park is a place of Regional significance. The park has an 2
unparalleled setting on the western edge of the city on the shores of Puget Sound. Discovery Park is
Seattle’s largest park with over 600 acres.
The Discovery Park site has a long history going back to the 1850s and a long Native American existence
before that.
The site became Fort Lawton in 1892 but by the late 1960s activities at the Fort had very much
diminished. In 1972 major sections of the Fort were given over to the City of Seattle Parks and became
Discovery Park. Additional sections were added later. Old warn out buildings were removed, trails were
put in and native plants were planted. Discovery Park is the Granddaddy of all modern open space parks.
Here lies an opportunity to add one of the final – and largest Missing Pieces of Fort Lawton to Discovery
Park, the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property.
Imagine New York City without its Central Park. In that city with 12-million people Central Park is a vital
piece in the fabric of that vibrant city. It should be noted that there are other very large urban parks in
greater New York City as well. Many other cities have large and notable parks. In San Francisco it’s
Golden Gate Park. In Vancouver BC it’s Stanley Park.
Other great city parks include:

Chicago, IL - Millennium Park
San Diego CA - Balboa Park 2 cont
Portland, OR – Washington Park
Tacoma, WA – Pt. Defiance Park
There are many others.
In Seattle it’s Discovery Park.

It can be a golf course, a cluster of monuments, a performance theater, housing, or you name it. It may
seem like the right idea at the time, to take some FREE Property and develop something, but if every
idea that comes along is acted upon we will be destroying the vision for which the park was originally
intended which is natural open space.
We believe that this is the case here. The Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property site must be added
to Discovery Park and the Seattle Parks System.
Affordable Housing in Seattle

We believe there exist enough places in Seattle where at least 300 new Affordable Homes can be built
meeting the Cities goals of providing Housing Equality and Fairness in Housing. Housing equality should
be shared among all neighborhoods.
The city needs to embark on a vigorous plan of developing affordable housing in areas where services
are more readily available. The city can use the concept known as infill where existing properties are
3
developed, especially along arterial streets where bus service is more readily available. These areas are
frequently already zoned for higher density and development can come in which ultimately can enhance
the overall landscape of a neighborhood.
Fort Lawton Army Reserve Addition

We must build new Affordable Homes in Seattle, but we also must think of our Parks and Open Spaces.
This is a chance in a lifetime opportunity to acquire the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property for
addition into Discovery Park as stated in the original Discovery Park Master Plan. As the city grows, open
space will become increasingly more valuable. We must think of generations yet to come. We will 4
NEVER have this opportunity to acquire the land again as open space.
All the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property, approximately 34-acres can be incorporated into
Discovery Park and the Seattle Parks System. This addition should follow the Discovery Park Master Plan.
A Long History
Pre-history of the site goes back at least 6,000 years. There have been Archeological discoveries at West
Point showing a human presence and Native American culture in the area from 4,000 BC and before and
advancing in sophistication through the millennia. There was settlement in the area off and on up until
the first contact with European settlers.
As early as the 1850s pioneers and homesteaders began to settle in the area. Even as early as the 1880s
and 1890s there was talk in Seattle that this site should become a large regional park. In 1892, in order
to bolster jobs in the region and during the buildup for the Spanish-American War, the site became Fort
Lawton. Between the Spanish-American War and World War 1, the Fort saw little activity. Fort Lawton
was especially active during World War I with a great amount of building. Then again between the two
World Wars the site saw little activity. Summer camps were held for children in the area in the 1930s.
In the 1930s there was serious discussion of turning over Fort Lawton to the City as a park, harkening
back to 1880s discussions. However, this was in the midst of the Great Depression and the City claimed
they could not maintain the park. The City of Seattle could have purchased all of Fort Lawton then for
$1.
World War II brought a huge influx of personnel into the Fort and many very temporary buildings were
hastily built. Very few of these lasted the test of time.
By the late 1960s activities at Fort Lawton had very much diminished. There was a sprinkling of
communications towers along the hilltop and a collection of unused and deteriorating buildings at the
5
Fort.
In 1969 plans were drawn up to build an Anti-ballistic missile site at Fort Lawton and some structures
were built. Reaction against this from the citizenry of Seattle was very great and this led to serious
discussion of a large regional park at the Fort.
In 1970 the United Indians of All Tribes Federation climbed the fence and occupied a northwest section
of the Fort claiming it was their land. The stand-off went on for months.
Finally, in 1972 much of the Fort Lawton site was excessed out and given over to the City as a park, the
Discovery Park Master Plan was adopted, and the park became Discovery Park.
In the years since then old and decrepit buildings have been removed, a network of hiking trails put in,
invasive plants removed, and native trees and plants have been planted all over the park.
Additional sections of the old Fort Lawton site have been added in later years.
Nature Programs have been running for many years, on any warm day the park is well used, and
accessibility is provided to the beach for those most in need.
The visionary dreams of the 1880s finally came to pass. Truly, Discovery Park is a park for the ages.
A Site of National Heritage

With evidence of settlement going back at least 6,000 years and the many stages in between this overall
site is a Sacred Place, a place of National Heritage and should be recognized as a National Heritage Site
by government officials.
Beware of Short Term Solutions

In our haste to find a quick fix to an immediate problem, lack of affordable housing, a big issue in today’s
times any plan to put housing on the site is sacrificing open space that would be of benefit for future 6
generations. A common rule is that in long term planning you need to plan for seven generations.
In the 1950’s and 1960s there was a frenzy of Freeway building in the United States. In Seattle, there
were even bigger Freeway Plans than what was eventually built, of basically Freeways all over
everywhere. There was the Bay Freeway connecting I-5 to the Waterfront and Ballard and the RH
Thompson Expressway through Capitol Hill and Lake City, There were Cross-Puget Sound Bridge routes
6 cont
which would have eliminated the need for ferries. Freeways that were built ruined neighborhoods and
disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. It seemed right at the time but would have
ruined much of what we know of Seattle today. Imagine a West Point to Bainbridge Island Bridge – and
connecting roadways in what is now Discovery Park!
Lack of On-Site Services

With the various Housing proposals for the Fort Lawton Reserve Property, the City is attempting to put
housing into an area where services are limited. In this area there are no convenience stores and there is
only one bus route passing through the Fort Lawton Army Reserve site. Two other bus routes in the area
have long walks to get to them. The closest grocery store is over a mile away and to get there one must
transfer between routes. This is a terrible burden for someone who doesn’t drive and is carrying bags of 7
groceries for example.
New Affordable Housing should go into an area where there are more services such as the Interbay or
Lower Queen Anne neighborhoods. There, there are many bus routes and more activities.
Never Get It Back

Once parcels of land are sold off as is called for in Alternatives one and two, the chances are slim to
none of ever getting it back. Once the property leaves city ownership, anything can happen over time.
Homes may be Habitat for Humanity Homes for a generation or two, but then what? Does that mean
the homes can be torn down and mega mansions built on the lots? Who knows what the future may
8
bring.
The original Discovery Park Master Plan calls for turning over ALL of the Fort Lawton property to the City
of Seattle as a park. It is Federal Land. The land belongs to us. As the city grows we will need the open
space. The Park is not for sale!
Long Term Solutions and Open Spaces

Planners and Officials now recognize that urban growth should be centered around urban centers with
good mass transportation routes including fixed guideway rail and include large open spaces throughout
the region. Discovery Park – the Old Fort Lawton is just one such large open space. Discovery Park, a
large regional park is Seattle’s largest park with over 600 acres.
In recent years a stunning number of old growth and second growth evergreen canopy trees in the City 9
have disappeared. Countless other leaf bearing trees, fruit trees, bushes and plantings have also
vanished. It’s common to see a yard subdivided wich a new home going in on the back lot and six to ten
or more trees removed. As the city grows, more structures are built, and more pavement paved we will
need the open space this site can provide.
Upon examining geo-thermal maps, the Discovery Park area is the area of the city that is putting out the
least amount of heat most likely due to its canopy of trees. The City of Seattle has signed on to Global
Carbon Greenhouse Reduction guidelines. The Fort Lawton Army Reserve Addition can go a long way
toward helping the city in its efforts at reducing the harmful effects of global warming.
The Fort Lawton Army Reserve Property also serves as a sanctuary for wildlife and as a wildlife corridor
for migrating birds and other creatures. The wildlife zone is made up of Discovery Park, the Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Property and Kiwanis Ravine.
Rather than grandios schemes involving 10-acre or more sites where there is a lot of neighborhood
opposition, legal battles and where permitting can take decades the City should focus on smaller scale
plans. This can easily provide the same results of providing housing for 320 people and very likely for
many more. 10
Infill practices should be used. Parking lots, other paved spaces, old town centers, abandoned
warehouses and under-utilized former industrial areas can all be infilled with housing. Often, these
places are on existing bus routes. Higher density housing can go in and for all income levels including
market rate, working wage and low-income. Transit centers can be developed, and these focal points
can be developed as urban villege centers with retail shopping, services open areas and gathering
places.
As the region grows, we should follow these planning guidelines of growth and urban villeges centered
around transit centers as well as the very large open spaces or we will be facing a deteriorating quality
of life.
Accessible to All
The park is accessible to all. With its close in proximity Discovery Park is completely accessible for those
that don’t drive, don’t own a car, or choose not to drive. There are three bus routes that serve various
sections of the park. As energy and resources become more scarce, we will need the large open space as
park land that Discovery Park and the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Addition can provide.
Ideas for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Addition
Once a decision is made – and we hope in favor of Alternative 3 – All Public Park with Affordable
Housing in Seattle – then could come the discussion of what to do with this property as Park usage. It
would be a new addition – the last missing piece of old Fort Lawton added to Discovery Park and the
Seattle Parks System.
If Affordable Housing must go in, then perhaps a compromise solution could look like this. Affordable 11
Housing could be built for 50 or so people but for people who are Parks Personnel. With their Working
on-site, this would make for a more secure Park. This may be able to help meet Federal and HUD
requirements requiring Affordable Housing to be built on Federal property which has been given over to
cities. This has been done in other cities in similar situations.
Many ideas have been suggested for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property as all park. There
will be many opinions as to which uses are better and which ones are not. The key factor in determining
which uses are most appropriate should be, how well does this usage fit with the Discovery Park Master
Plan.
This new Fort Lawton Army Reserve Addition can be a little more of an active area as it is further from
the core of the park. The core of Discovery Park should remain the more natural and wildlife-oriented
area with the hiking trails, views and beaches.
Our ideas include:

Picnic Area and Children’s Play Area
Outdoor Concert and Event Lawn
Housing for the Park Ranger, Parks Personnel, and family members – Similar to what is done at State
Parks and National Parks / National Forest sites. This can enhance public relations as well as make for a
more secure park.
Cabins and dorms for Camp goers and participants – Similar to Camp Long in Seattle.
Heritage Orchard and Gardens - with native cherry trees, other fruit trees, berry bushes, herbs and
vegetables.
Ages of Discovery National Heritage Site
- Develop an Environmental Learning Center with Multi-Media, Talks and displays

- With Native American history going back 6,000 years.
- Due to the Regional Significance we may be able to get Department of the Interior funding. 11 cont
- History of the Area
Pre-History and Native American Pioneer Homestead Era
Fort Lawton
Discovery Park
Displays, Programs and Archives
It’s NOT too late. Let’s do it right.
This truly can be a solution that works for Housing and for Parks.
O 300+ New Affordable Homes in Seattle
O All of Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Property Added to Discovery Park
Sincerely,
James S. McIntosh
LETTER 569
From: Chuck McKeever
Subject: In favor of Ft. Lawton housing
To the DEIS:
I am a Seattle resident (Council District 6) in favor of the city creating affordable housing at the Fort
Lawton site with provisions for including and prioritizing the formerly homeless. This city is in a state of
1
crisis; letting the hand-wringing of those who are in no danger from the elements or economic hardship
determine whether or not our city's most vulnerable people get sheltered or not would be a terrible
mistake.
Thank you,
Chuck McKeever
LETTER 570
From: Juanita McLaughlin
Subject: Please Develop Affordable Homes at Ft. Lawton!
Hello,
Thank you,
Juanita McLaughlin
Juanita McLaughlin
2108 29th Ave S.
Seattle, WA 98144
LETTER 571
From: Bronwyn McNutt
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Bronwyn McNutt
[email protected]
LETTER 572
From: Garland McQuinn
Subject: Fort Lawton - build as much housing as possible
Hello,
I am writing in support of the Fort Lawton redevelopment plan. 1
Seattle is in desperate need of more affordable and supportive housing. I support building as much
housing as possible at Fort Lawton. We need thousands of new homes in every neighborhood of the
city, as soon as possible. Magnolia is not a private gated community. It is part of Seattle. Fort Lawton is a
great opportunity to increase the amount of public affordable and supportive housing available. It would 2
be a tragedy not to build as much housing as possible at the site.
Thank you-
-Garland McQuinn
resident of District 3
1120 Spring St.
Seattle, WA 98104
LETTER 573
From: Megan
Subject: Discovery park
Please don’t ruin our neighborhood and our park. We need schools. Put public housing where there are 1
accessible services.
LETTER 574
From: Bruno Mello

Subject: Build the units
Hi,
I want to voice my support for the Fort Lawton housing for low-income families. Help make a more 1
inclusive Seattle.
LETTER 575
From: Jeremy Mendonsa
Subject: Support for Fort Lawton Affordable Housing
My apologies for writing late, however I hadn't realized that there was even a question of whether or
not Fort Lawton should be developed for public housing. Of course it should. Seattle needs to use every
tool in its disposal at the moment to combat continuously rising rents and homelessness. If even one
person experiencing homelessness can be saved by public housing at Fort Lawton, it would be a win.
1
There's really no question here besides whether or not Seattle will once again cave to the demands of
the few and the rich. I support public/affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
jeremy mendonsa
LETTER 576
From: Finn Menzies
Subject: IN SUPPORT of building 200 units of housing for low-income families in the Ft Lawton
Dear City representatives,

I am writing in to show my full support in building low income housing in Ft Lawton in Magnolia. I am a 1
resident of Magnolia and I would love to see more affordable housing in my neighborhood.
Thank you,
Finn Menzies
LETTER 577
From: Aaron Merhoff
Hello,
I would like to provide comment on the Ft. Lawton Development proposal. As a Magnolia resident, and
one who owns a home near the proposed development, I very much hope that my comments are taken
into consideration.
I strongly oppose the city's preferred 'Alternative 1 - mixed income housing and public park'. This site is
1
quite simply not in an area where such a development can be successful from a current resident point of
view, nor, and I state more importantly, the potential low income and homeless housing population that
would reside there. There is not adequate infrastructure to support this many low income/no income
individuals and families. There are not feasible local shopping options, there are not adequate public
2
transportation options, there are not adequate educational options, and there are not a local
employment opportunities. Without the proper supporting services infrastructure this development will
not only not succeed, it will create a significant burden and associated problems for the current
2
Magnolia community to deal with. cont.
My wife and I made a significant investment in order to live in Magnolia. As a homeowner, who pays a
very large amount of tax dollars to the city each year, I expect those tax dollars to work for me, not
against me. I expect the $60M budget already designated to address the current homeless disaster the
city of Seattle faces, is spent appropriately and effectively. This development will do absolutely zero in 3
addressing nor improving the core issue, but it will create additional issues. Once again, I strongly
oppose the city's preferred alternative.
I support and vote for "Alternative 4 - No Action" the city is rushing a bad plan based on a short timeline. 4
I would have been much more receptive to a plan involving mixed market rate and affordable housing
(this would not include homeless or Habitat for Humanity housing), so long as the plan was well thought 5
out, well planned out, and created more green space for our children in form of sporting fields etc...I
would have also been extremely receptive to a public school proposal given the already drastic need for
better public education in our area. Our kids are currently bussing almost an hour across town. For a 6
neighborhood which contributes so much to the city this is completely unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Aaron Merhoff
LETTER 578
From: Aaron Merhoff
Subject: Re: Ft. Lawton Development Vote Option 4
Vote Option 4
Hello,
I would like to provide comment on the Ft. Lawton Development proposal. As a Magnolia resident, and
one who owns a home near the proposed development, I very much hope that my comments are taken
into consideration.
I strongly oppose the city's preferred 'Alternative 1 - mixed income housing and public park'. This site is
1
quite simply not in an area where such a development can be successful from a current resident point of
view, nor, and I state more importantly, the potential low income and homeless housing population that
would reside there. There is not adequate infrastructure to support this many low income/no income
individuals and families. There are not feasible local shopping options, there are not adequate public
transportation options, there are not adequate educational options, and there are not a local
employment opportunities. Without the proper supporting services infrastructure this development will 2
not only not succeed, it will create a significant burden and associated problems for the current
Magnolia community to deal with.
My wife and I made a significant investment in order to live in Magnolia. As a homeowner, who pays a
very large amount of tax dollars to the city each year, I expect those tax dollars to work for me, not 3
against me. I expect the $60M budget already designated to address the current homeless disaster the
city of Seattle faces, is spent appropriately and effectively. This development will do absolutely zero in 3,
addressing nor improving the core issue, but it will create additional issues. Once again, I strongly cont.
oppose the city's preferred alternative.
I support and vote for "Alternative 4 - No Action" the city is rushing a bad plan based on a short timeline. 4
I would have been much more receptive to a plan involving mixed market rate and affordable housing
(this would not include homeless or Habitat for Humanity housing), so long as the plan was well thought 5
out, well planned out, and created more green space for our children in form of sporting fields etc...I
would have also been extremely receptive to a public school proposal given the already drastic need for
better public education in our area. Our kids are currently bussing almost an hour across town. For a 6
neighborhood which contributes so much to the city this is completely unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Aaron Merhoff
LETTER 579
From: Christine Merker
Subject: comment about housing in park
Hi there!
I live in Magnolia and teach at Catharine Blaine. I really like the idea of low income housing. Obviously,
as a teacher in Seattle, I have found it difficult to afford rentals and impossible to buy. I believe more 1
low income housing is the solution for people like me. I also think that Magnolia needs more diversity-
socioeconomic, racial, and otherwise. I think it would be an asset to the community.
I have one reservation, however, that I have yet to hear anyone address. Where are all the kids going
to go to school? How many do you foresee moving into these houses? Our school is bursting at the 2
seams- and it's predicted that the new Magnolia school will be full once they redraw the boundary lines.
What is the plan for how to accommodate the kids?
Obviously, more low income housing is the solution to our increasingly dire housing situation. It's a
shame that outspoken Magnolians opposing the project have dominated the conversation. The city just 3
needs to take a stand and say, "this is what is good for our community!" and move ahead with the
project.
Thanks,
Christine Merker
LETTER 580
From: Nancy Mero
Subject: I support developing affordable housing at Ft. Lawton!
Hello,
Thank you,
Nancy Mero
1245 NW 120th Street
Seattle, WA 98177
LETTER 581
From: Richard Mesmer
I attended the Public Hearing in Magnolia this evening. I appreciated getting a post card announcing the
date and place
Having lived here for 37 years I have attended similar hearings. The Park is the reason my family moved
here. We could not afford a decent car or travel for a family a vacation. It took us years to afford health
care. We are very empathetic to this crisis and wanted to learn more. How we could help more than our
taxes, churches, donations, and volunteering
1
Tonight, I like many local residents were pushed to the back or out the door where many where forced
to discuss their views in private. Because we could not hear . Some question if that was on purpose. If
the city orchestrated us not to be heard.
What we did hear was not open and fair. It was one sided and very impassioned.So much that we were
fearful to speak up. Speakers made us feel guilty for living here. Some locals walked out. Some were
"Friends of Discovery" . Volunteer stewards for years.
The Park continues to be degraded over the years. I did not hear a word tonight about Magnolia's Waste 2
Water treatment facility.
Magnolians already are the recipients and processors of the north end waste water. Anybody else want
a piece of that? King County and the City of Seattle to the Park for cover. Environmental Learning
Centers, Shuttles and permits to a polluted beach? Kiwanis Memorial Park was deserted by the Heron's
because the eagles lost their rabbits when the non native Scots broom was taken out. So they ate the
baby herons. The pollution of the beach and shallow water degraded the resources for their food too. 2,
Hard to hide the smell and fouling of the last year. The tide pools are dark and grey, devoid of life. Let's cont.
be honest and clear. Our wildlife is moving on.Repeated decisions like these give the Park and it's
environs no quarter. Yet the Park and it's future is promoted as such.
We are such good neighbors. Even Fay Bainbridge Park and beach was contaminated. We spent more on
fixing the treatment facility than on this project. And it will continue to take a lot to maintain and
expand with the population and expectations. Some forget that this was one of the most successful
locations of our native populations. Daybreak Star Cultural Center was the result of the 1972 Fort
Lawton Park Plan and the 1974 Revised Master Plan for Discovery Park. Neither this Master Plan nor the
one for 1986 were mentioned tonight. These plans were put in place to protect the park from any kind
of development. These plans were carefully crafted with the same passion and care for the future as I
heard tonight for the opposite reasons. Mental Health, lack of health care, education, nutrition, disease,
family break ups, addictions, greedy lenders are just some of the reasons people are homeless. Are we
are so desperate to solve this crisis we are going to put it on Mother Earth, again?
The "Loop" trail is currently a National Recreation Trail. Will we have to change it to the National
"Poop" trail?
Will the children of the new housing appreciate what the park was.Will they realize one day what was 3
replaced.How it was planned for something really special in a special city. They may feel the betrayal of
time and those in charge. And how they and their parents were used by the developers, City, County
and State to create revenue from property predicated to all of our futures. " And you put us next to
that? You mean we were located next to a waste treatment center because we were just that. Waste".
You can't turn this back. It will just get easier to ignore. Just keep piping poop here, truck it out, put a
deodorizer on the smell and call it the Emerald City . Just keep developing it , bring in more cars and
people. That is not we we learned at that at the Environmental Learning Center. You did it to us I mean
for us…
We can do better, much better. Listening to the Master Plans and those before us would be a good
start. I hope you do.Consider taking a nice walk in the park.
Breath deeply, calm your mind and spirit. Restore your strength and vitality.
Richard Mesmer
LETTER 582
From: Scott Meyer
Subject: Public Comment on Fort Lawton Redevelopment
I support the redevelopment option for Fort Lawton which has as much affordable housing and support
services as possible. Seattle and the surrounding region are in an affordable housing crisis. We need to
take every opportunity we can to provide affordable housing for those who need it most. The Fort
Lawton site is perfect for a dense, infill development of housing and support services, since it is centrally
located in the region and underdeveloped.
1
What the city does not need is for the site to preserved as a park (the site is already surrounded by
ample parkland) or given over to private developers, who will create a mere fraction as many houses as
the affordable option. We don't need more luxury housing stock out of the reach of most Seattle
residents. We need affordable housing, and lots of it.
Please disregard the loud and clamoring voices of the handful of selfish and entitled NIMBYs who seek
to preserve the site as parkland or hand it over to developers for their own narrow purposes. The only
ethical use for this property is affordable housing.
Sincerely,
Scott Meyer, Long-Time Seattle Resident
LETTER 583
From: michael
Subject: More affordable housing, please!
Seattle needs more housing for economically marginalized people. Please proceed with the plans to
build affordable housing at Fort Lawton. Affordable housing needs to be spread across the city not just 1
in certain areas. Thank you!
LETTER 584
From: E. Michaels
Subject: Affordable housing/Ft. Lawton
I am writing in support of affordable housing to be included in Fort Lawton redevelopment at Discovery

Park. There's absolutely no reason this should not be built given the available land and the 1
overwhelming need for affordable housing in this city. It must be built so I urge you to do all you can to
make that happen.
Thank you.
E. Michaels, Seattle
LETTER 585
From: Nikita Milani
Subject: Support for Fort Lawton housing for the homeless
I'm writing as a Seattle resident in strong support for the use of the Fort Lawton to house people
experiencing homelessness. Seattle has been a state of emergency regarding homelessness for years
and this is the perfect opportunity to make a positive change and change the lives of some of our
neighbors. This will be a free piece of land and it would be unethical to use it for anything other than to
support our most vulnerable people.
1
I've lived next door to the Tent City 5 encampment before they moved locations and I can attest to the
fact that homeless people are good neighbors just like anyone else. They deserve shelter and
community and compassion because they are people and they are part of our community. It's our
responsibility to take care of each other. Fort Lawton needs to be used to house our homeless neighbors
if we want to live up to Seattle's values. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Nikita Milani
2655 14th Ave W, Seattle 98119
LETTER 586
From: Scott Miles
Subject: Ensure Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Scott Miles
620 N 34th St
Seattle WA 98103
Scott Miles
[email protected]
620 B 34th St Apt 622
LETTER 587
From: Andy Miller
Hello,
Per the Fort Lawton development: Please build 2000 units not ~200. 1
Thank you,
Andy Miller
425-351-0436
LETTER 588
From: Anne Miller
I support using the land at Fort Lawton to build affordable housing. The landscape of out city is
changing rapidly, and we must make intentional investments to ensure it is a place that anyone can call 1
home, regardless of income.
Anne Miller
647 nw 82nd st Seattle WA 98117
425-294-3366
LETTER 589
From: Gordon Miller
Subject: Ft Lawton Support
Dear Ms. Masters,

I'm writing in support of the proposal to build affordable housing at the Fort Lawton site. My wife,
Jacquelyn, and I live in a community, the Issaquah Highlands, with a significant number of units
designated for low- or moderate-income residents, including several Habitat for Humanity homes. This
housing blends perfectly and indistinguishably into the surrounding neighborhood, and we are very
happy to have these residents as part of our community. We are also longtime (20-year) volunteers with 1
Seattle Habitat and have thus worked alongside many (future) Habitat homeowners and have found
them almost invariably to be hardworking and conscientious, dedicated to family and community, and
extremely grateful for the opportunities that such an affordable housing project has provided them. Our
experience, therefore, leads us to advocate for the Fort Lawton project and the economic and social
benefits it could provide.
Sincerely,
Gordon Miller
425.427.8172
LETTER 590
From: Kathryn Miller
Subject: Affordable housing at Fort Lawton, YES PLEASE!!
Hello,
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of neighbors who want to see affordable housing go in at Fort
Lawton.
While a certain subset of neighbors claims that adding housing to the area would increase traffic, or
change the character of the neighborhood, 20-30 new UNAFFORDABLE units have recently gone in with
no objection. The city desperately needs housing for those who cannot keep up with our 1
stratospherically rising rents. Seniors, veterans, the disabled, those exiting homelessness, families trying
to NOT become homeless in the first place, all need somewhere live where they can be assured that
they won't be priced out within a year. The City already has access to this land. Please use it to build
affordable housing units, and please do so quickly.
Show us that the city cares about all its residents, not just those who earn a 6-figure income.
Yours,
Kathryn Miller
98117
LETTER 591
From: Ashley Millett
Subject: Fort Lawton Re Development

I support a holistic approach to this redevelopment which includes desperately needed school land. In
order for housing developments to be successful appropriate educational infrastructure must be in
place. The Fort Lawton development feeds neighborhood schools which are the MOST rapidly growing
and are already at capacity with over-capacity projections within a few years.
Seattle Public Schools needs the opportunity to control a portion of the development which will enable
them to operate play fields which will have immediate benefit to their sports programs as well as
support the high demand from recreational leagues. When they are able to identify funding to build a
school educational facility in the future, I support the opportunity for Seattle Public Schools to transform
this land into a school campus. 1
It is imperative that the City and Seattle Public Schools work together to find every opportunity to
support educational infrastructure as the city grows. Housing and high quality education are imperative
for our low income and homeless students.
City for substantially discounted land is unique and our city must ensure that it not only be able to house
its residents but that there are adequate educational opportunities as well.
Thank you
Ashley Millett, Magnolia Resident
LETTER 592
From: Ashley Millett
I am concerned that the DEIS does not detail the services or address the impact of the long term
homeless housing provided by Catholic Community Services (CCS). It briefly mentions "Case managers
would also leverage outside behavioral health services, including chemical dependency treatment
and/or mental health services, and bring providers onsite whenever possible." On page 2-35. However,
1
when talking directly with CCS the housing will serve the mentally ill and those with substance abuse
similar to their Westlake house except for Fort Lawton will be for men and women. This will drastically
impact the need for police presence, the overall safety for the Fort Lawton vicinity, especially in regard
to the family housing and potential children's play area and the land reserved for SPS. The health
services in magnolia are limited to small primary care providers and not the services these people will
need. Nor is the police assistance quick enough in their response to problems, typically showing up 2
SEVERAL HOURS after a call is placed if they show up at all. I do not agree with this statement
"Development under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 on the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites would result in
increased demand for police and fire/emergency services during construction. These demands would be
temporary, are not expected to be substantial and would cease once full buildout of the site is
completed." Page 3.11-1 Police demands would NOT decrease once full buildout was completed. I am
concerned that the public doesn't not understand the what the CCS long term homeless housing is 3
geared toward. It is not just senior housing and veterans, it is seniors and veterns with mental illness and
substance abuse issues. Which in my opinion the Fort Lawton Site is not suited to serve because of lack
of police and EMT availability, distance from mental health and addictive recovery services. Only one
unit for a manager and limited on site staff is not enough to address these issues for 83 residents.
4
The impact on SPS is laughably under stated. Schools are at or over capacity for the 2017-2018 school 5
year and their projections are woefully under the current population increase and demands. Also I
would like a detail of what tax revenues will actually be generated before you can state with fact that it
will generate enough monty to off set the increased demands on school. " New students would attend
Lawton Elementary School, which is projected to be over capacity. Through tax revenues generated
6
directly and indirectly from development of the Fort Lawton site and the service purveyors’ planning
processes, all of the purveyors could handle the increased demand for services from proposed
development at the Fort Lawton site; therefore, no significant public services impacts are expected."
Page 3.11-1 The land being reserved for the school is a red herring, by the time SPS manages to build
something (hardly enough land for an elementary school) every other school will be vastly over crowded
and our capacity issues will be beyond help. The city needs to realize along with SPS that the population 7
is growing at rates not foreseen in earlier years and therefore their calculations are inadequate and
need to be revisited. Making the number of potentially 41 new students out of date and blind to the
current capacity issues in SPS and especially the Queen Anne-Magnolia cluster.
The DEIS is overall a biased study by the city council who ONLY supports option 1 and all evidence stated
like the impact on surrounding home values on page 3.13-16 is stated as truth because of one study that 8
was done. It shows a superficial and rushed study for a high impact neighborhood development.
Including that almost all Proposed Actions on page I have to be approved or voted on only by City 8,
Council, giving no real voice to the people most affected by their brash oversight and bias. cont.
Ashley Millett
LETTER 593
From: Nicholas Mirra
Subject: comment on Fort Lawton DEIS
I'm writing to support the approval of the DEIS for the Fort Lawton Redevelopment. It's rare that a city
as developed as Seattle has the opportunity to convert a large parcel within city limits to a new use.
I support the plan for turning the area into an affordable housing development with housing and
services for people experiencing homelessness. The affordability and housing crisis in Seattle is a higher 1
priority than preserving park space or "neighborhood character." Although I don't live in the Magnolia
neighborhood, preserving Seattle as a place for people of all means to live is a city-wide effort, and I will
support similar efforts in my neighborhood if given the chance.
Thank you
-Nicholas Mirra
Beacon Hill
LETTER 594
From: Leah Missik
Hello there,
I am unable to make the DEIS public hearing tonight so I wanted to send in my comment regarding the
development of Fort Lawton. I strongly support the City's plan to add a mix of housing and a park.
Seattle is experiencing a shortage of housing and a rapidly growing population, thus necessitating more
housing. Fort Lawton is near downtown, certainly in the urban core, and yet has great access to public
amenities such as parks, making it a great spot for people to live. The reality is that Seattle is growing
and in order to be a sustainable and inclusive city, we need more projects like this. I see people
complaining about how there will not be enough parking or how traffic will increase. I support added 1
public transit overall, but the 33 bus line is already an option there (and used to be a part of my
commute so I know it well). Furthermore, more infrastructure can be developed, but in the meantime
people need homes. We need to prioritize people over cars, and the needs of those who need housing
over those who already have stable housing but are worried about their commute getting a bit more
crowded. Seattle needs more housing now - and more housing in the urban core is the more sustainable
and equitable option.
Thank you for considering my comments!
Leah Missik
LETTER 595
January 26, 2018
Ms. Lindsay Masters

Office of Housing
P.O. Box 94725
Fort Lawton Army Reserve – comment
Dear Ms. Masters:
I attempted to attend the public hearing held on January 9, 2018 at the Magnolia United
Church of Christ regarding the proposed Fort Lawton Redevelopment. The venue was
much too small to accommodate the large number of people who hoped to attend.
Discovery Park and Fort Lawton are very dear to the residents of the entire City of Seattle 1
as a beautiful patch of nature that can be roamed free of charge. I wanted to hear the
proposal presented, but was not given the opportunity because it was literally impossible
to enter the room. Why was such a small room chosen for this important presentation?
The Friends of Discovery Park have been advocates and stewards of the Park for many
years, and they advocate incorporating the former Fort Lawton Army Reserve land into
the park. I support this idea. The mental and physical health benefits provided by parks
and open spaces to the residents of this city need to be given serious consideration. It is
vital to preserve this urban spot for those who want to run, walk their dog, play Frisbee or
enjoy a picnic with a beautiful view. Where are we to get our exercise in this crowded
city? 2
Discovery Park, at 534 acres, is the largest park in the city. Comparatively, San
Francisco’s Presidio is 1,500 acres and New York’s Central Park is 843 acres. As Seattle
continues to grow in population and density, the need for open green space becomes
more urgent and necessary. We should be thinking of the future of our population, and
the need to preserve and expand green space, rather than to develop it. Our residents take
solace in quiet strolls and the ability to encounter resident wildlife such as blue herons
and eagles while doing so in Discovery Park.
Can you imagine the cities of San Francisco or New York proposing to put developments
their precious parks? No. They are smarter than that. We are a young city, and should
take our cues from the experience of the larger cities in whose footsteps we are following. 2,
Let’s not make avoidable mistakes as we grow. It is difficult to jack hammer asphalt cont.
once it has been laid.
Please schedule an additional hearing in a larger venue so that we have an opportunity to 3

hear the proposal.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Moe
LETTER 596
3
4
8
LETTER 597
From: Rick Mohler
Subject: Fort Lawton Housing DEIS
Greetings,
I am an architect, a UW Professor of Architecture and co-chair of the AIA Seattle Public Policy Board. I'm
writing in support of DEIS Alternative 1 (preferred alternative). Our city desperately needs more
housing in general, affordable housing in particular and housing for our residents at the bottom of the
economic ladder most critically. The Fort Lawton site offers an extremely rare opportunity to provide
housing for our most vulnerable population.
1
In some areas of the city one might reasonably argue that park space is a more pressing need but not
here, adjacent to the city's largest park. The Alternative 1 plan is designed to minimize its impact on
neighboring residents while providing desperately needed housing for those most in need. Please move
forward with Alternative 1. The need is great and time is of the essence.
Thanks!
Rick
Rick Mohler, AIA
Principal
Mohler + Ghillino Architects
Associate Professor
Graduate Program Coordinator
Department of Architecture
University of Washington
5511 1st Ave NE
Seattle, WA
LETTER 598
From: Johannes Mohrmann
Subject: Fort Lawson development
The Fort Lawson redevelopment is a great opportunity for the city to address the housing issue. As such,
I support the development high-density housing in the location, ideally affordable high-density housing.
I believe the best of the proposed option is the alternative labeled 'Mixed Income Affordable Housing &
1
Park", however I would strongly support any plan which focuses on the development of high-density
housing, and oppose any plan that focuses on the creation of more single-family homes, of which Seattle
has too many for a city this size.
H Mohrmann
LETTER 599
1
LETTER 600
From: Patrick Mondello
I am a Magnolia resident (43rd and Glenmont) in support of the affordable housing proposal, pending
the environmental impact statement.
I think it’s important that Seattle neighborhoods consist of individuals and families with a diversity of
incomes. Furthermore, the city should make a concerted effort to maximize the property in its domain, 1
especially capital projects that were funded with public money as Fort Lawton was, for the public
benefit. As far as I’m concerned, there is no more urgent public issue than affordable housing.
More broadly, any affordable housing effort should prioritize consumer choice. That includes the choice
of where in Seattle the consumer wants to live.
LETTER 601
From: Colleen Monette
I am in favor of:
Alternative 1 – Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses Onsite (Preferred Alternative):
Development of a mix of affordable housing onsite, including homeless and affordable rental and
ownership housing, with a portion of the site likely rezoned to lowrise residential zoning. Public park 1
uses would also be created, including active park facilities, preserved existing natural areas and
conversion of an existing structure to a park maintenance facility.
I am so fortunate to live in this community but I think we would benefit from a bit more diversity in
every possible way.
Thank you,
Colleen Monette
LETTER 602
From: Donna Moniz
We gave up the chance to make a new park in South Lake Union. Look at it now. Let’s not ruin
Discovery Park. It is an irreplaceable treasure. Donna Moniz
1
LETTER 603
From: Jen Moon
Subject: Move forward with Fort Lawton!
Hi all!
I know today is the deadline for comments so I just wanted to put in one more YES for using Fort Lawton 1
for homeless and low income housing. This is kind of a no brainer so please go forward! Thanks!
LETTER 604
From: KJ Moon
Subject: Ft Lawton Development
As a resident of Seattle who reside in Beacon Hill and Ballard and who visits this park on a monthly basis,
I fully support this project moving forward. I'm hoping that the City will choose the option that will net
our city the highest amount of affordable housing possible. It is no surprise that our city is facing
incredible housing shortages and we must do more to alleviate that.
1
I understand that there are concerns about the lack of transit and amenities. However, I believe that
there is transit there as I take the bus there quite often! Furthermore, if that is a concern, let us build
this housing and work on improving access.
Best,
KJ Moon
(919) 259-2000
LETTER 605
From: Cary Moon
Subject: YES to Fort Lawton proposal
Hello heroes at the Office of Housing,
Please pursue the proposed low income housing project at Fort Lawton as proposed, full steam ahead. It
is a well conceived plan and promising project, just right for that site. It will make an important 1
contribution to providing many of our most vulnerable neighbors a safe place to live.
Thank you for your excellent work.

Onward!
Cary
LETTER 606
From: Robert Moore
Subject: Ft Lawton Support
I am writing to support affordable housing at Fort Lawton. As a board member of Habitat for Humanity-
Seattle/King County I have served for 15 years to provide stable and affordable housing throughout King
County. We are all well aware of the need to add to the affordable housing base as our booming
economy drives land house values up and people are being priced out of the market. I support the Ft
Lawton initiative for the following reasons:
We need affordable housing so that lower income families can stay in the community close to their work
place.
1
Locating more people in the city can help alleviate transportation congestion.
Habitat’s model provides the opportunity for lower income families to own their own home, thus
accruing the benefits of neighborhood stability, better education for children and the development of
responsible productive citizens of the future.
Habitat works with homeowners to maintain their homes and become active participants in community
affairs.
Ft. Lawton provides a rare opportunity to add to the affordable housing base.
W. Robert Moore
Board Member
Habitat for Humanity-Seattle/King County
LETTER 607
From: Teresa, Tom, and Caitlin Moore
Subject: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Draft EIS
Teresa Moore 4623 Lawton Lane West, Seattle WA 98199 [email protected]

Tom Moore -same
Caitlin Moore -same
We are stakeholders of Fort Lawton and live directly across from Fort Lawton.
Alternative #3 is our family's preferred option, adding Fort Lawton parcel to Discovery Park, with
following the guidelines set forth by Discovery Park Community Alliance (DPCA) and Friends of Discover 1
Park (FofDP). Housing for homeless to be located elsewhere in Seattle, other than Magnolia. Magnolia
does not have the infrastruction to support low income/homeless housing.
Mention should be made that the EIS transportation and traffic flow is flawed. The potential closure of
the Magnolia Bridge (rated low at 17.78 on 100 point scale) was not in the EIS study, nor was the road
2
diet on Gilman where a bike lane was recently added. Traffic has become backed up and congested with
this road diet. If there are only two ways on/off of Magnolia, a Magnolia Bridge closure will cause even
more traffic congestion and potentially hamper emergency/police vehicle travel which is a safety issue.
Is is especially disconcerting that there would be no screening of individuals for the City proposal of
having housing at Fort Lawton. There would be no screening for mental illness or police records.
Having child molesters, and rapists housed in with young children is deplorable. Children would be at 3
great risk of being harmed. Having another Charleena Lyles situation is also deplorable.
LETTER 608
From: Debra Morrison
Lindsay Masters,
I am writing to support the proposed redevelopment of Fort Lawton, although I would actually prefer 1
the city use the site for much more housing than is currently proposed.
Seattle is in the midst of a major housing crisis that is pricing most people out of the city. The root cause
of this crisis are public policies that restrict the supply of housing. These same policies are directly tied to
climate change: we need to build denser cities to lessen our reliance on cars and allow more people to
live in a more sustainable way.
We have a unique opportunity to develop affordable housing at the site of Fort Lawton which should not 2
be passed up. While among the alternatives I support alternative 1, I strongly urge the city to develop
much more housing of all types on the site. There is no defensible reason for new 7200 SF single family
homes to be developed on site: we need to be building denser housing for both economic and ecological
reasons. Many thousands of people of all backgrounds and income levels should have the opportunity to
live next to Discovery Park.
Thank you.
Debra Morrison
[email protected]
2021 NE 75th St
LETTER 609
From: Lyle Morse
Subject: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Draft EIS
Lindsay Masters
City of Seattle Office of Housing
Hello Lindsay,
I reside at 4420 Montana Circle West, Seattle WA 98199. Our home is one of the old NCO houses which
were updated in the historic district of Old Fort Lawton in Discovery Park. I am writing you in support of
the above referenced project. I feel the current proposal is the right scope and size and has the right
partners. In particular that some of the units will be Habitat for Humanity units is very important.
Habitat has a great record for creating safe communities and the element of ownership is a game
changer in low income housing.
1
I come to this decision as a member of the community. This development is less than a mile away from
my house, it will be a part of our life here so we do want it done with partners of demonstrated ability.
There seems to be a concern that providing housing for low income families or shelter for the homeless
is dangerous. I would contend that it is dangerous not to provide housing and shelter and it is dangerous
to be homeless; exposed to the tyranny of cold, rain and the indifference of your neighbor. This project
should demonstrate that safe communities can be built that include low income housing.
I was at your meeting , by the way get a bigger hall next time, and heard many people in support but not
many from Magnolia. Most near by residents, like me, left with a few minutes to get there as everything
is close in Magnolia. Folks from West Seattle or even Ballard left time to navigate in the strange 2
neighborhood. The net effect was I would guess you have a hornets nest from folks who felt locked out.
I hope such a logistical problem does not have a detrimental effect on the project.
Last, I feel if just one person were brought in from the street or one family provided with affordable
housing before getting to the street this project would be worthy of our support because that is how the 3
homeless crisis is going to be solved, one person at a time.
Lyle Morse
360-951-8442
LETTER 610
From: Charlie Morss
Subject: Discovery park / Fort Lawton comments
Hello, 1
the City of Seattle’s Department of Housing. We believe that the Army Reserve parcel in its entirety,
should be incorporated into Discovery Park. To accomplish this, we urge that all man-made structures at
the site be removed and the site be completely reforested with native trees and understory. The 30 acre
Army Reserve property is now heavily urbanized, with many acres of paved surfaces, buildings, and
overlapping fences. As such, it is distinctly unfriendly to the wildlife that live and reproduce in the
nearby forests of Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. The property is uniquely situated between the 1,
Kiwanis Ravine and the larger green spaces of Discovery Park. Growing a forest across this site would
cont.
create a much needed wildlife corridor between the ship canal, the Ravine and Discovery Park. We
recognize that there are a variety of competing interests for the use of this property. Suggestions
include low income housing, a school and other uses like playgrounds, baseball fields and tennis courts.
If one or some combination of these uses become implemented, we ask that any man-built environment
on the site be appropriately and sensitively incorporated into a forested canopy, using a mosaic of
legally protected indigenous plant communities distributed across the entire property.
Thanks,
Charlie Morss
3721 West Fulton St.
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 611
From: Linda C Morton
Subject: Discovery Park development
Please do not allow development anywhere near the boundaries of Discovery Park. It is a unique and
beautiful site best left public and free.
If there is any parcel of Fort Lawton to be added to the park, please do so.
We have just returned from Sydney, Australia where we visited a public park on the Southern head 1
(entry) to the famous harbor. It had been an army installation through various wars and has wild areas
in which to walk, fabulous water views, interesting and labeled wartime installations, a former
quarantine station with restaurants, tours and even lodging. We Seattleites were reminded of the
possibilities for the former Fort Lawton. Unfortunately, private ownership has already crept in. That
needs to stop NOW! Please preserve this beautiful site for all of us and not just the privileged few.

Linda C Morton
[email protected]
LETTER 612
From: David Moser
To whom it may concern at the Office of Housing,
I am writing to voice my strong support of the building as much affordable housing as possible at the
Fort Lawton site. Specifically I would like to address the idea that has been raised by critics of this
project that this location is too remote from services, grocery stores, transit and other amenities that
low income people who without cars need closeby. To be sure, within the city of Seattle Fort Lawton is a
relatively remote location, and this address on has a low, “car-dependent “Walkscore” of 34 out of 100
and a low “Transit Score” of 39 out of 100 on the Walkscore.com website. The Walkscore is based upon
how many different amenities there are to the given location within walking distance. Ideally much
more of Seattle would have the dense housing patterns that support services and amenities throughout
more of the city.
But we don’t live in an ideal world, and our housing and homelessness crisis is regional, not confined to
Seattle. I know fromdaily first hand experience managing homelessness prevention programs that serve 1
hundreds of households per year in Seattle that if presented with the choice, many if not most
households in Seattle that are struggling with housing instability would love to live in this location, given
the alternatives. Because the choice is not Magnolia vs. Capitol Hill or Magnolia vs. Columbia City. The
choice more frequently is homelessness or Auburn. And whatever Auburn’s merits as a town, it is much
more removed from economic opportunity, amenities, and services than is Magnolia.
As an example, within the last month, my program has placed homeless Seattle residents in two
different apartments in Auburn that were the only places we could find at that time where that they
could afford the ongoing rent. The Walkscore of these South Auburn apartments is 21 (at Windsor Park
Apartments) and 19(at Emerald Pointe Townhomes) respectively. Compared to Fort Lawton, both these
locations are further from local amenities and MUCH further from the opportunities and jobs of central
Seattle.
Within this regional context, the idea that Fort Lawton is remote is a red herring argument. Please build
the housing.
Thank you.
David Moser
(he/him/his pronouns)
Neighborhood House
Housing Stability Manager
LETTER 613
From: Cliff Mountjoy-Venning
Hello,
I am writing in support of the planned affordable housing at Fort Lawton. The city desperately needs
more housing in order to start turning around the housing crisis, and this development will help towards
that goal. It's especially important for new housing to be distributed around the city, and so far the
Magnolia neighborhood has not absorbed its share of development, making the Fort Lawton housing
even more vital. 1
Opposition to the project by people claiming to be concerned about park space is ridiculous - the site is
adjacent to the largest park in the entire city. It is merely an excuse for people who don't want to live
near low income people. This project has been delayed long enough because of classist lawsuits - please
build more housing now!
Cliff Mountjoy-Venning
LETTER 614
From: Matthew Moyano
As a resident of Seattle, and an avid lover of Discovery Park and Fort Lawton, I respectfully disagree with 1
the idea of developing the area into affordable / homeless housing. The fort is too far removed from
necessary facilities and infrastructure that these relocated people's will encounter intense difficulty
reaching services, jobs, and basic living needs. The development of the park / fort into housing will also 2
put intense pressure on the Magnolia community, while simultaneously blighting the incredible beauty
of the existing park. The Talaris Site, being more connected, would serve these people much better and 3
preserves one of Seattle's most loved parks.
As a resident of Seattle, I pressure and hope you will choose Alternative 3, in the Fort Lawton 3rd DEIS, 4
to move forward.
Thank you,
-Matthew Moyano
LETTER 615
1
LETTER 616
From: Meaghan Murphy
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Meaghan Murphy
[email protected]
LETTER 617
From: Melissa Murphy

Hello,
Thank you,
Melissa Murphy
Melissa Murphy
811 Maynard Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98134
LETTER 618
From: Kathy Mutchler
Subject: No Please Do Not
Please do not put housing in the former Fort at Discovery Park because it is a natural environment that
needs to be preserved!
1
The housing development will destroy the natural habitat which has value to exist for people to
commune with nature for the future.
The indigenous people had to struggle hard for their right to have the Daybreak Star cultural center in
that area. If you create a housing development in Discovery Park, then you will be racist for further 2
developing their land in a colonizing destructive manner. What did you ask them for their permission?
Instead you can build housing in an area where the nature has already been destroyed. For instance, the
Interbay industrial area could be developed. There are other places!
Please see the Truth that it is simply a land grab. 3

It is injustice, and it is destruction to put a housing development in the midst of one of the most
precious wilderness areas that is left remaining. Please preserve it.
LETTER 619
From: Miller Myers
I live near Fort Lawton and often walk through it enjoying the quiet of this very special place. But I
assume it's inevitable that development is going to take place there since in Seattle any vacant space
gets filled-in.
My feedback to you and my wish is that attention is paid to the ecological qualities of the site. The band
of trees that border the north side of the site are potential connectors for wildlife, especially birds,
between the Kiwanis Ravine wildlands and Discovery Park.
If these trees are removed as part of the development of the site this important linkage will be lost. In
1
an increasingly built-up Seattle we cannot afford such losses. We must pay attention to protecting
wildlife corridors and habitat.
Allowing market rate housing at Fort Lawton could present a major threat to this band of trees since
they block views of Puget Sound and people who buy expensive market rate homes demand views when
possible.
Make Fort Lawton not only a place for people, but also for wildlife!
Sincerely
Miller Myers
3200 W. Commodore Way, #303 Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 620
From: Ramez Naam
Subject: Fort Lawton property
Hello there. I’m a Seattle resident and voter.

I want to voice my support for the city accepting the Fort Lawton property and using it for low income 1
housing. We badly need more low income housing in Seattle!
Thank you!
Ramez Naam
1200 26th Ave E
Seattle, WA 98112
LETTER 621
From: Risa Nagel
Please build affordable housing at Fort Lawton. 1
LETTER 622
From: Izumi Nance
As a resident of Seattle, and a person who cares for the well-being of others, I support the city’s vision
for Fort Lawton to become “an affordable, livable community that creates opportunities for those with
low incomes to live in the Magnolia neighborhood”. I believe the preferred alternative in the DEIS is the
best option for a city facing a housing crisis. Alternative two is completely unnecessary- we don’t need
more single-family units in Seattle. We need to tackle the housing crisis head on, with real options that 1
HELP people. The sweeps don’t work, the vouchers aren’t doing enough, and development of the Talaris
site is not a viable option. I’m l honestly appalled it’s even considered an option, seeing as it will have to
be purchased by the city at a fair market-rate, and Laurelhurst neighbors have shown to be just as
opposed as Magnolia community members to development of “historic” land. Alternative 1 is the best
and only option in terms of social, environmental, and economic impacts.
--
-Izumi Nance
LETTER 623
From: Chad Newton
Office of Housing - I am writing in support of the preferred alternative in the draft EIS for affordable
housing construction at Fort Lawton.
1
The US government has had a policy for decades of prioritizing affordable housing on surplus military
base property, such as Fort Lawton. Furthermore, the City of Seattle is currently in a housing shortage
with affordable housing in short supply and a homelessness emergency.
The time to act is now! I recommend expedited approval of the Final EIS and immediate action on
permitting and construction of the new housing. 2
Furthermore, considering the current affordable housing shortage and the large quantity of land
available at Fort Lawton, and recommend beginning a separate, new EIS process for additional mixed-
income housing in the portions of the subject property not developed in the first phase. An additional 3
2,000 units is quite feasible with midrise zoning, and will provide net benefits to the residents by
providing sufficient demand for on-site retail and improved transit frequencies.
Thank you,
Chad Newton
Seattle homeowner
LETTER 624
From: Chad Newton
Subject: Fort Lawton housing DEIS comment
Office of Housing: Below is an additional comment on the DEIS for Fort Lawton housing.
I am opposed to the disparity in street access proposed between Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 2
includes urban planning best practices to integrate the new housing with the adjacent residential
streets, and provide 2 methods of access/egress for redundancy.
However, Alternative 1, affordable housing, does not. The housing is an isolated pod, accessible only
through the existing military facility access road. It is functionally separate from the adjoining 1
residential neighborhood, and only has one access/egress point despite higher travel demand. The is
contrary to a wide variety of City policies, established development patterns throughout the City and
urban planning best practices.
There IS NO justification for this difference.

In the Final EIS, Alternative 1 should have the same street access patterns as Alternative 2.
Chad Newton
Seattle homeowner
LETTER 625
From: Molly R. Nixon
Subject: Support for Fort Lawton Low-Income Housing
Hello.
I've been a resident of Seattle for the past 12 years, including a year I spent living at 25th and Dravus in
Magnolia.
shortage of affordable housing in this city, and the idea that the city might turn down free land ear- 1
Thank you.
Molly R. Nixon, PhD
LETTER 626
From: Karen Noar
Subject: For Lawton Support
I think Habitat for Humanity homes at Fort Lawton is a good plan. 1

Karen Noar
Ballard
LETTER 627
From: Ty Nolan
Subject: Ft Lawton
Ty Nolan
4063 1st Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98105
623/217-1943
As a registered voter I completely support using the Ft. Lawton land to support housing for homeless 1
seniors and others in need, particularly Native American citizens.
LETTER 628
From: Bill Nordwall
Subject: I support the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Project
Hello -
As a decades-long Seattleite, I believe affordable housing should be the top priority for our city. The Fort 1
Lawton Redevelopment Project is an excellent use of public lands, and has my full support.
Thanks,
Bill Nordwall
LETTER 629
From: Baird Nuckolls
Regarding the proposed development of land on the edge of Discovery Park as low-income and
homeless housing, I want to comment as a home owner in the neighborhood. I live in Ft. Lawton and felt 1
that the community meeting tonight was so taken over by homelessness advocates who do not live in
the area that local resident opinions could not be heard.
I have had positive experiences with Habitat for Humanity housing and OPAL low income housing (on
Orcas Island) and do not oppose similar efforts in Ft. Lawton. However, the area needs to retain its 2
suburban and park-like character and I strongly oppose large scale development there.
I am also concerned that the city increase the access for those low income residents to necessary 3
services by providing more frequent and direct bus service. I am also concerned that consideration be
made for increased traffic safety and security around the park. There is only one primary entrance to the 4
park and it is used by cars, bikers and walkers on a daily basis.
Please think about the needs of the residents as well as the potentially new residents and not just find a
way to move homeless away from downtown.
Baird Nuckolls
LETTER 630
From: Neal Nuckolls
Subject: Re: Fort Lawton Draft
As a homeowner and full time resident of Magnolia Neighborhood, Discovery Park is a Seattle jewel and
I STRONGLY OPPOSE Alternative 1 for the redevelopment of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center:
* It is inconsistent with the vision of Discovery Park defined by Olmstead 1
* It is inconsistent with the surrounding Magnolia residential neighborhoods and Park 2
* It is a poor, isolated location wrt transportation and lack of facilities for low-income residents 3
It would be an ideal location for Park use and/or a Magnolia school.
I note that your office has eliminated this option from the Seattle Schools System 4
because of deadlines which your office has allowed to occur.
Shame on you.
Additionally, I am concerned about years of constant heavy construction vehicle transit through
Government Way and the East entrance of Discovery Park 5
which will have a large negative impact on this neighborhood and all Park users.
Ranking the proposed alternatives in order of my and many of my neighbors preference:
First: Alternative 3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing Offsite 6
Second: Alternative 2 - Market-Rate Housing Onside; Affordable and Homeless Housing Offsite
Neal Nuckolls
[email protected]
LETTER 631
From: Neal Nuckolls
Subject: Fort Lawton mis-development plan
I strongly oppose the city proposed housing development plan for the 32 acre BRAC Fort Lawton site.
Pushing hundreds of low-income apartments into the edge of Discovery Park at the outskirts of this
district makes no sense except politically.
1
Seattle's housing problem is rooted in the lack of higher-density Condo development downtown and
near rail stations due to state and city zoning and liability laws.
That’s the problem — Fix that.
The Fort Lawton site would make a fine location for a School and/or Discovery Park addition or other 2
community-*building* approach instead .
Neal Nuckolls
Magnolia resident
LETTER 632
From: Ezra Nuite
Subject: Use Fort Lawton for public housing
Seattle needs to address its housing crisis, and we've seen that market development is not helping. Let's
use Fort Lawton as a place to provide public housing for the homeless and needy. Our government 1
should at the very least act as the check on housing prices. All humans deserve a home. Letting our
neighbors suffer outside and die of exposure is morally repugnant.
Ezra
LETTER 633
From: Brendan O'Connor
Subject: Please Build Housing at Ft. Lawton
My name is Brendan O'Connor; I live at 3622 23rd Ave W, on the east side of Magnolia.
Please build as much housing as possible at Fort Lawton. Seattle cannot afford to listen to NIMBYists
1
who insist that a boarded-up army base should be preserved inviolate. Expanding the number and range
of people who live in Magnolia will help to ensure it becomes a part of Seattle to be proud of, rather
than continuing its existence as an island.
---Brendan O'Connor
LETTER 634
From: Brendan O'Connor
Subject: Please Build Housing at Ft. Lawton
My name is Brendan O'Connor; I live at 3622 23rd Ave W, on the east side of Magnolia.
Please build as much housing as possible at Fort Lawton. Seattle cannot afford to listen to NIMBYists
who insist that a boarded-up army base should be preserved inviolate. Expanding the number and range 1
of people who live in Magnolia will help to ensure it becomes a part of Seattle to be proud of, rather
than continuing its existence as an island.
---Brendan O'Connor
LETTER 635
From: Kari O'Driscoll
Subject: Proposed Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton: Public Comment
I think that if Seattle doesn't develop affordable housing on the site of Fort Lawton, we are sending a
dangerous message that we are only willing to talk about homelessness and not actually take big, bold
steps to do something about it. Do I think it's enough to do this? No. Clearly, we need to begin also
taking big, bold steps to address the issues within the systems we have in place that contribute to the
explosion of homelessness, but letting a group of wealthy landowners sue the city into submission (full
disclosure: I'm a wealthy landowner in the city of Seattle and have been for nearly 20 years) using bogus
arguments that are really couched in their own desire to keep their part of the city for themselves is
taking the city in a direction that we ought not to be going. Those folks who own the big houses and are 1
worried about their own quality of life and their property values benefit from the system as it is. They
prefer the status quo because they have the privilege to work the system to their advantage, but if we
are to be a city that leads in equity - wage gaps, racial equity, etc. - then we need to put our money
where our mouths are and develop Fort Lawton as one of the pieces of the puzzle that may diminish the
numbers of homeless in our city. We need to express our compassion and understanding as well as look
to the long game. Income inequality is an enormous issue for Seattle as well as the rest of the world. We
cannot let those with wealth and social standing continue to work to preserve their own best interests
at the cost of the community itself.
Thank you,
Kari O'Driscoll
[email protected]
https://www.amazon.com/author/kariodriscoll
LETTER 636
From: Nero O'Reilly
Subject: Affordable housing for all!
Afternoon,
Just wanted to chime in- Fort Lawton should 100% be reused to fit affordable housing for our city's most
vulnerable people. The fact that this is even an argument we have to make is disgraceful. The NIMBYs
wringing their hands about 'property values' or 'parking issues' should not be listened to- I also live in
1
the area near the installation and I think we should be supporting this.
Cheers,
Nero
LETTER 637
From: Melody O'Seadna
Subject: Fort Lawton property (In favor!)
Hi,
I am a Seattle resident and would love to express my support in the city of Seattle obtaining the Fort
Lawton property and turning it into low income housing. As a early childhood teacher in Seattle, I am
being pushed out by the high rents in the area. It is important that we provide housing opportunities for
1
low and middle income families in this city.
Melody O'Seadna
LETTER 638
From: Liz O’Donoghue

Subject: In support of affordable housing!
Hello! I would like to voice my strong support for any plan to develop affordable housing in the Seattle
area. My email today is to specifically support the plan being considered to convert the buildings at Fort
Lawton for affordable housing.
1
Affordable housing is needed in every neighborhood, particularly the neighborhoods closest in to
downtown (capital hill, south lake union, eastlake, etc). Every development going up should include
some % of affordable, or rent controlled, units. (Every new development should ALSO be required to
provide ample parking for ALL new residens.)

Best,
Liz O'Donoghue
104 E Newton St
Seattle, WA 98102
LETTER 639
From: Josh Oakley
Subject: I am in support of affordable housing at the old Fort Lawton site.
As a former member of the Army Reserve who was stationed at Fort Lawton, That location has a long,
proud history of serving the people in meaningful ways, and it would be great to see it continue to serve 1
the people in a way that Seattle is in dire need of: affordable housing.
LETTER 640
From: Daniel Ojalvo
Subject: Statement in support of Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Hello,
My name is Daniel Ojalvo and I'm a resident of Lower Queen Anne in Seattle. I have seen the cost of rent
skyrocket in Seattle. I'm currently paying over twice what I did when I first moved to this area. From
$750/month to $2200/month.
I'm lucky enough to be able to afford this massive increase in housing costs due to my job as a Software
Engineer, but others aren't so lucky and this is what's causing the homeless crisis here in Seattle.
1
I respectfully ask that you build affordable housing at Fort Lawton without delay.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please help address the homeless crisis by creating more
affordable housing in Seattle.
Regards,
Daniel Ojalvo
LETTER 641
From: Gabrielle Olivera
Subject: Writing in support of Fort Lawton
I'm writing in support of the Habitat for Humanity project to build affordable housing in Fort Lawton.
During this time of crisis when so many are homeless in this city, the city of Seattle must not waste
opportunities such as this to build affordable housing units.
1
I hope that you won't fold to pressure from the other side. The right thing is to do something and build
housing wherever possible. The city is not doing enough to respond to this crisis. High property taxes
and population growth has led to this crisis. We can't become a city where only the wealthy can afford
to live.
Thank you,
Gabrielle Olivera
Seattle resident
District 7
LETTER 642
From: Eliot David Olson
Subject: In Favor of the Proposed Ft. Lawton Development
Hi,
I'm a Seattle resident of twelve years (Ballard for the last seven) who has worked in Magnolia for the
past four years and I am writing to voice my full-throated support for the proposed affordable housing
development at Ft. Lawton.
I can't make the meeting tonight but I have faith that many other people share my views that this city
needs less anti-homeless sentiment and more affordable housing. I wish I could be there, but I wanted
to make my voice heard in some small way. Please do the right thing and push forward with the plan.
1
We can't let the rich preserve an already-paved yet undeveloped corner of our city just so they can
avoid having new neighbors. I've seen some Magnolia neighbors threaten to leave the city if this plan
goes through. If this is their response to a proposal that will help hundreds of people, then I personally
say good riddance. They can leave the city to the rest of us who realize Seattle is a diverse, rapidly
growing modern city.
Thank you!
Eliot David Olson
(253) 318-1001
[email protected]
@leftcoastsuit
LETTER 643
From: Kathryn Olson
Subject: Support for Affordable Housing
Hello,
Thank you,
Kathryn Olson
7347 19th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115
LETTER 644
From: Susan Oneil
Dear Ms. Masters,
Seattle has a rare opportunity to set a nation precedence by establishing an affordable housing project
in a lovely and sustainable neighborhood.
This free land near Discovery Park will provide hope and promise to the future residents who live in
there. This is an economically integrative model like the affordable housing in the Queen Anne
neighborhood. The wealthier neighbors can organize to support low income residents on their journey 1
out of poverty, illness or disability.
Arterial streets into that neighborhood are much needed and can be built along with grocery stores,
restaurants and small neighborhood shops to stimulate a local economy. Bus service to the area can be
improved.
Please build affordable housing in Magnolia in the free land in Discovery Park for a sustainable and
affordable future!
Sincerely,
--
Susan
206-708-0502
LETTER 645
From: Guy Oron
Subject: I Support Housing at Fort Lawton!
Hi,
I am emailing you today to write in support of housing justice for all. The lot on Fort Lawton is a perfect
site for housing and as a Seattle resident of the 5th district, I wanted to express my support for the 1
proposed housing development.
Sincerely,
Guy Oron
LETTER 646
From: Chelsea M Pagan
Subject: Build affordable housing at unused plot of land at Fort Lawton

The city of Seattle is facing a severe housing crisis. Increasing rents have made living in our wonderful
city nearly impossible for folks without tech jobs. The City should use all available locations to quickly
build affordable housing to aid the residents who have lived in Seattle the longest, and have not
benefitted from the city’s economic growth. The affordable housing plan that the city is considering
would be a boon for homeless seniors and families struggling to live under the poverty line. Fort Lawton
1
is a large space that is not utilized well, and adding housing here would be in line with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Please support building affordable housing at Fort Lawton!
Thank you,
Chelsea
Chelsea M Pagan
Doctoral Candidate, Ramirez Lab
University of Washington, Department of Pathology
E-MAIL: [email protected]
TEL: 206-884-1183
LETTER 647
From: Nathan Page
Subject: Affordable Housing @ Ft Lawton
Hello Lindsay Masters, Office of Housing.

I am a Seattle resident, in favor of the proposed purchase and creation of affordable, subsidized housing
in old Fort Lawton in Magnolia. With 1000 new residents coming to Seattle every week, we are
experiencing a housing crisis. Most of those that have to live without perminate housing options have
turned to living out of their cars or in encampments. These people can be seen next to I5, in downtown
Seattle and all over South Seattle. While certain neighborhoods remain stagnant and free from the
presence of homelessness, it affects us all. Finding stable housing for those on the streets makes 1
finiancial and ethical sense for our community. Especially for seniors and others that require medical
attention for chronic illness. Magnolia, Seattle is changing and you need to help us solve some of our
most pressing homelessness issues even if it is in your well pampered back yard.
Thanks for your time and I appreciate this comment period!
-Nathan Page
LETTER 648
From: Nicole Palczewski
Subject: Fort Lawton: Public Comment
Dear City of Seattle Office of Housing,
My name is Nicole Palczewski, and I am currently a Housing Specialist working for a poverty-fighting
non-profit. I wanted to give you a public comment not only supporting your current plan for installing
low-income and affordable housing options in the Fort Lawton development area, but also
congratulating you on the diversity of alternatives you have offered for the site that will still cater to the
needs of low-income and homeless populations in the Magnolia area. I heartily support you 1st
alternative plan, which would allow the construction and maintenance of homeless and affordable
housing on-site in Fort Lawton.
First and foremost, we have a great need for homeless housing in the Seattle area; we can not afford to
be picky about where it may be or where it comes from. According to All Home of King County, the last
Count Us In census counted 11,643 people who were currently homeless, including 5,485 who were
completely unsheltered (living outdoors or squatting). King County has had significant year-over-year
gains in populations experiencing homelessness, and most of the homeless population is not white.
Part of the problem that contributes to this is not only rising rents, but a lack of affordable housing units 1
in the city. The opening of Fort Lawton for affordable housing is the solution we need to expand housing
services for low-income and homeless individuals and families, whose outcomes may not improve
without more options for housing in the area.
Second, this plan for Fort Lawton aligns with Mayor Durkan's recent executive order regarding rental
affordability and accessibility. Increasing the available units of homeless and affordable housing in
Seattle aligns with at least one of executive orders, which requires faster placements in affordable
housing units for Seattle Housing Authority voucher holders. More open units for affordable housing will
de facto lead to more placements in to those housing options.
I urge you to please adopt Alternative #1 for the Fort Lawton parcel, as there is no greater need in this
city right now than for affordable housing, and more of it.
-Nicole
--
Nicole Palczewski
Cell #: (425)-408-3633
LETTER 649
From: Rebecca Demarest Panzer
Subject: Public Comment on Housing at Fort Lawton
To the Council,
I am unable to attend the public hearing on the proposal of affordable housing being built at the site of
the former Fort Lawton, so I am reaching out here to let you know that I am entirely in favor of building
affordable housing both here and ANYWHERE in the city you can find room for it. My heart is breaking
for the astounding amount of people who are homeless in our city. Kids and older veterans, people with
disabilities, we need to be taking care of these populations, not leaving them to fend for themselves in
the bleak weather of Seattle.
The transient situation in Seattle is astoundingly out of control, and we need to be doing more to help 1
these people transition out of homelessness and back into productive members of society, which can
only happen if there is actually housing that they can afford on their minimum wage jobs. It's virtually
impossible to rent even a studio in this city at anything approaching a reasonable price and we're now
the fifth highest rental cost market in the United States. We need to do something to reign in the
ridiculously high costs of living in our metro area.
I beg of you, please find it in your heart to move forward, finally, on the proposal for affordable housing
at Fort Lawton so that fewer people have to call our concrete sidewalks home.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Demarest Panzer
LETTER 650
From: Leah Papernick
Subject: Supporting Fort Lawton
Good afternoon,
Thank you,
Leah Papernick
4339 Thackeray Place NE
Seattle 98105
LETTER 651
From: Jung Park
Subject: Fort Lawton housing project in the Discovery park
To whom it may concern :

I like to express my opinion about FortLawton housing project.
Firstly I want to keep the space as it is as part of Discovery park. Many people enjoy that space as 1
breathing space, enjoying fantastic view, hiking, playing with dog, kite flying. I saw many people using
the space as park,not just empty lot.
Secondly if city has to use as housing space absolutely, then I propose that housing space should be
alloted to poor American Indians. First of all it was their land. Their cultural center is right there. It will
work perfectly for them. They are very good keepers of nature. Then we can still have beautiful park. 2
Nature loving and peace loving gentle people will Iive in it. I often visit Indian cultural center there. Every
body visit almost any time for free. It always gives you peace.
I hope you can hear my voice mattered too.
Jung Park
Magnolia resident
LETTER 652
From: Alison Park-Douglas
Subject: Low-income housing at Fort Lawton
Hello,
There is an incredible shortage of affordable housing in this city, and the idea that the city might turn
down free land ear-marked for that purpose is mind-boggling.
1
Thank you,
Alison Park-Douglas
LETTER 653
From: Alex Parkman
Subject: Public Hearing for Fort Lawton DEIS Jan 9th
Thank you for holding the Public Hearing for the Fort Lawton Draft EIS last night. However it should be
noted that the venue at the Magnolia Church of Christ was totally inadequate for the needs. The
presenter called the attendance ‘robust’ which is only accurate for the space provided. With the
inability to freely see the displays in back, and difficulty with volume on the audio I would have to say
that the meeting DOES NOT QUALIFY as a true Public Hearing.
In fact, the room was no doubt largely over the maximum occupancy limit as per City of Seattle Fire
1
Department regulations. It seems unconscionable that one city department (Public Housing) would
violate the rules of another city department (Fire Department).
Why would it have not been more facilitating to utilize another close by city facility – the Magnolia
Community Center – with ample space and parking to conduct a legitimate PUBLIC hearing?
I would like to suggest that in the future you include a Seattle Police Office and a Fire Marshall to be
present at the Public Hearings in order to assure conformity with local laws and regulations.
Sincerely,
Alex Parkman
3835 25th Ave W.

Seattle, WA 98199
Phone: 206-906-9397
LETTER 654
From: Amanda Parnell
Subject: Fort Lawton site
Please designate Fort Lawton for affordable housing. It is so desperately needed! I understand that
homeowners in the area feel they must "protect their investment," but frankly, they should be ashamed 1
of themselves for blocking this when so many people are in need.
Thanks,
Amanda
LETTER 655
From: Adina Parsley
Subject: Adina Parsley says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

region.
Sincerely yours,
Adina Parsley
LETTER 656
From: Zoe Parsons

I'd like to express my support for building affordable public housing at the Fort Lawton site. Having
been raised in public housing in a semi-rural park-like development, I feel blessed to have been able to
experience the freedom of outdoor play and access to a garden plot, both of which strongly contributed 1
to my appreciation of nature and my lack of TV addiction. Here's to hoping Seattle makes incremental
progress toward addressing the housing crisis. Thank you for considering my opinion.
Zoë
LETTER 657
From: James Pasch
Subject: please build on-site affordable housing at Fort Lawton!
Hello,
I'm writing in support of plans to build affordable housing at Fort Lawton. This is a fantastic opportunity 1
to build much-needed affordable housing, and I hope the city proceeds, based on the needs of those
without housing and the city as a whole (rather than giving extra weight to the local neighborhood). I
also hope the Duwamish tribe and indigenous peoples of this land more broadly are consulted during 2
this process.
Sincerely,
James Pasch
Seattle resident
LETTER 658
From: Giulia Pasciuto
Subject: Affordable housing at fort Lawton
Good afternoon,
We are in a housing crisis in Seattle and King County. The site at Fort Lawton presents an immense
opportunity to put a dent in this crisis for those earning the least. If we continue to prioritize the desires
of high income earning residents, we will only slide behind in our effort to become an equitable city and
region. 1
Fort Lawton is in a neighborhood with high access to opportunity- a place that needs to absorb more
housing and more affordable housing.
Please put the stated priorities of Seattle low-income residents and communities of color first and locate
Giulia Pasciuto
LETTER 659
From: Pat
Email Address: [email protected] Subject: Lawton Development Public Comment
Re:
Lawton housing
I am against the latest versions of developments.
I believe it should include primarily Market rate housing, along with some version of supportive housing 1
in order that the Market profits be used to further support the City’s wider goals of Social Services. And
that those services could be provided city wide and in more convenient settings.
And the location is problematic to support any adequate transportation or supportive social services. 2
Nor do the current plans acknowledge the existing deficits that Magnolia experiences in Transportation,
Fire, Police, Education and other vital City services. 3
It would be a perfect site for a School to support Magnolia, Interbay and Queen Anne. 4
Thank you for noting my comments.
Pat
LETTER 660
From: Arthur R. Patterson
Subject: Affordable Ft. Lawton Housing
Hi Office of Housing folks!
more of our lower-income and formerly homeless neighbors can have access to stable, affordable
housing.
and housing insecurity that is afflicting Seattle and our entire region. The answer to homelessness is
housing.
Sincerely,
Arthur R. Patterson, Ballard Homeowner
LETTER 661
From: Jason A. Paul
Subject: Ft. Lawton development project input from a concerned resident.
Even as a Seattle native who empathizes with the struggle of homeless people, I cannot stand idly and
watch this threat to my family come to fruition.
I've been a tax-paying member of this community while working through college at the University of
Washington (I wasn't privileged into an ivy league school like Dartmouth) and have been working ever
since. The fruits of my efforts have afforded me two wonderful daughters and a house in Magnolia, just 1
one block from where you want to put the homeless.
As a parent, my #1 objective is keeping the family safe from all threats; specifically in this case, physical
and financial. It makes no difference to me if threats are foreign terrorists or an over-zealous local
department of housing.
Financially, I have seen the price of my house I committed to paying off for 30 years, double it's value in
the last seven years and I would like to see that growth continue. However I don't see that happening if
we are literally right next to a shelter. Even if my personal costs run into the 10s of thousands to protect
my investment, it is a small price to pay however I'd rather see this money going to something like
2
education instead of lawyers.
Please prove me wrong with facts showing that similar shelters in Seattle have zero impact on house
values.
More importantly, you threaten the physical well-being of my children. My two daughters Victoria 10
and Sophia 1, were a large reason we came to Magnolia and committed to a large debt in the first place.
A very safe environment for children. This is the reason I work hard everyday and pay my taxes. Why
do you want to damage this?
Please prove me wrong. Show me the statistics that prove living next to a shelter in Seattle is safer than 3
living next to a park/school/nothing.
So cards are on the table regarding why I will fight this threat. My mind is open if you have data to show
I am mistaken and this will not devalue our home and increase the probability of risk to my children.
If you don't like my personal argument against this proposal, how about a logistical one.
The reason people can't afford to live in Magnolia (or Seattle proper) is because it's very expensive. One
of the most expensive neighborhoods. We all have cars so living further than walking distance from
4
services is moot. With the exception of the high-end Metropolitan Market (where a single cookie costs
$5), there are no stores, drugstores or retail shops besides dry cleaners in walking distance. This
community was build with affluent professionals in mind. There are only two bus lines that come all the
4,
way out to Ft. Lawton. Will the residents have cars? How are you going to compensate for the deficit of
services?
cont.
I'm sure you have done extensive research on areas like Interbay (such as the pea patch and public golf
course) which are right along the bus lines and didn't qualify them as fit. Did your due diligence lead you
5
to neighborhoods where housing doesn't start at $750K and has services for the less affluent? Which
ones? Why were they disqualified?
Ft. Lawton is a place for families and after almost 50 years of living in this great city, I am committed to
the best resolution for my community; which is definitely not a homeless shelter in the back-yard of my 6
largest asset that may bring harm to my children.
Please contact me anytime if you would like to discuss.

Sincerely,
Jason A. Paul
(206)707-3513
LETTER 662
From: Todd Paulson
Subject: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project
I'm Opposed to the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project.
Not because I feel the homeless population would harm Magnolia and Discovery Park.
Not because I feel the homeless should make it on there own, I feel some just need a short term helping
hand. 1
Not because I think Urban camping is illegal and out of hand.
But because Magnolia is an Island! It has always been an island, before Interbay was filled in water
flowed all the way to Ballard.
There are only three bridges in and out of Magnolia that are already overcrowded and recently 2
compromised further by bike lanes.
The area proposed at discovery Park for housing is not close to any of the roads leading in or out of
Magnolia and is not supported by city buses unless they go into Discovery Park. Even if there was bus
service there are no stores close by for grocery shopping or any other personal needs.
3
Transient peoples have used the trestle bridge at the Hiram Locks to cross the canal at night and use the
locks and foot bridge during the day. I feel that would be greatly increased if housing was put in an area
without any way in or out. The risk of injury to someone would be greatly increased.
I don't know how it benefits people trying to make a better life for themselves if they have no access to
community services i.e. unemployment services or food banks or ways to look for employment. There is
very little opportunity for employment in Magnolia, they will be stuck in Magnolia and have no options
3,
but to stay on public assistance.
cont.
If you want to hide the homeless population I'm sure there are Islands in Puget Sound that are even
more isolating then Magnolia and would have the same effect.
Transferred by the federal government to the City of Seattle at no cost under the "Legacy of Parks"
program to create Discovery Park in 1972 and the remaining parcels given to the City of Seattle in 2005.
It is a rare opportunity to have a chance for such a beautiful park so close to a city core, it would be a
shame if we started developing it now.
Seattle had a chance for a world class downtown park free of charge with the land donated by Paul
Allen, that was turned down because the perceived loss of low income housing. Paul Allen having
bought the property for Seattle had no choice but to develop it, which has led to the unpredicted surge 4
in population growth and the housing problem in and around Seattle. Short sightedness has made the
problem worse not better.
The City of Seattle needs to learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them.
I was born in Seattle and I'm a sixty year resident, it saddens me to watch our local government slowly
destroy what was once one of the most beautiful city's in the world with short sightedness.
Sincerely,
Todd Paulson
LETTER 663
From: Dave Pearson
I have several issues with the Fort Lawton development, all which seem to be drowned out by
accusations of anti-homeless sentiment.
There are two options in the development proposal that include housing: one for low income, elderly,
and homeless individuals; and the other for market-rate properties. Both options are equally unpopular
with residents, and for largely the same reason: there is no plan to deal with the increase in demand for 1
services.
That low income, elderly, and homeless individuals require more services, only exacerbates the
problem.
Some points:
1) There has been no public plan described to address the need for transport services. There is
currently one bus route and two roads servicing the remote location. There are additional services 2
required by elderly people, for example, that have also not been committed.
2) Magnolia elementary schools have been at capacity for years, often at the legal maximum of 28
students per class. The opening of Magnolia Elementary will barely address the current demand, yet no 3
plan has been described to cater for additional pressure from residents in the new development. Middle
and High schools in the areas are similarly at capacity.
3) The city’s own guidelines for high density housing require that the re-zoned locations have
access to services, including transportation corridors. Fort Lawton is remote by surburban standards,
and more than 2 miles to arterial roads and mass transit options. What is the rationale for violating this
guideline? 4
It should be difficult to justify putting a large number of new residents into a remote location with no
plan for how to manage the increased demand for services. But this is what Magnolia residents face and
why we are upset that our concerns are not being addressed.
LETTER 664
From: Beatrice Peaslee
Hello,
I am a Seattle resident writing to express my support of the Fort Lawton redevelopment to create
affordable housing and to preserve the existing natural spaces in the park. Thanks for taking my opinion 1
into account.
Best,
Beatrice Peaslee
LETTER 665
From: Anna Pedroso
Subject: Comments on Fort Lawton Redevelopment
I just reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Project
and have decided to support Alternative 4 or No Action.
There is a serious issue with affordable housing in the city. Unlike other Magnolia residents, my opinion 1
has nothing to do with providing affordable housing to mixed income households or low-income. I just
don't support more development in a fragile ecosystem. I'm tired of sacrificing natural resources and
wildlife habitat to human encroachment. I'm tired of the earth paying for the poor planning decisions of
human beings.
I've also worked in land use consulting. For about three years, I worked on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement side and I know for a fact how information is tweaked to give these statements a 1,
pass. I don't believe that there are no significant adverse impacts to Earth, Air, Noise, Environmental
cont.
Health, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies and Recreation and Open Space. That's too many
"no significant adverse impacts" even with the mitigation measures provided.
The DEIS does identify likely permanent displacement of wildlife and I just cannot support that. At what
point does this stop?
Sincerely,
Anna Pedroso
3815 35th Ave. W.

Seattle, WA 98199
--
Anna Pedroso
[email protected]
US2011047651
LETTER 666
From: Casey Peel
Subject: Fort Lawton - please include affordable housing!
As a pseudo-neighbor in Queen Anne, I'm excited to see Fort Lawton being developed, and even more
excited for it to include affordable housing! Please keep affordable and low-income housing as part of 1
the development plan as this city so desperately needs it.
Thank you,
Casey Peel, 98109

LETTER 667
From: Gabe Pelly
Subject: N/A
Ms. Masters,
My name is Gabriel Pelly, I am a Seattle resident living at 802 NE 40th St.
I am emailing to voice my support for allocating the land at Fort Lawton to build affordable housing. The
evidence that market forces are crippling our housing supply are all around us, from skyrocketing rents 1
and home prices, to the shameful dislocation of the marginalized of our city.
This land grant offers a unique opportunity to make progress on an intractable issue. Seize it by building
publicly owned affordable housing to mitigate the overall cost of housing and keep our neighbors under
a roof.
Thank you,
Gabe Pelly
828-230-9274
LETTER 668
From: Melissa Pennington
Subject: In support of Fort Lawton housing
Hello!
I'm writing to express my overwhelming support, regarding the housing proposal/Fort Lawton option 1.
1
In fact, I would like to add that 200 units seems like a smaller step than could be accomplished with such
a large area available. 2
Thanks for your time and consideration on such an important matter.
- Melissa
LETTER 669
From: Aaron T. Perez
Subject: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment EIS: Preferred Alternative
I am writing in support for the Preferred Alternative. I believe there should be Affordable Housing at
Fort Lawton because the only real way to help with our homeless crisis is to have homes that they can 1
afford. The biggest problem we have is that people are being evicted from their apartments and losing
their homes.
One of the ways we build communities is by having affordable housing so we do not have citizens
worrying on a day to day basis where they are going to live; so kids can go to the same school year after
year, developing a sense of family and being a part of a neighborhood; It is important for families who
rent to also have place to add roots and grow just as much as it is for children lucky enough to be raised
in single family homes. After the affordable housing is built at Fort Lawton, it will be those developments
and the original families adjacent to it that will work hand in hand to build the community.
1,
There is an inherent inequality within some communities. This needs to be stopped so that all cont.
communities are accessible to people of all socioeconomic situations. I know that there are already
various apartments scattered in Magnolia. It's not impossible to rent there, people already do. And it's
not that they are ruining the community, they are already part of the community. I know that there is
land which can be an opportunity to house those citizens who are struggling most. We need to look
towards the future of our city, not just dwell on the past. Our city is not a city of single family homes. It
is a vibrant, thriving community built around diversity, equality and opportunity.
Best regards,
Aaron T. Perez
1418 20th ave
Seattle Wa. 98122
LETTER 670
From: Lynn Perry
Subject: I support the Ft Lawton affordable housing proposal
Hello,
I am writing to let you know that I very strongly support the affordable housing development at Ft
Lawton.
Seattle is in desperate need of affordable housing, what with all the development taking up other 1
affordable housing options and the number of people in our city. Plus, it only makes sense, given that
Seattle already has access to this land.
Let's make Seattle the flagship city, the biggest city in the country to solve homelessness! We have the
creativity and the gumption! We can do this!

LyP
C. Lynn Perry
[email protected]
LETTER 671
From: Abby E Peterson and Brent K Martin
Subject: Yes please
We would like to vote that Ft Lawton become a part of Discovery Park. 1
Abby E Peterson
Brent K Martin
LETTER 672
From: Eric Peterson
Subject: Lawton Plan
The meeting was front loaded with Your supporters, Magnolia residents trapped outside. You
1
individuals as well as the city are going to be sued!
LETTER 673
From: Kimberly Phan
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Kimberly Phan
[email protected]
23724 see 105th pl
Issaquah, Washington 98027
LETTER 674
From: Ethan Phelps-Goodman
Lindsay Masters,
Thank you.
Ethan Phelps-Goodman
[email protected]
LETTER 675
From: Shannon Phillips
I fully support the proposal to develop the Fort Lawton site for affordable housing. We need more
affordable housing in every neighborhood in Seattle. This is a good plan, especially as it will include 1
supportive services for residents with needs.
Thanks, Shannon Phillips
Seattle, WA 98112
LETTER 676
From: Susan G. Phinney
Subject: Fw: Fort Lawton
I recently attended part of the EIS public hearing regarding the above project. It was held at Magnolia
Church of Christ on January 9. I arrived early but was relegated to standing shoulder to shoulder in the
very back of the room. I only lasted about 40 minutes in this position before leaving. In short, the
1
meeting was ill planned with a bad sound system and inability to sit, or even move around.
This was my first encounter with the various proposals. I discussed your preferred proposal with
someone standing next to that easel before the meeting started. I assume he represented your agency. 2
This plan is mammoth - individual homes, apartments, and a "care" facility with 95 rooms, if I remember
correctly. I asked how many people would be living in this area and was told it was between 400 and
1,000 -- approximately.
2,
If you were to account for the number or people living in apartments and condos from the 3100 block of
West Government Way to the Ft Lawton entrance, I doubt if the number of occupants in this stretch of cont.
Government Way would be that high. In my building, for example. Out of 23 units only two are
occupied by couples. All the rest are single occupants.
Traffic on W. Government Way is already troublesome. Your proposed project would overwhelm it.
This area is never policed. Cars race up and down this street at all hours. The well-marked crosswalk is 3
ignored. Sludge trucks from West Point keep the roadway in shambles.
Where are these low income people supposed to shop for groceries. The only store within walking
distance is a Metropolitan Market with very high prices. They would have to walk and bus, or drive to 4
something more affordable.
It appears that the "care" facility would have to be staffed. I assume there would be food preparation 5
facilities employing even more staff. All the more traffic. And is this care facility to be home to addicts, 6
people with physical disabilities???
Please make this so-called "planned village" smaller. Why not work with Habitat for Humanity for a 7
neighborhood of individual homes or duplexes. And must you leave only one of the current buildings 8
standing? Why couldn't an existing building be used for a pre-school or something educational.
Please do everything possible to make this project less invasive and less populated. 9
LETTER 677
From: Owen Pickford
Hello Seattle OH,

I'm writing in support of the Fort Lawton affordable housing development. I think this is a great
opportunity for the city to expand it's affordable housing stock and place it in a neighborhood that 1
doesn't have much available now.
Additionally, I would like to see the city explore options to expand the number of units that could be
provided. Some options might include having market rate development that generates revenue for
subsidized units or long term land leases to projects that offer cooperative style housing.
2
Please proceed with this effort as quickly as possible and pursue as many total units, subsidized and
unsubsidized as possible.
Thank you,
Owen Pickford
LETTER 678
From: Cindy Pierce
I am a Magnolia resident of 19 years and my husband was born at Fort Lawton. We have a special place
in our hearts for that location. I am very concerned about the plan to move forward with low-
income/homeless housing.
Fort Lawton is a very unique piece of property. I would never want to see any kind of housing going up
there. The views belong to all of us, not just a few. That entire area should be developed for everyone
1
in Seattle. We should extend Discovery Park and include sports fields, educational buildings for all ages,
picnic areas, etc. I know that some of that would be included in the housing, but it will NEVER be the
same as long as you put in homes.
It so disappoints me to see this plan moving forward. I encourage you to stop and regroup to plan on
how we can all enjoy Fort Lawton. Housing is not the answer. Rents are declining as are vacancies for
apartments. Think outside the box before jumping into something that we will all regret later.
Thank you,
Cindy Pierce
LETTER 679
From: Natasha Pietila
Subject: Fort Lawton: please build affordable housing
To whomever this may concern:
I am writing to express enthusiastic support for the development of Fort Lawton as affordable housing.
As you are well aware, Seattle has been experiencing housing and affordability crises for many years. It
is horrifying that well over 11,000 of our community neighbors are without homes and that a large
percentage of that group are children. Our rapid rehousing and transitional housing programs are only
as effective as we make them and since we have a significant housing shortage these programs are
largely ineffective. Meanwhile, thousands of people move to Seattle monthly. While it is wonderful that
our community is expanding, the housing market is heavily biased towards those with higher incomes
1
and so greater numbers of our community members experience displacement and housing instability.
This is a system, a system of artificial scarcity. Yes, we have limited developable land (and we
desperately need to rezone the city) but we also can choose as a city to prioritize the immediate, urgent
needs of our community; foremost of which is safety and without housing we are creating a violent
community for everyone.
I recognize that some community members argue in favor of turning Fort Lawton into a summer camp
for kids, a playground, or claim that an affordable housing development here would be akin to an
"internment camp". These requests and statements however demonstrate deeply alarming classism and
1,
racism. Summer camps operate out of many other locations already, we already have many play
structures, and to compare this proposal for affordable housing to internment camps is a disgraceful
cont.
demonstration of white supremacy and ignorance of history. Seattle claims to be a progressive city and
it would be exciting to see it put action to aspiration. If not now, when?
Sincerely,
Natasha Pietila
MSW Candidate, University of Washington Seattle resident since 2013
LETTER 680
From: Elisa Pittner
Subject: yes, housing for the homeless at Fort Lawton
yes please, move this proposal for housing the homeless at Fort Lawton forward. everyone deserves a
place in our community, particularly these most vulnerable people. 127 homeless people died on the
streets of Seattle in 2017. this project would help mitigate that number. Seattle has spent enough tax 1
dollars on things that don't improve the lives of the most vulnerable - or any lives for that matter (stop
the frivolous parklets). homeless communities, when done well, do NOT have a negative impact on the
moneyed neighbors who live in irrational fear of such things. earmark my taxes for support of this
project.
thanks,
Elisa Pittner
9126 45th Ave SW #B
Seattle, WA 98136
LETTER 681
From: John Platt
Subject: Plan for Fort Lawton: more park, less housing
Hi:
Please add my to the list of people who are in favor of a plan to keep adding to Discovery Park. If the
Army is done with some land at Fort Lawton, let's add it to the park. I am not in favor of developing (any 1
more of) Discovery Park nor Fort Lawton land for any kind of housing.
For what it is worth, I do have a different idea for low income/homeless housing. I would be happy to 2
share it if you would like to contact me.
John Platt
206-972-2844
LETTER 682
From: DeAnna Poling
I am in favor of the for rent and for sale housing for Fort Lawton. We need diverse housing in our 1
neighborhoods.
LETTER 683
From: Ira Pollock
Subject: Ft. Lawton Housing
I'm emailing to support the construction of affordable housing and homeless service on the Ft Lawton
property. It's just unbelievable that anyone would oppose this plan. This is precisely what the city needs
to be doing and it is egregious that past attempts have been shot down. Property owners have seen
their home values, and resultant personal wealth, skyrocket at the expense of Seattle's tenants and
homeless; those in Magnolia can afford to see this city property in their neighborhood be developed for
the collective good of the city. If the city lets this proposal die, it will be a blight on their record and 1
show that they aren't serious about tackling the housing crisis. It will show that the wealth of well-off
property owners is worth more to city officials than the health, well-being, and dignity of our more
vulnerable residents and tenants. It's inexcusable of those homeowners to oppose this plan, and anyone
with a modicum of civic duty can see that. Please proceed full steam ahead.
LETTER 684
From: Bonnie Porter
Subject: The Fort Lawton Development plan
I am a Magnolia resident and am deeply disturbed by the proposed Fort Lawton development plan. I
understand the need for affordable housing but I have the following concerns:
1) There is not NEARLY enough capacity for children in the Seattle Public Schools for the children in this
neighborhood currently (speaking as a mom of 5 children). How are you possibly going to support
additional children? Why not use the land for a school instead? This is a dire need for the children of
1
Magnolia and Queen Anne!
2) There is not infrastructure to support all these additional housing units - roads, police, mass transit.
2
My family currently uses mass transit and we know the limitations that exist. I can’t imagine what it
would be like with all these additional homes! Also, with the additional crime that we have had in
3
Magnolia, there have not been police resources to adequately manage what we have. Are there going
to be police and fire resources to manage these additional homes? 4
PLEASE, I beg you, PLEASE, re-consider the proposal and vote against multi housing units as proposed.
Kindest regards,
Mrs. Bonnie Porter
LETTER 685
From: Bonnie Porter
Subject: The article you wrote in the Queen Anne publication
Dear Ms. Bagshaw,

I was very distressed to read your recent article in the Queen Anne publication. I am a Magnolia
resident and disagree VEHEMENTLY with proposal 1 or 2 of the current Fort Lawton proposal. We do
not currently have the infrastructure in place to deal with the problems we have in Magnolia (bridges,
police, etc) nor the schools for our current children. Option 3 or 4 are the only ones acceptable to me. I 1
attended a Land Use meeting at the Magnolia Library this past week and it appeared the overwhelming
consensus of Magnolia RESIDENTS have concerns about high density zoning and this Fort Lawton
development. I believe that bringing in an Urban Planner would be prudent and and actually giving the
**residents** of Magnolia a vote in this matter would also be fair. I understand the homeless crisis is at
an all-time high... doesn’t it make more sense to remodel empty buildings on Aurora Avenue that 2
already have access to Metro bus routes than build new houses in Discovery Park that has limited bus
routes and no schools? Catharine Blaine is at capacity, Ballard is at capacity... How are you going to 3
solve this AFTER the Fort Lawton development is built?
You do not have the support of the Magnolia community for Alternative 1 or 2 of the Fort Lawton 4
proposal.
Kindest regards,
Mrs. Bonnie Porter
LETTER 686
From: Mark Porter
Subject: Comments of Ft Lawton Development
Dear Seattle City Council,

I am strongly against all 4 options presented, and would be happy to speak at any forum to explain why.
The discussion is somewhat astonishing. Ignoring for the moment any bias of any party, Magnolia simply
does not have the infrastructure to support 258, 1000, or 2000 units. The roads are congested, the 1
bridges are deteriorating. Why add 1,000-5,000 more people to that problem? In addition, as I explain
below, the proposed solutions don’t even solve the stated problem.
Magnolia residents are already being asked to bus their children out of the area for school- all while
multiple buildings (Blaine and the old school on the East Magnolia hill) are falling apart or already 2
condemned.
Why are shortsighted people trying to make this problem worse? I can only presume because elitist
Seattle-downtown people want to push the Homeless problem to somewhere they can’t see it. Shame 3
on them! We all bear a responsibility to help people lift themselves up by their town bootstraps, not
push them away.
The most correct choice is to preserve and grow the limited park land in Magnolia (Discovery Park is an
asset to all of Seattle, not just the so-called “Magnolians”) if we can. And if Seattle doesn’t have the
4
stomach for that right now, let’s at least not make a choice we will regret so a couple developers and a
couple City Council members can be rich and successful respectively.
The second best choice would be to expand school infrastructure in this area. While not optimum from a
location point of view, Magnolia families would be able to drop their children at school nearby their
homes, and many students would be able to bus or walk to school. Put 1,000 families in Ft. Lawton and 5
you have 1,000+ kids trying to get out of Magnolia to get to school every day and then get back in. Put
the school in Magnolia. Create job for Magnolia residents in Magnolia. Create a healthy, self-contained
community, not a suburb.
No matter what choice we make for Ft. Lawton, let’s take care of our friends and neighbors and uncles
and daughters who are in low-/no-income situations as best we can, Let’s provide low-income and
affordable housing closest to where people need it most - on or near Aurora avenue. Good bus routes.
Good jobs. High density housing and easy access to services.
This discussion feels like a manipulated farce brought by developers who wish to get rich at the expense 6
of all Seattle-ites of all income levels and locales, and Talaris is no better. I have lived my life in locations
from Los Angeles to Denver to North Carolina and watched special interests destroy communities in all
of those places. Let’s be different.
Let’s bring the voice of democracy and reason to this discussion, build affordable housing downtown
near the jobs people need, and do something in Magnolia that we won’t regret for the next 100 years.
Mark Porter
[email protected]
+1-919-360-4913
LETTER 687
From: Mary Jo Porter
Subject: Fort Lawton EIS Comments
Strongly favor Alternative 1 with the maximum new affordable housing.
Seattle is in desperate need of more housing so that seniors can (continue to) live in the city, without
being forced out, so that families with children can afford to live in the city, and so that people who
work in the city at low-wage jobs can afford to live in the city. And we desperately need to SOLVE our
homelessness problem, it is an absolute disgrace.
1
We all pay the price when people are forced to live on the streets and in temporary shelters, and when
people are forced to live further and further from their jobs and must spend vast amounts of time to
commute, in addition to the very high public and private costs to support that travel.
Mary Jo Porter
Seattle, WA
LETTER 688
From: Alan and Karen Potter
Subject: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment DEIS
Dear Ms. Masters,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment
DEIS.
The Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center area should be incorporated in its entirety into Discovery Park for
the sole use as a public park. If comments are be limited to choosing one of the Alternatives listed in the
DEIS then we would support development of the entire site as a public park, and construction of 1
homeless and affordable housing at an off-site location (#3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable and
Homeless Housing Offsite). Incorporating the Reserve Center into Discovery Park would be in agreement
with a Discovery Park Master Plan goal of providing open space for current and future generations. If
additional Alternatives may be proposed, then we would be willing to evaluate Public Park Onsite
including Parks Dept. offices and/or equipment maintenance facilities, sports fields or an Outdoor 2
Learning Center.
The City Council should engage the Department of Parks and Recreation to supervise any
3
Redevelopment. Parks should acknowledge that the Discovery Park Master Plan is to guide their
management. The Council should immediately cease involving the City of Seattle Office of Housing in the
Redevelopment and should remove their appalling parenthetical phrase “Applicant’s Preferred
4
Alternative” in the DEIS description of Alternative 1. Given the mission of the Office of Housing it is
difficult to envision them not favoring developing housing, however misguided.
In spite of excuses and protestations we hold the City Council ultimately responsible for permitting the
former Officer’s Row and Montana Circle areas of Discovery Park to pass into private hands. The Council 5
must seize this opportunity to mitigate that unfortunate event by incorporating the Reserve Center into
the Park.
Sincerely,
Alan Potter & Karen Ford
4338 36th Ave W
Seattle WA 98199
LETTER 689
From: Sarah Power
Subject: Opposition to Discovery Park affordable housing plan
We are Magnolia residents. We support providing housing for our city’s homeless population – but
question the wisdom of placing this housing in an isolated location, far from access to health care,
affordable groceries and social services. We ask you to please consider the practical ramifications of
placing people without resources into an environment that is isolated from all public resources. A park
is not enough. These people need doctors, hospitals, access to affordable groceries, access to public
1
transportation, access to social services and governmental field offices – and none of these are remotely
convenient from the very northwest tip of the city, even if you have a car. Metropolitan Market is
literally one of the most expensive grocery stores in the state. The problem of homeless people is very
real and very compelling – but they deserve a real chance at making an affordable life, not just an
affordable apartment that is completely out of step with its surroundings.
Additionally, as a mother of small children, I share the common Magnolia resident fears of increased
crime, enhanced police presence, escalating social tension and an unsafe environment for my children
by introducing populations that are under privileged, and now under served and isolated from the
resources they need.
2
Finally, as a Seattleite, I question whether creating the potential for Discovery Park to become littered
with syringes like our homeless encampments and highway overpasses is responsible environmental
stewardship of the park. How could we possibly ensure that the park remains a safe and beautiful place,
preserved in accordance with our city’s environmental values?
Please consider the practicalities of this plan before taking steps that marginalize our environmental
resources, our safety and our homeless populations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sarah Power, CFP®

Senior Vice President
Baird Private Wealth Management
925 4th Avenue Suite 3600
Seattle WA 98104
Phone (206) 664-8884
Fax (206) 470-3512
LETTER 690
From: Albert H. Powers
I am totally opposed to adding more housing of any kind to the Fort Lawton property. Seattle has a
world class natural forest/park and detracting anything from that concept by allowing housing is short
sighted.
1
A public use as a new High School site for Magnolia/Queen Anne I could understand, but Simply
crowding more houses and/or apartments into a unique gives up irreplaceable
Ambiance.
Albert H. Powers. 5800 40 th ave. west. Seattle
LETTER 691
From: Harold Pratt
Subject: Comments of Fort Lawton Redevelopment DEIS
I am strongly in favor of the city pursuing Alternative 1 for the Fort Lawton redevelopment. While I love
Seattle’s parks, given the current housing crisis, using real estate like Ft. Lawton for additional parkland
would be unconscionable, and so I am opposed to alternative 3.
1
I prefer Alternative 1 over alternative 2 because, first, of the zoning changes it requires (I am in favor of
up-zoning everything!). Second, while the Ft. Lawton site isn’t an urbanist’s ideal spot in terms of
density, transit, walkability, etc…, I think there’s value in first, of all, providing an option for citizens who
need affordable or supportive housing to live in the neighborhood of their choice, and secondly, I think
there’s value in having such housing be spread all across the city. Diversity is a good thing! That said, if
there were a way to integrate this development into Rapid Ride, it would be really nice, but that’s
probably impossible due to geography & physics. I also wish it were possible to build fewer parking 2
spots, but given the relatively poor transit options available, that is likely unrealistic. Alas.
- Harold Pratt
LETTER 692
From: Meredith Preston
Subject: Ft. Lawton Re-Development- From a Magnolia Resident
Hello,
I am writing to strongly urge the city to not use Discovery Park as a low income housing site.I live in 1
Magnolia and this plan would have a direct negative impact on my family's life (and our property value).
Discovery Park is one of the only large parks in Seattle with hiking trails and views of it's kind. It already
has tents and homeless sleeping in the park along with drug paraphernalia left behind. It would be a
2
shame to open this beautiful space that holds so much natural beauty to people that would respect the
natural environment and use it for illicit activity.
The resources in Magnolia are extremely limited for this group of people. The bus lines are not efficient, 3
the health and (in-expensive) retail options are limited. The nearest store is a luxury grocer.
I think the people that would be benefiting from this type of housing need care beyond housing which
this plan does not encompass. I don't see plans for rehab, counselling, job training or anything like that 4
at all.
With low income housing comes crime. Magnolia only has ONE squad car patrolling at any given time. 5
This is not enough support from our police force if a plan like this takes action.
Low income programs need services that go beyond housing. Until this plan encompasses that I would
6
strongly urge the city to not consider Discovery Park as it's trash can.
- Concerned MAGNOLIA Resident
LETTER 693
From: Elizabeth Pring
Subject: PRO: Build Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Hello!
I'm emailing in my capacity as a 6 year Seattle resident, young professional in a non-tech field, and a
recent UW graduate. I think it's critical to utilize the space of Fort Lawton for affordable housing. I grew
up in Vancouver, WA in subsidized housing where mainly refugee and immigrant families could afford to
live in the area. It was a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of 7. My parents, with enough time and with
1
other social services, were able to buy a home later in my life. However, this was in due part because of
their ability to live in an area where their kids went to decent schools and an area close to work.
I'm lucky to be paid a salary where I can afford to live in Seattle.

But 1) I'm a college graduate and 2) a 23-year old with no dependents.
Seattle should not be a place for just tech professionals, nor for college educated individuals. It should
also be a place for people like my mom and dad-- hard working people that worked full time but STILL
are unable to afford living in the area.
1,
Please strongly consider using the space for Fort Lawton. As an avid walker, I enjoy the beautiful parks cont.
Seattle has (Discovery and Gasworks being my top two favorite), but there is an opportunity to use this
space for housing. As a city, we need to utilize this opportunity.
Best,
Elizabeth
LETTER 694
From: Gayle A. Puccinelli
Subject: Fort Lawton Draft EIS Comments
Gayle A. Puccinelli
4815 Gilman Avenue West Seattle, WA 98199
January 29, 2018

Lindsay Masters
City of Seattle Office of Housing PO Box 94725

I am a property owner and neighbor adjacent to the Fort Lawton property. I reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Fort Lawton redevelopment and am submitting my
comments.
FOR THE RECORD: I strongly support Alternative #3 to turn the land into more desperately needed open
space/park land due to the significant influx of people to the greater Seattle area.
1
Specifically the DEIS is flawed in that:
1) I believe that the redevelopment proposal of Fort Lawton (Alternative #1) is not consistent with
the Discovery Park Master Plan.
2) Transportation issues were not properly addressed as to the impact on the community.
Magnolia is a peninsula --- maybe more a kin to an island considering the railroad and ravine. There are
3 bridges giving access to the entire neighborhood that are already congested. No study was addressed
regarding the access points, let alone when any are in need of restoration. Even if these access points 2
had been studied, Emerson and Dravus accesses have drastically changed with the recent reduction in
traffic lanes in exchange for bicycle lanes. Only studying the few intersections at Fort Lawton is not
addressing the actual transportation problems that this community already deals with everyday.
3) Identification of proper services was not addressed. The location is isolated from urban services 3
needed for affordable housing. Schools, sports facilities, stores, etc. were not properly scoped.
4) To fill some of the proposed housing with people who need case managers for crises
intervention, chemical dependency treatment, mental health services, is just plain negligent in a well
established family neighborhood, not to mention the low-income family housing being proposed directly 4
adjacent to it.
5) Alternative Sites sited are not legitimate. With the sale of the Talaris property to Quadrant
Homes, no actual alternative site was ever identified, let alone studied.
5
6) Public meetings...these were a farce. I attended all 3. The venues were too small. There was no
open mic forum, preventing answers to the public’s questions to be heard by all. Meeting number 3 was
an absolute joke. The venue was smaller than the venues for the first 2 meetings in which there had
been standing room only. For the final meeting, the organizers imported pro- Alternative #1 speakers,
that arrived way before the posted meeting time, filled up the sign-up sheet to speak, and crowded out
the majority of Magnolians, so much so that they could not even get access into the venue, but rather
were left standing out on the sidewalk. The various media stations were on hand, so as to file their 6
reports of how the community was overwhelmingly in favor of the city’s redevelopment proposal, which
I believe is false. With very few exceptions, most of the comments were delivered by those not from the
affected neighborhood. Of those comments, many stood to gain from low-cost housing. However, many
who were in attendance and favoring the redevelopment would gain financially from the city coffers via
the work awarded to develop the land and build the housing. They have no interest in this neighborhood
outside of the financial gain to their own bottom lines.
Again, my feeling is that the best interest of this land is to create more, and much needed, park land and
open space for the mass migration of people that is happening and that is reported to continue (i.e.
Expedia). If the property were to be developed, it would serve only a few private interests, that being a 7
few developers and a few low-income people or individuals in crises. Instead, if incorporated into
Discovery Park, it is land that would be available to all of the people of Seattle, and not just Magnolians,
for public use.
Sincerely,
Gayle A. Puccinelli
LETTER 695
From: John Putre
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Project
Hi There,
I think the Fort Lawton redevelopment is a critical part of making Seattle affordable for everyone!
Magnolia and every other traditionally single family Seattle neighborhood needs to start taking on new 1
density to drive down prices. Thank you for fighting to make this a reality!
Johnathon
LETTER 696
From: Amanda Qu
Subject: Build more affordable housing at Ft. Lawton
Dear Lindsay Masters and leadership of the city of Seattle:

I support building affordable housing on the Ft. Lawton site, and furthermore urge you to add as many 1
additional units to the site as possible. As a concerned citizen and community member, I have seen
firsthand the numbers of people pushed to the streets in Seattle because of the severe lack of
affordable housing in this city.
This is a crisis that must be addressed soon and aggressively. The 34-acre site at Ft. Lawton can hold
thousands of units that will ensure everyone in this city--my city, and your city--is safe, sheltered, and 2
secure.
In the face of Seattle's housing crisis, it is unconscionable for the city to further delay building housing at
this site. Please move us forward by building as many affordable units at Ft. Lawton as possible, and as
soon as possible.
Best,
Amanda Qu
LETTER 697
From: Greg Quetin
Subject: Support Fort Lawton Affordable Housing
Hello,
As a Columbia City resident, I write in support of affordable housing at Fort Lawton, and through out our
city. I believe the city's current plan is an absolute minimum and that there could easily be more homes 1
built on this site which is close to parks and transit. In order to avoid displacement, welcome people to
our city, and address climate change Seattle MUST build more dense and affordable housing.
Thank you,
Greg
LETTER 698
From: Jamal Raad
Subject: Affordable Housing in Ft. Lawton
Greetings,
I'm a Magnolia resident, and I wanted to voice my support for developing affordable housing at the Ft.
Lawton site. This seems like a no-brainer. Please proceed as swiftly as possible. Seattle needs more, and 1
more affordable housing to meet the demand and keep folks off the street.
Sincerely,
Jamal Raad
LETTER 699
From: Thomas Rakes
Lindsay Masters,
In a 2017 presentation about affordable housing, Capitol Hill Housing reported that "Every day between
2010 and 2015, Seattle grew by 49 jobs, 40 people, and 12 homes". The Fort Lawton Project, as
proposed in Alternative 1, will lead to 238 homes, 84 earmarked as senior supportive apartments for
formerly homeless seniors and 100 as affordable rental units. The Environmental Impact Statement
states that the Fort Lawton project will have a 7 year build out period with completion anticipated in
2025. This is a drop in the bucket, a miniscule fraction of the units needed to solve Seattle's
humanitarian crisis. According to the 2017 Count Us In Survey, we have 8,522 Seattleites who are
unhoused. 11,643 if we expand it to King County. In 2017, 133 of our unhoused Cascadian brothers and 1
sisters in King County died - as reported by the Seattle Times. These numbers - both the number of
human beings forced into homelessness and dying as a result are rising because housing is tragica lly
seen as a commodity to profit from rather than as human right to guarantee and protect.
To block affordable housing in this emergency is to perpetuate this brutal class war, this slaughter of the
most vulnerable, on our own people. If the 133 human beings who died on our streets last year had
been members of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, would the city of Seattle really show
the same lack of urgency? Would the city of Seattle make the same excuses about its financial position?
To respond "yes" is the answer of a psychopath, but to respond "no" is the answer of a classist. The only
good answer to the question is not in words, but in deeds. Build the tens of thousands of units needed 2
to house our city's growing population. Don't let the capitalists profit off this emergency - have the city
build, or at least own, the produced housing. Have the properties be publicly owned, but individually
controlled by the occupant. Have rent rates at the "what you can pay" level for N1 units, subsidized
rental rates for N2 30-50% AMI units, less subsidized ren tal rates for N3 50-80% AMI units, and enough
N4 market-rate units to ensure financial viability of the Fort Lawton Project without relying on future
taxpayer funding injections once the project is completed. Do not fear the construction of thousands of
units at Fort Lawton! Instead, fear the deaths of thousands of your unhoused Cascadian brothers and
3
sisters across King County at the hands of a cold and unmoved government.
We need to end homelessness and displacement through the creation of publicly owned mixed income
communities that are safe, close work and educational opportunities, and well serviced by public transit.
This is the job. Get it done. It is important to get community buy in on the building designs in order to
ensure urban beauty, but no community has any right to refuse construction of affordable housing units
to maintain the status quo during a humanitarian crisis. Now is not the time to cower; now is the time to
fight. Let's do this, let's do this right, and let's do this now.
Regards,
Thomas Rakes
PS: here's the Seattle Times article with the body count.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/deaths-rise-amid-growing-homelessness-crisis-
in-king-county/
Thomas Rakes
[email protected]
4545 8th Ave NE apt 217, Seattle, Washington 98105
LETTER 700
From: Jane Rall
Hi,
My family and I have lived in Magnolia since 2013. We moved her for the quiet, not overly crowded, safe
neighborhood. And we love it.
I understand the need for more affordable housing but placing it next to a beautiful untouched park that
everyone is Seattle enjoys concerns me. I worry that residents will disrupt the environment, wildlife and 1
the park itself. I really fear the city is putting Discovery Park at risk.
Also, these individuals will not be close to ANY goods and services. The closest grocery store to this
location is Metropolitan Market. I do not know how low income individuals are suppose to afford
groceries there, it is already expense for a lot of people. The bus system in Magnolia is not great either.
It just does not make since to stick a group of individuals who rely on help from other individuals and 2
organizations out in the woods. I understand there is room at this site, however the location just does
not make logical sense. There is nowhere to even walk and I assume many of these people do not have
cars or reliable transportation.
Magnolia is a lovely neighborhood and it continues to get more and more crowded. Since we have lived
3
here traffic on Dravus and the bridge has increased significantly. Adding more people in Magnolia and
not factoring in how that is going to affect everyone is poor planning.
Schools - has the city any plan for the influx of children to our schools in Magnolia if this goes through? 4
Safety is another major problem. We are already battling car break ins, burglars, package and car thefts.
Adding more individuals who are more prone to such behaviors in Magnolia does not help. Why fill a 5
family neighborhood and park where kids play with unsafe people?!!!! As a mother, I would be afraid to
take my kids to the park.
If I am being honest, I do not believe it is right not put low income housing next to million dollar homes -
it is totally ridiculous. There is a reason those homes cost so much, people are paying up for privacy,
quiet, neighborhood, safety. Yes it might seem unfair but we pay for what we have! We work hard so we
can live in a nice neighborhood, not so we can live among low income housing.
6
Leave Magnolia and Discovery Park alone! We all pay so so much in taxes and it would be wise not to
upset us. And we will continue to vote to get this city council out!! Enough is enough! You are on track
to ruining our neighborhood.
LETTER 701
From: Jane Rall
Option 3 to build a public park in Fort Lawton and utilize already existing facilities at Talaris makes sense.
Talaris already has housing set up onsite and large meeting areas perhaps for communal activities
(exercise classes for seniors, counseling, social work, after school care onsite for families, etc) waking 1
distance to multiple affordable goods and services as well as better access to the Metro bus, close to I-5,
520, UW and Children's Hospital.
I believe adding a public park at fort Lawton would enhance Discovery Park and be a great addition. 2
Maybe the park could include some history about the site.
LETTER 702
From: Heather Ralph
Subject: Please use Fort Lawton for low income housing
Dear government,
a place to live in Seattle. Let's accept Fort Lawton from the federal government to create desperately
1
Sincerely,
Heather Ralph
910 17th ave E
Seattle, WA 98112
LETTER 703
From: Maya Ramakrishnan
Subject: Fort Lawton Housing Project

I'm writing to express my support for the housing project at Fort Lawton. I know people are concerned
about the impact on Discovery Park; I grew up in Seattle and love Discovery Park, and I understand
people are afraid of our city's gems being "ruined." I do not think Discovery Park will be ruined by the
1
presence of 238 units at Fort Lawton, and I think that since our city is experiencing a housing and
homelessness crisis, using unused buildings to create homes is just common sense. I love thinking about
low and moderate income families living within walking distance to one of the most beautiful parks we
have. It could be a really wonderful place to grow up.
Best wishes,
Maya Ramakrishnan
506 E Howell St #206, Seattle, WA 98122
LETTER 704
From: Kevin Ramsey
I am a Seattle resident and frequent visitor to Discovery Park. I believe that new affordable housing 1
would be an excellent addition to the area while helping to address an urgent city-wide need for more
affordable housing. My only complaint is that the number of units is so low, given the size of the
property and the rareness of this opportunity for the city. Please consider ways to maximize the amount
2
of units in this project so that more low income residents and families can benefit.
Thank you.
Kevin Ramsey
LETTER 705
From: Erin Rants
Dear Seattle City Council Members,

I have worked with people experiencing homelessness for years. Never has there been a time when so
many people are sleeping outside. The City's preferred solution to homelessness is building affordable
housing. Building affordable housing for people who are homeless and at or below 30% of median
income will help to fill the great need. Fort Lawton is a wonderful place to do this.
I know that you will get letters from Magnolia residents telling you that another part of town should get 1
this housing - and they are partially right. Magnolia should have low-income housing at Fort Lawton.
My neighborhood, Queen Anne, also needs low-income housing. Maple Leaf, Green Lake, Phinney
Ridge...please use all opportunities to build low-income housing, starting with Fort Lawton.
Thank you,
Erin Rants
201 W. Olympic Place #106 Seattle, WA 98119
206-605-7585
LETTER 706
From: Anton Rapo
Why doesn't the city sell the land for development of upscale housing? The land would be very
valuable. The city could then use the proceeds of the sale to purchase many more acres of land in a less 1
desirable neighborhood and could afford to build even more units of affordable housing.
It is incorrect to view the land as free. It is valuable and that should be factored into the cost of
developing affordable housing there. Resources would be better used building housing in a less 2
expensive location with better public transit access.
LETTER 707
From: Dorothy Rasener
Subject: Ft Lawton and Discovery Park
Please, please, please preserve and expand our beautiful Discovery Park!
With upzoning plans that will make our neighborhoods feel increasingly like inner city, rather than
neighborhoods, what could be better than a lovely city park that supports recreation and the natural
1
development of wildlife. I would love to see the old housing removed and the park increased. Seattle
has always been known as a beautiful city of green ( The Emerald City), but I see the green slowly
disappearing, or at least hidden behind tall buildings. Let’s keep our city uniquely beautiful.
Further, it seems housing would feel isolated and what public transportation would be available for 2
residents.
As a resident of Magnolia, I’m closer and closer to leaving my neighborhood, and quite possibly the
Seattle area altogether. I’m hoping to continue to be proud of living in a city with natural beauty 3
integrated throughout.
Best regards,
Dorothy Rasener
LETTER 708
From: Rachel Ravitch
Subject: Ft. Lawton Affordable Housing
Hello,
I cannot believe any other options for this land are even being considered given the desperate need for
affordable housing in Seattle. We need thousands of affordable housing units NOW. These kinds of
public comment opportunities are a ridiculous display of neighborhood NIMBYs and real estate
developers. This land must be used to build affordable housing for the city’s most vulnerable, not just
slightly below market rate. We have a duty to assess our city’s needs based on evidence and fact, not
suspicion and hear-say. Tonight’s public commentary should be a lecture to present factual evidence as 1
to why affordable housing is our responsibility to provide to our citizens. As a city that contains some of
the wealthiest companies and individuals in the world, the housing and homelessness crisis is
inexcusable. Any community that blocks affordable housing is directly contributing to the crisis we have
labeled a state of emergency. I hope you make the right choice based on our city’s factual needs in spite
of “neighborhood” commentary that you may receive tonight.
Many Thanks,
Rachel
LETTER 709
From: Annie Raymond
I'm writing in support of the city creating homeless and affordable housing options at Fort Lawton. We
1
need housing options at all income levels more than ever in this city.
Regards,
Annie Raymond
LETTER 710
From: Kim Raymoure
"Hello! I'd love to add my voice to the many neighbors who want to see more affordable housing built in
Fort Lawton. And I was at the Town Hall for our WA state congress district last weekend, and it sounds
like as soon as they find a compromise on the water rights issues, the budget will likely have $5m to 1
reopen Magnolia Elementary School, which will help relieve pressure around large elementary
classroom concerns.
Thank you for your service to the city!
-Kim Raymoure, 98119.”
LETTER 711
From: Helen Read
I’m writing to strongly urge the decision makers here in Seattle to do all they can to increase the number
of affordable housing units.
It’s been almost a year and a half since our former mayor declared Seattle’s homelessness situation an 1
emergency.
We need to do all we can to make housing here in Seattle more affordable and more accessible.
Thank you for your work,
Helen
PS I first moved to Seattle in 1991 and was fortunate to be able to buy a house in the Central District in
’93. My heart goes out to all the
folks who have moved to our fair city in the last 10-15 years and have not been able to buy a house
like me.
LETTER 712
From: Whitney Rearick
Greetings -
I'm thrilled that affordable housing is going in at Fort Lawton - I only wish there were more units!
1
I'd like to see the EIS evaluate the impact of NOT building affordable housing there - likely without
housing there, more people would be forced to move to the suburbs, and into a car-based lifestyle. This 2
would have a much more detrimental impact on the environment than building housing at Fort Lawton.
I'd also like to advocate for a mix of uses (grocery stores, restaurants, etc) to support the families living 3
in the Fort Lawton area.
Thanks -
Whitney
LETTER 713
From: Simha Reddy
As someone who cares for homeless Veterans, I see daily the human toll that our community's lack of
affordable housing takes. 1
I am in favor of the proposed plan to build affordable housing at the Fort Lawton site, and anywhere
else in Seattle.
Yours
Simha Reddy MD
206-384-9053
3556 S Hudson St
Seattle WA 98118
LETTER 714
From: Leslie Reed
Subject: Fort Lawton. +1 to add to Discovery Park
Writing to add my vote to please add the Fort Lawton parcel to Discovery Park. I live in Magnolia near 1
the park at 39th and Emerson. 3646 39th Avenue West. Thank you for taking our feedback.
LETTER 715
From: Irene Reep
Subject: Irene Reep says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

region.
-The project plan and the DEIS should include an alternative with much higher density, comparable to
-For each alternative, the DEIS needs to consider and compare, over the lifetime of the buildings, the
single-car commutes and high-carbon lifestyle if working people are pushed outside the city – the
3
-For the affordable ownership housing (Habitat for Humanity), the Habitat deed restriction should
-If the site is ultimately developed at the very low density of 238 units on 7.3 acres, building plans should
as much as possible allow for additional buildings or increased height to be accommodated on the site in 5
the future.
We have the technological and financial ability to have affordable housing and a big dent in the
homelessness and environmental crises in Seattle and environs. Now we need the imagination and will
7
of the Seattle City government to make it happen.
Sincerely yours,
Irene Reep
LETTER 716
From: Joni Reeves
I am a resident of Magnolia, near Fort Lawton. I am opposed to the development at FLARC and I have
some comments about the Draft EIS for the Fort Lawton Redevelopment:
Inaccurate Description of Supportive Housing

scoping meeting, city representatives at public meetings, and Steve Walker of the Office of Housing
stated that the supportive permanent housing would not be limited to seniors or veterans. He stated 1
that the housing would only "target" seniors as well as veterans of any age.
The DEIS fails to accurately describe the supportive housing and has been misleading when discussing
the actualities of who these tenants can and will be. The EIS should clearly identify the population
served by the supportive housing.
Flawed Alternatives at the Talaris Site

The DEIS states that the Talaris site is provided in order to conceptually analyze probable adverse
impacts.... and that Additional more detailed SEPA review of the Talaris site, or another off-site location,
would be required should that or another site ultimately be selected for the affordable and formerly
homeless housing.
The State Environmental Policy Act Handbook states For public projects, alternative project sites should 2
also be evaluated. An example that is only conceptual, as noted with Talaris in the DEIS, does not meet
the definition of an alternative project site and is not a reasonable alternative. The City has shown no
intent to build affordable housing at Talaris. he City does not own Talaris and has not made an attempt
to purchase it. In fact, the Seattle Times reported on January 19, 2018 that there is an agreement for
Quadrant Homes to purchase the site for market rate homes. Alternatives #2 and #3 are not bonafide,
feasible, or reasonable.
Laurelhurst community. The City did not send out scoping notices, solicit comments, or hold meetings 3
reasonable alternatives that meet the stated objectives of the project. The DEIS is incomplete without 4
example rather than actual feasible alternatives that could be selected.
Underestimated Cumulative Growth Effects
Page 3.10-4 states there is little growth from new development expected in the immediate vicinity.
Currently, legislation is proceeding which will significantly increase population density in the vicinity as
well as the City as a whole. The effects of the implementation of Mandatory Housing Affordability
zoning changes and changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations have not been adequately
5
addressed in the Draft EIS. Specifically, future development of the Interbay corridor and Expedia
headquarters will also significantly impact transportation and public services. The analysis in the DEIS
underestimates the effects of the action alternatives on the community and should clearly identify and
manage to obvious growth and density changes foreseeable in the near future including future-state
planning to mitigate density issues BEFORE they become challenges for the neighborhood and city.
Transportation
community of additional traffic that will result from the Fort Lawton proposals. Magnolia is served
solely by three access points which are where congestion occurs. The DEIS Magnolia study area should
include the impact of the redevelopment to the access points in addition to the neighborhood streets 6
the aging Magnolia bridges. The City is already reviewing alternatives for a bridge closing that will divert
traffic to the only 2 entrance points to the neighborhood. This includes Emerson, which has already had
challenges due to the bike lane recently added removing parking and road lanes (which also wasn't
reviewed in the DEIS). The DEIS study should include impacts in the event that one or more of the

The DEIS oversimplifies and misrepresents Magnolia's housing history. The DEIS asserts on Page 3.14-9
that Magnolia is among the neighborhoods that used restrictive covenants in the past and has remained
a relatively exclusive neighborhood with little to no access to affordable housing choices for those with
low-incomes. Although certain plats may have had such restrictive covenants in the past, most plats in
Magnolia had no such covenants according to Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, Racial
Restrictive Covenants as cited on page 3.13-16. Many areas in Magnolia were affordable to all income
levels and the plats in the immediate vicinity of Fort Lawton had no racial restrictive covenants. The 7
Draft EIS ignores the fact that Magnolia was home to three large significant military installations for
populations in Magnolia. A more complete study of Magnolia housing history should be included or the
selective historical data mentioned should be deleted as it is incomplete and misleading.
As an example, the Seattle Housing Authority currently operates two affordable housing sites within 8
Conclusion
From reading the DEIS, it appears that it was determined that the proposals will have no significant
impacts and no mitigation is necessary. The addition of approximately 600 residents to Fort Lawton in a
high density development with the provision of services for 85 units will indeed have a significant impact 9
in an area that is now zoned single family. The DEIS fails to consider practical and feasible alternatives
and underestimates the effects of the preferred alternative to the surrounding area.
Regards,
Joni Reeves
LETTER 717
From: Nicole Reid
Subject: Ft. Lawton
Please please PLEASE put a school in that area or at least school and housing. Our schools are bulging at 1
the seams with no end in sight. As much as this city needs affordable housing, is a remote part of the
2
city with almost no transportation services, grocery stores, hospital, etc, the best place to put it? And if
you do put housing in there, please think hard about where you're going to find seats for the children in 3
that housing.
Sincerely,
Nicole Reid
Magnolia Resident
LETTER 718
From: Susan Reilly
Subject: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Development
As this city grows we need more park space, and the chance to add 34 acres of park land not should not
be missed. Thinking ahead 50 to 100 years, the future residents of this area and of the city will benefit
much more from park space than they will of the building or more houses. I hope that the City of
Seattle follows the wishes of Friends of Discovery Park, and the Discovery Park Community Alliance and 1
support them.
This is the future of our beautiful city, let’s keep a park that is safe and usable for all the residents of
Seattle.
Discovery Park represents the largest city park and largest open space in a large, booming city becoming 2
denser by the week. There is no realistic prospect of ever adding a space of similar size inside the city
should this one be whittled away by development. Although it is by no means a “pristine” wilderness,
Discovery Park is dominated by undeveloped, natural space and contains several distinct ecosystem
types representative of the region, from rocky tide pools to sandy beaches to moss-draped forest, to
boggy wetlands, to wildflower-spangled meadow. From its highest vantage points, one can take in an
unobstructed view of both local mountain ranges—the Cascades and the Olympics.
2,
The park is especially important for lower income Seattle residents, who may not be able to easily cont.
access the large natural areas outside the city due to the expense and the need for a car. All you need to
transport yourself to the park’s green and peaceful landscape is to hop the #33 bus from downtown.
Seattle does need large natural public space, and we must protect what remains for generations to
come. These passions and well-meaning intentions are better served strengthening similar and existing
facilities around Seattle. Ones that are already operational and welcome the attention and help.
Best regards,
Susan Reilly
san Reilly
LETTER 719
From: William Reilly
Subject: Fort Lawton Proposed Development
As the only large park available to City of Seattle residents/taxpayer, the development of Fort Lawton
for the building of homeless housing would be a horrible idea. There are plenty of other sites in the City
available for this type of use. It would be as if the City of New York had allowed this in Central Park. 1
And if this use were put in place there would be no going back.
Although this sounds like a compassionate and good thing to do, it would ruin the only large park we
have.
Sincerely,
William Reilly
LETTER 720
From: Rae Rein
Hello,
I work in a non-profit at the front desk. A large part of my job is giving referrals to people looking for
services. Every single day, people come in looking for housing. They are trying their hardest to get off 1
the street and connected into a home. They are doing everything right.
However, I have no solution for them. All low-income or transition housing has a wait list. My advice to
them is to get their name on as many wait lists as possible, and then check back in with them every
week. As I watch these people walk away without a clear path to the housing they're searching for, I feel
like I've failed them.
But I haven't failed them. This city has. 1,

cont.
We need more affordable housing. We need these 240 units at Fort Lawton. We need to have housing
available for those who are seeking it out, trying to improve their lives. So many individuals and families
want to change their situation, but the system pushes them back onto the street. We need to change
that.
Please don't listen to the naysayers and fear-mongers who want to shut down this project. We need
these units of affordable housing.
Thank you,
Rae Rein
LETTER 721
From: Don Reising
Subject: Fort Lawton housing development
As a 20 year Magnolia resident, count me as one firmly opposed to the city’s proposed development of 1
Ft. Lawton.
2
The site is isolated (the nearest supermarket is Metropolitan Market), not near services or
transportation links and will only further burden local schools. 3
Don Reising
LETTER 722
From: Linda Reiter
Subject: Fort Lawton proposal
I recently attended the public hearing on this issue. While I agreed with many of the statements, I was
concerned that the people of Magnolia whom this impacts, were not given an adequate chance to voice
concerns. Over and over people from non-profits agreed that this is the best option. However, they
don’t live here and many of them sounded like they hadn’t even looked at the plan for development.
The one thing they all had in common was that this is the perfect place to put housing for the homeless 1
and not in their back yard.
I am a widow, have social security and my pension and am one of the “ordinary” people one speaker
said we need more of. Good grief, what an insult.
I walk in the park on a regular basis because we seniors need to keep active and it is a quiet reflective
place to be. I don’t object to establishing a community in the area that would serve the needs of more
of us “ordinary” people. But there are several things I am concerned about. Unless the people living
there have a car (and hopefully you will provide parking) it will be a long walk to the bus and then a bus 2
ride to any grocery shopping. Yes, the MetoMarket is close but even I can’t afford to shop there. The
food bank, which is a great source for homeless and low income residents is in Ballard. That would
mean taking at least two buses to get there. Has a local church or the city offered to establish a food
bank closer to the housing?
I am also concerned because the city can’t seem to stay on top of “campers” who destroy any area they
camp in and yet feel that they can monitor and screen residents. How do we trust you when there are
3
certain areas in the park that locals know aren’t safe now?
I heartily endorse housing for low income families and transitional housing for veterans and single
people. If counseling services to help them find jobs if necessary, get education, whatever it takes to 4
help them get on their feet, were provided, that would be the best option. Will that be included?
My last concern is the nature of the park open space. Discovery Park was established as a passive park -
no sport fields, large events or extended playgrounds. Not every neighborhood has to have a
playground with sports courts, etc. Our children (and in my case, my grandchildren) have to go to the
playground near the Magnolia community center. There is a playground - well, should be one, in the
park already. It needed repair and is taking two years to redo. While it is definitely not big, it will have
equipment for children.
5
I will advocate for an off lease dog park. Hopefully that will encourage people to take their dogs there
instead of letting them run wild in the park and on the beach. Yes, it is not allowed but when did that
ever stop a dog owner. I would love to see more patrolling to curtail that situation. Not all of us have
dogs, there are a few of us cat people around that don’t appreciate stepping in dog leavings.
I am also aware that my comments are both nonessential or perhaps even read. However, writing
makes me feel better.
Linda Reiter
LETTER 723
From: Brian Retford
Subject: Please use Fort Lawton for Affordable Housing (Alternative 1)
Please select Alternative 1.
I urge the city to use all available options to provide housing to indigent populations. In light of the 1
current, longstanding, and ongoing housing and homelessness crisis it would seem nigh criminal to not
proceed with this project.
The DEIS clearly indicates Alternative 1 as having similar impacts to 2 & 3. The sadly missing option is
option 5, which would involve using both sites for affordable housing, the lack of which and inclusion of
the alternative site in this design seems indicative of a broader sickness in our collective will to provide 2
people experiencing poverty with a dignified existence, which I fully believe is the proper responsibility
of our prosperous city.
Please stand up for human dignity and help ensure Seattle can be a beacon for solving this problem, 3
rather than an example of decades of talk and inaction.
Sincerely,
Brian Retford
LETTER 724
From: James Reynolds
Subject: Against Magnolia Housing Plan - these letters say it all - Magnolia Resident (34th Ave W)
1. Scott says:
January 15, 2018 at 10:20 pm
The meeting was a joke. Many came to voice opposition to the plan and were denied the opportunity. It
was clearly a coordinated effort by a few special interests to pack the speaking schedule to prevent
opposition from being heard and to give the appearance that everyone supports it. Got to give them
credit for knowing how to game the system within the rules.
The truth is that this housing project is a theft of public resources to benefit a few private interests. The
land, with its beautiful views of Salmon Bay, the Salmon Bay Bridge, and the Ballard Locks, is used as a
park by many now. This prime land will be stolen from public use to benefit a few developers and a few
individual families. Once this land is private and title shifts to the homeowners, they will benefit with
multi-million dollar lots. Just look at the property values of current homes overlooking Salmon Bay to
see what is being taken from the public to give a windfall to a few public individuals.
Seattle desperately needs housing, both homeless housing and affordable housing. This housing needs
to go everywhere, including Magnolia. But the theft of public resources should not be the means by
which these ends are sought.
The benefit of adding a few temporarily affordable homes does not even come close to balancing the 1
cost of depriving the residents of the city use of this public gem.
To make things worse, this housing plan is terribly short sighted. Absolutely no thought has gone into
where these additional families will go to school, drive their cars, etc. Schools, sports fields, and other
public resources in the area are already over capacity with no solution to the upcoming projected
growth (e.g., Expedia) that is to come. The city has already declared that the Magnolia bridge is
“susceptible to catastrophic failure” and no plan for it’s replacement is in the works. Once the bridge
falls, the additional housing is going to exacerbate these already substantial problems.
People should make their voices heard to our city officials know that we want affordable housing and
homeless shelters, but we don’t want to squander public resources with short sighted plans that benefit
only a few developers and individuals.
Reply
2. Pat Craft says:
January 18, 2018 at 12:09 pm
There was No reason to hold that meeting in Magnolia the other night. If you missed it, … It was a total
Farce as a neighborhood focused meeting. But it was a brilliant display of democracy. Which means, to
have your voice heard, use it.
Several Social Services Organizations coordinated their efforts. They brilliantly arrived early, and in large
numbers, and strategically signed up for nearly all of the time slots for Public comments. And they
expressed their passions, and concerns, and perspectives directly to the City Officials in attendance. And
they hoped to make an impact.
In fact, Sally Bagshaw went to her very next Council Conference and told members she now believed
1000 units was an even better idea.
That evening Magnolians were strategically shut out of the Public Comments, save for a few who could
wait three hours. They were under represented.
And unfortunately, many remarks also included directly disparaging the residents of Magnolia. And
when that is recorded at the meeting, by the City stenographer for the Public record, there is no
rebuttal, nor spot fact checking, nor context. Public comments are simply duly noted, and then marked
as pro or con to building the development. For instance, the City officials sat silently and allowed the
Public to repeatedly refer to it as Free land. And several individuals demanded, “the City must take
advantage of this Free land.” In fact, only a small portion might be construed as free.
It is disingenuous to pit Magnolians interest in supporting social services against the City efforts to
steam role a poorly planned housing idea. No mater how many years they have fixated on it. Good Real
Estate investments are based on Location, location, location. And taking an isolated section of an
amazing City asset for a wistful idea is irresponsible. There can be No logical, empirical, nor anecdotal
comparisons made between investing in Yesler Terrace and the back side of Discovery Park.
Magnolia, Queen Anne and Interbay need schools. And at the same time, the City could expand the
1 cont
incredibly unique Discovery Park.
Years of chasing a bad idea in life, does not make it a good idea.
Geographically, Magnolia is surrounded by water on three sides, and it sits away from any major flow of
city commerce or services. Magnolia has only three roadways out, and all three involve compromised
bridges. Magnolia has limited City support in transit, police, fire, and social services and endures over
capacity schools. Go online, and Examine what the City refers to as “Heat Maps” for City
investment/Budget wide, for both current and future spending and you will see, Magnolia has long been
left out of all of these discussions. This particular level of City investing should demand far better
locations.
If you have an Opinion or Concerns, for or against development of this area in Magnolia, or any
variations thereof, I encourage you to take a very brief moment and email the City a simple comment,
so that your voice is duly noted.
And when the development goes in, you will know that you were indeed part of the process.
Of course you are a part, … whether you use your voice or not.
Reply
3. Lorraine says:
January 21, 2018 at 8:54 pm
This does not seem an accurate account of the meeting. In fact this account is stacked with the very
same DEIS paid employees/staffers “SET UP” as the meeting it self!
An adjacent room was reserved by these paid pro-groupies, who met to organize a complete takeover of
the so called Public Hearing with an opportunity for the public to comment.
Why was this tiny venue reserved when attendees at the previous meeting couldn’t fit into the much
larger Day Break Center? Obviously to fill the seats with the pre-arranged Housing Development
Consortium, who were “HAPPY TO GO OVER YOUR TESTIMONY IF YOU WERE FEELING NERVOUS”, OH
YES! and completely fill the sign up sheet for “PUBLIC COMMENT LIMITED TO 3 MINS EACH ”
Dear Fellow Magnolians
Please join me in my opposition of the homeless housing in Discovery Park, while I support finding a
sustainable and long term solution to the growing homeless population that is creating havoc in our city,
I feel strongly that Discovery Park should remain a park. I have joined this group and invite you to join
me: http://discoveryparkcommunityalliance.com/about-us.html
I attended the Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Fort Lawton
Army Reserve Center Redevelopment in Magnolia on January 9th. The meeting was stacked with 1 cont
questionable arrangements. (Came across as VERY UNDEMOCRATIC to this third worlder !)
1. The organizers pre-arranged to sign up and fill the agenda with pro project speakers,
intentionally leaving little or not opportunity for “THE PUBLIC” to weigh in.
2. I respectfully request a copy of the sign up sheet and track how many of these speakers and
attendees at the meeting are actually residents of Magnolia. Does anyone know how to do this?
3. The news media later reported that Magnolians were all in favour of the project. Where did they
get that idea? It is not true.
4. I resent the tone the meeting took , that “Magnolians are all rich folk with no diversity”. Anyone
against the idea was publicly boo’d
Please support any effort to fight this initiative.
:
http://discoveryparkcommunityalliance.com/about-us.html
LETTER 725
From: Jordan Reynolds
Subject: EIS for Fort Lawton
I support a wholistic approach to this redevelopment which includes desperately needed School land.
pace with the growth in student population. This opportunity for the school district to partner with the 1
Thanks,
Jordan Reynolds
1807 11th Ave W
Seattle, WA 98119
LETTER 726
From: Serena Rice
Hello,
I would like to say that the idea of building affordable housing on Fort Lawton is an amazing idea, and
could impact so many lives in King County, especially the ones experiencing homelessness. I work 2 jobs
involving the homeless community, one for families with children, and one for youth. Seeing how there
are not that many options in the area for affordable housing, or how a family can be on a wait list for 10
years to receive a section 8 voucher, I am hoping to see a change in the future. The biggest part of my
job is the children. Children should not be homeless. A lot of parents experience domestic violence or
abuse until their only option is to hit the streets to protect their life and their children's lives.
1
Homelessness is not a choice for everyone, but more like an escape from abusers and from paying
$2000 for a one bedroom apartment. People can argue and say "why don't the homeless just get a job
so they can save to get a home?" A lot of people are actually experiencing homelessness because of
disabilities and backgrounds that cant get them hired anywhere.
"I would like to see more affordable housing to reduce the amount of children experiencing
homelessness in King County. No child should be homeless".
Thank you,
--
Serena Rice
Youth and Family Advocate
(206) 812-8834
NoHomelessKids.org
LETTER 727
From: Shawn Richards
Subject: Fort Lawton comment
Hello Seattle Office of Housing,

Please accept this comment in opposition to your current preferred plan for the Fort Lawton site. 1
The project that would provide the most public benefit would be to develop the site for a public High 2
School.
_____________
Shawn Richards
Fremont, Seattle, WA
LETTER 728
From: Rob Ricketts
Hello:
The Fort Lawton redevelopment proposal is an awful idea.
Why would the City want to turn a beautiful park into a place where health and safety will be
compromised??.
1
The point of having a park within the city is to provide respite from the din of the city.
If it is the goal to provide homeless shelter, why not do it closer to jobs, transportation, and services ?? 2
Such housing should be centrally located, and not encouraged.
Regards,
Rob Ricketts
LETTER 729
From: Yucca Rieschel
Subject: Comment on Adding Fort Lawton to Discovery Park
Morning, city council members,
I am a resident of Magnolia. I agreed with the view points of the Friends of Discovery Park.
I think the city should expand Discovery Park for the enjoyment of the 3.8 million people who live in the
metro Seattle area, and not to use the land for far less than 1% of them. There are other places to build
low income housing or shelters for the homeless people, there is only one Discovery Park! 1
Once developed, green space will be gone forever. Seattle is known for its trees, its mountains, its
wildlife, its natural beauty, and the fact that these natural spaces are intertwined with our daily
experience. Development is occurring quickly and Seattle is already losing tree canopy, wildlife, and all
that makes Seattle a beautiful place to live. Affordable and homeless housing is vital. I would just like to 2
see options for alternate locations in Magnolia. In addition, the proposed development is scheduled to
be completed over 7 years. That is not going to alleviate the urgent need for housing today. Discovery 3
Park should stand as a legacy forever and for all.
Thanks.
Regards,
Yucca Rieschel
LETTER 730
From: Chad Rinehart
Subject: Support for Proposed Housing Development at Fort Lawton
Hi,
I am a Magnolia resident, Discovery Park supporter, and a supporter of the low income senior housing
development proposed for Fort Lawton. I can't think of a finer setting for housing our needy elders and
veterans. 1
My wife and I are also looking forward to volunteer opportunities with our children on the Habitat for
Humanity for-ownership homes.
After significant housing needs are addressed, it would be good for the city to integrate a new school 2
campus, if space allows.
Kind regards,
Chad Rinehart
206-999-2887
LETTER 731
From: LaVar and Andrea Riniker
My husband and I own property at 5422 40th Avenue West, near the proposed development.
I am writing to ask that you consider 2 amendments to your preferred proposal for the site at Fort
Lawton. First, our city's experience with publicly supported, low income housing developments has
shown that mixing market rate housing into developments has been a great success. High Point, in West
1
Seattle, is an example of what I hope this development could be, but it has almost a third of the units at
market rates.
Second, setting aside land for the future school district uses should include a potential school site, not 2
just recreation facilities operated by the district.
I am aware that you have significant time pressure to make this decision, but I hope you will take the
3
time to include the nearby residents input into the final plan.
Thank you.
Andrea and LaVar Riniker
LETTER 732
From: LaVar Riniker
Please add market rate housing into the mix at Fort Lawton. It has been shown that including some 1
market rate units is a key to community success.
Also, improve public transit access and on site support services. 2

Since Laurelhurst is no longer a viable alternative in your EIS, should you realistically consider another 3
location?
LaVar Riniker
LETTER 733
From: Phil Ritter
Subject: Phil Ritter says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
region.
Humanity).
the GHG contribution of people living in a dense, transit-rich urban environment, compared to the long 3
3,
“Auburn” alternative discussed in the hearing on January 9th. cont.
4
owners.
Sincerely yours,
Phil Ritter
LETTER 734
From: Michael Roberto
Subject: Ft. Lawton development comments

I am writing in support of Seattle's redevelopment plan of Fort Lawton. Seattle needs more affordable
housing, and this is a creative plan that will have some great benefits for our city and community. 1
Thanks!
Michael
---
Michael Roberto
LETTER 735
From: Kim K. Roberts
With the number of people needing affordable housing skyrocketing, we should take every advantage of
available space. I support the development of housing for the homeless and low-income seniors at Fort 1
Lawton, and hope the city will too.
Kim K. Roberts
3409 NE 60th St.
Seattle, WA 98115
206.527.4864
LETTER 736
From: Jason Robideau
My name is Jason Robideau I live at 1019 Terry Ave 98104. I wanted to give my support to the building
of all affordable housing being offered by the city, catholic charities, and habitat for humanity. In fact, I
would encourage the city to develop the site to an even fuller capacity! Two simple reasons being:
Firstly, our homelessness state of emergency will not be solved by creating 238 homes at a time over a 7 1
year period; secondly, it is more cost effective, humane, and less likely to lead to displacement to keep
people at risk of homelessness, housed. Adding more homes to the project would help our fellow
Seattle neighbors for generations!
Thank you for allowing me to share my input.
LETTER 737
From: Roxanne Robles
Subject: New Magnolia development
I am so happy that the City of Seattle is investing resources into housing for veterans and seniors.
1
However, I would like to see more than 200 units on such a large site and hope that the City can do
more for the housing crisis.
LETTER 738
From: Diana Rocha
Subject: Build affordable housing!
Hello,
My name is Diana Rocha, a Seattle resident, voter and political organizer. I have shown up to city hall to
speak for the HOMES tax, to stop the sweeps, to mourn the homeless people we have lost (130+ last
year) and to press the absolute urgency for providing people housing. Begging developers for affordable
units had not worked. Not having rent control hasn't worked. Surprisingly, closing down many of the
service centers houseless neighbors rely on has not worked. Let's try something new....like giving people
1
housing so that they might be able to keep from getting sick, experiencing violence and sleeping outside.
recreation and surface parking, passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds or thousands more 1,
affordable homes, and to drastically rebuild our depleted public housing stock.. cont.
Surplus public land should be used for public goods, not sold off to developers.<<<< Please move
forward with building housing at Fort Lawton - with more homes, and more public ownership, than is
currently being considered.
Thank you.
LETTER 739
From: Dawn Rodney
Subject: Fort Lawton redevelopment plan
Hello,
I would like to voice my support for the Fort Lawton redevelopment plan. Seattle needs to more low-
income housing and support for our Veterans with low-income needs. Please add me to the list of 1
supporters!
Thank you,
Dawn Rodney
Seattle Resident
LETTER 740
From: Marissa Lynn Roesijadi
Subject: Fort Lawton - Housing for the Homeless and Affordable Housing – vote
I am writing to support Alternative 1, the building of affordable housing at Fort Lawton. 1
I understand how it feels to loose the ability to support oneself as an adult. I was diagnosed with cancer
just before I turned 30 was not able to work for 1.5 years. I am certain that if it weren’t for the privilege I
have via the support of my family, I would’ve become homeless during that time. The disability benefits I
received during this time simply did not cover housing costs and when I applied for affordable housing I
was put on a waiting list and was told it could take years before something would be available to me.
Luckily family took me in. Because I had a place to call home, I was able to focus on my healing process
and putting my life back together, I was able to go back to school and begin working in a new industry.
I’m healthy now and have been working and supporting myself for over 4 years. Still my wages as a non- 2
profit worker do not leave me with enough income to afford market rate housing. See, I still have the
privilege of renting at a family owned property below current market rates.
Many people don't have the same privileges as me and their lives are at risk because of it. It is my
opinion that we need to do more to help our community members in need and an affordable housing
complex is a move in the right direction to do that. I believe we need to build much more than a couple
hundred units, but I think this is a good start.
As well, I understand that by federal law, the land at Fort Lawton is free to the City of Seattle if the city
uses it to house those experiencing homelessness.
2,
Because of the opportunity to use free land, because Discovery Park belongs to all Seattle citizens and cont.
because of the impact that availability of affordable housing has on the cost of living for everyone in
Seattle, comments (votes) for this decision should be weighed equally for all Seattle citizens.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my feedback.

Best Regards,
Marissa
Marissa Lynn Roesijadi

2000 Alaskan Way
Apt 151
Seattle, WA 98121
LETTER 741
From: Christine Walsh Rogers
Hi,
I am highly in support of affordable and low income housing at Fort Lawton. This would be an ideal use
of this valuable space and should not be used for high end homes unless 100% of proceeds are funneled
to an alternate site.
1
This crisis will not heal itself and the folks are already in Magnolia, Interbay and Ballard so let’s take care
of them. None of us is good unless our whole community is good. This is for the betterment of all and a
bonus for public health.
Christine Walsh Rogers

First Vice President, Consumer Loan Administration
NMLS# 1283269
HomeStreet Bank
601 Union Street|Suite 2000|Seattle, WA|98101
P: 206.753.3732 |C: 206.379.4050
LETTER 742
From: Trace Ronning
Just writing in to say I'm Seattle citizen who supports using Fort Lawton for affordable housing or 1
housing for those experiencing homelessness.
Thank you,
Trace
LETTER 743
From: Gilbert Rooth
To Whom It May Concern -

I'm not for the housing project at Fort Lawton as the infrastructure does not appear to exist to support
such a project (roads, schools, affordable shopping in walking distance, quick bus service to downtown, 1
etc). Additionally, I believe we should protect and create more green space in our city. This land is
wonderful and should be left open for all to enjoy.
4420 36th Avenue

Seattle, WA
Gilbert Rooth
LETTER 744
From: Jennifer Rooth
Subject: Against Fort Lawton Affordable Housing
Dear political officials,

I wanted to let you know as a resident on 36th Ave W, across from Fort Lawton, I do not support the 1
development of Affordable Housing for a variety of reasons.
1. The neighborhood cannot support an influx of children. The schools are already at capacity or
2
over capacity. An influx of kids with no school support puts even more strains on a challenged public
school system.
2. There is little accessibility to other neighborhoods for jobs.
3. There are no Affordable grocery stores in our neighborhood. Like many parents, we are 3
constantly traveling off the island to other neighborhoods to find affordable grocery stores.
4. The public transportation to and from Magnolia, especially Discovery Park area is deplorable. It
would take us 90 minutes on the bus to reach our jobs in downtown/south lake union. This again
coincides with accessibility to other neighborhoods. 3,
5. There are no jobs in Magnolia. How would these families benefit from living in a far location cont.
with little access to schools, jobs, healthcare, etc.
6. There is little to no affordable childcare in Magnolia.
7. The roadways cannot support the addition of more bussing and cars. The influx of a bike lane
and removal bus lanes hav been a nightmare. Adding more cars and buses would only make it much
4
worse.
Honestly, there are no services in Magnolia that support low income housing for a long period of time.
It’s great if the city plans to start the process but this is a long term issue that needs constant support,
not short term. 5
There are many more issues that can be brought up but these are pretty big.
Concerned citizen,
Jennifer Rooth
LETTER 745
From: Todd B. Rosin
Subject: Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton

The opportunity to develop affordable housing is a tantalizing one, but I have concerns around whether
it is the right choice for the people who will ultimately reside there. Let me be clear from the start: I 1
have no patience for residents who don't want to live near "poor people" or who think that affordable
housing is a snakepit of crime and degradation. My concerns are around the following issues:
• Can residents of the new affordable housing easily access affordable food, health care and other
basic services?
• Can residents and their network of family and friends access one another -- is transit sufficient 2
to move people in and out of the area with frequency? If not, will the city commit to increase transit into
and out of the area at all times of the day to support people working late shifts, folks visiting friends for
dinner, etc.? I am concerned about isolation of the affordable housing residents.
• Will police be able to swiftly address issues that will arise? Police calls to affordable housing
developments can be at a higher volume that other areas, so what is the city's plan to ensure residents 3
remain safe and the housing remains attractive to people versus living outside or leaving the area
entirely?
• Would it make more sense to sell the land for market rate housing and for the city to use the
proceeds to build affordable housing in the Magnolia village center (or at least closer to it) and thus 4
nearer to vital services/transit? Is this legally an option?
Obviously I have a number of questions but if they can be satisfactorily addressed I would support the
Ft. Lawton affordable housing plan. We need housing terribly in this city - but let's not instinctively grab
5
at the first shiny thing...let's think it through and make sure the end result ensures success for the
people who will call these units home.
Thank you,
Todd B. Rosin
2643 NW 64th Street
Seattle, WA 98107
LETTER 746
From: Betsy Ross
Subject: Fort Lawton DEIS Comment
I am a resident of Magnolia and I have some comments about the Draft EIS for the Fort Lawton
Redevelopment:
Supportive Housing
scoping meeting, Steve Walker of the Office of Housing stated that the supportive permanent housing
would not be limited to seniors or veterans. He stated that the housing would only "target" seniors as 1
well as veterans of any age.
The DEIS fails to accurately describe the supportive housing. The EIS should clearly identify the
population served by the supportive housing.
Flawed Alternatives
formerly homeless housing.
2
WAC 197-11-786 states that "Reasonable alternative" means an action that could feasibly attain or
approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of
environmental degradation. The State Environmental Policy Act Handbook states For public projects,
alternative project sites should also be evaluated. An example that is only conceptual does not meet the
definition of an alternative project site and is not a reasonable alternative as the Talaris site cannot
ultimately feasibly be selected. The City has shown no intent to build affordable housing at Talaris. The
City does not own Talaris and has not made an attempt to purchase it. In fact, the Seattle Times
reported on January 19, 2018 that there is an agreement for Quadrant Homes to purchase the site for
2,
market rate homes. Alternatives #2 and #3 are not bonafide, feasible, or reasonable. The City has
misled the public with the Talaris alternatives and has spent substantial taxpayer funds on a site that cont.
they never had any intention of considering.
Laurelhurst community. The City did not send out scoping notices, solicit comments, or hold meetings
3
reasonable alternatives that meet the stated objectives of the project. The DEIS is incomplete without
4
example rather than actual feasible alternatives that could be selected.
Discovery Park
We believe that the Army Reserve parcel in its entirety, should be incorporated into Discovery Park. To
buildings, and overlapping fences. As such, it is distinctly unfriendly to the wildlife that live and 5
reproduce in the nearby forests of Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. The property is uniquely situated
between the Kiwanis Ravine and the larger green spaces of Discovery Park.
the Ravine and Discovery Park. We recognize that there are a variety of competing interests for the use
of this property. Suggestions include low income housing, a school and other uses like playgrounds,
baseball fields and tennis courts. If one or some combination of these uses become implemented, we
ask that any man-built environment on the site be appropriately and sensitively incorporated into a
forested canopy, using a mosaic of legally protected indigenous plant communities distributed across
the entire property.
incorporation into Discovery Park and management according to its Master Plan.
Sincerely,
Board of Trustees of the Friends of Discovery Park
Transportation
The DEIS analyzes transportation and concludes that no significant unavoidable adverse transportation-
related impacts are expected. However, the DEIS fails to consider the impacts of likely bridge closures
as described in the Seattle Department of Transportation study released November 10, 2017 entitled
Magnolia Bridge Traffic Maintenance During Bridge Closure.
The EIS should analyze the effects of a Magnolia Bridge Closure on the operation of the supportive
housing services either in the short term or permanently. Also, the EIS should study the impacts of the
Alternatives on the Emergency Bridge Closure Transportation Plan and the Short-Term Transportation
6
Plan as described by SDOT. The SDOT study states that Until an alternative facility is constructed, there
is a chance that the existing Magnolia Bridge could be closed to traffic, either for a short time or
permanently, and traffic would be detoured to alternative routes such as W Dravus St and W Emerson
St. SDOT could also limit the weight of loads allowed on the bridge, requiring trucks to find alternative
routes. Also, If a catastrophic event affects roadway capacity elsewhere in the Elliott Avenue corridor or
the City, then strategies that substantially reduce traffic may be needed. These could include limiting
single-occupant vehicle travel and incentivizing carpooling, transit and bicycles modes of travel.
The DEIS fails to adequately analyze the impacts of a Magnolia Bridge closure both during the
construction phase and operations phase and omits any mention of the Seattle Department of
Transportation recent study of the Magnolia Bridge Traffic Maintenance.
Betsy Ross
LETTER 747
From: Chuck Ross
Subject: Fort Lawton DEIS comments
I am a lifelong Magnolia resident and neighbor of the Fort Lawton property. I reviewed the Draft EIS for
the Fort Lawton Redevelopment and have several comments:
Other Reasonable Alternatives

The Talaris alternative is not reasonable or legitimate. The Talaris site is an unreasonable alternative as
the cost of the property is prohibitive. Legitimate alternatives would include sites that are feasible and
attainable. Although the Talaris site is a similar size and would accommodate a similar redevelopment, 1
the stated goals could be met on smaller parcels located throughout Magnolia, the vicinity, or the city.
Existing structures should be considered as practical and feasible alternatives rather than proposing new
construction only.

The DEIS dismisses the Discovery Park Master Plan. Page 3.6-47 states: the 1986 Master Plan created
no enforceable right or duty. It is unreasonable to not consider the Discovery Park Master Plan as the
park is located immediately adjacent to Fort Lawton. The Master Plan is integral to the existence and 2
operation of the park and contains specific guidance regarding development within and around the
park. The DEIS fails to disclose that the Fort Lawton redevelopment proposals are inconsistent with
provisions of the Discovery Park Master Plan. Many scoping comments requested that the Discovery
Park Master Plan be considered as any development of Fort Lawton would have a direct significant
impact to Discovery Park.
In contrast to the Discovery Park Master Plan, the City of Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan is quoted
2,
repeatedly throughout the DEIS. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan also has no enforceable right or duty. A
comprehensive plan is not usually legally binding. A community's ordinances must be amended in order
cont.
to legally implement the provisions required to execute the comprehensive plan. The DEIS should not
contain references to only selective plans for guidance. It is unreasonable to apply the enforceable right
or duty standard solely to the Discovery Park Master plan and not to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The
DEIS is incomplete unless all relevant plans and policies that pertain to Fort Lawton are considered.
Cumulative Effects
Various conclusions included in Alternative 1 ignore the cumulative impacts that result from the
incremental impact of the proposal when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions and population increases. Page 3.10-4 states there is little growth from new development
expected in the immediate vicinity. Currently, legislation is proceeding which will significantly increase
population density in the vicinity as well as the City as a whole. The effects of the implementation of 3
Mandatory Housing Affordability zoning changes and changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations
have not been adequately addressed in the Draft EIS. Specifically, future development of the Interbay
corridor and Expedia headquarters will also significantly impact transportation and public services. The
analysis in the DEIS underestimates the effects of the action alternatives on the community and should
identify and mitigate obvious growth and density changes foreseeable in the near future.
Transportation
community of additional traffic that will result from the Fort Lawton proposals. Magnolia is served 4
solely by three access points which are where congestion occurs. The DEIS Magnolia study area should
include the impact of the redevelopment to the access points in addition to the neighborhood streets
the aging Magnolia bridges. The DEIS study should include impacts in the event that one or more of the 5

The DEIS oversimplifies and misrepresents Magnolia's housing history. The DEIS asserts on Page 3.14-9
that Magnolia is among the neighborhoods that used restrictive covenants in the past and has remained
a relatively exclusive neighborhood with little to no access to affordable housing choices for those with
low-incomes. Although certain plats may have had such restrictive covenants in the past, most plats in
Magnolia had no such covenants according to Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, Racial 6
Restrictive Covenants as cited on page 3.13-16. Many areas in Magnolia were affordable to all income
levels and the plats in the immediate vicinity of Fort Lawton had no racial restrictive covenants. The
Draft EIS ignores the fact that Magnolia was home to three large significant military installations for
populations in Magnolia. A more complete study of Magnolia housing history should be included or the 6,
selective historical data mentioned should be deleted as it is incomplete and misleading. cont.
As an example, the Seattle Housing Authority currently operates two affordable housing sites within
7
Magnolia Housing Cost

The DEIS is contradictory when it states on page 3.13-15 that The Magnolia neighborhood is generally a
high cost neighborhood... The support given indicates that average rent of $1,710 in the Fort Lawton
vicinity is actually lower than the average citywide. In addition, the median list price per square foot 8
given for Magnolia is only 2 1/2% higher than the city of Seattle average. Given the facts provided in the
DEIS, Magnolia in fact appears to be an average cost neighborhood in Seattle and not the high cost
neighborhood described. A more accurate depiction is needed.
Conclusion
From reading the DEIS in its entirety, it appears that it was determined that the proposals will have no
significant impacts and no mitigation is necessary. The addition of approximately 600 residents to Fort
Lawton in a high density development with the provision of services for 85 units will indeed have a 9
significant impact in an area that is now zoned single family. The DEIS fails to consider practical and
feasible alternatives and underestimates the effects of the preferred alternative to the surrounding
area.
Thank you for your consideration, Chuck Ross
LETTER 748
From: Diane Rudholm
Subject: Strong support for housing at Fort Lawton

I'm thrilled by your vision of building affordable housing at Fort Lawton, and I am writing to voice my
strong support for building affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
For the first 15 years of my life, my family moved at least once every single year. It was chaotic and
immensely stressful. My parents both had high school educations and limited job prospects. On several
occasions, my stepdad pawned the carpentry tools he needed to work just to get rent paid on time. I
spent many months on end without a home, living in places like a renovated bus, relatives' homes, the 1
back room of my mother's small sewing business, a van, motels, and friend's couches. While my parents
did the best they could to ensure that I felt safe and loved, hopping from place to place took an
exhausting toll on our family and at times put me at risk of harm from other less trustworthy adults.
Housing stability is absolutely critical for every single person, especially every young person. We are now
in a position to break this cycle for hundreds of people. Wow. It seems like an understatement to write
this, but what a tremendous impact this project will have.
Let's build as many units as possible, as quickly and as well as possible. Please. 2
Sincerely Yours,
Diane Rudholm 206-849-8874
LETTER 749
From: Tere Ryder
Subject: Homesless Housing Magnolia
Hello and thank you for your time and your work. I am hoping that this is a grand opportunity to start
addressing the homeless population of Seattle. If not NOW, WHEN???..... the homeless population is
shamefully HIGH, when??? This is an opportunity that doesn't come along too often and I think we
should all look to our humanity to start the path to housing people that have long been living, sleeping
on the streets......I am reminded that great nations take CARE of their most vulnerable - Let's be that 1
great CIVILIZED nation again. That's what CIVILIZED nations do....take care of their most vulnerable.
Again, thank you for your work and for taking a moment to read my comment....I was a lifelong
Seattleite until a few years ago and it is shameful the souls living on the streets now......Seattle certainly
never thought I would see the thousands......without shelter. Let's ALL look to our humanity and do the
right thing at this moment!
Thank you again
Tere Ryder
401 2nd Avenue North
Edmonds, Wa., 98020 "
LETTER 750
From: Abe Saeed
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Proposal
I am a Magnolia resident with 2 young children (ages, 2 and 4). In regards to the proposed options for
redevelopment, I am very disappointed that this site wasn't more strongly considered for a new high 1
school/middle school. As this serves a critical need for our kids and the tax paying Seattle community.
At this point the only option I can endorse is DEIS ALTERNATIVE #3 (34 acres of public park). 2
While I fully understand the appeal and thinking behind the redevelopment projects that include
housing for homeless/low-income people, the Fort Lawton site/Magnolia community is a poor choice for
this purpose. On the surface, this location choice appears to be one made out of convenience and 3
availability by the city and not what is best suited for the homeless and low-income community.
Some the immediate issues I see with the site are as follows...
• Poor public transportation in/out of Magnolia
• Lack of affordable grocery stores nearby
4
• Lack of sufficient medical services nearby
• Degradation of Discovery park 5
• Safety concerns in community w/little police presence in area 6
While unrelated to the actual proposed projects themselves, as a member of the Magnolia community
feel like we've been given the shaft on these entire proceedings related to the redevelopment project.
This a project that will have a major affect on our community and do not feel that we have been
engaged in a manner that acknowledges and respects the fact that we are the people who are living 7
with the outcome at the end of the day. Everything from the lack of input upfront in last summer's
meetings and the concerted effort by the activist community to ensure Magnolia community
members/those with other takes on the issue were unable to speak at the 1/8 community meeting.
Thank You
Abe Saeed
LETTER 751
From: Lindsay Saeed
Subject: Preferred Alternative for Fort Lawton Redevelopment

I write in support of DEIS ALTERNATIVE #3 (34 acres of public park) for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve 1
Center redevelopment. This is the preferred alternative of the majority of Magnolia residents.
We are tired of the cities unpreparedness and lack of proper planning before moving forward with
initiatives. DEIS Alternative #1 (diverse mix of affordable housing units) doesn't properly address
Magnolia's infrastructure deficiencies. It's no secret that we already have a bevy of obstacles that need 2
solving before we can even start to think about diving into such a project.
Transportation options on and off Magnolia are minimal. Traffic is getting exponentially worse,
3
especially with the unnecessary bike lanes that were recently added without community engagement.
Restaurants and retail establishments struggle to stay in business. Emergency resources and
4
employment opportunities are limited. There is minimal police pressence in the area, while crime is
undoubtably on the rise. The public schools (namely middle and high) are at full capacity with no
functional plan in sight. Ideally Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center would be used for a middle and high
5
school along with playfields and public parks, but that doesn't seem to be an option. These crises are not
being properly addressed, and residents of Magnolia and the surrounding area will be left to pick up the 6
pieces if DEIS Alternative #1 is approved.
I attended the redevelopment meeting on January 8, 2018 and was literally sick to my stomach after
witnessing how particular city official(s) highjacked the proceedings. It was clear that well a orchestrated
collection of activists and advocates for affordable housing were brought in to silence Magnolia 7
residents. Wouldn't it have made more sense to hear what Magnolia residents and business owners
think about the options at hand?
As a mother of two young children who lives near the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center, PLEASE think 8
about the logistics and move forward with DEIS Alternative #3.
Thank you,
Lindsay Saeed
425-503-3276
LETTER 752
From: Andres Salomon
Hi,
I couldn't make it to the public hearing earlier this month, but I wanted to express my support for
building affordable housing at Fort Lawton. This city is in the midst of a housing (and homeless) crisis. 1
Both are due to a low supply of housing, and we should be building more housing at Fort Lawton. As a
matter of fact - we should be building thousands of housing units there. I would encourage the City to
look into vastly increasing the amount of housing to build there, to make up for the decade-long delay in
2
this project as well as the current lack of low-income housing in Seattle.
Thanks,
Andres Salomon
LETTER 753
From: Saunatina Sanchez
Subject: Use Fort Lawton for Homes
The homelessness crisis is caused by a lack of places for people to live. The Fort Lawton space is an 1
opportunity to make a dent in this situation. It's only unfortunate that this project doesn't provide more 2
homes for more people.
S.
LETTER 754
From: Andrew Sang
Subject: Housing built on Ft Lawton

I would like to support public housing on Ft Lawton. I believe that the number of units we're buildings is 1
frankly unacceptably low. We should be building hundreds more units. In that vein, have a suggestion -
please look into building mix income public housing, where there are a number of market rate units, and
instead of deriving a profit, we use those revenues to build additional housing and to subsidize the rents 2
of the low income folks.
Best of luck
Andrew Sang
LETTER 755
From: Bradley Scarp
Subject: Proposed Fort Lawton Development
To: City of Seattle Office of Housing

Attn: Lindsay Masters
Re: DEIS Fort Lawton / Proposed Redevelopment of Army Reserve Center
1. The public hearing on January 9th did not provide a reasonable opportunity for neighbors to be
heard regarding the proposed redevelopment project. Having the speakers list packed with advocates
for the project who were brought in from distant parts of the County – to reiterate their same well-
coordinated comments – was not productive and primarily served to prevent the local people from
expressing their comments. It worked. Virtually all of the neighbors realized they would not have a
meaningful chance to talk, and left.
2. Also, why wasn’t a hearing of this size and magnitude scheduled at a school auditorium or 1
someplace with enough room to safely allow all of the people to attend. The Seattle Fire Department
arrived, said the building was overcrowded, and a number of people already crowded together like
sardines simply left. Put simply, it was not good planning.
After attending the hearing and having to wait hour after hour for the opportunity to speak, briefly at
that, these are my substantive comments to your department.
3. While the housing proposal has admirable intentions, the logistical problems alone will make it
terribly impractical if not outright unworkable.
4. The Fort Lawton site is remote and largely inaccessible to and from the rest of the city and has
very limited public transportation available. 2
5. Lower or low income residents who rely solely on public transportation would have an
extremely difficult time accessing necessary services, medical treatment or getting to work.
6. The Fort Lawton site on Magnolia is bordered by a railroad right-of-way that limits access to only
three roadway overpasses – for the entire area of Magnolia.
3
7. The current number of (three) roadway overpasses cannot be increased. 4
8. The existing (and growing) traffic congestion results in long delays every day, if not gridlock,
trying to reach the arterial at 15th Ave. West or attempting to go north onto the Ballard Bridge.
5
9. The only grocery market in the vicinity of the proposed development – a specialty foods store –
is too expensive for many current Magnolia residents. 6
10. How and where are lower or fixed income residents supposed to shop for groceries and
necessities on Magnolia?
11. Alternative locations for housing that allow access to public transportation and services would
be far more beneficial to those residents of a proposed development. 7
12. More centrally located alternatives for low income housing would be far more cost efficient to
the City, as well as accessible and beneficial to the residents of such a development.
The proposed Seattle Parks expansion has no definitive or well-reasoned purpose, no apparent source of
funding, and would be expensive, redundant and impractical.
8
13. What happened to the proposal for the Seattle Parks proposed expansion? That apparently was
not thought out at any level, let alone well-conceived.
14. Is that off the table now? If so, why was the proposal brought in just before the June hearing?
The Parks Dept. representative in attendance was baffled by the entire proposal.
15. Is the Seattle Parks portion just another bait and switch, like much of the discussion about the
9
housing development and prospective residents?
16. If not, why would the City want to add an 18-acre park adjacent to the more than 500-acre 10
Discovery Park?
17. Where would the City get the funding to build a redundant 18-acre park next to the 500-acre 11
Discovery Park?
18. The stated proposal of the Parks Department facility for Seattle Parks vehicles and equipment is 12
impractical, inefficient, if not simply unfeasible.
19. Again, the proposed Fort Lawton location is remote and is isolated with access limited to only 13
three overpass routes onto or off of Magnolia.
20. Parks Department vehicles destined to or from the maintenance/storage facility would be 14
subject to the increasing traffic congestion that impedes access to 15th Ave. West.
21. All Parks Department employees attempting to leave Magnolia would be subject to the existing 15
gridlock at the Emerson St. overpass that is a daily occurrence in the late afternoon.
22. If this proposal is not already abandoned, it should be. Like the housing project, centrally located 16
facilities for Seattle Parks vehicles and equipment should be utilized.
In summary, Fort Lawton is not easily accessible to someone with limited means and restricted to public
transportation. There are no public services there which the homeless rely on. It makes no sense to
isolate people in an out-of-way area with little or no access to services. Centralized locations for housing
that allow access to public transportation and services would be far more beneficial to those residents 17
of a proposed development and far more cost efficient to the City of Seattle. Finally, from a personal
perspective, the negative overall impact such a project would have on Discovery Park – which is indeed a
rare jewel savored by many – would be substantial. Other attempts to develop it have failed for good
reason.
Thank you for listening to my comments.
Bradley Scarp
3501 W. Commodore Way

Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 756
From: David Scheer
Subject: David Scheer says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

region.
My wife Marilyn and I are both 'FOR' "MORE" affordable housing, whenever and wherever that can
happen!
Sincerely yours,
David Scheer
LETTER 757
From: Gilbert Scherer
Subject: Ft Lawton housing development
I am a Magnolia resident and homeowner. Magnolia is essentially a destination neighborhood, not a

neighborhood through which anyone passes to get anywhere, other than perhaps to Discovery Park.
Discovery Park is one of the reasons I moved to the neighborhood. It is an amazing amenity for the city
of Seattle, of course not just the residents of Magnolia. It is a park of true grandeur that few other
cities can offer their residents. It must be preserved for future generations, as there will never again be
an opportunity to establish such an expanse of green space within the city. With the growing density of 1
Seattle this green space in our midst will only grow in importance and use.
I agree that housing is a staggering problem for our city. The proposed plan approach #1 seems to be a
reasonable step in use of land adjacent to the park under the terms now structured. I am particularly
supportive of the plan in terms of its use to house seniors and veterans.
However, it seems utterly contrary to common sense to place low-income families and young adults in
this location. There are no support services for them, no efficient transportation links to anywhere but
downtown, no convenient business district to supply their daily needs, and no employment
opportunities in proximity to the site. It seems to me to be a formula for segregation, distress and 2
failure to place low-income families this far away from the source of all the daily needs they have, and
essentially ghettoize them in a pretty setting. Yet, for seniors and veterans in need it does seem to be
more appropriate. As I understand it, Catholic Charities will be supportive of the seniors and that
bridges the challenge of their separation, in large part.
Of central importance, the limited nature of the proposed development, 238 units, does not appear to
have a negative effect on Discovery Park. I can support the city's proposal at this scale. BUT I am totally
opposed to any expansion of the number of units, whether through increased density of the site or
expansion of the site. This would challenge the character of the neighborhood and threaten the use of
the park for the city. We cannot allow any precedent to be set that allows any park space to be 3
consumed or undermine its community use. And it is simply not reasonable to expect the residents of
Magnolia to be comfortable with the degradation of their neighborhood with an ill-founded
development that undermines its legacy and essential charter. Increasing diversity is one thing, but
emphasizing a concentration of a social strata that is not indigenous to the neighborhood would be
destructive to it.
Gilbert Scherer
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 758
From: Steve Schimmelman
Subject: Re:Discovery Park Development?
To whom, we are all concerned:
Discovery Park is a beloved Seattle Park which should be held as such for the long term and not for
short-sighted local government and developers to come in and change it for a profit then leave. This
land should be protected for all to come and enjoy and not become private for those that can buy it and
fence it off. This park has historical value in itself and should have protection against any future 1
development!
We’ve enjoyed the park for decades and it should not become a place for private residents but a place
for the public and visitors to enjoy along with their kids from here on out.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Steve Schimmelman
LETTER 759
From: Gwynne Schnaittacher
Subject: Letter in support of Fort Lawton Housing
Hi,
I am writing to state that I am in full support of low-incoming housing at Fort Lawton. These individuals
are in such dire need to have affording housing in the actual city they work in. Please consider this!
1
Gwynne Schnaittacher
6702 Dibble Ave NW

Seattle, WA 98117
--
"We do not stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing."
~~Author Unknown
LETTER 760
From: Karen Schneider
Subject: Housing for Unhoused folks at Fort Lawton
Hello,
As a third generation Seattleite and recently retired from working with families in transitional housing I
ask that the City make the most compassionate , ethical and practical decision around the land at
Discovery Park and use it to build supported housing. I live in the Greenwood area within three and
four blocks of low income housing developments and there has never been any problems to the
neighborhood. In fact, many folks do not even know it is low income housing! In general, people have
1
such deeply embedded bias' against People of Color and folks that are poor that we who know better,
need to make decisions based on reality, not their fears!
I would like a response to this e-mail and I pray you move us in the right direction of building housing for
those who are unhoused. As someone who has worked in the are of homelessness for decades, building
housing should be one of the main priorities. Furthermore, I can attest to the importance of having
support staff available to help people maintain their housing!
Sincerely,
Karen Schneider
Retired from Compass Housing Alliance
LETTER 761
From: Karen Schneider
Subject: Karen Schneider says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

region.
Yes, As someone who has worked with families and singles in transitional housing I know close up the
desperation these folks feel when they are not adequately houses. The children really suffer and are 7
doomed to keep the cycle of poverty going in the next generation! Please maximize the use of the
property to build as much affordable housing as the site can tolerate.
Sincerely,
Karen Schneider
Sincerely yours,
Karen Schneider
LETTER 762
From: Arwen Schreiber
Subject: Fort Lawton School Option
Hi Guys,
I know that homeless advocates have been bused in from all over the city to make it impossible for 1
people who live in Magnolia to be heard at the Fort Lawton Meetings.
But I as an actual person living in Magnolia and paying taxes here would like a school for my children to 2
be built instead housing.
Thank you,
Arwen Schreiber
Magnolia Resident and voter
LETTER 763
From: Jen Schripsema
Hello,
The housing and opiate crisis in Seattle is one of the worst in the nation. It's unconscionable that the city
might turn down free land earmarked for low-income housing. I strongly support the usage of the Fort
Lawton property for affordable housing. Don't let NIMBY-ism treat some of the most vulnerable
1
members of our community with cruelty. They deserve a chance at more stable, healthy lives.
Jen Schripsema
LETTER 764
From: Dave Schuldt
Subject: Fort Lawton Habitat
These building have been empty for far too long. Given Seattle’s housing crisis they should’ve have
been put to good use a long time ago. The Magnolia locals will just have to live with poor people. If 1
they go to church on Sunday then they should be OK with it. Please do all you can to make this happen.
Dave Schuldt
[email protected]
This is my new email.
LETTER 765
From: Ari Schumer
Lindsay Masters,
BUILD HOUSES PLEASE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT 1
Ari Schumer
[email protected]
Enumclaw, Washington 98022
LETTER 766
From: Nathan Schumer
Lindsay Masters,
Surplus public land should be used to serve the needs of the people of Seattle. We need lots more
housing right away, this is a crisis. And there's no greater need than affordable housing. Please study an
option that makes full use of Fort Lawton for housing.
Thank you.
Nathan Schumer
[email protected]
866 West End Ave, Apt. 1B
New York, New York 10025
LETTER 767
From: Penelope Scordas
Subject: Ft Lawton
I want affordable housing at Fort Lawton. I read what was proposed and I agree with the proposal for 1
affordable housing!
Thank you!
Penelope Scordas
515 West Smith street
Seattle, WA 98199
206-406-7728
Sent from my iPhone
LETTER 768
From: Ben Scott
I want to lend my voice in support of affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site. The city needs more
housing everywhere and in Magnolia in particular. The lack of affordable housing in the area is a blight
on the city and perpetuates the perception of Seattle as being "only for the rich," a view espoused even
by commenters on this project (asserting other, "better" locations such as Auburn or South Seattle).
Not only are mixed income neighborhoods one of the best tools to combat rising and concentrated
poverty and homelessness but the lack of displacement caused by development of this property makes 1
it a win-win.
The City should decide in favor of redeveloping this area and disregard the baseless cries about property
values (ask the King County Assessor if they'll be reducing property values in the face of redevelopment,
facts and data find no such decreases), increased traffic (between transit and Magnolia's surfeit of free
on-street parking), and crime (Magnolia already receives outsized attention from SPD regarding minor
property crimes).
Build housing, please!

--
Ben Scott
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Property Tax Consultants
E: [email protected] | O: 425.502.9068 | M: 206.395.5236
www.nwpropertytax.com
810 Third Avenue, Suite 228
Seattle, WA 98104
LETTER 769
From: Shaun Scott
Subject: Fort Lawton - We should be thinking in the 1000s of units.
Greetings, Office of Housing:
I'm Shaun Scott a local writer for City Arts Magazine who recently wrote a column about how I think we
should be thinking about the opportunity that exists at Fort Lawton. I will paste the column below to
have it officially entered into the record of responses. But suffice it to say, in truncated form: I think
1
think we should not only pursue Option 1--the option for 238 units--but I also think we should be
thinking about how to build 1000s of units there.
As D6 Councilmember Mike O'Brien recently pointed on on Twitter, The Puget Sound Regional Council
projects that our region will swell to 5.8 million people by 2050. Citizens need to be getting the sense
that our leadership and bureaucrats are doing everything they can to prepare for that growth.
Please find way to build as many units on this parcel of land as possible, and read on to see what I wrote
about this topic in City Arts Magazine:
####
"The Debate About The Debate About The Housing Crisis"
City Arts Magazine, January 17th, 2018
(http://www.cityartsmagazine.com/debate-debate-housing-crisis/)
With the City of Seattle’s Office of Housing uncertain about what to make of 34 acres of unused land in
Magnolia, the bureau held a public hearing on Tuesday, Jan. 9 to solicit suggestions from the public.
Similar housing summits have historically been dominated by affluent owners of single-family homes in
proto-suburban neighborhoods, but this hearing turned into a bullhorn for pro-housing interests in the
city.
Attendees who expected a fair and balanced display of multiple viewpoints were disappointed early and
often. Not only was crowd support overwhelmingly in favor of the city’s proposed 238-unit
development, but the point was often made—most vociferously in a leaflet circulated by Kshama 2
Sawant—that the tally of affordable units in question should number not in the hundreds but in the
thousands.
The deluge of pro-housing speakers who stepped to the microphone to testify before Office of Housing
officials often peppered their commentary with individual anecdotes and observations, most pointing to
the same conclusion: It’s time for the city to honor its recognition of the “housing crisis” with
appropriately urgent action.
In the saga surrounding rising rents and rampant unaffordability, single-family homeowners have taken
on the role of villain.
Single-family homes are the least efficient use of space in terms of density of residents in a given space
and single-family homeowners are often the most vocal anti-development players on the political
landscape. Resistant neighborhood groups like the Wallingford Community Council have been described
as maintaining “prejudice towards renters” and single-family zoning itself is rooted in racism.
Even as several single-family homeowners testified at Fort Lawton in favor of affordable housing
development, the polarization of Seattle’s housing debates—in addition to the dynamics of the housing
market—have pitted camps against one another in a clumsy, unsubtle battle.
The city’s discourse about housing often passes out of politics and enters into something resembling a
culture war, replete with memes, Twitter celebrities, foundational texts, and now, with the Fort Lawton
hearing, seminal historical spectacles. The symbols and social circles of Seattle’s housing debates are
indeed tightly wound, but calling them a subculture is not quite correct. The discourse more closely
resembles professional sports, where local teams with their own fans and beat reporters belong to a
broader federation that includes other cities. The contours of Seattle’s discussion are replicated in every
liberal city where simpering politicians cater to a white-collar avalanche at the expense of working-class
concerns, giving away large swaths of square mileage to luxury condos and homeowners while
preserving precious little for renters, students and service workers.
As widely shared as Seattle’s condition is, discerning the historical how motivating the political why is
difficult.
Along with In Defense of Housing (2016) and Evicted (2016), Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color of
Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America has emerged as a touchstone
text in Seattle’s housing debates. An Amazon bestseller, the book relays the racist roots of America’s
housing policy, dispensing firebrand solutions and bombshell historical insights along the way.
Rothstein writes that the Woodrow Wilson administration, frightened by the Russian Revolution,
propagandized the American public into private home ownership in 1917, a tactic designed to keep
socialist ideas from taking hold in America. Franklin Roosevelt carried on the mantle decades later,
providing home loans and generous subsidies to aspiring white homeowners while barring Blacks and
other undesirables from the same social welfare. Rothstein’s analysis implicates Seattle, where racially
restrictive housing covenants in neighborhoods such as Sandpoint and Ravenna suppressed minority
home ownership for generations.
With race and class disparities written deep into the material fabric of cities like Seattle, Rothstein
concludes that a housing policy geared towards correcting racism would involve the federal government
purchasing available homes and land plots, then selling them to historically marginalized peoples at a
80% discount. Progressive Seattle has much of the rhetoric and even some of the institutional leverage
to author such a radical solution.
Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative was established in 2007 with an eye, in its words, towards
“working with community-based organizations to support the movement to end structural racism.” The
Initiative features a plan titled “Equitable Development – Seattle 2035” on its website, promising to 2,
“close racial and social disparities with capital and program investments” while “[analyzing] the impacts
of proposed growth strategies on the city’s most vulnerable communities.” This equity-focused
cont.
framework was apparently forgotten in the last decade, as Seattle grew to have the worst per-capita
rates of homelessness in the country. Moving forward, the RSJI toolkit exists as a method of
bureaucratic accountability that can guide the city into an actively re-distributionary mode of governing.
All across Seattle, plots of city-owned surplus land sit vacant, underutilized, or else sold to the highest
corporate bidder.
Politicians who value process over people have allowed these spaces to pass out of the public trust and
into the hands of for-profit developers. Seattle could cultivate such spaces into public housing, or else
enter the market as a broker who could skim off prohibitive land prices for non-profit housing
consortiums, then distribute the land to civic-minded developers to turn these spaces into desperately
needed affordable housing. The city, as its officials like to say, is in the midst of a housing crisis, which it
should do everything it can to alleviate.
As for single-family homeowners, the challenge is to differentiate vulnerable house-dwellers from lucky
millionaires. The former, often seniors on fixed incomes or recent entrees to the middle class, are
gouged by Seattle’s regressive tax structure and endless stream of property tax levies. The latter saw
their collective net worth and property values explode simply because they had the good fortune of
owning property after the 2008 recession. Additionally, single-family homes in neighborhoods like the
University District absorb a large share of the city’s rental market, with students in non-traditional
housing arrangements living on lots owned by absentee landlords.
The city could start a comprehensive community land trust program that would afford young renters—
especially renters of color—a middle way between owning and renting. Such a program could come with
financial services and labor instruction designed to prepare young people for the dynamic, complicated
roles the domestic sphere will play in their lives as they mature. In these city-stewarded land trusts,
modeled, perhaps, after the Sherwood Co-Op, men in particular could be encouraged to learn tasks
related to domestic upkeep that are too often offshored onto women. The public disparities of race and
class are much discussed, while remedying the often privatized, domestic disparities of gender are not.
And as we strive to build the political will for citywide and statewide income taxes, we should make sure
that property taxes disproportionately impact rich homeowners while sparing their poorer counterparts.
All the while, we need to take a hard look at the impact that single-family zoning has on the cultural and
economic life of Seattle. As relics of segregation and avatars of unearned privilege, NIMBY activists are
2,
often the face of resistance to social programs, affordable housing and mass transit. cont.
Seattle’s housing debates seem like the terrain of wonks, insiders and elected officials. But the learning
curve shouldn’t scare anyone away.
At their heart, conversations about home are about who the city will and won’t hold space for in the
future. Anything short of a social commitment to the downward redistribution of access and resources is
window dressing.
--
Shaun Scott
Filmmaker. Historian. Writer.
206.437.7826
www.shaunscott.biz
LETTER 770
From: Ann Scranton
Hi,
I’ve been a Magnolia resident for nearly 15 years, and I’m the parent of a child at Lawton Elementary
School. I think it’s great that the city is looking at Fort Lawton for a low-income housing site - we
desperately need it! However, the neighborhood schools are already jam-packed, and I’m concerned
that such a potentially large influx of families would overwhelm the existing schools. That wouldn’t serve
anyone well, least of all the kids in the new development who may already have been traumatized by 1
poverty and homelessness.
In order for housing developments to be truly successful, appropriate educational infrastructure must
be in place. Please, PLEASE include Seattle Public Schools in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton. Low-
income housing AND a school are both sorely needed in the neighborhood! Surely we can find a way for
both needs to be met.
Thank you,
Ann Scranton
LETTER 771
From: Edward Seafeldt
Subject: I select Option 4, No homeless housing or any other Seattle Office of Housing Projects at Fort
Lawton
I select Option 4, No homeless housing or any other Seattle Office of Housing Projects at Fort Lawton. 1
Edward Seafeldt Magnolia Resident, 4023 34th Ave W., Seattle, since 1974.
LETTER 772
From: Margie Seafeldt
Subject: I select Option 4, No homeless housing at Fort Lawton, Magnolia, Seattle
I select Option 4, No homeless housing at Fort Lawton, Magnolia, Seattle 1
Your project offers me nothing but fear of all the issues your Consortium failed to mention about how
dangerous homeless people and their friends are, endangering our entire community; consuming our
police and fire resources and undermining my decades of work to have a retirement location free of
criminal activities, high crime rates, graffiti and constant threats to my safety. Your actions represent
what you and your Consortium want, not what Magnolia residents like myself, want.
2
Your Consortium uses a wide variety of underhanded, unethical means to accomplish your goals. Your
actions are self-serving.
The Homeless Option 1, is very unfair to our community.
It appears that you control the outcome of this proposal, no matter what we say as Magnolia residents.
This is unfair.
Pre-signing up pages of pro-Homeless Housing members of your Consortium group, to speak and
dominate recorded testimony at the last Church Meeting on January 9, 2018, was a highly unethical,
unprofessional act, indicative of the many other acts you have already taken to ensure your planned
Homeless Center gets approved. This is not how public officials are supposed to conduct Seattle City
Business. Several of your speakers indicated their loathing, contempt and hatred of Magnolia residents.
This is a harbinger of bad things to come, when you and your Consortium openly voice your anti-social
feelings regarding Magnolia community residents. Seeding our community with homeless people filled 3
with rage, violence and a need to take out their anti-social feelings on our community and residents, is
not acceptable.
I have dedicated over four decades of my life to building a residence in Magnolia. Your project serves to
strip me of my home and ruin my life, with crime, drugs,violence gangs, litter and fear of being killed,
raped, beaten and robbed. This is unfair to me as a elderly disabled senior.
Margie Seafeldt, resident of Magnolia since 1974. 4023 34th Ave West, Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 773
From: Allegra Searle-LeBel
Subject: Yes for Ft Lawton low income housing
Dear Seattle
The city should welcome the gift of Ft Lawton land, and the requirement for it to be used as low income
housing is a benefit for our city. We're struggling, and have been for years, about this issue. Forward
motion, which this definitely would be, comes when we have creative and caring solutions that are 1
acted on, not just considered. The people of Seattle want and need low income housing. I urge you to do
the right thing and accept this land.
Regards,
Allegra Searle-LeBel
98122
LETTER 774
From: Roseann Seeley
Subject: Please add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park
To whom this may concern,

I am writing today to request that the Fort Lawton property be added to Discovery Park. As our city has
grown our parks have become more crowded. Discovery Park has always been a unique and critical
location where our city tax payers and city dwellers can escape and breath freely. Adding the Fort 1
Lawton property will be important to assist with preventing over crowding in our parks.
It is rare that we have an opportunity to do something that will make such a big difference in the quality
of life for all of our citizens.
Please accept this request to add Fort Lawton to Discover Park.
Roseann Seeley
LETTER 775
From: Michael Seiwerath
Subject: Yes to Affordable Homes at Ft. Lawton
Hello,
1
Thank you,
Michael Seiwerath
318 26th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98122
LETTER 776
From: Carrie Sellar
I'm so excited for this opportunity to the city of Seattle!

We can lead, rather than continue trailing, the nation in being proactive in our approach to
homelessness.
Please do accept the windfall of the gift of property. Please also accept the responsibility we have to
1
our fellow humans, and house the homeless.
Carrie Sellar
Proud City of Seattle resident.
LETTER 777
From: Alain Semet
Subject: Comments on Ft Lawton DEIS
Dear Ms Lindsay Masters,
Regarding the document -Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for Fort Lawton Army
Reserve Center Redevelopment Project- which clearly should address the environmental impact of the
Fort Lawton site,
it not clear why so many references are made to the Taranis site which is not owned by the City, nor is it
clear that the City has an option to buy. So when in Alternative 3, park, it is suggested that " new
buildings would be constructed on the site as well." It is not clear why this statement which could be 1
interpreted as purposely contradictory is added in this Ft Lawton DEIS.
Park space is special, and the opportunity to complete the park will never come back. so certainly that
option should be given priority. There are plenty of Seattle spaces in great need of redevelopment in
areas better suited for affordable housing with existing transportation and services. So Alternative 3 is
my preferred alternative, but it should not be subject to redevelopment of the Taranis site exclusively.
Rather it should be tied to the redevelopment of land that can be easily acquired if that is necessary to
acquire the Ft Lawton property for parks.
Alternative 2 would be deplorable, because it is essentially the same as Alternative 4, but here the City
2
would be complicit in diverting prime park property to speculators.
Alternative 4 appears to suggest that the land would go directly to speculator developers. Why not
propose at the minimum for the City to put perfectly usable, sound, and some extremely attractive
buildings to use for any purpose such as offices, education, recreation, temporary housing, homeless 3
services, etc, rather than destroying them in every other options. there are a lot of old decrepit buildings
in Seattle in need of being leveled and the area redeveloped.
Alternative 1 does not put any size limit for future expansion, and is not thus is in opposition to a 4
healthy park future.
Respectfully,
Alain Semet
4424 36th Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 778
From: Marva Semet
Subject: Comments on the Fort Lawton Redevelopment and Proposed EIS Alternatives
Ms. Lindsay Masters

Office of Housing
City of Seattle
PO Box 94725
Seattle WA 98124-4725
Dear Ms. Masters,

I am a resident of Magnolia
.
1
I support the EIS Alternative 3.
I support expanding Discovery Park by the City of Seattle to acquire Fort Lawton for a Public Park only. 2
Developing Fort Lawton with any type of housing will contribute to more habitat pollution and loss.
Tall trees are critical to the Great Horned Owl, Blue Heron, Eagle, and Hawk population I frequently
observe in and around Discovery Park. Presently, the trees in Fort Lawton serve as a resting place for
these birds as they fly from their nesting and feeding habitats
around the Ballard Locks, Kiwanis Ravine, and Discovery Park. 3
The availability of adjoining foraging habitats are critical to successful breeding of these birds.
Additionally, of extreme importance is the protection of adjoining vegetation for nest security, roosting
and perching of adult birds and fledglings and collection of nesting
materials.
More housing developments in the sensitive areas next to Discovery Park, and the Kiwanis Ravine will
escalate the use of anticoagulants that poison wild life to control the existing rat population in Discovery
Park and near homes.The increased use of herbicides in developed areas around Discovery park will
4
contribute to more habitat loss and pollute the watershed storm water flowing from these urban areas.
This will result in salmon stocks and Orcas to be at greater risk of extinction.
It is critical to the natural environment that the City of Seattle preserve and create as much open space
park as possible.
The chance to acquire Fort Lawton for park land should be a priority.
5
Let's not add to President Trump's agenda to systematically roll back environmental protections.
In the face of climate change, and wild life's overwhelming habitat loss, we should insure a dedicated
effort to retain as much urban park land as possible and acquire Fort Lawton as an extension to
Discovery Park.
Respectfully Yours,
Marva Semet
[email protected]
818-448-0901
LETTER 779
From: Phil Sewell
I strongly support the building of affordable housing at the fort Lawton site. The development should 1
offer thousands rather than hundreds of units.
This is a unique opportunity to address our housing shortage. 2
PSewell
LETTER 780
From: Amit Shah
Madam
I oppose the city desire to create a low and transition housing in the pristine park . The city has skewed 1
the studies to present the very limited options .
Creating a colony that has more humans than what currently exists in the neighborhood today without 2
any regard to services
What assurance do security, safety, cleanliness, transportation are budgeted by the city to mitigate such 3
large migration
With gratitude and respect,

[email protected]
Seattle.
"Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if
appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!”
LETTER 781
From: John Shao
Subject: Please add Fort Lawton to discovery park
Please add Fort Lawton to discovery park

1
John Shao
LETTER 782
1
LETTER 783
From: Aaron J. Shay
Subject: RE: Fort Lawton
Hello! I'm a Seattle voter from Ballard, and I support Option 1 for more low-income housing! 1
And please, consider building MORE than a few hundred units. We can think bigger! We need to think
bigger. People are getting sick and dying in the streets because of a lack of affordable housing. Seattle 2
can and should do better!
-Aaron
LETTER 784
From: Mesa Sherriff
Subject: Support letter for Fort Lawton Redevelopment
Letter of support for Fort Lawton Redevelopment – Alternative 1

I would like to lend my voice to support the purposed actions for the Fort Lawton site. In my view, the
first alternative is the most appropriate because it focuses the development on the Fort Lawton site.
The alternatives that depend on the Talaris site are an unfortunate example of kicking the can down the 1
road. Though this site could provide a site for a similar development in the future, it will be faced with
equal or greater NIMBYism to the resistance facing the Fort Lawton site. This means effectively starting
over and being no closer to responding to the housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Mesa Sherriff | atelierjones llc
office 911 Pine Street Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98101
office 206.624.9966 fax 206.624.9957 mobile 805.908.1997
[email protected] www.atelierjones.com
LETTER 785
From: Becky Shields
Subject: Please include Seattle Public Schools in the Ft. Lawton re-development
Greetings:
It is imperative that Seattle Public Schools be included in the re-development plan for Ft. Lawton.
1
There are many reasons such as:
- Seattle Public Schools are already bursting at the seams in the Magnolia/Queen Anne Cluster.
The development will go to neighborhood schools that are in the most rapidly growing area in SPS-
schools are already at or over capacity with over capacity for all schools in the next few years even with
the addition of Magnolia Elementary that will open at capacity.
- With further development in the Ft. Lawton area- there needs to be schools to support this
growth of new families.
- Seattle land grows more expensive every day- Seattle Public schools cannot afford to compete
with developers- this is once in a lifetime opportunity to get much needed land
- I support Seattle Public Schools being included in the redevelopment of Ft. Lawton!
- We support Seattle Public Schools in having an opportunity to control a portion of the
development which will enable them to operate play fields which will have immediate benefit to their
1,
sports programs as well as support the high demand from recreational leagues. When they are able to
identify funding to build a school educational facility in the future, we support the opportunity for cont.
Seattle Public Schools to transform this land into a school campus.
- it is imperative that the City and Seattle Public Schools work together to find every opportunity
to support educational infrastructure as the city grows
- The cost of purchasing land is the number one deterrence to Seattle Public Schools being able to
keep pace with the growth in student population. This opportunity for the school district to partner with
the City for substantially discounted land is unique and our city must ensure that it only be able to house
Including schools and creating more seats for students is a positive outcome for all! Thank you for
including Seattle Public Schools in the Ft. Lawton project.
Best,
Becky Shields
LETTER 786
From: Jeannine Shingler
Subject: YES to Ft. Lawton Housing project
YES to Ft.Lawton housing project!
If not now, then when?
Do we keep kicking this can down the road?

1
We need to start somewhere .. and grow from there.
It is to try standing up for every citizen, not just the affluent.
Thank you
Jeannine Shingle r
1544 19th Ave S
360-693-7711
LETTER 787
From: Miya Cohen-Sieg and Ross Sieg
Subject: Ft. Lawton
We are Magnolia residents, and we fully support the construction of subsidized housing for sale and for
rent in Fort Lawton. Seattle in general, and Magnolia in particular, has been losing what little diversity it
possessed with the recent and precipitous rise in local housing prices. We welcome this housing
proposal, not only as a way to provide lower income persons with places to live, but to prevent Seattle
from becoming a bastion of only wealthy white people. When we listen to the complaints against this 1
housing, what we hear is irrational fear, especially fear of the homeless. As soon as people are housed,
they no longer qualify as homeless.
Please put us down as two "Yes" votes for subsidized housing in Fort Lawton.
Sincerely,
Miya Cohen-Sieg and Ross Sieg
LETTER 788
From: Jenette Sifuentes
Subject: Fort Lawton - Support of the Preferred Alternative for Affordable Housing
Jenette Sifuentes
1400 E Mercer St #7
Seattle, WA 98112
Good Afternoon,
I hope this email reaches you in time, as I understand today is the deadline for comments on proposed
I am a Seattle native, born and raised. In 2000 I had the opportunity to live in transitional housing at the
old navy base on Sand Point Way. As a young mother, this gave me an opportunity to get a head start on
my new life; and that was back when housing in Seattle was actually affordable.
I have worked in multi-family property management since 2001 and have been a property manager in
the industry since 2006. Since about 2010 I have seen housing costs in Seattle go out of control. All new 1
products in the market have provided nothing but high-end luxury housing, unaffordable to even most
property managers that manage those buildings. I believe that in addition to more market rate housing,
the City of Seattle has the obligation to help build and supply the market with affordable housing that
the private market is not willing to supply. The land at Fort Lawton is a huge opportunity to do so. If
Seattle decides to forgo this opportunity, the goal of eradicating homelessness and fostering a diverse
city will be nothing but a farce. Please consider how important this opportunity is for those of us that
are feeling left out of Seattle’s growth.
Thank you,
Jenette Sifuentes
LETTER 789
From: John Sillcox
Hello,
I am writing to share that I am strongly in favor of affordable housing at Fort Lawton for people
experiencing homelessness. I live in West Seattle near the Junction and I am grateful to be able to have
1
my own housing, but it disappoints me that the people of our city could make a decision that makes it
harder for others to have their own as well.
Thank you,
John Sillcox
LETTER 790
From: Laura Silverton
Hello.
1
Thank you.
- Laura Silverton
LETTER 791
From: Tyler Simpson
Subject: Build Housing for People Experiencing Houselessness on Fort Lawton
There’s no excuse. We’re in housing crisis. It’s stolen indigenous land in a city and country with a
disproportionate share of unhoused indigenous people. Don’t cave to the evil and selfish demands of
1
millionaires. Do the right thing.
Thanks,
Tyler
LETTER 792
From: Brian Sindel
Yes! I support the construction of affordable housing in this location, thank you! 1
Brian Sindel
LETTER 793
From: Avani Singh

Subject: Fort Lawton Affordable housing
My Vote for affordable housing at fort Lawton - No
Hello,
I completely support affordable housing for homeless, but not at Fort Lawton.
As a home owner and parent of two in Magnolia, I vote to let the area be as is to maintain the integrity
1
of the Discovery park and the neighborhood, or utilize that land for school or playground, and let it be a
safe neighborhood for families with kids.
Hoping my voice is heard.
Thanks
Avani
LETTER 794
From: Egill Skall
Subject: The meeting last night
As a Magnolia resident I cannot conceive a worse fate for the remnants of Fort Lawton than to become a
site for the homeless. The latter are homeless for a reason, typically addiction, mental health issues, or
because they prefer it to the alternatives. And to adulterate Seattle’s largest and most magnificent park
1
with this kind of monstrosity makes one almost physically ill.
But it is Seattle where political correctness prevails and so I suppose this will prevail also. What a
shame.
Egill Skall
LETTER 795
From: Egill Skall
Subject: Discovery Park and the homeless
I am appalled that you are going to put the homeless in a facility adjacent to Discovery Park. It will be a
disaster for the park as well as for surrounding communities. The homeless are in that condition largely
through their own doing not because they can’t get jobs or assistance or whatever is the current popular 1
rationale is. There are zero facilities in Magnolia to assist them in any event. And the infrastructure will
be seriously impacted in a negative way by their presence and their needs. Please reconsider
Egill Skall
Magnolia resident
LETTER 796
From: Erica Sklar
Dear Lindsay Masters and the Office of Housing,
I'm writing to express support for the Fort Lawton Redevelopment. I urge you to create affordable
housing, supported by improved infrastructure, for our vulnerable neighbors.
No matter who you are or where you live in Seattle, part of your daily life is thinking about our housing
now. 1
My values and community have always taught me that ensuring safety and stability for the most
vulnerable is how we create a city that doesn’t leave people behind, that offers generosity in the face of
suffering. Affordable housing created for people experiencing homelessnes is necessary now.
In Ballard, fear of property value was a chief complaint, but during the time that Nickelsville was
crisis, one layoff away from needing support from our community. If that day comes for me, I’d want to 1,
know that people were with me—not against me. cont.
Thank you, Erica Sklar
--
Erica Sklar
she/they pronouns
@_sklarface_
LETTER 797
From: Pob Sloat
Subject: Disco Park
Why not just add the Fort Lawton property - the vacant buildings - to the park. The park should be the 1
most important consideration for everyone.
LETTER 798
From: John Vander Sluis
I'm afraid I missed the deadline for submitting comments on the Fort Lawton Housing project, but in
case these are still considered, I wanted to voice my support for the project. The city needs more 1
affordable housing, and an underutilized site like Fort Lawton would be a good candidate site.
Thanks,
John Vander Sluis
LETTER 799
From: Carolyn J Smith
Subject: Re: Fort Lawton
On Jan 28, 2018, at 3:04 PM, Clark Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >
Hello
>
> I am a 58 year old Magnolia Resident, born and raised here. My Husband has already voiced his
concern but now I am adding to that.
> 1
> I am more than opposed to the prospect of having low income and homeless housing at Discovery
Park / Ex-Fort Lawton.
> We have raised our daughter in this great community and have (until the last few years) felt safe here.
> The crime rate on Magnolia has greatly increased and the current proposal for the housing at Fort 2
Lawton will only make things worse.
> Please reconsider the Fort Lawton housing!> 3
> A school - Yes!!! We REALLY need another School - High School for sure!
> Park - Yes!!! 4
> Additional housing? NO !!!
> Thank you.
Carolyn J Smith,
2653 35th Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
206-898-0104
LETTER 800
From: Clark G. Smith
Hello,
I am a 59 year old Magnolia Resident, born and raised here.
I am more than opposed to the prospect of having low income and homeless housing at Discovery Park /
Ex-Fort Lawton. 1
I work in Ballard and I see the mess that is out there on a daily basis.
We have raised our daughter in this great community and now our Granddaughter is having the
opportunity to live here also.
The crime rate on Magnolia has greatly increased and the current proposal for the housing at Fort
2
Lawton will only make things worse.
Now consider the traffic also! With the recent changes and the bike paths installed, traffic in and out of
Magnolia is ridiculous. If additional housing was added to this area, car traffic and bus routes will be
3
even worse.
Please reconsider the Fort Lawton housing!

4
A school - Yes!!!
Park - Yes!!!
5
Additional housing? NO !!!
Thank you.
Clark G. Smith,
2653 35th Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
206-375-0752
LETTER 801
January 14, 2018
Lindsay Masters,
Project Manager
Re: Draft EIS for Ft-Lawton Comments
I’m writing in support of alternative one building housing on the Ft Lawton BRAC
space. I have no substantive comments on the environmental impact analysis 1
which demonstrated no significant negative impacts. Instead, my comments are
focused on the nature of the project itself and are as follows.
1. Alternative one is a timid proposal. It is staggering that the City is receiving

34 acres of land, for free, and chooses to develop only 39% for housing and
related infrastructure. Land is the most precious commodity needed to build 2
more new affordable housing. The lack of affordable land is the greatest
obstacle facing developers of non-profit housing.
2. The housing crisis facing the city is alarming with increasing unaffordability
for all levels of housing but especially for those of low and moderate
incomes. This crisis has been building for several years, exacerbated by rapid 3
economic growth and stagnant wages. Seattle is now losing its small supply
of naturally occurring affordable housing to development faster than new
affordable housing can be built.
3. Alternative one focusses primarily on building single family structures, the

least efficient use of the land. Two thirds of the proposed 238 units are single 4
family dwellings that are either work force rental housing or home ownership.
4. The proposed single family rental dwellings will be three story and not built
to universal design principals. By building three story walk-up structures, the
5
usefulness of this housing will be limited to able-bodied people. Publicly held
housing must be held to a higher standard: physically accessible to all over
the human life-span.
5. Developing this land inefficiently now may take away the option to develop
the property more intensively later. At the very least it will likely make it 6
more expensive to develop later because of infrastructure changes built in
response to Alternative 1.
I would urge the City to expand the amount of housing in Alternative 1 units by
mostly utilizing flat-style rental apartment units. Much more, housing can be 7
provided using 5 story wood frame construction within the approximate area
proposed for the row houses and town homes. Importantly, the flat-style apartment
housing would be accessible to all through the life span. While this would increase
the percent of land devoted to housing and impervious surface, most of the space 7,
identified in Alternative 1 would still be available for park and open space uses. cont.
The increased need for parking created by additional units can be mitigated, in
part, by the addition of some structured parking. Much of the proposed site for
housing, to the East of Texas Way, is sloping, making single level structured 8
parking an option for some buildings, without extensive excavation.
I live close to the site and look forward to the improvements this will make in the
neighborhood and to welcoming a diverse group of new neighbors.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
George Smith
LETTER 802
From: Jennifer Smith
Subject: Yes on the affordable housing project near discovery park
Hi!
I can’t make the meeting tonight about the housing project. So I wanted to take a moment to offer my
comments.
I’m fairly new to Seattle but absolutely love this city. We are a one income, middle class family and
struggle every day to figure out how and if we can stay in the city. I often try to put myself in the shoes
of people who aren’t as fortunate as we are and wonder how on earth they could stay in or close to the 1
city. If we want the city to stay vibrant and diverse (economically, racially, etc.), we need to have
affordable housing. I say this as a resident of the Columbia City area and would easily welcome a similar
project in my back yard.
Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to the city. As a public servant, I know the work is often
unappreciated and overlooked. You are doing a great job!
Take care,
Jennifer Smith
4229 49th Ave S
Seattle, WA 98118
LETTER 803
From: John Smith
Subject: I support EIS alternatives #4 first, then #3 for Fort Lawton
Please do EIS alternative #4 first, then #3 if necessary. 1
The Army Ft Lawton have always been "good neighbors" to the intent of the Master Plan for Discovery
Park and a sanctuary area for peace and quiet.
2
That will be totally destroyed if you build "homeless and affordable" housing in the Ft Lawton space.
The process of construction, the buildings and the homeless will not honor the Master Plan intent in the
park nor in the surrounding neighborhoods. Given the city council current pushing to let the homeless
stay anywhere and do anything they want without any legal way of moving them on deeply distresses
me let alone formally sanctioning that by building them housing using my tax dollars without my
approval.
3
I go through Ballard regularly and observe the uncontrollable mess and behavior of the homeless.
I don't believe the city will control that for the homeless the city so desperately wants to move into
Discovery Park.
LETTER 804
From: Postyn Smith
Subject: Build housing at Fort Lawton
Hello,
Please build hundreds of units housing at Fort Lawton. Thank you. 1
Postyn
LETTER 805
From: Travis Smith
Subject: NO VOTE ON DISCOVERY PARK DEVELOPMENT
As the subject line says, myself and everyone in my household is STRONGLY opposed to the this
proposed housing development.
1
I am in support of adding the last parcel of fort lawton to discovery park.
Travis
LETTER 806
From: Jessica Smits
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Fort Lawton Redevelopment EIS.
I respectfully ask that you consider using at least part of the land for a school. Our community and
schools are bursting at the seams, with no indication that this will let up--only get worse. If this land is 1
redeveloped with housing of any kind, our schools will be even more overcrowded. We need to be
forward thinking and proactively prepare for these capacity challenges.
I am saddened by the homeless crisis in Seattle and the lack of affordable housing. I think all avenues
must be explored, including the Ft. Lawton land. My concern is that this area is cut off from services,
2
affordable grocery stores, frequently-running bus lines, etc. Please be sure that you have thought this
through before you add housing for a vulnerable population in this location--we need to get this right.
Thank you.
Jessica Smits
LETTER 807
From: Jeff Snyder
Subject: Ft. Lawton
I am writing to express my strong support for building affordable housing at Ft. Lawton. I urge the City to
housing.
housing.
The demand for housing for all income ranges is greater than Seattle’s current housing stock can 1
Sincerely,
Jeff Snyder
LETTER 808
From: Andrew Soderland
Hello,
As a resident of Seattle I am writing to you to express my support for the Fort Lawton project. I honestly
1
don't think the project does enough as proposed but we gotta take what we can get, right? 2
Thanks,
Andrew
LETTER 809
From: Daniel Sohn
Hello,
I attended the public meeting in Magnolia a few weeks ago, and submitted a written comment, but I
want to make sure my voice is heard in this round of comments.
I am a Magnolia homeowner. I live on 22nd Ave W, on the bus line that any new residents will use to get
to their new homes.
I’ll be brief: Please do not give in to the forces of “Not in my backyard” and their less-than-genuine 1
environmental concerns.
We must build this project, and we must do it quickly.
This is an unparalleled opportunity to make use of “free” land.
To give in to the comfortable homeowners who want nothing to change except their equity would be
irresponsible.
Approve this project, and build even bigger! 2

Thank you,
Daniel Sohn
3023 22nd Ave W
Seattle W 98199
LETTER 810
From: Melissa Sokolowsky
Email Address: Melissa Sokolowsky
Subject: I support low-income housing at Fort Lawton
Hello,
I'm a resident of Seattle and I support the effort to build affordable housing at Fort Lawton. There is an
attitude that low-income people are inherently bad citizens and that is just not true. Give people some 1
heart and a chance and quite often they surprise you. It would be foolish to let the property sit unused
or worse, go to a less noble purpose. Let's be smart and compassionate, Seattle!
Thank you,
Melissa Sokolowsky
LETTER 811
From: Ruth Solnit
Subject: Development of army reserve land at Fort Lawton
I would like to voice my support for alternative 1. I would like to suggest that more parking spaces be 1
included. Expecting people to ride bikes to jobs outside of Magnolia is unrealistic, especially if they have
children that need to get to school/childcare and errands need to be done on the way to and from work.
There are very large hills in Magnolia (and the rest of Seattle), that only the most fit and hardy people 2
can deal with every day. Also, as everyone knows, the weather can be challenging to bike in, here in
Seattle.
In the same vein, the bus service to this area is sparse, with buses coming once a half hour, at best. This 3
is also not optimal for people who need to get to and from work, school, childcare.
It would be great if a childcare facility/community gathering area were included in the planning. 4
I also heard that some people at the last meeting were advocating for many more housing units to be
included (2,000??). This does not seem to fit into the area around Fort Lawton and I would be very 5
much against this change.
Thank you for all your work.
Sincerely,
Ruth Solnit
LETTER 812
From: Troy Sorensen
Subject: DEIS Comments - Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project

PO Box 94725
City of Seattle:
This letter is in response of request for community comments for the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the city of Seattle’s proposed Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project.
I believe Option #4 is the appropriate option for the City of Seattle to pursue for the following reasons: 1
1) the city (and any government entity for that matter) should not be in the housing business at all.
These government programs always end up being full of redundant bureaucracies, waste, fraud and 2
corruption. Private charities should be leading the effort.
2) insufficient infrastructure support for the proposed units of subsidized housing. Traffic is
already a mess on 15th Ave W (the only arterial street supporting Magnolia) heading North towards
Ballard and especially South towards Downtown and will only get worse once the viaduct is removed
3
and the cars will have to battle the already clogged downtown surface streets which will be further
burdened as road lanes are replaced by bike lanes and buses moved from tunnel to streets.
3) crime continues to increase in the Magnolia area from the city’s prior social experiments with
establishing tent cities in Interbay and lack of enforcing illegal encampments all over the area. This 4
study does not address how the other alternatives will address this problem that will grow with more
homeless housing in the area.
4) If the city continues to insist that it must be in the low-income/homeless housing business, then
it should first direct those efforts towards the parts of town where such a development would improve 5
the blight (such as Aurora Ave North which also is major transportation feed to Seattle jobs) rather than
reducing the value of the properties surrounding Discovery Park.
5) I could support Option #3 if I felt that the City of Seattle could maintain it properly within its
current resources (no tax hikes to cover), but already the city can’t keep the current parks maintained
very well and with the constant whining and complaining by the city government about not having
enough money, then it should let it go to highest bidder and let the federal government pay down a few 6
seconds worth of the debt mountain they are creating. By selling to the highest bidder while Seattle
would not directly gain from sales proceeds which would go to Army/Federal Government, it will gain
from increased tax base as higher income people would likely buy the houses a private developer builds.
Based on the recently announced sale of the Talaris site to private developer, was that really even a
viable option being presented? It sure looks like a very disingenuous action to make it look like you
7
looked at alternatives besides the recommended option you want to cram down the throats of the
Magnolia community and at the expense of all City of Seattle taxpayers.
Since these comments are being directed to go to the Seattle Office of Housing, I highly doubt that it is
worth any more time to submit comments against the city pursuing this project. I do not believe that
the City of Seattle nor any government entity should be in the Housing business at all and thus your
department should actually be eliminated. Having public comments directed to be submitted to the city 8
department with more to gain and whose livelihood’s are dependent on increasing taxpayer subsidized
housing despite the unintended consequences that your organization has failed to recognize that by
needing to increase taxes to pay for this, you are making it more likely that more people, especially fixed
income seniors, will find themselves taxed out of their own homes as well as making it more expensive
to live and work in Seattle.
Sincerely
P. Troy Sorensen
City of Seattle Taxpayer -- Magnolia
LETTER 813
From: Nicole Southwell
Subject: In Support of Affordable Housing Project
Hello,
I am writing in support of the affordable housing project at Fort Lawson. We DO NOT need more
market-rate housing in Seattle. We need to protect and provide housing for those that are low-income. 1
Sincerely,
Nicole Southwell
LETTER 814
From: Cameron Sparr
Subject: I support building housing in Fort Lawton
Please don't let a vocal minority sway the decision to build housing at Fort Lawton, affordable housing is 1
needed and every neighborhood in Seattle must do their part to help!
LETTER 815
From: Erica Sponsler
Subject: Support Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
I am writing to voice my support for the development of low income housing at Fort Lawton.
The homelessness crisis facing Seattle is exacerbated by the lack of affordable housing options as
residents are being pushed out of the city or out of housing altogether. The City should take the
opportunity it has with the Fort Lawton land to maximize the benefit to the community that low income
housing options could provide. An area of the city that is adjacent to Discovery Park, one of the largest 1
parks in Seattle, is in less need of additional park land than the people of Seattle are in need of
affordable housing solutions.
Thank you.
Erica Sponsler
[email protected]
LETTER 816
From: Jennier Spriggs
Subject: Affordable Housing at Ft. Lawton

housing.
2
housing.
2,
if we don’t act now. cont.
Sincerely,
Jennier Spriggs
LETTER 817
From: Patricia Springer
Please preserve Discovery Park by adding the Fort Lawton parcel to the Park 1
LETTER 818
From: Brent Stach
Please do not develop any part of Discovery Park. It is a treasure for all and if we start developing it,
we’ll never get that land back. In 100 years, it would be great to have this green space in the city.
1
Brent Stach
Director, Business Development

Tel: 206.257.2919 | Mobile: 206.650.0573
LETTER 819
From: Amanda Stanek
Subject: Opposition of Fort Lawton Housing
I, Amanda Stanek, oppose the proposed housing development adjacent to Discovery Park and Kiwanis 1
Ravine. Please help protect these natural jewels of Seattle by considering my email!
LETTER 820
From: Megan Stanley
Subject: Public housing in Magnolia
I am a Magnolia resident and I am strongly opposed to redevelopment of the site near Discovery Park
for low income housing.
1
Magnolia is purely a residential area with none of the infrastructure, services or transportation needed
to support low income families with many needs.
Our schools and buses in Magnolia are already over crowded. The best choice for this property would be 2
a middle school as there is no middle school in Magnolia.
Please listen to Magnolia residents rather than housing advocates who have no knowledge of the needs 3
of this neighborhood.
Thank you,
Megan
LETTER 821
From: Neal Starkman
Subject: housing in Fort Lawton
I've lived in Magnolia for several decades, and I do not want to see housing in Fort Lawton. I am all for
public housing, particularly as it applies to those unable to afford other housing. And this is not NIMBY
(Not In My BackYard). I live down the block from both a church and playfields, and I'd be fine with
housing there.
But Discovery Park is special. It's a 500-acre virgin forest. I don't want to see construction, traffic, litter,
and everything else that comes with a human community--public or private. And what's next? Should a
grocery be built there so that the tenants can have easy access to food? How about a gas station? And a
bank? Maybe several banks! And restaurants, too! And barber shops! And . . . 1
The wonderful thing about Discovery Park--unique in Seattle--is how green and lush and generally
untouched it is (the sewage plant notwithstanding). Please, are there not other locations, even in
Magnolia, that are more suitable for public housing?
I'll be attending the hearing on January 9 to get more information, but I really would like to preserve the
park as is--a place to walk, to hike, to look out over the Olympics, maybe even to work (I worked at
United Indians of All Tribes for several years), but not to build apartments.
Thank you.
Neal Starkman
206/281-1153
[email protected]
LETTER 822
1
LETTER 823
From: richard starnes
Subject: Ford Lawton Redevelopment
Hi,
I am a Magnolia resident, and I am in option of Option , as I believe we need to offer more forms of 1
affordable housing in Seattle.
Richard
LETTER 824
From: Mary Steele-Klein
Subject: Discovery Park Opposition
[email protected]
www seattle.gov/housing/ft-lawton , [email protected] Seattle Housing,January 25, 2018
Re: Development of Discovery Park
1 your public comment session of January 9th 2018 was not comply with the requirements for “public
comment of residents ‘impacted’, living nearby (environmental impact),” where the overwhelming
numbers of individuals and comments came from ‘shipped in’ socialist workers party ( under the
direction of (other area counselor) Sawant and also included multiple ‘vendors’ of ‘change’ who reside
in other distant areas of the city who took up the overwhelming majority of comment time. 1
2. There was no opportunity for the local residents to even enter the building (at least 50 were
standing outside as I tried to entire) and most were excluded from any seating or comment by the
‘socialist’ packed -nonresidents and because the socialists also filled out the comment list there was no
equal opportunity for the impacted ‘Magnolia Community” to speak to the panel.
3. Where Opposition to park development is well founded:
First, everyone is for affordable housing and prevention of homelessness, and effective treatment of 2
drug and alcohol addiction and profound mental disability of veterans.
Second, there has to be a strict rent control ordinance passed immediately to prevent further
displacement of low income resident.
Third, new ordinance mandating provision of any residential development of over two units to include 3
25 to 30 per cent of housing to low income residents of Seattle. Scattered site housing of low income
individuals and families is the only way for them to move up into the middle class. There is no fund
exception, and additional taxes on properties held less than five years should be heavily taxed.
Fourth, the current proposed plans is absurd and serve no none: by isolating a community in Discovery
Park of the 2000 units as the socialist want, or nearly 5000 new individuals, will overwhelm the
Magnolia -already overbuilt community of only 5000- and its limited services. This is an obvious attempt
4
to ‘gerrrymander’ and add votes and gain political control by the socialists of the entire city.
The isolation will result in a gang filled, crime ridden ghetto with parents commuting long hours which
means unsupervised children and teens and which will require enormous additional police housing and 5
fire protections, There is no ‘up side’ to this plan.
4. However, careful planning should include as priority, moving the disadvantaged above into
normal society, scattered site housing, instead ad clearly predictable here, the creation of a permanent
6
dependent impoverished, low income, crime ridden ghetto, which provides no model for accession to
improvement of their circumstances.
5. Your proposal of isolating these unfortunates in setting with no transportation (a one hour
commute to downtown), no employment and no educational opportunity ( where schools already
overcrowded and transferring out students); where provision extensive complete treatment facilities.
However, these features are very easily already provided in other areas of the city - the Sodo, South 7
Park are especially good for access to employment, educational and training (the port authority),
harborview hospital and veterans administration services with a full nearby facility.
The employment and traianing and treatment possibilities are particularly relevant to the homeless
group here.
What you are proposing for Discovery Park is apparently, from the multiple references of the socialist
workers speaker who “packed’ your ‘comment’ meeting on … merely motivated by some kind of envy of
the pristine quality of the park and the very few expensive homes in other areas of the park - remember 8
Macklemore, and “Thrift shop’ funded his 3.5 million dollar Magnolia home by dint of his hard work.
This is meaningless pure envy and undermines the socialist agenda.
Please reschedule a hearing for ‘impacted’ local Magnolia residents protecting their rights for 9
“comment”
Sincerely, Mary Steele-Klein /S 3401 West Government Way, Seattle 98199

[email protected], [email protected]
LETTER 825
3
LETTER 826
2
3
4
LETTER 827
From: Stephanie Stein
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Stephanie Stein
[email protected]
3324 Hamilton Way
Los Angeles, Washington 98107
LETTER 828
From: Jake Steinberg
Subject: Ft. Lawton housing development comment
I am writing in support of affordable housing development at Fort Lawton. Seattle's housing shortage
has reached crisis levels: medium through low income households are being pushed out of the city, and
the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers. This problem needs to be
addressed by providing affordable housing on various levels to help those struggling on various levels.
The City should consider bold steps to create more public and affordable housing. The City's Preferred
Alternative plan at Fort Lawton devotes only a fraction of space for development of affordable housing 1
thus passing up an opportunity to build more affordable homes, and to truly replenish housing for those
being driven out of the city by increasing rent prices.
being considered.
Thank you.
LETTER 829
From: Tonya Ricks Sterr

I am in full and complete support of the Fort Lawton housing project. I'm a homeowner in Seattle and I 1
know that we need more places for people to live. I'd prefer more than 200 homes; why not make it
2000, but let's get housing in there as fast as we can. I had to explain to my 3-year-old this weekend 2
about homelessness and how people who were living in tents on the street were not camping. He didn't
understand and I wish he didn't have to. We should be building much more dense and affordable 3
housing to shelter all of our neighbors.
Thank you.
Tonya Ricks Sterr
LETTER 830
From: "Lori Stevens"
Subject: Add Ft Lawton to Discovery Park
The benefits for the city long-term far outweigh the special interests lobbying to fill their own short-
term agendas (each with their share of less-than-altruistic motivations.)
All this talk of homeless or displaced people--can we consider homeless and displaced wildlife? Beings
without any say or control of the circumstances being forced upon them?
Real estate development - whether affordable or low-income alternatives or homeless 'shelters' -- will
still profit a few versus many and insure no protections for the environment or management of
resources in that area...
At least a school and public use places maintain some ecological integrity and control over its' handling 1
and appearance and symbiotic relationship with Nature.
Greenbelts here are disappearing and yet majorly packed cities such as New York, San Francisco,
Chicago and even Los Angeles have managed to carve out and protect LAND used for/near/ and ADD to
Parks & Recreation and keep Nature as a priority in their growth and population expansions!
Never would you see such a large special-interest benefiting agenda-item infringe on Golden Gate Park,
Central Park, Lincoln Park or others.
On a separate issue - Gut and wipe out the existing homeless orgs who pocket resources more than
benefit recipients. Seattle deserves a brand new start run by brand new faces and a complete and utter 2
purging of the old, corrupt homelessness bureaucracy and so-called 'charities' ripping us off.
Get tougher on crime for individuals who choose homeless as a lifestyle rather than an unavoidable
circumstance.
Worry about fighting legal and political battles to increase healthcare costs to put homeless mentally
challenged into facilities that help them - not investing time and money defending building 'shelters'
that are short-term fixes.
Mandate a portion of all these ugly vanilla box-units going up around town by wealthy developers have 2 cont
a couple of floors toward the easy-access bottom floors where elderly and families with children facing
homeless have affordable living options -- legit people who want to better their circumstances or at
least appreciate integration into a community of supportive neighbors.
You've got 3 homeless populations to segment and address plus an ENTIRE city of tax-paying residents
and citizens relying on a quality of life filled with respect for and appreciation of Nature, too. The ENTIRE
city should stop being second banana to a clearly tiered population of homeless.
We don't need the military in Ft Lawton, so Discovery Park now needs the land to help special interests
stop carving into its own borders. Ft Lawton is the parcel that can make our community thrive with
schools and a place of community--not stashing marginalized populations, many of whom do not desire
to contribute to Seattle society long-term. The ones that do can be integrated into better areas to
support their growth and participation.
3
Meanwhile, we have furry, finned, and feathered residents who need someone looking out for their
interests, too! An ecosystem does not thrive without variety. The locks and everything delicate around
there has suffered from enough illegal dumping/ squatting/ sewage contamination and so forth.
'If a man loses his reverence for any part of life, he will lose his reverence for all of life..." Dr Albert
Schweitzer.
Start with NATURE folks, not HUMAN NATURE, period.
--
-Lori Stevens
LETTER 831
From: Rachel Stevens
Subject: fort lawton
As a Seattle resident, I feel required to write in my support for the development of Fort Lawton for
lower income citizens.
I have been a homeless, unemployed couchsurfer before, but with adequate resources I became able to
contribute back to society. 1
There is an increasing amount of folks living on the streets in Seattle these days, and they deserve a
place of safety and recuperation. Please, follow through with the development in Magnolia. I'm sure
there will be complaints, but complaints will be preferable to tent cities and sweeps.
LETTER 832
From: Libby Stevenson
Subject: Ft Lawton
Hello. I am a Magnolia resident who is in favor of alternative #1 at Ft Lawton. I believe in integrated 1

affordable housing, so please don’t just agree to put it somewhere else. Please consider the
transportation needs and ensure these folks can get where they need to go. Magnolia needs more 2
classroom space so please keep this alternative open to the School district. It is such a great place to live
but the lack of adequate public school classrooms is appalling. Make sure that Catholic Services holds up
3
to their promises. At a community meeting least I heard a lot of frustration from people who lived near
DESC on 15th. They really felt like DESC had lied and misled them. I have no personal knowledge but
these were folks who support Ft Lawton but are still feeling burned by a bad experience. Sadly the City 4
has a reputation problem. This is a great opportunity to do something amazing and do it well. Let’s do
the right thing and change some lives for the better. Good luck!
Libby Stevenson
2850 35th Ave West.
LETTER 833
From: Erin Stewart
I'm writing in support of the Fort Lawton housing. If the city doesn't correct our moral compass to point
toward Housing For All, now, we are lost. The time for excuses has passed, and we know all know this in
the corners of our conscience.
Maslow's Hierarchy is very real. The need for shelter, security, and stability is fundamental. Without
these, a person, a family, a relative, a veteran, a native american, a wretched refugee, an artist, a young 1
student are unable to advance much less exerience 24 hours of peace.
Fort Lawton redevelopment is a worthy vision and must continuously and robustly be nurtured and
championed. There are thousands like me ready to help.
Let us be bold -- aim for 2,000 units. Swing the pendulum back to workers and the systemically
oppresssed. "The dream you dream alone is only a dream. The dream we fream together is a reality"
[Yoko Ono]. 2
Let us recognize that our City is bigger than bricks and mortar, our City has a conscience in pain.
Let us focus on the possibilities of kindness and responsibility.
Erin Stewart
Seattle worker and consumer
LETTER 834
From: Lindsay Stewart
Subject: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Draft EIS Comment Form
To Lindsay Masters
Comments on the preferred housing option.
To be completely honest, I am very surprised that I have to even write this. I am not sure how the city of
Seattle could possibly justify not accepting free land to build more affordable housing. I suppose our
richer, white neighbors in the area have decided that they do not want this in their "backyard". I am
sure that the excuses they come up with are everything from "poor people use drugs" to these people
are not vetted", which are both things I have heard said about why concerned trolls don't want these
developments to happen in the areas they live.
None of those assumptions or accusations about affordable housing people are correct. And the city
needs to stop ignoring the reality of our housing situation. These desperate gasping last breaths of
people who fain concern to cover racism and elitism need to be shouted down. This is why I am writing.
We need housing. NOW- and frankly waiting 7 years for this development is too long, but it is what we
have at this point. We need housing that is affordable to the majority of the people who live in this city.
1
We need to stop pushing out people who do not rise to the standards of rich, white people. Cause let's
be honest, that is the only reason that this has taken so long. We have allowed these people to override
and destroy desperately needed housing and development. I am asking that you stop this and do not
allow this to continue.
Let's work together as a community to develop this land. Le's work to pull more transit and help
businesses grow in these areas to support the people who live here. Let's add more jobs, more money
and infrastructure to our city. Let's stop allowing a small percent of Seattlelites dictating how our city
looks and develops. Let's ignore the misinformation and make choices based on common sense and
facts. We need to get back to this for our community and the survival of our city. We also need to
acknowledge that this is stolen land. I truly hope that the voices of our people of color are being heard
and heeded.
I believe that it is important for us to build Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton. I wish we could build
2
more than 234 units, but if that is the best we can do, we cannot miss this opportunity.
Thank you for listening. I appreciate your ear.
Lindsay Stewart
11726 Greenwood Ave N
Seattle WA 98133
LETTER 835
From: Erik Stinson
Subject: Queen Anne resident in support of housing at Fort Lawton
Hi,
I live in Lower Queen Anne, very near a men's shelter (which is totally fine—it seems to do more good
than harm, even in my mixed/upscale/arts/family neighborhood home to—I assume—many NIMBYs). If
a men's shelter can exist without much trouble in very-conservative-yet-arty Queen Anne, why not
affordable housing anywhere in the city?
I support all additional affordable housing initiatives in Seattle, especially those directly funded by
progressive taxes. The inability to produce any kind of affordable housing at a meaningful scale is deeply 1
disturbing to me. There's no reasonable argument against housing, zoning and rental regulation efforts
that assist people with fewer economic resources. The character and economy of the city depend on
financial diversity and inclusion programs, which can—and will—be funded by historically reasonable
taxes on the wealthiest individuals and organizations. These groups provide little or no value to the
community if they don't share the wealth they are able to extract from the economic system through
cheap labor, retail biz, national-level manufacturing, software, etc.
Please push for Fort Lawton and other affordable housing infrastructure now and in the future.
Thanks
Erik Stinson, copywriter, POP
Frm. media director NY OWS & Berkeley Grad Student Union
(New-ish Seattle resident)
--
erikstinson.com
Writer & commercial creative
LETTER 836
From: Elliot Stoller
Subject: Fort Lawton Public Housing Proposal
I support the Seattle City proposal for 240 units at Fort Lawton. And we should do a lot more than this. 1
Elliot Stoller
Wallingford
LETTER 837
From: Steph Stone
Subject: Supporting Fort Lawton
Re: Public Comment Period for Fort Lawton
I support the recommended alternative for the Fort Lawton redevelopment as proposed in the 3rd
(third!) DEIS. This is the only option which includes on-site affordable housing. I live in a neighborhood
which was upzoned a few years ago, and the rest of the neighborhood is recommended for upzone as
part of HALA. I can appreciate the palpable fear from magnolia residents, as this has happened in my
own neighborhood. I can't, however, condone the actions of a few privileged (and litigious) citizens and
their demonizing of lower socioeconomic classes. There is no data to support claims of a ruined
neighborhood or increased crime. Public open spaces do not belong to wealthy individuals (have we
learned nothing from those whose lands we colonized?). I am frustrated by the delays and tax spend 1
incurred at my expense due to their fear, and disheartened by their ability to support legal action
through privilege (and the city's kowtowing). Those without resources don't have as great a voice, such
that dissenters are de facto increasing the wealth and privilege gap in this city. It's time to stop the
vicious cycle of white privilege, greed, and entitlement, and start improving housing options in our city.
This is a no-brainer. Please do the right thing for your whole city, not just a few wealthy magnolia
residents. And yes, please do this in my backyard too.
S. Stone
Madison-Miller neighborhood
LETTER 838
From: Ian Strader
Subject: Build public housing
Hello,
We need as much public housing as possible. Build it now at Fort Lawton. 1
Thanks,
Ian Strader
8243 4th Ave NE, 98115
LETTER 839
From: Kesterson Strople
Subject: Fort Lawton Meeting
Greetings,
Unfortunately I was not able to attend the meeting tonight, however from what it sounds like it wouldnt 1
have mattered anyways.
My family has lived in Magnolia since the 1920's and it has always been a more expensive place to live
even then. While I agree Seattle needs more affordable housing, how about we stop letting developers
build huge condo buildings that no one can afford to live in so they sit half empty rather than put people 2
already struggling in an area with no services.
I don't trust metro to have the money to increase bus routes, we have zero public services near by and
because of recent road changes it can take way longer than it should to get out of magnolia. My mother
3
worked for non-profits till she retired and she said it in 2005 and I say it now, you will set these people
up for failure when you are trying to set them up for success.
I'm not rich, I work my butt off and it saddens me to hear that the meeting was over run by people who
dont even live in magnolia, but seem to think their voices should be heard over others.
In all likely hood the city will probably move forward with listening to those who don't live near by and
do it anyways. Example the "Path to nowhere" behind the houses that boarder the dog park on 28th.
The city ignored them and listened to people who dont live near by so why should I have any faith you 4
will care about the people who have worked hard to get where they are. All the city seems to care about
is the image.
I'm sure this will be ignored but at least I have put in my word in.
And if someone actually reads this thank you.

LETTER 840
From: Kesterson Strople
Subject: Re: Fort Lawton meeting
I too have lived in Magnolia for many years and I this is very nicely put, and I very much aggree that 1
there few if any services convinant to the park by bus. Yes there services but they are downtown. I
have not seen the plans but THEY PROBABLY DO NOT INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT. 2
Also the roads off of Magnolia are not setup to handle that much traffic and they would not be easy to 3
upgrade. Thank you for your time.
LETTER 841
From: Lucinda Stroud
Subject: Support for Fort Lawton affordable housing
I an a resident of Lower Queen Anne and a frequent visitor of Discovery Park. I have lived in Seattle for 9
years and am increasingly concerned by the changing character of the city - more and more people are
being forced from their homes, and income inequality is soaring. The market will not resolve this
1
problem. We have to do it ourselves, and I think that developing Fort Lawton into affordable housing is
an essential step in saving Seattle.
I think that this plan will be an improvement to the neighborhood, the city, and the school system.
LETTER 842
From: Terri Suess
Subject: Fort Lawton Low Income and Affordable Housing _EIS

I support low income housing and affordable housing to be built at Fort Lawton. I think there should be 1
many more than 253 units. Given our current housing crisis, the project should also include some 2
dorm-like co-housing built as pods around common living areas for temporary transitional housing.
I also firmly believe that Native American's whose land this really is, should be at the top of the list and
invited first for the housing units that are built. This housing will be close to the Day Break Center and
would be a fitting tribute to our friends and neighbors who have traditionally been the most rejected 3
and least served. This could be a chance to take at least a tiny step to right many historic wrongs. This is
one aspect of the Environmental Impact Statement/Historical Record that has not been fully addressed.
Terri Suess
11720-20th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA
LETTER 843
From: Hannah Sullivan
Lindsay Masters,
more housing. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income households are being 1
parking, passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes. 1,
cont.
Thank you.
Hannah Sullivan
[email protected]
PO Box 35
WA, Washington 98267
LETTER 844
From: Max Suman
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment into Low-Income Housing
If you're gonna do something with the already developed part of Disco Park, please do something
productive with it. Low-income housing is the best use of that land and will support many families who
need it. Not to mention there've already been tons of attempts at targeting wealthier people for those
1
homes, and it failed miserably. I'm sure there's a bunch of stuck up rich folk who will complain that
"poor people will bring in drugs and ruin the park" but where is the evidence to validate this claim?
Please make a kind choice and help people to in return help society,
Max
LETTER 845
From: Noelle Sun

Subject: Fort Lawton - Option 1
As a resident of Seattle I am writing to you to voice my support of Option 1 of the Fort Lawton proposal.
I believe it is imperative that the city of Seattle takes this critical opportunity to address the city’s 1
affordable housing crisis and to protect its most vulnerable communities.
Thank you,
Noelle Sun
LETTER 846
From: James Sutter
Subject: Fort Lawton community feedback
Hello! My name is James Sutter, and I'm a Seattle resident. I can't make it to the public hearing tonight,
but I wanted to ask you to please, please move forward with the proposal to use the Fort Lawton land to
create more affordable housing for the poor and homeless.
Seattle has the third-highest homeless population in the nation, and while I understand (if not
sympathize with) why Magnolia residents would be reluctant to have more affordable or transitional
housing in their neighborhood, the job of the city government is to do what's best for our populace as a 1
whole, not just a few wealthy residents. Our city continues to grow, and we can't stop our
neighborhoods from changing—we can only try to make that change a positive one. A society is
ultimately judged by how well it treats its least fortunate, and the fact that we can get this land for
essentially free makes it a comparatively easy way to help ameliorate the suffering of Seattle's poor.
Getting people off the streets and into safe housing is something that all of us, regardless of
neighborhood or economic status, should be able to get behind. As a voter and a homeowner myself,
I'm happy to pay more taxes or increase density in my neighborhood if it means creating a more
affordable, compassionate city.
Thank you so much for your work!
Best,
James
LETTER 847
From: Karen Sutton
Subject: Low income housing
I vote no 1
LETTER 848
From: Joseph Swain
Subject: Ft Lawton Housing DEIS
Dear City Official,
I’m writing in support of the Fort Lawton Housing Development proposal (Preferred alternative). As a
10-year resident of the city, I have witnessed the need for more affordable housing first-hand, and the
concrete needs of the growing homeless population should unquestionably trump nebulous claims for 1
neighborhood character, traffic, parking or crime prevention.
If I had a criticism of the proposed development, it’s that the plan does not include enough housing
units for the size of the site. Zoning could allow for hundreds more units with an impact that would be a
fraction of the impact in virtually any other part of the city.
1,
Please move the preferred alternative forward to build more housing stock for those who need it. This
project is such a slam dunk. I appreciate the Department of Housing’s initiative on this, but I do not want
cont.
to live in a city that cannot take advantage of such an opportunity in the face of unfounded opposition
from a wealthy few.
Thank you very much,

Joseph Swain
4462 Whitman Ave N, Lower
Seattle, WA 98103
LETTER 849
From: Kara Sweidel
Hello,
I am writing to express my desire to see Fort Lawton turned into affordable housing. I don't need to tell
you about the housing crisis in Seattle. We need to do what we can immediately to fix it, and getting the 1
land free from the federal government for housing the homeless is a no-brainer. I'd like to see the
development work with the Chief Seattle Club, as a disproportionate number of our homeless
population is Native American. This is especially damning in a city named after the chief of the tribe the
colonizers pushed off their land. This development also needs to include increased access to food,
preferably through growing space and an affordable market or a food bank. 2
Please do not let the shouts of a handful of wealthy homeowners drown out the common sense cries of
the rest of us who want to see the most vulnerable in our city taken care of.
Thanks,
Kara Sweidel
4302 Meridian Ave N
LETTER 850
From: Nick Szumlas
Subject: Nick Szumlas says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
region.
3
Sincerely yours,
Nick Szumlas
LETTER 851
From: Joe Szwaja
Lindsay Masters,
Hi Mayor and City Council
I am writing to support the proposed redevelopment of Fort Lawton, although I would actually prefer 1
the city use the site for much more housing than is currently proposed.
Seattle is in the midst of a major housing crisis that is pricing most people out of the city. The root cause
of this crisis are public policies that restrict the supply of housing. These same policies are directly tied to
climate change: we need to build denser cities to lessen our reliance on cars and allow more people to
live in a more sustainable way.
2
We have a unique opportunity to develop affordable housing at the site of Fort Lawton which should not
be passed up. While among the alternatives I support alternative 1, I strongly urge the city to develop
much more housing of all types on the site. There is no defensible reason for new 7200 SF single family
homes to be developed on site: we need to be building denser housing for both economic and ecological
reasons. Many thousands of people of all backgrounds and income levels should have the opportunity to
live next to Discovery Park.
Thanks Much ! Joe Szwaja
Joe Szwaja
[email protected]
2021 NE 75th Street
LETTER 852
From: Vicky Tamaru

Subject: Ft.Lawton
As a home owner in Magnolia, I support the use of low income housing as well as for the school
1
proposed on the Ft. Lawton land
- Vicky Tamaru
LETTER 853
From: Rosalind Tan
Subject: Comments on the Fort Lawton Redevelopment and Proposed EIS Alternatives
Ms. Lindsay Masters

Office of Housing
City of Seattle
PO Box 94725
Seattle WA 98124-4725
Dear Ms. Masters,

I am writing in to provide my updated feedback on the Ft Lawton Redevelopment. I am residing at 3718
W Lawton Street, north of Ft Lawton and will be directly impacted by any development of this site.
I was initially in favor of schools, but I support the proposal for having the whole site designated for 1
schools and not a combination of alternate 1,2, and 4 plus schools. (Alternative #3 + school is more
acceptable.) Specifically, I do not like the piecemeal proposal of having alternate 1, 2 and 4 first and
schools being a playfield for now till they get more funding for converting to schools in future. The Ft
Lawton site CANNOT handle so much traffic from alternative 1 and schools. It'll be a nightmare getting
2
in and out of the area. Anything the city does needs to be holistic.
In light of the situation, my updated support is for Alternative #3 public park. No school. 3
As mentioned in my previous feedback, this Ft Lawton site is not a good site for low income housing.
The infrastructure surrounding this site is not sufficient. Infrastructure for transport is non existing 4
(which is why I like this area as it's quiet and not so easy to get to). Schools are crowded (I'm not sure
how many school kids will be added in alternative #1,2,4); how congested the roads will be (during and
after construction); availability of other services....etc. SDOT is putting new bicycle lanes but magnolia is
not flat, so it's not so easy to ride around. How are the residences of alternative #1 getting around? 5
Will Magnolia Bridge be torn down in future?
Recently I've also read up more about the Discovery Park Master Plan. I'm surprised that developing
this Ft Lawton site is even considered as it'll go against the core objective of the master plan.
From https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/ParksAndRecreation/Parks/masterplan1.pdf
Park Objective
The transfer to Seattle of a major portion of the Fort Lawton site challenges this city to create within its
borders a public park of unparalleled magnificence. 6
The site is one of breathtaking majesty. Lying at the northern tip of Seattle’s crescent on Elliott Bay and
thrusting westward into Puget Sound, this promontory commands dramatic views up and down the
Sound and across the water to the snow-covered Olympic Mountains.
The seclusion of the site, the magnificent vistas, the stretches of tidal beaches, the stands of native
trees, the meadowlands—all combine to make this site one of surpassing beauty and serenity. As a park
site its potential is bounded only by the vision and resolution of those into whose hands it is entrusted.
The master plan, we believe, lays down guidelines which, if followed faithfully, cannot fail to create on 6,
this site a park which will be one of the great urban parks of the world—and a joy to this city forever. cont.
To reiterate, I'm in support of alternative #3 public park.
Sincerely,
Rosalind Tan
LETTER 854
From: Charles Tang

housing.
housing.
Sincerely,
Charles
LETTER 855
From: Erica Tarrant
I'm writing to ask that the Fort Lawton land be used to build as much affordable housing as possible,
with an emphasis on family housing. Seattle is facing an escalating crisis, with skyrocketing rents and
most market-rate development focusing on studio and one bedroom apartments, rather than spaces
1
that can accommodate families.
Thanks you,
Erica Tarrant
LETTER 856
From: Emily Taylor
Subject: Approval for Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
I am writing to express my support for Affordable housing in Magnolia at Fort Lawton. I am a current
resident of Magnolia (3535 27th Pl W). This city needs more housing for people with fewer resources, 1
and I hope Magnolia can be part of a solution toward that end. Thanks,
Emily Taylor
312-379-9339
LETTER 857
From: Gretchen Taylor
Subject: Fort Lawton comment
Our parks in Seattle are a cherished asset to every resident …housed and unhoused. Do not build
housing of any kind on this property …this land should be for everyone…and should be a park where 1
everyone can enjoy nature to its fullest extent. Once this land is gone and converted to housing then it
will be gone forever.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Taylor
Vote NO on housing in Fort Lawton. Incorporate this land into Discovery Park.
LETTER 858
From: Jason Taylor
Subject: Comment: Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Draft
EIS
"Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Draft EIS"

Comment Form Name:
Jason Taylor
Address:
1068 E Thomas Apt K Seattle WA, 98102
Telephone/Email:
206 851 6962
[email protected]
Comment:
We need more housing for our City's homeless!!
Homelessness is the biggest issue facing our city. As a resident of the Capitol Hill neighborhood I will
always support any effort to house our homeless. The more successful our city becomes the more
homeless we seem to have. We must do a better job at providing shelter and services to our most 1
vulnerable. This is not a political question but a moral one. That is why I support the development of
homeless housing in Fort Lawton.
Thank you,
- Jason Taylor
LETTER 859
From: Karen Taylor
Subject: Fort Lawton development must move forward
Seattle Office of Housing-

I am a poor Seattle city resident on Social Security Disability, now constantly on the brink of
homelessness, writing to express my support for the affordable housing development proposed for the 1
Fort Lawton site in Magnolia. It is a matter of life and death that more affordable housing in Seattle be
the #1 priority for the city right now and I beg you to move this development forward.
Thank you,
-Karen Taylor
(206) 669-9718
LETTER 860
From: Patrick Taylor
Subject: Fort Lawton Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments
Seattle is a wealthy and growing city that has much to be excited and proud about. We are also a city in
the midst of a housing crisis. This crisis is partially as a result of our great success - as people crowd in
and rent soar many lower income folks have been left behind. Throughout the city we are seeing
shocking levels of homelessness, rent stress, and large scale displacement. In a city as wealthy as we are
there is no excuse for this condition.
The city, through the HALA process has been making great strides to try to ameliorate the housing crisis 1
in multiple ways. One such way that has been identified is to utilize idle public lands for affordable
housing - the proposed FT Lawton housing project is a perfect example of this as should move forward
as proposed. While much market rate housing is being build that will help many people to continue to
live in the city, this will not help the deeply poor and those struggling to get out of homelessness. For
them the only answer is to build more public housing. We should build public housing in all corners of
the city, including Magnolia. All neighborhoods should do their part to get us out of this crisis. I think
that both the residents of Magnolia and the future occupants of the housing will benefit form it being
located as proposed. The residents of Magnolia will gain new neighbors and greater economic diversity
and the future residents will gain housing with access to one of Seattle's premier outdoor spaces and
some of its best public schools.
1,
cont.
In summary, I support the project as proposed (or with even more housing). It is a small step towards a
more welcoming and housing secure Seattle. It will also serve as a symbol that the way out of this crisis
is for us all to work together and welcome peoples of all background into our neighborhoods. Let's share
the city!
Thanks for your time,

Patrick Taylor
4633 S. Fontanelle ST
Seattle, WA 98118
LETTER 861
From: Anne Thomas
I think that there should be low income housing in the fort Lawton area. I am currently a resident in
Magnolia and think it would be a great idea for low income housing to occupy that space, along with 1
some parks :)
- Annie
LETTER 862
From: Jan Thomas
Hello,
I, as a citizen of Seattle and one very concerned about the terrible lack of housing, support the City’s 1
Fort Lawderdale Housing project.
Thank you,
Jan Thomas
LETTER 863
From: Peter Thomas
I oppose the Housing Development in Kiwanis Ravine area. 1

Peter Thomas
LETTER 864
From: Wendy Thomas
As more and more people come to Seattle, our green space is shrinking rapidly. Please consider adding
Fort Lawton to Discovery Park. The entire neighborhood uses the park as well as many, many residents 1
outside the community and visitors to Seattle. If we keep shrinking our green space, we’ll need to forgo
calling ourselves The Emerald City.
Respectfully yours,
Wendy Thomas
Magnolia resident
LETTER 865
From: Chase Thompson
Subject: Public Comments for Fort Lawton
Hello and Good Day,
My name is Chase Thompson and I am a lifetime Seattle resident and homeowner near Fort Lawton in
Magnolia. I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the city's plans for development of Fort Lawton
into affordable and low income housing at Fort Lawton. I live in Magnolia with my Wife (who was born
and raised in Magnolia), my 22 month old Son with a little one on the way. While I have concerns about
the ability of the area to sustain the added growth of additional housing (our streets are falling apart 1
and the roads weren't built for buses of the size the city uses). As I am writing this email, bus 24 just
drove by and my house is literally shaking (like an earthquake). It was after living in our home (that we
just bought) that our house was broken into not once but twice in a 5 day span. As a homeowner and
tax payer in Seattle and Magnolia, I believe my voice should be taken into account regarding the use of
Fort Lawton. Our City, in its growth and density is losing our green areas and with the plan to
incorporate Fort Lawton into Discovery Park we are doing a huge disservice to our kids. Speaking of
kids, our Seattle schools are packed, between Queen Anne and Magnolia, there are something along the
lines of 3 elementary schools, 1 K-8 and one middle school and zero high schools. There are so many 2
better uses for this space that will be more impactful to the community and City.
I haven't even mentioned the fact that Magnolia has 3 access points and is most certainly considered in
the corner of Seattle. This is why people love it here, you get the feeling of living in a rural 3
neighborhood while also being 15 minutes from downtown.
Thank you for your time!
Chase
LETTER 866
From: David Thompson
Subject: Fort Lawton Navy Reserve Center Redevelopment Proposal
My name is David Thompson. I live at 3502 Magnolia Blvd W. I was unable to attend the public hearing
Tuesday night, but I want your office to know that I strongly support the preferred alternative,
Alternative 1, that provides a mix of housing and social services on the Fort Lawton site.
This proposal is good for the City and good for Magnolia. The City needs more affordable housing.
Magnolia needs more density and diversity. Magnolia missed a chance several years ago to try
innovative denser housing on the Briarcliff site near where we live. 1
Discovery Park is a gem and can certainly absorb more use by neighbors who can walk to the park rather
than drive there. More residents in that part of Magnolia will encourage more transit use and help us
keep the bus service we need.
From what I've read about Tuesday night's hearing, there was ample support for Alternative 1. I add my
voice to that chorus!
Thanks,
David Thompson
206-286-8635
LETTER 867
From: Schuyler Thompson
Lindsay Masters,
I am writing to urge the City of Seattle to study an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more
housing. Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income households are being pushed
out of the city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers.
1
Thank you.
Schuyler Thompson
[email protected]
LETTER 868
From: Matt Tilghman-Havens
Subject: Fort Lawton - Please maximize housing!
I am writing to express my strong support for developing the maximum number of housing units
possible at the Fort Lawton site. As you know very well, we have a housing crisis in this city. We
desperately need to use all avenues available to provide affordable places for people to live in the city.
That requires a mix of affordable housing and market rate housing, and there are precious few sites 1
available in the city to do this. Please exercise your authority to maximize the ability to house people at
this site. Thank you for representing ALL of the people if Seattle, not just the vocal current owners of
property near the site.
And thank you so much for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Matt Tilghman-Havens
620 32nd Ave Seattle 98122
LETTER 869
From: Patricia Timmerman
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment Proposal/Low Income Crisis
The redevelopment proposal could bring much needed housing for low income/Social Security homeless
seniors. In this economy, in the Puget Sound area, seniors have been forced into their cars, homeless.
Working since age 14, “the working poor” are now “the low income/Social Security homeless”. We don’t
income qualify, in this economy, in this area. Shame on the Magnolia man interviewed, speaking for
1
local residents opposed to this proposal. Low income is not a synonym for for criminals, drug addicts,
sex offenders. Low income housing for the retired working poor isn’t putting the public “his family” at
risk. Why do the privileged hate us? Because we’re “poor”? Thank you for the opportunity, for a low
income senior to once again “beg” for a place to live out of her car and off the street.
LETTER 870
From: Phyllis Tobias
Subject: Ft. Lawton
I attended the meeting last night in Magnolia regarding the low income housing and homeless housing
that is being proposed at Fort Lawton. I am opposed for the simple reason that the leadership of this city
continues to makes promises that it cannot/will not keep. Adequate police, enforcing existing laws, 1
infrastructure, schools, off-street parking, on-street parking, emergency services, wrap around services.
And yes, the residents of Magnolia and the surrounding area will be left with whatever happens. I live
here. 18 years.
Ballard is a good preview. Promises made by Mike O’Brien in Ballard for additional security and control 1,
when homeless services were increased in Ballard, have simply been disregarded. I expect the same in
cont.
Magnolia.
Phyllis Tobias
LETTER 871
From: Phyllis Tobias
Subject: Ft. Lawton/Discovery Park
As a longtime resident of Magnolia, 18 years, I have seen a lot of growth and change. That is expected
and required to accommodate the natural popularity, economic opportunity, and growth within a large
metropolitan area.
1
As a longtime Discovery Park user and lover, I believe that this area must be preserved and if we can add
to it with the release of the federal land to add to the park, that would get my vote.
Phyllis Tobias
206-714-3911
LETTER 872
From: Arthur Torelli
Please do not build low income housing in Fort Lawton. That space should be used as a park. This city is
growing and more housing will be added regardless. We will not be able to add more parks to serve the
growing community though. This space can be used for sports fields and walking trails that would serve
many more people than the low income housing. We will never get the open space back. The city
1
needs to reconsider how low income housing is developed. Large scale projects don’t normally function
well after the fact. Please hold the developers accountable for building low income housing with there
high rise builds so you don’t just have one big building with only rich people living in it. Thanks Art T.
Seattle home owner
LETTER 873
From: Jane Towery
Subject: Ft Lawton redevelopment
I have lived in Magnolia for over 20 years. Our community is at capacity. Traffic into and out of the
neighborhood on the three routes is always congested. Facilitating over 250 families is unworkable.
Magnolia is fully developed. There are no empty lots. Those of us here have paid a lot for our homes and
pay a lot in taxes. It is simply not fair to do this to our small community.
Moreover the park was meant to be a preserve. 250 families will stress the environment and will affect
1
the value of my home. I protest this strongly. Seattle is more concerned about those who do not pay
taxes than those of us who do pay all the taxes - and we pay a lot.
I will do what I can to stop this or I will move - hopefully before the value of my property goes down. I
am being forced out of my home and out of my park.
LETTER 874
From: Max Turner
Subject: In support of Ft Lawton low income housing plan
Hi,
I’d like to express my support for the plan to build low-income housing units on the old Ft. Lawton land.
This is a wonderful opportunity to do something concrete about the number one issue facing our city
1
right now. This problem won’t go away if we don’t do anything about it, and we simply cannot afford to
let chances like this slip away. Please do the right thing for our city.
Thanks,
Max Turner
Seattle resident
LETTER 875
From: Arthur Torelli
Please do not build low income housing in Fort Lawton. That space should be used as a park. This city is
growing and more housing will be added regardless. We will not be able to add more parks to serve the
growing community though. This space can be used for sports fields and walking trails that would serve
many more people than the low income housing. We will never get the open space back. The city 1
needs to reconsider how low income housing is developed. Large scale projects don’t normally function
well after the fact. Please hold the developers accountable for building low income housing with there
high rise builds so you don’t just have one big building with only rich people living in it. Thanks Art T.
Seattle home owner
LETTER 876
From: Jane Towery
Subject: Ft Lawton redevelopment
I have lived in Magnolia for over 20 years. Our community is at capacity. Traffic into and out of the
neighborhood on the three routes is always congested. Facilitating over 250 families is unworkable.
Magnolia is fully developed. There are no empty lots. Those of us here have paid a lot for our homes and
pay a lot in taxes. It is simply not fair to do this to our small community.
1
Moreover the park was meant to be a preserve. 250 families will stress the environment and will affect
the value of my home. I protest this strongly. Seattle is more concerned about those who do not pay
taxes than those of us who do pay all the taxes - and we pay a lot.
I will do what I can to stop this or I will move - hopefully before the value of my property goes down. I
am being forced out of my home and out of my park.
LETTER 877
From: Alexander Tran
Subject: Yes on Fort Lawton – Support Bold Action for Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Alexander Tran
[email protected]
LETTER 878
From: Janis Traven
Subject: I support the Preferred Alternative at Fort Lawton
Greetings,
I am a 30 year resident of Magnolia, and current serve as Trustee of the Magnolia Community Council. I
voted on Tuesday, January 16th, 2018, with the majority of the Board of Trustees of Magnolia
Community Council (MCC) voted to support Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Development.
I appreciate the inclusion of land set aside for Seattle Public Schools; the need for more seats in our 1
cluster must be addressed with any development.
This proposed development can be an opportunity for positive community input into our transportation
needs and solutions, and provision of and access to community amenities, so that the development will
be welcoming and successful for all.
Thank you,
--
Janis Traven
3247 Magnolia Blvd West
Seattle WA 98199
206.285.7375
[email protected]
LETTER 879
From: Chris Trimis
Subject: Please Build Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
This is an obvious and necessary first drop in what should be a large and brimming bucket of city plans
for affordable housing.
1
This city needs a working class and is in crisis. Please do something about it.
Chris Trimis (he/him)
Middle School Music

The Bush School
bush.edu | 206.322.7978 ext. 7742| [email protected]
LETTER 880
From: Cheryl Trooskin-Zoller
Seattle needs housing, especially affordable housing. Fort Lawton is a sorely-needed opportunity to
provide housing opportunities for those who need it most.
1
Cheryl Trooskin-Zoller
Seattle homeowner
LETTER 881
From: Doug Trumm
Subject: Build Affordable Housing PLZ
Hello,
I support the plans to develop Fort Lawton as affordable housing. In fact, I support going further as 1
Councilmember Sawant has suggested and building 1000 homes on the site rather than 238. But surely
we can backslide from the modest proposal before us.
2
If we take equity concerns at all seriously, wealthy neighborhoods need to accept social housing too.
Concerns about transit are trumped up. It's easy enough to improve bus networks and frequency since
they're not set in stone. In fact, Metro Transit is already planning to boost the frequency of the 33. This 3
site is more than suitable for public housing.
Please build more housing.
Thanks,
Doug Trumm, Fremont/Wallingford resident
LETTER 882
From: Jeffrey Tucker
Subject: Build more housing at Fort Lawton
Dear sir or madam,

I'm writing to support the construction of more housing at Fort Lawton. Seattle suffers from a severe
shortage of housing right now, especially affordable housing, and we should use every available
pathway to create more places for people to live. The objections of neighbors in Magnolia, that the new
residents would lack for good places to shop and easy transit access, are obviously in bad faith, because
those reasons did not make the neighborhood too undesirable for the current residents. The nearby 1
presence of Discovery Park is all the more reason to build on the Fort Lawton site, as it means many
more people will get to enjoy Discovery Park just by stepping out their front doors. In a perfect world
we'd be building several thousand more housing units there, but several hundred is at least a step in the
right direction.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Tucker, 3827 53rd Ave SW.
LETTER 883
From: Hilary Turnberg
Subject: Please Support Low-Income Housing at Fort Lawton
forward thinking leadership in these times of increasing disparity and countless systemic barriers to 1
Hilary Turnberg
LETTER 884
From: Max Turner
Subject: In support of Ft Lawton low income housing plan
Hi,
I’d like to express my support for the plan to build low-income housing units on the old Ft. Lawton land.
This is a wonderful opportunity to do something concrete about the number one issue facing our city 1
right now. This problem won’t go away if we don’t do anything about it, and we simply cannot afford to
let chances like this slip away. Please do the right thing for our city.
Thanks,
Max Turner
Seattle resident
LETTER 885
From: Teresa Underwood-LeMoine
Subject: Army Reserve redevelopment Fort Lawton
Re-use of Army Reserve Center, Fort Lawton
This letter is in response to the meeting held in regard to the redevelopment of Federal property by the 1
City of Seattle.
I have attended all three meetings regarding this project, and actually appreciate its use for affordable
housing and senior housing. I think it is a good thing that some land is left in the natural state as well as
some park being added.
My house is one block down from Harvey Hall. I have lived here since January of 1972. I doubt that my 1,
home value impact can be any worse than the million dollars homes that have replaced the older, cont.
smaller homes in this once quiet neighborhood. I feel much like the 76 year old women who was being
driven out by increasing property taxes.
I also strongly support the comments of the gentlemen who stated “we only have so much open space
left.” And people flock to it on nice weekends and we can barely get in and out of our neighborhood.
Mostly I would like to address the whole atmosphere of this last meeting. It was apparent that many of
those who spoke know little about Seattle and even less about Magnolia. They appeared to have been
coached and were more interested in being inflammatory than constructive.
There is actually a long history of protesting developments that people felt would have a negative
impact. We would not have Commodore Park. (late 60’s to early 70’s). We WOULD have a golf course in
Discovery Park. Mayor Schell sold the land, for a song, to Amgen instead of extending the waterfront
park, basically said it’s a done deal. Ursula Judkins viewpoint was the consolation prize. Neighbors tried
to keep Briarcliff school property, but hey, lets sell it to developers, and build some over the top houses.
There was an attempt made to have Lockview Nursing Home declared a historic building (originally
Seattle Children’s Convalescent Home) but again expensive houses are better. Did we approve of 2
Officer’s Row becoming private? No, again look at the history. Sold to a company in Vancouver, B.C.
because no one could get grants or had money to do otherwise. This should provide some insight into
the fact there have been many caring people who worked toward keeping Seattle a livable place.
According to her bio Ms. Sawant has not been a resident of Seattle for very long. Many of the people
who spoke out (obviously her crowd) have been here for an even shorter time. I heard dates of 1 year 3
years 6 years. When I ask people who have come here recently “why?”. Their response is that they
HEARD there are jobs here. These are not IT people, they are people who are struggling, in shelters, or
homeless. Apparently they fail to look at the cost of living that even a $15 minimum wage, will not pay
rent here. And yet the finger was pointed repeatedly at “Magnolia” like it created the homeless
problem and should solve the homeless problem. I am assuming this accusation was a result of
comments made at the first two meetings. I realize some of the comments were very “nimby”. But many
more were reasonable comments and questions.
People should ask questions of a city that has been kissing up to developers for over a century. (think
Denny Regrade). How many older affordable apartment buildings and family homes have been torn
down in the last ten years and replaced by overpriced homes and tiny expensive apartments? Can you
point the finger at one neighborhood? Why hasn’t Ms Sawant been active in District 3 helping the 3
residents of the CD from becoming displaced. On the subject of District 3, how many of them would go
for a plan of low income housing in their neighborhood? And then of course there is Amazon and Jeff
Bezos.
Seattle is not the only city in the US with a homeless problem. It is rampant, especially on the coasts.
One small group of homes and area of housing is not going to fix the problem in Seattle. Why did the
city just sell the property on Minor near Denny for $11,000,000? How are they going to help the
homeless with that money? Maybe they should have partnered with LIHI to build some low income
3
housing for seniors who are being price out every day and workers who make less money. 100 Units
maybe?
Thankfully if this project goes forward at the reserve center, at least Habitat for Humanity and Catholic
Community Services are likely to do a better job than the city.
Final comments. I think it unfortunate that the United Indians of All Tribes are not able to get back any 4
land. Never did hear if the City will get their maintenance facility out of the middle of the park, after
taking over the use of the Army Reserves Facility at the NE corner of the property. Doesn’t seem like 5
they should need both.
LETTER 886
From: Elizabeth Uselton
Hi! I'm Elizabeth Uselton, Seattle resident of a decade. Please build lots and lots of affordable housing at
Fort Lawton. I don't want to see it be luxury homes for a few, I want to see it be used to help our 1
growing homeless population.
Thanks,
Elizabeth
LETTER 887
From: Lisa Valent
Hello,
I urge you to support the Fort Lawton development plan. More than ever, Seattle needs low-income
housing support. I see the real struggles that occur for members of our community who have the ability
1
to contribute greatly, given support.
Please put this plan into action.
Thank you,
Dr. Lisa Valent ND
[email protected]
drlisavalent.com
206.240.6070
LETTER 888
From: Janice Van Cleve
Subject: Ft. Lawton opportunity
I support the conversion of the Ft. Lawton property to a mixed housing community – heavily balanced in
favor of housing for the homeless. This is an opportunity to build low income housing and several Tiny
Towns like the ones managed by the Low Income Housing Institute. There are plenty of hills in this town
that offer views for rich people. Let’s not waste this valuable land for more rich people views. We have
a housing crisis and Ft. Lawton is a big opportunity to make a significant dent in the problem.
We have a Tiny Town in our neighborhood at East Union and 22nd Ave East. I and many of the 1
neighbors bring them food and supplies. They are well managed, well regulated, and clean. They are a
welcome addition to our neighborhood.
There is apparently some open space in the plans for the Ft. Lawton area that Seattle School District
wants to use. So long as this space is open to the public and not sequestered for school use only, that
would be okay. We have the same situation in my precinct at the World School, formerly TT Minor. Kids
from the whole area play there, runners exercise on the track, and dogs frolic off leash.
One more thing. I hope in your plans you include a food store at Ft. Lawton. Let’s not create a “food
desert” for the residents. There is only one bus that serves Ft. Lawton and the nearest food store is a 2
long way from the housing.
Janice Van Cleve
37th District Area 15 Captain
PCO 37/1875
206-322-2436
www.jvox.doodlekit.com
LETTER 889
From: Kelly Van Gelder and Alex Shapleigh
Subject: YES! Fort Lawton Redevelopment
Hello!
As decade long residents of Magnolia we whole heartedly support the redevelopment of the Fort
Lawton site to "Mixed Affordable Housing and Park Use". 1
This is an excellent and honorable use of underutilized property in our city.
We hope you garner much positive feedback for this option.
Kelly Van Gelder
Alex Shapleigh
2659 West Bertona St
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 890
From: Stevie VanBronkhorst
Hi there,
I am a third generation Seattleite and I only make about 34k a year at a job I love and am qualified for. I
can only afford to live in this city right now through an accident of luck--if my landlord dies, I'll have to
move to Burien or Tacoma. I will not be able to make the meeting tonight because I will be working at
my second job--because I have to have a second job to pay my bills.
We need affordable housing. We need it for the people who are currently denied housing, living on the
streets; we need it for those who are but one lost paycheck or medical emergency away from the street;
we need it for the service, administrative, labor, and medical workers in this city who can't afford to buy
and can barely afford to save (hi!) and we need it for the offspring of those who live in Magnolia and
Queen Anne Hill, if they don't all still live at home.
1
Do not let the (otherwise very nice if you meet them, I'm sure) people who live in $500,000 to million-
dollar homes tell you there is a better use for Fort Lawton than affordable housing.
I have spoken to such people when I was phone banking for Prop 1 for transportation a couple years ago
and multiple people said to me "I won't vote for transportation unless they replace my bridge!", a bridge
that gets 1/10 the traffic of any other road designated in that plan. I suspect there may be an
overwhelming culture of "What have you done for me lately" that will continue to leave the lives of
poorer Seattleites literally out in the cold.
Please stay the course and do what's best for the basic physical wellbeing of the not-rich, vulnerable
people of this city and build affordable housing in Fort Lawton. Don't push us out and punish us. Being
lower-income in this city is difficult enough.
Best,
Stevie VanBronkhorst
LETTER 891
From: Miranda Vargas
Subject: Support Poor People! Build Fort Lawton
My name is Miranda Vargas and I’m a Seattle renter and health care provider for people experiencing
homelessness in Ballard.
No matter who you are or where you live in Seattle, part of your daily life is thinking about our housing 1
now.
My anti-racist values and public health background has always taught me that ensuring safety and
stability for the most vulnerable in my community is how we create a city that doesn’t leave people
behind, that offers generosity in the face of suffering. Affordable housing created for people
experiencing homelessness is necessary now.
1,
In Ballard, fear of property value was a chief complaint, but during the time that Nickelsville was cont.
crisis, one layoff away from needing support from our community. If that day comes for me, I’d want to
know that people were with me—not against me.
--
Miranda Vargas, MPH
Neighborcare Health, Clinic Administrator
University of Washington School of Public Health
Community Oriented Public Health Practice (COPHP)
Committee on Oppression, Racism, and Education (CORE)
[email protected] | 610-952-8704
LETTER 892
From: Natasha Varner
Hello,
1
There are at least 11,000 unsheltered people living in this city. We need to take every step possible to fix
this crisis and prevent it from getting worse.
affordable homes, and to drastically rebuild our depleted public housing stock. 1,
Surplus public land should be used for public goods, not sold off to developers. Please move forward cont.
being considered.
Thank you.
Natasha Varner
LETTER 893
From: Zoe Vartanian
Subject: Yes to housing in Fort Lawton!
Hello,
I am writing to say that I approve and strongly encourage the building of affordable housing in Magnolia
at Fort Lawton.
I live very close by in Interbay and go on walks to Discovery Park with my dog. I've always wondered
what the derelict buildings would be like if they had inhabitants and lamented their uselessness. These 1
buildings could house so much life and bring much needed economic diversity to the ultra-rich, ultra-
white neighborhood.
Thank you
-Zoe Vartanian, Interbay resident 98119
LETTER 894
From: Lindsay Vigor
affordable housing. Instead, the City's Preferred Alternative devotes the large majority of the land to 1
being considered.
Thank you.
LETTER 895
From: Laura Villarreal
Subject: Provide low income families opportunities to succeed in Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
Hello, my name is Laura Villarreal, from the Seward Park neighborhood. I'm with Seattle Tech 4 Housing
and am in support of affordable housing development at Fort Lawton.
In our history as Seattleites we’ve placed value in the ideas of growth, innovation, and opportunity.
Development at the Fort Lawton Site provides an exciting opportunity for low income families to thrive
in a high opportunity neighborhood.
1
It’s been studied that children that live in high opportunity neighborhoods are over 30% more likely to
go to college, 26% less likely to become single parents, and will see, on average, an increase in lifetime
earnings of over $300,000.
Seattle desperately needs to address the current housing crisis by not only building homes on the Fort
Lawton site, but evaluating what more can be done to leverage this vacant, unused land to better serve
the under represented among us.
I encourage the city to evaluate building more homes on this site, to increase opportunity not just for
today’s low income families and seniors, but to think about how this could positively impact hundreds of 2
Seattle children and their opportunities in the future. Thank you.
Laura Villarreal
[email protected]
LETTER 896
From: Lada Vishtak and Chris McKeon
Subject: Please Add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park

Please add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park.
- I support a wholistic approach to this redevelopment which includes desperately needed School
land
- in order for housing developments to be successful appropriate educational infrastructure must
be in place. I support Seattle Public Schools being included in the redevelopment of Fort Lawton
- This development feeds to neighborhood schools which are the most rapidly growing and are
1
already at capacity with over-capacity projections within a few years.
- we support Seattle Public Schools in having an opportunity to control a portion of the
development which will enable them to operate play fields which will have immediate benefit to their
sports programs as well as support the high demand from recreational leagues. When they are able to
identify funding to build a school educational facility in the future, we support the opportunity for
Seattle Public Schools to transform this land into a school campus.
- it is imperative that the City and Seattle Public Schools work together to find every opportunity
to support educational infrastructure as the city grows
- The cost of purchasing land is the number one deterrence to Seattle Public Schools being able to 1,
keep pace with the growth in student population. This opportunity for the school district to partner with cont.
the City for substantially discounted land is unique and our city must ensure that it only be able to house
Lada Vishtak & Chris McKeon
Magnolia Residents
LETTER 897
From: Richard Visick
Subject: support for Fort Lawton redevelopment plan
I live and work in Seattle, and I am writing to express my strong support for the City's vision to redevelop
Fort Lawton into affordable and low income housing. This is a very small step in the right direction 1
toward making Seattle livable for more than just the very wealthy. Much more needs to be done, but
the Fort Lawton plan is absolutely vital.
Thank you,
Richard Visick
LETTER 898
From: Tina Vivio
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Tina Vivio
[email protected]
LETTER 899
From: Adit Vohra
Hi there,
My name is Adit Vohra and my e-mail address is: [email protected]. My wife and I live across the
street from Fort Lawton (3534 W Lawton Circle) with our 2 sons (ages 5 and 7).
I attended the meeting on Monday, January 9 regarding the Fort Lawton Redevelopment. My
comments on the scope of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment EIS are noted below.
• Please add a School as an alternative for the Environmental Impact Statement as Alternative 5.
With the influx of population into the Seattle area related to the growth of technology companies such 1
as Amazon more and more young families are moving into Magnolia due the proximity to downtown
Seattle. As a result, the schools have become overcrowded and a new elementary school is being
added. However, the middle and high school capacity issues have not yet been addressed. Additionally,
with the move of Expedia headquarters to Interbay, this will result in more capacity issues at the schools
in Magnolia as more young families move into the neighborhood.
• I DO NOT support Alternative 1. Magnolia is more like a suburb then a city neighborhood. A car
is required to access amenities and there is an overall lack of walkability to services such as grocery 2
stores, hospitals, etc. and public transit is not good. These factors do not make Magnolia an ideal
location for affordable housing and homeless shelters.
• I would support Alternative 2, as I believe that more market rate housing is needed in Magnolia
due to the growth of Seattle based companies and overall influx of people into Seattle. Also, for the 3
reasons noted above, construction of homeless and affordable housing at an off-site location would be
more appropriate.
• My preferred option is Alternative 3 to expand the Park with multi-purpose fields, and
affordable housing at an off-site location would be more appropriate.
4
Thank you,
Adit Vohra
Mobile #: 408-420-7621
LETTER 900
From: Ramen Vohra
Hello,
My name is Ramen Vohra and my e-mail address is: [email protected]. My husband and I live
across the street from Fort Lawton (3534 W Lawton Circle) with our 2 sons (ages 5 and 7).
With respect to the meeting held on Monday, January 9th regarding the Fort Lawton Redevelopment.
My comments on the scope of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment EIS are noted
below.
• Please add a School as an alternative for the Environmental Impact Statement as Alternative 5.
With the influx of population into the Seattle area related to the growth of technology companies such
as Amazon more and more young families are moving into Magnolia due the proximity to downtown 1
Seattle. As a result, the schools have become overcrowded and a new elementary school is being
added. However, the middle and high school capacity issues have not yet been addressed. Additionally,
with the move of Expedia headquarters to Interbay, this will result in more capacity issues at the schools
in Magnolia as more young families move into the neighborhood.
• I DO NOT support Alternative 1. Magnolia is more like a suburb then a city neighborhood. A car
is required to access amenities and there is an overall lack of walkability to services such as grocery 2
stores, hospitals, etc. and public transit is not good. These factors do not make Magnolia an idea
location for affordable housing and homeless shelters. Additionally, I did some research on-line and the
current median income in Magnolia is $102,100 (Source:
http://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhood/Washington/Seattle/Magnolia/Household-Income) As such,
the affordable rental housing would serve median income households earning $61,260 (60% of the 3
median income) while the affordable ownership housing would serve households earning $81,680
(80%of median income). This seems unreasonably high for lower wage earning households and seniors
on a fixed income as compared to other neighborhoods in the city.
• I would support Alternative 2, as I believe that more market rate housing is needed in Magnolia
due to the growth of Seattle based companies and overall influx of people into Seattle. Also, for the 4
reasons noted above construction of homeless and affordable housing at an off-site location would be
more appropriate.
• My preferred option is Alternative 3, to expand the Park with multi-purpose fields, and
5
affordable housing at an off-site location would be more appropriate.
Thank you,
Ramen
LETTER 901
From: Kathleen Volkman
Hello,
I live in Ballard and my family and I visit Discovery Park frequently.
I am writing to express my strong support for using the Fort Lawton space for affordable and accessible
housing. I want to particularly encourage the city to promote affordable family-sized rental housing
units (meaning 3- and even 4- bedrooms) and affordable family housing for sale to low income workers. 1
My family is fortunate that we purchased a home before the housing prices really took off here. We
have grieved the loss of wonderful friends, 2 full-time working parents with children, who moved away
almost entirely due to cost of housing in the area. We are standing by in support of other working
friends with children who are barely making it in Seattle.
Rental prices recently took a small dip in Seattle, and there are lots of new 1- and 2- bedroom apartment
buildings still under construction, but the pressure on housing large enough for a family unit of 3+
people, is going to continue to rise, particularly in this area of north/west Seattle.
1
Housing families is not just about making it easier for the adults, but about preventing childhood
homelessness and disruption in schooling, promoting a safe and active and outdoor childhood. How
wonderful would it be to grow up on the edge of a beautiful and educational space like Discovery Park!
Let's use the Fort Lawton land to support the next generation of Seattleites.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Volkman
LETTER 902
From: Stephanie Vollmer-Juhl
Subject: Fort Lawton Housing Opportunity
I wanted to reach out to you to share with you my thoughts on the possible housing site at Fort Lawton.
I implore you to open that site up to affordable housing. I am a single mother of one child with a
$55,000 yearly income who cannot afford to live in my 604 square foot apartment. My daughter is going
to Greenwood Elementary and cries when I tell her that we may have to move away from the school
because there is not enough affordable housing for us in the area. She has made friends and
connections at her school and now we will probably have to move because this city has not handled the
increase of people moving here.
1
The city of Seattle has had plenty of time to prepare and should be considering the amount of people
Microsoft brought here in the 80s and beyond. Why do we not have good plans? This should be a no
brainer. Now we are at a crisis point. People like me who have a decent salary can't afford to live in
Seattle. People making a little less are forced to sell their items to buy a camper and now they roam the
streets parking in the neighborhoods, lots of them littering and turning our city into a dump.
Please, this is only 239 houses but that is 239 houses for people who need it. There is plenty of housing
for people making 70K or more a year. Turn that site into housing.
LETTER 903
From: Clay Vredevoogd
Subject: Add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park
Subject says it all, but Fort Lawton should be added to Discovery Park in whole, or used for a magnet 1
Biology/Environmental high school in part. A rare acquisition such as this should be used to benefit all
of the people of Seattle for generations to come, not just a very small subset for which the services are
extremely expensive and burdensome due to the location. There are much better places within Seattle
to build affordable housing that are closer to services and basic needs such as grocery stores, etc. 2
Use the Fort Lawton property as an addition to Discovery park, or part of it as a magnet High School and
the rest as an addition to Discovery Park.
Best Regards,
Clay Vredevoogd
LETTER 904
From: Nellie Waddell
I am appalled that this process has been going on 10+ years. We have thousands of homeless people in
this city, as well as lower income people being pushed out of the city by the constant influx of higher
income new residents. I am a supporter of housing first. I've been in Seattle since 2005, living about 8 of
those years in Ballard. Many parts of this city are undergoing changes and becoming more dense; it's a
reality we have to face. I am saddened by the apparent lack of compassion from Magnolia residents who
are trying to reject this project. I saw a man on the news the other night worried about how it will be 1
near a park where his children play. I am also a parent, and I find this an unconvincing boogey man
argument. The population of this development is mostly going to be veterans and families, and when
children are harmed, the perpetrator is usually someone they know. We shouldn't deny people basic
human rights like housing because a few vocal people are having irrational fears about their children's
safety, or NIMBY crying about increasing density which is something we're all facing and will have to
adjust to.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment.
Catherine "Nellie" Waddell
2813 NW 75th St
Seattle, WA 98117
206-788-5292
LETTER 905
From: Ann K. Wagner
Subject: Please build housing at Ft. Lawton
I support the city's plan for housing at Ft. Lawton and would support even more housing being built 1
there. The proximity to Discovery Park is an incredibly amenity for the people who will live there, and
housing nearby does nothing to detract from the park. Furthermore, services follow people, not vice
versa. I am a Seattle native and was raised in single-family houses in the city, but as an adult--although
my husband and I make plenty of money--we proudly live in a multifamily rowhouse with our toddler. 2
It's a great style of denser housing that helps build community and I am happy to see the city pursuing
more of it.
Thank you,
Ann K. Wagner
LETTER 906
From: Susan and Jeff Walker
Subject: Fort Lawton site development
We are firmly in opposition to adding more housing to the Lawton site in Magnolia. The plan is a terrible
idea for a reason we have never heard voiced. Magnolia has only 3 routes of entry/ departure. In the
1
event of bridge failure during the massive earthquake which has been predicted by UW seismologists we
could lose all routes of escape and emergency rescue. The 2 grocery stores would be quickly depleted.
We do not have the infrastructure to support a large increase in residents- be it during an emergency or 2
not. Schools are at capacity and mass transit is feeble at best. A small Swedish Physicians Clinic is the
extent of our medical services. There are so many centrally located areas without these constraints with
3
ready access to schools, health care, and multiple escape routes and emergency care. And finally, for a
more spiritual yet necessary reason- as the city grows our open spaces and recreation facilities are
becoming more overcrowded. Thank God the settlers of our city had the foresight to set aside park land.
It is essential for both physical and mental health and this is one of the last pieces of land adjoining a
beautiful resource for all Seattle- Discovery Park. Please don’t let this opportunity to leave this natural 4
asset to future generations. Retail is failing- places like Sam’s Club and K- marts are closing- the city
should focus on buying up these types of sites for housing and preserve and expand natural spaces.
Thank you- Susan & Jeff Walker 3832 24th Av W. 98199.
LETTER 907
From: Susan and Jeff Walker
Subject: Against Fort Lawton development
No Fort Lawton development! Annex it to Discovery Park. Sams Club, Sears all going out of business- use
sites that are being abandoned in zones with more transit, healthcare, support systems, schools. 1
Susan & Jeff Walker
LETTER 908
From: Judy Walker
Subject: Proposed Redevelopment of Ft. Lawton
City of Seattle Council Committee:

I am writing in support of the proposed redevelopment for Ft. Lawton.
There is no need to point out our region's affordable housing crisis. You are aware and I know how much
time and energy is being expended on solutions.
This should seem like a no brainer -there is property, we have reputable not for profit organizations
whose life's mission is to serve and lift the boat for under served populations and have success in doing
so, and we know we need housing! However, the property sits in an idyllic area and residents of
Magnolia are legitimately afraid of what changes this could bring to their neighborhood and therein lies
the tension.
1
While I appreciate and value the concerns of local residents, I cannot in good conscience not support
this redeveopment plan.
I am a parishioner at St. James Cathedral and in fact am a member of our Housing Advocacy Committee.
Our Cathedral, like many other churches both Catholic and non see and feel the pains of homelessness
everyday in our ministries. We are now feeding close to 200 people daily at our Cathedral kitchen,
minister to those in crises through our Mental Health Ministries and work with St. Martin de Porres
shelter providing additional shelter beds in our Cathedral Hall during the cold, rainy winter months. I
have been an overnight volunteer in that Ministry for 18 years and there is nothing more humbling and
grace filled than sleeping on my mat on the floor with "the guys." Thinking that there could be
permanent housing for anyone we serve gives me hope.
Thank you for all you do as Council members. While your job can be tremendously rewarding, you carry
a heavy load and I appreciate your personal and professional sacrifices in carrying out your duties
representing all of our city's residents.
Please support this redevelopment and please let me know if there is anything I can do.
Judy Walker
4910 Fremont Ave N
Seattle,WA 98103
206-860-2844 land line
781-996-9801 cell
[email protected]
LETTER 909
From: Lawrence Wallman
Subject: Lawton
We have enough crime already around Discovery Park, so Thanks but No Thanks to moving all the 1
vagrants here. Please add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park. 2
LETTER 910
From: Ashleigh Walls
Subject: Fort Lawton should be added to Discovery Park
Fort Lawton should be added to Discovery Park 1

Sincerely,
Magnolia resident
Ashleigh Walls
LETTER 911
From: Annie Walters
Subject: Fort Lawton Low Income Housing
Hello, I am a resident of Seattle. I care about Seattle's low income and homeless populations, and think 1
that the city should move forward with building low income housing at Fort Lawton.
Thank you,
Annie Walters
--
Annie Walters, Associate ASLA
Landscape Designer
(206) 724-6050
[email protected]
LETTER 912
From: Curtis Walton
I am writing to express support for the proposes affordable housing development at Ft. Lawton. I
believe it is important that the city use land it has to provide projects like this. I also believe all 1
neighborhoods around the city should be providing affordable housing options.
One critic: I would like to see better transit access to this location. I want this project built, but I worry 2
the residents may end up isolated.
Respectfully,
Curtis Walton
Capitol Hill Resident
LETTER 913
From: Amanda Wanner
I support this action to create affordable homes in Fort Lawton. People who are homeless and low
income are looking for community and stability just as much as people who can afford to buy houses in
Seattle. My partner has a good job, but even on his salary we cannot afford to buy a house in Seattle.
1
We are pushed out. There are people in this city that have no where else to go. I think if there is land
and funds for homeless and low income housing it should be used. It sounds like the city is trying to be
smart about it providing counseling, medicaid/ medicare counseling, ect.For families that move in you
could work with Family Bike Seattle, Cascada Bike Club, and G&O family cyclery to promote family
bicycling in and out of Magnolia (to calm the traffic quarrels). Provide discounts or intensives for people
to buy bicycles instead of cars. Between the locks and all of the bike paths in that area it is so easy to
bicycle. 2
Thank you for Fighting the good fight for the people who need it most. If I weren't so lucky to have the
friends that I do, my son and I might be homeless as well. I want to see all people thrive in this city.
--
Amanda Wanner
Nanny,
Birth and Postpartum Doula @ Cygnet Doula Services,
Certified Makeup Artist.
https://cygnetdoula.wixsite.com/cygnetdoula
LETTER 914
From: Amanda Wanner
Subject: Re: Affordable housing at Fort Lawton
I have thought more about my comment and written something more descriptive
"For the last 10 years I have sat in the low income bracket. Struggling as a single person to make rent
and feed myself every month. Stuck in lack luster low paying jobs because I don;t have a college degree,
and no manner of experience matters if I don;t have that degree. Today I am a mother of one, never
married to my child’s father. Now I am a low income mother. I have been for the last 4 years. I am luck
though. I have built a big beautiful community of people who help take care of my child and I. Currently
we live with my friends of 10 years and their two girls. We have a small basement apartment in their
house and I make rent every month by bartering, I care for their girls in return we live comfortably. It’s a
brilliant situation for all of us, but it is lucky in all aspects. You would never know this from looking at
me. In my neighborhood, I know my neighbors better then my housemates who own the house. I trade 1
homemade Kombucha for homemade cider with one neighbor, and get honey from another, pick apples
from trees from a neighbor across the street, My kiddo even fell in toddler love with an older neighbor
girl for a while. At our home I have decorated the front yard as a garden, every spring tending the soil,
planting seeds, and growing a lush garden the likes of which get complimented by all who pass it. I am a
low income person, and no one in my neighborhood cares about that. I am the face of the people who
get pushed out because the Magnolia neighbors don’t want low income and homeless people in their
neighborhood. I can tell you that I don’t bring crime or drugs or even more traffic with me (because I
ride a bicycle everywhere). This issue is personal to me, cause someday I may need to find housing that
Fort Lawton can provide. All I want, all any low income or homeless person wants is to be in a stable
home, apart of a community. We will bring more beautiful diversity and culture to the neighborhood
then the Magnolia neighbors give us credit for. Please see me, and see I am your neighbor not your
enemy. "
LETTER 915
From: Rian Wanstreet
This should be made into affordable housing. You know it, I know it. It needs to be done.
People will always protest change. It is their absolute default, and has been proven time and time again
in politics. But they will get over it. 1
Build the housing.
Thank you,
Rian Wanstreet
Seattle resident, currently spending well over 30% on housing
LETTER 916
From: Aiden Ward
I want to respond to the Fort Lawton Redevelopment plan. I reject the housing alternative for this site
because it is the wrong location for such a development. I support the position of Friends of Discovery 1
Park and the Discover Park Alliance to add the entire parcel of land to the park. This is the best and most
appropriate use of this land. There should be no further development that would disrupt the unique
2
nature and wildlife around Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine.
Thank You,
Aiden Ward
LETTER 917
From: Alan Ward
Subject: Use of Fort Lawton
SubJect: Proposed Housing in Fort Lawton
The best use of the Fort Lawton property is to make it an extension of Discovery Park. With an expected
population increase in Seattle of between 500,00 and one million people in the next 50 years, Seattle 1
will need all the green space it can find. Further there aren’t adequate resources and services in place to
support the population you plan to house there. This is a partial list of anticipated/required needs, most
of which aren’t adequate in Magnolia.
• Health/medical services
• Emergency medical services
• Transportation
• Security/police
• Social services 2
• Education/schools
• Jobs
• Supermarkets
• Other retail stores
• Restaurants
An ideal location for the population you intend to serve is the Northgate area. These are some of the
services located there.
• New light rail station
• There will be a pedestrian bridge built over Interstate 5 from the light rail station onto the North 3
Seattle College campus
• On that campus is a DSHS office, as well as an Employment Security/ Worksource office. In
addition to the light rail station, Metro has a transit center there
• Medical facilities, including UW/Northwest hospital, and a brand-new branch of the Polyclinic
• Several other medical facilities 3,
• North precinct police station
• Northgate mall, and numerous other retail shops for shopping and jobs
cont.
• Brand new schools on 90th and Wallingford Ave. in addition to Ingraham high school
Magnolia offers very few of the above amenities and services. I want to keep this message brief;
therefore, I won’t detail the shortage of services in Magnolia. My sense is that you wouldn’t be
considering the Fort Lawton location for the housing if the land weren’t “free.” Remember, free always
has a cost in the long run. Society certainly needs to care for its disadvantaged population; however, 4
they need to be given the services to help them succeed. Isolating these folks in the Discovery Park area
is not going to help them.
Please convert Fort Lawton into an extension of Discovery Park (which serves the entire city). Work with
the Arbor Foundation and plant one million trees. We could use the oxygen this would provide.
A second sensible choice would be a school. Discovery Park would serve as an excellent “lab” for science
courses, in addition to a recreation area between classes.
5
LETTER 918
From: Benjamin Ward
Subject: Add Fort Lawton to Discovery Park
I write to you because I am against the housing development at Fort Lawton in Seattle. Instead, I agree
with the position of Friends of Discovery Park, as well as, the Discovery Park Alliance to add Fort Lawton
to Discovery Park. The proposed housing development will have negative effects on Discovery park and
1
wildlife. The citizens of Seattle and future generations deserve better. Don't go through with this
irresponsible and short sighted plan. Add this open space to the park and preserve nature. This park will
serve thousands of families and foster environmental learning for generations to come.
Thank you,
Benjamin Jack Ward
LETTER 919
From: Dorota Ward
I want to address the Fort Lawton redevelopment. I urge you to terminate the proposed homeless/low
income housing at Fort Lawton. I am concerned about the damage this project will cause to our 1
magnificent Discovery park. Preserve the open space and add it to the public park. Once this space is
developed it's gone forever depriving us and future generations of the unparalleled benefits of nature in
an overcrowded city. Magnolia is a secluded peninsula in need of more school space and better public
transportation. Build the housing project in a more accessible part of the city that has the amenities and
2
infrastructure to support the new residents.
I am also very disappointed and angry about the community meeting Jan 9th where housing advocated
were bused in by the city and hi-jacked the meeting. The residents of Magnolia were not given a chance
to talk yet we are the ones that will be affected by the over development and traffic congestion from
3
your proposed plan.
Dorota Ward
LETTER 920
From: Ian Ward
I am in agreement with the position of Friends of Discovery Park and Discovery Park Alliance to add Fort
Lawton to Discovery Park and not to build any housing on the land. Housing will have a negative impact 1
on the tranquility and nature of our park. Please preserve the open space in this remote location. This
will benefit all citizens of Seattle for generations.
Sincerely,
Ian Ward
LETTER 921
From: Jay Wardle
Subject: Fort Lawton property should be used for low income housing
Hi,
I am a Seattle resident, voter, and tax payer. Seattle has a serious homeless problem. 1
I strongly support using the available site of Fort Lawton for low income housing opportunities.
Regards,
Jay Wardle
LETTER 922
From: Lauri Watkins
Subject: I support low income housing at Ft. Lawton site!
Hello! I am a longtime Seattleite - over 18 years in the community! - and I strongly support low-income
housing at the Ft. Lawton site. Seattle is in the midst of a homelessness crisis, we need to try every
possible solution that we can! All neighborhoods need to share in addressing this crisis, and this is an
1
opportunity for our city to live our professed values and take care of each other.
Many thanks!
Lauri Watkins
98122
LETTER 923
From: Corrie Watterson
I strongly support the use of the Fort Lawton property for low-income
housing. There is an incredible shortage of affordable housing in this
city, and the idea that the city might turn down free land ear-marked for 1
that purpose is mind-boggling.
Corrie Watterson
--
Think big. Be nice. Do something.
~Steph Stone
LETTER 924
From: Emily Weaver Brown
Subject: Discovery park low income and homeless housing
I’m a photographer and I often shoot at discovery park and I love the raw beauty there. My immediate
first reaction when I heard about the proposed low income houseing was “oh not in my beautiful park”.
I didn’t understand that Fort Lawton wasn’t park of the park or that a large swatch of the land would be 1
free if it was used for low income housing. Now that I know the facts I know this is a remarkable
opportunity and that the city should take avantave of. Please don’t let the residents of magnolia
determine policy for the whole city. That space belongs to everyone and their fears are totally
unfounded.
Thank you
LETTER 925
From: Storme Webber
Subject: Discovery Park/Fort Lawton Affordable Housing
Hello,
I am writing to express my wholehearted support of affordable housing in Discovery Park. 1

We have a housing crisis in this city.
We must act to support our working class citizens.

This project would address only some of the need, but will make a real difference.
Please do not allow the powerful and wealthy and privileged to scuttle this proposal. 1,
cont.
Affordable housing in Fort Lawton/Discovery Park is a great idea, and the time to build it it is now.
Thank you for your positive action on behalf of all Seattleites.
Sincerely,
Storme Webber
http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/reviews/storme-webber/
http://fryemuseum.org/exhibition/6645/
http://www.stormewebber.com/
LETTER 926
From: Beckett Weeks
Subject: regarding use of Fort Lawton
I urge you to utilize the Fort Lawton space for affordable housing. Minimum wage has not kept up with
inflation, the cost of living in Seattle and across the US grows higher and higher -- affordable housing is
desperately needed. Housing is often the key to working through unemployment, substance use, and
other difficulties in life. A home means an address to put down when you apply for a job, for medical
assistance, for school. The stability of knowing where you will sleep each night, the reassurance of
having your own space, and the socioeconomic logistics of having an address are things that many of us
take for granted. 1
My apartment grows mold, it's halfway to being a basement, the fire alarm goes off every time I use the
stove, and the cost of rent is more than 2/3rds of what I make in a month. I'm on AppleHealth. I'm on
EBT. I am painfully aware that it would not take much for me to lose this depressing apartment and join
the homeless encampment that is only a block away.
Please, use the Fort Lawton area for affordable housing. Respectfully,
Beckett Weeks
--
Graduate Student in Clinical Mental Health and Art Therapy Antioch University
LETTER 927
From: Jason Weill

I am writing to express my support for affordable housing at the Fort Lawton site. This site has already
been partially redeveloped with dozens of luxury homes, but our housing crisis means that working-class
families are increasingly finding themselves out of options to live in Seattle. I urge the city to move 1
forward with housing development wherever our city can support it. The proposed affordable housing
site is located near arterial roads, mass transit, and commercial districts, making it ideal for new housing
to be added to our city.
Sincerely,
Jason Weill
LETTER 928
From: Heather Weimann
Subject: Add to Fort Lawton listserv
Hi - requesting to be added to the Fort Lawton listserv. 1
Thank you kindly,

Heather Weimann
LETTER 929
From: Colin Weinbender
I am a longtime Seattle resident and I would like to suggest that the Fort Lawton Redevelopment be
done as efficiently as possible with respect to tax revenue. The city should create affordable housing
using the most cost effective strategy. I believe this can be accomplished by (1) selling the Fort to a
private developer and by (2) keeping the neighboring homes property values high.
(1) If Fort Lawton was sold to private developers at market price the city could buy or develop a
property already owned by the city with a lower real estate value. This would give the tax payer more
bang for their tax dollars in building affordable housing. The area where Fort Lawton is would sell at a
premium per sq foot when compared to most of Seattle. Why not buy a area in a cheaper part of town 1
using the money from the sale of Fort Lawton? Examples of alternative areas are the current tent city in
Interbay below the Garfield street bridge or the City Light property in Interbay behind QFC on Dravus.
These would be more suitable areas to develop. They also would not require expensive demolition fees.
Affordable housing at one area and a homeless center at the other would be an option if one area is not 1,
big enough for both. cont.
(2) The Fort Lawton Redevelopment should also keep property tax revenue from shrinking. The
affordable housing and homeless center will lower the property values of neighboring homes and thus
shrink the property tax revenue that the city collects. If Fort Lawton was sold to a private developer at a
market rate it would not lower property tax revenue it would increase them. The city would now be able 2
to collect property tax revenue from the homes in the Fort Lawton Development and neighboring
homes property values would remain unchanged.
Using these two strategies I believe the City can create affordable housing and a homeless center in the
most cost effective way. Thank you for your time.
Colin Weinbender
[email protected]
LETTER 930
From: Michele Weingeist
Subject: In favor of using Fort Lawson buildings for low income housing
To Whom it may Concern,
I am a resident of Seattle. My daughter attends school in Queen Anne.
I’m writing to let you know that I am strongly in favor of turning the Fort Lawton buildings into
affordable housing and for preserving the land for animal habitat and public park use.
I support this because of recent conversations I’ve had.
1) I spoke to one of my daughter’s former teachers. She is quitting her teaching job at the end of 1
the year and moving because she can no longer afford her apartment a mile from the school. She needs
to move farther away in order to find a place she can afford.
2) One of my daughter’s classmates has moved two times in two years. Each time he and his single
mother have had to move as their low income apartment has been purchased by developers and
they’ve had to find a new place to live.
Our community is not only made up of Microsoft millionaires and Amazon programmers. Our
community must also care for our teachers, our bank employees, our wait staff and bus drivers. If
people can’t find affordable places to live, we will continue to lose key members of our society.
Michele Weingeist
LETTER 931
From: Oliver Weisert
Subject: Fort Lawton/Discovery Park – development
As a home owner and resident of Magnolia I oppose the proposed housing development adjacent to
Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine and that you support adding the last parcel of Fort Lawton to 1
Discovery Park. Help protect these natural jewels of Seattle before they are destroyed by development.
Thank you
Oliver
Oliver Weisert
2900 25th Ave West
Seattle, WA 98199
+1 206 306 4713
[email protected]
LETTER 932
From: Gordon Werner
I am writing in support of building affordable housing at Fort Lawton. My building on First Hill is 1/4 of a 1
city block, has 13 floors with 146 units total.
On 1/4 of a city block.
Fort Lawton is like 38 acres. It is beyond EMBARRASSING that we are not building THOUSANDS of units
for varied incomes (should be primarily low-income / workforce, but also market rate) along with
grocery stores, bodegas, cafes, etc …. In addition, we should look at the potential of building a branch
line of Link light rail to the site and increase bus service on the existing routes. 2
It is unconscionable that a bunch of wealthy predominantly WHITE landowners get to hold the rest of
the city hostage over this.
We know affordable housing is the NUMBER ONE issue facing our city … it effects everything ESPECIALLY
homelessness. Here we have a potential solution that can help alleviate a huge portion of this problem
… so lets actually DO IT … and not just a couple of hundred units … THOUSANDS.
Thank you.
Please help make Fort Lawton part of the solution for our housing/homelessness crisis …
Thank you
Gordon Werner
First Hill, Seattle, WA
LETTER 933
From: Erica N. West
Subject: Ft. Lawton Housing Development - PLEASE build affordable housing!
Good afternoon,
My name is Erica West and I am fully in favor of the city's plan to build several hundred units of
affordable housing at the Ft. Lawton site. In the midst of an affordable housing and homelessness crisis, 1
this is one crucial step of many that must be taken to properly address our homelessness state of
emergency.
As a community organizer in the area of affordable housing, homelessness and displacement, I think I
have some grasp and insight into the scope of the problem facing the city. I would actually encourage
the city to seriously consider a plan to build even more supportive, affordable housing than is currently
being considered. I understand building incrementally, especially as transit is brought up to scale for the 2
new residents and local businesses spring up in the newly developed area (along with the changing
perception I hope to see from some Magnolia residents), but there is ample space for more affordable
housing units. As the city considers long term affordable housing development, please keep this in mind.
Best,
Erica N. West
Community Organizer, The Church Council of Greater Seattle
LETTER 934
From: Linda Whang
Hello,
I am a Seattle resident and I would like to voice my support for the Fort Lawton Redevelopment project.
I support housing for low-income residents and seniors. I don't think Seattle should be a place where
1
only rich people can afford to live.
Thank you.
-Linda Whang
LETTER 935
From: Alex White

This message is in regards to the proposed housing development at Fort Lawton. Seattle is facing a
housing crisis. Thousands of people are sleeping rough outside, and with rents soaring, there is no end in
sight to this humanitarian disaster. The City must move as fast as possible, and in a way that minimizes
1
any potential delay, to build as much public housing on city-owned land as possible. There must be
housing constructed at Fort Lawton. But the proposed ~200 units is such a massive miss on the potential
for the site as to be embarrassing. Councilmember Sawant was correct when she stated that the City
must aim higher, and build 2000+ units.
Residents of the area complaining of negative impacts of development are misguided at best, and
fearmongering at worst. If the City builds 2000+ housing units, this will increase the feasibility of transit
in the area, mitigating traffic concerns. The concentrated development will make it easier, not harder, to
site and provide services for residents, such as schools.
Fort Lawton is on an underdeveloped corridor connecting the City's largest greenspace (Discovery Park)
and a growing commercial and residential center (Interbay). The former is a jewel in the City's parks
crown, and currently difficult to access via transit for residents outside the immediate neighborhood.
Citing 2000+ housing units at Fort Lawton will provide access to this park, both directly to the Fort
Lawton residents, and indirectly to us all via the associated increase in transit that the development
would make feasible and necessary. Interbay is growing, and will be along the planned Sound Transit
Link line from Ballard to Downtown. Despite it not being immediately along that line, housing at Fort 1,
Lawton would be within a quick bus transfer from the rest of the light rail network. And within walking
cont.
and biking distance from the growing urban village.
We all benefit from the efficiencies of adding density, and nowhere is it easier to see these benefits than
adding density to single family zones of the city. Adding homes at Fort Lawton would add value to the
Magnolia and Interbay neighborhoods, by increasing the demand for local commercial and city services,
making their provision more viable and efficient. Adding homes to Fort Lawton uses City-owned land to
address what must be the top humanitarian priority for the city, adding housing for those who cannot
participate in the inflated private housing market. And it does so in an area that would have little if any
concerns around displacement and gentrification, which in other neighborhoods would exacerbate, not
alleviate, the housing crisis.
The City must act to build housing at Fort Lawton. It should build 2000+ units to maximize the positive
benefits of density, and best leverage city-owned land. It must do this as soon as possible. The housing
crisis is real, now, and shows no signs of ebbing.
Regards,
Alex White (former Interbay and Magnolia resident, current Central District resident)
LETTER 936
From: Jacob Wicks
Hello,
I am a Magnolia resident. This is my comment on the proposed redevelopment of the old Fort Lawton
site adjacent to Discovery Park.
1
The Fort Lawton site is unique because of its location next to Discovery Park. The city will never have
another opportunity to expand the size of the park. The city should use this land to expand the park,
rather than for building housing.
Additionally, an off leash dog area should be added. The community need for off leash areas is not 2
currently being met.
-Jacob Wicks
LETTER 937
2
LETTER 938
From: Jeremy Wilkening
Subject: Comment to Ft Lawton DEIS
I have the following comments to the Fort Lawton redevelopment

As a resident of Magnolia, I am writing to fully support the preferred option presented in the DEIS and
completely agree with its findings that the creation of affordable housing on the site will have minimal
impacts.
The site is well served by transit, namely the 33 bus, which runs frequently and connects to downtown
within 20 minutes. The neighborhood has multiple grocery stores and excellent public schools, making it
a high opportunity area for lower income families and households.
I have heard some in the neighborhood particularly concerned about school overcrowding. As a parent 1
of kids in the public schools in Magnolia, The addition of this project will have little impact on the
schools and also the school district is addressing the overcrowding by constructing Magnolia Elementary
and reopening of Lincoln High School. I fully support and welcome kids of this development into our
neighborhood schools.
I was particularly struck by the map of Office of Housing investments in Seattle, which showed none in
Magnolia. Given that the neighborhood is a high opportunity area, I would further support the City in
investigating additional affordable housing opportunities in the neighborhood, either on publicly owned
or privately owned land.
Thanks,
Jeremy Wilkening
LETTER 939
From: Susan Wilkening
I am in writing in full SUPPORT of the proposal for Fort Lawton to develop it with much needed
affordable housing in partnership with Habitat for Humanity and Catholic Housing.
This city is in desperate need of affordable housing across EVERY neighborhood. It is incumbent on all of
us to welcome thoughtful affordable housing projects like this one, providing what is a basic human 1
need to those who need it most. Affordable housing makes our city better, more welcoming, more
diverse, and safer. I personally am happy to welcome every new resident to Magnolia as part of this
neighborhood, and part of the schools my children attend.
Sincerely,
Susan Wilkening
2649 W Boston Street
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 940
From: Sean Wilkins
I am writing in support of the proposed development at Fort Lawton. This city desperately needs more
affordable housing. Delaying projects like this harms many in the name of trying to appease a small
number of people who are not in any way affected by the housing crisis this city is currently
experiencing.
1
I would also support any similar effort in other neighborhoods, including Greenwood where I have been
a homeowner for nearly 8 years.
Thanks for taking the time to listen. Sean Wilkins

LETTER 941
From: Steven Wilkins
Subject: Fort Lwton
Hello,
I am in favor of the redevelopment of Fort Lawton. As Seattle continues to grow we need to look at 1
projects such as this which make our city more livable for all people. Hope to see this move forward
soon.
Steven Wilkins
4411 SW Holly st Seattle
LETTER 942
From: Jesse Willard
I am writing to express my support for affordable housing at Fort Lawton. Now more than ever we need
to leverage every such opportunity to house people and do whatever we can to make sure Seattle is a 1
place where people of all backgrounds and tax brackets are welcome. Sincerely,
Jesse Willard
1509A 23rd Ave S, Seattle, WA 98144
LETTER 943
From: Dana williams
Subject: Re: Discovery Park proposal
You people have no conception of sacred space--places that have retained their natural, healing
attributes, "escape" places where people can go to heal body,mind, soul, and spirit--Discovery Park is
one such place and one of the few still accessible to urban dwellers. Every place on the Earth is not
meant to be dominated by people, contrary to what you all might believe. Do you ever give thought to
why there are so many suicides, cases of depression, mental-emotional dysfunctions, drug and alcohol
addictions, violence ad nauseam? It is because the needs of soul and spirit in this American culture are 1
grossly underestimated and IGNORED. As usual your obsession with covering every inch of open green
space with your mind-focused building agendas (schools,structured recreational facilities etc) just
completely neglect the essential need to maintain places where people can find solitude, peace, quiet,
open spaces that allow FREEDOM OF SPIRIT/MIND/ SOUL. And not just for the children. The Northwest
is rapidly losing this unique quality.
Maybe what should seriously be considered is a proposal for ZERO population growth,
this place is now lousy with people
Dana.
LETTER 944
From: Bill Williamson

Subject: Comments Re: Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) – Fort
Dear SEPA Responsible Official:
The following comments are provided to ensure that the impacts to the natural and built
environments related to the City’s “Preferred Alternative” are fully mitigated and addressed as
conditions to any permit approvals made by the City:
Core components of the application include:
• Supportive housing with on-site services for homeless seniors, including
veterans;
• Affordable rental housing for low-wage workers and their families;
• Affordable homeownership opportunities for low-income families;
• Preservation of existing natural areas that support wildlife habitat;
• Development of a public park; and
• Re-use of one of the structures and associated parking as a maintenance
facility for Seattle Parks and Recreation.
• Development of 238 units of affordable housing on ~7.3 acres, including: 85 units of supportive
housing for formerly homeless seniors, including veterans, plus 1 manager unit (Catholic Housing
Services)
• 100 units of affordable rental housing (Catholic Housing Services)
• 52 units of affordable ownership housing (Habitat for Humanity)
• Provision of 21.6 acres of park and recreation area, including 2 multipurpose fields (owned by
Seattle Public Schools), preserved existing natural areas and conversion of an existing structure to a park
maintenance facility (owned by Seattle Parks and Recreation).
1. Phasing of Development & Public Transportation Impacts. Any approval by the City should
include a phasing requirement so that dwelling units are constructed in phases to allow King County
Metro sufficient time to address off-site transportation and parks impacts and determine if additional 1
AM/PM peak hour buses will be needed to serve this new community. Bus routes 24 and 31/32 are
already overloaded during AM/PM peak hours, and adding these additional units will surely adversely
impact these bus routes without additional buses being made available to the bus commuting public.
2. Manager Unit Supervision Is Inadequate. Allocating one (1) on-site manager unit for dealing
with the housing needs of 85 homeless seniors that include Veterans is simply inadequate on its face. At 2
least one (1) additional managing unit should be provided to ensure adequate coverage to supervise the
housing for the homeless and Veteran seniors.
3. Parking Plan and Restrictions on RV Parking. With dilapidated RV’s littering City streets and
posing a serious health risk to neighborhood residents, RV parking of any type on this site by tenants, 3
owners, and guests, should be strictly prohibited through posted signage; and with authority given to
the on-site managers to have these vehicles towed.
4. Off-Site Impacts to Discovery Park. The Seattle Parks Department can barely maintain its
existing trails and facilities within Discovery Park. Having walked Discovery Park for the last 40 years, it
should come as no surprise to the City that both the North and South Loop Trails within the park are so
dilapidated that they pose a risk of injury to the walking public. Restrooms are few and far between,
overused and inadequate in number and location to support current Discovery Park users. I was
ashamed to show these trails to visitors from other states who questioned how a City, such as Seattle,
with such high tech growth and tax revenues, cannot adequately manage and maintain the most basic
parks amenities and trail system. What if any parks impact assessment has the Applicant or City done to
address what will surely be added off-site impacts from “new” users from this development to Discovery 4
Park and the poorly maintained condition of existing parks trails? Will existing trails be maintained?Will
added restrooms be added? Will an additional parking attendant at the West Point Outfall be added to
police parking areas or a Park Ranger be added to address existing problems of dogs off leash and the
existing homeless camps in Discovery Park? Will existing signage be repaired, updated, or even
maintained in Discovery Park? Surely, additional parks users with invited guests, that will surely be
expected, will overload this already broken Discovery Park trail system. Has this been studied by the
City and/or applicant and mitigation measures provide under SEPA. Does the City presently collect Parks
Impact Fees from new residential development, and can these fees be employed to address impacts to
Discovery Park?
5. Priority Affordable Housing for Teachers, Police, and Fire Department Personnel. Has the City
Attorney’s Office reviewed to the proposal and a determination made for prioritizing portions of
affordable housing rental units and affordable ownership units for Seattle area (in City) teachers, Police,
and Fire Department personnel who we badly need to live in our Metro community in order to mitigate 5
the impacts of this development to the Seattle School District, Police and Fire Departments? A portion
of these units should be allocated for this purpose to ensure that these community service providers,
who are priced out of Seattle’s housing market, get a shot of actually living in the City where they work. 5,
This could even be done on a lottery basis and would greatly enhance the resident mix of these units. cont.
6. School Impacts. Surely, impacts to Magnolia’s overloaded elementary and middle schools will
have to be addressed by this project. Ideally, a phasing plan can include odd-setting impact fee 6
contributions to the Seattle School District so that Magnolia’s schools can absorb these new families
who will surely use its public schools.
Bill & Joann Williamson
Seattle, WA 98199
(206) 383-0209
LETTER 945
2
LETTER 946
From: Judith Windleharth
Greetings,
I would like to comment on the proposed plan to build affordable housing at fort Lawton.
I am very strongly in favor of more affordable housing. I am a single mom of two daughters. I have a
graduate degree and ten years of experience in my field, and at my best salary I could not afford to pay
for child care and rent in this city. 1
Please approve the proposal for more affordable housing, and help hundreds of working families in
Seattle thrive, not just barely survive.
Sincerely,
Judith Windleharth
840 NE 97th St
Seattle, WA 98115
LETTER 947
January 28, 2018
Attention: Lindsay Masters

Office of Housing
PO Box 94725
RE: Army Reserve parcel, located adjacent to the NE corner of Discovery Park, City DEIS for
the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment
Dear Ms. Masters,
We strongly believe the best and most appropriate use of the property is to incorporate the entire
acreage of the Army Reserve land into Discovery Park (all of the BRAC surplus land west of
Texas Way in Section 15, Section 10 south of the Veteran’s Administration reserved land and
Section 10 southwest of the land reserved for the Veteran’s Administration). These lands added
to Discovery Park should be managed according to the Discovery Park Master Plan. That was the
original intent of the agreement between the military and the City.
These 30+ acres represent a rare and unique opportunity to add substantially to the park. The
number of people in Seattle is rapidly increasing at a rate of up to 1,000 people per week. There
is already not enough park space per capita for all of these people to recreate and you can see
that on a busy weekend in Discovery Park the trails are as packed as those around Green Lake.
1
The Army Reserve property is uniquely situated between Commodore Park and its Great Blue
Heron rookery, Kiwanis Ravine, and the larger green space of Discovery Park. Creating a
forested canopy within this site would create a much-needed wildlife corridor between the ship
canal, the Ravine and Discovery Park. Turning the Army Reserve site into an old growth
coniferous forest would be the least expensive and most acceptable option available to the City,
requiring only minimal infrastructure demolition and reforestation investments.
The 30 acre Army Reserve property is a heavily urbanized parcel, consisting primarily of paved
surfaces, multiple buildings, and many overlapping fences. As such, it is distinctly unfriendly to
the wildlife that live in nearby Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. We urge that the site be
developed with the primary objective of maximizing or at least improving the ability of urban
wildlife to live within it and migrate through it and between adjacent green spaces.
As with the hundreds of past proposals for use of Discovery Park property, clearly, there are
many competing interests for the use of this property. However, as with the proposal to build an
ICBM site and a golf course, this proposal for housing is equally egregious for park property.
There is no way that the city can obtain new and urgently needed parkland for its burgeoning
population. However, the city has quite a number of properties that are vacant and/or
underutilized (even within the Interbay corridor) that would be much more suitable locations for
the proposed housing and/or off-leash dog parks, sports fields, etc. Furthermore we do not
support retention/consolidation of the vehicle maintenance shop in the extreme NE corner of the
property. Again, there are plenty of other more suitable locations for vehicle maintainance.
2
Thank-you,
Marian Wineman and John Rundall

3611 45th Ave W.
Seattle, WA 98199
LETTER 948
From: Andrew Witkowski
Subject: Lindsay Masters.....Fort Lawton solution proposal
My family and I would like to speak against idea to develop Fort Lawton area for homeless and low-wage
1
households. I hope that city will listen to us !!!!!
Best solution:
1. • Development of new park spaces that support a variety of uses including active and
2. • Re-use of one of the structures and associated parking as a maintenance facility for Seattle Parks
2
and Recreation.
Other solution (least favorite):
3. Sell Fort Lawton area to developer and profit from sale used to PURCHASE AND DEVELOP in SODO
area for homeless and low income housing (close to Harborview hospital, easy transportation to
3
downtown).
LETTER 949
From: Karleen Wolfe
Subject: Discovery Park Housing, ATTN: Lindsay Masters
TO: Lindsay Masters -- Office of Housing:
I'm writing regarding the proposal to build affordable housing in Discovery Park. I am a citizen of Seattle
and live in Rainier Beach.
I worked for 13 years in Discovery Park for the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation. Our offices were
first located in the army barracks at Fort Lawton and then eventually in the Daybreak Star Cultural
Center when it was built. (I am Native -- Dakota Sioux and Ojibwe/Chippewa -- and Scandinavian --
Norwegian and Swedish.)
I worked in education programs while employed for UIATF, including teaching elementary-aged children
and later was the Director of the Head Start program that was located at Daybreak Star. We often used
the park setting as our "classroom" for learning. The children loved being outdoors and were engaged 1
learners anytime our lessons took us into the park.
Discovery Park offers something unique and special, and I don't believe there's anything of such
magnitude anywhere else in Seattle: a wilderness kind of environment. Our students grew accustomed
to the flora and fauna of Discovery Park and learned much our the natural habitat of the Pacific
Northwest. We used the park's trails, open fields, forested areas, creeks & ponds, vista points, and the
saltwater beaches that border the Puget Sound.
I am now a faculty member at Seattle Central College and I teach in a program called "Early Childhood &
Family Studies." We train students interested in becoming teachers. Our program advocates for outdoor
learning. This includes not simply being outdoors, but also learning about what the Pacific Northwest
offers, the topography, the flora and fauna, beaches and sea life. I feel it's imperative that urban
children learn about the outdoor environment where they live, the place they call "home." Sadly, there
are very few places left where they are able to do that. Discovery Park is one of the few remaining
places that offers a natural environment as a setting for outdoor learning.
I am also a proponent of developing housing that is affordable for families. I know many are facing
challenges in today's housing market and that together as a society, we must work towards making
housing available to everyone. 1,
cont.
I'm writing to you to share that I DO NOT SUPPORT locating a housing development in Discovery Park. It
may not sound like a lot, to use a portion of Fort Lawton/Discovery Park for housing development, but
what I fear most is that this will only be the beginning of the demise and loss of something special. If it
becomes ruined it cannot be replaced, at least not in our times. We cannot undo the destruction of
natural habitat once we've paved and built over it.
This kind of development will bring construction, buildings, cars, people into a pristine setting. And who
knows what other things will follow to support the increase in population?
PLEASE DO NOT BUILD AFFORDABLE PUBLIC HOUSING IN DISCOVERY PARK. We might gain a few
hundred houses, but we will lose so much more in comparison.
Thank you,
Karleen Wolfe
LETTER 950
From: Shirley Wong
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment project
Dear Lindsey Masters,

My family and I are residents of Magnolia and live less than a mile away from the proposed low income
housing area. I am writing to tell you that we are against this proposal.
We have two children, ages 10 and 11 and have been worried sick at the idea that we could have
pedophiles and drug addicts living next to us. I know that not all residents living in low income housing
are drug addicts, criminals, pedophiles. I realize, that there are hardworking people that just need help.
1
I wish there is a way to separate out the kinds of residents that will occupy low-income housing but
there isn’t. And because there isn’t, I am not able to support this. Magnolia simply does not have the
volume of law enforcement to support the increased crime that this will bring to our neighborhood.
If you haven’t visited the area that they are proposing to use, I implore you to visit. You will see that
public transit is not easily available. You will see that we simply do not have the infrastructure set up.
The closest grocery store is Metropolitan market (35 minute walk away) which they will not be able to 2
afford. The other option is Albertsons, it’s 55 minute walk. Doesn’t it make sense to build low income
housing in a more centralized location?
Thank you for taking the time to listen.
From,
Shirley W.
LETTER 951
From: Mary Wong
Subject: Ft Lawton development
I am a resident of Magnolia for the last 14 years, I am totally opposed to your plan of building low
income housing in this beautiful natural habitat of ours. By doing so you will destroy the ecosystem,
cause major pollution, traffic, and devalue our neighborhood. This park is here for everybody, especially 1
the future generation, to enjoy. Please add Ft Lawton to Discovery Park and keep it as a Park. Do not
mess it up! We will appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Mary Wong Sent from my iPhone
LETTER 952
From: Kjerstin Wood
Subject: Support of Fort Lawton
Hello -
I am writing to express my support of development of affordable housing units at Fort Lawton. Our city
faces enormous challenges in getting unsheltered individuals and families into safe and secure housing,
and I hope you will make the right decision to repurpose land for a meaningful and worthwhile endeavor
of restoring the health, hope and dignity of the many people who benefit from redevelopment.
1
Thank you for your consideration, from a 3rd generation Seattleite and someone who benefited from
affordable housing growing up.
Best,
Kjerstin Wood
LETTER 953
From: james woodley
Subject: housing at Ft Lawton
By all means, BUILD HOUSING AT FT LAWTON! 1

If I may, please build more than is in the plan.
The community benefit of housing people living on the streets and providing housing for those in danger
of being priced out of Seattle, FAR outweighs any concerns that have been put forward by those
opposed. 2
This is a matter of will and morality.
We have the means and we have the land.
Please use it for more housing.
Thank you.
LETTER 954
From: Nancy Worssam
Subject: Discovery Park/Fort Lawton
Something must be done about the homeless problem in Seattle. That is understood, but please, please
1
don’t destroy, reduce, or endanger the wonderful gifts of nature which we are so lucky to have. Some
things are sacrosanct.
Nancy Worssam 2439 36 Ave. W. Seattle 98199
LETTER 955
1
LETTER 956
From: Shane Wyatt
Subject: FORT LAWTON ARMY RESERVE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT DEIS
I am voting for Option 3. 1

Thank you
Shane Wyatt
LETTER 957
From: Tom Wyliehart
Subject: Fort Lawton housing project
I am not a Seattle resident, but I work here and used to live in Queen Anne. I strongly support the
proposed use of Fort Lawton to provide housing opportunities to the many low-income, disadvantaged,
and homeless members of our community. Please choose the path that would uphold Seattle's
reputation as a progressive city and demonstrate forward thinking leadership in these times of
increasing disparity and countless systemic barriers to social and economic mobility for poor and low-
1
income people. Please favor economic justice over the arguments of the wealthy and privileged who
seek to maintain their isolation from the realities of the have-nots in our community. It is the
responsibility of government to work for all of the people.
LETTER 958
From: Zhu Zhu Xiao
Subject: Fort Lawton affordable housing is win, win
Lindsay Masters,
Housing at Fort Lawton is a win for:
- affordable housing for low income
- much needed increase in overall housing supply
1
I don't want Seattle to turn into Bay Area 2.0, where teachers and janitors can't afford to live. Please
study an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more housing. Seattle's housing shortage has
reached crisis levels: low-income households are being pushed out of the city, and the most vulnerable
are falling into homelessness in record numbers.
parking, passing up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes. 2
Thank you.
Zhu Zhu Xiao
[email protected] Seattle, Washington 98105
LETTER 959
From: Pauline Yerkovich
Subject: FLARC Development
I grew up in Lawton Park neighborhood and live in it today. My family came to Seattle five generations
ago. I whole heartedly feel it will go down in history as a colossal mistake not to follow the wishes of the 1
Friends of Discovery Park. This opportunity to add more park space to our city will never happen again.
It is bordered by a stable community that is invested in keeping it a welcoming place of peace and
escape from our ever growing city. To introduce a very unstable population to the border of our greatest
park would only diminish its current stability and the surrounding neighborhoods.
2
The plan to provide housing without screening for criminal history especially those with known mental
illness and sexual abuse or assault in close proximity to two preschools is unacceptable. The language
surrounding the responsibilities and enforcement of the proposed development is vague. The Magnolia
neighborhood has seen a rise in crime and less coverage from available police personnel.
The neighborhood of Magnolia is unique in its entry and exit points. One of our main access points
(Magnolia Bridge) is in disrepair and there is currently no funding to make improvements or replace it. If
and when it is closed that leaves only two other access points that feed to 15th Avenue only a few
blocks apart. Our Gilman overpass entry passing Fisherman's Terminal has been altered to create more
intense bottle necking with the addition of the bike lanes. This would be the most used access of
residents of any new development.
3
Magnolia residents are at the mercy of the Ballard Bridge operations and the growing traffic created by
new developments on 15th Avenue and Elliott. It is also directly impacted by Viaduct backups.
Magnolia's density is already oversaturated in areas that use this main entry and exit point.
As a Seattelite, I have watched the city that I love deteriorate to a heartbreaking state. The inability of
our city leaders to identify problems, take effective action and make proactive decisions to protect our
city from the irreversible outcomes of development without big picture vision leaves me distrustful of
their motives and competence. I do not trust any option other than to protect the park and extend its 4
footprint.
I attended the meetings and was disappointed in the inability to feel heard by my representative Sally
Bagshaw.
Sincerely,
Pauline Yerkovich
[email protected]
(206) 284-0187
LETTER 960
From: Larry Yok
Subject: Ft Lawton Redevelopment Plan
I write in support Alternative 1 of the Ft Lawton Redevelopment plan. The Ft Lawton site is a built up 1
area and I believe building housing there would not affect the natural beauty and recreational uses of
the adjacent Discovery Park.
Larry Yok
3321 36th Ave W
LETTER 961
From: Janet Young
Subject: Support Affordable Housing at Fort Lawton
Lindsay Masters,
Firstly, I congratulate the City of Seattle for their proposed plan for affordable housing at Fort Lawton. I
know that you are meeting resistance from some Magnolia neighbors who are concerned about the
mixing lower income people into this wealthy neighbor.
1
I write in support of your current plan - please continue to resist these ideas that some of our
neighborhoods be enclaves for the rich: a healthy society is one in which we have heterogeneous
neighborhoods, where citizens of all backgrounds and income levels share space and interact.
Furthermore, I urge the City to study an option for Fort Lawton that includes dramatically more housing.
Seattle's housing shortage has reached crisis levels: low-income households are being pushed out of the
city, and the most vulnerable are falling into homelessness in record numbers. Please prioritize the
creation of more affordable housing: this may require bold steps, and higher taxes - I fully support the
idea that those of us who can afford it (myself included) contribute to creating a more equitable society.
2
The City's Preferred Alternative for Ft Lawton devotes the large majority of the land to recreation and
surface parking. This passes up an opportunity to build many hundreds more affordable homes: please
consider bolder plans for this surplus public land.
Thank you - sincerely,

Janet Young
Janet Young
LETTER 962
From: Melinda Young-Flynn
Hello,
I'm unable to make the public comment event on Tuesday night, so I'm writing now to urge you to move
forward with efforts to build affordable housing at the Ft. Lawton Army Reserve Center site. As our city
continues to face a homelessness and affordability crisis, this is an excellent use of this land.
I am a long-time renter in Seattle who is fortunate to have good landlords and a manageable commute
to my job downtown. Too many people are not living the same experience. Our city must take steps to
ensure everyone has the opportunity to afford a roof over their head in this city. Low-wage workers in
particular in Seattle should not be forced to live in Federal Way and spend several hours a day on buses
getting to work.
I lived right next to Lake City Court, the 2011 green-built affordable housing complex, for a number of 1
years and I found it to be a great experience. The complex was well kept up. There were lots of young
families there, with kids playing in the playground regularly. All of my interactions with the people who
lived there were positive. And I never once felt unsafe when I was walking by the complex. I was happy
to know that the City of Seattle was providing this kind of living space for families who are below the
poverty line and for seniors and people with disabilities on fixed incomes.
Using this land in Magnolia for affordable housing is quite simply the right thing to do - economically, for
the sake of our communities, and for the sake of the well-being of the people in our city who have been
left behind by the economic growth and wealth that many long-time residents of Magnolia and Ballard
enjoy. I hope that the Office of Housing does the right thing and moves forward even if there is a strong
NIMBY outcry.
Thank you,
Melinda Young-Flynn
Seattle, Washington
LETTER 963
From: Krysta Yousoufian
Subject: Krysta Yousoufian says: We need more affordable housing in Fort Lawton!

1
1,
region.
Sincerely yours,
Krysta Yousoufian
LETTER 964
From: Jennifer Yu
Subject: Affordable Housing in Fort Lawton
Hi,
I'm writing in support of the planned affordable housing project in Fort Lawton. Building more housing is 1
central and critical in our fight against the growing housing and homelessness crises. Ideally, we would
be building more than 240 units in Fort Lawton, but 240 is better than zero. 2
Best,
Jennifer Yu
LETTER 965
From: Iulia Zavodov
Subject: Fwd:
Good day Honorable Council members and City of Seattle employees,
I was given one minute at 1/9 meeting, so I would like to submit my message electronically in its
entirety.
I would like to advocate for the affordable housing project while hearing out all the concerns of
neighbors in attendance who are worried about their safety and the potential for the drug abuse
problem.
I represent my Habitat for Humanity Homeowners Association in Snoqualmie, where I have been serving
as a Treasurer of the Board for the last three years.
I'm here to assure greater Magnolia community that fine folks like me fit nicely with the affluent
Snoqualmie Ridge community and won't shatter your sense of security and can only enhance your well-
being.
We are a 50 single family units development, all owned by folks like me, carefully screened and selected
by Habitat for Humanity.
My neighbors are now proud Americans born in the following countries:
• Vietnam
• Somalia
• Ethiopia
• Mexico
• El Salvador 1
• Venesuela
• Jamaica
• Nigeria
• Ivory Coast
• Moldova
• Ukraine
• MOSTLY America, with a few local valley residents, including Native Americans. We have
neighbors of the following occupations:
• Early childhood education professionals
• Higher education professional
• Pharmacy assistant
• Small business owners
• School bus driver
• Storage manager
• Social workers
• School teacher
• Medical assistant
• Bank teller
• Military veterans
• Nurse
• Construction workers
• Food service workers
• Retail managers
• Freelance fashion model
30% of our income goes towards mortgage and we enjoy an opportunity to invest the rest of the income
in our kids, local businesses, our our church/ mosque/ sinagogue.
We had had senior neighbors who saved enough equity to invest in the house elsewhere, which they
bought for cash. Our crime rate is no different than the rest of the Snoqualmie Ridge.
We recently had a drug abuse problem with one family [it can happen with anyone, mind you, including
very rich families!] and Habitat for Humanity worked with the neighbors to buy their house back. As a 1,
result, troublesome neighbors sold their house and moved out, and another family is about to move in. cont.
Our housing development is quiet, well maintained and friendly. Neighbors take turns serving on the
Board for our Homeowners Association. We do summer picnics on Fourth of July and in August,
celebrate weddings, graduations and birthdays together in our community center, and trick or treat with
our kids on Halloween. We celebrate Christmas, Ramadan, and Rosh Hashanah, the kids play together
outside and we get along fairly well.
We are grateful for the sense of safety and stability gratned by Habitat for Humanity's donors,
volunteers and community partners.
Thanks for your support to the affordable housing project!
I'll conclude with a quote from other speaker: Everyone needs a home!
Respectfully,
Iulia Zavodov
253-448-3115
36935 SE Gravenstein Ct
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
LETTER 966
From: Marc Zawislak
Lindsay Masters,
1
Thank you.
Marc Zawislak
[email protected]
3256 22nd Ave W
LETTER 967
From: Kathy Zeim
Subject: Fort Lawton Redevelopment – Support

I strongly support redeveloping Fort Lawton to provide affordable housing and services for people in 1
need.
-Kathy
Kathy Zeim
2301 NE 55th St
Seattle, WA 98105
LETTER 968
From: Julia Zelman
Hello,
I wish to submit a comment emphatically in favor of building low-income housing on the land at Fort
1
Lawton. In the midst of the current homelessness crisis, this is the right and humane thing to do.
Best regards,
Julia Zelman
LETTER 969
From: Susan Zeman

I am writing to encourage you to PLEASE build affordable housing at Fort Lawton near Discovery Park. I
love parks, and wish we had more of them, but we need affordable housing even more. Many of us
agree that we love the vibrant and diverse Seattle we have known so well in recent decades, and are
heartbroken at how quickly and thoroughly working class families are being pushed out of our 1
community.
Please build affordable housing at this location. We have a long way to go, but this would be a solid step
in the right direction.
Susan Zeman
98118
LETTER 970
From: Lu Zeng
Subject: I support affordable housing at Ft. Lawton.
Hi Office of Housing,
I am writing to express my strong support for building affordable housing at Ft. Lawton. I urge the City to
1
housing.
housing, and Ft. Lawton is as good a place as any for it; transit service can adapt to serve the new
residents. 2
LETTER 971
From: Josh Zimmerman
I support the use of Fort Lawton for the purpose of housing.

1
Josh Zimmerman
LETTER 972
. From: Patricia and William Zoberst
Subject: Citizen Comments on Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Draft EIS
Dear Ms. Lindsay Masters and Whom Else It May Concern:

My name is William Zoberst. I am a 38-year resident of Seattle. My wife and I live at 4532 36th Avenue
West, which is directly across 36th Avenue West from this planned development. 1
In our opinions, the proposed redevelopment will have disastrous consequences on our small sub-
neighborhood which consequences have been ignore or minimized in the Draft EIS.
***Our sub-neighborhood bounded by Government Way to the south and 36th Avenue West on the
north, consists of approximately 150 single-family residences. These homes' ingress and egress is, 2
almost exclusively via 36th Avenue West. Adding 238 new residences will more than double the size of
our community, and more than double traffic and other infrastructure burdens. No provision is made in 2,
the EIS for preserving, let alone mitigating this huge increase in population. cont.
***Nor does the Draft EIS deal adequately with street connections. Historically, none of the cross
streets (W McCord, W Fort, etc.) communicated with the Reserve Center property. Connecting any of
3
these cross-streets would require huge changes to traffic control (most are completely uncontrolled
now), which would raise serious safety issues.
***In our opinion, any redevelopment should strive to preserve the physical barrier (the existing berm
and security fencing) that protects our sub-neighborhood on its west side. All traffic to and from the 4
Reserve Center Property should remain on West Texas Way, not be shunted onto #6th Avenue West.
***Nor does te EIS deal with the synergistic negative impacts of other new and planned City and
developers' projects. The recent bike lane expansion has already seriously disrupted vehicular traffic
onto and off of Magnolia, and as the huge new multiunit apartment buildings near Dravus come on line,
5
the impacts will only grow insufferable. The routine development pattern here in our neighborhood is
razing existing single-family residences and replacing them with two much larger homes. The
neighborhood is already growing faster than the rare infrastructure improvements can accommodate.
And now you seriously think the neighborhood and its services can support another doubling?
***Property crime in our sub-neighborhood is already high. Magnolia has ONE SPD officer assigned to
it. The EIS is woefully inadequate in its treatment of the effects of placing any housing--let alone low- 6
income housing--in this more-or-less unpoliced community.
***I have seen what I believe is a Taylor's Checkerspot, Euphydryas editha taylori, on the Reserve
Property grounds. This grassland butterfly is officially listed as endangered, yet no mention of its
population or its preservation is mentioned anywhere in the draft EIS. Building 238 homes on its
habitat would be another step toward the butterfly's extinction. Moreover, insufficient treatment has
7
been given to disturbing nesting areas of the falcons, herons and eagles that call the place home. This is
significant--these birds have few other places to go, and this Property is their natural habitat.
***In our opinion, the Draft EIS has failed utterly to consider other, less-harmful, non-housing options
which would better mitigate all of the above. Examples include:
---Utilizing the existing campus as a hospital, school, occupational/fife skills center, or City office or 8
maintenance facility, e.g., Parks or Fire.
---Restoring the Property to its natural state as a wildlife habitat and buffer. 9
---Developing the Property as an extension of Discovery Park, that can be connected by trail to 10
Commodore Way, the Locks, and Shilshole
Finally, we must object strenuously to the way this housing proposal was handled on many, many
levels. Why was this placed under the aegis of Housing in the first place? Why were residents in the
immediate environs not solicited for their opinions? Why is this redevelopment being pushed to the
exclusion of REAL methods of dealing with homelessness? 11
Thank you for your consideration. We would like answers to the issues raised above. I am attaching a
pdf version of this letter for your response.
Sincerely,
William & Patricia Zoberst
LETTER 973
From: Leah Zoller
Subject: Affordable Housing near Fort Lawton

I would like to express my opinion about the potential affordable housing project near Ft. Lawton in
Magnolia. Simply put, Seattle needs more housing, and we need to focus on building affordable housing
(with rent caps and based on income) and housing for people who are homeless, as well as naturally
affordable housing. Market- rate housing is not affordable, and benefits only the wealthy and investors
who rent out badly needed housing as vacation rentals.
My partner and I are professionals in education live in a tiny but "naturally affordable" apartment that
eats up 1/3 of our income. The benefits of living there is that we save money since we don't need a car,
and we're close to transportation to go to work. Like many other "old Millennials" we're unable to save 1
to own property and always one rent-hike away from being forced to leave our home. Although we
technically make too much to qualify for affordable housing (despite the fact most of our income goes to
taxes and health insurance before it ever gets to us), we once had even less than we do now, and we
want all neighborhoods in Seattle to invest in the future of the city by helping others make rent and
have stable housing. Seattle does not belong to the wealthy; it belongs to the people who keep the city
running. It belongs to people who are precluded from stable housing because of high rents, the wage
gap, and discrimination.
Please consider building a park and affordable housing on this site, and thank you for your time.
Leah Zoller
[email protected]
pronouns: they/them/theirs
PUBLIC MEETING FORM 1
1
2
1
5
2
1
2
2
5
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
2
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
In the Matter of:
Draft EIS Hearing
PUBLIC HEARING -· DRAFT EIS
01/09/2018
PUBLIC HEARING -· DRAFT EIS; January 09, 2018 1
·1
·2
·3· · · · · · · · · SEATTLE OFFICE OF HOUSING
·4· ·_______________________________________________________
·5
·6· · · · Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment
·7· · · · · · ·Draft Environmental Impact Statement
·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·Public Comments
·9· ·_______________________________________________________
10
11· · · · · · · · · · · · · 6:00 p.m.
12· · · · · · · · · · · ·January 9, 2018
13
14· · · · · · · ·Magnolia United Church of Christ
15· · · · · · · · · · · ·3555 W McGraw St
16· · · · · · · · · · · Seattle, WA 98199
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24· ·REPORTED BY: JACQUELINE L. BELLOWS, CCR 2297
25
·1· · · · · · · · · · · INDEX OF SPEAKERS
·2· ·Speaker· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page
·3· ·1· ·Laura Villarreal ---------------------------------· ·6
·4· ·2· ·Terry Cook ---------------------------------------· ·7
·5· ·3· ·Vince Stricherz ----------------------------------· ·8
·6· ·4· ·Charles Redell -----------------------------------· 10
·7· ·5· ·Erin House ---------------------------------------· 12
·8· ·6· ·Elizabeth James ----------------------------------· 13
·9· ·7· ·Jeff Snyder --------------------------------------· 14
10· ·8· ·Aden Nardone -------------------------------------· 15
11· ·9· ·Nicki Olivier Hellenkamp -------------------------· 17
12· ·10· Rachael Ludwick ----------------------------------· 18
13· ·11· Dimitri Groce ------------------------------------· 19
14· ·12· Dan Cantrell -------------------------------------· 21
15· ·13· Alexander Froehlich ------------------------------· 21
16· ·14· Patricia Akiyama ---------------------------------· 22
17· ·15· Ethan Phelps-Goodman -----------------------------· 24
18· ·16· Carissa Knipe ------------------------------------· 25
19· ·17· Terra Anderson -----------------------------------· 27
20· ·18· Catherine Hinrichsen -----------------------------· 28
21· ·19· Oona Kelly ---------------------------------------· 29
22· ·20· Angela Compton -----------------------------------· 30
23· ·21· Hillary Coleman ----------------------------------· 32
24· ·22· Helen Gilbert ------------------------------------· 33
25· ·23· Henry Noble --------------------------------------· 34

·2· ·Speaker· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page
·3· ·24· Erica West ---------------------------------------· 35
·4· ·25· Carol Issac --------------------------------------· 37
·5· ·26· Brooke Brod --------------------------------------· 38
·6· ·27· Mark Foltz ---------------------------------------· 39
·7· ·28· Charles Bond -------------------------------------· 41
·8· ·29· Nick Woods ---------------------------------------· 42
·9· ·30· Allison Bolgiano ---------------------------------· 43
10· ·31· Tara Millerberry ---------------------------------· 45
11· ·32· Greg Shaw ----------------------------------------· 46
12· ·33· Amy Bailey ---------------------------------------· 47
13· ·34· Laura Lou Bernstein ------------------------------· 48
14· ·35· Jessica Westgren ---------------------------------· 50
15· ·36· Karen Nims ---------------------------------------· 52
16· ·37· James Madden -------------------------------------· 52
17· ·38· Clark Bathum -------------------------------------· 54
18· ·39· Susan Russell ------------------------------------· 54
19· ·40· Shelly Cohen -------------------------------------· 56
20· ·41· Tiffani McCoy ------------------------------------· 57
21· ·42· Richard Gambino ----------------------------------· 58
22· ·43· George Smith -------------------------------------· 59
23· ·44· Neal Lampi ---------------------------------------· 60
24· ·45· Jenny Allen --------------------------------------· 61
25· ·46· Sharon Jones -------------------------------------· 62

·2· ·Speaker· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page
·3· ·47· Tim Hesterberg -----------------------------------· 63
·4· ·48· Lisa Sawyer --------------------------------------· 64
·5· ·49· Keaton Slonsky -----------------------------------· 65
·6· ·50· Shawn Hosford ------------------------------------· 67
·7· ·51· Lisa Barnes --------------------------------------· 67
·8· ·52· Mary Van Bronkhorst ------------------------------· 69
·9· ·53· Raven Campbell -----------------------------------· 70
10· ·54· Mike Eliason -------------------------------------· 71
11· ·55· Daniel Ammons ------------------------------------· 72
12· ·56· Chris Sanders ------------------------------------· 73
13· ·57· Iulia Zavodov ------------------------------------· 74
14· ·58· Susan Helf ---------------------------------------· 75
15· ·59· Terri Suess --------------------------------------· 76
16· ·60· Joseph Lachman -----------------------------------· 77
17· ·61· Myra Lara ----------------------------------------· 78
18· ·62· Doug Conrad --------------------------------------· 79
19· ·63· Anitra Freeman -----------------------------------· 80
20· ·64· Janis Traven -------------------------------------· 81
21· ·65· Lisa Evans ---------------------------------------· 82
22· ·66· Valerie Cooper -----------------------------------· 83
23· ·67· James Jarosz -------------------------------------· 84
24· ·68· Alouin Semet -------------------------------------· 86
25· ·69· Doug Woos ----------------------------------------· 87

·2· ·Speaker· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page
·3· ·70· Alice Lockhart -----------------------------------· 88
·4· ·71· Melissa Hyatt ------------------------------------· 89
·5· ·72· Steven Buckminster -------------------------------· 90
·6· ·73· Rye Bey ------------------------------------------· 91
·7· ·74· Kevin Reynolds -----------------------------------· 92
·8· ·75· Lee Colleton -------------------------------------· 92
·9· ·76· Matthew Long -------------------------------------· 93
10· ·77· Dan Hernbrott ------------------------------------· 94
11· ·78· Mary Steeleklen ----------------------------------· 95
12· ·79· James McIntosh -----------------------------------· 96
13· ·80· Judy Willson -------------------------------------· 97
14· ·81· Bradley Scarp ------------------------------------· 98
15· ·82· Andrew Sang --------------------------------------· 99
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
YVer1f
·1 PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 1 - LAURA VILLARREAL
·2· · · · · · ·NUMBER 1:· All right.· Hi.· My name is Laura
·3· ·Villarreal.· I live in the Seward Park neighborhood.
·4· ·I'd like to say thank you to you, City staff, and to
·5· ·Council Members Bagshaw and Mosqueda for being here
·6· ·tonight.
·7· · · · · · ·I'm here tonight in support of building
·8· ·affordable housing at Fort Lawton and to encourage the
·9· ·City to think about building more with this amazing
10· ·vacant space that can be given to the City at no cost if
11· ·it's used for affordable housing.· In our history as
12· ·Seattleites, we place value in the ideas of growth,
13· ·innovation, and opportunity.· Seattle definitely needs
14· ·to address the current housing crisis in an innovative
15· ·way.· We're not only building homes on the Fort Lawton 1
16· ·site but by evaluating what more could be done to
17· ·leverage this land to better serve the underrepresented
18· ·Seattleites among us.
19· · · · · · ·Development at the Fort Lawton site provides
20· ·an exciting opportunity for families to thrive in high
21· ·opportunity neighborhoods.· It's been studied that
22· ·children that live in high opportunity neighborhoods are
23· ·over 30 percent more likely to go to college, 26 percent
24· ·less likely to become single parents, and will see on
25· ·average an increase in lifetime earnings of over
YVer1f
·1· ·$300,000.· I encourage the city to be bold in building
·2· ·more on this site to increase opportunity, not just for
·3· ·today's low income families and seniors, but to think 1, cont.
·4· ·about how this could positively impact hundreds of
·5· ·Seattle children and their opportunities in the future.
·6· ·Thank you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 2 - TERRY COOK
·7· · · · · · ·NUMBER 2:· My name is Terry Cook, and I live
·8· ·on Government Way, right next to the proposed
·9· ·development.· And I'm here to speak in favor of the
10· ·City's proposed plan, although I'd like to note that I'd 1
11· ·also be in favor of any plan that adds more housing to 2

12· ·this place and I'd also be in favor of developing the
3
13· ·Talaris site as well for additional housing.
14· · · · · · ·Some people here may be concerned about
15· ·potential changes to our neighborhood as a result of
16· ·this proposal.· But I'm here to say that I think that
17· ·these changes would actually help retain the essential
18· ·character of our neighborhood.· When my husband and I
19· ·moved here 16 years ago, we had to work hard to convince
20· ·our friends that Magnolia contained normal people and it 1, cont.
21· ·was not just some wealthy enclave.· And it was true.
22· ·Our neighbors included people like teachers and retired
23· ·people and people who worked in retail.
24· · · · · · ·Now our house is worth 250 percent of what it
25· ·was when we bought it.· And we all know that Seattle
YVer1f
·1· ·wages have not increased that much.· Adding affordable
·2· ·housing at Fort Lawton will allow normal people with
·3· ·normal jobs to continue living in our neighborhood.
·4· · · · · · ·In the past, I have heard concern at meetings
·5· ·like this about substance abuse in this potential
·6· ·development.· Substance abuse is a real and serious
·7· ·problem.· But limiting access to housing does nothing to
·8· ·address the root causes of those problems.· We should be
·9· ·working together to find real solutions to those
10· ·problems and not just arguing about affordable housing.
11· · · · · · ·Last I'd like to say what I think this 1, cont.

12· ·development could do for our neighborhood.· I picture a
13· ·North Magnolia with little shops that are actually
14· ·successful and maybe a place that I could go and get
15· ·takeout if I didn't have time to make dinner.· I picture
16· ·our beautiful Discovery Park easily accessible to kids
17· ·across all economic backgrounds just by walking out
18· ·their front door.
19· · · · · · ·I picture a Seattle where people of a diverse
20· ·range of jobs and incomes can continue to live together.
21· ·This project is just one small step, and much more needs
22· ·to be done.· But it is one step in the right direction.
23· ·Thank you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 3 - VINCE STRICHERZ
24· · · · · · ·NUMBER 3:· My name is Vince Stricherz, and

1
25· ·I've lived in West Seattle for 30 years.· I am here to
YVer1f
·1· ·speak in favor of the favored proposal for Fort Lawton
·2· ·because I believe it speaks to the highest ideals of the
·3· ·people of Seattle, namely to make sure that everyone has
·4· ·access to decent, affordable housing.
·5· · · · · · ·We all know the urgent nature of our housing
·6· ·affordibility and homelessness issues.· In 2016 one of
·7· ·every 15 kids in Seattle Public Schools was homeless.
·8· ·Now we have learned that Seattle's median home sale
·9· ·price in December was more than 14 percent higher than
10· ·just a year earlier.· As rents and home prices rise,
11· ·more and more people we depend on to make our community
12· ·function every day -- food service workers, custodial
13· ·staff, even young people returning from college with 1, cont.
14· ·hopes of settling in their hometown -- are being priced
15· ·out of the market.
16· · · · · · ·I've been a Habitat for Humanity volunteer for
17· ·the better part of two decades.· I've worked on homes in
18· ·various parts of Seattle as well as Renton, Sammamish,
19· ·and Pacific.· In the first decade of the 2000s, Habitat
20· ·built three developments in West Seattle.· Now, I'm not
21· ·great at construction.· But I'm really proud to say that
22· ·I worked on all three of those developments.· I would
23· ·challenge anyone to drive down those streets and try to
24· ·pick out the Habitat homes.· Even today as I drive by
25· ·them, I marvel at how well they blend into their
YVer1f
·1· ·neighborhoods.
·2· · · · · · ·In 2009, Catholic Housing opened Santa
·3· ·Teresita, a complex of 26 two- and three-bedroom
·4· ·apartments in West Seattle.· Santa Teresita provides
·5· ·permanent shelter for previously homeless families.· But
·6· ·again, if you were to drive by, you would just think of
·7· ·it as an apartment complex.· It blends in very well with
·8· ·the neighborhood.
·9· · · · · · ·The families who live in those apartments,
10· ·just like those living in the Habitat homes, have become
11· ·part of the fabric of the community.· They work.· They
12· ·go to school.· They go to church.· They shop.· They're

1, cont.
13· ·neighbors.
14· · · · · · ·Later this year or early next, if everything
15· ·goes according to plan, Habitat will begin a new project
16· ·in Lake City.· It will be the first time since 2014 that
17· ·Habitat has done new construction in the city, mostly
18· ·because affordable land is scarce.
19· · · · · · ·Now we have this wonderful new opportunity at
20· ·Fort Lawton for us to come up with meaningful long-term
21· ·solutions for these issues.· We need people in all parts
22· ·of the city to embrace the highest Seattle ideals.· We
23· ·need to stand up and say:· Yes, in my backyard.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 4 - CHARLES REDELL
24· · · · · · ·NUMBER 4:· My name is Charles Redell.· I'm a
1
25· ·small business service owner here in Seattle and a
YVer1f
·1· ·renter.· I used to be a homeowner in Magnolia.· But when
·2· ·I sold my condo at a profit, I was priced out of the
·3· ·housing market in town.· But I'm lucky.· My wife and I
·4· ·found an apartment we can afford, and we have a landlord
·5· ·we can trust.
·6· · · · · · ·In the 22 years I've lived here, I've watched
·7· ·Seattle become a truly big city with all of the benefits
·8· ·and the issues that can bring, such as the need for
·9· ·175,000 affordable units today and expected 225,000
10· ·needed in 10 years.· This opportunity to build
11· ·affordable housing at Fort Lawton is the kind of unique,
12· ·affordable, valuable, and long-term opportunity a city
13· ·should jump at. 1, cont.

14· · · · · · ·When I took part in the one-night count of
15· ·homeless people in Seattle a couple of years ago, I
16· ·learned firsthand how vital it is that our city and all
17· ·of its communities come together and take advantage of
18· ·every resource we have at our disposal to address our
19· ·housing crisis.· That night I worked with women and men
20· ·without homes who wanted nothing more than to be seen as
21· ·contributing members of our community.· But without a
22· ·regular home, even that relatively simple desire was
23· ·near impossible to fulfill.
24· · · · · · ·In Fort Lawton, we have an invaluable
25· ·opportunity to support our neighbors who need help and
YVer1f
·1· ·who will give the most back to our city or, in the case
·2· ·of homeless veterans and retired people, already have.

1, cont.
·3· ·I urge you to support the plan to build affordable
·4· ·housing at Fort Lawton.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 5 - ERIN HOUSE
·5· · · · · · ·NUMBER 5:· Good evening.· My name is Erin
·6· ·House, and I am coalition and outreach manager for
·7· ·Seattle Forever One, a broad coalition united on a
·8· ·foundation of support for the housing affordability and
·9· ·livability agenda.· You hear from us often on policies
10· ·that impact housing affordability.· And it's just really
11· ·exciting to be able to come out tonight to support a
12· ·wonderful project that would actually provide homes for
13· ·so many of our neighbors who need them.· And really this
14· ·is what it's all about:· Prioritizing publicly-owned
15· ·surplus and underutilized land for affordable housing is

1
16· ·a highest impact recommendation.
17· · · · · · ·Land for housing in Seattle is limited and
18· ·expensive and often hard to acquire for affordable
19· ·housing development.· A common refrain that I hear among
20· ·affordable housing developers and advocates is that we
21· ·have the capacity to create high quality homes for those
22· ·who need them in Seattle; however, site acquisition
23· ·remains a barrier and a challenge.· Yet the need only
24· ·continues to grow.
25· · · · · · ·Utilizing publicly owned land, like the Fort
YVer1f
·1· ·Lawton site, which would come at no cost to the city, is
·2· ·a critical way to provide opportunities to create high
·3· ·quality affordable housing in this competitive market.
·4· ·Let's leave Seattle as a welcoming city and move forward
·5· ·with this long overdue plan and continue to prioritize 1, cont.
·6· ·publicly owned land for affordable housing to meet
·7· ·Seattle's growing housing needs.
·8· · · · · · ·Thanks so much for the opportunity to comment.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 6 - ELIZABETH JAMES
·9· · · · · · ·NUMBER 6:· Hi.· My name is Elizabeth James.
10· ·And I'm a Ballard resident, and I'm also a founding
11· ·member of Speak Out Seattle, which is a nonpartisan
12· ·group of residents formed to advocate for holistic
13· ·solutions to urban problems including homelessness.
14· · · · · · ·I support bringing more affordable housing to
15· ·all of Seattle's neighborhoods including Fort Lawton.
16· ·We all know the reason that we need more affordable
17· ·housing.· But we also need to do it in a holistic way

1
18· ·where we plan as we go to provide the infrastructure and
19· ·not just build the housing and hope that the
20· ·infrastructure follows.
21· · · · · · ·I believe that all of the three options,
22· ·options two to four, are just not acceptable.· Option
23· ·one, I think, it's a little bit of an isolated area.
24· ·And I'm concerned there's no transit.· There's not any
25· ·restaurants.· There's not any grocery stores or anything
YVer1f
·1· ·nearby.· And I would think that, with the value of the
·2· ·land -- I checked out property values there.· And some

1, cont.
·3· ·houses with just a 4,000-square-foot lot are selling for
·4· ·875- in the last year.
·5· · · · · · ·And what we should do is to build partial. I
·6· ·totally agree with having all three options there.· But
·7··maybe we want to leverage some of that land and sell it

2
·8··for market rate as well so that we encourage restaurants
·9··and businesses to move into the area at the same time.
10· Thank you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 7 - JEFF SNYDER

11· · · · · · ·NUMBER 7:· Hello.· My name is Jeff Snyder.
12· ·I'm here as a member of the Democratic Socialists of
13· ·America.· I believe that housing is a human right.· We
14· ·are two years into a homelessness and housing
15· ·affordability crisis in this city.· In a crisis, we help
16· ·each other out.· In a crisis, those who have more to
17· ·give give more.· We live in a city where housing is so
18· ·expensive that our mail carriers, our grocery clerks,

1
19· ·our social workers, and our teachers are often one
20· ·paycheck away from homelessness.
21· · · · · · ·We'll need tens or hundreds of thousands of
22· ·units of affordable housing over the next 10 years to
23· ·meet our needs.· If we can't develop 238 units in free
24· ·land with amazing nonprofit partners, how can we begin
25· ·to address this crisis?· If we can't turn abandoned
YVer1f
·1· ·buildings and a parking lot into housing for those most
·2· ·in need, what kind of city are we?
·3· · · · · · ·In this context, what we have got here is an
·4· ·unconscionably unambitious plan:· Housing for 500 in a
·5· ·29 acre area.· In the middle of a crisis?· Developing
·6· ·such a small piece of the parcel is not doing nearly
·7· ·enough.· We need to build far more.· We need to develop
·8· ·both the Talaris site and at Fort Lawton.
·9· · · · · · ·Let's talk about neighborhood character. I 1, cont.

10· ·want to live in a neighborhood where people lift up
11· ·their houseless neighbors rather than try to keep them
12· ·out, to dehumanize them, to pretend they don't exist. I
13· ·get it.· It's hard to see people suffering when you have
14· ·a roof over your head.· It's hard when your every need
15· ·is met to consider the needs of others other than
16· ·yourself but not nearly as hard as living outside.
17· · · · · · ·We are in a church here.· A church's highest
18· ·commandment is to love thy neighbor.· I suggest you try
19· ·it.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 8 - ADEN NARDONE
20· · · · · · ·NUMBER 8:· My name is Aden Nardone.· I live in
21· ·Ballard.· I am not opposed to developing housing on this
22· ·beautiful piece of property:· Affordable, low income,
23· ·market rate.· I have a bit of a problem with the concept 1
24· ·with the 85 units for the seniors and the veterans and
25· ·formerly homeless.· There's dire lack of transportation
YVer1f
·1· ·in this area.· And there is absolutely -- well, not
·2· ·absolutely but very little opportunity for the residents
·3· ·to take a walk, to go get a cup of coffee, go down and
·4· ·buy a little roll of paper towels.· It's -- I almost
·5· ·feel like we're putting people in internment camps.
·6· · · · · · ·Sandpoint was -- excuse me, ma'am.· When I
·7· ·finish speaking, you can have your turn.
·8· · · · · · ·When Sandpoint was developed, there were no

1, cont.
·9· ·affordable grocery stories in the area.· Fifteen years
10· ·later, they are still waiting.· They do have a 7-Eleven
11· ·they can walk to.· Mercy is now putting in a new
12· ·development in Sandpoint that's going to have
13· ·market-rate, affordable, and low income.· And hopefully
14· ·it will encourage more businesses, coffee shops, so that
15· ·people have a place to walk to.
16· · · · · · ·I think isolating people in an isolated area
17· ·with limited opportunities for socialization can have
18· ·some negative impacts.· I didn't read anything on the
19· ·EIS that spoke of about a dog park.· I don't have a dog.
20· ·I enjoy dogs.· They don't take -- the dog parks don't
21· ·take up a lot of room.· They're a great social activity.
22· ·It encourages people to walk.· It encourages people to

2
23· ·get out and visit and meet their neighbors.· How can you
24· ·not smile when you see one of those goofy dogs?
25· · · · · · ·Thank you.
YVer1f
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 9 - NICKI OLIVIER HELLENKAMP
·1· · · · · · ·NUMBER 9:· Good evening.· And thank you for
·2· ·the opportunity to speak with you tonight.· My name is
·3· ·Nicki Olivier Hellenkamp.· And I'm the mobilization and
·4· ·policy manager with the Housing Development Consortium,
·5· ·Seattle King County.
·6· · · · · · ·HDC is a nonprofit membership organization,
·7· ·representing 150 private businesses, nonprofit agencies,
·8· ·and public partners who are dedicated to the vision that
·9· ·all people should live in a safe, healthy, and
10· ·affordable home in a community of opportunity.· HDC
11· ·fully supports the affordable housing being developed at
12· ·Fort Lawton, alternative one in the Draft EIS.· And we
13· ·strongly encourage the City to move forward with this 1

14· ·vision.
15· · · · · · ·With extraordinarily low vacancy rates for
16· ·both homeowners and renters, the Seattle housing market
17· ·is increasing inaccessible for people with low and
18· ·moderate incomes.· The Fort Lawton property presents an
19· ·incredible opportunity to leverage surplus federal land
20· ·to help meet our community's urgent need for affordable
21· ·homes for seniors, veterans, and families.
22· · · · · · ·Developing new affordable homes at Fort Lawton
23· ·is an important step toward our shared goal of making
24· ·sure that everyone in our community has a safe, healthy,
25· ·and affordable home.· Thank you.
YVer1f
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 10 - RACHAEL LUDWICK
·1· · · · · · ·NUMBER 10:· Hi, my name's Rachael Ludwick. I
·2· ·live in North Beacon Hill.· I'm actually a tech worker.
·3· ·I've been here, in the city, for almost eight years.
·4· ·And I'm here to speak in support of this project because
·5· ·I believe we should be building housing like this in
·6· ·every neighborhood in Seattle and every place that we
·7· ·possibly can.
·8· · · · · · ·I'm extremely concerned about carbon pollution
·9· ·and long-term sustainability of human life.· Increasing
10· ·urban density is one of the most important and most
11· ·effective ways we can actually do to actually attack
12· ·that problem.· We should build this.· Every home we

1
13· ·don't build is a family that we're pushing out of the
14· ·city.
15· · · · · · ·If we don't build homes here, we're pushing
16· ·people into circumstances where they have to live in a
17· ·way that increases pollution, where they have to move
18· ·farther from their friends and families.· If we don't
19· ·build here, we harm the environment of the entire
20· ·region, we harm the environment of the entire world.
21· · · · · · ·But, like some other folks have said, I
22· ·actually ask:· Why are we only going to build 200 units
23· ·here?· Why can't we build more?· Around the world,
24· ·cities like Vienna prove that we can build beautiful,
25· ·green mixed projects with thousands of units on land
YVer1f
·1· ·like this.· If we build only a few hundred, we'll miss
·2· ·out on a chance to make a dramatic improvement to the
·3· ·lives of everyone in the city and the entire region.
·4· · · · · · ·We should build large projects like this in
·5· ·every spot we can in Seattle.· We need many, many more 1, cont.
·6· ·thousands of units.· They need to be affordable, and
·7· ·they need to be thousands more.· Every home we don't
·8· ·build is a home that is a human being, a family, that is
·9· ·forced to move further away.· They are going to be
10· ·forced to live a more polluting lifestyle.· And we'll be
11· ·harming everyone and denying them the benefits of living
12· ·in our wonderful city.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 11 - DIMITRI GROCE
13· · · · · · ·NUMBER 11:· My name is Dimitri Groce, and I'm
14· ·here to voice my support for redeveloping Fort Lawton to
15· ·make space for affordable homes for the community. I
16· ·believe children deserve a fair chance to succeed in
17· ·school and life.· And that is only possible when a
18· ·family has an affordable home to stay in.
19· · · · · · ·I was born and raised in Seattle.· And when my 1
20· ·dad lost his job when I was 12, we were evicted and
21· ·became homeless for several months.· We didn't have
22· ·family here to help us.· My dad relocated here when he
23· ·came out as a veteran.· So when I got to stay with
24· ·friends, my dad had to sleep in the moving truck,
25· ·something that still sticks with me today every time I
YVer1f
·1· ·have to move, which is quite frequent in Seattle.
·2· · · · · · ·We eventually transitioned from our
·3· ·voucher-paid hotel to a transitional home here in
·4· ·Magnolia, right off Thorndyke, which was -- although it
·5· ·was temporary, it was exciting to know I had my own
·6· ·room, something I had not had before.· There were a lot
·7· ·of kids around me who were also low income and looked
·8· ·like me that we built a community on.· It was a family
·9· ·friendly space.
10· · · · · · ·And I just -- every time I come up here, I
11· ·vividly recall just biking around late at night, around

1, cont.
12· ·Discovery Park, and, when video stores were a thing,
13· ·Hollywood Video, renting movies.· So just starting in
14· ·sixth grade, I had a lot of shame around being homeless.
15· ·But having that stable home community and it helped me
16· ·keep up with my peers in school and build relationships
17· ·that lasted through today.
18· · · · · · ·Today I am working as a social worker.· I make
19· ·a good wage.· My dad still struggles with chronic
20· ·homelessness as a veteran.· Although I make a good wage,
21· ·it's really hard to sign him up for -- we can't live
22· ·together, technically.· It doesn't work that way.· So I
23· ·think we need to press harder to think about how folks
24· ·that have helped create the fabric of our community in
25· ·Seattle can continue to live here.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·I think that Fort Lawton is the place that we 1, cont.
·2· ·need to start.· Thanks.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 12 - DAN CANTRELL
·3· · · · · · ·NUMBER 12:· Hello.· My name is Dan Cantrell.
·4· ·I'm a long-time Seattle resident.· I've been a homeowner
·5· ·for more than 30 years.· I grew up in Magnolia.· I know
·6· ·this neighborhood very well.· And I think this is a

1
·7· ·tremendous opportunity to build affordable housing.
·8· · · · · · ·Everyone recognizes the need.· And frankly,
·9· ·this is a no brainer.· And I absolutely support this.
10· ·So DEIS alternative No. 1 is the way to go.· When this
11· ·is on the ground, then I think we should move forward 2

12· ·with Talares.· Thank you.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 13 - ALEXANDER FROELICH
13· · · · · · ·NUMBER 13:· My name is Alexander Froehlich.
14· ·I'm a Seattle resident.· I live about a mile from the
15· ·site, and I support the preferred option for the
16· ·development of Fort Lawton.
17· · · · · · ·I routinely extend my bike commute to downtown
18· ·through Magnolia, past Fort Lawton and Discovery Park,
19· ·and across the bluffs.· And I treasure this area, maybe 1
20· ·not in the same way as some of the long-time residents.
21· ·But it's a beautiful place.· And I believe that that
22· ·should be shared.
23· · · · · · ·I think this is a terrific place to put some
24· ·affordable housing.· The DEIS shows that this will have
25· ·reasonable impacts on the environment.· And the site is
YVer1f
·1· ·already built with the architect.· And the current
·2· ·proposal without further densification is not going to
·3· ·further negatively impact that.· Quality of living, as
·4· ·evidenced by turnout here and will no doubt show up in
·5· ·the review process, the architecture is going to look
·6· ·fine.· And the park spaces will be made available to
·7· ·all.
·8· · · · · · ·In terms of other impacts, as a resident
·9· ·nearby, I can verify that there are grocery options

1, cont.
10· ·available.· And if there's not enough buses, I think
11· ·this is an opportunity to invest in more public
12· ·transportation.
13· · · · · · ·Seattle made room for me.· I've heard this
14· ·before, and I'm quoting someone whose name I don't know.
15· ·But Seattle made room for me, and we need to make room
16· ·for all of the folks of all income levels.· We all
17· ·shared in creating the wealth and beauty of this city.
18· ·We have a moral obligation to give an opportunity for
19· ·others to enjoy that wealth regardless of their income.
20· · · · · · ·Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 14 - PATRICIA AKIYAMA
21· · · · · · ·NUMBER 14:· My name is Patricia Akiyama.· And
22· ·I live in the Lower Queen Anne neighborhood and work at
23· ·the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish

1
24· ·County.· I've lived in Seattle for 25 years.· I love
25· ·Seattle and where I live.· So many homeowners in the
YVer1f
·1· ·city, and including my neighborhood, are actively
·2· ·resisting growth and change.· I believe that increasing
·3· ·housing and improving livability can go hand in hand and
·4· ·that the efficiency and green synergies of concentrating
·5· ·people near jobs, services, and transit is positive.
·6· · · · · · ·The more people live in our neighborhoods, the
·7· ·more diversity we'll have and the more likely we will
·8· ·have great community gathering spaces like restaurants,
·9· ·grocery stores, book stores, art galleries, interesting
10· ·retail, and transportation options that make owning a
11· ·car optional.

1, cont.
12· · · · · · ·It would be a positive development for the
13· ·city if we could help people understand the benefits of
14· ·more housing so that they will accept and embrace the
15· ·change.· Let's support creative ways to build more
16· ·housing in our neighborhoods, offering a variety of
17· ·living options for people from all walks of life.
18· · · · · · ·Housing at Fort Lawton would allow more
19· ·options for people who work in the city and want to live
20· ·here.· Nurses, teachers, police officers, restaurant and
21· ·retail workers, office workers, plumbers, electricians,
22· ·hairstylists, people who help us and are part of our
23· ·lives every day deserve a decent place to live.· And
24· ·they might want to live here in this neighborhood.
25· · · · · · ·If we don't support and allow more housing for
YVer1f
·1· ·all types of people in our neighborhoods, we will have
·2· ·to grow outwards.· Many people would love to live close
·3· ·to work and not commute for long hours.· But if they
·4· ·don't have viable options in the city, then it seems
·5· ·they don't have and will not have a choice.· Let's have
1, cont.
·6· ·a kind, open, and thoughtful conversation about this and
·7· ·find common ground.
·8· · · · · · ·More housing can be inclusive and build
·9· ·community.· It is not synonymous with crime and decay
10· ·and should not be cast as an either/or choice.· Thank
11· ·you.PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 15 - ETHAN PHELPS-GOODMAN
12· · · · · · ·NUMBER 15:· Thank you to city staff for
13· ·holding this hearing tonight.· And thank you for council
14· ·members and council staff who are here.· My name is
15· ·Ethan Phelps-Goodman.· I'm an organizer with Seattle
16· ·Tech for Housing.
1
17· · · · · · ·And I am very happy to see the support for
18· ·housing in the room tonight.· It wonderful that the City
19· ·is building affordable housing.· It is wonderful that
20· ·there is so much enthusiasm around that.· That said, I
21· ·think we could be a lot bolder.· And I urge the City to
22· ·consider a new option, an option that will address the
23· ·magnitude of the crisis that we face.
24· · · · · · ·To give some ideas of how much we're leaving
25· ·on the table here, how much opportunity we're missing,
YVer1f
·1· ·we have 34 acres here.· The City is looking everywhere
·2· ·it can to find a third of an acre to build.· The City is
·3· ·trying as hard as it can to find small parcels of public
·4· ·land, a third of an acre here, a third of an acre there,
·5· ·to put housing on.· We have 34 acres at our disposal
·6· ·here.· 200 units is far too low.
·7· · · · · · ·Consider Yesler Terrace.· The same amount of
·8· ·land in Yesler Terrace, 5,000 units of housing will
·9· ·eventually be there.· And now, Yesler Terrace is not
10· ·Fort Lawton.· Fine.· It's a very different site.· So
11· ·maybe it should have half as much housing as Yesler

1, cont.
12· ·Terrace.· Maybe it should have a quarter as much
13· ·housing.· Maybe it can only support a tenth as much
14· ·housing.· But that's 5,000 units at Yesler Terrace and
15· ·200 in Fort Lawton.· We are leaving so much on the table
16· ·here.
17· · · · · · ·Or just consider the zoning on Government Way
18· ·immediately adjacent to the site.· That today is low
19· ·rise three zoning.· If you just built to the existing
20· ·zoning, you could fit 2,000 units of housing.· Why build
21· ·200 when you can support 2,000 under the current zoning?
22· ·Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 16 - CARISSA KNIPE
23· · · · · · ·NUMBER 16:· Hi.· My name is Carissa Knipe. I
24· ·have the privilege of living in a house here in Seattle. 1

25· ·But I don't want our city to be a place that only allows
YVer1f
·1· ·a small fraction of its people to live healthy and
·2· ·safely.· I want it to be accessible and affordable for
·3· ·everyone.· However, that vision seems further and
·4· ·further away, with people in our community increasingly
·5· ·being displaced, unable to find shelter, or struggling
·6· ·to deal with the cost of living here.
·7· · · · · · ·According to the 2017 homeless count, 8,522
·8· ·people in Seattle were experiencing homelessness.· And
·9· ·I'm saddened to live in a city where this happens, where
10· ·we allow kids, students, parents, families, and really
11· ·any one of those 8.5 thousand people to live either
12· ·without shelter or with fear around losing their

1, cont.
13· ·shelter.
14· · · · · · ·This is why I'm really hoping that the surplus
15· ·land of Fort Lawton can be used as proposed to create
16· ·affordable housing.· I want to live in a diverse
17· ·community that does its part to support those most
18· ·impacted by economic injustice.· So I'm excited about
19· ·housing like this being built.· I'm also excited that
20· ·it's otherwise unused public land so it won't displace
21· ·low income people who might have been already living
22· ·there.
23· · · · · · ·I hope to see developments like this truly
24· ·support the folks who are being hit hardest by our
25· ·affordable housing crisis.· Of course I hope this
YVer1f
·1· ·housing development is approved and that we continue to 1, cont.

·2· ·invest in more affordable housing.· Thank you.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 17 - TERRA ANDERSON
·3· · · · · · ·NUMBER 17:· Hi.· My name is Terra Anderson. I
·4· ·came here from Redmond to talk to you about Habitat for
·5· ·Humanity.· I'm a homeowner from Habitat.· I live in the
·6· ·Patterson Park development.· So I came to let you know
·7· ·that, after 12 years of home ownership, the program has
·8· ·drastically changed my life.· So I'm in support of the
·9· ·development of this project.· And for all those Magnolia
10· ·homeowners that cannot hear me outside, I would
11· ·encourage you to look up all of the reasons why this is
12· ·a really great opportunity to use this land for this
13· ·development project.

1
14· · · · · · ·Those of us that are Habitat homeowners have
15· ·to invest over 500 hours of sweat equity to build their
16· ·home.· Then they pay a mortgage.· They're qualified to
17· ·buy their home.· There's a vetting progress.· You have
18· ·to qualify.
19· · · · · · ·And other projects that are part of this
20· ·organization are very similar to the neighborhood I live
21· ·in already.· So this isn't some weird project that's
22· ·coming into Magnolia.· I would encourage you to look up
23· ·what's going on in other parts of King county.· It's a
24· ·really great opportunity for people who would otherwise
25· ·not be able to afford in King county -- not be able to
YVer1f
·1· ·afford to live in King county.· Period.· I don't know
·2· ·where I would live.· And my kids wouldn't be able to
·3· ·live in King county either.
·4· · · · · · ·So two minutes isn't long enough to tell you
·5· ·my story.· But it is enough to tell you that it's

1, cont.
·6· ·phenomenal.· And I encourage you to do your research.
·7· ·Anybody that lives in Magnolia needs to go to the
·8· ·website for Habitat for Humanity or any of these other
·9· ·organizations that are here, coming to tell you about
10· ·how awesome this opportunity is for just plain people
11· ·who want to live in Seattle.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 18 - CATHERINE HINRICHSON
12· · · · · · ·NUMBER 18:· Thank you for this opportunity to
13· ·speak.· My name is Catherine Hinrichson.· I've been a
14· ·homeowner in the U District for more than twenty years.
15· ·And I'm a mom.
16· · · · · · ·My little boy is now very tall and in college.
17· ·And I'm really worried.· I'm worried because housing in
18· ·Seattle has gotten so expensive that I don't know where

1
19· ·he and other young people will be able to live when
20· ·they're ready to go out on their own and start their own
21· ·families like I was able to.· More and more people are
22· ·being priced out of our community.· And more of our
23· ·children can't afford to come home.
24· · · · · · ·That is why I'm so excited at the opportunity
25· ·for option one, to build affordable homes for families,
YVer1f
·1· ·seniors, and veterans at Fort Lawton on surplus land,
·2· ·public land that belongs to all of us that is unused.
·3· ·It's free land that's just been sitting around empty for
·4· ·years at a time we've never had a greater need for homes
·5· ·for everyone in our community.
·6· · · · · · ·Today I saw a video about the former officers'
·7· ·homes at Fort Lawton being redeveloped into luxury homes
·8· ·that are sold for up to $3 million.· The video makes the
·9· ·promise of living in a 534-acre park as if it's a
10· ·palatial private estate.· Well, that park and that land
11· ·belongs to everyone, not just to millionaires.

1, cont.
12· · · · · · ·Every neighborhood in Seattle needs to be part
13· ·of our housing of solutions if we're going keep Seattle
14· ·the way we love it:· A welcoming and culturally rich
15· ·place for everyone, a place where every child can live
16· ·near a beautiful park, not just those whose parents can
17· ·afford the million-dollar homes.
18· · · · · · ·So please go ahead with the plan to build
19· ·affordable homes for families, seniors, and veterans at
20· ·Fort Lawton.· And, by the way, if anyone needs a seat,
21· ·there's one next to me.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 19 - OONA KELLY
22· · · · · · ·NUMBER 19:· My name is Oona Kelly.· And I grew
23· ·up here in Magnolia.· I don't live here anymore.· But I
24· ·have grown up here.· I know it's a beautiful place. 1

25· ·It's a place that everyone in this city should have the
YVer1f
·1· ·opportunity to explore.· And the nature here is
·2· ·incredible.· And I just -- I don't think that that
·3· ·should be a privilege for only people who are lucky
·4· ·enough to be born with privilege or lucky enough to have
·5· ·the right skills to get the right jobs that happen to be
·6· ·currently a way to make a lot of money.
·7· · · · · · ·So I believe that it's important that we

1, cont.
·8· ·develop affordable housing all over Seattle to the
·9· ·extent possible.· We need to be housing so many more
10· ·people than we currently can.· And I mean this doesn't
11· ·just affect people who need to live in low income
12· ·housing.· This affects everyone who wants to buy or rent
13· ·property in Seattle.· The land usage in this city is a
14· ·huge problem.· And more of it needs to be public
15· ·housing.
16· · · · · · ·So I'm very much in favor of Fort Lawton being
17· ·developed for public housing and everywhere else the
18· ·city can possibly do that.· I think that's where
19· ·resources should be going right now.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 20 - ANGELA COMPTON
20· · · · · · ·NUMBER 20:· Good evening.· My name is Angela
21· ·Compton.· And I'm here to give support for this publicly
22· ·owned surplus Fort Lawton site for affordable housing.

1
23· · · · · · ·I grew up in the Seattle area.· And my family
24· ·was homeless and housing unstable after some unfortunate
25· ·events.· And it was really hard to get back up on our
YVer1f
·1· ·feet.· And as the years have passed, things have gotten
·2· ·harder and harder for a family in Seattle to find
·3· ·affordable housing.
·4· · · · · · ·I worked as a social worker for a while in a
·5· ·downtown Seattle shelter, working with families trying
·6· ·to find affordable housing.· And it was really hard.
·7· ·There was a single mom that I worked with who had a
·8· ·voucher and three kids.· And it took three months for us
·9· ·find her a home.· She was living in her car with her
10· ·three children for three months.· That is ridiculous,
11· ·with the voucher.
12· · · · · · ·There is not enough affordable housing.· And

1, cont.
13· ·this is a chance for us to have free public land turned
14· ·into affordable housing.· This is -- doesn't happen
15· ·every day.· Like I've heard other people say, the city
16· ·is fighting to find any land for affordable housing.
17· ·And here we have a ton of acres.· We should be building
18· ·thousands of units, not 200.
19· · · · · · ·Like, we need to serve our most vulnerable
20· ·people in our community.· And those are our seniors.
21· ·Those are people on fixed incomes.· Those are veterans.
22· ·Those are families.· And this is an opportunity for them
23· ·to have homes.· And that is far more important than
24· ·people's sense of safety because, really, their sense of
25· ·safety is not being compromised.· Thank you.
YVer1f
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 21 - HILLARY COLEMAN
·1· · · · · · ·NUMBER 21:· Hi.· My name is Hillary Coleman.
·2· ·I work for the Seattle King County Coalition on
·3· ·Homelessness.· I'm here today on behalf of the coalition
·4· ·to stand in support of this affordable housing at Fort
·5· ·Lawton.
·6· · · · · · ·In 2015 in November, our city along with the
·7· ·county, our leadership declared a state of emergency
·8· ·around homelessness.· We, as a City, need to be doing
·9· ·everything we can to be bringing people inside.· We're
10· ·two plus years after that, and we've made no progress.
11· ·So this is a great opportunity for us.
12· · · · · · ·I encourage everyone just to remember that we

1
13· ·have thousands, over 8,000 people, who are currently
14· ·experiencing homelessness in our city and more in our
15· ·county.· While we're coming up for the next count that
16· ·will probably show more increases, we really need more
17· ·affordable housing for people.
18· · · · · · ·I really love that we are able to have this
19· ·opportunity to have housing next to apartments, like
20· ·many people have explained various things, for people to
21· ·be able to have access for their kids to go play, for
22· ·kids to be friends of kids that maybe they wouldn't have
23· ·been friends with otherwise.
24· · · · · · ·This land also, being free to the City to
25· ·develop affordable housing, is really important.· It's a
YVer1f
·1· ·hard thing for us to pass up.· But I just really want to
·2· ·encourage everyone to be in support of this.· And namely

1, cont.
·3· ·the Coalition on Homelessness is in support of all
·4· ·affordable housing that we can have in this city.· Thank
·5· ·you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 22 - HELEN GILBERT

·6· · · · · · ·NUMBER 22:· My name is Helen Gilbert.· I'm a
·7· ·Seattle native.· I'm speaking tonight as a birder and
·8· ·volunteer at Discovery Park and also as a representative
·9· ·of the feminist organization called Radical Women.
10· · · · · · ·Poverty and homelessness hit women, youth,
11· ·children especially hard.· Without well paying jobs and
12· ·access to housing, women and children are forced to live
13· ·in cars, tents, and shelters, or have to stay in failed
14· ·and abusive relationships.
15· · · · · · ·I've seen the area that is being discussed
16· ·tonight.· And it's really a concrete wasteland.

1
17· ·Residential housing for 100 or so low income elders and
18· ·homeless people would be a huge step forward in making
19· ·this area an asset to the neighborhood.· And I strongly
20· ·support the use of the area for public housing.· But I
21· ·don't think the proposal No. 1 is perfect.
22· · · · · · ·Maybe I don't understand blueprints.· But it
23· ·seems to me that 200 units is a lot.· I don't know if
24· ·the city's tried to really get the neighborhood riled up
25· ·in a civil war about this or if there's is a lot of
YVer1f
·1· ·greed for developer dollars.· I don't think any of this
·2· ·house should be privately owned -- any of this housing.
·3· ·It should be public housing.· And the whole
·4· ·misdefinition of affordable housing is actually
·5· ·misstating.· It's something that's attainable for only
·6· ·people of moderate income.· We need housing with -- for
·7· ·low income people with play areas and gardens.· It's
2
·8· ·where the park would encourage diversity that's part of
·9· ·its mission.
10· · · · · · ·And as someone said, if the rich can live in
11· ·the center of the park with a billion-dollar view
12· ·maintained by the City, why can't we let low income
13· ·people live on the margins?· Our crises is real.· We
14· ·need rent control.· We need an income tax on the wealthy
15· ·instead of paying off sexual harassers and giving
16· ·loopholes to developers.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 23 - HENRY NOBLE
17· · · · · · ·NUMBER 23:· I'm Henry Noble.· I'm speaking for
18· ·myself and the Freedom Socialist Party.
19· · · · · · ·I love Discovery Park and volunteer to lead
20· ·bird walks and compile bird census here.· I also
21· ·strongly support building housing for seniors, disabled,

1
22· ·and homeless people on the unused acreage.· This
23· ·activity will in no way hurt the park and might
24· ·encourage more people to become stewards there.
25· · · · · · ·In my other volunteer capacity at YMCA, I
YVer1f
·1· ·regularly come into contact with homeless people,
·2· ·decent, caring human beings who are forced to live in
·3· ·tents or cars or dangerous shelters.· 8500 is the number
·4· ·that is now put out.· Can you just imagine trying to
·5· ·survive outside in our cold, wet winter?· Our society
·6· ·must see that everyone is provided for, not just the
·7· ·wealthy.· Public housing is as essential as public
·8· ·transport, public hospitals, public libraries, and
·9· ·public schools.· Housing for all. 1, cont.

10· · · · · · ·This site seems the perfect place since it's
11· ·not in use, does have some bus transportation amenities,
12· ·and comes free.· I believe there are reasonable people
13· ·who live in the neighborhood who would enjoy getting to
14· ·know new neighbors from diverse backgrounds.· Making the
15· ·housing publicly owned will remove the likelihood of
16· ·rampant rent gouging that we see throughout the city and
17· ·keep it accessible at 30 percent of median for all for a
18· ·long time.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 24 - ERICA WEST
19· · · · · · ·NUMBER 24:· Good evening.· My name is Erica
20· ·West.· I'm an organizer with the Church Council of
21· ·Greater Seattle.· Our networks include over 320
22· ·congregations throughout King county, including several

1
23· ·in the Magnolia neighborhood.
24· · · · · · ·I'm here to speak in favor of building
25· ·affordable housing at Fort Lawton.· Working in an
YVer1f
·1· ·organization which works with faith communities, I often
·2· ·reflect on faith itself and what it looks like in
·3· ·practice.· In the Christian tradition, faith is defined
·4· ·as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of
·5· ·things not seen.· So I'd like to talk a little about
·6· ·that and how it relates to this.
·7· · · · · · ·In the case of Seattle, the thing hoped for
·8· ·are solutions to the affordable housing and homelessness
·9· ·crisis that is rampant in our city.· Faith communities
10· ·have a long tradition of uplifting those who are
11· ·marginalized in our midst.· And who is more marginalized
12· ·then our neighbors experiencing homelessness:· Our 1, cont.

13· ·veterans, our low income families and friends, people of
14· ·color and/or elders.
15· · · · · · ·Fort Lawton is an opportunity to act on faith,
16· ·to work towards the thing that's hoped for and create
17· ·something we long to see, an answer to this crisis, an
18· ·answer to the prioritization of wealth over the
19· ·neighbors who are most in need, a resounding answer to
20· ·the questions that are at the center of this:· Who do we
21· ·value?· Who do we love?· Who actually gets a home in
22· ·Seattle?
23· · · · · · ·Let's build as much accessible, safe, and
24· ·affordable housing at the Fort Lawton property as is
25· ·possible.· We can create the city that we want to see.
YVer1f
·1· ·We can do this together.· We can act on faith.· Thank 1, cont.
·2· ·you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 25 - CAROL ISSAC
·3· · · · · · ·NUMBER 25:· Hello.· I'm Carol Issac.· And I
·4· ·live on Queen Anne.· I've been living there for 40
·5· ·years.· I'm lucky to have had a home there for 40 years.
·6· ·I came to the city nine years before that.· And I'm one
·7· ·of those people who are the transplant.
·8· · · · · · ·Recently I've been working with Women in Black
·9· ·that has been very on -- figuring out what's going on
10· ·with the homeless in the city.· We have had an emergency
11· ·declared.· We don't talk about it very much.· We're in
12· ·an emergency.· It's been there since two Novembers ago.
13· ·And we have tons of people who live within the
14· ·population of the homeless that aren't being well spoken 1

15· ·to right now.· Disproportionately in that homeless
16· ·population on the streets are people who are Indian.
17· ·And they were the original owners of this land.
18· · · · · · ·Fort Lawton is not nor it has ever been park
19· ·land.· Plus, if it used for those experiencing
20· ·homelessness, will not come free from the federal
21· ·government.· I just heard from Lindsay Masters tonight.
22· ·That is the rule.· Before a certain administration
23· ·changes the rules, we should take free land.· It's free
24· ·if you use it.· All of it's free if you use it for
25· ·people experiencing homelessness.· We have enough people
YVer1f
·1· ·to fill quite a bit of that land.· Other parts of the
·2· ·land are free, I understand -- we haven't explored that
·3· ·fully -- if you are using it for parks.· So we still
·4· ·have the greenery there.
·5· · · · · · ·Veterans are a population that are

1, cont.
·6· ·experiencing homelessness in high numbers.· Our World
·7· ·War II soldiers, my age kind of thing, our World War II
·8· ·soldiers protected our state's coastline and kept war
·9· ·prisoners on this base.· This parcel of land was used by
10· ·the U.S. military.· They made us safe.· Let's give them
11· ·the land also.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 26 - BROOKE BROD
12· · · · · · ·NUMBER 26:· Great.· Hello.· Thank you for
13· ·giving us the opportunity to speak.· My name is Brooke
14· ·Brod.· I am a lucky homeowner in the University District
15· ·where every day I walk by people who are camping in
16· ·Cowen Park and Ravenna Park, sleeping under the bridges.
17· · · · · · ·In 2017 the King County homeless count was
18· ·over 11,000 people.· That's 5,000 people without shelter

1
19· ·and 6,000 in transitional housing -- 11,000 people.
20· ·Honestly, I feel like I can end my testimony right
21· ·there.· Those numbers speak for themselves.· But let me
22· ·go just a little bit further.· In King county our
23· ·homeless neighbors include over 1300 veterans, over 2800
24· ·families with children, over 1400 minors or young
25· ·adults.· 22 percent of those people are over 50, 26
YVer1f
·1· ·percent on physical disability, and 29 percent are
·2· ·employed but still can't find housing.· 92 percent of
·3· ·them would move into safe and affordable housing if it
·4· ·were available.· The next homeless count happens in just
·5· ·a few weeks, on January 26.· Sadly I don't expect we'll
·6· ·see an improvement in these numbers.
·7· · · · · · ·We have a moral imperative to act now.· And
·8· ·alternative one is the only alternative that would lead 1, cont.
·9· ·to additional housing being created now.· The Talaris
10· ·site or these other off-site locations that are in the
11· ·other alternatives, those are just theoretical examples.
12· ·We don't need theoretical solutions.· We need real
13· ·solutions right now.
14· · · · · · ·Fort Lawton has been in the works since 2008.
15· ·Are we really prepared to wade through another 10 years
16· ·of process and obstruction while we consider another
17· ·site?· We cannot wait even one more year, one more
18· ·month, one more week to address our housing crisis.· We
19· ·need to moved forward without delay on approving
20· ·alternative one so we can start building the housing we
21· ·desperately need in this city.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 27 - MARK FOLTZ
22· · · · · · ·NUMBER 27:· Hello.· My name is Mark Foltz. I
23· ·live in Wallingford I'm part of Welcoming Wallingford.
24· · · · · · ·I am very fortunate to have to be able to say

1
25· ·I have a place I call home.· Thousands of my neighbors
YVer1f
·1· ·cannot say the same as they do not have a permanent
·2· ·place to live.· They live unsheltered or in transitional
·3· ·or in emergency housing.· Or they may not have a home
·4· ·for much longer as the cost of housing continues to
·5· ·drive people and families out of Seattle.· This
·6· ·situation is not simply a matter of roofs over heads.
·7· ·This is a matter of life and death.· In King county, 133
·8· ·people without permanent housing died in 2017.· Homes
·9· ·for people save lives.
10· · · · · · ·Homes also raise our children.· 3,000
11· ·school-age children in Seattle experienced homelessness
12· ·in 2015.· We know this number is higher now.· Studies
13· ·show children who experience homelessness cannot thrive.

1, cont.
14· ·And homes create opportunities.· Home ownership is the
15· ·cornerstone of building the kind of intergenerational
16· ·wealth that has eluded far to many in Seattle because of
17· ·past and current discrimination.
18· · · · · · ·Alternative one for Fort Lawton addresses
19· ·these problems head on, using free land, truly a
20· ·miraculous gift in today's hyperactive real estate
21· ·market.· It creates supportive permanent housing for
22· ·those experiencing homelessness and workforce housing so
23· ·people who work in Seattle can live in Seattle.· It also
24· ·creates affordable home ownership opportunities.· And it
25· ·creates new park space and improves the neighborhood for
YVer1f
·1· ·Magnolia.· This is a win-win-win for the city, our

1, cont.
·2· ·neighbors, and the neighborhood.
·3· · · · · · ·But I agree with Ethan:· The city should go
·4· ·even further.· First increase the zoning of the

2
·5· ·developable land to LR 3 so that more housing can be
·6· ·built.· Second, improve bike and pedestrian connections
·7· ·to downtown Ballard to improve access to shopping,
·8· ·healthcare, and services.· And third, improve access to

3
·9· ·transit and car share so we can build many more homes
10· ·for people and fewer homes for cars, known as parking
11· ·spaces.
12· · · · · · ·I urge the city to proceed as soon as possible
13· ·with this project.· If we want to call ourselves a
14· ·welcoming sanctuary city, we cannot let this opportunity
15· ·pass.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 28 - CHARLES BOND
16· · · · · · ·NUMBER 28:· Hello.· My name is Charles Bond.
17· ·I'm a Seattle resident.· I'm here for only one reason
18· ·tonight.
19· · · · · · ·It is just complete madness that we have to
20· ·fight this hard for just 200-and-some units of

1
21· ·affordable housing.· We can be building thousands of
22· ·units on this site.· And it's just nuts that we've got
23· ·to be here and fight this hard for just 200 units.· The
24· ·City should think bigger.· The City should build bigger
25· ·and more housing for people who need it today.· And
YVer1f
·1· ·that's really all I have to say:· More housing for
·2· ·folks, more affordable housing, and think bigger on all 1, cont.
·3· ·these sites when we get them.· Thanks.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 29 - NICK WOODS
·4· · · · · · ·NUMBER 29:· Hi.· My name is Nick Woods.· I'm a
·5· ·renter in the U District.· I'm here to support the
·6· ·affordable housing and public housing at the Fort Lawton
·7· ·site.
·8· · · · · · ·Seattle, I really want to drive the point
·9· ·home:· Seattle is in the midst of a crisis.· The city's
10· ·homeless population is the third highest in the U.S with
11· ·over 11,000 people sleeping outdoors every night.
12· ·Skyrocketing rents are forcing people who work in the
13· ·city to move to far-flung suburbs where they have to
14· ·rely on expensive, carbon-belching cars to get to work.

1, cont.
15· · · · · · ·If people think the Fort Lawton site isn't
16· ·transit accessible, we should think about Auburn for a
17· ·second.· We need more housing in the city.· And we need
18· ·to start building it now.· The City of Seattle has a
19· ·fantastic opportunity to acquire land for free to help
20· ·solve some of these issues.
21· · · · · · ·The area is not park land.· It's the remnants
22· ·of an old army base.· The environmental cost of doing
23· ·nothing far outweighs turning a small section of the
24· ·base into affordable housing, especially since the
25· ·Ballard Link will be opening a few short weeks after the
YVer1f
·1· ·project is finished.· According to the EIS, it's going
·2· ·to take seven years to build the site.· The Ballard Link
·3· ·is coming online in 2030.· I imagine that the bus
·4· ·restructure will probably bring people there pretty
·5· ·quickly.
1, cont.
·6· · · · · · ·Everyone deserves to live here.· Everyone
·7· ·deserves to have access to high quality park land,
·8· ·commutes that don't take hours, and the economic and
·9· ·cultural opportunities that living in Seattle brings.
10· · · · · · ·Please don't contribute to a wall being built
11· ·around our city.· Please approve this project as quickly
12· ·as possible.· And please try to build many more units
2
13· ·than just the 280-some that are proposed now.· Thank
14· ·you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 30 - ALLISON BOLGIANO

15· · · · · · ·NUMBER 30:· Good evening.· My name is Allison
16· ·Bolgiano.· I'm 25 years old, a graduate of Whitman
17· ·College, an employee of the local nonprofit Bellwether
18· ·Housing, a resident of First Hill, and a tenant of
19· ·affordable housing myself.· I'm here tonight because the
20· ·opportunity to build affordable homes on free land at
21· ·Fort Lawton is too good and too desperately needed to

1
22· ·pass up.
23· · · · · · ·Living and working in affordable housing has
24· ·showed me firsthand the positive impact that safe and
25· ·affordable homes have on people's lives.· In my time at
YVer1f
·1· ·Bellwether Housing, I've met formerly homeless residents
·2· ·who've regained stability, an immigrant mother pursuing
·3· ·a degree as a nursing assistant, young people able to
·4· ·advance in their careers thanks to having stable homes,
·5· ·and seniors who can live close to amenities despite
·6· ·living on very limited incomes.
·7· · · · · · ·Thanks to my affordable home, I can focus on
·8· ·my job, cover my expenses, save a little, and walk to
·9· ·work which gives me time to do things like this:· Coming
10· ·out and advocating for causes I believe in, like ending
11· ·homelessness so more people could have success stories
12· ·like those I just shared.· You need to build the
13· ·affordable homes that make these success stories
14· ·possible. 1, cont.
15· · · · · · ·As we likely all know and can maybe even agree
16· ·on, land in Seattle is really expensive.· That's why we
17· ·cannot pass up the opportunity to build affordable homes
18· ·on free land at Fort Lawton.· At Fort Lawton, the City
19· ·of Seattle and all of its resident have a chance to live
20· ·out our values as a progressive city, a welcoming
21· ·one, and a city that helps people in need by building
22· ·homes for people exiting homelessness, seniors, working
23· ·people, and children.
24· · · · · · ·The need for affordable housing is too deep
25· ·and our number of homeless neighbors simply too high to
YVer1f
·1· ·say Not here, not now, not then.· Instead let's maximize
·2· ·this opportunity to give more people a place to call 1, cont.

·3· ·home.· Thank you.
·4· · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 31 - TARA MILLERBERRY
·5· · · · · · ·NUMBER 31:· My name is Tara Millerberry.· I am
·6· ·a recent resident of Magnolia.· I've been here a little
·7· ·more than a year now.· I also have been working in
·8· ·shelters in Seattle for the past five years.· So I know
·9· ·how hard it is for families and individuals to find
10· ·affordable housing.
11· · · · · · ·We obviously don't have enough shelters.· But
12· ·there's nowhere for people in shelter to go afterwards.
13· ·So families are waiting six months to a year to get a
14· ·unit that is affordable for them.· And often it's

1
15· ·outside of their home neighborhood, and they have to
16· ·move further away to be able to find something
17· ·affordable.
18· · · · · · ·One of the shelters that I coordinate is
19· ·actually hosted in this space once a year for about a
20· ·week at a time.· So 14 women and children sleep on this
21· ·space and call this home for a time period.· So I know
22· ·that Magnolia is a supportive place for people looking
23· ·for affordable places.
24· · · · · · ·So working in shelters myself, I have had to
25· ·move from apartment to apartment every year to try to
YVer1f
·1· ·find somewhere I can afford.· As someone mentioned
·2· ·earlier, social services don't pay very well.· So those 1, cont.
·3· ·of us who are even helping to work with the problem
·4· ·can't afford to live here either.· So I'm very
·5· ·supportive of adding affordable housing to my
·6· ·neighborhood which is my neighborhood currently and 2
·7· ·also, as others have said, of adding more units than
·8· ·what has already been proposed.
·9· · · · · · ·I also know that I'm very thankful for all of
10· ·those that have spoken tonight that are in favor of
11· ·this.· And for those that may not be able to speak
12· ·tonight but who are in favor, I'd like to see who in the
13· ·audience is supportive of affordable housing in this
14· ·place.· Give me a shout out and a raised hand.
15· · · · · · ·Thank you so much to all of those here who are
16· ·in support. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 32 - GREG SHAW

17· · · · · · ·NUMBER 32:· My name's Greg Shaw.· I've lived
18· ·in Magnolia all my life.· I'm a realtor, and I'm with
19· ·the Magnolia Historical Society.· My parents purchased
20· ·their house in -- somewhere in the 30's for $1800 and 1

21· ·paid a 20-year loan off on it.· And they could afford to
22· ·live here even though they were poor.· You know, times
23· ·have greatly changed.· A tear down in Magnolia is
24· ·600,000 for the land.
25· · · · · · ·But everybody has expressed all the important
YVer1f
·1· ·issues of why it should be done.· And I agree whole
·2· ·heartedly.· I am here if anybody has a question, since 1, cont.
·3· ·I've lived here all my life.· I'd be happy to try and
·4· ·answer any questions.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 33 - AMY BAILEY
·5· · · · · · ·NUMBER 33:· Hi.· My name is Amy Bailey. I
·6· ·first moved to Seattle in 1997.· For the past five years
·7· ·I've lived in Chicago for work.· And a few months ago my
·8· ·husband and I were able to move back and purchase a home
·9· ·in Seattle.· My husband and I both have graduate
10· ·education, professional jobs.· And importantly, we have
11· ·no student loan debt.· And even with all of those
12· ·advantages, we really struggled to get into the home
13· ·ownership market in Seattle.
14· · · · · · ·I want to speak tonight not about my
15· ·experiences with the housing market in Seattle.· I want
16· ·to talk about the last five years that I've spent in
1
17· ·Chicago.· In Chicago I experienced firsthand the social
18· ·and economic consequences of a major metropolitan area
19· ·that has allowed itself to become infinitely segregated
20· ·by social class and by race.· The consequences are
21· ·staggering.· Gun violence, of course, makes
22· ·international news as do the challenges facing the
23· ·public school system.· But what has received less
24· ·attention are some of the other consequences for
25· ·children, for youths, and for families.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·Chicago has some of the highest rates of youth
·2· ·and young adult joblessness in the country.· It has
·3· ·below average probability that children who are born
·4· ·into poor families will be able to join the middle class
·5· ·as adults.· It also has very low levels of civic
·6· ·engagement among adults.
·7· · · · · · ·Chicago is an amazing city.· And it's also a
·8· ·punishing place to live if you are not a person of
·9· ·means.· The important thing that I want to drive home is
10· ·that this reality was created through local policy 1, cont.
11· ·decisions like the one we face here tonight.
12· · · · · · ·We have the ability, as Seattle settles into
13· ·its· role as a global economic powerhouse, to avoid a
14· ·fate like that which has befallen Chicago.· We have a
15· ·chance to stand on the right side of history, to
16· ·guarantee that our city remains open and affordable to
17· ·working families, to avoid the deep divisions and
18· ·broad-based social alienation that accompanies economic
19· ·segregation.
20· · · · · · ·More housing at Fort Lawton.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 34- LAURA LOU BERNSTEIN
21· · · · · · ·NUMBER 34:· Hi.· My name is Laura Lou
22· ·Bernstein.· I'm speaking today on behalf of David Moser,
23· ·who couldn't attend, like so many people that reached 1

24· ·out to me that wanted to be here to speak in favor of
25· ·this project.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·David Moser wrote:· "I'm writing to voice my
·2· ·strong support of building as much affordable housing as
·3· ·possible at the Fort Lawton site.· Specifically I would
·4· ·like to address the idea that has been raised by critics
·5· ·of this project that this location is too remote from
·6· ·services, grocery stores, transit, and other amenities
·7· ·that low income people without cars need close by.
·8· · · · · · ·"To be sure, within the city of Seattle, Fort
·9· ·Lawton is a relatively remote location.· This address
10· ·has low quote-unquote car-dependent walk score of 34 out
11· ·of 100 and a low transit score of 39 out of 100 on the
12· ·walk score website.· The walk score is based upon how
13· ·many different amenities there are to a given location 1, cont.

14· ·within walking distance.· Ideally much more of Seattle
15· ·would have dense housing patterns that support services
16· ·and amenities throughout more of the city.· But we don't
17· ·live in an ideal world, and our housing and homelessness
18· ·crisis is regional and not confined to Seattle."
19· · · · · · ·David Moser notes:· "From daily firsthand
20· ·experience managing homeless prevention programs that
21· ·serve hundreds of households per year in Seattle that,
22· ·if presented with a choice, many if not most households
23· ·in Seattle that are struggling with housing and
24· ·stability would love to live in this location given the
25· ·alternatives, because the choice is not Magnolia versus
YVer1f
·1· ·Capitol Hill or Magnolia versus Columbia City.· The
·2· ·choice more frequently is homelessness or Auburn.· And
·3· ·whatever Auburn's merits as a town, it is much more
·4· ·removed from economic opportunity, amenities, and
·5· ·services than is Magnolia."
·6· · · · · · ·As an example, within the last month, David's
·7· ·program has placed Seattle residents in two different
·8· ·apartments in Auburn that were the only places that they
1, cont.
·9· ·could find at the time where they could afford the
10· ·ongoing rent.· The walk score of the Auburn and South
11· ·Auburn Park is 21 and 19 respectively.· Compared to Fort
12· ·Lawton, both these locations are further from local
13· ·amenities and much further from the opportunities and
14· ·jobs of central Seattle.
15· · · · · · ·Within this regional context, the idea that
16· ·Fort Lawton is remote is a red herring argument.· Please
17· ·build the housing.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 35 - JESSICA WESTGREN
18· · · · · · ·NUMBER 35:· Hello.· My name is Jessica.· And I
19· ·am a member of Welcoming Wallingford.· I am here in
20· ·support of affordable housing at Fort Lawton.
21· · · · · · ·One of the most overlooked sections of our

1
22· ·communities are seniors who are renting.· Often on fixed
23· ·incomes from Social Security benefits, they face these
24· ·same oppressive rental rate increases as the rest of us:
25· ·$100 this year, $100 the next year, and so on and so on.
YVer1f
·1· ·Sure, there are senior housing assistance programs, but
·2· ·the wait lists are years long.
·3· · · · · · ·I was an apartment manager not too long ago
·4· ·just over the locks.· We could see Magnolia from our
·5· ·backyard.· In what would be considered naturally
·6· ·occurring affordable housing, many of my residents
·7· ·struggled with the housing crises.· But the demographic
·8· ·that struggled the most were my seniors.· Many of them
·9· ·were long-term renters of 15 years or more.
10· · · · · · ·One man in particular had a story that will
11· ·stay with me forever, and I feel that I need to share
12· ·with you.· Shortly before leaving my job in apartments,
13· ·I learned that this man was found unconscious in his

1, cont.
14· ·car.· He was in his late 60's and had been a 20-year
15· ·tenant.· He had lost his job.· After 14 months of
16· ·looking for affordable senior housing or just a job, he
17· ·had no choice.· Market rate housing wasn't affordable,
18· ·and wait lists for senior housing were simply too long.
19· · · · · · ·With nowhere else to go, he had been sleeping
20· ·in his car for over six months.· Living in his car had
21· ·extremely adverse effects on his health culminating in
22· ·hospitalization and near death.· I am happy to tell you
23· ·that he is alive.· But we do not need our seniors to get
24· ·into dire circumstances before we help them.
25· · · · · · ·I believe that we need build as much

2
YVer1f
·1· ·affordable housing as we can.· Push it to the brink.
·2· ·Push it beyond the brink.· Give people the opportunity

2, cont.
·3· ·to live near a park and to live out the rest of their
·4· ·lives without worrying about being on the streets.
·5· ·Thank you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 36 - KAREN NIMS
·6· · · · · · ·NUMBER 36:· Thank you.· My name is Karen Nims.
·7· ·I'm a Magnolia resident.· I live on the corner of 35th
·8· ·and Government Way, right close to the site.
·9· · · · · · ·There is bus transportation.· There's bus
10· ·transportation that goes through the site every 30
11· ·minutes.· There is not the amenities of grocery stores

1
12· ·and so forth.· But those were there when I moved to this
13· ·neighborhood 30 years ago.· I was a divorced secretary
14· ·who barely could come up with enough money.· But I got
15· ·enough money for a for down payment on a condo. A
16· ·person in that experience now would not be living in
17· ·Magnolia.· They would be in Auburn or Buckley or
18· ·someplace else.
19· · · · · · ·I feel that we need to build as much
20· ·affordable housing on this site as possible. 2

21· ·200-and-some units is a good start.· But we need to look
22· ·at more.· Thank you very much.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 37 - JAMES MADDEN
23· · · · · · ·NUMBER 37:· Thank you.· My name is James
24· ·Madden.· I grew up in affordable housing.· When I was a 1

25· ·young child, my mother found herself unable to house my
YVer1f
·1· ·brother and I --
·2· · · · · · ·Sorry.· My name's James Madden.· I grew up in
·3· ·affordable housing.· We experienced housing instability
·4· ·when I was a young child, waiting for a long time,
·5· ·doubled and tripled up, to get off of a wait list to
·6· ·find affordable housing.· And when we did -- and the
·7· ·housing was nowhere near as nice as what is being
·8· ·proposed at Fort Lawton and nowhere as nice as the
·9· ·neighborhood -- the stability that that gave me and that
10· ·gave my mother allowed her to get a degree to become a
11· ·court reporter, allowed me to do well in school, get an
12· ·education, and now build a career helping create
13· ·affordable housing.
14· · · · · · ·I shudder to think what would have happened if

1, cont.
15· ·those homes had not been built, if they were not
16· ·available for us even after the wait.· I'm sorry to
17· ·think of all the kids in that situation now.· I don't
18· ·know how the DEIS can account for that impact.· It's
19· ·almost impossible to measure.
20· · · · · · ·And I am so, so thankful to the people that
21· ·built those homes then.· And I'm so, so thankful for
22· ·people that are building them now.· And I'm incredibly
23· ·proud to live in Seattle where so many people are giving
24· ·their time to try to do better by the next kid.· Thank
25· ·you.
YVer1f
OPEN HOUSE SPEAKER 38 - CLARK BATHUM
·1· · · · · · ·NUMBER 38:· Hello.· My name's Clark Bathum.
·2· ·I'm a deacon at Magnolia Presbyterian Church where I've
·3· ·been a member for 45 years.· I'm here to speak in favor
·4· ·of the proposal.
·5· · · · · · ·I'm also a teacher in Seattle where I've
·6· ·taught at Seattle Public Schools for 20 years.· And I've
·7· ·seen the devastating impact that homelessness and
·8· ·frequent changes in home situations can have on
·9· ·students, on their emotional well-being, on their
10· ·connection to their families, and on their future. 1

11· · · · · · ·I'm also here to speak to you as a Habitat for
12· ·Humanity volunteer.· And I just want make sure that
13· ·those concerned residents of Magnolia understand that
14· ·Habitat residents are homeowners.· They are people who
15· ·are well vetted.· They're family people, hard working
16· ·people who put hundred of hours into the development of
17· ·their own homes.· And they pay a mortgage to get what
18· ·most of us seek as hard working family people.· And that
19· ·is to be able to gain financial stability for our own
20· ·families by gaining home equity.· That is something that
21· ·is sorely needed in this city.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 39 - SUSAN RUSSELL
22· · · · · · ·NUMBER 39:· Hi.· My name is Susan Russell, and
23· ·I'm speaking on behalf of Real Change.· And I am here
24· ·to -- in favor of the alternative one.· Of course we

1
25· ·need more affordable housing.· But it's a good start.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·It took me 10 years to get into affordable
·2· ·housing.· I spent almost 7 years homeless on the
·3· ·streets, carrying a backpack on my back every single
·4· ·day.· I've been through things that no one should ever
·5· ·have to experience.· I used to be a union cement mason.
·6· ·And, through no fault of my own, I was severely injured
·7· ·by an uninsured motorist.· And, when my money ran out, I
·8· ·was put out.· I lost everything.
·9· · · · · · ·I would like to see more housing than the
10· ·238-or-some units.· But, you know, I watched the 10-year
11· ·plan on homelessness come and go.· And all this time I
12· ·thought it should have been called 10-year plan to build
13· ·affordable housing.· We have an opportunity to turn this

1, cont.
14· ·around.· And this is a good start.· It does take time to
15· ·build.· But, you know, we have, we have over 8,000
16· ·people that are suffering on the streets of one of the
17· ·richest cities on the West Coast.· We can do better.
18· · · · · · ·Seattle is a city of compassion.· It is a
19· ·sanctuary city.· You know I remember when November 2,
20· ·2015 came, and it was declared a state of emergency on
21· ·homelessness.· You know, I thought, Oh, my God.· So
22· ·they're going to do something.· You know, I watched them
23· ·sweep Pioneer Square, and I watched them hang Christmas
24· ·lights.· And meanwhile my friends were suffering and
25· ·dying on the streets.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·You know, we are human beings.· We are
·2· ·unhoused.· We are the unhoused community.· And everyone
·3· ·deserves a safe place to live.· And we really need to
·4· ·come together as a community and start having compassion 1, cont.
·5· ·for one another because 51 percent of all Americans are
·6· ·one missed pay check away from being homeless.· Thank
·7· ·you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 40 - SHELLY COHEN

·8· · · · · · ·NUMBER 40:· My name is Shelly Cohen.· I'm a
·9· ·Real Change vendor.· I'm a Real Change advocate.· I'm a
10· ·Real Change board member.
11· · · · · · ·This can be a good start on real change. I
12· ·think there might be a mistake in the alternative one
13· ·plan that I support.· I think it should have read
14· ·development of 2,380 units of affordable housing.· Do
15· ·it.· Do it now.
16· · · · · · ·Now, we, everyone deserves respect.· We are

1
17· ·community.· I respect those that have a different view.
18· ·Those views must be heard.· There's no question about
19· ·it.· That being said, there is transportation available.
20· ·There can be more.· They usually do that.
21· · · · · · ·I currently live in Lake City House.· And
22· ·before that, I was very close to being on the streets.
23· ·My family, thank God, said:· Shelley you've got a
24· ·choice.· Move into your cousin's basement.· Don't pay
25· ·rent.· We'll help you.· Get on your feet.· Or you'll be
YVer1f
·1· ·on the street on your own.· I took that step.· So
·2· ·technically I was homeless.· Thank God, I have a roof

1, cont.
·3· ·over my head.
·4· · · · · · ·Everybody, every body, every being needs a
·5· ·home.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 41 - TIFFANY McCOY
·6· · · · · · ·NUMBER 41:· I am Tiffani McCoy.· I'm the lead
·7· ·organizer for Real Change.· And I just wanted to read
·8· ·something off of the Ownfortlawton.com website.
·9· · · · · · ·It starts with:· "More than a century in the
10· ·making, the opportunity to own one of the last colonial
11· ·revival estates in Seattle's historic Fort Lawton arises
12· ·this weekend.· Just listed on Officer's Row is a posh
13· ·plan at 4218 Washington Avenue which is available for
14· ·immediate occupancy at $2.1 million.· This nostalgic
15· ·home offers 4,088 square feet of living comprising 4

1
16· ·bedrooms and 3 1/2 bathrooms and is built upon a large,
17· ·27,303-square-feet lot with a new two-car detached
18· ·garage. "
19· · · · · · ·Reading from the public testimony from 10
20· ·years and also just from July, you know, we know that
21· ·arguments against this is that there is just not enough
22· ·places to shop to buy food.· There's not enough transit.
23· ·Crime is an issue.· But really reading through that,
24· ·being here tonight, and then seeing that actually there
25· ·is housing in Fort Lawton, it's just for those that are
YVer1f
·1· ·extreme wealthy, I can't help but think that Magnolia is
·2· ·for wealthy residents who have cars and shop at
·3· ·Metropolitan Market.· And if you do not have those
·4· ·things, you do not belong to be here.
·5· · · · · · ·So folks, we have been developing areas as a
·6· ·country for housing for centuries.· It's not a new

1, cont.
·7· ·thing.· We have done this before.· We have changed bus
·8· ·routes.· We have added bus routes, as Shelley, our
·9· ·vendor, said.· So I ask those who are truly concerned
10· ·about the lack of transit to join us at the table to
11· ·talk about how to address this issue and not just to
12· ·simply point to a perceived problem.· Let's come up with
13· ·solutions.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 42 - RICHARD GAMBINO
14· · · · · · ·NUMBER 42:· Hi.· My name is Richard Gambino.
15· ·I, also, am a Real Change vendor.· And every day I walk
16· ·out and walk down the streets.· The first person that I
17· ·see, I don't care what ethnic they are, I say, Good
18· ·morning; is there anything I can do for you today?
19· ·They're like, Yeah, help me get a house.· I'm like,
20· ·Reasonable, because it's not -- 1
21· · · · · · ·We needed this back when I first came to
22· ·Washington back in '99.· Now, here it is almost 20 years
23· ·after I've been in this city, and now we, all of sudden,
24· ·now we're in an emergency?· We've been in an emergency,
25· ·people.· Wake up.· How many people more are we going to
YVer1f
·1· ·have to lose on the streets for this city to wake up?
·2· ·Because just last year, we lost 89 people out there

1, cont.
·3· ·because of housing.· When are the people going to wake
·4· ·up?· I am totally in support of No. 1.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 43 - GEORGE SMITH
·5· · · · · · ·NUMBER 43:· My name is George Smith.· I am a
·6· ·Magnolia resident.· I live about a mile from the
·7· ·proposed redevelopment project.· And I have an
·8· ·unsolicited comment I'd also like to make:· There is a
·9· ·really good espresso store, Discovery Espresso, right
10· ·near this site.· Coffee is important in Seattle.
11· · · · · · ·During my career I worked as a human service
12· ·planner and a social worker.· And I saw firsthand how
13· ·the lack of affordable housing affects all aspects of a
14· ·person's life.· It's been said over and over tonight,
15· ·but I can't emphasize it enough:· If you don't have a

1
16· ·place to live, you just don't have an ability to get
17· ·ahead.· If your days are consumed with just surviving,
18· ·you can't imagine a better tomorrow for you or your
19· ·children.
20· · · · · · ·Right now we have about 42,000 low income
21· ·households that are spending 50 percent or more of their
22· ·income on housing.· This is economically unsustainable.
23· ·These families live at unhealthy levels of stress and
24· ·misery, just trying to make ends meet.· Low income
25· ·renters don't have enough money for food, utilities, or
YVer1f
·1· ·other essentials because many of them, the overwhelming
·2· ·majority, are paying too much for rent.
·3· · · · · · ·As a result, they borrow.· They borrow from
·4· ·payday lenders.· They borrow from their families.· They
·5· ·couch surf at other people homes.· They try all kinds of
·6· ·strategies.· But eventually many of them end up being
·7· ·evicted.· Once we have a homeless family evicted, it's
·8· ·much more expensive to get them rehoused.

1, cont.
·9· · · · · · ·The other point that's been brought up tonight
10· ·I want to talk about is, even at the end of life,
11· ·seniors are constantly being evicted.· I've worked with
12· ·lots of people whose only source of income was Social
13· ·Security.· How do they exist?· They have a parttime job
14· ·well into their 70s or early 80s.· Many of them work
15· ·full time.· They work until they can't work anymore.
16· ·Once they lose that job, they're evicted.
17· · · · · · ·So I support option one.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 44 - NEAL LAMPI
18· · · · · · ·NUMBER 44:· My name is Neal Lampi.· I'm here
19· ·with the Real Change folks.
20· · · · · · ·I just feel -- a couple of people have
21· ·mentioned the declaration of a state of emergency that

1
22· ·Mayor Murray made a couple years back.· And the response
23· ·by the City that I witnessed was a whole lot of sale of
24· ·chain-link fence, a whole lot of people being run out of
25· ·the Jungle onto the Field of Dreams.· Promises were made
YVer1f
·1· ·to the people that went to the Field of Dreams.· Then
·2· ·they were evicted.· And it's just been chasing people
·3· ·from one spot to the next.· And that is the response in
·4· ·this state of emergency.
·5· · · · · · ·Most recently the City passed a budget that's
·6· ·going to end Connections, a DESC program.· It's going to
·7· ·end up closing the hygiene centers.· 300 people from
·8· ·Share/Wheel will be thrown out of shelter in a short
·9· ·time.
1, cont.
10· · · · · · ·And where are they going to go?· They're going
11· ·to be tossed out onto the streets.· I don't know what
12· ·sort of emergency this is, what sort of response to an
13· ·emergency this is.· But it's a pretty pathetic one, to
14· ·my mind.
15· · · · · · ·If Fort Lawton is to be used entirely to
16· ·address the homeless crisis, the redevelopment costs
17· ·will be covered mostly by the federal government.· And
18· ·free land is the best land I have ever been on.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 45 - JENNY ALLEN
19· · · · · · ·NUMBER 45:· Thank you for being here tonight.
20· ·My name is Jenny Allen.· I'm here to support affordable
21· ·housing at Fort Lawton.
22· · · · · · ·For many years I've been a housing case

1
23· ·manager within the city of Seattle.· And I've watched
24· ·families get put through rapid rehousing programs into
25· ·apartments, typically in Auburn.· And I'm sorry that
YVer1f
·1· ·Auburn's getting a bad rap.· It's a good place.
·2· · · · · · ·But what we do see in these families typically
·3· ·are reduced wages or working two or three jobs.· The
·4· ·math still doesn't work out.· And they can't live in
·5· ·Auburn and support their families, typically single moms
·6· ·with a couple of kids, and get to Seattle, get a job,
·7· ·get home, and balance childcare.· The numbers just don't 1, cont.
·8· ·work out.· And many of them return to homelessness after
·9· ·we've placed them into housing with rapid rehousing
10· ·dollars into market-rate housing.· And that's
11· ·heartbreaking to watch.
12· · · · · · ·So I think, again, this is a no brainer.· We
13· ·need more public space to create more affordable
14· ·housing.· I agree with the fact that the number looks
15· ·like a mistake.· There should be 2,000 as opposed to
16· ·200.
17· · · · · · ·I'm really grateful for what I've heard
18· ·tonight.· And thank you.· It's encouraging to see all

2
19· ·the great comments tonight.· I'm also a resident of
20· ·Magnolia.· I live within spitting distance of this
21· ·church.· And I want to say, thank you for bringing your
22· ·voices.· I believe we do have, you know, ideally a
23· ·progressive community and we are going try to welcome as
24· ·many people as we can here.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 46 - SHARON JONES
25· · · · · · ·NUMBER 46:· My name is Sharon Jones.· And I'm
YVer1f
·1· ·a Real Change vendor.· I have been working on this
·2· ·project for -- since I got to Seattle Washington.· And I
·3· ·worked for the homeless.· I sleep outside with the
·4· ·homeless.· And I've got a 1,238-bed facility I want to
·5· ·build for the homeless.· I'm a viable 1C3.· I'm a 4O
·6· ·whatever.· And I've got a building to build in this 1
·7· ·state.· And all of the homeless, we can have a facility
·8· ·for the children and a facility for the adults.· We've
·9· ·got barber shops, theaters, stores, big parking lots,
10· ·big cafeteria, bigger than Harborview's.· And we want to
11· ·get this built up now.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 47 - TIM HESTERBERG
12· · · · · · ·NUMBER 47:· Hi.· I'm Tim Hesterberg.· I'm a
13· ·Magnolia homeowner.
14· · · · · · ·We need more housing.· We need more affordable
15· ·housing.· We need more affordable housing in Magnolia.
16· ·We are a better society when diverse people live
17· ·together, not when we're segregated by race or income.
18· ·When richer people are closer to other people, they 1

19· ·become more compassionate, they give more to charity.
20· · · · · · ·And finally, the Habitat housing is great.
21· ·It's a great opportunity for people to work together to
22· ·build this housing.· I did a Habitat build with my child
23· ·when he was younger.· It was a wonderful opportunity.
24· ·And now he's a fine, young, compassionate man.· Thank
25· ·you.
YVer1f
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 48 - LISA SAWYER
·1· · · · · · ·NUMBER 48:· Good evening.· My name is Lisa
·2· ·Sawyer.· I'm also a Real Change vendor.· And I'm also a
·3· ·member of the Resident Action Project and Emerging
·4· ·Advocate Program at the Washington Low Income Housing
·5· ·Alliance.
·6· · · · · · ·I'm here because I've been homeless for almost
·7· ·six years except for recently, back in November, four
·8· ·hours before Thanksgiving, not this previous one, before
·9· ·it and -- yeah, the recent one, until September, I was
10· ·on the Rapid Rehousing Program.· I couldn't get a
11· ·full-year lease because no landlord would give me a
12· ·full-year lease with the Rapid Rehousing.· So I ended up
13· ·getting a 10-month lease instead.

1
14· · · · · · ·Now I am back on the streets.· I was in a
15· ·shelter at the Hammond House.· And now I'm on the
16· ·streets.· I have nowhere to go because Seattle is too
17· ·expensive.· I had to pay for a studio apartment for
18· ·1350.· That was in the Greenwood area.· And Seattle, you
19· ·do agree with me?· Is that affordable?
20· · · · · · ·They told you, not me.· I think affordable is
21· ·for people that are on Social Security and also for Real
22· ·Change, because there are people on Real Change that
23· ·have Social Security that are homeless, that cannot
24· ·afford it.· I'm one of those people.· Right now I could
25· ·more affordable.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·Some people on Social Security get about 720,
·2· ·740 a month.· That means for them, they can afford at
·3· ·least 600 a month.· That's more affordable; right,

1, cont.
·4· ·Seattle?· I've said I support Fort Lawton.· Make it more
·5· ·affordable for more people with Social Security could be
·6· ·in affordable housing with safe and consumed area.
·7· ·Thank you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 49 - KEATON SLONSKY
·8· · · · · · ·NUMBER 49:· Hello.· My name is Keaton Slonsky.
·9· ·And I'm a member of the Seattle Democratic Socialists of
10· ·America.· And I live in the U District.· I'd like to
11· ·speak in favor of the proposed Fort Lawton affordable
12· ·housing development.· And frankly I expected more
13· ·opposition tonight.· And this is basically a response to
14· ·the discourse we've seen over the last four years in
15· ·regards to this.

1
16· · · · · · ·It is no secret we are in a housing,
17· ·homelessness crisis.· We live in a time of record
18· ·inequity as we face soaring rents that directly result
19· ·in 2050 people being put out on the street for every
20· ·5 percent rent increase.· Housing is a human right.· And
21· ·to leave our city's most marginalized out in the cold
22· ·while those in this very neighborhood enjoy a median
23· ·income of over $100,000 a year is immoral and goes
24· ·against all supposed values we share as a community.
25· · · · · · ·Seattle's housing has been historically
YVer1f
·1· ·extremely segregated by racial covenants, banking
·2· ·policies, and deed restrictions to keep communities of
·3· ·color out of white enclaves.· Magnolia is one such
·4· ·enclave.· The white folks making up 85 percent of
·5· ·Magnolia in a city where one in three residents are
·6· ·people of color.
·7· · · · · · ·The arguments against this development use
·8· ·racist, segregationist rhetoric that are reminiscent of
·9· ·past movements that fought racial integration of public
10· ·housing projects across the country.· This is summed up
11· ·in a quote from Magnolia resident Jerry Bridges from a 1, cont.
12· ·2017 piece in The Stranger by reporter Heidi Groover.
13· ·Bridges says, quote:· "No housing, especially for the
14· ·homeless.· Don't wreck the best open space in the city
15· ·with a misdirected, faux PC attempt," end quote.
16· · · · · · ·To Magnolia residents with similar concerns, I
17· ·would say this:· If you're worried about an influx of
18· ·nonwhite, nonwealthy folks destroying the character of
19· ·your neighborhood yet you refuse to lend aid to your
20· ·fellow residents when they are in need, you refuse to
21· ·share your wealth with those who have none, and you
22· ·refuse to acknowledge your role in human suffering, how
23· ·can you claim there is any character here to begin with?
24· · · · · · ·I urge the city to build this housing
25· ·immediately and alleviate some suffering from those who
YVer1f
1, cont.
·1· ·need the most.· Thank you.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 50 - SHAWN HOSFORD
·2· · · · · · ·NUMBER 50:· My name is Shawn Hosford.· I'm
·3· ·second generation Seattle.· I'm married to another
·4· ·second generation Seattle.· And no, I wasn't raised in
·5· ·Magnolia.· No, I don't live here.· But I was married at
·6· ·Daybreak Star, and I live in North Seattle.· And they're
·7· ·welcome to do to same in the park next to me which is 1

·8· ·Carkeek.· Please do that next.
·9· · · · · · ·So I think it's really important to have
10· ·affordable housing.· I've been dealing with this on my
11· ·own for quite some time.· And I've wanted to build an
12· ·ADU unit in my backyard.· But, because I'm on the lot
13· ·lines, it's really hard to do.· I would encourage you to
14· ·not only build this, add more to what you're building, 2
15· ·do the Talaris site, and let me build at least one ADU 3
16· ·unit in my backyard and one homelessness place in my
17· ·backyard.· I live on a big lot.· I could have a lot of
18· ·people live in my backyard.
19· · · · · · ·So it's criminal to me that we have the
20· ·richest people in the world here and some people that
21· ·have no way to live.· You've all seen the homeless

4
22· ·people, and you recognize that they need our help.
23· ·There's just no excuse for this.· So please do it
24· ·quicker than you have on your schedule.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 51 - LISA BARNES
25· · · · · · ·NUMBER 51:· My name is Lisa Barnes.· I do live
YVer1f
·1· ·in Magnolia.· And I'm very surprised that there isn't
·2· ·more opposition here tonight as well, based on the
·3· ·meetings that were held in the summer.· In fact, I'm
·4· ·kind of disappointed there aren't more people stating
·5· ·some opposition because it feels very one sided, which,
·6· ·you know, I'm glad for because I am in support of
·7· ·affordable housing.
·8· · · · · · ·The simple fact is that there are thousands of
·9· ·people who need housing, tens of thousands of people who
10· ·are on the brink of possibly needing housing.· I work
11· ·for a very small social-service nonprofit that provides
12· ·rent and utility assistance to keep people housed as

1
13· ·much as possible in the very tiny, very small part of
14· ·the city that we serve.· It includes Magnolia if anybody
15· ·ever needs help:· Queen Anne Help Line.
16· · · · · · ·So change is hard.· I think that's where the
17· ·opposition comes from.· Change is really hard to handle.
18· ·And Seattle itself is changing too fast for people.
19· ·Magnolia residents want to keep a certain character.
20· ·But there is also hundreds of units of townhomes and
21· ·condos that have been built in Magnolia for years and
22· ·years.· And those aren't being fought.· That is
23· ·contributing to traffic.· That is contributing to
24· ·overcrowded schools.· But no one's fighting against
25· ·that.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·So I do see that there is selective fighting

1, cont.
·2· ·of new housing.· And that's not fair.· And I think
·3· ·Magnolia is better than that.· So thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 52 - MARY VON BRONKHORST
·4· · · · · · ·NUMBER 52:· My name is Mary Van Bronkhorst.
·5· ·Over the last year, I've been working at LIHI's urban
·6· ·rest stop, which is a hygiene center for people that are
·7· ·currently homeless.
·8· · · · · · ·I'm in support of Alternative No. 1 and also 1

·9· ·development of the Talaris site, primarily because, if 2
10· ·you have access to land, you should use it in a way that
11· ·helps all the people, particularly people at the bottom.
12· ·The people that I have met at the urban rest stop are
13· ·people that I would -- many of whom I would like to take
14· ·into my home.· I'd like to welcome them, give them a
15· ·place to stay.· Of course there are many people who I
16· ·would not invite into home for any reason.
17· · · · · · ·It is this diverseness that makes people who 3
18· ·own property very afraid of people at the bottom.
19· ·It's -- We're afraid of change.· We're afraid of changes
20· ·we already see in terms of crime:· Theft off porches,
21· ·needles being left around, garbage, all these things
22· ·that we think might happen.· Fort Lawton, I think, is a
23· ·perfect place for housing.· It is fenced.· It is
24· ·actually rather far from surrounding homes.· It is free
25· ·other than the building.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·I think that the worries, the concerns, about
·2· ·infrastructure could be addressed by asking the school

3
·3· ·district to put in a pre-K program in one of those
·4· ·buildings, in one of these three acres or whatever
·5· ·they're getting.· I think you should ask for partnership
·6· ·from Amazon to deliver food or to run a store in one of

4
·7· ·the buildings.· The Kroger QFC corporation, a major
·8· ·corporation that sells food, is not far from there.· And
·9· ·perhaps they could be encouraged to partner with us.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 53 - RAVEN CAMPBELL
10· · · · · · ·NUMBER 53:· I'm Raven Campbell.· I have only
11· ·recently moved away from Seattle and my lease on Beacon
12· ·Hill ending January 22nd.
13· · · · · · ·Anyway, I don't believe that it would be
14· ·controversial at all for me to say that this city's in a
15· ·housing crisis.· Is it?· Normal people simply cannot
16· ·afford to live here anymore.· We need to build housing,
17· ·especially for those people who are victims of this
18· ·sadistic market we have. 1

19· · · · · · ·I see lots of my friends from Twitter here.
20· ·And one of them must not be here tonight.· Her name is
21· ·Amy Hartman.
22· · · · · · ·One of the key details of this is that it is
23· ·free land.· One of the reasons this matters is that, for
24· ·affordable housing development, the land cost is usually
25· ·the single highest obstacle to doing it.· Here we are.
YVer1f
·1· ·We have something that is literally being served to us
·2· ·on a silver platter.· And we are bickering about whether
·3· ·or not we should build sorely needed housing for people
·4· ·here.
·5· · · · · · ·I certainly believe that, if we actually 1, cont.

·6· ·believe there is a housing crisis here, there's only one
·7· ·ethical option.· And that is to build as much affordable
·8· ·housing possible as soon as possible.· And there's a
·9· ·message on my scarf I believe that will resonate with
10· ·everyone.· ("Spread the love").

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 54 - MIKE ELIASON
11· · · · · · ·NUMBER 54:· My name is Mike Eliason.· I'm a
12· ·renter in Fremont.· I have two kids.· We live in a
13· ·two-bedroom ADU, middle class, union family.· And we
14· ·severely need social housing.· We need affordable
15· ·housing.
1
16· · · · · · ·I think it's pathetic that we're doing 283
17· ·units here.· It's free land.· In the city of Vienna,
18· ·this would be 2- to 3,000.· There would be a grocery
19· ·store so homeowners wouldn't whine about there being a
20· ·lack of shopping facilities.· There would be transit. 2

21· ·There would be schools.· Where is the aspiration?
22· · · · · · ·On the Talaris site, we could house like a
23· ·1,000 units, 2,000 people.· On the Roosevelt Reservoir,

3
24· ·the same thing.· Why are we selling ourselves short?· We
25· ·know the crisis is severe.· This is tragic.· This is
YVer1f
·1· ·extremely sad.· And we can do much better.· We're a

3, cont.
·2· ·progressive city.· We're a wealthy city.· We have the
·3· ·ability.· Why don't we fricking do it?· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 55 - DANIEL AMMONS
·4· · · · · · ·NUMBER 55:· My name is Daniel Ammons.· I am a
·5· ·long-time but not current resident of Magnolia.· I grew
·6· ·up over by the Red Apple market which now is the
·7· ·Metropolitan Market that everyone is complaining so
·8· ·justly about.
·9· · · · · · ·One thing I do remember from growing up over
10· ·there is that there was also an Albertsons and a QFC and
11· ·they were both pretty easy to get to.· The same with the
12· ·elementary school.· I went to Lawton, which I was pretty
13· ·close to.· This site's a little bit farther.· But
14· ·Viewmont's a lot farther from Blaine.· Or the military

1
15· ·housing where all my friends lived, on Fort Lawton,
16· ·farther into the park for those who aren't familiar, is
17· ·a lot farther from Catharine Blaine where, I would say,
18· ·probably 95 of those children went to school for nine
19· ·years.
20· · · · · · ·I think we do have a lot of access to the
21· ·kinds of things that people are worried about.
22· ·Obviously we need more routes on the 33 or maybe they
23· ·open the locks an hour earlier so people can get to work
24· ·on the 44.· But these are all things that we can
25· ·accomplish that are nothing on the level of building a
YVer1f
·1· ·large housing development on free land.· That's the big
·2· ·task.· These small infrastructure tasks, those are 1, cont.

·3· ·things we can accomplish along the way.· They're very
·4· ·do-able.
·5· · · · · · ·I think that -- obviously I would have liked
·6· ·to see a lot more than 200 units.· I'd like to -- the
2
·7· ·main thing is I'd like to have as many units as possible
·8· ·as quickly as possible.· And I'd like to see them here.
·9· ·I'd like to see them on the Talaris site.· I'd like to
10· ·see them on the vacant lot next to my house up in North 3
11· ·Seattle.· I'd be happy to support you with that.· Thank
12· ·you very much.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 56 - CHRIS SANDERS
13· · · · · · ·NUMBER 56:· My name is Chris Sanders.· I'm a
14· ·Queen Anne resident and an organizer for Seattle Tech
15· ·for Housing.· First of all, staff and council members,
16· ·thank you for attending tonight's hearing.
17· · · · · · ·I am well aware of the role that I and the
18· ·tech community have played in today's affordable housing
19· ·crisis.· And I firmly believe that tech has the 1

20· ·responsibility to both partner, to find, and to fund
21· ·solutions to address this crisis.· The tech world offers
22· ·the opportunity for so many more to benefit.· But to do
23· ·so, we need to get housing policy right.
24· · · · · · ·As such, we need to maximize the opportunities
25· ·that are presented to us.· And for that reason, I ask
YVer1f
·1· ·the city to pursue a fifth alternative to drastically
·2· ·increase the number of units proposed for Fort Lawton.
·3· · · · · · ·The Fort Lawton site offers so much more
·4· ·capacity than what's being considered.· As previously
·5· ·mentioned, the Yesler Terrace project, a similar sized
·6· ·property, adds about 5,000 units of housing to the
·7· ·community.· While Magnolia is not the Central District,
·8· ·in Seattle land is our scarcest resource, not capital.
·9· ·For us to forgo such an opportunity would be 1, cont.

10· ·unresponsible.
11· · · · · · ·We are in the midst of a crisis.· Every night
12· ·8,000 Seattleites -- our neighbors, community members,
13· ·and family -- live on the streets.· How do we explain to
14· ·our neighbors experiencing homeless or on the verge of
15· ·homeless that we only built 200 units when we could have
16· ·built thousands?· I challenge staff and the city council
17· ·to pursue the bolder alternative to bring thousands of
18· ·units to Fort Lawton.· Thank you.
19· · · · · · ·(Recess taken.)

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 57 - IULIA ZAVODOV
20· · · · · · ·NUMBER 57:· My name is Iulia Zavodov.· I am
21· ·here to advocate for affordable housing project while
22· ·also hearing all the concerns of neighbors in attendance
23· ·who are worried about their safety and the drug abuse 1
24· ·problems which might or might not occur.
25· · · · · · ·I live in Habitat for Humanity neighborhood in
YVer1f
·1· ·Snoqualmie.· I've been a homeowner there for eight
·2· ·years.· And I want to assure you that we fit nicely with
·3· ·the rest of our community, which is quiet affluent.
·4· ·Much like Magnolia, Snoqualmie, rich houses.· You can't
·5· ·buy anything for a half million dollars right now.· We
·6· ·have 50-single family units in the development and all
·7· ·owned by folk like me.
·8· · · · · · ·So my neighbors are represented.· We are all 1, cont.

·9· ·now proud Americans from the following countries:
10· ·Vietnam, Somalia, Ethiopia, Mexico, El Salvador,
11· ·Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Moldova, Ukraine, Jamaica, very
12· ·many from America.· Local residents include Native
13· ·Americans.· I just wanted to mention on the diversity of
14· ·occupations.· We have early childhood education
15· ·professionals, pharmacists, small business owners,
16· ·school bus drivers, social workers, school teacher,
17· ·medical assistant, bank teller, and military veterans.
18· · · · · · ·Thank you for your consideration.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 58 - SUSAN HELF
19· · · · · · ·NUMBER 58:· Hello.· My name is Susan Helf.
20· ·I'm from Greenwood.· I'm a homeowner because I'm old and
21· ·I got to buy a house cheaply many, many, many, many
22· ·years ago.

1
23· · · · · · ·I am here to urge you to adopt alternative one
24· ·but to build thousands more homes.· The city of
25· ·Seattle -- a little history, when Lindsay gave the
YVer1f
·1· ·history, she did not say the reason why this whole thing
·2· ·faltered 10 years ago.· It's 'cause the NIMBYs in
·3· ·Magnolia killed it.· They are going to try to kill it
·4· ·again.· But they're not getting away with it this time.
·5· · · · · · ·The City of Seattle policies, from selling
·6· ·Yesler Terrace to Paul Allen for market-rate housing,
·7· ·from tearing down other low income housing from the out
·8· ·zones, the City of Seattle's greatest product is
·9· ·homeless people.· That's what the policies do.
10· · · · · · ·You owe this to homeless people.· This is 1, cont.
11· ·reparations.· 88 people died last year.· Without
12· ·housing, people die.· You cut -- not you, personally,
13· ·the Mayor, Tim Burgess, left a little gift for Jenny
14· ·Durkan:· Here, kill some more homeless people.· Love and
15· ·kisses, Tim.· The shelters have been cut.· Without
16· ·shelter, people die.· Without permanent housing, when
17· ·you have this fake program that you count people in a
18· ·permanent house that get kicked out five months.
19· · · · · · ·You need to build thousands of units of
20· ·housing.· This is reparations.· And you need to do it
21· ·right away.· If you let Habitat for Humanity build, it's 2
22· ·not going to take them seven years.· So just do it.
23· ·Thank you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 59 - TERRI SUESS

24· · · · · · ·NUMBER 59:· Good evening.· Thank you for the
1
25· ·work you've put into this.· I think it's amazing.· And
YVer1f
·1· ·I'm glad to be here tonight.· And I appreciate the
·2· ·comments of everyone that has come out to speak.
·3· · · · · · ·I'd like to say that I'm only in Seattle
·4· ·because my grandfather built my house, the house that I
·5· ·live in right now.· Otherwise I wouldn't be able to
·6· ·afford to live here.· I'd like to say to the good people
·7· ·of Magnolia, the whole neighborhood:· Not that long ago 1, cont.
·8· ·your families needed this kind of help.· Not that long
·9· ·ago, all of Seattle was helped.
10· · · · · · ·And to now sort of turn your back on that is
11· ·rather pathetic.· So we hope that you'll come to your
12· ·senses and welcome diversity, welcome people who
13· ·basically could be your children, could be your
14· ·families.
15· · · · · · ·So this is definitely needed.· It should be
16· ·much larger than it is.· And much more is needed
17· ·throughout the city.· Knowing -- 2

18· · · · · · ·One other quick comment which is this is not
19· ·free land.· This is federal government land that was
20· ·stolen.· We're standing on Native American land right
21· ·now.· I think one of the big, blaring missing points in

3
22· ·this whole report is that we need to make sure that
23· ·Native Americans who need place to live, have a place to
24· ·live.· So please address that.· Thank you very much.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 60 - JOSEPH LACHMAN
25· · · · · · ·NUMBER 60:· My name is Joseph Lachman.· And I
YVer1f
·1· ·am here to speak in support of this affordable housing
·2· ·project.· I had some comments planned, but I had to
·3· ·throw them out when I heard one particular statement.
·4· ·And that was the fact that I cannot ever allow anyone to
·5· ·make any kind of comparison between what my family went
·6· ·through in World War II in Japanese American camps, the
·7· ·labor camps, no comparison to affordable housing which
·8· ·is desperately needed now.
·9· · · · · · ·I want to make an important statement, too. 1

10· ·My family went through three years of hell in the desert
11· ·along with 320,000 other Japanese Americans.· And you
12· ·know what they lost when they went to these prison
13· ·camps?· They lost their homes.· That's what my family
14· ·came back to.· They lost their home.· And that's what
15· ·they needed when they came back was affordable housing
16· ·because someone had lost their property, their homes,
17· ·their jobs.· That's what folks need now.
18· · · · · · ·We need this.· We need more of this housing.
19· ·So I urge you to move forward with this project and go 2
20· ·further with it.· Thank you.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 61 - MYRA LARA
21· · · · · · ·NUMBER 61:· My name's Myra.· I just came back
22· ·from my hometown in Texas.· And I'm a first-generation
23· ·American.· I forget that sometimes 'cause I don't think 1

24· ·in Spanish in my head anymore.· But I forgot where I was
25· ·going.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·I've been inspired by the stories here that
·2· ·I've been hearing, especially this last one that -- it's
·3· ·just that we were lucky that -- my parents were so lucky

1, cont.
·4· ·to buy their house.· They bought it for $90,000.· And I
·5· ·can't imagine any one of us in this city ever getting
·6· ·that opportunity.· That's just -- having that house
·7· ·and -- it just solidified my life.
·8· · · · · · ·So anyway, I 100 percent support No. 1.· But I
·9· ·would support it 200 percent if it were way more units. 2

10· ·In general, I urge the City to find more opportunities
11· ·like this to use surplus land for public good.· Sure,
12· ·Magnolia could be the middle of nowhere.· But if that's 3
13· ·where your home is, that's your home.· It's not the
14· ·middle of nowhere.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 62 - DOUG CONRAD
15· · · · · · ·NUMBER 62:· My name's Doug Conrad.· I'm a
16· ·member of Wallingford United Methodist Church.· And I'm
17· ·in strong support of alternative one.· I'm here as a
18· ·member of our social concerns group there and also in
19· ·solidarity with the Church Council of Greater Seattle.

1
20· · · · · · ·That organization's done a tremendous amount.
21· ·I also appreciate the work of the Housing Development
22· ·Consortium in their talking points.· Everything
23· ·except one point -- and that's a statistical point --
24· ·that I was going to make tonight had already been made
25· ·by other speakers.· So I won't be redundant.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·But to get a sense of the scale of the
·2· ·problem, when I was reviewing the materials about the
·3· ·housing levy, a couple of years ago it was estimated
·4· ·that we'd need about 20,000 new housing units over the
·5· ·next decade just to meet the new demand.· And, as many
·6· ·of you know, the housing levy supported 6,000 new units.
·7· ·That's about 30 percent of the estimated housing stock
·8· ·that was needed, affordable housing stock, not market
·9· ·rent for those of us who can maybe afford that market
10· ·rent.
11· · · · · · ·So I mentioned the scale of the problem as 1, cont.

12· ·many of other people have said.· But that's one
13· ·statistic of the scale.· How are we going to treat this
14· ·like a true emergency and crisis that it is?· When there
15· ·is a crisis, there is a crisis; we all join up.· And I
16· ·think with this group, it's signaling that there is that
17· ·kind of willingness in the city.· Let's marshal it.
18· ·Let's work together in the various groups that have
19· ·leverage and really see if we can build these housing
20· ·units and make sure there's no NIMBY behaviors that
21· ·keeps those from being occupied.
22· · · · · · ·Thank you for the opportunity.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 63 - ANITRA FREEMAN
23· · · · · · ·NUMBER 63:· Good evening.· My name is Anitra
24· ·Freeman.· And I do not live in Magnolia.· I have worked

1
25· ·with homeless people since the end of 1995 when I was
YVer1f
·1· ·homeless myself.· I have set permanent housing projects
·2· ·and transitional housing projects and new shelters and
·3· ·tent cities, the whole range.· And I hear -- I have
·4· ·heard the same complaints repeatedly.
·5· · · · · · ·There are people who do not want homeless
·6· ·people in their neighborhood.· And they do not want low
·7· ·income housing in their neighborhood.· And they want
·8· ·Seattle to solve the homelessness and housing crisis.
·9· ·But when the City and the hosts carry on, hold firm, and
1, cont.
10· ·do that project, the same people stop being afraid.
11· · · · · · ·I have actually heard somebody who threatened
12· ·to sue us for opening a shelter in his neighborhood a
13· ·few months later bragging to a friend about the
14· ·neighborhood, about the shelter that his neighborhood
15· ·had, and why doesn't your neighborhood have a shelter?
16· ·So hold firm.· Do this.· It's a start.· Yes, we need
17· ·thousands more.· We need 24,000 more.· But this is a

2
18· ·start.· Hold firm, and have it be an education project
19· ·for the whole neighborhood.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 64 -JANIS TRAVEN
20· · · · · · ·NUMBER 64:· Hi.· My name is Janis Traven.· I'm
21· ·a 30-year Magnolia resident.· And I say this with a
22· ·great deal of pleasure and affection:· That tonight's
23· ·Magnolia is not the Magnolia that I moved into.· You are 1
24· ·awesome.· I hear people say, Yes, in my backyard.
25· · · · · · ·I've been a community organizer and activist.
YVer1f
·1· ·I'm on the Magnolia Community Council.· I've been on the
·2· ·Magnolia-Queen Anne District Council and currently serve

1, cont.
·3· ·on the Tent City Advisory Committee.· All of them have
·4· ·been an honor.· And I support your efforts.· So do
·5· ·option one, preferred alternative one.· Put in more

2
·6· ·housing.· We need it.· And thank you.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 65 - LISA EVANS
·7· · · · · · ·NUMBER 65:· My name is Lisa Evans.· And I'm
·8· ·one of the cofounders of Fort Lawton School Coalition.
·9· · · · · · ·And first I want to say that -- I just want to
10· ·clarify that our coalition was never, ever pitted
11· ·against public housing.· What we've already said from
12· ·the get-go is, with housing, you have to have the
13· ·infrastructures that comes along with it and that
14· ·includes schools.· We want to see families have
15· ·affordable housing in Magnolia.· We want to see families
16· ·be successful moving into Magnolia. 1

17· · · · · · ·But to move children and families into
18· ·Magnolia, you have to have the capacity in the schools.
19· ·Magnolia and Queen Anne suffer some of the most dramatic
20· ·capacity problems in this district.· I agree:· We should
21· ·have 2,000 or more units of public housing available.
22· ·But we don't have the room in the schools.
23· · · · · · ·Catharine Blaine has eight portables.· There
24· ·are about to be three more that arrive.· There is no
25· ·playground left.· The Lawton Elementary School no longer
YVer1f
·1· ·has -- I'm going to finish my statement.· All the
·2· ·schools on Queen Anne also face that.
·3· · · · · · ·So as long as we're going to fight for public 1, cont.
·4· ·housing, let's also fight for McCleary so we have
·5· ·schools for all of our children to go to.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 66 - VALERIE COOPER
·6· · · · · · ·NUMBER 66:· I'm Valerie Cooper, also in the
·7· ·Fort Lawton School Coalition.· Thank you to the city for
·8· ·collaborating with Seattle Public Schools to include
·9· ·them in the redevelopment process at Fort Lawton.
10· ·Seattle has many pressing needs.· And housing,
11· ·education, preserving the environment, and
12· ·transportation are among them.
13· · · · · · ·I am here to advocate for our city's youngest
14· ·citizens.· The Fort Lawton development is proposed to
15· ·open in a cluster with zero open seats for our 1

16· ·elementary schools, a middle school that will be 30- to
17· ·400 students over operational capacity within just a few
18· ·years, and no clear pathway for high school.· In order
19· ·for this housing development to be successful, we must
20· ·ensure that students have seats at schools.
21· · · · · · ·Because of concurrent zoning and
22· ·densification, the pressure on our schools is untenable.
23· ·All new housing in our city needs to be holistic in our
24· ·approach.· Before our city council approves new housing
25· ·or the planning office approves housing anywhere in the
YVer1f
·1· ·city, it must ensure that the educational infrastructure
·2· ·is in place to accommodate the growth.
·3· · · · · · ·As families are crunched financially, they're
·4· ·moving into studios and one-bedroom apartments.· These
·5· ·types of buildings have almost no student projections
·6· ·for them.· If our city cannot provide adequate
·7· ·educational opportunities in our city, we will lose our

1, cont.
·8· ·city's families and we will have all of those who can
·9· ·leave the public schools which would then leave us with
10· ·a private system for the haves and a public education
11· ·for the rest of us.
12· · · · · · ·This is a huge issue of equity.· So I would
13· ·ask the city to continue to work together with the
14· ·public schools.· Our answer is yes to housing and yes to
15· ·ensuring that the children have the educational
16· ·infrastructure required to succeed.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 67 - JAMES JAROSZ
17· · · · · · ·NUMBER 67:· My name is James or Jim Jarosz. I
18· ·live in Magnolia.· I've been here for 10 years on 31st
19· ·near Metropolitan Market.· I have my speech right here.
20· ·Sorry about that.

1
21· · · · · · ·Years ago when my children's mom was 8 1/2
22· ·months pregnant with her first, we were living in a
23· ·small, used travel trailer while I was building a home
24· ·near Poulsbo.· It was late fall.· It was cold and rainy.
25· ·We had no heat and only a small RV porta potty.· Not the
YVer1f
·1· ·best combinations for an almost full-term pregnant mom.
·2· ·Luckily, we moved into her parents' home in Olympia
·3· ·where we stayed until Janet was born.· We had a safety
·4· ·net, family and friends, to rely on.
·5· · · · · · ·Many in Seattle do not have those family or
·6· ·community connections and have to rely on compassionate
·7· ·churches, city shelters, cars, or homeless camps.· We
·8· ·cannot cure homelessness in Seattle with one housing
·9· ·development plan.· But we, as Magnolia residents, can do
10· ·our part and encourage all neighborhoods to do the same.
11· · · · · · ·In 1968, 25 civic and environmental groups
12· ·organized as Citizens for Fort Lawton Park.· They sought
13· ·congressional delegation to help move a proposed

1, cont.
14· ·antiballistic missile site and to help create Discovery
15· ·Park.· At the end of the year, they abandoned the
16· ·missile site, and they made Discovery Park or created
17· ·it.
18· · · · · · ·It's time for Magnolia residents to do another
19· ·great deed, to say yes to a housing plan supported by a
20· ·diverse group of citizens.· Now is the time to welcome
21· ·housing and park space for seniors, veterans, women, and
22· ·families.· It's something we can be proud of and tell
23· ·the grandkids and their children.
24· · · · · · ·The residents of this new community will walk
25· ·to the park or stroll their neighborhood streets and
YVer1f
·1· ·thank those who worked tirelessly to create housing

1, cont.
·2· ·where all are welcome.· I thoroughly support alternative
·3· ·one. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 68 - ALOUIN SEMET
·4· · · · · · ·NUMBER 68:· I'm Alouin Semet.· I'm a resident
·5· ·of Magnolia.· I just want to talk a little bit about the
·6· ·environmental impact report.
·7· · · · · · ·Alternative one is, I think, well thought of.
·8· ·It makes good use of the space.· But it is not an

1
·9· ·inexpensive project.· It's -- environmentally it grades
10· ·and cuts and fills.· Then, you have to build on fill,
11· ·which is not that cheap.· Otherwise, it makes good
12· ·balance between, you know, open space and housing, which
13· ·we need, especially affordable housing.
14· · · · · · ·Alternative two is really awful and I think
15· ·should never happen because they cut all the trees which
16· ·are -- you know, birds and eagles and herons make use
17· ·of.· Alternative three is interesting.· It's a good
18· ·thing for the future.
19· · · · · · ·And alternative four is mostly what I want to
20· ·talk about.· Why don't we use that, those buildings,
21· ·which are sound and actually quite attractive, now?
22· ·They could be used as a school.· They could used as

2
23· ·offices.· They could be used for help for homeless.
24· ·They could be shelter.· And instead, the school that we
25· ·spend a lot of money refurbishing that should be turned
YVer1f
·1· ·down, those could be used as housing.· I think it would 2, cont.

·2· ·be a lot more efficient use of City money.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 69 - DOUG WOOS
·3· · · · · · ·NUMBER 69:· My name is Doug Woos.· I'm a
·4· ·member of the Democratic Socialists of America.· I live
·5· ·in Fremont, but I'm testifying in support of as much
·6· ·affordable, publicly owned housing as we can build on
·7· ·this and every other possible site.
·8· · · · · · ·I'm originally from a tiny town where everyone
·9· ·knows their neighbors.· Growing up there, I learned that
10· ·good neighbors take care of one another.· That's what it
11· ·means to be neighborly.
12· · · · · · ·Unfortunately, we are currently failing our
13· ·neighbors.· At last count, over 8,000 Seattleites lacked

1
14· ·permanent housing.· And make no mistake:· These are our
15· ·neighbors.· A recent survey found that about 70 percent
16· ·of houseless Seattleites last had permanent housing in
17· ·King County and 85 percent somewhere in Washington
18· ·state.
19· · · · · · ·As living in Seattle becomes less and less
20· ·affordable, our neighbors are being forced from their
21· ·houses.· The experience of other cities has shown that
22· ·the only way to take care of our hapless neighbors is to
23· ·provide sufficient affordable housing.· This means that
24· ·we must build houses here, at the Talaris site, and
2
25· ·indeed all over our city.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·We cannot afford to reject any opportunity for

2, cont.
·2· ·more affordable housing.· We have to help our neighbors.
·3· ·Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 70 -ALICE LOCKHART
·4· · · · · · ·NUMBER 70:· Hi.· I am Alice Lockhart.· Emily
·5· ·Johnson left to go to another meeting.
·6· · · · · · ·I came here with a nice little preachy speech
·7· ·to the good people of Magnolia about how fine it is to
·8· ·live in a part of Seattle with more affordable housing.
·9· ·I think from the wonderful testimony tonight that you
10· ·all get that and don't need to hear it from me.· You can
11· ·take care of your own business in Magnolia.
12· · · · · · ·But there is another thing on my mind.· As I
13· ·drove here today, I heard on QUOW John Ryan talking 1

14· ·about successive Seattle mayors' promises with respect
15· ·to the climate.· We are now in two emergencies: A
16· ·humanitarian crisis of homelessness and a howling
17· ·climate emergency, which the new mayor, Jenny Durkan,
18· ·has said that we will go very speedily to 100 percent
19· ·renewables in this city.
20· · · · · · ·And that will not be a true statement if we
21· ·achieve that by pushing many people to single-car
22· ·commutes.· So this is the -- homelessness is the tip of
23· ·the housing iceberg.· We need vastly increased
24· ·densification, option 5, thousands of units on this
25· ·site, please.· Be bold.· We'll support you.
YVer1f
OPEN HOUSE SPEAKER 71 - MELISSA HYATT
·1· · · · · · ·NUMBER 71:· Hi.· My name is Melissa Hyatt.
·2· ·I'm a resident of Magnolia.· And I'm sure I'm speaking
·3· ·to the choir here.
·4· · · · · · ·So what I want to do is move quickly to
·5· ·topics, which is you should really know your audience.
·6· ·It is very easy to come out and talk about humanity and
·7· ·everything else.· But if you've got a neighborhood that
·8· ·you think is afraid -- and that's one guy booing -- have
·9· ·some courage.· This is a chicken-shit proposal.· 200? I
10· ·mean come on.
11· · · · · · ·It's been 10 years.· I bought my house 25
12· ·years ago.· This is at least the fourth project I've

1
13· ·gone through like this.· I'm so tired of hearing you
14· ·talk about it.· Get it done.· And don't do such a --
15· ·this is -- I mean I'm sorry.· It's chicken shit.· I mean
16· ·200?· My family is in construction.· That is the
17· ·stupidest way to do this.· You need to think -- what you
18· ·need to -- big deal.· Many Magnolians are in support of
19· ·it.
20· · · · · · ·This is like a ski lodge.· A few big towers,
21· ·that's exciting.· Put a little fire pit there.· Put a
22· ·school at the bottom of one.· You put a laundromat and a
23· ·bar in the bottom of the other.· Put a gym in the bottom
24· ·of another.· You can have 150 people in each one times
25· ·two.· Okay.· Make them -- and put doors in there.
YVer1f
·1· ·People don't deserve to live in a half wall with a

1, cont.
·2· ·toilet and a kitchen.· Decent houses, a few townhouses.
·3· · · · · · ·The one thing I want to say is:· Do not sell
·4· ·any of these.· Don't sell any of the land.· Don't sell
·5· ·any of the houses.· If people make more money,
·6· ·(inaudible).· On the market that would make space for my

2
·7· ·kids who are in their 20's and all the other Magnolia
·8· ·kids who are in their 20's who still live at home.· As a
·9· ·worker community, please advertise it as such.· Thank
10· ·you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 72 - STEVEN BUCKMINSTER
11· · · · · · ·NUMBER 72:· We're going to present a solution
12· ·to homelessness, a solution not just talk.· The solution
13· ·is a campus.· It's called the Able To Campus for
14· ·Homeless and Displaced where they can be housed, taught,
15· ·trained, so that they can step into responsible jobs and
16· ·go on with their lives.
17· · · · · · ·Quickly, myself, I came here to Seattle in

1
18· ·2013.· I didn't have much.· I went into construction. I
19· ·got a job as a flagger.· It cost $50.00, eight hours.
20· ·And sometimes I make $46.00 an hour when I'm doing
21· ·what's -- there's a certain term for it.· But the
22· ·thought is that I make -- what? -- prevailing wage.
23· · · · · · ·So when we'd be there and say, you know, Oh,
24· ·it's really hard to help the homeless.· What?· 50 bucks?
25· ·Eight hours?· You know you spend $100,000, the city did,
YVer1f
·1· ·to paint sidewalks up in Capitol city -- I mean Capitol

1, cont.
·2· ·Hill -- rainbow colors.· We could make 2,000 flaggers
·3· ·for that money. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 73 - RYE BEY

·4· · · · · · ·NUMBER 73:· Hello everyone in the Magnolia
·5· ·community.· My name is Ryesha (phonetic) Bey.· My
·6· ·partner, Steven Buckminster, we have a proposal.· We
·7· ·would like to add on to the low income housing.· We
·8· ·would love to make a campus.· And we would love to
·9· ·teach, dorm, and train so that it's really beneficial.
10· ·Housing is great.· But we want to teach.· We want them
11· ·to grow.· We want to give hope, love, and action.· We
12· ·want to give love.
13· · · · · · ·It would be a beautiful thing for it to be 1

14· ·built in Magnolia in historic Fort Lawton.· And I
15· ·believe that we will change homeless.· We will end
16· ·homelessness.· We will have a facility where they go
17· ·before they reach that point.· And those that have
18· ·reached that point, this is where you go.· This is where
19· ·you start over.· This is where you have hope.
20· · · · · · ·And we would love -- we're going to build it.
21· ·We would love to build -- to start building in the
22· ·Magnolia community at Fort Lawton.· And that's our
23· ·proposal. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 74 - KEVIN REYNOLDS

24· · · · · · ·NUMBER 74:· I might be the only person here
1
25· ·who actually rides the No. 33 Metro bus into Fort Lawton
YVer1f
·1· ·with the homeless people who sleep there every night.
·2· · · · · · ·First, I oppose, strongly, alternative two.
·3· ·The concept of putting more market-rate housing in the
·4· ·Fort Lawton park area is just atrocious.· I walk past
·5· ·those officer row houses.· It is unbelievable that we,

1, cont.
·6· ·as city, have allowed that to happen.· 2005 to 2015 was
·7· ·a 10-year plan.· At the same time, we've been getting
·8· ·about 25,000 housing permits every year in Magnolia.· It
·9· ·is just an incredible disconnect.· The points that
10· ·occurred here today are heartfelt.
11· · · · · · ·I support alternative No. 3.· Once we don't
12· ·claim this as parkland, our children, our old people,
13· ·the poor people, the rich people, we're all going to
14· ·lose the opportunity for open spaces.· The city budget
15· ·was $6.08 billion, and we're trying to say that we're
2
16· ·going to turn an area that could be an excellent park
17· ·extension into homeless housing 'cause we can't afford
18· ·other alternatives is absolutely a mistake.
19· · · · · · ·Let's solve the homeless issue.· But let's not
20· ·sacrifice open spaces and opportunities for an extension
21· ·to our park at Discovery Park.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 75 - LEE COLLETON
22· · · · · · ·NUMBER 75:· Hello.· My name's Lee Colleton.
23· ·And I'm a veteran and a member of Socialist Alternative.
24· · · · · · ·Of King county's homeless population, 1

25· ·6 percent are American Indian or Alaska native while
YVer1f
·1· ·those groups make up just 1 percent of the country's
·2· ·general population and also serve in the United States
·3· ·military at a higher rate than any other demographic. I
·4· ·quote:· "This is unacceptable in a place that is named
·5· ·after an iconic indigenous leader, Seathl."· Local

1, cont.
·6· ·tribal leaders from the Coalition to End Urban Native
·7· ·Homelessness wrote this in a letter to the city.· They
·8· ·are calling for native-provided housing and culturally
·9· ·appropriate support services at Fort Lawton.· I support
10· ·this beyond what option one provides.
11· · · · · · ·Also, as others have mentioned, the
12· ·car-dependent model that has brought us these low
13· ·density neighborhoods in Seattle and in many other

2
14· ·places is also bringing us a climate crisis which is
15· ·going to exacerbate the problem that we're trying to
16· ·face, that we're trying to deal with today.· Thank you.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 76 - MATTHEW LANG
17· · · · · · ·NUMBER 76:· Hello, folks.· My name is Matthew
18· ·Lang.· And I am the organizer for the Transit Riders
19· ·Union here in Magnolia.· As a nation, we spend a lot of
20· ·time focusing on eliminating symptoms, not causes.· We
21· ·cut the cancer out but only when it's killing us.· We 1
22· ·criminalize behaviors that are symptoms of a greater
23· ·cause.· Instead, we must focus on the root causes and
24· ·preventative cures.
25· · · · · · ·The root of our homelessness problem in
YVer1f
·1· ·Seattle?· It's not drugs.· It's not mental health.· It's
·2· ·not an unwillingness to live inside.· In fact,
·3· ·92 percent of the homeless population in a one-night
·4· ·count last year said they would move into affordable
·5· ·housing if there was affordable housing that was safe
·6· ·and would keep them housed.· We all agree that housing 1, cont.
·7· ·first is the only option to that problem we face.· But
·8· ·we need deeply affordable housing.
·9· · · · · · ·At Fort Lawton, we're in the process of
10· ·changing that.· We have the extremely unique ability to
11· ·help stem tide of homelessness in our fair city.· And I
12· ·support option one.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 77 - DAN HERNBROTT
13· · · · · · ·NUMBER 77:· Hi.· My name is Dan Hernbrott. I
14· ·live on lower Queen Anne, which is not Magnolia.
15· ·However, this decision will substantially affect my cost
16· ·of living.· More housing makes rent cheaper because
17· ·there is less demand.· Or yes, there is more supply
18· ·which, leads to lower costs.· More options means that
19· ·people have the capacity to live in a situation in which

1
20· ·they can thrive because they don't just have to pick the
21· ·first apartment that they find that is available at
22· ·their cost.· More housing means less people on the
23· ·streets and dying.
24· · · · · · ·I'm a strong believer in stewardship and
25· ·solidarity.· That means taking responsibility for the
YVer1f
·1· ·earth and the people around us.· It is really difficult
·2· ·to do that when you're struggling to survive on the 1, cont.

·3· ·streets.· That's why I'm in support of alternative one.
·4· ·And I think alternative one should have more housing. I
·5· ·think you should add a zero at the end.
·6· · · · · · ·And I don't think you should stop that for
·7· ·solvable problems like lack of transit or stores. I 2

·8· ·think instead of throwing our hands up in the air and
·9· ·saying, Well, I guess we can't do it 'cause there's this
10· ·one issue, we need to take responsibility for a society
11· ·and create the world that we want to live in.· Thank
12· ·you. PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 78 - MARY STEELEKLEN

13· · · · · · ·NUMBER 78:· Am I next?· Can you hear me.
14· · · · · · ·I oppose development of Discovery Park with
15· ·low income housing or afford -- not just affordable but
16· ·low income.· I have been among the homeless.· I have
17· ·moved to find work for myself and my 12-year-old
18· ·daughter at that time.· I actually moved interstate to

1
19· ·find affordable housing.· Now, my ancestors came here
20· ·from Ireland where there was no food an no housing.· And
21· ·they moved.· And they did very well.
22· · · · · · ·And there is a time -- what we've got here now
23· ·is Amazon creating an enormous bubble.· And rents are
24· ·skyrocketing which will continue.· About 200 to 250
25· ·people a day are getting evicted from their housing
YVer1f
·1· ·because there's no rent control here, which is one of
·2· ·the most important first steps that can taken.· And I
·3· ·don't think I've heard a single person mention rent
·4· ·control.· But there has to be maximum to the rents that

1, cont.
·5· ·are charged.· Thank you.
·6· · · · · · ·And really I think that this is not going to
·7· ·change.· Things are going to get much worse and that
·8· ·people have to be encouraged to find housing in other
·9· ·areas, in Auburn and Kitsap.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 79 - JAMES McINTOSH
10· · · · · · ·NUMBER 79:· Hi.· My name's James McIntosh. I
11· ·was going to just divert a little bit.· Everyone's bad
12· ·mouthing Auburn tonight.· The Sounder train can get from
13· ·Auburn to Seattle in 37 minutes.· That's pretty cool.
14· · · · · · ·I have to share with you.· I've been involved
15· ·with Westlake for 30 years being involved with Friends
16· ·of Discovery Park.· I've been with Friends of Discovery
17· ·Park.· And I'm a person who's visually impaired, so

1
18· ·sight impaired, hard to see.· So I've come to appreciate
19· ·the open space, nature, Discovery Park.· And that is,
20· ·you know, one the granddaddies of all open-space parks
21· ·in the country.
22· · · · · · ·When it was developed in the 70's and 80's, it
23· ·really was ahead of its time, being a natural park with
24· ·just breathtaking vistas.· If any of you have seen, the
25· ·view of the sunset over the Olympic mountains is
YVer1f
·1· ·amazing.
·2· · · · · · ·And so personally, I support alternative 3,
·3· ·which is inclusion of this property into the park.· It's
·4· ·just a super regional park.· It's not just a city park.
·5· ·It's a regional park.
·6· · · · · · ·But I will be the first to support housing. 1, cont.

·7· ·I've been eyeballing housing all around the Magnolia
·8· ·area.· And there's certainly a lot of places that could
·9· ·be developed in this city.· And in the Magnolia-Queen
10· ·Anne area, I will certain support affordable housing.
11· ·But we need this park as well.· Thank you very much.
PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 80 - JUDY WILLSON
12· · · · · · ·NUMBER 80:· Hi.· I agree with this woman
13· ·100 percent.· I'm for the housing thing that you guys
14· ·are for.· I want to help the poor.· But we haven't seen
15· ·anything yet.· It's going to get a lot worse, just like
16· ·this lady said, until this city council and these mayors
17· ·stop standing up and saying We need 300 more million for
18· ·this and 600 more million for that.· It's impossible. 1
19· · · · · · ·My property taxes have doubled this last year
20· ·from 3500 to over 7,000.· I'm 76 years old.· I can't get
21· ·a job.· I'm taxed out of my home.· So I'm going to be
22· ·another homeless person.· How about that?· And what I'm
23· ·saying is we're creating -- by these council people and
24· ·these mayors that want to spend all the money like this,
25· ·they're creating more homeless people.
YVer1f
·1· · · · · · ·Now, I went down to city hall.· And I said,
·2· ·Can I get a reduction on my taxes?· And they said, No,
·3· ·you make too much.· I make $35,000 a year.· That's low
·4· ·income as far as -- you've got to make like 25,000
·5· ·before they'll give you any kind substantial breakoff.
·6· ·I'm going to be out of my house soon because I'm getting
·7· ·taxed out of it.· I've lived here all my life, 76 years.
·8· ·I've worked since I was 14, and now I'm kicked out of my
1, cont.
·9· ·house.
10· · · · · · ·And this is creating more homeless people.· So
11· ·we've gotta cure the source.· When you've got cancer,
12· ·you don't just take a little tumor off here.· You go to
13· ·primary tumor, and you heal the source to get the
14· ·problem 'cause it's going to get worse and worse.· More
15· ·people are going to be homeless.
16· · · · · · ·So we've got to lower those taxes, lower those
17· ·apartment rents.· And I'm all for the housing thing to
18· ·help people.· I'm going to need it myself.· And she was 2
19· ·right.· You haven't seen anything else yet.· It's going
20· ·to get worse and worse.· These taxes have doubled in one
21· ·year.· That's the source.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 81 - BRADLEY SCARP
22· · · · · · ·NUMBER 81:· Bradley Scarp is my name.· I'll
23· ·make my comment short.· By the way, I want to address

1
24· ·the number of people who -- most of whom left.· But, you
25· ·know, I don't think so many Magnolians are totally
YVer1f
·1· ·against.· And there's a lot of disparaging comments
·2· ·about homelessness versus people who make a higher
·3· ·income.· I don't think that's necessarily the case.
·4· · · · · · ·But I want you to consider this, and I want
·5· ·this on the record:· There's discussion about how remote
·6· ·and what the logistics are and what the infrastructure
·7· ·will be and especially transportation.· Magnolia is an
·8· ·island.· It is surrounded by a railroad.· You can't get
·9· ·there but one, two, and three ways.· Right now, if you
10· ·go, at any rush hour in the morning or afternoon, you 1, cont.
11· ·can't get there and you stop.· So consider how many
12· ·people and what their opportunities are because that is
13· ·the big issue.
14· · · · · · ·There are no services planned.· There is no
15· ·increased transportation.· But you have to be able to
16· ·accomplish that.· And it's really hard 'cause Magnolia
17· ·is a island.· So consider that when you think of the
18· ·scope of a project like this.· People have to be able to
19· ·move.· Thank you.

PUBLIC MEETING TESTIMONY 82 - ANDREW SANG
20· · · · · · ·NUMBER 82:· Good evening.· My name is Andrew
21· ·Sang.· In full disclosure, I'm not a resident of
22· ·Magnolia.· I am a resident of Northeast Ravenna, and I'm

1
23· ·a student at the University of Washington.· I consider
24· ·myself a housing advocate.
25· · · · · · ·To be honest, I don't support alternative one
YVer1f
·1· ·because I think that this city council has the
·2· ·opportunity to go so much further.· We have -- this
·3· ·is -- you know, we have one of the fastest growing
·4· ·companies in all of America, you know, at our doorstep.
·5· ·And the reason -- the fact that we're not able to build
·6· ·some housing for folks who can't afford it, I think
·7· ·that's kind of ridiculous.· Right?
·8· · · · · · ·You know, personally, I would like to sort of
·9· ·share my own story with housing with you.· After my 1, cont.
10· ·first quarter at the University of Washington, my family
11· ·was at wit's end.· We had no more money.· I had to
12· ·withdraw.· You know, I was staring at the precipice of
13· ·homelessness.· Right?· And those couple days were the
14· ·most frightening days of my life.· I don't want anyone
15· ·else to ever have to face that kind of situation ever
16· ·again where they are -- they don't know where they're
17· ·going to be the next day.
18· · · · · · ·I understand the community here has a lot of
19· ·concerns with respect to issues of transportation and
20· ·education.· Right?· But I think that, you know, the
21· ·needs of this region can reconcile.· Okay?· It's not an

2
22· ·either-or kind of situation.· I believe that we're a
23· ·city with so much growth and so much money and so much
24· ·power that, you know, I find it kind of unbelievable
25· ·that we're not able to reconcile the fact that we need
YVer1f
·1· ·both housing and education.· Why is it not possible to
·2· ·build, you know, a couple towers and put a school in the
·3· ·bottom of one of them?
·4· · · · · · ·Whatever the case is, you know, if you guys
·5· ·need, like, an income tax or whatever it is, we'll vote

2, cont.
·6· ·for it as long as you guys are willing to be courageous
·7· ·and not be limited by the scope of your imagination.
·8· ·Right?· Like I understand it is difficult.· And I
·9· ·understand it is tough.· But please be courageous.
10· ·Thank you.
11· · · · · · ·(Hearing concluded at 8:58 p.m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·1· · · · · · · · · · · C E R T I F I C A T E
·2
·3· · · · · · I, Jacqueline L. Bellows, the undersigned Certified
·4· ·Court Reporter, pursuant to RCW 5.28.010 authorized to
·5· ·administer oaths and affirmations in and for the State of
·6· ·Washington, do hereby certify that the· public comments, a
·7· ·transcript of which is attached, were given before me at the
·8· ·time and place stated therein;· That the public comments
·9· ·were by me stenographically recorded and transcribed under
10· ·my supervision, to the best of my ability; that the
11· ·foregoing transcript contains a full, true, and accurate
12· ·record of all the public comments given and occurring at the
13· ·time and place stated in the transcript; that I am in no way
14· ·related to any party to the matter, nor to any counsel,· nor
15· ·do I have any financial interest in the event of the cause.
16
17· · · · · · WITNESS my hand in Seattle, County of King, State
18· ·of Washington, this 17th day of January, 2018.
19
20
21· · · ·________________________
22· · · ·Jacqueline L. Bellows

· · · · ·Washington State Certified Court Reporter, No. 2297
23· · · ·[email protected]
24
25
PUBLIC HEARING -· DRAFT EIS; January 09, 2018
Index: $100 to 29
55:1 57:19 7:19 25:23 18:22 25:6,15, 70:12
$ 76:2 84:18 21 31:18
17 23
89:11 33:23 41:23
$100 27:3 34:17
62:16 73:6
50:25 10-month
175,000 74:15 79:9 238
64:13
$100,000 11:9 89:9,16 95:24 14:23
65:23 90:25 10-year
18 200-and-some 238-or-some
55:10,12 92:7
$1800 28:12 41:20 52:21 55:10
46:20 100
19 2000s 24
33:17 49:11
$2.1 29:22 50:11 9:19 35:19
79:8 88:18
57:14 97:13 1968 2005 24,000
$3 85:11 92:6 81:17
11
29:8 19:13 1995 2008 25
$300,000 80:25 39:14 22:24 37:3
11,000
7:1 43:16 85:11
38:18,19 1997 2009
89:11
$35,000 42:11 47:6 10:2
98:3 25,000
12 1C3 2013
92:8 98:4
$46.00 19:20 21:3 63:5 90:18
90:20 27:7 250
2014
2 7:24 95:24
$50.00 12-year-old 10:16
90:19 95:17 26
2 2015
6:23 10:3
$6.08 13 7:7 55:19 32:6 40:12
38:12,25 39:5
92:15 21:13 55:20 92:6
2,000 27
$90,000 1300 25:20,21 2016
39:22
79:4 38:23 62:15 71:23 9:6
82:21 91:2 27,303-square-
133 2017
feet
1 40:7 2,380 26:7 38:17
57:17
56:14 40:8 66:12
1350
1 28
64:18 2- 2030
6:2 21:10 41:16
71:18 43:3
33:21 59:4 14
280-some
69:8 79:8 93:1 9:9 22:21 20 2050
43:13
45:20 51:15 30:20 54:6 65:19
1,000 2800
98:8 58:22
71:23 21
38:23
1400 20's 32:1 50:11
1,238-bed 283
38:24 90:7,8
63:4 22
71:16
15 20,000 11:6 33:6
1/2 29
9:7 24:12 51:9 80:4 38:25
57:16 84:21 15:5 39:1 42:4
150 20-year 225,000
10
17:7 89:24 46:21 51:14 11:9
11:10 14:22
18:1 39:15 16 200 22nd
Index: 3 to 79
97:20 46 57
3 62:25 74:20 7
35th
3 52:7 47 58 7
8:24 41:5 63:12 75:19 14:11 55:2
36
57:16 92:11 52:6 48 59 7,000
97:2 64:1 76:24
37 97:20
3,000 52:23 96:13 49 7-eleven
40:10 71:18 65:8 6
38 16:10
30 54:1 4O 6 70
6:23 8:25 21:5 63:5
39 13:9 92:25 87:15 88:4
35:17 43:15
49:11 54:22 6,000 70's
52:10,13 80:7
5
96:15 38:19 80:6 96:22
4
30's 5 60 70s
46:20 12:5 65:20 77:25 60:14
4
88:24
30- 10:24 57:15 60's 71
83:16 5,000 51:14 89:1
4,000-square-
25:8,14 38:18
30-year foot 600 72
74:6
81:21 14:3 65:3 97:18 90:11
50
300 4,088 600,000 720
38:25 59:21
61:7 97:17 57:15 46:24 65:1
67:2 90:24
31 40 61 73
50-single
45:5 37:4,5 56:8 78:21 91:4
75:6
31st 400 62 74
500
84:18 83:17 79:15 91:24
15:4 27:15
32 41 63 740
51
46:17 57:6 80:23 65:2
56:5 67:25
320 42 64 75
52
35:21 58:14 81:20 92:22
69:4
320,000 42,000 65 76
53
78:11 59:20 82:7 93:17 97:20
70:10
98:7
33 4218 66
534-acre
47:5 72:22 57:13 83:6 77
29:9
91:25 94:13
43 67
54
34 59:5 84:17 78
71:11
25:1,5 48:21 95:13
44 68
49:10 55
60:18 72:24 86:4 79
72:4
35 96:10
45 69
50:18 56
54:3 61:19 87:3
73:13
3500
Index: 8 to affordable
92 account 39:18 49:4,9 advocate
8 39:2 94:3 53:18 58:11 61:16 13:12 56:9
73:21 77:24 64:4 74:21
8 95 achieve
98:23 83:13 99:24
15:20 84:21 72:18 88:21
addressed advocates
8,000 99 acknowledge
70:2 12:20
32:13 55:15 58:22 66:22
74:12 87:13 addresses advocating
acquire
A 40:18 44:10
8,522 12:18 42:19
26:7 adds affect
abandoned acquisition
7:11 74:6 30:11 94:15
8.5 14:25 85:15 12:22
26:11 Aden affection
ability acre
15:20 81:22
80 48:12 59:16 15:5 25:2,4
97:12 72:3 94:10 adequate affects
acreage
84:6 30:12 59:13
80's absolutely 34:22
96:22 16:1,2 21:9 adjacent affluent
acres
92:18 25:18 75:3
80s 25:1,5 31:17
60:14 abuse 70:4 administration afford
8:5,6 74:23 37:22 11:4 27:25
81 act
28:1,23 29:17
98:22 abusive 36:15 37:1 adopt
46:1,4,21 50:9
33:14 39:7 75:23
82 64:24 65:2
99:20 accept action ADU 70:16 77:6
23:14 64:3 91:11 67:12,15 80:9 88:1
85 71:13 92:17 95:15
15:24 66:4 acceptable actively
23:1 adult 100:6
87:17 13:22
48:2 affordability
8500 access activist
81:25 adults 12:8,10 14:15
35:3 8:7 9:4 32:21
33:12 41:7,8 38:25 48:5,6 affordable
875- activity
43:7 69:10 63:8 6:8,11 8:1,10
14:4 16:21 34:23
72:20 advance 9:4 10:18
88 add 11:9,11,12
accessible 44:4
76:11 67:14 91:7 12:3,15,18,20
8:16 26:2 95:5 advantage 13:3,6,14,16
89 35:17 36:23 11:17
added 14:22 15:22
59:2 42:16
58:8 advantages 16:9,13 17:10,
8:58 accommodate 47:12 11,20,22,25
101:11 adding 19:6,15,18
84:2
8:1 46:5,7 adverse 21:7,24 24:19
accompanies 51:21
9 additional 26:2,16,25
48:18
7:13 39:9 advertise 27:2 28:25
9 accomplish 90:9 29:19 30:8,22
address 31:3,6,12,14,
17:1 72:25 73:3
6:14 8:8 11:18 Advisory 16 32:4,17,25
99:16
14:25 24:22 82:3 33:4 34:4
Index: affordibility to attack
35:25 36:8,24 ahead 82:5 86:2,7, 30:20 21:19 30:23
39:3 40:24 29:18 59:17 14,17,19 92:2, 33:15,19,20
Anitra
41:21 42:2,6, 96:23 11,23 95:3,4 42:21 47:18
80:23
24 43:19,20, 97:2 99:25 64:18 65:6
aid
23,25 44:7,13, Anne 92:4,16 97:8,
66:19 alternatives
17,24 45:10, 22:22 37:4 10
39:11 49:25
14,17,23 46:5, air 68:15 73:14
92:18 areas
13 48:16 49:2 95:8 82:2,19 83:2
34:7 58:5 96:9
50:20 51:6,16, amazing 94:14 97:10
Akiyama
17 52:1,20,24 6:9 14:24 48:7 arguing
22:21 antiballistic
53:3,6,13 76:25 97:1 8:10
85:14
54:25 55:1,13 Alaska
Amazon argument
56:14 59:13 92:25 anymore
70:6 95:23 50:16
61:20 62:13 29:23 60:15
Albertsons
63:14,15 amenities 70:16 78:24 arguments
72:10
64:19,20,25 35:11 44:5 57:21 66:7
apartment
65:3,5,6,11 Alexander 49:6,13,16
10:7 11:4 arises
67:10 68:7 21:13 50:4,13 52:11
45:25 51:3 57:11
70:24 71:7,14 Alice America 64:17 94:21
73:18 74:21 army
88:4 14:13 65:10 98:17
78:1,7,15 80:8 42:22
alienation 75:12 87:4
82:15 86:13 apartments
100:4 arrive
87:6,20,23 48:18 10:4,9 32:19
82:24
88:2,8 94:4,5, alive American 50:8 51:12
8 95:15,19 77:20 78:6,23 61:25 84:4 art
51:23
97:10 92:25 23:9
Allen Apple
affordibility Americans 72:6 aspects
61:20 76:6
9:6 56:5 75:9,13 59:13
alleviate approach
77:23 78:11 aspiration
afraid 66:25 83:24
69:18,19 Ammons 71:21
Alliance approve
81:10 89:8 72:4 asset
64:5 43:11
afternoon amount 33:19
Allison approved
99:10 25:7 79:20 assistance
43:15 27:1
age Amy 51:1 68:12
allowed approves
38:7 47:5 70:21 assistant
47:19 53:10, 83:24,25
agencies ancestors 44:3 75:17
11 92:6 approving
17:7 95:19 Association
Alouin 39:19
agenda and/or 22:23
86:4 architect
12:9 36:14 assure
alternative 22:1
agree Anderson 75:2
17:12 21:10 architecture
14:6 41:3 39:8,20 40:18 27:3 atrocious
22:5
44:15 47:1 54:24 56:12 Andrew 92:4
62:14 64:19 area
69:8 74:1,17 99:20
13:23 14:9 attack
82:20 94:6 75:23 79:17
Angela 15:5 16:1,9,16 18:11
97:12
Index: attainable to bottom
attainable 58:21,22 based 29:2,11 Black
34:5 60:22 64:7,14 49:12 68:2 37:8
beneficial
77:10 78:14,
attempt basement 91:9 Blaine
15,21
66:15 56:24 72:14,17
benefit
backgrounds 82:23
attend basically 73:22
8:17 35:14
48:23 65:13 77:13 blaring
benefits
backpack 77:21
attendance bathrooms 11:7 19:11
55:3
74:22 57:16 23:13 50:23 blend
backyard 9:25
attending Bathum Bernstein
10:23 51:5
73:16 54:1 48:22 blends
67:12,16,17,
10:7
attention 18 81:24 Beacon Bey
47:24 18:2 70:11 91:5 blueprints
bad
33:22
attractive 62:1 96:11 beautiful bickering
86:21 8:16 15:22 71:2 bluffs
Bagshaw
18:24 21:21 21:19
Auburn 6:5 big
29:16,24
42:16 50:2,8, 11:7 63:9,10 board
Bailey 91:13
10,11 52:17 67:17 73:1 56:10
47:5
61:25 62:5 beauty 77:21 89:18,
body
96:9,12,13 balance 22:17 20 99:13
57:4
62:7 86:12
Auburn's bedrooms bigger
bold
50:3 62:1 Ballard 57:16 41:24 42:2
7:1 88:25
13:10 15:21 63:10
audience befallen
41:7 42:25 bolder
46:13 89:5 48:14 bike
43:2 24:21 74:17
21:17 41:6
Avenue begin
bank Bolgiano
57:13 10:15 14:24 biking
75:17 43:16
66:23 20:11
average
banking Bond
6:25 48:3 behalf billion
66:1 41:16
32:3 48:22 92:15
avoid
bar 54:23 booing
48:13,17 billion-dollar
89:23 89:8
behaviors 34:11
aware
barber 80:20 93:22 book
73:17 bird
63:9 23:9
beings 34:20
awesome
barely 35:2 56:1 born
28:10 81:24 birder
52:14 19:19 30:4
believer 33:7
awful 48:3 85:3
Barnes 94:24
86:14 birds
67:25 borrow
Bellwether 86:16
60:3,4
B barrier 43:17 44:1
bit
12:23 bottom
belong 13:23 15:23
back 69:11,18
base 58:4 38:1,22 72:13
12:1 30:25 89:22,23
38:9 42:22,24 86:5 96:11
47:8 55:3 belongs 101:3
Index: bought to centers
bought brought 42:18 44:21 33:9 55:12 careers
7:25 79:4 60:9 93:12 49:2 53:22 90:13 44:4
89:11 63:6 67:14
bubble calling caring
69:25 72:25
boy 95:23 93:8 35:2
84:23 91:21
28:16
Buckley Campbell Carissa
buildings
Bradley 52:17 70:10 25:23
15:1 70:4,7
98:22
Buckminster 84:5 86:20 camping Carkeek
bragging 91:6 38:15 67:8
built
81:13
bucks 9:20 20:8 22:1 camps Carol
brainer 90:24 25:19 26:19 16:5 78:6,7,13 37:3
21:9 62:12 41:6 43:10 85:7
budget carriers
breakoff 61:5 92:14 53:15,21 campus 14:18
98:5 57:16 63:11 90:13 91:8
build 68:21 74:15, carry
breathtaking 11:10 12:3 16 77:4 91:14 cancer 81:9
96:24 13:19 14:5 93:21 98:11
Burgess carrying
15:7 18:12,13,
bridges 76:13 Cantrell 55:3
15,19,22,23,
38:16 66:11, 21:3
24 19:1,4,8 bus cars
13
20:16 21:7 35:11 43:3 capacity 33:13 35:3
bring 23:15 24:8 52:9 58:7,8 12:21 34:25 41:10 42:14
11:8 43:4 25:2,20 27:15 75:16 91:25 74:4 82:18,20 49:7 58:2 85:7
74:17 28:25 29:18 83:17 94:19
buses case
bringing 36:23 41:9,24 capital 12:1 36:7
22:10
13:14 32:9 43:2,12,20 74:8 61:22 99:3
62:21 93:14 44:12,17 business 101:4
50:17 51:25 10:25 75:15 Capitol
brings 52:19 53:12 88:11 50:1 91:1 cast
43:9 55:12,15 63:5, 24:10
businesses car
brink 6,22 66:24 23:11 31:9 Catharine
14:9 16:14
52:1,2 68:10 67:11,14,15 41:9 51:14,20 72:17 82:23
17:7
70:16 71:3,7
broad 75:24 76:19, buy car-dependent Catherine
12:7 21 80:19 16:4 27:17 49:10 93:12 28:13
broad-based 86:10 87:6,24 30:12 57:22 carbon Catholic
48:18 91:20,21 75:5,21 79:4 18:8 10:2
100:5 101:2
Brod carbon- cement
Builders C
38:14 belching 55:5
22:23 42:14
Bronkhorst cafeteria census
69:4 building 63:10 care 34:20
6:7,9,15 7:1 58:17 87:10,
Brooke 18:5 24:19 call center
22 88:11
38:13 31:17 34:21 39:25 41:13 34:11 36:20
35:24 39:20 45:2,21 career 69:6
brother
40:15 41:21 53:12 59:11
53:1 called centers
Index: central to college
61:7 61:2 25 50:2 51:17 8,14,24 33:4 clear
56:24 34:12 35:16 83:18
central cheap
36:9,25 37:6,
50:14 74:7 86:11 choir clerks
10 39:21 41:1,
89:3 14:18
centuries cheaper 3,12,14,24
58:6 94:16 Chris 42:13,17,18 climate
73:13 43:11 44:18, 88:15,17
century cheaply
20,21 48:7,16 93:14
57:9 75:21 Christian
36:3 49:8,16 50:1 close
chain-link check 54:21 55:18, 24:2 44:5 49:7
60:24 56:6 Christmas 19 56:21 52:8 56:22
55:23 58:23 59:1
challenge checked 72:13
9:23 12:23 14:2 chronic 60:23 61:5,23
66:5,14,24 closer
74:16 20:19
Chicago 68:14 71:17 63:18
challenges 47:7,17 48:1, church 72:2 74:1,16 closing
47:22 7,14 10:12 15:17 75:24 76:5,8 61:7
35:20 54:2 77:17 79:5,10
chance chicken
62:21 79:16, 80:17 81:9 cluster
19:2,16 31:13 89:15
19 82:3 83:7,23, 83:15
44:19 48:15
chicken-shit 24 84:1,6,7,13
church's coalition
change 89:9 85:7 87:2,25
15:17 12:6,7 32:2,3
23:2,15 54:23 88:19 90:25
child 33:3 82:8,10
56:9,10,11 churches 91:1 92:6,14
29:15 52:25 83:7 93:6
57:7 58:15 85:7 93:7 94:11
53:4 63:22
60:19 63:1 97:4,9,16 98:1 Coast
circumstances
64:2,22 68:16, childcare 55:17 75:11
18:16 51:24 100:1,23
17 69:19 62:7
city's coastline
91:15 96:7 cities
childhood 38:8
18:24 55:17 7:10 33:24
changed 75:14
81:3 87:21 42:9 65:21 coffee
27:8 46:23 children 70:14 83:13 16:3,14 59:10
58:7 citizens
6:22 7:5 19:16 84:8
83:14 85:12, cofounders
changing 28:23 31:10
20 civic 82:8
68:18 94:10 33:11,12
48:5 85:11
38:24 40:10, city Cohen
character civil
11,13 44:23 6:4,9,10 7:1 56:8
7:18 15:9 33:25
45:20 47:25 10:16,17,22
66:18,23 cold
48:3 59:19 11:7,12,16 claim
68:19 35:5 65:21
63:8 72:18 12:1 13:1,4 66:23 92:12 84:24
charged 77:13 82:17 14:15,17 15:2
96:5 83:5 84:15 17:13 18:3,14 clarify Coleman
85:23 92:12 19:3,12 22:17 82:10 32:1
charity
23:1,13,19 Clark collaborating
63:19 children's
24:4,12,18,21 54:1 83:8
84:21
Charles 25:1,2,25 26:9
10:24 41:16 choice 29:25 30:13, class college
24:5,10 49:22, 18 31:15 32:6, 47:20 48:4 6:23 9:13
chasing 71:13
Index: Colleton to county
28:16 43:17 100:18 15:23 92:3 Consortium coordinate
17:4 79:22 45:18
Colleton community's concern
92:22 17:20 8:4 constantly corner
60:11 52:7
colonial commute concerned
57:10 21:17 24:3 7:14 13:24 construction cornerstone
18:8 54:13 9:21 10:17 40:15
color commutes
58:9 89:16 90:18
36:14 66:3,6 43:8 88:22 corporation
concerns consumed 70:7,8
colors companies
66:16 70:1 59:17 65:6
91:2 100:4 cost
74:22 79:18
contact 6:10 13:1 26:6
Columbia Compared 100:19
35:1 40:4 42:22
50:1 50:11
concluded 70:24 90:19
contained
combinations comparison 101:11 94:15,22
7:20
85:1 78:5,7
concrete costs
context
commandment compassion 33:16 61:16 94:18
15:3 50:15
15:18 55:18 56:4
concurrent couch
continue
comment compassionat 83:21 60:5
8:3,20 13:5
13:8 59:8 e
condo 20:25 27:1 council
77:18 98:23 63:19,24 85:6
11:2 52:15 84:13 95:24 6:5 24:13,14
comments competitive 35:20 73:15
condos continues
62:19 77:2 13:3 74:16 79:19
68:21 12:24 40:4
78:2 99:1 82:1,2 83:24
compile
confined contribute 97:16,23
Committee 34:20
49:18 43:10 100:1
82:3
complaining
congregations contributing count
common 72:7
35:22 11:21 68:23 11:14 26:7
12:19 24:7
complaints 32:15 38:17
congressional control
communities 81:4 39:4 76:17
85:13 34:14 96:1,4
11:17 36:1,9 87:13 94:4
complete
50:22 66:2 connection controversial
41:19 countries
54:10 70:14
community 75:9
complex
9:11 10:11 connections conversation
10:3,7 country
11:21 17:10, 41:6 61:6 85:6 24:6
24 19:15 20:8, comprising 48:2 58:6
Conrad convince 66:10 96:21
15,24 23:8 57:15
79:15 7:19
24:9 26:4,17 compromised country's
28:22 29:5 consequences Cook 93:1
31:25
31:20 56:2,4, 47:18,20,24 7:7
Compton county
17 62:23 consideration cool
30:21 17:5 22:24
65:24 73:18 75:18 96:13 27:23,25 28:1,
74:7,12 75:3 concentrating
considered Cooper 3 32:2,7,15
81:25 82:1 23:4
51:5 74:4 83:6 35:22 38:17,
85:6,24 90:9
concept 22 40:7 87:17
91:5,22
Index: county's to deserves
county's 24:9 57:23 72:5 deal degree
92:24 69:20 26:6 81:22 44:3 53:10
custodial
89:18 93:16
couple criminal 9:12 dehumanize
11:15 60:20, 67:19 dealing 15:12
cut
22 62:6 80:3 67:10
criminalize 76:12,15 DEIS
100:13 101:2
93:22 86:15 93:21 death 21:10,24
courage 40:7 51:22 53:18
crises cuts
89:9
34:13 51:7 86:10 debt delay
courageous 47:11 39:19
crisis
101:6,9 D
6:14 11:19 decade delegation
court 14:15,16,25 9:19 80:5 85:13
53:11 15:5 24:23 dad
19:20,22,24 decades deliver
26:25 36:9,17
cousin's 20:19 9:17 70:6
39:18 42:9
56:24
49:18 61:16 daily decay demand
covenants 65:17 70:15 49:19 24:9 80:5 94:17
66:1 71:6,25 73:19,
Dan December Democratic
cover 21 74:11 9:9 14:12 65:9
80:14,15 81:8 21:3 94:13
44:8 87:4
88:16 93:14 dangerous decent
covered 35:3 9:4 23:23 35:2 demographic
61:17 critical 90:2 51:7 93:3
13:2 Daniel
Cowen 72:4 decision dense
38:16 critics 94:15 49:15
49:4 daughter
create 95:18 decisions densification
12:21 13:2 crunched 48:11 22:2 83:22
20:24 26:15 84:3 David 88:24
48:22 49:1,19 declaration
36:16,25 culminating 60:21 density
40:14 53:12 51:21 David's 18:10 93:13
62:13 85:14 50:6 declared
cultural 32:7 37:11 denying
86:1 95:11
43:9 day 55:20 19:11
created 9:12 23:23
culturally dedicated depend
39:9 48:10 31:15 38:15
29:14 93:8 17:8 9:11
85:16 55:4 58:15
cup 95:25 100:17 deed DESC
creates
16:3 66:2 85:19 61:6
40:21,24,25 Daybreak
cure 67:6 deep desert
creating
85:8 98:11 44:24 48:17 78:10
22:17 95:23 days
97:23,25 cures 59:17 100:13, deeply deserve
98:10 93:24 14 94:8 19:16 23:23
creative current deacon 90:1
defined
23:15 6:14 22:1 54:2 36:3 deserves
25:21 40:17 43:6,7 56:3,16
crime
Index: desire to effects
desire developments 33:15 dogs drugs
11:22 9:20,22 26:23 16:20,24 94:1
discussion
desperately die 99:5 dollars Durkan
39:21 43:21 76:12,16 34:1 62:10 76:14 88:17
disparaging
78:8 75:5
died 99:1 dying
destroying 40:8 76:11 door 55:25 94:23
displace
66:18 8:18
difficult 26:20
detached 95:1 101:8 doors E
displaced
57:17 89:25
Dimitri 26:5 90:14 eagles
details 19:13 doorstep 86:16
disposal
70:22 100:4
dinner 11:18 25:5 earlier
devastating 8:15 dorm 9:10 46:2
Disproportiona
54:7 91:9 72:23
dire tely
develop 15:25 51:24 37:15 doubled early
14:23 15:7 53:5 97:19 10:14 60:14
direction distance
30:8 32:25 98:20 75:14
8:22 49:14 62:20
developable doubt earnings
directly district
41:5 22:4 6:25
65:18 28:14 38:14
developed 42:5 65:10 Doug earth
disability
16:8 17:11 70:3 74:7 79:15 87:3 95:1
39:1
30:17 96:22 82:2,20
downtown easily
97:9 disabled
diverse 21:17 31:5 8:16
34:21
developer 8:19 26:16 41:7
34:1 disappointed 35:14 63:16 easy
Draft 72:11 89:6
68:4 85:20
developers 17:12
12:20 34:16 disclosure diverseness economic
dramatic 8:17 26:18
99:21 69:17
developing 19:2 82:19 43:8 47:18
7:12 15:5,21 disconnect diversity
drastically 48:13,18 50:4
17:22 58:5 92:9 23:7 34:8
27:8 74:1 economically
discourse 75:13 77:12
development 59:22
Dreams
6:19 7:9 8:6, 65:14 divert
60:25 61:1 education
12 12:19 Discovery 96:11
16:12 17:4 drive 47:10 53:12
8:16 20:12 divisions
21:16 23:12 9:23,24 10:6 75:14 81:18
21:18 33:8 48:17
27:1,6,9,13 40:5 42:8 48:9 83:11 84:10
34:19 59:9
54:16 56:14 divorced 100:20 101:1
85:14,16 drivers
65:12 66:7 52:13 educational
92:21 95:14 75:16
69:9 70:24 96:16,19 do-able 84:1,7,15
73:1 75:6 drove
73:4 effective
79:21 83:14, discrimination 88:13
19 85:9 95:14 40:17 dog 18:11
drug
16:19,20 effects
discussed 74:23
Index: efficiency to experiencing
51:21 80:14 88:17 ending 60:1 examples
44:10 70:12 39:11
efficiency Emerging estate
23:4 64:3 ends 29:10 40:20 excellent
59:24 92:16
efficient Emily estates
87:2 88:4 engagement 57:11 excited
48:6 26:18,19
efforts emotional estimated
28:24
82:4 54:9 enjoy 80:3,7
16:20 22:19 exciting
EIS emphasize Ethan
35:13 65:22 6:20 12:11
16:19 17:12 59:15 24:15 41:3
20:5 89:21
43:1 enormous
employed ethical
95:23 excuse
either-or 39:2 71:7
16:6 67:23
100:22 ensure
employee Ethiopia
83:20 84:1 exist
either/or 43:17 75:10
15:12 60:13
24:10 ensuring
empty ethnic
84:15 existing
El 29:3 58:17
25:19
75:10 enthusiasm
enclave evaluating
24:20 exiting
elders 7:21 66:4 6:16
44:22
33:17 36:14 entire
enclaves Evans
18:19,20 19:3 expect
electricians 66:3 82:7
39:5
23:21 environment
encourage evening
18:19,20 expected
elementary 6:8 7:1 14:8 12:5 17:1
21:25 83:11 11:9 65:12
72:12 82:25 16:14 17:13 30:20 35:19
83:16 27:11,22 28:6 environmental 43:15 64:1 expenses
32:12 33:2 42:22 85:11 76:24 80:23 44:8
Eliason
34:8,24 67:13 86:6 99:20
71:11 expensive
85:10
environmentall events 12:18 14:18
eliminating
encouraged y 30:25 28:18 42:14
93:20
70:9 96:8 86:9 44:16 60:8
eventually
Elizabeth 64:17
encourages equity 20:2 25:9 60:6
13:9
16:22 27:15 54:20 experience
Everyone's
eluded 84:12 40:13 49:20
encouraging 96:11
40:16 52:16 55:5
62:18 Erica
evicted 87:21
embrace 35:19
end 19:20 60:7,11,
10:22 23:14 experienced
38:20 60:6,10 Erin 16 61:2 95:25
emergencies 40:11 47:17
61:6,7 66:15 12:5
evidence 53:3
88:15 80:25 85:15
espresso 36:4
emergency 91:15 93:6 experiences
59:9
95:5 100:11 evidenced 47:15
32:7 37:10,12
essential 22:4
40:3 55:20 ended experiencing
7:17 35:7
58:24 60:21 64:12 exacerbate 26:8 32:14
61:4,12,13 essentials 93:15 36:12 37:19,
Index: explain to folk
25 38:6 40:22 facility 22 20:8 30:23 feels 9,16 39:2
74:14 63:4,7,8 91:16 31:2 54:15,18 68:5 45:9,16 46:1
56:23 60:7 50:9 53:6
explain facing feet
71:13 74:13 73:20 79:10
74:13 47:22 31:1 56:25
75:6 78:5,10, 94:21 95:17,
57:15
explained fact 13 85:4,5 19 96:8
32:20 62:14 68:3,8 89:16 100:10 fellow 100:24
78:4 94:2 66:20
explore fantastic fine
100:5,25
30:1 42:19 feminist 22:6 25:10
failed 33:9 63:24 88:7
explored far-flung
33:13
38:2 42:13 fence finish
failing 60:24 16:7 83:1
expressed farther
87:12
46:25 18:18 72:13, fenced finished
fair 14,16,17 69:23 43:1
extend
19:16 69:2
21:17 fast fewer fire
94:11
68:18 41:10 89:21
extension
faith
92:17,20 fastest Field firm
36:1,2,3,9,15
100:3 60:25 61:1 81:9,16,18
extent 37:1
30:9 fate Fifteen firmly
fake
48:14 16:9 73:19
extraordinarily 76:17
17:15 fault fight first-
fall
55:6 41:20,23 83:3, generation
extreme 84:24
4 78:22
58:1 faux
faltered
66:15 fighting firsthand
extremely 76:2
31:16 68:24 11:16 43:24
18:8 51:21 favor
familiar 69:1 47:17 49:19
66:1 72:1 7:9,11,12 9:1
72:16 59:12
94:10 30:16 35:24 figuring
families 46:10,12 37:9 fit
eyeballing
6:20 7:3 10:5, 48:24 54:3,24 25:20 75:2
97:7 fill
9 17:21 18:18 65:11 38:1 86:10 fixed
26:10 28:21,
F favored fills 31:21 50:22
25 29:19 31:5,
9:1 86:10
22 36:13 flagger
fabric 38:24 40:5 fear 90:19
10:11 20:24 finally
45:9,13 47:25 26:12 63:20 flaggers
face 48:4,17 54:10,
federal financial 91:2
24:23 48:11 20 59:23 60:4
17:19 37:20 54:19
50:23 65:18 61:24 62:2,5 focus
61:17 77:19
83:2 93:16 77:8,14 82:14, financially 44:7 93:23
94:7 100:15 15,17 84:3,8 feel 84:3 focusing
85:22 16:5 38:20
facilities find 93:20
51:11 52:19
71:20 family 8:9 24:7 25:2, folk
60:20
18:13 19:8,18, 3 26:5 31:2,6, 75:7
Index: folks to government
folks 43:21 44:18 Freedom 9:12 give
18:21 20:23 48:20 49:3,8 34:18 12:1 14:17
fund
22:16 26:24 50:11,16,20 22:18 24:24
Freeman 73:20
42:2 58:5 53:8 57:11,25 30:21 38:10
80:24
60:19 66:4,18 61:15,21 65:4, future 45:2 46:14
78:17 93:17 11 69:22 Fremont 7:5 54:10 52:2 63:19
100:6 72:15 74:2,3, 71:12 87:5 86:18 64:11 69:14
18 82:8 83:7, frequent 91:11,12 98:5
Foltz
9,14 85:12 20:1 54:8 G
39:22 giving
91:14,22,25
frequently 34:15 38:13
food 92:4 93:9 94:9 gain
50:2 53:23
9:12 57:22 54:19
fortunate
59:25 70:6,8 fricking glad
39:24 gaining
95:20 72:3 68:6 77:1
forward 54:20
forced friend global
13:4 17:13 galleries
19:9,10 33:12 81:13 48:13
21:11 33:18 23:9
35:2 87:20
39:19 78:19 friendly goal
forcing Gambino 17:23
fought 20:9 58:14
42:12
66:9 68:22 friends God
forever garage 55:21 56:23
found 7:20 18:18 57:18
12:7 51:11 19:24 32:22, 57:2
11:4 51:13
forget 23 36:13 garbage good
52:25 87:15
78:23 55:24 70:19 69:21 12:5 17:1
foundation 72:15 85:4 gardens 20:19,20
forgo 12:8 96:15,16 34:7 30:20 35:19
74:9
founding frightening 43:15,21
forgot gathering
13:10 100:14 52:21 54:25
78:24 23:8 55:14 56:11
fourth Froehlich
formed gave 58:17 59:9
89:12 21:13
13:12 53:9,10 75:25 62:1 64:1
fraction front 76:24 77:6
Fort general
26:1 8:18 79:11 80:23
6:8,15,19 8:2 79:10 93:2
frankly 86:8,11,17
9:1 10:20 fulfill generation 87:10 88:7
21:8 65:12 11:23
11:11,24 12:4, 67:3,4 99:20
25 13:15 15:8 free full George goofy
17:12,18,22 14:23 29:3 60:15 99:21 59:5 16:24
19:14 21:1,16, 31:13 32:24
18 23:18 35:12 37:20, full-term get-go gotta
25:10,15 23,24 38:2 85:1 82:12 98:11
26:15 29:1,7, 40:19 42:19 full-year gift gouging
20 30:16,22 43:20 44:18 64:11,12 40:20 76:13 35:16
32:4 35:25 61:18 69:24
36:15,24 70:23 71:17 fully Gilbert government
37:18 39:14 73:1 77:19 17:11 38:3 33:6 7:8 25:17
40:18 42:6,15 function 37:21 52:8
Index: grade to Henry
61:17 77:19 21:5 29:22 gym Harborview's 12:9,19 27:10
30:23 52:24 89:23 63:10 81:3,24 88:10
grade
53:2 72:5 95:13
20:14 hard
Groce H 7:19 12:18 heard
grades
19:13 15:13,14,16 8:4 22:13
86:9 Habitat 20:21 25:3 31:15 37:21
grocery 9:16,19,24
graduate 30:25 31:6 56:18 62:17
13:25 14:18 10:10,15,17
43:16 47:9 33:1,11 41:20, 78:3 81:4,11
16:9 22:9 23:9 27:4,5,14 28:8
granddaddies 23 45:9 54:15, 88:13 96:3
49:6 52:11 54:11,14
96:20 18 67:13
71:18 63:20,22 hearing
68:16,17
grandfather 74:25 76:21 24:13 73:16
Groover 90:24 96:18
77:4 74:22 79:2
66:12 hairstylists 99:16
89:13 101:11
grandkids ground 23:22 harder
85:23 heartbreaking
21:11 24:7 half 20:23 31:2
62:11
grateful group 25:11 75:5 hardest
62:17 90:1 heartedly
13:12 79:18 26:24
47:2
great 80:16 85:20 hall harm
9:21 16:21 98:1 heartfelt
groups 18:19,20
23:8 27:12,24 92:10
80:18 85:11 Hammond
32:11 38:12 harming
93:1 64:15 heat
62:19 63:20, 19:11
84:25
grow hand
21 81:22 Hartman
12:24 24:2 23:3 46:14 Heidi
85:19 91:10 70:21
91:11 66:12
greater handle haves
growing 68:17 held
29:4 35:21 84:10
13:7 72:9 87:9 68:3
79:19 93:22 hands
100:3 HDC
95:8 Helen
greatest 17:6,10
grown 33:6
76:8 hang
29:24 head
55:23 Helf
greatly 15:14 40:19
growth 75:19
46:23 hapless 57:3 78:24
6:12 23:2 84:2
87:22 hell
greed 100:23 heads
78:10
34:1 happen 40:6
guarantee
30:5 31:14 Hellenkamp
green 48:16 heal
69:22 86:15 17:3
18:25 23:4 98:13
guess 92:6 helped
greenery 95:9 health
happened 20:15,24 77:9
38:4 51:21 94:1
Gun 53:14 helping
Greenwood 47:21 healthcare
happy 46:3 53:12
64:18 75:20 41:8
guy 24:17 47:3 helps
Greg 89:8 healthy
51:22 73:11 44:21 69:11
46:17 17:9,24 26:1
guys harassers Henry
grew 97:13 101:4,6 hear
34:15
Index: Hernbrott to housing
34:17 hold 86:23 90:14, hometown 46:20 52:25
81:9,16,18 24 91:15 92:1, 9:14 78:22 56:21 58:19
Hernbrott
17,19,24 94:3 64:15 71:22
94:13 holding honest
95:16 97:22, 73:10 75:21
24:13 99:25
herons 25 98:10,15 76:18 77:4
86:16 holistic Honestly 79:4,6 89:11
homelessness
13:12,17 38:20 98:6,9
herring 9:6 13:13
83:23
50:16 14:14,20 honor housed
Hollywood 20:20 26:8 82:4 68:12 90:14
Hesterberg
20:13 32:3,8,14 94:6
63:12 hope
home 33:3,10 36:8, 13:19 26:23,
high households
9:8,10 11:22 12 37:20,25 25 77:11
6:20,22 12:21 49:21,22
17:10,25 38:6 40:11,13, 91:11,19
13:2 38:6 43:7 59:21
18:12 19:7,8, 22 44:11,22
44:25 83:18 49:17 50:2 hoped houseless
18 20:3,15
54:7 55:11,21 36:4,7,16 15:11 87:16
higher 27:7,16,17
9:9 40:12 93:3 28:23 31:9 62:8 65:17 hopes houses
99:2 36:21 37:5 67:16 81:8 9:14 14:3 75:4
39:25 40:3,14, 85:8 88:16,22 87:21,24 90:2,
highest 90:12 91:16 hoping
9:2 10:22 24 42:9 44:7 26:14 5 92:5
45:3,15,21 93:7,25 94:11
12:16 15:17 99:2 100:13 housing
47:8,12 48:9 Hosford
42:10 48:1 6:8,11,14
54:8,20 57:5, homeowner 67:2
70:25 7:11,13 8:2,7,
15 62:7 69:14, 11:1 21:4 27:5 hospitalization
Hill 10 9:4,5 10:2
16 78:14 28:14 38:14 51:22
18:2 43:18 11:3,11,19
79:13 84:23 63:13 75:1,20
50:1 70:12 hospitals 12:4,8,10,15,
85:2 90:8
91:2 homeowners 35:8 17,19,20 13:3,
97:21
17:16 22:25 6,7,14,17,19
Hillary homeless 27:10,14 hosted 14:13,14,17,
32:1 9:7 10:5 11:15 54:14 71:19 45:19 22 15:1,4,21
Hinrichson 12:2 15:25 hosts 17:4,11,16
homes
28:13 19:21 20:14 81:9 18:5 21:7,24
6:15 9:17,24
26:7 30:24 23:3,14,16,18,
historic 10:10 11:20 hotel
33:18 34:22 25 24:8,16,18,
57:11 91:14 12:12,21 20:3
35:1 37:10,14, 19 25:5,8,11,
17:21,22
Historical 15 38:17,23 hour 13,14,20
18:15 19:15
46:19 39:4 42:10 72:23 90:20 26:16,19,25
28:25 29:4,7,
44:1,25 49:20 99:10 27:1,2 28:17
historically 17,19 31:23
55:2 56:6 57:2 29:13 30:8,9,
65:25 40:8,10,14 hours
60:7 61:16 12,15,17,22,
41:9,10 43:20, 24:3 27:15
history 63:3,4,5,7 24 31:3,6,12,
25 44:4,13,17, 43:8 54:16
6:11 48:15 64:6,23 66:14 14,16 32:4,17,
22 53:15,21 64:8 90:19,25
75:25 76:1 67:21 69:7 19,25 33:4,12,
54:17 60:5
74:14,15 76:9, house 17,20 34:2,3,
hit 69:24 75:24
10,14 80:25 7:24 12:6 4,6,21 35:7,9,
26:24 33:10 78:13,16
81:1,5 85:7 25:24 34:2 15,25 36:8,24
Index: howling to influx
38:19 39:2,3, 101:1 ideal importantly 65:23 76:7
9,18,20 40:3, 49:17 47:10 81:7 91:7
howling
4,8,21,22 95:15,16 98:4
88:16 ideally impossible
41:5,21,25 99:3 101:5
49:14 62:22 11:23 53:19
42:1,2,6,17,24 huge
97:18 incomes
43:18,19,23 30:14 33:18 ideals
8:20 17:18
44:1,24 45:10 84:12 9:2 10:22 improve
31:21 44:6
46:5,13 47:15 41:6,7,8
human ideas 50:23
48:20 49:2,15, 14:13 18:9 6:12 24:24 improvement
17,23 50:17, increase
19:8 35:2 56:1 19:2 39:6
20 51:1,6,7, II 6:25 7:2 41:4
59:11 65:20
16,17,18 52:1, 38:7 78:6 improves 65:20 74:2
66:22
20,24 53:3,6, 40:25
imagination increased
7,13 54:25 humanitarian
101:7 improving 8:1 88:23
55:2,9,13 88:16
23:3 99:15
56:14 57:25 imagine
humanity
58:6 59:3,13, 35:4 43:3 inaccessible increases
9:16 27:5 28:8
22 61:21,22 59:18 79:5 17:17 18:17 32:16
54:12 74:25
62:9,10,14 immediately inaudible 50:24
76:21 89:6
63:14,15,20, 25:18 66:25 90:6 increasing
22 64:4 65:6, hundred
immigrant include 17:17 18:9
12,16,20,25 19:1 54:16
44:2 35:21 38:23 23:2
66:10,13,24 hundreds
67:10 68:7,9, 75:12 83:8 increasingly
7:4 14:21 immoral
10 69:2,23 65:23 included 26:4
49:21 68:20
70:15,16,24 7:22 incredible
hurt impact
71:3,6,8,14,15 17:19 30:2
34:23 7:4 12:10,16 includes
72:15 73:1,15, 92:9
22:3 43:24 68:14 82:14
18,23 74:6,21 husband
53:18 54:7 incredibly
76:6,7,12,16, 7:18 47:8,9 including
86:6 53:22
20 78:1,7,15, 13:13,15 23:1
Hyatt
18 79:21 80:3, impacted 35:22 Indian
89:1
4,6,7,8,19 26:18 37:16 92:25
inclusion
81:1,2,7,8 hygiene
impacts 97:3 indigenous
82:6,11,12,15, 61:7 69:6
16:18 21:25 93:5
21 83:4,10,19, inclusive
hyperactive 22:8
23,24,25 24:8 individuals
40:20
84:14 85:8,19, impaired 45:9
income
21 86:1,12,13 96:17,18
7:3 15:22 inequity
87:1,6,14,16, I
imperative 16:13 20:7 65:18
23 88:2,8,23 39:7 22:16,19
91:7,10 92:3, iceberg inexpensive
88:23 26:21 30:11
8,17 93:8 important 86:9
33:17 34:6,7,
94:5,6,8,16,22 iconic 17:23 18:10
12,14 36:13 infinitely
95:4,15,19,20, 93:5 30:7 31:23
49:7 59:20,22, 47:19
25 96:8 97:6, 32:25 46:25
idea 24 60:12
7,10,13 98:17 48:9 59:10 influx
49:4 50:15 63:17 64:4
99:24 100:6,9 67:9 78:9 96:2 66:17
Index: infrastructure to land
infrastructure involved Jarosz Jungle King
13:18,20 70:2 96:14,15 84:17 60:25 17:5 22:23
73:2 84:1,16 27:23,25 28:1,
Ireland Jeff justly
99:6 3 32:2 35:22
95:20 14:11 72:8
38:17,22 40:7
infrastructures
island Jenny 87:17 92:24
82:13 K
99:8,17 61:20 76:13
kisses
injured 88:17
isolated Karen 76:15
55:6
13:23 16:16 Jerry 52:6 kitchen
injustice 66:11
isolating Keaton 90:2
26:18
16:16 Jessica 65:8 Kitsap
innovation 50:18
Issac Kelly 96:9
6:13
37:3 Jim 29:22 Knipe
innovative 84:17
issue key 25:23
6:14
57:23 58:11 job 70:22 Knowing
inside 84:12 92:19 19:20 44:8
kicked 77:17
32:9 94:2 95:10 99:13 51:12,15,16
60:13,16 62:6 76:18 98:8 Kroger
inspired issues
90:19 97:21 kid 70:7
79:1 9:6 10:21 11:8
42:20 47:1 joblessness 53:24
instability
100:19 48:2 L
53:3 kids
Iulia jobs 8:16 9:7 20:7
integration labor
74:20 8:3,20 23:5 26:10 28:2
66:9 78:7
30:5 33:11 31:8 32:21,22
Ivory 53:17 62:6 Lachman
interesting 47:10 50:14
75:11 71:12 90:7,8 77:25
23:9 86:17 62:3 78:17
intergeneratio 90:15 kill lack
J
nal John 76:3,14 15:25 58:10
40:15 88:13 59:13 71:20
Jamaica killed
95:7
international 75:11 Johnson 76:3
47:22 88:5 lacked
James killing
87:13
internment 13:9 52:23 join 93:21
16:5 53:2 84:17 48:4 58:10 lady
kind
96:10 80:15 97:16
interstate 11:11 15:2
95:18 Janet Jones 24:6 38:7 Lake
85:3 62:25 40:15 68:4 10:16 56:21
invaluable
77:8 78:5
11:24 Janis Joseph Lampi
80:17 98:5
81:20 77:25 60:18
invest 100:7,15,22,
22:11 27:2,15 January July 24 land
39:5 70:12 57:20 6:17 10:18
invite kinds
12:15,17,25
69:16 Japanese jump 60:5 72:21
13:6 14:2,7,24
78:6,11 11:13 17:19 18:25
Index: landlord to Lockhart
25:4,8 26:15, 32:5 35:25 82:25 88:5 12:17 16:17 24 52:3,7
20 27:12 29:1, 36:15,24 98:24 44:6 101:7 53:23 56:3,21
2,3,10 30:13 37:18 39:14 59:6,16,23
lend limiting
31:13,16 40:18 42:6,15 62:4,20 63:16
66:19 8:7
32:24 37:17, 43:21 44:18 65:10,17 67:5,
19,23 38:1,2, 48:20 49:3,9 lenders Lindsay 6,17,18,21,25
9,11 40:19 50:12,16,20 60:4 37:21 75:25 70:16 71:12
41:5 42:19,21 53:8 57:11,25 letter lines 74:13,25 77:5,
43:7,20 44:16, 61:15,21 65:4, 93:7 67:13 6,23,24 80:24
18 46:24 11 69:22 84:18 87:4
61:18 69:10 72:12,15 74:2, level Link 88:8 90:1,8
70:23,24 3,18 82:8,25 72:25 42:25 43:2 94:2,14,19
71:17 73:1 83:7,9,14 levels Lisa 95:11
74:8 77:19,20 85:12 91:14, 22:16 48:5 64:1 67:25 lived
79:11 90:4 22,25 92:4 59:23 82:7 8:25 11:6
93:9 94:9
landlord leverage list 22:24 46:17
11:4 64:11 lead 6:17 14:7 53:5 47:3,7 72:15
34:19 39:8 17:19 80:19 98:7
Lang listed
57:6
93:18 levy 57:12 lives
leader 80:3,6 19:3 23:23
large lists
93:5 28:7 40:9
19:4 57:16 libraries 51:2,18 43:25 52:4
73:1 leaders 35:8
literally 90:16
93:6
larger life 71:1 living
77:16 leadership 18:9 19:17
livability 8:3 10:10
32:7 23:17 27:8
lasted 12:9 23:3 15:16 19:11
20:17 leads 40:7 46:18 22:3 23:17
94:18 47:3 59:14 live 25:24 26:6,21
late 60:10 79:7 6:3,22 7:7
20:11 51:14 learned 29:9 31:9 37:4
98:7 100:14 8:20 10:9 43:9,23 44:6
84:24 9:8 11:16 14:17 15:10,
51:13 87:9 lifestyle 51:20 52:16
laundromat 20 17:9 18:2, 57:15 84:22
19:10
89:22 lease 16 19:10 87:19 94:16
64:11,12,13 lifetime 20:21,25
Laura 6:25 21:14 22:22, loan
70:11
6:2 48:21 25 23:6,19,23, 46:21 47:11
leave lift
Lawton 24 24:2 26:1, local
13:4 65:21 15:10
6:8,15,19 8:2 9,11,16 27:5, 43:17 48:10
84:9 lights 20 28:1,2,3,
9:1 10:20 50:12 75:12
11:11,24 12:4 leaving 55:24 11,19 29:15, 93:5
13:1,15 15:8 24:24 25:15 LIHI's 23 30:11
17:12,18,22 51:12 33:12 34:10, location
69:5 49:5,9,13,24
19:14 21:1,16, 13 35:2,13
Lee likelihood
18 23:18 37:4,13 39:23 locations
92:22 35:15
25:10,15 40:2,23 43:6 39:10 50:12
26:15 29:1,7, left limited 44:5,19 46:4,
69:21 76:13 22 48:8 49:17, Lockhart
20 30:16,22
Index: locks to matters
88:4 73:6,10 86:25 luxury Magnolians marginalized
87:2 93:19 29:7 89:18 98:25 36:11 65:21
locks
97:8,15 99:1
51:4 72:23 mail margins
100:18 M 14:18 34:13
lodge
lots
89:20 Madden main Mark
60:12 63:9
52:24 53:2 73:7 39:22
logistics 70:19
99:6 made maintained market
Lou
22:6,13,15 34:12 9:15 11:3 13:3
long 48:21
32:10 38:10 14:8 15:23
13:5 24:3 28:4 major
love 60:22,25 17:16 40:21
35:18 36:10, 47:18 70:7
15:18 22:24 79:24 85:16 47:13,15
17 51:2,3,18
24:2 29:14 majority 51:17 58:3
53:4 77:7,8 madness
32:18 34:19 60:2 70:18 72:6,7
83:3 101:6 41:19
36:21 49:24 make 80:8,9 84:19
long-term 76:14 91:8,11, magnitude 90:6
8:15 9:3,11
10:20 11:12 12,20,21 24:23 19:2,15 20:18, market-rate
18:9 51:9
love" Magnolia 20 22:15 16:13 62:10
long-time 71:10 7:20 8:13 11:1 23:10 30:6 76:6 92:3
21:4,20 72:5 20:4 21:5,18 44:13 54:12
low married
27:9,22 28:7 59:8,24 65:4
longer 7:3 15:22 67:3,5
29:23 35:23 77:22 78:5,9
40:4 82:25 16:13 17:15,
41:1 45:6,22 79:24 80:20 marshal
looked 17 20:7 25:6,
46:18,19,23 86:16 87:14 80:17
20:7 18 26:21
49:25 50:1,5 89:25 90:5,6,
30:11 33:17 marvel
loopholes 51:4 52:7,17 20,22 91:2,8
34:7,12 36:13 9:25
34:16 54:2,13 58:1 93:1 98:3,4,23
48:5 49:7,10, Mary
59:6 62:20 99:2
lose 11 59:20,24 69:4
64:4 76:7 81:6 63:13,15 66:3, makes
59:1 60:16
91:7 93:12 5,11,16 67:5 29:8 47:21 mason
84:7 92:14
95:15,16 98:3 68:1,14,19,21 69:17 86:8,11 55:5
losing 69:3 72:5 74:7 94:16
lower Master
26:12 75:4 76:3 77:7
22:22 94:14, making 22:23
79:12 80:24
lost 18 98:16 17:23 33:18
81:21,23 82:1, Masters
19:20 51:15 35:14 57:10
LR 15,16,18,19 37:21
55:8 59:2 66:4
78:12,13,14, 41:5 84:18 85:9,18 materials
86:5 88:7,11 man
16 Luckily 80:2
89:2 90:7 51:10,13
lot 85:2 math
91:4,14,22 63:24
14:3 15:1 lucky 92:8 93:19 62:4
16:21 20:6,14 manager
11:3 30:3,4 94:14 97:7 matter
24:21 30:6 12:6 17:4 51:3
37:5 38:14 99:7,16,22 40:6,7
33:23,25 61:23
79:3
Magnolia- matters
57:17 60:23, managing
Ludwick queen 70:23
24 67:12,17 49:20
72:14,17,20 18:1 82:2 97:9
Index: Matthew to movies
Matthew Melissa 75:10 56:6 76:18 81:13
93:17 89:1 84:22
middle missile
maximize member 15:5 48:4 85:14,16 moral
45:1 73:24 13:11 14:12 71:13 79:12, 22:18 39:7
missing
50:19 54:3 14 83:16
maximum 24:25 77:21 morning
56:10 64:3
96:4 midst 58:18 99:10
65:9 79:16,18 mission
36:11 42:9
mayor 87:4 92:23 34:9 mortgage
74:11
60:22 76:13 27:16 54:17
members misstating
88:17 Mike
6:5 11:21 34:5 Moser
71:11
mayors 24:14 73:15 48:22 49:1,19
mistake
97:16,24 74:12 mile
56:12 62:15 Mosqueda
21:14 59:6
mayors' membership 87:14 92:18 6:5
88:14 17:6 military
mixed mother
38:10 72:14
Mccleary men 18:25 44:2 52:25
75:17 93:3
83:4 11:19 53:10
mobilization
Millerberry
Mccoy mental 17:3 motorist
45:5
57:6 94:1 55:7
model
million
Mcintosh mention 93:12 mountains
29:8 57:14
96:10 75:13 96:3 96:25
75:5 97:17,18 moderate
meaningful mentioned 17:18 34:6 mouthing
million-dollar
10:20 46:1 60:21 96:12
29:17 Moldova
means 74:5 80:11 75:11 move
93:11 millionaires
48:9 65:2 13:4 14:9
29:11 mom
87:11,23 Mercy 17:13 18:17
28:15 31:7
94:18,22,25 16:11 mind 19:9 20:1
84:21 85:1
61:14 88:12 21:11 39:3
measure merits moms 42:13 45:16,
53:19 50:3 minors
62:5 25 47:8 56:24
38:24
median message 78:19 82:17
money
9:8 35:17 71:9 minutes 85:13 89:4
30:6 52:14,15
65:22 28:4 52:11 94:4 99:19
met 55:7 59:25
96:13
medical 15:15 44:1 86:25 87:2 moved
75:17 69:12 miraculous 90:5 91:3 7:19 39:19
40:20 97:24 100:11, 47:6 52:12
meet Methodist
23 70:11 81:23
13:6 14:23 79:16 misdefinition
16:23 17:20 34:4 month 85:2 95:17,18,
Metro 21
59:24 80:5 39:18 50:6
91:25 misdirected
65:2,3 movements
meeting 66:15
metropolitan 66:9
88:5 months
47:18 58:3 misery
19:21 31:8,10 movies
meetings 72:7 84:19 59:24
45:13 47:7 20:13
8:4 68:3
Mexico missed 51:15,20
Index: moving to occupied
moving 11:10 43:21 19 38:23 66:18 59:5 60:18
19:24 82:16 54:21 58:21 39:25 41:2 61:19 62:14,
nonwhite
84:4 71:3 77:8,15, 44:25 74:12, 25 63:12 64:1
66:18
16 78:8,15 14,22 75:8 65:8 67:2,25
Murray
80:8 87:9,10,13,15, normal 69:4 70:10
60:22
20,22 88:2 7:20 8:2,3 71:11 72:4
needing
Myra 70:15 73:13 74:2,20
68:10 net
78:21 75:19 76:24
85:4 North
needles 77:25 78:21
8:13 18:2 67:6
N 69:21 networks 79:15 80:23
73:10
35:21 81:20 82:7
negative
name's Northeast 83:6 84:17
16:18 news
18:1 46:17 99:22 86:4 87:3 88:4
47:22
53:2 54:1 negatively 89:1 90:11
nostalgic
78:21 79:15 22:3 nice 91:4,24 92:22
57:14
92:22 96:10 53:7,8 88:6 93:17 94:13
neighbor
note 95:13 96:10
named 15:18 nicely
7:10 97:12 98:22,
93:4 75:2
neighborhood 24 99:20
notes
Nardone 6:3 7:15,18 Nick
49:19 numbers
15:20 8:3,12 10:8 42:4
15:9,10 18:6 November 38:6,21 39:6
nation Nicki 62:7
21:6 22:22 32:6 55:19
93:19 17:3
23:1,24 27:20 64:7 Nurses
native 29:12 33:19, Nigeria 23:20
Novembers
33:7 75:12 24 35:13,23 75:11
37:12 nursing
77:20,23 40:25 41:2 night
45:15 46:6 number 44:3
92:25 93:6 11:19 20:11
52:13 53:9 6:2 7:7 8:24 nuts
native- 42:11 74:11
65:22 66:19 10:24 12:5 41:22
provided 92:1
74:25 77:7 13:9 14:11
93:8 81:6,7,12,14, NIMBY 15:20 17:1
O
natural 15,19 85:25 80:20 18:1 19:13
96:23 89:7 21:3,13 22:21
NIMBYS obligation
24:12 25:23
naturally neighborhood 76:2 22:18
27:3 28:12
51:5 s Nims 29:22 30:20 obstacle
6:21,22 10:1 52:6 32:1 33:6 70:25
nature
13:15 23:6,16 34:17 35:3,19
9:5 30:1 96:19 Noble obstruction
24:1 85:10 37:3 38:12
Neal 93:13 34:17 39:16
39:22 40:12
60:18 nonpartisan 41:16 42:4 occupancy
neighborly
nearby 87:11 13:11 43:15 44:25 57:14
14:1 22:9 nonprofit 45:5 46:17 occupations
neighbors
14:24 17:6,7 47:5 48:21 75:14
necessarily 7:22 10:13
43:17 68:11 50:18 52:6,23
99:3 11:25 12:13 occupied
54:1,22 56:8
15:11 16:23 nonwealthy 80:21
needed 57:6 58:14
35:14 36:12,
Index: occur to parks
occur online 100:2 outdoors Pacific
74:24 43:3 42:11 9:19
oppose
occurred Oona 92:2 95:14 outreach paid
92:10 29:22 12:6 46:21
opposed
occurring open 15:21 62:15 outwards paint
51:6 24:6 48:16 24:2 91:1
opposition
66:14 72:23
off-site 65:13 68:2,5, outweighs palatial
83:15 86:12
39:10 17 42:23 29:10
92:14,20
offering 96:19 oppressive overcrowded paper
23:16 50:24 68:24 16:4
open-space
offers 96:20 option overdue parcel
57:15 73:21 13:22 21:15 13:5 15:6 38:9
opened
74:3 24:22 28:25
10:2 overlooked parcels
60:17 71:7
office 50:21 25:3
opening 82:5 88:24
23:21 83:25
42:25 81:12 93:10 94:7,12 overwhelming parents
officer 60:1 6:24 26:10
operational optional
92:5 29:16 46:19
83:17 23:11 owe
79:3
Officer's 76:10
opportunities options
57:12 parents'
7:5 13:2 16:17 13:21,22 14:6 owned
85:2
officers 40:14,24 43:9 22:9 23:10,17, 12:25 13:6
23:20 50:13 73:24 19 24:4 94:18 30:22 34:2 park
79:10 84:7 35:15 75:7 6:3 8:16 16:19
officers' order
92:20 99:12 87:6 20:12 21:18
29:6 83:18
22:6 27:6
opportunity owner
offices organization 29:9,10,16
6:13,20,21,22 10:25
86:23 17:6 27:20 33:8 34:8,11,
7:2 10:19 owners
Olivier 33:9 36:1 19,23 37:18
11:10,12,25 37:17 75:15
17:3 38:16 40:25
13:8 16:2 organization's
ownership 42:21 43:7
Olympia 17:2,10,19 79:20
27:7 40:14,24 50:11 52:3
85:2 21:7 22:11,18 organizations
47:13 67:7 72:16
24:25 27:12, 28:9
Olympic 85:12,15,16,
24 28:10,12, Ownfortlawton
96:25 organized 21,25 92:4,16,
24 30:1 31:22 .com
85:12 21 95:14
one's 32:11,19 57:8 96:16,17,19,
68:24 36:15 38:13 organizer
owning 23 97:3,4,5,11
41:14 42:19 24:15 35:20
one-bedroom 43:20 44:17 23:10 parking
84:4 57:7 73:14
45:2 50:4 52:2 81:25 93:18 15:1 41:10
one-night 55:13 57:10 P 63:9
11:14 94:3 63:21,23 original
37:17 parkland
73:22 74:9 p.m.
ongoing 92:12
79:6 80:22 originally 101:11
50:10 parks
88:1 92:14 87:8
Index: part to play
16:20 38:3 patterns 13,16,25 88:18 92:25 Pioneer
96:20 49:15 38:15,18,19, 93:1 94:3 55:23
25 40:5,8,9,23 97:13
part Patterson pit
41:10,25
9:17 10:11 27:6 perfect 89:21
42:11,12,15
11:14 23:22 33:21 35:10
Paul 43:4 44:3,11, pitted
26:17 27:19 69:23
76:6 21,22,23 45:2, 82:10
29:12 34:8
12,22 48:23 period
39:23 68:13 pay place
49:7 52:2 28:1 45:21
85:10 88:8 27:16 46:2 6:12 7:12 8:14
54:17 56:6,24 53:20,22,23 permanent 16:15 18:6
partial 54:14,15,16,
64:17 10:5 40:1,8,21 21:1,21,23
14:5 18 55:16 76:16,18 81:1 23:23 25:25
paycheck 58:25 59:2,3
partner 87:14,16 29:15,24,25
14:20 60:5,12,20,24
70:9 73:20 35:10 39:25
61:1,2,7 62:24 permits
91:6 payday 40:2 45:2,22
63:16,18,21 92:8
60:4 46:14 48:8
partners 64:21,22,24 person 56:3 59:16
14:24 17:8 paying 65:1,5,19 66:6 48:8 52:16 62:1 67:16
33:11 34:15 67:18,20,22
partnership 58:16 91:24 69:15,23
60:2 68:4,9,12,18
70:5 96:3,17 97:22 77:23 84:2
payment 69:6,11,12,13, 93:4
parts 15,17,18 person's
52:15
9:18 10:21 70:15,17 71:3, 59:14 places
27:23 38:1 PC 23 72:21,23 45:23 50:8
personally
66:15 76:9,10,11,12, 57:22 93:14
parttime 76:12 97:2
60:13 pedestrian 14,16,17 77:6, 100:8 97:8
41:6 12 80:12,25 plain
Party 81:5,6,10,24 pharmacists
34:18 peers 75:15 28:10
88:7,21 89:24
20:16 plan
pass 90:1,5 92:1, Phelps-
33:1 41:15 people 12,13 94:19, goodman 7:10,11 10:15
43:22 44:17 7:14,20,22,23 22 95:1,25 24:15 12:3 13:5,18
8:2,19 9:3,11, 96:8 97:23,25 15:4 29:18
passed phenomenal 55:11,12
13 10:21 98:10,15,18,
31:1 61:5 28:6 56:13 57:13
11:15 12:2 24 99:2,12,18
past 15:10,13 16:5, phonetic 85:9,19 92:7
people's
8:4 21:18 15,16,22 17:9, 91:5 planned
31:24 43:25
40:17 45:8 17 18:16 23:5, 78:2 99:14
physical
47:6 66:9 92:4 6,13,17,19,22 perceived
39:1 planner
24:1,2 26:1,4, 58:12
pathetic 59:12
8,11,21 27:24 pick
61:13 71:16 percent
28:10,19,21 9:24 94:20 planning
77:11 6:23 7:24 9:9
30:3,10,11 35:17 38:25 picture 83:25
pathway 31:15,20,21 39:1,2 56:5 8:12,15,19 platter
83:18 32:9,13,17,20 59:21 65:20 71:2
33:18 34:6,7, piece
Patricia 66:4 79:8,9
13,22,24 35:1, 15:6,22 66:12 play
22:21 80:7 87:15,17
12 36:13 37:7, 32:21 34:7
Index: played to proposal
played posh presented prioritization profit
73:18 57:12 49:22 73:25 36:18 11:2
playground positive presents prioritize program
82:25 23:5,12 43:24 17:18 13:5 27:7 50:7 61:6
64:4,10 70:3
pleasure positively preserving Prioritizing
76:17
81:22 7:4 83:11 12:14
programs
plumbers possibly press prison
49:20 51:1
23:21 18:7 30:18 20:23 78:12
61:24
68:10
point pressing prisoners
progress
42:8 58:12 potential 83:10 38:9
27:17 32:10
60:9 79:23 7:15 8:5
pressure private
91:17,18 progressive
potty 83:22 17:7 29:10
44:20 62:23
points 84:25 84:10
pretend 72:2
77:21 79:22
Poulsbo 15:12 privately
92:9 project
84:24 34:2
pretty 8:21 10:15
police
Poverty 43:4 61:13 privilege 12:12 18:4
23:20
33:10 72:11,12 25:24 30:3,4 27:9,13,21
policies 96:13 41:13 43:1,11
power probability
12:9 66:2 48:25 49:5
100:24 prevailing 48:3
76:5,9 59:7 63:2 64:3
90:22
powerhouse problem 74:5,21 78:2,
policy
48:13 preventative 8:7 15:23 19 81:10,18
17:4 48:10
93:24 18:12 30:14 86:9 89:12
73:23 practice
46:3 58:12 99:18
36:3 prevention
polluting 80:2,11 93:15,
49:20 projections
19:10 pre-k 25 94:7 98:14
70:3 previous 84:5
pollution problems
64:8 projects
18:8,17 preachy 8:8,10 13:13
88:6 previously 40:19 74:24 18:25 19:4
poor 27:19 66:10
10:5 74:4 82:20 95:7
46:22 48:4 precipice 81:1,2
92:13 97:14 100:12 price proceed
9:9 41:12 promise
population preferred 29:9
37:14,16 38:5 21:15 82:5 priced process
42:10 92:24 9:14 11:2 22:5 39:16 promises
pregnant 60:25 88:14
93:2 94:3 28:22 83:9 94:9
84:22 85:1
porches prices product property
prepared 14:2 15:22
69:20 9:10 76:8
39:15 17:18 30:13
porta primarily professional 36:24 69:18
Presbyterian
84:25 69:9 47:10 74:6 78:16
54:2
portables primary professionals 97:3,19
present
82:23 98:13 75:15 proposal
90:11
7:16 9:1 22:2
Index: proposed to red
33:21 54:4 purchased questions 40:10 11 57:7 58:15
89:9 91:6,23 46:19 36:20 47:4 60:19 63:1
raised
64:2,21,22
proposed pursue quick 19:19 46:14
7:8,10 26:15 74:1,17 77:18 49:4 67:4 reality
43:13 46:8 48:10
pursuing quicker rampant
53:8 59:7
44:2 67:24 35:16 36:9 realtor
65:11 74:2
46:18
83:14 85:13 Push quickly ran
52:1,2 43:5,11 73:8 55:7 reason
protected
89:4 90:17 13:16 41:17
38:8 pushing range
69:16 73:25
18:13,15 quiet 8:20 81:3
proud 76:1 100:5
88:21 75:3
9:21 53:23 rap
reasonable
75:9 85:22 put quote 62:1
21:25 35:12
21:23 25:5 66:11,13,15
prove rapid 58:20
35:4 54:16 93:4
18:24 61:24 62:9
55:8 61:24 reasons
quote-unquote 64:10,12
provide 65:19 70:3 27:11 70:23
49:10
12:12 13:2,18 76:25 82:5 rate
recall
84:6 87:23 89:21,22,23, quoting 14:8 15:23
20:11
25 101:2 22:14 50:24 51:17
provided
93:3 received
35:6 putting QUOW
47:23
16:5,11 92:3 88:13 rates
public
17:15 48:1 recent
9:7 17:8 22:11
R 45:6 64:9
25:3 26:20 Q Raven
87:15
29:2 30:14,17 70:10
31:13 33:20 QFC race recently
47:20 63:17 Ravenna
34:3 35:7,8,9 70:7 72:10 37:8 61:5 64:7
38:16 99:22
42:6 47:23 qualified Rachael 70:11
54:6 57:19 18:1 reach
27:16 recess
62:13 66:9 91:17
qualify racial 45:4 74:19
79:11 82:11, reached
27:18 66:1,9 recognize
21 83:3,8 48:23 91:18
84:9,10,14 quality racist 67:22
66:8 read
publicly 12:21 13:3 recognizes
16:18 56:13
12:25 13:6 22:3 43:7 Radical 21:8
57:7
30:21 35:15 quarter 33:9 recommendati
87:6 reading
25:12 100:10 railroad on
57:19,23
publicly- Queen 99:8 12:16
owned ready
22:22 37:4 rainbow reconcile
12:14 28:20
68:15 73:14 91:2 100:21,25
punishing 82:19 83:2 real
rainy record
48:8 94:14 8:6,9 34:13
84:24 65:17 99:5
39:12 40:20
purchase question
raise 54:23 56:9,10, red
47:8 47:2 56:18
Index: Redell to rides
50:16 72:6 rehousing renter 73:14 81:21 13:25 14:8
61:24 62:9 11:1 42:5 86:4 89:2 23:8
Redell
64:10,12 71:12 99:21,22
10:24 restrictions
reject renters Residential 66:2
redeveloped
88:1 17:16 51:9 33:17
29:7 restructure
59:25
relates residents 43:4
redeveloping
36:6 renting 13:12 16:2
19:14 result
20:13 50:22 21:20 44:1
relationships 7:15 60:3
redevelopment 50:7 51:6
20:16 33:14 Renton 65:18
59:7 61:16 54:13,14 58:2
9:18
83:9 relocated 66:5,16,20 retail
19:22 rents 68:19 75:12 7:23 23:10,21
Redmond
9:10 42:12 85:9,18,24
27:4 rely retain
65:18 95:23
42:14 85:4,6 resisting 7:17
reduced 96:4 98:17
62:3 remains 23:2 retired
reparations
12:23 48:16 resonate 7:22 12:2
reduction 76:11,20
98:2 remember 71:9 return
repeatedly
32:12 55:19 resounding 62:8
redundant 81:4
72:9 36:19
79:25 returning
report
reminiscent resource 9:13
reflect 77:22 86:6
66:8 11:18 74:8
36:2 review
reporter
remnants resources 22:5
refrain 53:11 66:12
42:21 30:19
12:19 reviewing
representative
remote respect 80:2
refurbishing 33:8
49:5,9 50:16 56:16,17
86:25 revival
99:5 represented 88:14 100:19 57:11
refuse 75:8
remove response
66:19,20,22 rhetoric
35:15 representing 60:22 61:3,12 66:8
regained 17:7 65:13
removed
44:2 rich
50:4 required responsibility 29:14 34:10
region 84:16 73:20 94:25
renewables 75:4 92:13
18:20 19:3 95:10
88:19 research
100:21 Richard
28:6 responsible
rent 58:14
regional 90:15
30:12 34:14 Reservoir
49:18 50:15 richer
35:16 50:10 71:23 rest
97:4,5 63:18
56:25 60:2 50:24 52:3
resident
regular 65:20 68:12 69:6,12 75:3 richest
13:10 21:4,14
11:22 80:9,10 94:16 84:11 55:17 67:20
22:8 41:17
regularly 96:1,3 Riders
43:18 44:19 restaurant
35:1 rental 45:6 52:7 59:6 23:20 93:18
rehoused 50:24 62:19 64:3 rides
restaurants
60:8 66:11 72:5 91:25
Index: ridiculous to senior
ridiculous RV Sang 50:10 Seattle's
31:10 100:7 84:25 99:21 9:8 13:7,15
seat
57:11 65:25
riled Ryan Santa 29:20
76:8
33:24 88:13 10:2,4
Seathl
Seattleites
rise Ryesha save 93:5
6:12,18 74:12
9:10 25:19 91:5 40:9 44:8
seats 87:13,16
role Sawyer 83:15,20
S secret
48:13 66:22 64:2
Seattle 65:16
73:17
sacrifice scale 6:13 7:5,25
secretary
roll 92:20 80:1,11,13 8:19,25 9:3,7,
52:13
16:4 18,20 10:4,22,
sad scarce
25 11:7,15 section
roof 72:1 10:18
12:7,17,22 42:23
15:14 57:2
saddened scarcest 13:4,11 17:5,
sections
roofs 26:9 74:8 16 18:6 19:5,
50:21
40:6 19 20:1,25
sadistic scarf
21:4,14 22:13, Security
room 70:18 71:9
15,24,25 50:23 60:13
16:21 20:6
Sadly Scarp 24:15 25:24 64:21,23 65:1,
22:13,15
39:5 98:22 26:8 28:11,18 5
24:18 82:22
schedule 29:12,13 30:8, seek
Roosevelt safe
67:24 13,23 31:2,5 54:18
71:23 17:9,24 36:23 32:2 33:7
38:10 39:3 school segregated
root 35:21 36:7,22
43:24 56:3 10:12 19:17 47:19 63:17
8:8 93:23,25 40:5,11,16,23
65:6 94:5 20:16 47:23 66:1
41:17 42:8,9,
routes safely 53:11 70:2 18 43:9 44:16, segregation
58:8 72:22 26:2 72:12,18 19 45:8 47:6, 48:19
75:16 82:8,25 9,13,15 48:12
routinely safety 83:7,16,18 49:8,14,18,21, segregationist
21:17 31:24,25 86:22,24 23 50:7,14 66:8
row 74:23 85:3 89:22 101:2 53:23 54:5,6 selective
57:12 92:5 sale 55:18 59:10
school-age 69:1
rule 9:8 60:23 40:11 61:23 62:6
63:2 64:16,18 sell
37:22 Salvador schools 65:4,9 67:3,4, 14:7 90:3,4
rules 75:10 9:7 35:9 54:6 6 68:18 70:11 selling
37:23 Sammamish 68:24 71:21 73:11,14 74:8 14:3 71:24
run 9:18 82:14,18,22 75:25 76:5 76:5
60:24 70:6 83:2,5,8,16, 77:3,9 79:19
sanctuary 20,22 84:9,14 sells
41:14 55:19 81:8 83:8,10
rush 70:8
scope 85:5,8 87:19
99:10 Sanders 99:18 101:7 88:8,14 90:17 Semet
Russell 73:13 93:13 94:1 86:4
54:22 score
Sandpoint 96:13
49:10,11,12 senior
16:6,8,12
Index: seniors to social-service
51:1,16,18 shame 8:13 16:14 simply skills
20:14 63:9 40:6 44:25 30:5
seniors
51:18 58:12
7:3 15:24 share short skyrocketing
70:15
17:21 29:1,19 41:9 51:11 42:25 61:8 42:12 95:24
31:20 34:21 65:24 66:21 71:24 98:23 single
sleep
44:5,22 50:22 96:14 100:9 6:24 31:7 55:3
Shortly 19:24 45:20
51:8,23 60:11 62:5 70:25
Share/wheel 51:12 63:3 92:1
85:21 96:3
61:8
shout sleeping
sense single-car
shared 46:14 38:16 42:11
31:24 80:1 88:21
17:23 21:22 51:19
show
senses 22:17 44:12 site
22:4 32:16 Slonsky
77:12 6:16,19 7:2,13
Sharon 40:13 65:8
12:22 13:1
September 62:25
showed 15:8 21:15,25 small
64:9
Shaw 43:24 25:10,18 8:21 10:25
serve 46:17 30:22 35:10 15:6 25:3 26:1
shown
6:17 31:19 39:10,17 42:23 68:11,
Shawn 87:21
49:21 68:14 41:22 42:7,15 13 73:2 75:15
67:2
82:2 93:2 shows 43:2 49:3 84:23,25
Shelley 21:24 52:8,10,20
served smile
56:23 58:8 59:10 67:15
71:1 shudder 16:24
Shelly 53:14 69:9 71:22
service 73:9 74:3 Smith
56:8
9:12 10:25 side 85:14,16 87:7, 59:5
59:11 shelter 48:15 24 88:25 Snohomish
10:5 26:5,12,
services sided site's 22:23
13 31:5 38:18
23:5 41:8 46:2 68:5 72:13
45:12 61:8 Snoqualmie
49:6,15 50:5 sidewalks
64:15 76:16 sites 75:1,4
93:9 99:14 91:1
81:12,14,15 42:3 Snyder
set 86:24 sight sitting 14:11
81:1 96:18
shelters 29:3 soaring
settles 33:13 35:3 sign situation 65:18
48:12 45:8,11,18,24 20:21
76:15 81:2 40:6 53:17 social
settling signaling 94:19 100:15,
85:7 14:19 16:21
9:14 80:16 22 20:18 31:4
shit
severe silver situations 46:2 47:17,20
89:15
71:25 71:2 54:8 48:18 50:23
shop 59:12 60:12
severely similar sixth
10:12 57:22 64:21,23 65:1,
55:6 71:14 27:20 66:16 20:14
58:2 5 71:14 75:16
Seward 74:5 sized 79:18
shopping
6:3 simple 74:5
41:7 71:20 social-service
sexual 11:22 68:8 ski 68:11
shops
34:15 89:20
Index: Socialist to street
Socialist 85:12 speech 67:6 33:18 57:1
34:18 92:23 84:19 88:6 90:15
sound staring
Socialists 86:21 speedily 100:12 steps
14:12 65:9 88:18 96:2
Sounder start
87:4
96:12 spend 21:2 28:20 Steven
socialization 86:25 90:25 39:20 42:18 91:6
source
16:17 93:19 97:24 52:21 54:25
60:12 98:11, stewards
55:14 56:4,11
society 13,21 spending 34:24
81:16,18
35:5 46:19 59:21
South 91:19,21 stewardship
63:16 95:10
50:10 spent 94:24
starting
sold 47:16 55:2
space 20:13 sticks
11:2 29:8
6:10 19:15 spitting 19:25
starts
soldiers 20:9 40:25 62:20
57:9 stock
38:7,8 45:19,21
spoke 80:7,8
62:13 66:14 state
solidarity 16:19
85:21 86:8,12 32:7 55:20 stolen
79:19 94:25
90:6 96:19 spoken 60:21 61:4 77:20
solidified 37:14 46:10 63:7 87:18
spaces stop
79:7
22:6 23:8 spot state's 69:6,12 81:10
solution 41:11 92:14, 19:5 61:3 38:8 95:6 97:17
90:11,12 20 99:11
spread statement
solutions Spanish 71:10 78:3,9 83:1 store
8:9 10:21 78:24 88:20 59:9 70:6
square
13:13 29:13 71:19
speak 55:23 57:15 States
36:8 39:12,13
7:9 9:1 13:11 93:2 stores
58:13 73:21 stability
17:2 18:4 13:25 20:12
44:2 49:24 stating
solvable 28:13 35:24 23:9 49:6
53:9 54:19 68:4
95:7 38:13,21 52:11 63:9
46:11 47:14 stable statistic 95:7
solve
48:24 54:3,11 20:15 44:4 80:13
42:20 81:8 stories
92:19 65:11 77:2 staff statistical 16:9 44:11,13
78:1 6:4 9:13 79:23 79:1
Somalia
speakers 24:12,14
75:10 stay story
79:25 73:15 74:16
19:18,23 28:5 51:10
someplace
speaking staggering 33:13 51:11 100:9
52:18
16:7 33:7 47:21 69:15
Stranger
sorely 34:17 48:22 stand stayed 66:12
54:21 71:3 54:23 89:2 10:23 32:4 85:3
strategies
sort speaks 48:15
stem 60:6
61:12 77:10 9:2 standing 94:11
100:8 street
Specifically 77:20 97:17
step 57:1 65:19
sought 49:3 Star 8:21,22 17:23
Index: streets to tearing
streets 84:4 super surprised Talaris
9:23 37:16 97:4 68:1 7:13 15:8 39:9
stupidest
52:4 55:3,16, 67:15 69:9
89:17 supply surrounded
25 56:22 71:22 73:9
94:17 99:8
58:16 59:1 substance 87:24
61:11 64:14, 8:5,6 36:4 support surrounding
talk
16 74:13 6:7 11:25 69:24
substantial 15:9 27:4 36:5
85:25 94:23 12:3,8,11
98:5 survey 37:11 47:16
95:3 13:14 18:4
87:15 58:11 60:10
substantially 19:14 21:9,15
stress 94:15 survive 86:5,20 89:6,
23:15,25
59:23 35:5 95:2 14 90:12
suburbs 24:17 25:13,
Stricherz 42:13 21 26:17,24 surviving talking
8:24 27:8 30:21 59:17 79:22 88:13
succeed 32:4 33:2,3,20
stroll 19:16 84:16 Susan tall
34:21 42:5
85:25 54:22 75:19 28:16
success 46:16 49:2,15
strong 44:11,13 50:20 56:13 sustainability Tara
49:2 79:17 59:4 60:17 18:9 45:5
94:24 successful 61:20 62:5
8:14 82:16 sweat task
strongly 65:4 68:6 69:8 73:2
83:19 73:11 78:1 27:15
17:13 33:19
successive 79:8,9,17 82:4 sweep tasks
34:21 92:2
88:14 86:2 87:5 55:23 73:2
struggled 88:25 89:18
sudden symptoms taught
47:12 51:7,8 92:11 93:9
58:23 93:20,22 54:6 90:14
struggles 94:12 95:3
sue 97:2,6,10 synergies tax
20:19
81:12 99:25 23:4 34:14 101:5
struggling
suffer supported synonymous taxed
26:5 49:23
82:19 80:6 85:19 24:9 97:21 98:7
95:2
suffering supportive system taxes
student
15:13 55:16, 40:21 45:22 47:23 84:10 97:19 98:2,16,
47:11 84:5
24 66:22,25 46:5,13 20
99:23
sufficient supports T teach
students
87:23 17:11 91:9,10
26:10 54:9
table teacher
83:17,20 suggest supposed
24:25 25:15 54:5 75:16
studied 15:18 65:24
58:10
6:21 summed surf teachers
takeout 7:22 14:19
Studies 66:10 60:5
8:15 23:20
40:12 summer surplus
taking tear
studio 68:3 12:15 17:19
94:25 46:23
64:17 26:14 29:1
sunset Talares
30:22 79:11 tearing
studios 96:25 21:12 76:7
Index: tech to transitional
tech Texas 75:24 76:19 tip topics
18:2 24:16 78:22 81:17 88:24 88:22 89:5
73:14,18,19,
thankful threatened tired tossed
21
46:9 53:20,21 81:11 89:13 61:11
technically
Thanksgiving three-bedroom tirelessly totally
20:22 57:2
64:8 10:3 86:1 14:6 59:4
teller 98:25
theaters thrive today
75:17
63:9 6:20 40:13 9:24 11:9 tough
temporary 94:20 19:25 20:17, 101:9
Theft
20:5 18 25:18 29:6
69:20 throw towels
32:3 41:25
tenant 78:3 16:4
theoretical 48:22 58:18
43:18 51:15
39:11,12 throwing 88:13 92:10 towers
tens 95:8 93:16 89:20 101:2
thing
14:21 68:9
20:12 33:1 thrown today's town
tent 36:7,16 38:7 61:8 7:3 40:20 11:3 50:3 87:8
81:3 82:3 48:9 58:7 73:18
thy townhomes
71:24 72:9
tenth 15:18 toilet 68:20
73:7 76:1
25:13 90:2
86:18 88:12 tide townhouses
tents 90:3 91:13 94:11 told 90:2
33:13 35:3 97:13 98:17 64:20
Tiffani tradition
Teresita things 57:6 tomorrow 36:3,10
10:3,4 31:1 32:20 59:18
Tim traffic
term 36:4,5 44:9 63:12 76:13, 68:23
ton
90:21 55:4 58:4 15 31:17 tragic
69:21 72:21,
terms 24 73:3 96:7 time tonight 71:25
22:8 69:20 8:15 10:16 6:6,7 12:11
Thorndyke trailer
14:9 19:25 17:2 24:13,18
Terra 20:4 84:23
20:10 29:4 33:7,16 37:21
27:3
thought 35:18 43:25 41:18 43:19 train
Terrace 55:12,21 86:7 44:9 45:20,21 46:10,12 91:9 96:12
25:7,8,9,12,14 90:22 50:9 53:4,24 47:14 48:11 trained
74:5 76:6 55:11,14 57:24 59:14
thoughtful 90:15
terrific 60:15 61:9 60:9 61:19
24:6 transit
21:23 65:17 67:11 62:18,19
thousand 76:4 85:18,20 65:13 68:2 13:24 23:5
Terry 26:11 92:7 93:20 70:20 77:1 41:9 42:16
7:7 95:18,22 79:24 88:9 49:6,11 57:22
thousands 58:10 71:20
testifying 96:23 96:12
14:21 18:25 93:18 95:7
87:5 19:6,7 31:18 times tonight's
32:13 39:25 46:22 89:24 73:16 81:22 transitional
testimony
41:21 68:8,9 20:3 38:19
38:20 57:19 tiny tons
74:16,17 40:2 81:2
88:9 68:13 87:8 37:13
Index: transitioned to veterans
transitioned 92:16 15:4 23 73:6,7 utility
20:2 74:2,6,15,18 68:12
turned unconscious
75:6 76:19
transplant 31:13 86:25 51:13 Utilizing
79:9 80:4,6,20
37:7 12:25
turning underrepresen 82:21 88:24
transport 42:23 ted
University V
35:8 6:17
turnout 38:14 99:23
transportation 22:4 understand 100:10 vacancy
15:25 22:12 23:13 33:22 17:15
twenty unresponsible
23:10 35:11 38:2 54:13
28:14 74:10 vacant
52:9,10 56:19 100:18 101:8,
83:12 99:7,15 Twitter 9 unsheltered 6:10 73:10
100:19 70:19 40:2 Valerie
underutilized
travel two- 12:15 unsolicited 83:6
84:23 10:3 59:8 valuable
unfortunate
Traven two-bedroom 30:24 unstable 11:12
81:20 71:13 30:24 values
unhealthy
treasure two-car 59:23 unsustainable 14:2 44:20
21:19 57:17 59:22 65:24
unhoused
treat types 56:2 untenable Van
80:13 24:1 84:5 83:22 69:4
uninsured
trees typically 55:7 unused variety
86:15 61:25 62:2,5 26:20 29:2 23:16
union
34:22 vastly
tremendous 55:5 71:13
21:7 79:20 U 93:19 unwillingness 88:23
94:2 vendor
tribal U.s unique
93:6 11:11 94:10 uplifting 56:9 58:9,15
42:10
36:10 63:1 64:2
tripled U.S. unit
53:5 45:14 67:12, urban verge
38:10
16 13:13 18:10 74:14
truck Ukraine 69:5,12 93:6 verify
19:24 75:11 united
12:7 79:16 urge 22:9
true unable 93:2 12:3 24:21 versus
7:21 80:14 26:5 52:25 41:12 66:24 49:25 50:1
88:20 units
unacceptable 75:23 78:19 99:2
11:9 14:22,23
trust 93:4 79:10
15:24 18:22, veteran
11:5
unambitious 25 19:6 25:6, urgent 19:23 20:20
tumor 15:4 8,14,20 31:18 9:5 17:20 92:23
98:12,13 33:23 41:20,
unbelievable usage veterans
turn 22,23 43:12
92:5 100:24 30:13 12:2 15:24
14:25 16:7 46:7 52:21
unconscionabl 55:10 56:14 utilities 17:21 29:1,19
55:13 77:10 31:21 36:13
y 68:20 71:17, 59:25
Index: vetted to workers
38:5,23 75:17 vividly walking week withdraw
85:21 20:11 8:17 49:14 39:18 45:20 100:12
vetted voice walks weekend witnessed
54:15 19:14 49:1 23:17 34:20 57:12 60:23
vetting voices wall weeks woman
27:17 62:22 43:10 90:1 39:5 42:25 97:12
viable volunteer Wallingford weird women
24:4 63:5 9:16 33:8 39:23 50:19 27:21 11:19 33:9,10,
34:19,25 79:16 12 37:8 45:20
victims welcoming
54:12 85:21
70:17 wanted 13:4 29:14
vote 11:20 48:24 39:23 41:14 wonderful
video
101:5 57:7 67:11 44:20 50:19 10:19 12:12
20:12,13 29:6,
75:13 19:12 24:18,
8 voucher well-being
19 63:23 88:9
31:8,11 war 54:9
Vienna
33:25 38:7,8 Woods
18:24 71:17 voucher-paid West
78:6 42:4
20:3 8:25 9:20 10:4
Vietnam
Washington 35:20 55:17 Woos
75:10 vulnerable
57:13 58:22 87:3
31:19 Westlake
view 63:2 64:4
96:15 work
34:11 56:17 87:17 99:23
W 7:19 10:11
96:25 100:10 wet
20:22 22:22
35:5
Viewmont's wade wasteland 23:19 24:3
72:14 39:15 33:16 whine 32:2 36:16
71:19 40:23 42:12,
views wage watch
56:18 white 14 44:9 46:3
20:19,20 62:11
66:3,4 47:7 60:14,15
Villarreal 90:22 watched 62:4,8 63:21
6:3 wages 11:6 55:10,22, Whitman 68:10 72:23
8:1 62:3 23 61:23 43:16 76:25 79:21
Vince
8:24 ways who've 80:18 84:13
wait
18:11 23:15 44:2 95:17
violence 39:17 51:2,18
47:21 53:5,16 99:9 wife worked
wealth 11:3 7:23 9:17,22
vision waiting
22:17,19 11:19 31:4,7
17:8,14 26:3 16:10 45:13 willingness
36:18 40:16 59:11 60:11
53:4 80:17
visit 66:21 63:3 80:24
16:23 wake win-win-win 86:1 98:8
58:25 59:1,3 wealthy 41:1
vistas 7:21 34:14 worker
96:24 walk 35:7 58:1,2 winter 18:2 20:18
16:3,11,15,22 72:2 35:5 31:4 59:12
visually 90:9
38:15 44:8
96:17 website wit's
49:10,12
28:8 49:12 100:11 workers
vital 50:10 58:15,
57:8 9:12 14:19
11:16 16 85:24 92:4
Index: workforce to zoning
23:21 75:16 49:21 50:25 youths
59:2 65:23 47:25
workforce
69:5 76:11
40:22
85:15 92:8 Z
working 94:4 97:19
8:9 20:18 31:5 98:3,21 Zavodov
35:25 37:8 74:20
years
43:23 44:22
7:19 8:25 zones
45:7,24 48:17
11:6,10,15 76:8
54:15,18 62:3
14:14,22 16:9
63:1 69:5 zoning
18:3 21:5
works 22:24 27:7 25:17,19,20,
36:1 39:14 28:14 29:4 21 41:4 83:21
world 31:1 32:10

18:20,23 38:6, 37:5,6 39:15
7 49:17 67:20 43:2,16 45:8
73:21 78:6 47:6,16 51:2,9
95:11 52:13 54:3,6
55:1,2 57:20
worried 58:22 60:22
28:17 66:17 61:22 64:7
72:21 74:23 65:14 68:21,
worries 22 72:19 75:2,
70:1 22 76:2,22
78:10 80:3
worrying 83:18 84:18,
52:4 21 89:11,12
worse 96:15 97:20
96:7 97:15 98:7
98:14,20 Yesler
worth 25:7,8,9,11,14
7:24 74:5 76:6
wreck YMCA
66:14 34:25
writing young
49:1 9:13 28:19
38:24 44:3
wrote 48:2 52:25
49:1 93:7 53:4 63:24
younger
Y
63:23
year youngest
9:10 10:14 83:13
14:4 39:17
youth
45:7,13,19,25
33:10 48:1
Agency Letters
Response to Department of Ecology - Letter 1a
Comment 1
Thank you for information on materials that must be provided to obtain state and federal
authorization when development is proposed on the Fort Lawton and/or Talaris site, should
wetlands be present on the site(s). As described in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and
Appendix C, a wetland could be located in the northwest corner of the Fort Lawton site. A
wetland has been identified in the southwest portion of the Talaris site, a stormwater pipe
passes through the site, and a constructed pond is located in the central portion of the site. On
the Fort Lawton site, any wetlands would be delineated, surveyed and rated and appropriate
buffers determined per SMC 25.09.160. On the Talaris site, the jurisdictional status of the
constructed pond and the stormwater pipe/riparian corridor would be confirmed. Alternatives
1 and 3 are not expected to impact the possible wetland on the Fort Lawton site; Alternative 2
could impact this possible wetland. Alternatives 2 and 3 are not expected to impact the wetland
on the Talaris site. Mitigation would be provided for any wetland impacts by implementing an
approved mitigation plan, per SMC 25.09.065. Any mitigation sites would be maintained and

Response to King County Metro - Letter 1b
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment and support for affordable housing is noted for the record. The
Office of Housing and its project partners will continue to discuss and coordinate with Metro as
the project progresses to determine if there would be any facilities in the development that
could make sense to offer for shared use. However, the project would not fund or build a
comfort station.

Groups Letters
Response to Discovery Park Community Alliance - Letter 2
Comment 1
Office of Housing received the September 27, 2017, letter from Foster Pepper/Discovery Park
Community Alliance. However, the letter was not submitted during the Fort Lawton EIS scoping
period, the first official period for public input on the EIS, which ended on June 26, 2017. As the
letter was resubmitted during the 2nd official period for public input on the EIS, the DEIS
comment period, we are now responding to the letter.
Comment 2
Thank you, your comment regarding opportunities for public input is noted for the record.
Provisions were made for all who signed up to speak at the DEIS public meeting held on January
9, 2018. The Magnolia United Church of Christ was selected as the venue for the meeting
because of its convenient location, high quality sound system for ease of hearing public
comments, and capacity to accommodate a large number of people (in excess of the number of
attendees at previous meetings held during the EIS scoping period). Although some citizens
may have been discouraged from testifying by the large number of persons wishing to speak, all
persons who wished to speak were allowed to do so. Comments on the DEIS were also
accepted in writing throughout the comment period, and all comments—written and verbal—
will be given equal weight. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input, for additional
information on public participation in the Fort Lawton EIS process.
Comment 3
Your comments are noted.
The Fort Lawton site is currently not in park use. Therefore, it cannot be preserved as a park.
Rather, it is vacant U.S. Army Reserve Center containing buildings, roadways, parking areas,
sidewalks and open space.
The probable significant impacts of three action alternatives and the no action alternative were
analyzed in the DEIS, including:
• Alternative 1 (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) – Mixed Income Affordable
Housing and Public Park Uses Onsite;
• Alternative 2 – Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable/Homeless Housing Offsite;
• Alternative 3 - Public Park Onsite; Affordable/Homeless Housing Offsite; and
• Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative.
A public park alternative was included in the DEIS (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 3, the
entire Fort Lawton site would be developed as a public park, with up to 4.7 acres of forested
land owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site that would be incorporated into
Discovery Park.
A cost-benefit analysis is not required by SEPA (WAC 197-11-450).

Please see below for responses to your other comments.
Comment 4
Thank you for information on SEPA requirements and case law related to SEPA.
The City considers the Fort Lawton EIS alternatives to be reasonable, as defined by WAC 197-
11-440(5)(b), because they include the Proposed Action (Alternative 1 – the Applicant’s
Preferred Alternative), two other action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3), and the No Action
Alternative (Alternative 4). Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce impacts relative to Alternative 1
in certain areas (e.g., certain environmental health and public services impacts).
Substantial environmental analysis was provided in the DEIS, including technical studies on
geology/soils, biological resources, air quality, noise, environmental hazards, aesthetics/visual
resources, historic/cultural resource, transportation and utilities. The City has determined that
the analysis in the DEIS, together with the additional analysis provided in this FEIS, meet the
requirements of SEPA and are sufficient to make a reasoned decision on the EIS alternatives.
Comment 5
As stated in the response to Comment 4 in this letter, the City considers the Fort Lawton EIS
alternatives to be reasonable.
The Talaris site was identified because it is one of the few large, contiguous sites available in a
residential area of Seattle, and furthermore the site provides comparable advantages to those
provided by Fort Lawton, including location in a high opportunity neighborhood with proximity
to ample public recreation opportunities. The City is not proposing to develop housing at the
Talaris site (see Section 4.1, Alternatives).
As allowed by SEPA, the project that is chosen by the decision-makers need not exactly match
any one of the EIS alternatives. Chapter 2, page 2-21, note that the Proposed Action may
include components of some or all the three alternatives. However, it is assumed that the
Proposed Action that is ultimately approved will be within the range of assumptions and
impacts evaluated in the EIS.
Comment 6
See the response to Comment 4 in this letter. Section 4.1, Alternatives, indicates that the
Talaris site was identified as the off-site alternative because it is one of the few large,
contiguous sites available in a residential area of Seattle that also offers similar advantages to
the Fort Lawton site. After publication of the DEIS, Quadrant Homes (Quadrant) agreed to
purchase the Talaris site. The sale of the Talaris site is currently not complete, and Quadrant’s
development plans are in initial stages. Therefore, development of this site for affordable
housing under Alternatives 2 or 3 is still possible.

Comment 7
See the response to Comment 6 in this letter.
Comment 8
As allowed by SEPA, Alternative 1 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative in the EIS.
However, the City has not made a final decision on this or any other alternative. The City
considers that sufficient analysis of the EIS alternatives has been conducted to make a reasoned
decision on the project. Also see the response to Comment 4 in this letter.
Comment 9
See the response to Comments 4 and 5 in this letter. By definition, the No Action Alternative
rarely meets the applicant’s objectives, but is required by SEPA to be included in an EIS
nonetheless.
Comment 10
See the responses to Comments 4, 5, 8 and 9 in this letter regarding reasonable alternatives.
Comment 11
See the responses to Comments 3, 4 and 5 in this letter regarding reasonable alternatives and a
public park alternative. Alternative 3 is an “all park” alternative.
Comment 12
As noted in Chapter 2, the City determined that Seattle Public Schools (SPS) could potentially
qualify for open space conveyances, and has offered SPS the opportunity to pursue ownership
of a portion of the property devoted to active recreation under Alternative 1. Which public
agency owns this area would not alter the environmental impacts of the proposed use, which
would remain consistent with what has been studied in this EIS. SPS does not have funding or
firm plans for development of a school at this time. Should SPS pursue this option in the future,
they would need to conduct additional separate environmental review. The City’s objectives for
the project and their proposed plans do not depend upon including a school on the Fort Lawton
site.
Comment 13
Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, provided a detailed analysis of the
potential impacts of Alternative 1, and comparatively less detailed analyses of Alternatives 2
and 3. The analyses concluded that no significant land use impacts are anticipated. For
Alternative 1, this is due to the compatibility of the proposed housing and public park uses with
off-site uses, layout of uses, provision of buffers/separation, and the lack of new

Comment 14
Proposed development is not expected to undermine the growth in urban centers and urban
villages envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. It is acknowledged that the Fort Lawton site is
not located in an urban village or urban center. However, the Comprehensive Plan allows
limited multi-family, commercial and industrial uses outside of urban villages to support the
surrounding areas or to maintain the existing character (Policy GS 1.23). Existing multi-family
housing is present adjacent to the site (to the southeast), and the site is designated Multi-
Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan, indicating the future use the City envisions for
the site (see DEIS Section 3.6.2 for details). The site is also located on a Minor Arterial (W
Government Way).
A summary and discussion of rezone criteria for Alternative 1 is provided in this FEIS (see
Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies). The City is not proposing a rezone of
the Talaris site
A correction has been made in Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, page
3.6-1, noting that, “Alternatives 2 and 3 would require that a portion of the Talaris site be
rezoned from SF 5,000 to low rise residential zoning; a Comprehensive Plan amendment would
also be required.”
Comment 15
A discussion of a rezone at the Talaris site was not included in the EIS, as the City is not
proposing to develop housing at the Talaris site or rezone that site. Should the City propose
housing at the Talaris site and to rezone the site, the City will prepare an EIS that includes a
rezone analysis.
Comment 16
Following are responses to the Comprehensive Plan open space goals/policies referenced in this
comment.
“[p]reserve and reclaim park property for public use and benefit, and ensure continued access to
parkland for the growing population,”
The Fort Lawton site is not currently, nor was it formerly park property. Therefore, park
property cannot be preserved or reclaimed. However, a public park alternative (Alternative 3) is
included in the EIS. The EIS alternatives would not prevent continued access to parkland in the
area (e.g., Discovery Park). A cost-benefit analysis is not required by SEPA.
“retaining City-owned properties that are in environmentally critical areas as natural areas.”
As described in DEIS Section 3.1, Earth, Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendices B
and C, environmentally critical areas are present on Fort Lawton site (e.g., geological hazards,
fish and wildlife conservation area and possibly a wetland). These analyses concluded that with
implementation of the legally-required mitigation measures and measures that are part of the

project, no significant impacts to critical areas are expected under the EIS alternatives.
Alternatives 1 and 3 would retain a large portion of the site, encompassing environmentally
critical areas, in natural open space (13.0 acres/38% of the site under Alternative 1 and 17.0
acres/50% of the site under Alternative 3); see Chapter 2 for details.
“[e]nhance wildlife habitat by restoring forests and expanding the tree canopy on City-owned
land.”
Existing forest areas in the north and south portions of the site that provide wildlife habitat
would be retained under Alternatives 1 and 3. Additional landscaping, including trees, would be
provided under all the EIS alternatives, which would expand the tree-canopy in the City. See
Chapter 2 for details on open space and landscaping under the EIS alternatives.
Comment 17
While not proposed to be entirely part of Discovery Park, a public park alternative for the Fort
Lawton site (Alternative 3) is included in the EIS, with up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned by
the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site that would be incorporated into Discovery Park.
Alternative 3 includes both passive open space and active open space (three multi-purpose
fields) areas. Alternative 1 also includes passive open space and active open space areas (two
multi-purpose fields), and incorporation of the 4.7 acres of forest land into Discovery Park. See
Chapter 2 for further descriptions of Alternatives 1 and 3. Also see Section 4.1, Alternatives, for
a discussion of why a Discovery Park alternative was not included in the EIS.
Comment 18
DEIS Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies (pg. 3.6-7) discussed the Discovery
Park Master Plan and its relationship to the Fort Lawton project. DEIS Section 3.6 also included
an analysis of each of the EIS alternatives potential impacts on Discovery Park. The analysis
concluded that the alternatives are not expected to result in significant impacts on the park due
to the compatibility of uses and the incorporation of approximately 4.7 acres in the west
portion of the site into the park that would provide a separation between proposed uses on site
and the park. Section 4.1, Alternatives, provides information on why a Discovery Park
alternative was not included in the EIS. A public park alternative for the Fort Lawton site
(Alternative 3) is included in the EIS.
Comment 19
The study area for the DEIS transportation analysis included intersections near the Fort Lawton
site where project-generated traffic, and therefore project transportation impacts, would be
highest. Farther from the site, trips spread out and have lower impact, so detailed operational
analysis is not needed. However, in response to questions raised about several streets and
intersections located farther from the site, additional information has been provided in Section
3.10, Transportation.

Comment 20
The DEIS transportation analyses applied an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes to
account for cumulative effects through year 2030 with trips generated by other new
development. The assumed background growth rate is considered conservatively high when
compared to historical traffic trends in the area that show a decline in traffic volumes over the
past decade. Background growth of 1% per year over 13 years is also at the high end of the
growth assumptions typically applied to analysis of new development projects in Seattle. Trips
forecast to be generated by the project were added to the No Action volumes that reflect the
assumed background growth, to evaluate the cumulative impacts on traffic operations of the
project and other new development (see Section 3.10, Transportation and Appendix I for
details).
In addition, new analysis was performed for this FEIS to evaluate the cumulative effects of the
recent reconfiguration at the W Emerson Street/Gilman Avenue W intersection. The same
background growth assumptions used in the DEIS were uses for the new analysis (see Section
3.10, Transportation, for the analysis).
Comment 21
The transportation impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 at the Talaris site were analyzed using the
same methods as for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 at the Fort Lawton site. DEIS Table 3.10-7
summarized the traffic operation impacts of the Talaris site alternatives, which would amount
to added delay of less than 1 second at the study area intersections
The DEIS transportation analysis stated, “The City of Seattle does not have adopted level of
service standards for individual intersections, however, typically considers operation of LOS D as
acceptable. The City may tolerate delays in the LOS E or F range for minor movements at
unsignalized intersections or at signalized intersections where additional traffic control
measures are not applicable or desirable. For signalized intersections that operate at LOS E or F
without the project, the City will typically accept increases in delay of less than 5 seconds per
vehicle.” This threshold has been applied to hundreds of projects by the Seattle Department of
Construction and Inspections (SDCI) and Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) (see
Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I).
Comment 22
The transit assessment provided in the DEIS concluded that that the level of additional transit
demand that would be generated by Alternative 1forecast to be an average of 2 to 3 riders
per bus during the peak hourcould be accommodated with the existing bus service (see
Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details). Additional analysis (based on
ridership counts and calculated bus capacity) that supports the DEIS conclusion is provided in
Section 3.10, Transportation.

Comment 23
As described in DEIS transportation analysis, Census data for the Magnolia neighborhood was
applied to estimate mode shares for single-family homes, townhouses and apartments under
the EIS alternatives. This is appropriate because the Census data reflects the travel choices that
Magnolia residents make with the level of transit service that exists in the neighborhood, and
would be available to the Fort Lawton site. The trip estimates for residents of Senior Housing
were not based upon the Census data, rather upon observed data at senior housing facilities in
Seattle (see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details).
As noted in the response to Comment 22 in this letter, the additional transit demand generated
by Alternative 1 is forecast to be an average of 2 to 3 riders per bus during the peak hour.
Therefore, even if the percentage of transit riders were to be higher than other residents in the
Magnolia neighborhood, the number of riders per bus would still be able to be accommodated
by existing transit service.
Comment 24
The transportation mitigation measures identified for the Fort Lawton site include
implementation of parking management strategies to help reduce parking demand beyond
what was projected in the DEIS analysis. Providing shared bikes or information about existing
bike share programs were identified as possibilities among a number of measureswhich also
included providing information about bus service and car sharing services that could be
employed to support and encourage lower vehicle ownership. These measures are consistent
with those being applied at new developments all over Seattle to support the City’s policies that
encourage reductions in vehicle ownership and single-occupant driving. However, the DEIS
transportation analysis did not assume additional reduction in vehicle trips or parking demand
as a result of these types of strategies. Travel mode shares were forecast based upon Census
data for residents in the Magnolia neighborhood and data from senior housing facilities in
Seattle. Additionally, all trips generated by the athletic field use were assumed to occur by
vehicle (see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details).
Comment 25
The DEIS transportation analysis applied a conservative methodology to estimate parking

demand and disclosed that the potential parking demand with Alternative 1 could exceed on-
site demand which could result in overspill on public streets. This is consistent with SEPA
requirements to disclose the impacts that could result from a proposed project. The DEIS still
identified mitigation measures that could help reduce parking demand and minimize this
potential impact. See the response to Comment 24 in this letter.
Comment 26
As discussed in Chapter 2, Fort Lawton is one of the last remaining military bases to be disposed
of under the U.S. Army 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Following the
decision to close the base, the Army named the City of Seattle as the Local Redevelopment
Authority (LRA), responsible for preparing and implementing the redevelopment plan for the

property. All the uses assumed under the EIS alternatives are uses allowed by the BRAC
process, and affordable housing is a preferred use.
Comment 27
As indicated in this comment, the City Landmark status of the buildings on the Fort Lawton site
has not been determined, but most do not appear to meet the criteria to be considered eligible
for Landmark designation. The exception is Harvey Hall. The DEIS indicated that existing
buildings to be removed under the EIS alternatives would be referred to the City Landmarks
Preservation Board for consideration, following the process described in more detail in
Appendix H. If a building is determined eligible for City Landmark status, requirements for
mitigation of impacts to historic sites would be determined by the Landmarks Preservation
Board (see Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H for details).
Comment 28
The DEIS addressed the potential impacts to the Fort Lawton Cemetery under each of the EIS
alternatives (see pgs. 3.9-12 and 3.9.13), and noted that Alternatives 1 and 3 would not
indirectly (e.g., visually) impact the cemetery, but Alternative 2 would. The historic and cultural
analysis noted that "indirect impacts to the NRHP-eligible Fort Lawton Cemetery [would occur]
due to the construction of a road and housing in proximity to the eastern cemetery boundary,
which would affect its integrity of setting through the introduction of new built environment
elements." The proximity of new development to the cemetery under Alternative 2 would
change visual and auditory aspects of the cemetery's setting, and maintaining the wooded
buffer around the cemetery would help minimize these changes (see Appendix H for details).
Comment 29
The purpose of an EIS is to identify probable significant impacts. Identification of such impacts
does not render an alternative unreasonable. As noted in the Historic and Cultural Resources
mitigation measures, under Alternatives 2 and 3, proposed development at Talaris would be
reviewed by the City Landmarks Preservation Board. Any changes to the site would comply with
the designation ordinance or Controls and Incentives Agreement for the property. Proposed
changes should also meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with Guidelines for Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.
Should the Talaris site be selected for development under Alternatives 2 or 3, an EIS would be
prepared and could include additional analysis of historic and cultural resources.
Comment 30
The referenced statement about impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat under the EIS
alternatives was meant for comparative purposes, and to indicate that the types of impacts
under the EIS alternatives would be similar to other urban development. A thorough analysis of
the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on wildlife/wildlife habitat at the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites is contained in Appendix C and summarized in Section 3.2, Biological Resources.

Comment 31
The identification and analysis of the possible wetland on the Fort Lawton site in the DEIS is
considered adequate for this SEPA review. Figure 3.2-1 shows the approximate location of the
potential wetland, and indicates that the wetland and its buffer are expected to be entirely
within the north forest area, which would be retained under Alternatives 1 and 3. The biological
resources analysis did not anticipate significant impacts on the possible wetland under these
alternatives, but indicated that impacts could occur under Alternative 2. Should development of
the site proceed, any wetland would be delineated, surveyed and rated and appropriate buffers
determined per SMC 25.09.160. As necessary, adjustments to the site plans would be made for
the wetland (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for details).
Comment 32
Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C described the potential impacts of
development under the EIS alternative on the great blue herons on and near the Fort Lawton
site (see pgs. 3.2-11, 3.2-12 and 3.2-14).
SEPA does not require that the analysis of alternatives be conducted at the same level as the
Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative (WAC 197-11-440(5)(v)). As such, the analysis of the
bald eagle nest at the Talaris site was not analyzed in detail. Should the Talaris site be selected
for development under Alternatives 2 or 3, an EIS would be prepared and the document could
include additional analysis of biological resources such as the bald eagle nest.
Comment 33
The biological resources analysis prepared for the DEIS discussed the potential for permanent
displacement of species, and the potential for disruption during breeding season. The analysis
noted that with construction activities during breeding season there is a greater potential for
permanent loss of species. Several mitigation measures are identified to address these
potential impacts, including preparation of a great blue heron Management Plan to address
construction activities during the nesting season, and coordination with WDFW when working
near nesting habitat.
The DEIS analyzed the impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat at the Fort Lawton site in relation
to Discovery Park. The analysis indicated that under Alternatives 1 and 3, wildlife habitat and
corridors for wildlife movement between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Memorial Reserve Park
would be preserved within the proposed natural areas (e.g., in the forest areas in the north and
south portions of the site). Also, up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the
west portion of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park and preserved as natural
area. Under Alternative 2, the north forest area that provides wildlife habitat and a wildlife
corridor between the parks would be partially developed, and the south forest area completely
removed. The forest land owned by the U.S. Army may or may not be incorporated into
Discovery Park under this alternative. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have greater potential to
impact wildlife/wildlife habitat than Alternatives 1 and 3 (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources,
and Appendix C for details).

Comment 34
The DEIS geotechnical study described the potential for landslides on existing, steep, landslide-
prone slopes in the north and west portions of the Fort Lawton site under all the EIS
alternatives, particularly during construction activities (see pages 3.1-9, 3.1-11 and 3.1-15, and
Appendix B for details). The potential for erosion was also noted. Appropriate mitigation
measures were identified to address these potential impacts, including site-specific analyses
and adherence with City of Seattle critical area and grading regulations. The analysis concluded
that no significant earth-related impacts are expected.
As described in the DEIS, the Talaris site is located within the 1,000-ft. methane buffer
identified by City of Seattle. The DEIS noted that previous studies by others (Shannon & Wilson
2013) identified the risk of methane migrating from the abandoned landfill onto the property as
being low. They based their conclusion on subsurface exploration logs and the characteristics of
the soils surrounding the landfill. Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts on human health
from methane migration is not expected to be significant. The analysis of methane migration
under Alternatives 2 and 3 is considered sufficient for this EIS. Should the Talaris site be
selected for development of the affordable housing, an EIS would be prepared and additional
site-specific analysis of possible methane migration could be conducted.
Comment 35
The noise impacts during construction were described as temporary because at a point they
would cease and the minor noise impacts during operation of the project would continue. As
noted on page 2-25, project construction would likely begin in 2020 and could last
approximately five years. With adherence to state and local regulations, noise impacts during
construction are not expected to be significant a (see Section 3.4, Noise, and Appendix E for
details).
Comment 36
The DEIS did not list the services that would be provided on site, including case management
services, as mitigation for the project’s impacts on police or fire/emergency medical services.
The document states that these support services “could reduce the need for police service.”
The DEIS notes that there would be additional demand for police and fire/emergency medical
services with the EIS alternatives (see Section 3.11, Public Services, for details).
Comment 37
The DEIS provided an analysis on the potential impacts on schools with development under the
EIS alternatives at the two sites, using Seattle Public School’s (SPS’s) building capacity,
enrollment projections and student yield rates information. Additional information on schools
has been added to this FEIS (see Section, 3.11, Public Services, for details). SPS assesses how to
address increases/decreases in student population and changes in the distribution of student
population relative to existing and planned facilities on an annual basis through their Capital
Facilities Plan process to determine what actions should be taken to match enrollment and
capacity.

Comment 38
The City considers the discussion of light spillage on areas adjacent to the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites in the DEIS to be adequate. Minimal light spillage is expected under the EIS
alternatives due to the types of uses that are proposed (residential and park uses). The multi-
purpose fields under Alternatives 1 and 3 at the Fort Lawton site would not be lit, and therefore
would not generate lighting impacts. Mitigation is also identified to reduce potential lighting
impacts, including the types of lighting fixtures that would be used. Therefore, significant
lighting impacts are not expected (see Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Visual Resources, for details).
An analysis of potential shadow impacts was conducted at the Fort Lawton site because
Discovery Park, Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Commodore Park are located near the site.
SMC 25.05.675.Q.2, aims to “minimize or prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows
on open spaces most used by the public.” The analysis concluded that no significant shadow
impacts on these public open spaces are expected. The impacts of shadows on the residential
uses to the north and east of the Fort Lawton were not discussed because these are not public
open spaces. A shadow impact analysis was not conducted for the Talaris site because there are
no public open spaces nearby that could be impacted by shadow/light blockage from the
project (see Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Visual Resources, for details).
Comment 39
The DEIS concluded that there would be no significant impacts on housing because no housing
would be eliminated. Housing would be provided under all the EIS alternatives, which is
considered a positive impact on housing. See the response to Comment 14 in this letter relative
to urban centers and urban villages.
Comment 40
The U.S. Army BRAC process is described in Chapter 2. BRAC policies and procedures are not
elements of the environment to be analyzed in a SEPA EIS. Therefore, no further analysis of
these policies/procedures is required. The City and the U.S. Army will continue to coordinate to
make sure that the BRAC process is properly implemented.
Comment 41
The 2012 Army NEPA EA was used as background for the Fort Lawton EIS (e.g., for existing
conditions, such as the geotechnical and environmental health conditions at the site). New
information and analysis of the site and the current EIS alternatives is provided in the
2017/2018 Fort Lawton SEPA EIS. The U.S. Army will conduct additional NEPA review of the
updated redevelopment plan that is selected by the City.
Comment 42
The City did not acknowledge that the prior NEPA review is inadequate. See the responses to
Comments 40 and 41 in this letter regarding the BRAC process and the relationship between
the NEPA and SEPA review of the Fort Lawton site.

Comment 43
Your comment regarding opportunity for public input is noted. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for
Public Input, for additional information on how the public has been involved/will be involved in
the SEPA and NEPA processes for the Fort Lawton project.
Comment 44
Your comment regarding a public park alternative is noted. See the responses to Comments 3,
16, 17, 18, 26 and 40 in this letter regarding a public park alternative, the relationship of the
project to Discovery Park and the U.S. Army BRAC process.
Comment 45
DEIS Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, provided a thorough discussion
of the potential land use impacts of proposed development under the EIS alternatives, and the
relationship of the alternatives to relevant plans and policies. The analysis concluded that while
the alternatives would convert the existing uses on the site to new residential and park uses,
intensify the uses at the site and increase activity levels, no significant land use impacts are
expected due to the compatibility of proposed uses with off-site uses, layout of uses, provision
of buffers/separation, and the lack of new vehicular/pedestrian connection to certain off-site
uses.
A summary and discussion of the City of Seattle’s rezone criteria as they relate to a rezone of
the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 is provided in this FEIS (see Section 3.6, Land
Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies). As noted in this discussion, the Fort Lawton site is not
entirely surrounded by single-family residential and park uses. Multi-family development is
located to the southeast of the site.
See the response to Comment 14 in this letter regarding urban centers and urban villages and
the response to Comments 22 and 23 in this letter regarding transit service to the site.
Comment 46
See the response to Comment 8 in this letter which indicates that no decisions have been made
on the project to date.
Comment 47
The Proposed Actions for the Fort Lawton project are listed in the Fact Sheet (pg. i), Summary
(pg. 1-1) and in Chapter 2 (pgs. 2-19 and 2-20). The Applicant’s Objectives are presented in
Chapter 2 (pg. 2-17).
Comment 48
See the responses to Comments 5 and 6 in this letter regarding the off-site alternative.

Comment 49
See the responses to Comments 5 and 6 in this letter regarding reasonable alternatives.
Comment 50
The Office of Housing’s objective for the proposal is to prepare a redevelopment plan for the
Fort Lawton site with housing and park uses, in response to the disposal of the site by the U.S.
Army under the BRAC process. See the response to Comment 4 in this letter concerning
reasonable alternatives, including Alternative 2. The means of financing a project are not
required to be included in a SEPA EIS; however, none of the alternatives rely on the Office of
Housing having the authority to directly develop housing.
Comment 51
Development of public park uses at the Fort Lawton site would fulfill certain of the Applicant’s
objectives for the site, including “provide new public park amenities that serve the needs of
current and future neighborhood residents, as well as the broader community” (see Chapter 2).
The means of financing a proposal are not required to be included in a SEPA EIS. See the
response to Comment 5 in this letter regarding the scope of the Proposed Action that is
ultimately selected for development.
Comment 52
See the responses to Comments 4 and 8 in this letter regarding reasonable alternatives and any
decisions that have been made on the project to date.
Comment 53
Your comments regarding developing the Fort Lawton site as a park/open space are noted.
Comment 54
See the responses to Comments 5 and 6 in this letter regarding the EIS alternatives. The means
of financing a project are not required to be included in a SEPA EIS.
Comment 55
Your comment regarding developing the Fort Lawton site as a park and de-linking housing at an
off-site location is noted.
Comment 56
Thank you for the information on SEPA requirements and case law related to SEPA and the Fort
Lawton project. SMR architects developed site plans for all the EIS alternatives. As allowed by
SEPA, more detailed information in provided in the Fort Lawton EIS on Alternative 1, the

Applicant’s Preferred Alternative. See the response to Comment 8 in this letter which indicates
that no decisions have been made on the project to date.
Comment 57
See the response to Comment 40 in this letter regarding the U.S. Army BRAC process.
Comment 58
See the response to Comment 41 in this letter regarding use of the 2012 Army NEPA EA in the
2017/2018 Fort Lawton SEPA EIS.
Comment 59
Your comments are noted.
Response to Friends of Battelle/Talaris - Letter 3
Comment 1
Thank you for information on Friends of Battelle/Talaris.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding development at the Talaris site under Alternatives 2 and 3 is noted for
the record. Please see the response to Letter 2, Comment 4 concerning reasonable alternatives
per SEPA.
Comment 3
It is acknowledged that the Talaris site is currently in private ownership. As noted in Chapter 2,
development of the site as affordable and formerly homeless housing would require purchase
of the property by affordable housing developers. A site studied in an alternative site analysis
need not be a public property. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more information.
Comment 4
Thank you for this information on the design of the buildings/landscaping on the Talaris site.
Comment 5
Your comments regarding the historic status of buildings and landscaping on the Talaris site are
noted. A description of historic and cultural resources on the Talaris site, and an analysis of
potential impacts of development on these resources under Alternatives 2 and 3, is contained
in Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H.
The following mitigation measure is identified in this EIS:

• Under Alternatives 2 and 3, proposed development at Talaris would be reviewed by the
City Landmarks Preservation Board. Any changes to the site would comply with the
designating ordinance or Controls and Incentives Agreement for the property. Proposed
changes should also meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with Guidelines for the treatment of Cultural
Landscapes.
Comment 6
As described in Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, the Talaris site is
zoned Single-family 5000 (SF 5000). Single-family residential uses are the primary uses allowed
in this zone. Other uses allowed outright in this zone include nursing homes and adult family
homes. Proposed development on the site under Alternatives 2 and 3 would require a rezone of
the site to a lowrise residential classification (e.g., LR2 (M1)).
Comment 7
Your comment is noted. As indicated in Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C, a
stream or riparian corridor ECA is mapped by City of Seattle on the Talaris site. A past study of
the site indicated that this feature is a large stormwater pipe that lacks fish habitat “upstream”
of the site and therefore is not considered a regulated critical area. No other streams are
known to exist on the site. The site plans for the Talaris site under Alternatives 2 and 3 do not
currently provide for daylighting or rehabilitating any creek (see Figure 2-11).
Comment 8
Your comment regarding access roads on the Talaris site is noted. Office of Housing has
committed to prepare an EIS if affordable and formerly homeless housing is proposed at the
Talaris site. The EIS could include review of the condition of the access roads onsite.
Comment 9
Thank you for information on wildlife use of the site. Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and
Appendix C describe the biological resources on and near the Talaris site, based on information
from online sources, WDFW interactive mapping and previous studies of the site.
Comment 10
As noted in this comment, no plans for the Talaris site are currently before the City Landmarks
Preservation Board. Please see the response to Comment 5 in this letter.
Comment 11
Your comment regarding the appropriate location for affordable housing is noted.

Response to Friends of Discovery Park – Letter 4
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding a Discovery Park alternative is noted for the record.
Incorporation of the entire Fort Lawton site into to Discovery Park was not included as an
alternative in the EIS because it would not meet the applicant’s objectives for the proposal (see
Chapter 2 for the applicant’s objectives for the project). A public park alternative is included in
the EIS (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be developed as a
public park. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, 4.7 acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the
west portion of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park. Under Alternative 2, the 4.7
acres in the west portion of the site could be purchased by the City for future public use. Please
see Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more information.
Both Alternatives 1 and 3 would preserve the forest area in the north and south parts of the
Fort Lawton site in their natural conditions as wildlife corridors for wildlife movement between
Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Discovery Park. Alternative 2 would not preserve these
forest areas in their natural condition (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C
for details)
Response to Habitat for Humanity – Letter 5
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record.
Response to Housing Development Consortium of Seattle-King County

– Letter 6
Comment 1
Thank you for information on Housing Development Consortium. Your comment in support of
Alternative 1 is noted for the record.
Response to Laurelhurst Community Club - Letter 7
Comment 1
Thank you for your comments on the Fort Lawton DEIS and for providing information on the
Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC).
Comment 2
Seattle Office of Housing notified agencies, tribes and the public about EIS Scoping, availability
of the DEIS, and the date/time/place of the DEIS public meetings. Noticing focused on the Fort
Lawton site because it is the location of the re-use plan. The City is not proposing development

at the Talaris site. It is acknowledged that the LCC was not individually notified about the Fort
Lawton DEIS. Please see Section 4.5, Opportunities for Public Input.
As described in the Section 4.1, Alternatives, after publication of the DEIS, Quadrant Homes
(Quadrant) agreed to purchase the Talaris site. The sale of the Talaris site is currently not
complete, and Quadrant’s development plans are in initial stages. If Quadrant completes the
purchase of the site and applies for development approvals from the City, SEPA review of their
project would be necessary. Similarly, the City has committed to prepare an EIS should the City
propose affordable and formerly homeless housing at the Talaris site.
Per your request, the LCC, Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board and Friends of Battelle will be
placed on the project listserv. Office of Housing will notify the listserv of significant milestones
in the planning process, including notification of when a draft redevelopment plan is available
for public comment, and when the plan is submitted to City Council for review. Thank you for
your interest in the project.
Comment 3
Thank you for providing information on LCC’s relationship to the Talaris site. WAC 197-11-
440(5)(v) indicates that the impacts of EIS alternatives may be analyzed in less detail than the
Proposed Action (Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, in this case). As such, less information
and analysis is provided on Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Talaris site in the Fort Lawton DEIS. As
described in the response to Comment 2 in this letter, should the Talaris site be selected by the
City for the affordable and formerly homeless housing, an EIS would be prepared. Information
on LCC’s history of involvement and legal status related to the site could be included in the EIS.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding the Talaris site’ landmark status is noted for the record. The Historic
and Cultural Resources Report in Appendix H provides an analysis of the impacts of the EIS
alternatives on these resources, and Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, summarizes
this analysis. Several places in the DEIS note that both the Talaris buildings and site are
designated as a City historic landmark (e.g., pages 2-10, 3.6-40, and 3.9-8). As described in the
response to Comment 3 in this letter, the impacts of EIS alternatives, including the Talaris site,
may be analyzed in less detail than the Proposed Action. Should the Talaris site be selected by
the City for the affordable and formerly homeless housing, an EIS would be prepared, including
analysis of the impacts of proposed development on the Talaris site’s historic status.
Comment 5
See the response to Comment 1 in this letter regarding noticing for the Fort Lawton EIS. As
described in Chapter 2, the Talaris site was chosen for study in the EIS because it is one of the
few large, contiguous sites available in a residential area of Seattle that also offers similar
advantages to the Fort Lawton site. It was also selected because some impacts of development
at the Talaris site could be less than development at the Fort Lawton site (e.g., certain
environmental health and land use impacts).

Comment 6
As noted in the response to Comment 2 in this letter, an EIS for review of the Talaris site would
be provided should it be selected by the City for the affordable and formerly homeless housing.
An EIS would offer opportunity for public comment on the draft document, if development
were proposed at the Talaris site.
Comment 7
Per WAC 197-11-444 and WAC 197/44/440(8), the analysis of environmental justice is outside
the scope of a SEPA EIS. This analysis was included in the DEIS as a precursor to a possible
future NEPA analysis of project, should federal funding be available for the project. The
statements regarding the socioeconomic makeup of the Magnolia and Laurelhurst
neighborhoods referenced in this comment represent the findings of the DEIS analysis. DEIS
Section 3.13, Socioeconomics and Housing, documents the existing median household income
in the Magnolia and Laurelhurst neighborhood as compared to the entire city of Seattle. This
comparison is based on the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates reported
to the U.S. Census Bureau, a reliable source of information. The documentation of positive
impacts of diversifying the income level at the Fort Lawton site relates to Seattle
Comprehensive Plan (2016) policies that encourage such diversification (e.g., Comprehensive
Plan policies GS 1.22, GS 2.4, H G1, H G5 and H5.3).
The past restrictive covenants in the Magnolia and Laurelhurst neighborhoods were described
in the DEIS as historic background for the lack of diversity in these neighborhoods. It is
acknowledged that there could be other reasons that the neighborhoods are currently not as
diverse as the city as a whole.
Comment 8
The transportation impacts of the Talaris site alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) were analyzed
using the same methods applied to the Fort Lawton site alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3).
Table 3.10-7 in the DEIS summarized the traffic operational impacts of the Talaris site
alternatives, which would result in added delay of less than 1 second at the study area
intersections. Therefore, the DEIS concluded that no significant transportation impacts are
expected with the Talaris site alternatives (see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for
details).
Comment 9
Your comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIS are noted. Office of Housing has
determined that the analyses of the Proposed Actions in the DEIS and in this FEIS are adequate
for SEPA purposes. As noted in the response to Comment 2 in this letter, an EIS review of the
Talaris site would be provided should it be selected by the City for the affordable and formerly
homeless housing. An EIS would offer opportunity for public comment on the draft document,
if development were proposed at the Talaris site.

Response to Magnolia Community Council - Letter 8
Comment 1
Response to Master Builders Association - Letter 9
Comment 1
Thank you for information on the master Builders Association. Your comment in support of
Alternative 1 is noted for the record.
Response to Real Change - Letter 10
Comment 1
Thank you, your comments in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Please see
Section 4.1, Alternatives, for information on a higher density alternative.

Individual Letters
Response to Katya Adams - Letter 11
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding keeping the Fort Lawton site available to the public is
noted for the record. The Fort Lawton site is currently owned by the U.S. Army and is not
officially available for public use. While some residents may use the site for recreation, any
recreational uses are unauthorized. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives, for a discussion of a
Discovery Park alternative. Under Alternative 3 the entire Fort Lawton site would be in public
park uses. Alternative 1 would include affordable housing as well as public park uses (see
Chapter 2 for details).
Comment 2
Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 would provide active recreation uses, including multi-
purpose fields. Alternative 1 would include two fields, while Alternative 3 would include three
fields. Additionally, new demand for recreation from the residents under Alternative 1 (586
people) would be addressed by the proposed park and recreation facilities onsite and the
incorporation of 4.7 acres owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion of the site into Discovery
Park. See Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, for details.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding Alternative 1 and 2 being inconsistent with Seattle’s Comprehensive
Plan and the Seattle Municipal Code is noted. Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and
Policies, provides a discussion of the consistency of the EIS alternatives with the Seattle
Comprehensive Plan and Seattle Municipal Code, including discussion of the potential rezone
that would be required under Alternative 1.
Comment 4
Your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted.
Comment 5
The Fort Lawton site is not currently located in Discovery Park, rather it is situated on the east
edge of the park. As described in DEIS Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies,
in 2010 the Court of Appeals determined that the City was not required to publicly determine
the applicability of the Discovery Park Master Plan to the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan.
Comment 6
Your comment regarding the cumulative impacts is noted. See Section 4.6, Cumulative Impacts,
for a summary of cumulative impacts under Alternative 1. Additional discussion of
transportation issues in the greater Fort Lawton area has been added to this FEIS (see Section
3.10, Transportation, for details).

Comment 7
See the response to Comment 6 in this letter. The additional transportation analysis prepared
for this FEIS addressed the three access points to the Magnolia neighborhood and determined
that traffic from the Fort Lawton project would represent a small percentage of the traffic at
these intersections (see Section 3.10, Transportation, for details).
Comment 8
Section 3.7, Aesthetics, includes an analysis of views and visual impacts associated with
development on the Fort Lawton site under the EIS alternatives. Visual simulations were
prepared as part of the analysis in Section 3.7 and Appendix G to illustrate existing and
potential views of and through the Fort Lawton site from various areas on the site and in the
surrounding area.
Your comment regarding affordable housing is noted. While there are some affordable housing
options in the Magnolia area, the overall amount of affordable housing remains low. See
Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, for description of existing housing conditions and
potential impacts of the EIS alternatives.
Comment 9
Your comment regarding significant impacts and mitigation is noted.
Comment 10
Alternative 1 would include a mix of housing types on the Fort Lawton site. As noted in Chapter
2, the types of housing that under Alternative 1 would include senior supportive housing.
Comment 11
Your comment regarding development of the Talaris site and/or other off-site locations is
noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more information on off-site alternatives.
Comment 12
Your comment requesting the development of a school on the Fort Lawton site is noted. Office
of Housing has had several discussions with Seattle Public Schools about possible school use of
the site. As described in Chapter 2, SPS determined that the Fort Lawton site would not meet
federal Department of Education requirements for public benefit conveyance for construction
of a school. Based on further discussions, it was determined that SPS may pursue ownership of
a portion of the property devoted to active recreation under Alternative 1. Should SPS pursue
development of a school in the future, it would need to conduct additional separate review of
their proposal. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more information on a school alternative.

Comment 13
Under SEPA regulations, EISs are not required analyze the cost of each EIS alternative. Examples
of information not required to be discussed an EIS are: methods of financing proposals,
economic competition, profits and personal income and wages and social policy analysis (WAC
197-11-448).
Comment 14
Your comment regarding developing the Fort Lawton site as a park, incorporating it into
Discovery Park or developing it as a school is noted.
Response to Scott Adams - Letter 12
Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 11, Comment 1.
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 11, Comment 2.
Comment 3
See the response to Letter 11, Comment 1. Under Alternative 4, no parks and recreation
facilities would be developed on the Fort Lawton site that would help satisfy the 2035 City
quota for parkland. Alternative 1 would provide 21.6 acres of public park and recreation
facilities; Alternative 3 would provide 29.0 acres. See Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space
for details.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding potential positive impacts to views under Alternative 3 is noted for
the record. As part of the EIS analysis, visual simulations were prepared to illustrate potential
impacts to views from locations on the Fort Lawton site and in the surrounding area (see
Section 3.7, Aesthetics and Appendix G). There are no existing City-designated viewpoints on
the site. The site is currently owned by the U.S. Army and is not officially available for public
use, including for viewing. While some residents may use the site for recreation/views, any such
uses are unauthorized. It is acknowledged that views from certain locations on the site could be
impacted by new building development. However, with redevelopment under Alternatives 1
and 3, public access would be provided to the site, including for viewing.
Comment 5
Your comment regarding recreational uses under the EIS alternatives is noted. See the response
to Comment 3 in this letter.

Comment 6
Comment 7
Your comment regarding views of the Fort Lawton Cemetery is noted. Views of the cemetery
from Fort Lawton site would remain available under Alternatives 1 and 2 from roadways, open
space areas and other locations on the site. As described in Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural
Resources and Appendix H, while the Fort Lawton Cemetery has been determined to be
potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP, it has not been evaluated for potential historic
significance in order to be listed on the NRHP.
Comment 8
The Fort Lawton site is not on the National Register of Historic Places. The City Landmark status
of buildings on the Fort Lawton site has not been determined, but most do not appear to meet
the criteria to be eligible for Landmark designation. Existing buildings that appear to meet the
criteria for landmark designation and are proposed to be demolished at the Fort Lawton site
would be referred to the City’s Landmark Preservation Board (LPB) for their consideration as a
City Landmark. If a building is designated as City Landmark, a Certificate of Approval will be
required before any changes requiring a Certificate of Approval can be made to the landmark.
Therefore, significant impacts to historic resources are not expected (see Section 3.9, Historic
and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H for details).
Comment 9
The DEIS transportation analysis did not initially include the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue
W intersection as it was believed that it was at a distance where the number of trips passing
through would not have a significant impact. However, comments received from the
community indicated that this intersection was of particular interest and as a result has been
included in the FEIS. The analysis was based on current conditions, which included re-
channelization of Gilman Avenue W and the west section of W Emerson Place to provide
protects bike lanes. The effect of the trips generated from Fort Lawton have been evaluated at
the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection. As shown in Table 3.10-5, trips generated
with the buildout of Alternative 1 (which would be the highest of the alternatives) would
comprise 1.2% to 2.1% of the total peak hour volumes through the intersection (see Section
3.10, Transportation, for details).
Comment 10
Comment 11
Estimates of trips generated by the EIS alternatives were calculated according to procedures
established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE procedures are the industry

standard for trip generation analysis and reflect best practice. As set forth in the ITE
procedures, trip generation rates and equations – which are based upon nationwide data –
were adjusted to reflect locally-collected data. These included 2010 Census travel mode data
for the Magnolia neighborhood, and for trips generated by senior housing and the athletic
fields, by data collected for other similar projects in Seattle. These estimation procedures and
adjustments are described in detail in Section 3.1.2 of the transportation analysis (Appendix I).
Comment 12
The transit assessment provided in the DEIS concluded that that level of additional transit
demand that would be generated by the projectforecast to be an average of 2 to 3 riders per
bus during the peak hourcould be accommodated with the existing bus service. Additional
analysis that supports the DEIS conclusion, based upon ridership counts and calculated bus
capacity, is provided in Section 3.10, Transportation, of this FEIS.
Comment 13
Additional analysis has been included in this FEIS to show the relative effect of project trips at
the three primary access points to the 15th Avenue W corridor: W Emerson Place/W Nickerson
Street, W Dravus Street and the Magnolia Bridge. New analysis was also performed to assess
the change in the configuration at the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection. The
new analysis is provided in Section 3.10, Transportation.
The analysis determined that the W Emerson Place/Gilman Avenue W intersection currently
operates at LOS F with the reconfiguration and all-way stop control, consistent with many
comments made about congestion at that intersection. Project-generated trips through this
intersection would be a small proportion of the overall intersection traffic, estimated to range
from 1.2% to 2.1% of the total traffic.
The Seattle Department of Transportation recently evaluated the intersection as part of its
Magnolia Bridge Traffic Maintenance During Bridge Closure Report (Heffron Transportation,
November 10, 2017), and it was recommended that the intersection be monitored to
determine if a traffic signal should be installed.
Also see the response to Comment 9 in this letter.
Comment 14
Comment 15
Under SEPA, impacts are defined as the adverse effects of a proposed project. Positive impacts
may be disclosed in an EIS, but are required to be included. The relative transportation impacts
of the EIS alternatives at the Fort Lawton site (including trips generated, impacts on traffic
operations, parking demand, traffic safety, transit and non-motorized transportation) are
included in Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I.

Comment 16
While the City has set aside land for potential Seattle Public Schools (SPS) use on the Fort
Lawton site, the potential development of a school is not part of the proposed EIS alternatives.
Planning and environmental analysis for any school would be performed by SPS. The potential
impacts of the EIS alternatives on schools is analyzed in Section 3.11, Public Services. This
analysis has been update for this EIS based on recent discussions with SPS.
Comment 17
Your comments regarding public service impacts under the EIS alternatives is noted. Through
tax revenues generated directly and indirectly from the development of the Fort Lawton site
and the service purveyors’ planning processes, all the purveyors have indicated that they could
handle the increased demand for services from the three EIS alternatives. Therefore, no
significant public services impacts are expected. Several mitigation measures are offered for the
increase in demand for public services and are listed at the end of Section 3.11, Public Services.
Comment 18
Conclusions regarding SPD’s ability to handle an increase in demand are based on personal
communication with SPD staff, as well as data from their capital facilities plans, annual reports
and website data. The City of Seattle has approved a plan for 200 new officers by 2020; SPD
does not anticipate that they would need to increase staffing levels beyond this level or provide
equipment upgrades due to this project. There is no definitive evidence that affordable housing
would result in increased rates of crime. Alternative 1 at the Fort Lawton site and Alternatives 2
and 3 at the Talaris site would also include a comprehensive package of services for senior
supportive housing focused on residential stability, which could help reduce the need for police
service (see Section 3.11, Public Services, for details).
Comment 19
Your comment regarding increased demand for school services under the EIS alternatives is
noted. As part of the FEIS, SPS was requested to provide updated information on its enrollment
projections and anticipated projects and planning that would affect school capacity around Fort
Lawton. As described in DEIS Section 3.11, Public Services, potential development on the Fort
Lawton site would generate approximately 41 new students under Alternative 1. New
elementary students added to Lawton Elementary and Ballard High School would contribute to
schools that are over their right-sized capacity. However, SPS anticipates that Magnolia
Elementary and Lincoln High School would be operational by 2019 and are expected to help
absorb demand for the surrounding area and could affect boundaries/enrollment for schools
serving the Fort Lawton site (see Section 3.11, Public Services, for details).

Comment 20
The EIS analyzes impacts under the assumption that no school is added. The City has begun
discussion with SPS regarding their interest in owning and maintaining land dedicated to active
recreation under Alternative 1. Such uses could help meet SPS’s recreation needs, as well as
serving the broader public. As with other shared facilities in Seattle, these would likely be the
subject of a Joint Use of Facilities Agreement with Seattle Parks and Recreation. This land is
currently planned for recreation, not for a new school; thus, the EIS does not address impacts if
a new school is added (see Section 4.1, Alternatives, for additional discussion on a School
alternative).
SPS currently does not have fully formed plans for development of a school on the Fort Lawton
site. Should SPS pursue this option in the future, it would need to conduct additional, separate
environmental review of the school proposal.
Comment 21
For the affordable rental housing, a covenant will be recorded against the property that
requires continued use of the units funded by the City as low-income housing for a minimum of
50 years, and for any additional period for which the City’s loan is extended or remains
outstanding.
For the affordable ownership housing, restrictions recorded against the title require that, for a
period of at least 50 years, upon resale, the homes must be sold to eligible homebuyers at an
affordable sales price for a low-income homebuyer. Resale restrictions must be in the form of a
ground lease, covenant, or other recorded document approved by the Office of Housing.
Providers of income-restricted affordable housing must report annually to public funders. The
Seattle Office of Housing’s compliance and performance assessments cover a comprehensive
list of compliance and performance areas, including resident eligibility, affordability, affirmative
marketing and nondiscrimination, capital needs assessments, sound project fiscal management,
and community relations (measured by good maintenance, street appearance, and
responsiveness to neighborhood concerns and complaints).
Comment 22
Your comment in support of Alternative 3, possibly including a school, is noted.
Response to Matt Adkins - Letter 13
Comment 1
Thank you, your petition in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record.

Response to Celena Adler - Letter 14
Comment 1
Response to Damon Agnos - Letter 15
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted. See Section
4.1, Alternatives, for a discussion of a Higher Density Affordable Housing Alternative.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding affordable housing and transit are noted.
Response to Elaine Albertson - Letter 16
Comment 1
Response to Suha Alivizatos - Letter 17
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted for the record.
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1, and Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Response to Zach Alexander - Letter 18
Comment 1
Response to Alison - Letter 19
Comment 1
A record of all verbal and written comments received on the Fort Lawton DEIS is included in this
chapter of the FEIS. No other public hearings are required during the SEPA processes for the
Fort Lawton project. Seattle City Council approval will be required for several actions related to
the Fort Lawton project. City Council meetings are open to the public and public comment

regarding proposed Council actions is generally allowed. If Alternative 2 or 3 is chosen and an
off-site location is selected for affordable housing, additional SEPA review and public hearings
would be provided on that project.
As noted in Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input, everyone who signed up to speak at the
DEIS public hearing on January 9, 2018 was given the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, some
people who wished to speak may have been discouraged by the number of commenters and
nature of comments at the meeting. Comments on the DEIS were also accepted in writing, and
all comments—written and verbal—will be given equal weight.
Response to Craig Allegro - Letter 20
Comment 1
As noted in this comment, two public meetings were held during EIS scoping (on June 19, 2017,
and June 21, 2017) to provide opportunities for the public to learn more about the Proposed
Actions and to provide input on the scope of the EIS. Public comments were accepted in writing
at the meetings and in writing throughout the scoping period. These meeting were not
intended as forums for verbal comment, and provisions were not made to transcribe such
comments. Commenters were allowed to speak orally nonetheless.
See the response to Letter 19, Comment 1. The Magnolia United Church of Christ was selected
as the venue for the DEIS public meeting because of its convenient location, high quality sound
system for ease of hearing public comments, and capacity to accommodate a large number of
people (in excess of the number of attendees at previous meetings held during the EIS scoping
period) (see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input, for details).
Response to Deanne Allegro - Letter 21
Comment 1
The apartment building that is part of the Fort Lawton redevelopment plan would provide
affordable supportive housing for homeless seniors. Homeless senior veterans are a target
population for a portion of those supportive housing units. This is described in the discussion of
Alternative 1.
The housing must be operated according to an approved management plan. Catholic Housing
Services is proposing a comprehensive package of services focused on stability for the
residents. Case management services would be provided onsite, and case managers would
leverage behavioral health services, including chemical dependency treatment and/or mental
health services, as needed. In addition to case management services, all residents would have
access 24 hours a day to residential counselors. Approval of the proposal is contingent on
adequate funding for staffing for demonstrated best practices in permanent supportive
services. Supportive housing – the combination of affordable housing with supportive services –
is widely considered a comparatively cost efficient and humane approach to enabling health
and recovery for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or similar crisis.

All federal, state, and local fair housing laws apply to both for-profit, market-rate housing and
publicly funded affordable housing. Providers of income-restricted affordable housing must
report annually to public funders. The Seattle Office of Housing’s regular assessments cover a
comprehensive list of compliance and performance areas, including community relations
(measured by good maintenance, street appearance, and responsiveness to neighborhood
concerns and complaints). Housing providers must also demonstrate affirmative marketing and
nondiscrimination consistent with federal, state, and local fair housing laws and regulations.
Comment 2
The elements of the environment, as used in SEPA, are listed in WAC 197-11-444, and include
the adequacy of public services such as police, fire, schools and parks and recreation; impacts
on the incidence of crime is not identified as an environmental impact. However, to respond to
concerns raised during the EIS scoping process about the potential for increased crime under
Alternative 1, a discussion of crime is included in Section 3.11, Public Services – Impacts. 2
Section 3.11, Pubic Services – Impacts, indicates that the increase in on-site population with
development under the EIS alternatives would increase demand for police services. The
comment appears to suggest that affordable housing residents cause greater increases in crime
in the surrounding areas. However, there is no definitive evidence that this is the case.
Numerous studies and research on this topic have been conducted over the past 30 years in
cities across the country. A review of such literature concludes that there is little evidence for
crime spillovers into surrounding neighborhoods. Overall, whether looking at larger public
housing projects, vouchers or scattered-site public housing, the effects on neighborhood crime
are typically quite small, if they exist at all.3
Development of senior supportive housing under Alternative 1 would include the provision of a
comprehensive package of services focused on residential stability and the well-being of
residents, including case management services provided onsite by Catholic Community Services
of Western Washington and residential counselors that would be available onsite 24 hours a
day (see Chapter 2 for details). These support services could help reduce the need for police
service.
Response to Justin Allegro - Letter 22
Comment 1
2
SEPA Rules allow an EIS to discuss subjects in addition to potential environmental impacts to the elements of the
environment identified in WAC 191-11-444. However, the rules also state that if discussion of these optional
subjects are included in an EIS, the “decision whether to include such information and the adequacy of any such
additional analysis shall not be used in determining whether an EIS meets the requirements of SEPA.” (WAC 197-
11-44(8)).
3
Michael C. Lens. Subsidized Housing and Crime: Theory, Mechanisms and Evidence. January 2013.

Comment 2
Your comment regarding public school capacity is noted for the record. Please refer to Section
4.2, Public Services, for further details.
Comment 3
When determining what uses might comprise the permitted uses at the site, SEPA does not
require that all potential land uses be considered. Furthermore, SPS determined that it would
be unable to meet federal Department of Education requirements for a property conveyance
for educational use. In particular, SPS determined that it would not meet the criteria related to
financial ability and immediate need. Thus, an alternative that includes a school on the Fort
Lawton site is not evaluated in this EIS.
After the EIS scoping period ended, the SPS board passed a resolution expressing interest in
finding ways to possibly include SPS facilities in the redevelopment. In response, the City
offered SPS the opportunity to pursue ownership of a portion of the Fort Lawton site proposed
to be devoted to active recreation under Alternative 1. This option is described in Chapter 2
under Alternative 1. SPS currently does not have fully formed plans for development of a school
on the Fort Lawton site. Should SPS pursue this option, it would need to conduct additional,
separate environmental review of their school proposal.
Comment 4
Please see the response to Comment 3 of this letter.
Response to Lindsay Allen - Letter 23
Comment 1
Response to Anson Allseitz - Letter 24
Comment 1
Response to Scott Alspach - Letter 25
Comment 1

Response to Grace Amend - Letter 26
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Jane Anau - Letter 27
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Lindsay Andersen - Letter 28
Comment 1
Response to Sarah Andersen - Letter 29
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition of the proposed project is noted for the record.
Comment 2
The transportation analysis presented in the DEIS evaluated intersections near the project site
where project-generated traffic would be highest. Additional information has been provided in
this FEIS about the effect of project trips at key intersections farther from the site. As shown in
DEIS Table 3.10-4 (or Table 11 of the Transportation Technical Report in Appendix I) and Section
3.4 of this FEIS, project-generated trips are expected to add some delay at intersections in the
vicinity, but would not change their overall operation as compared to conditions without the
project (No Action Alternative).
Please see the responses to Letter 12, Comment 13.
Comment 3

Response to Kyle Anderson - Letter 30
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition of the proposed project is noted for the record.
Response to Christine Anderson - Letter 31
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition of the development of thousands of low income housing units is
noted.
Response to Stephanie Anderson – Letter 32
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a park alternative is noted for the record. Please see
the response to Letter 4, Comment 1.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding restricting comments to only Magnolia residents is noted. However,
SEPA and the City’s Environmental Policies and Procedures (SMC 25.05) do not limit who may
comment on an EIS.
Response to Claire Andrefsky - Letter 33
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Evaluations of
housing and socioeconomics, and environmental justice are included in the EIS (see Sections
3.13 and 3.14, respectively).
Response to Jennifer Andrews - Letter 34
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of including school uses on the Fort Lawton site is noted
for the record. As described in Chapter 2, the City has begun discussion with Seattle Public
Schools (SPS) regarding their interest in owning and maintaining land dedicated to active
recreation under Alternative 1. Such uses could help meet SPS’s recreation needs, as well as
serving the broader public. As with other shared facilities in Seattle, these would likely be the
subject of a Joint Use of Facilities Agreement with Seattle Parks and Recreation. SPS currently

does not have fully formed plans for development of a school on the Fort Lawton site. Should
SPS pursue this option in the future it would need to conduct additional, separate
environmental review of the school proposal.
For information on impacts to school capacity, please see Section 3.11, Public Services, and
Section 4.2, Public Services.
Response to Helen Angell - Letter 35
Comment 1
Response to Dustin Anglin - Letter 36
Comment 1
Response to Anonymous - Letter 37
Comment 1
Thank you, your comments in support of the development of affordable housing is noted for
the record.
The EIS provides information on climate change in Section 3.3, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Emissions. As noted in this section, GHG constituents include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, O3 and halocarbons. CO2 is the individual constituent
that is normally emitted in the greatest amount and generally contributes the most to climate
change. Projected buildout (2025) GHG emissions for each of the EIS alternatives is
presented in Table 3.3-1. Predicted GHG emissions from all the alternatives would fall below
Washington State Department of Ecology’s threshold of significance; therefore, no significant
GHG impacts are anticipated.
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted. Please see
Comment 3
Because this EIS is prepared by the City of Seattle, the EIS Alternatives are limited to locations
within Seattle. While increasing the number of people with “long single-car commutes and
high-carbon [lifestyles]” likely would lead to a higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, this is
not within the scope of the Fort Lawton EIS. The GHG analysis included in this FEIS is included in
Section 3.3, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Comment 4
Your comment regarding affordable ownership housing deed restrictions is noted. See Letter
12, Comment 21.
Comment 5
Your comment regarding making provisions for additional density is noted. See the response to
Letter 15, Comment 2.
Comment 6
Your comment in support of affordable housing at the Talaris site is noted. See Section 4.1,
Alternatives, for more information on off-site alternatives.
Comment 7
Your comment regarding affordable housing in the region is noted.
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of affordable housing is noted for the record. Please see
the response to Letter 37, Comment 1 regarding climate change.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
12, Comment 21.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Your comment in support of affordable housing at the Talaris site is noted. See the response to

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the park is noted for the record.
Comment 1
Thank you, your comments regarding transit and access to services under Alternative 1 is noted
for the record.
Transit Service is discussed in Section 3.10, Transportation, Section 4.4, Transportation, and
Appendix I. Under Alternative 1, projected additional transit demand averages approximately 2
to 3 new riders per bus that currently serves the Fort Lawton site during the peak hour. Existing
bus service would be adequate to serve this demand. Additional information on transit service
is included in this FEIS to support this conclusion.
The elements of the environment to be considered in an EIS include public services such as
police, fire, schools and parks and recreation; the availability or adequacy of commercial and
institutional services are not required to be evaluated in an EIS. However, in response to
concerns raised about the accessibility and affordability of commercial and institutional
services, a discussion of these services is provided below.
While some higher-end commercial services are located near the Fort Lawton site, other less
costly options are also located in the vicinity. For example, Metropolitan Market is the closest
grocery store to the Fort Lawton site (approximately 0.4 mile to the south) and is generally
considered more of a high-end grocery store. Other less costly options include an Albertson’s
grocery store located approximately 1.3 miles to the south, a QFC located approximately 1.4
miles to the east and a Safeway located approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast. For gas
station services, a Shell station is located the most proximate to the site; however, an Arco
station and three 76 stations are located within 1.3 mile or less of the site and would provide
additional options for services. For medical facilities, Swedish Primary Care Facilities are located
to the south of the site in Magnolia (approximately 1.4 miles from the site), as well as within
the Ballard and Queen Anne neighborhoods. Also see Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to
Plans and Policies, for a description of existing land uses in the Fort Lawton vicinity.
Under Alternative 1, residents of the senior supportive housing uses would have on-site
support services provided by Catholic Community Services of Western Washington, including
case management services, assistance with medical benefits, and assistance with outside
mental and medical health providers.
The following possible mitigation measure is included in Section 3.11, Public Services, to
provide enhanced access to commercial and institutional services and employment
opportunities:

• Van service could be provided as part of the project for senior supportive housing and
possibly for the other affordable housing onsite to enhance access to services and
employment opportunities.
Comment 1
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. For information
on the Seattle Public Schools’ potential use of the site, please see the response to Letter 34,
Comment 1.
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition of private development of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 2
is noted for the record.
Comment 1
Comment 1
Response to Ellen Archibald - Letter 45
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Please see the
response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Response to Jim Arrowsmith - Letter 46
Comment 1

Response to Lisa Ascher - Letter 47
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Thank you for your comments. See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
Response to Jennifer Aspelund - Letter 48
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 and development in park use is noted for
the record. Please note that under Alternative 3 the entire site would be developed in park uses
that would be available to the public.
Response to Suzanne Asprea - Letter 49
Comment 1
Response to Walker Aumann - Letter 50
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Tea Austen - Letter 51
Comment 1

Response to Kaya Axelsson - Letter 52
Comment 1
Response to Shary B - Letter 53
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment in regarding deed restrictions is noted for the record. See the response to Letter
12, Comment 21.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Jennifer Bacon - Letter 54
Comment 1
Thank you, for your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record.
Response to Taylor Bailey - Letter 55
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted for
the record. The existing office layouts in the buildings onsite were not conducive to providing

the range of affordable ownership and rental housing desired by the City, and the cost of
renovation (which would include substantial heating, plumbing, electrical and seismic upgrades)
would not have represented a more efficient approach. Constructing new housing yields more
options and flexibility to create an efficient site plan, as well as a mix of housing types that are
compatible with the existing residential neighborhood. The City is managing the Fort Lawton
property for an interim period while the long-term plan is being developed, and would be
willing to explore rental of existing spaces on a short-term basis; however, the condition of the
buildings may preclude such options.
Response to Tamar Bailey - Letter 56
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding affordable housing is noted for the record. Please see the
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment regarding deed restrictions is noted for the record. See the response to Letter
12, Comment 21.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Aloe Bailey - Letter 57
Comment 1

Response to Max Baker - Letter 58
Comment 1
Response to Jessica Balsam - Letter 59
Comment 1
Response to Sonia Balsky - Letter 60
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted
for the record. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Response to Kathryn Banke - Letter 61

Comment 1
As part of the FEIS, SPS was requested to provide updated information on its enrollment
projections and anticipated projects and planning that would affect school capacity around Fort
Lawton. As noted in Section 3.11, Public Services, development on the Fort Lawton site under
Alternative 1 would generate approximately 41 new students. New students added to Lawton
Elementary and Ballard High School would contribute to schools that are over their right-sized
capacity. However, SPS anticipates that Magnolia Elementary and Lincoln High School would be
operational by 2019 and are expected to help absorb demand for the surrounding area and
could affect boundaries/enrollment for schools serving the Fort Lawton site (see Section 3.11,
Public Services, and Section 4.2, Public Services, for details).
Comment 2
Your comment in support of including a public school in the redevelopment plan for Fort
Lawton is noted. Please see the response to Letter 34, Comment 1.
Comment 3
Response to Geri Ann Baptista - Letter 62

Comment 1

Response to Linda Bard - Letter 63
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding opportunities for public input in the EIS process is noted
Response to Lisa Barnes - Letter 64

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Under Alternative 1, the site would be rezoned from the existing SF 7200 zoning to LR2(M1)
zoning. Proposed redevelopment does not currently include retail; inclusion of retail would
require a reclassification to a designation that allows commercial uses. Also see the discussion
of “Other Alternatives” in Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Response to Michaela Barrett - Letter 65

Comment 1
Response to Marilyn Bates - Letter 66

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to housing at the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
record. A possible alternative location for the affordable housing—the Talaris site—is included
in Alternatives 2 and 3. Please see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding opportunity for public input in the EIS process is noted. See Section
4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Comment 3
Please see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1. Your comment regarding a park alternative is
noted. Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be developed as a park. The Fort
Lawton site is currently not in Discovery Park, the park is immediately west of the site. See the
Response to Serena Batten - Letter 67

Comment 1

Response to Colin Bayer - Letter 68
Comment 1
Response to Molly Beaudoin - Letter 69

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment requesting a school alternative is noted for the record. As described
in Chapter 2, SPS determined that it would be unable to meet federal Department of Education
requirements for a public benefit conveyance for construction of a school at the Fort Lawton
site. SPS may pursue ownership of a portion of the property devoted to active recreation under
Alternative 1. Should SPS pursue this option in the future, it would need to conduct additional,
separate environmental review of their school proposal. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for
details.
Response to Lisa Beaulaurier - Letter 70

Comment 1
Response to Joe Beavo - Letter 71

Comment 1
Per your request, you will be placed on the project listserv. Office of Housing will notify the
listserv of significant milestones in the planning process, including notification of when a draft
redevelopment plan is available for public comment, and when the plan is submitted to City
Council for review. Thank you for your interest in the project.
Comment 2
Response to Dan Becker - Letter 72

Comment 1
Response to Jennifer Beetem - Letter 73

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding the provision of a p-patch style garden on the Fort Lawton site is
noted.

Response to Larry Benefiel - Letter 74
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding access to Magnolia is noted. Please see the response to
Comment 2
Response to Barbara Bengtsson - Letter 75

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted. See the
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment regarding deed restrictions is noted for the record. See the response to Letter
12, Comment 21
Comment 5
Comment 6
Your comment in support of affordable housing at the Talaris site. See Section 4.1, Alternatives,
for more information on off-site alternatives.
Response to Bob Bennett and Sue Boivin - Letter 76

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. As described in
Section 3.6 Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, proposed development on the Fort
Lawton site under Alternative 1 is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on
surrounding land uses due to the compatibility of proposed uses with off-site uses, layout of
uses, provision of buffers/separation, and the lack of new vehicular/pedestrian connection to
certain off-site uses.

Response to Patricia Benton - Letter 77
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Please note
that the Fort Lawton site is not currently part of Discovery Park.
Comment 2
Your comments regarding crime in Magnolia and Seattle are noted. Please see the response to
Comment 3
Your comment regarding the homeless in Seattle is noted.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding homeless encampments in Discovery Park is noted. See the response
to Letter 21, Comment 2.
Comment 5
The formerly homeless housing under Alternative 1 must be operated according to an approved
management plan. Catholic Housing Services is proposing a comprehensive package of services
focused on stability for the residents. Case management services would be provided onsite, and
case managers would leverage behavioral health services, including chemical dependency
treatment and/or mental health services, as needed. In addition to case management services,
all residents would have access 24 hours a day to residential counselors. Approval of the
proposal is contingent on adequate funding for staffing for demonstrated best practices in
permanent supportive services. Supportive housing – the combination of affordable housing
with supportive services – is widely considered a comparatively cost efficient and humane
approach to enabling health and recovery for individuals and families experiencing
homelessness or similar crisis.
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination
in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based
on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Seattle's list of fair
housing protections is far longer. It is also illegal for landlords to unfairly deny applicants
housing based on criminal history. The Fair Chance Housing Legislation addresses bias against
people who, although they had served their time, faced barriers to safe, stable housing, and
could be denied the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families.
Facts to help inform decisions about how to stay safe from sexual abuse are available from the
U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking. Convicted sex offenders must follow registration requirements,
which are governed by the Revised Code of Washington. Chapter 9A.44 pertains to Sex
Offenses. For information on who must register, what must be provided, and timeliness of
registration see RCW 9A.44.130.

publicly funded affordable housing. Income-restricted affordable housing providers must report
annually to public funders. The Seattle Office of Housing’s regular assessments cover a
comprehensive list of compliance and performance areas, including community relations
(measured by good maintenance, street appearance, and responsiveness to neighborhood
concerns and complaints). Housing providers must also demonstrate affirmative marketing and
nondiscrimination consistent with federal, state, and local fair housing laws and regulations.
Comment 6
See the response Comment 5 in this letter and to Letter 21, Comment 2.
Comment 7
See the response Comment 5 in this letter and to Letter 21, Comment 2.
Comment 8
Comment 9
As noted in Chapter 2, senior supportive housing is included as part of the mix of housing types
Comment 10
Your comment in support of a school on the Fort Lawton site is note. See the response to Letter
69, Comment 1.
Comment 11
Your comment regarding including a conference center in redevelopment of the Fort Lawton
site is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for a discussion of other alternatives that were
requested to be studied in the EIS. Including a conference center in the redevelopment would
not meet the applicant’s objectives for the project (see Chapter 2 for these objectives).
Generating revenue from the property is also not Seattle Office of Housing’s highest priority.
Comment 12
A possible off-site location for the affordable housing is included in Alternatives 2 and 3, the
Talaris site.
In December, the City announced more $100 million in investments to build and preserve 1,450
affordable homes in neighborhoods across Seattle, including the construction of 290 homes in
four new buildings for chronically mentally ill and homeless individuals and families. The Office
of Housing has a demonstrated track record of funding affordable housing for low-income
individuals and families, including people who have experienced homelessness, throughout
Seattle. Housing for formerly homeless populations is located in a broad range of
neighborhoods in all seven Council districts. This includes Downtown urban center
neighborhoods, the University District, Capitol Hill, Fremont, Ballard, Greenwood, Lake City,
Beacon Hill, Mt. Baker, Rainier Beach and West Seattle.

Comment 13
It is unclear what to what building restrictions this comment is referring. Currently, the land use
designation of the Fort Lawton site is MF and the zoning is SF 7200
Comment 14
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted. See the response to Letter 4,
Comment 1.
Comment 15
Thank you, your comment in support of including school uses on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Comment 16
Your comment regarding homeless issues in the Seattle is noted. Two alternatives are included
in the EIS that do not feature affordable housing: Alternative 2, with market-rate housing
onsite; and Alternative 3, with public park uses onsite.
Response to Julie Berard - Letter 78

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment supporting Alternatives 3 and 4 is noted for the record. However,
under Alternative 4, the Fort Lawton site would not be in park use, it would remain in its
existing vacant condition. The property would not be conveyed by the U.S. Army to the City of
Seattle per the BRAC process. Any future use or disposition of the site would be left to the
discretion of the U.S. Army. The most likely outcome would be a sale for development of
market-rate residential development in accordance with the uses allowed by the site’s current
SF 7200 zoning. This outcome is reflected in Alternative 2.
Comment 2
For information on school capacity, please see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1, Section
3.11, Public Services and Section 4.2, Public Services. For information on transportation, see
Section 3.10, Transportation; Section 4.4, Transportation; and Appendix I.
Comment 3
Alternative 1 would provide an increase in park space, though less than under Alternative 3. See
Response to Todd Berard - Letter 79

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment supporting Alternatives 3 and 4 is noted for the record.
Comment 2

Comment 3
Alternative 1 would provide an increase in public park space, though less than under
Alternative 3. See the response to Letter 12, Comment 2.
Response to Todd Berard - Letter 80

Comment 1
Thank you for your comment regarding development of the Talaris site and/or other off-site
locations is noted for the record. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more information on
off-site alternatives. Under SEPA, EISs are not required to provide a cost comparison of the
alternatives. Examples of information not required to be discussed an EIS are: methods of
financing proposals, economic competition, profits and personal income and wages, and social
policy analysis (WAC 197-11-448). Other information on cost and technical considerations will
be used in conjunction with the EIS during the decision-making process.
Reuse of the existing structures on the Fort Lawton site was considered but determined to be
infeasible. See Letter 65, Comment 1.
Comment 2
A description of the history of the Discovery Park Master Plan is provided in Section 3.6, Land
Use and Relationship to Plans and Policies. As noted in that description, in Magnolia
Neighborhood Planning Council v. City of Seattle, 155 Wash.App. 305 (2010), a neighborhood
group challenged the City’s 2008 adoption of a Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan (FLRP) and
contended that the FLRP was inconsistent with the 1986 Discovery Park Master Plan. The Court
of Appeals agreed with the City that the 1986 Master Plan created no enforceable right or duty
and that the trial court erred in ruling that the City was required to publicly determine the
applicability of the Master Plan to the FLRP. Therefore, no further discussion of the Master Plan
is provided in the EIS.
Comment 3
The DEIS transportation analyses applied an annual growth rate to existing traffic volumes to
account for cumulative effects through year 2030 with trips generated by other new
development. The assumed background growth rate is considered conservatively high when
compared to historical traffic trends in the area that show a decline in traffic volumes over the
past decade. Background growth of 1% per year over 13 years is also at the high end of the
growth assumptions typically applied to analysis of new development projects in Seattle. Trips
forecast to be generated by the project were added to the No Action volumes that reflect the
assumed background growth, to evaluate the cumulative effect on traffic operations of the
project and other new development (see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for
details).
In addition, new analysis was performed for this FEIS to evaluate the cumulative effects of the
recent reconfiguration at the W Emerson Street/Gilman Avenue W intersection. The same
background growth assumptions used in the DEIS were used for the new analysis (see Section
3.10, Transportation, for the additional analysis).

A summary of cumulative impacts of redevelopment at the Fort Lawton site, together with
other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, is provided in Section 4.6,
Cumulative Impacts. Certain sections of the EIS discuss the cumulative impacts of the Fort
Lawton project in the context of growth in the larger vicinity, the entire city and the region
(e.g., Section 3.3, Air Quality, 3.4, Noise, Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and
Policies, Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, Section 3.10, Transportation, Section 3.11,
Public Services, Section 3.12, Utilities, Section 3.13, Housing/Socioeconomics, and Section
3.14, Environmental Justice). These impacts are summarized as well.
Comment 4
The study area for the transportation analysis presented in the DEIS included intersections near
the project site where project-generated traffic, and therefore project transportation impacts,
would be highest. Farther from the site, trips spread out and have lower impact, so detailed
operational analysis is not needed. However, in response to questions raised about several
streets and intersections located farther from the site, additional information has been
provided in Section 3.10, Transportation, of this FEIS.
Please also see the responses to Letter 12, Comment 9; and Letter 29, Comment 2.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Thank you for information on restrictive covenants and affordable housing in the Magnolia
neighborhood. While Magnolia no longer has racial restrictive covenants, the area remains less
diverse overall and contains fewer minorities compared to overall percentages in the city. The
city of Seattle’s population is roughly 30.5% minority, while approximately 18.4% of the
residents in the Fort Lawton vicinity are minorities (see Table 3.13-2). While there may have
been opportunity for diverse populations to move to Magnolia, it remains relatively less diverse
than the city on average. Racial covenants cannot fully explain these trends, but their legacy
remains important in some areas of Magnolia. The proposed development would be expected
to shift ethnicity ratios in the Fort Lawton vicinity towards ratios more consistent with those
citywide.
The DEIS acknowledges on pages 2-10 and 3.9-4 that Fort Lawton was in active military use as a
staging center and prisoner of war camp through World Wars I and II, the Korean War and into
the Vietnam War. At the height of base activities during World War II, the Fort included 450
buildings and housed 20,000 soldiers (see Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and
Appendix H for details.
Comment 7
It is acknowledged that there are some affordable housing options available in the Magnolia
neighborhood. However, the overall amount of affordable housing remains low.

Comment 8
Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, states that Magnolia is generally a high cost
neighborhood, particularly with regard to for-sale housing, based on median list prices per
square foot and median home values.
Comment 9
A number of mitigation measures are included in the EIS in the form of “Legally-Required
Measures,” “Measures Proposed as Part of Project,” and “Other Possible Measures.” The EIS
also discusses several significant unavoidable adverse impacts (e.g., under Biological Resources,
Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, Aesthetics/Visual Resources, Transportation and
Public Services). See Section 1.5, Mitigation Measures and Significant Unavoidable Adverse
Impacts, and the mitigation measures and significant unavoidable adverse for each element in
Chapter 3.
Comment 10
population for a portion of those supportive housing units. This is described further in the
discussion of Alternative 1. See the response to Letter 77, Comment 5.
Comment 11
See the responses to Letter 2, Comments 4 and 5.
Comment 12
Comment 13
See the responses to Letter 2, Comment 4 and 5.
Comment 14
Comment 1.
Response to Jessi Berkelhammaer - Letter 81

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of higher density affordable housing is noted. See the response to

Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment regarding deed restrictions is noted for the record. See Letter 12, Comment 21.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Your comment in support of the Talaris site is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more
information on the off-site alternatives.
Response to Maya Berkowitz - Letter 82

Comment 1
Response to Keara Berlin - Letter 83

Comment 1
Response to Barbara Bernard - Letter 84

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to housing development on the Fort Lawton site is
noted for the record. For information on access to services, please see the response to Letter
40, Comment 1.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 1.
Response to Laura Loe Bernstein - Letter 85

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding housing insecurity/housing supply is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding the geographical equity is noted.

Comment 3
Your comment regarding working with indigenous communities is noted. The Office of Housing
and its housing partners intend to continue engaging with native communities and
organizations during development of the project, and look forward to exploring opportunities
for affirmative marketing.
Response to Athena Bertolino - Letter 86

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition of Alternative 1 is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Comment 3
noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more information on off-site alternatives.
Comment 4
As with any vacant site, security is a challenge. The City is currently exploring options for
bringing active uses to the site until the environmental review process is completed and a final
plan is implemented.
Comment 5
Thank you, your comment regarding potential locations for affordable housing is noted.
Comment 6
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative or a school alternative is noted. See
the responses to Letter 4, Comment 1 and Letter 69, Comment 1.
Response to Tina Beveridge - Letter 87

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding development on the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
record.
Comment 2
Comment 3
As described in Chapter 2, Fort Lawton is one of the last remaining military bases to be
disposed of under the U.S. Army 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Following
the decision to close the base, the Army named the City of Seattle the Local Redevelopment
property. From 2006 through 2008, the City conducted an extensive community engagement

process that resulted in a detailed redevelopment plan (2008 Plan) 4 to create a diverse, mixed-
income community with housing for homeless individuals and families and market-rate
housing. The U.S. Army and the City have also been engaging the public in the NEPA/SEPA
environmental review process for closure of the base and redevelopment of the site. The Office
of Housing has a demonstrated track record of funding affordable housing for low-income
individuals and families, including people who have experienced homelessness, throughout
Seattle. Housing for formerly homeless populations is located in a broad range of
neighborhoods in all seven Council districts. This includes Downtown urban center
neighborhoods, the University District, Capitol Hill, Fremont, Ballard, Greenwood, Lake City,
Beacon Hill, Mt. Baker, Rainier Beach and West Seattle.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding the provision of other uses/services on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for a discussion of other alternative uses for the site. Catholic
Housing Services is proposing a comprehensive package of services focused on stability for the
access 24 hours a day to residential counselors.
Comment 5
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park Alternative is noted. See the responses to Letter
4, Comment 1 and Letter 85, Comment 3.
Response to Shaun Bickley - Letter 88

Comment 1
response to Letter 15, Comment 2 regarding a higher density affordable housing alternative.
Response to William Bielawski - Letter 89

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment is support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted
Response to Natalia Biner-Wittke - Letter 90

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Please see the
response to Letter 21, Comment 2 regarding the potential for increased crime in the
surrounding area.
4

Comment 2
See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1 regarding services available in the area and transit.
Comment 3
Economic impacts are not elements of the environment that must be analyzed in an
EIS. However, in response to comments raised during the EIS scoping process, a discussion of
the potential impacts of low-income housing on property values is included in Section 3.13,
Housing and Socioeconomics, based on pertinent real estate studies. Overall, the study
indicated that low-income housing developments do not affect nearby home values,
particularly in cities with expensive or limited housing supply, such as Seattle 5. Therefore, the
affordable housing under Alternative 1 is not expected to negatively impact property values in
the Magnolia neighborhood.
Comment 4
As described in Section 3.11, Public Services, the increased population under the EIS
alternatives would place additional demand on police services. Seattle Police Department has
indicted that they have capacity to service the project. Also see the response to Letter 21,
Comment 2.
Comment 5
Your comment regarding potential locations for affordable housing is noted.
Response to Brian W Bird - Letter 91

Comment 1
Response to D’Anne Bissell - Letter 92

Comment 1
Response to Anna Black - Letter 93

Comment 1
5
Young, Cheryl. There Doesn’t Go the Neighborhood, Low-Income Housing Has No Impact on Nearby Home Values.
Trulia’s Blog. November 2016.

Response to Mark Bloome - Letter 94
Comment 1
While the Senior Supportive Housing will provide supportive services, it is not intended to
replace a nursing home facility, and thus would not be appropriate housing for those with
dementia or other serious medical conditions that require close monitoring and frequent
medical services (see Chapter 2 for details on the Senior Supportive Housing).
Response to Angela Blums - Letter 95

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Section 3.6,
Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, provides an analysis of the potential impacts of
Alternative 1 on surrounding land uses. The analyses conclude that no significant land use
impacts are anticipated due to the compatibility of the proposed housing and public park uses
with off-site uses, layout of uses, provision of buffers/separation, and the lack of new
Comment 2
Your comment on other locations for affordable housing is noted. See the response to Letter
40, Comment 1.
Response to Stephanie Boegeman - Letter 96

Comment 1
Response to Derek Boiko-Weyrauch - Letter 97

Comment 1
Response to Allison Bolgiano - Letter 98

Comment 1
Response to Alex Bond - Letter 99

Comment 1
Response to Charles Bond - Letter 100

Comment 1

Comment 2
Your comment in support of higher density affordable housing is noted. Please see the
Response to Greg Bond - Letter 101

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing is noted. Please see the
Comment 3
Your comment is support of a school and other uses onsite is noted. See the response to Letter
34, Comment 1 and Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Response to Scott Bunjukian - Letter 102

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Jean M. Boris - Letter 103

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment is support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted for the record.
Response to Linda Bothell - Letter 104

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of your comment is support of a Discovery Park
alternative is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1.
Response to Nick Botner - Letter 105

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding available services is noted for the record. Please see the
response to Letter 40, Comment1.
Comment 2

Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 and preference for park and school uses is noted
for the record. Under Alternative 3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be developed in public
park uses. See the response to Letter 69, Comment 1.
Response to Tyler Boucher - Letter 106

Comment 1
Response to Aaron Bowersock - Letter 107

Comment 1
Response to John D Braitsch - Letter 108

Comment 1
Response to Sean Brennan - Letter 109

Comment 1
Response to Bryan Brenner - Letter 110

Comment 1
Please see Section 4.5, Opportunities for Public Input. As noted in that section, all comments—
written and verbal—will be given equal weight.
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a school alternative is noted. Please see the responses to Letter 69,
Comment 1.
Comment 3
Your concern about residents of the development is noted. See the response to Letter 77,
Comment 5.

Response to Cheryl Brenner - Letter 111
Comment 1
Thank you, your concern about residents of the development is noted for the record. Please see
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record.
Response to Gene Brenowitz - Letter 112

Comment 1
Response to Raleigh Briggs - Letter 113

Comment 1
Response to Tim Brincefield - Letter 114

Comment 1
Response to Marilyn Brink - Letter 115

Comment 1
Comment 2
Please see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Comment 3
Alternative 1 currently does not include plans for auxiliary commercial services. For information
on access to services, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
Comment 4
Please see Section 3.11, Transportation, Section 4.4, Transportation, and Appendix I, for
analyses of the impacts of the EIS alternatives on traffic and parking.
Comment 5
See Section 3.11, Public Services, Section 4.2, Public Services, for an analysis of the impacts of
the EIS alternatives on schools.
Comment 6
Your comments regarding public comment and feedback, and in support of Alternative 1 is
noted.

Response to Ben Broesamle - Letter 116
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding expanded bus service is noted for the record. Additional analysis on
potential transportation impacts, including bus service is provided in Section 3.10,
Transportation, and Section 4.4, Transportation.
Comment 3
Response to Eric Bronson - Letter 117

Comment 1
Response to Kyle Brooks - Letter 118

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Vernon Brown - Letter 119

Comment 1
Response to Amanda Brown - Letter 120

Comment 1
Response to Emily Weaver Brown - Letter 121

Comment 1
Response to Richard Brown - Letter 122

Comment 1
The proposed redevelopment plan reflects the City’s priorities for meeting important housing
and public open space/recreation needs. These are key priorities for the City, and are also

consistent with the surrounding land uses in the neighborhood. The City is managing the Fort
Lawton property for an interim period while the long-term plan is being developed, and would
be willing to explore rental of existing spaces on a short-term basis; however, the condition of
the buildings may preclude such options.
Response to Rodney Brown - Letter 123

Comment 1
Response to Kate Brunette - Letter 124

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted for the.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding affordable housing, and in support of Alternative 1, is noted.
Response to Margaret Brunger - Letter 125

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment of affordable housing noted for the record. Please see Letter 37,
Comment 1.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Thank you, your comment regarding deed restrictions is noted for the record. See the response
Comment 5
Comment 6

Response to Mark Brunson - Letter 126
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 and a higher density affordable housing
alternative is noted for the record. See the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding bus service and zoning for a walkable retail district is noted. Please
see Section 3.10, Transportation, Section 4.4, Transportation and Appendix I for further details
on transit service.
Response to Ken Bryan - Letter 127

Comment 1
The vehicle trips expected to be generated by each of the EIS alternatives are summarized in
Table 3.10-1 (or Table 10 of the Transportation Technical Report in Appendix I). The table
shows that Alternative 1 is forecast to generate 1,260 vehicle trips per day, Alternative 2 is
forecast to generate 700 trips per day, and Alternative 3 is forecast to generate 570 trips per
day. The daily trips generated by each alternative would be distributed across all hours of the
day, and across different roadways in the area. The distribution of project-generated trips
throughout the study area during the AM and PM peak hours (the highest-volume hours of the
day) is shown on Figure 3.10-1 (or Figure 8 in the Transportation Technical Report in Appendix
I). The distribution of trips generated by Alternative 1 into and out of the Magnolia
neighborhood has been additionally analyzed in Section 3.10, Transportation, of this FEIS.
Comment 2
Comment 3
See the response to Comment 1 of this letter. Figure 3.10-1 (or Figure 8 in the Transportation
Technical Report in Appendix I) shows the forecast AM and PM peak hour trips on W
Commodore Way for the three Fort Lawton site alternatives. As shown in the figure, the highest
number of trips is expected to result with Alternative 1. With this alternative, 33 trips (15
eastbound, 18 westbound) are projected during the PM peak hour; this amounts to an average
of about 1 additional trip every 2 minutes. Trips occurring during all other hours and for the
other two alternatives are expected to be lower. The capacity of W Commodore Way, which is a
two-way Collector Arterial, is adequate to support these levels of additional traffic.
Comment 4
Comment 5

Comment 6
See the responses to Comments 1 through 5 of this letter.
Comment 7
Your comment in opposition to any housing on the Fort Lawton site, and in support of a
Discovery Park alternative, is noted. See the response to Letter 4, Comment 1.
Response to Ken Bryan - Letter 128

Comment 1
Response to Ken Bryan- Letter 129
Comment 1
Providers of income-restricted affordable housing must report annually to public funders. The
Seattle Office of Housing’s regular assessments cover a comprehensive list of compliance and
performance areas, including community relations (measured by good maintenance, street
appearance, and responsiveness to neighborhood concerns and complaints).
Response to Ken Bryan- Letter 130
Comment 1
Response to Mason Bryant - Letter 131

Comment 1
Response to Smitty Buckler - Letter 132

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding affordable housing in the City of Seattle and the potential
design of future buildings is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Your suggestion to repurpose the existing buildings on the Fort Lawton site as artist housing is
noted. Please see the response to Letter 55, Comment 1 regarding consideration of repurposing
existing buildings on the site.

Response to Patrick Bufi - Letter 133
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding opportunity for public input is noted for the record. Please
see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Comment 2
Economic factors are not element of the environment that must be analyzed in an EIS. See the
Comment 3
Your comment regarding a potential tiny homes development is noted.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding a potential tiny homes development is noted.
Comment 5
Alternative 1 currently does not include “tiny homes.” Alternative 1 includes the following: 85
senior supportive apartments, 100 affordable rental apartments, 40 affordable ownership
townhouses and 12 affordable ownership rowhouses. See Chapter 2 for details.
For information on transit and access to services, see the response to Letter 9, Comment 3. For
information on transportation routes in/out of Magnolia, see Section 3.10, Transportation.
See Letter 40, Comment 1 regarding commercial services in the Fort Lawton area, and Section
3.11, Public Services, regarding the adequacy police, fire/emergency and school services to
serve the EIS alternatives. These services are all expected to be capable of serving the project.
Comment 6
See the response to Letter 21, Comment 2, and Section 4.5, Opportunities for Public Input.
Comment 7
Your comment in support of a school alternative is noted. See the responses to Letter 61,
Comment 1, and Letter 69, Comment 1.
Response to Glen Buhmann - Letter 134

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding potential rezoning for commercial uses is noted.

Response to Darby M. Bundy - Letter 135
Comment 1
All comments on the DEIS, whether written or verbal, are given equal weight.
Comment 2
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Please see Section
3.10, Transportation, for details on transit service.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted.
Response to Michelle Burce - Letter 136

Comment 1
Response to Ken Burgess - Letter 137

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to housing and in support of additional park space at
the Fort Lawton site is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding the distribution of affordable housing is noted. The relationship
between affordable housing and crime in the surrounding area is discussed in Section 3.11,
Public Services. Please see the response to Letter 21, Comment 2.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding light rail and affordable housing is noted.
Comment 4
The capacity of the schools that serve the Fort Lawton site is discussed in Section 3.11, Public
Services. Additional information on schools has been added to this FEIS. See the response to
Comment 5
See the responses to Letter 12, Comment 9; Letter 29, Comment 2; and Letter 127, Comments
1 and 3. Project-generated trips would have little effect on the streets and off-site intersections
compared to conditions without the project (No Action Alternative). An additional
transportation mitigation has been added to this EIS:

monitoring indicates they are warranted. Funding for future improvements would need
to be identified and prioritized against other city needs at that time. SDOT prioritizes
signals based on a variety of factors, including crash history, expected growth, equity
and potential for partnering with developers.
SDOT is currently in the process of evaluating neighborhood access as part of the Magnolia
Bridge Planning Study. Your improvement ideas have been forwarded to the study team
Comment 6
Your comments regarding site design are noted. See the response to Letter 76, Comment 1.
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, the forest areas in the north and south portions of the site would
be preserved in their natural condition. Up to 4.7 acres of property owned by the Army in the
west part of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park under these alternatives. Texas
Way W would continue to provide access through the site under these alternatives (see Figures
2-6 A and B and Figures 2-12 A and B)
Comment 7
Your comment in support of a school use on the site is noted for the record. See Letter 69,
Comment 1.
Comment 8
As described in Chapter 2, the City began the process of working with the community on a
redevelopment plan for the Fort Lawton site in 2006. From 2006 through 2008, the City
conducted an extensive community engagement process that resulted in a detailed
redevelopment plan (2008 Plan) 6 to create a diverse, mixed-income community with housing
for homeless individuals and families and market-rate housing (totaling up to 216 units), while
also preserving existing wildlife habitat and creating a new neighborhood park. The City is now
carrying forward its past planning efforts into a vision for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center
that creates an affordable, livable community for people with low incomes, and takes
advantage of the opportunity to increase recreational and open space.
Response to Benjamin Burke - Letter 138
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of school use on the site is noted for the record. Please
see Letter 34, Comment 1.
6

Response to Trina Burke - Letter 139
Comment 1
Response to Tarik Burney - Letter 140

Comment 1
Response to Carol Burton- Letter 141

Comment 1
Comment 2
The City’s current schedule for the development of Alternative 1 is aggressive but realistic. To
the extent possible, the City will try to accelerate the schedule while following the necessary
steps for permitting of the project.
Comment 3
Your comments regarding wildlife, transit availability and public schools are noted for the
record (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, Section 3.10, Transportation, and Section 3.11,
Public Services, for details). Thank you for information on Green Seattle Partnership and their
removal of invasive plants and restoration of native vegetation in wooded areas. Your comment
in support of Alternative 1 is noted.
Response to Carol Burton - Letter 142

Comment 1
Thank you for your comments. The correction has been made in Section 3.6, Land Use. Please
see Letter 40, Comment 1 regarding available commercial services in the area.
Comment 2
Section 3.14, Environmental Justice, states “The are no current land uses that pose an
environmental health risk, such as gas stations or dry cleaners, in the immediate vicinity of the
site.” While it is true that there is a gas station and a dry cleaner located near the site, they are
not considered to be in the immediate vicinity (i.e., not close enough to cause environmental
health risks to residents of the proposed development). See the response to Letter 40,
Comment 1.
Response to Veronica Bush - Letter 143

Comment 1

Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Michael Byers - Letter 144

Comment 1
Response to Amy Campbell - Letter 145

Comment 1
Under Alternative 1, the two multi-purpose fields would not include lighting. The fields may be
natural or artificial turf, and if natural, then irrigation would be provided. See Chapter 2, for
details on the proposed multi-purpose fields.
Response to Brian Campbell - Letter 146

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Colin Campbell - Letter 147

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Deborah Campbell - Letter 148

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding development of the Talaris site is noted. Please see Section 4.1,
Comment 3
Your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted. SEPA requires that a No Action alternative
(Alternative 4 in this case) be included in an EIS.
Response to Elizabeth Campbell - Letter 149

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding prior scoping comments is noted for the record. Please see
the responses to Letter 2.
Comment 2
Based upon analysis that has been completed for the Fisherman’s Terminal project (Port of
Seattle, Environmental Checklist for Fishermen’s Terminal Gateway, West Wall, and Seattle Ship
Supply Improvement Project, September 8, 2017), which is located a little over a mile from the
project site, it is not expected to generate noticeable traffic volumes within the DEIS
transportation study area, beyond what is already reflected in the background traffic growth
rate described in EIS Section 3.10.1 (and Section 2.1.2 of the Transportation Technical Report in
Appendix I).
Please also see the response to Letter 2, Comment 20.
Comment 3
Study has just begun on the Ballard-to-Downtown light rail line that is included in Sound
Transit’s ST3 funding package, and its final alignment is not yet known. Station locations, street
modifications and parking impacts resulting from light rail construction will be determined as
part of the light rail design, as well as any mitigation measures needed to address traffic and
parking impacts. The light rail line is planned to be opened in 2035. Information about the light
rail project as it progresses can be obtained at www.soundtransit3.org.
Comment 4

Comment 5
See the responses to Letter 2, Comment 20 and Letter 12, Comment 13.
Comment 6
Under SEPA, EISs are not required to analyze the cost of each alternative. Examples of
information not required to be discussed an EIS are: methods of financing proposals, economic
competition, profits and personal income and wages, and social policy analysis (WAC 197-11-
448). Other documents containing economic and technical considerations will be used in
conjunction with the EIS during the decision-making process for the project.
Response to Fred Campbell - Letter 150

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Jon Campbell - Letter 151

Comment 1
Response to Raven Campbell - Letter 152

Comment 1

Response to Terri Campbell - Letter 153
Comment 1
Response to Mark Canright - Letter 154

Comment 1
the response to Letter 37, Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Rebecca Canright - Letter 155

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4

Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Denise Capen - Letter 156

Comment 1
The DEIS can be reviewed and downloaded online at http://www.seattle.gov/housing/ft-
lawton. For information on using the Fort Lawton site for a school, please see the response to
Comment 2
Thank you, your comment regarding transportation infrastructure is noted for the record.
Please see Section 3.10, Transportation, Section 4.4, Transportation and Appendix I for further
information on the transportation system and traffic operations in the Fort Lawton vicinity.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding traffic and access is noted. See Letter 12, Comment 13.
Comment 4
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Your comments on crime in the Magnolia neighborhood are noted. See the response to Letter
40, Comment 1.
Comment 8
Thank you for the NEPA references. However, this document has been prepared in compliance
with SEPA. See Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for details on the potential
impacts of the EIS alternatives on wildlife.
Comment 9
Your request for a dog park is noted. Alternative 1 currently includes significant acreage for
passive and active recreation. The City is currently working with Seattle Public Schools (SPS) on

an opportunity for SPS to acquire 6 acres for active recreation to meet the needs of both SPS
and the broader public. Both the City and SPS are committed to a future process that
incorporates public input regarding the programming of this space when funding becomes
available for development. If this process identified specific uses with additional impacts,
further SEPA review would be conducted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for details.
Comment 10
No direct impacts to herons are expected at the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 1 and 3
due to the preservation of the north and south forest areas onsite in their natural condition.
Alternative 2 would develop these areas and could impact heron usage. Indirect impacts (e.g.,
due to increase human activity, lighting, noise, pesticides, etc.) to wildlife could occur similar to
with other urban development. See Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for
details.
Comment 11
There are no known capacity constraints for potable water on the Fort Lawton site. Seattle
Public Utilities is expected to have sufficient capacity to meet the increased in demand under
the EIS alternatives. See Section 3.12, Utilities for details.
Comment 12
Alternative 1 would increase daily vehicle trips above existing levels in the Fort Lawton vicinity.
However, no significant level of service (LOS) changes are expected at intersections near the
site. No significant transportation impacts are expected during operation of the project. See
Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details.
During operation, all the EIS alternatives would result in an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions (e.g., due to increased heating and traffic-related activity). Predicted GHG emissions
would fall below Washington State Department of Ecology’s threshold of significance;
therefore, no significant air quality impacts are expected. See Section 3.3, Air Quality/GHG
Emissions, and Appendix D for details.
With the implementation of site-specific analysis and other project features, and installation of
temporary and permanent stormwater control and construction best management practices
(BMPs) required by the City, no significant earth-related impacts are expected. See Section 3.1,
Earth, and Appendix B for details
Comment 13
See Section 3.11, Public Services, and Section 4.2, Public Services, for the analysis of the
impacts of the EIS alternatives on schools. Additional analysis has been added to this section to
discuss capacity issues at schools that serve the Fort Lawton site.
Comment 14
As described in Chapter 2, the shortage of affordable housing in Seattle is a longstanding
problem that has intensified in recent years as the city has experienced dramatic increases in
housing prices from rapid economic growth. While the impacts of rising housing costs are felt

broadly, those with the lowest incomes experience these effects most severely. In addition to
the critical need for affordable housing, the growing population in Seattle has placed
extraordinary demand on the public park system and has over-burdened the limited active
recreation resources available through SPR. The EIS alternatives respond to these broad needs.
Comment 15
Under Alternative 1, new sources of light, glare and shadows would be generated; however, the
amount of spillage into off-site areas is anticipated to be minimal and no significant impacts are
expected. See Section 3.7, Aesthetics/Visual Resources, and Appendix G for details.
Comment 16
See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for an analysis of traffic and parking under
the EIS alternatives. See Letter 40, Comment 1 regarding accessibility to services.
Comment 17
Comment 18
Comment 19
There are no known sewer capacity constraints. Seattle Public Utilities is expected to have
sufficient capacity to meet the increased in demand under the EIS alternatives. See Section
3.12, Utilities, for details.
Comment 20
Under Alternative 1, approximately 40% of the site would be covered in impervious surfaces at
project buildout, roughly 15% less than under existing conditions. A permanent stormwater
control system that complies with City standards would be installed to manage stormwater
runoff from these impervious surfaces. As a result, no significant stormwater impacts are
expected. See Section 3.12, Utilities, for details.
Comment 21
See Section 3.11, Public Services, for the analysis of the impact of the EIS alternatives on public
services.
Response to Susan and Gary Carlson - Letter 157

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a Discovery Park Alternative is noted for the record.
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1 and Letter 21, Comment 2.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding unsheltered homelessness is noted.

Comment 3
The SEPA process does not provide for a vote from residents of neighborhoods near the project
site. The DEIS and FEIS together comprise the document that the City will use—along with other
analyses and public input—to make decisions on the proposed Fort Lawton Project. After the
FEIS is issued, City staff will make recommendations to the decision-makers on the Fort Lawton
Project. Additional opportunities for public input will occur during this process. See Section 4.5,
Opportunities for Public Input.
Response to Kim Carmel - Letter 158

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment requesting additional school use on the Fort Lawton site is noted for
the record. Please see the response to Letter 69, Comment 1.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding preserving natural park land onsite is noted. See the response to
Comment 3
Comment 4
Response to Lucas Carpenter - Letter 159

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment supporting a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted. Please see
Response to Erin Carper - Letter 160

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment supporting a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted. Please see

Response to Heidi Carpine - Letter 161
Comment 1
Response to Julie Carr - Letter 162

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding infrastructure in the Magnolia area is noted for the record.
Please see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Section 3.12, Utilities, for analyses of the impacts
of the EIS alternatives on infrastructure on and in the vicinity of the Fort Lawton site.
Comment 2
Seattle Public Schools maintains data regarding the student yield rate for all students in grades
K-12 in each part of the city of Seattle for various types of housing. The rate indicates the
percentage of students that would be generated based on the number and types of housing.
Within the McClure Middle School area (which would include the Fort Lawton site), the student
yield rate for apartments is 2.3%, for condominiums is 1.9%, and for single-family residences is
27.6%. Based on the methodology described above, development under Alternative 1 would
generate approximately 41 new students (see Section 3.11, Public Services, for details).
Comment 3
The DEIS evaluated traffic operations in the vicinity of the site and analyzed the impact that
added project traffic would have on those roads and intersections. Alternative 1 is forecast to
generate the most trips with 1,260 vehicle trips per day, which is 630 trips leaving the site and
630 trips returning to the site each day. The weekday peak periods were analyzed because they
reflect the worst-case traffic condition; they are the periods when project-generated trips are
expected to be highest, and combined with background volumes on the area roadways during
the periods they typically would be highest. As discussed in DEIS Section 3.1.10 (or Section 2.1.2
of the Transportation Technical Report in Appendix I), traffic volumes at Discovery Park are
expected to be highest during summer weekdays, which is the condition that was analyzed. The
analysis determined that the net change in traffic related to the project would not create a
significant impact to traffic conditions in the site vicinity.
Please also see the responses to Letter 12, Comment 13; Letter 127, Comments 1, 3, and 5; and
Comment 4
Your comment regarding police service in the Magnolia neighborhood is noted. As described in
Section 3.11, Public Services, the increased population under the EIS alternatives would place
additional demand on police services. Seattle Police Department has indicted that they have
capacity to service the project. Also see the response to Letter 21, Comment 2.

Comment 5
Your comment regarding infrastructure improvements is noted. Please see Section 1.5,
Mitigation Measures, for a summary of the mitigation measures identified in the EIS, including
infrastructure mitigation.
Response to Constance Carroll - Letter 163

Comment 1
Response to Bruce D. Carter - Letter 164

Comment 1
Comment 2
The senior supportive housing under Alternative 1 would have a comprehensive package of
services focusing on residential stability. Residents would be provided with case management
services and would have access to residential counselors 24 hours a day. Other services related
to community enrichment and empowerment would be available to residents of affordable
rental housing and affordable ownership housing. See “Supportive Services, Facilities, and
Resident Associations” in Chapter 2 for details.
Comment 3
Your comment in support of including sports fields in the project is noted.
Comment 4
Response to Sue Cary - Letter 165

Comment 1
Response to Charlotte Casey - Letter 166

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a high school on the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
record. Please see the response to Letter 69, Comment 1.
Response to Margaret Casey - Letter 167

Comment 1

Response to Caesar Castro - Letter 168
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to development on the Fort Lawton site is noted for
the record. See Letter 157, Comment 3.
Response to Curtis Cawley - Letter 169

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Cassandra Cawley - Letter 170

Comment 1
Response to Neil Cebara - Letter 171

Comment 1
Response to Scott Chancellor - Letter 172

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record.

Comment 2
For information on access to transit and services, please see the response to Letter 40,
Comment 1. For information on school capacity, see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1.
Comment 3
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted. See the response to Letter 40, Comment
1.
Comment 4
Comment 5
The Seattle Office of Housing, the applicant on the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center
Redevelopment Project, does not currently own the Fort Lawton site. The site is the property of
the U.S. Army. Under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program, portions of military
bases may be conveyed at no cost for housing or services for homeless people, and conveyed at
a reduced or no cost for other federally-designated public uses such as the uses under
Alternatives 1 and 3. Under EIS Alternative 2, market-rate housing would not be a federally-
designated public use. To develop market-rate housing on the Fort Lawton site, the property
would be sold by the U.S. Army to a home developer/builder to develop. The Office of Housing
would not receive funds from the sale of the property, and therefore could not use the funds to
develop affordable housing elsewhere in the city.
Response to Paul Chapman - Letter 173

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Judith Iliana Villaneuva Chavez - Letter 174

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Your comment in
support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted. Please see the response to
Response to Bart Cheever - Letter 175

Comment 1
noted for the record.

Comment 2
Comment 3
indicted that it has capacity to service the project. Also see the response to Letter 21, Comment
2.
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 1.
Response to Darby Cheever - Letter 176

Comment 1
the record.
Response to Jack Cheever - Letter 177

Comment 1
the record.
Response to Jack Cheever - Letter 178

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted for the record. However, under
Alternative 3, the site would not be incorporated into Discovery Park. Please see the response
to Letter 4, Comment 1 regarding a Discovery Park alternative.
Response to Kelley Chen - Letter 179

Comment 1

Response to Jennifer Cheng - Letter 180
Comment 1
for the record. Please see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Response to Kath Chinn - Letter 181

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the opportunity for public comment is noted for the
record. Please see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Comment 2
Comment 3
The Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center was declared surplus as part of the federal Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. In accordance with BRAC procedures, the City
conducted a Notice of Interest (NOI) process. The Archdiocesan Housing Authority (aka Catholic
Community Services/Catholic Housing Services) and Habitat for Humanity were selected
through this process. Both agencies have a long track record of providing quality affordable
housing for vulnerable populations. Development of the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 1
and 3 would require public property conveyances by the U.S. Army to the City of Seattle per the
BRAC process.
Comment 4
The City of Seattle’s Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) policy requires new development
to include affordable homes or contribute to a City fund for affordable housing. This policy is
not yet in effect in all areas of Seattle. Currently, the MHA is in effect in Uptown, Chinatown-
International District, some portions of the Central Area, Downtown, South Lake Union, and the
University District. MHA payments are utilized to fund affordable rental and homeownership
opportunities throughout the city of Seattle. For more information about the MHA policy, visit
the City of Seattle’s website at http://www.seattle.gov/hala/about/mandatory-housing-
affordability-(mha)#PAYMENTS.
Comment 5
The Office of Housing received dozens of comments from Magnolia residents who support
affordable housing in their community. Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted.

Response to Ashley Clark - Letter 182
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 or a higher density affordable housing
alternative is noted for the record, please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Response to Bryan Clark - Letter 183

Comment 1
Response to Jamie Clausen - Letter 184

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Lindsey Clibborn - Letter 185

Comment 1
Response to Mary Kay Clunies-Ross - Letter 186

Comment 1
Your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record.
Response to Shelly Cohn - Letter 187

Comment 1
Response to January Colacurcio - Letter 188

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of school use on a portion of the Fort Lawton site is noted
Response to Matthew J Colasurdo - Letter 189

Comment 1

Response to Amy Colbert - Letter 190
Comment 1
Response to Tara Comer - Letter 191

Comment 1
Response to Catherine Conolly - Letter 192

Comment 1
Response to Bob Cook - Letter 193

Comment 1
Response to Terry Cook - Letter 194

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is
noted. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Comment 2
Response to Terry Cook - Letter 195

Comment 1
Response to Valerie Cooper - Letter 196

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of the cooperative efforts between the City and Seattle
Public Schools at the Fort Lawton site is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter
34, Comment 1.
Response to Chris Copley - Letter 197

Comment 1

Response to Patty Corbin - Letter 198
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the opportunity for public input is noted for the record.
Comment 2
For information about impacts on police/public safety, see Section 3.11, Public Services, and
the response to Letter 21, Comment 2. For information on impacts to transportation, see
Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I.
Response to Jill Corrales - Letter 199

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your support of the Friends of Discovery Park position paper is noted. See the responses to
Letter 2, Comment 4 and 5.
Comment 5
Comment 1.
Comment 6
Please see the responses to Comments 2 – 5 of this letter.
Response to David Corry - Letter 200

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Brad Coulter - Letter 201

Comment 1

Response to Sara Coulter - Letter 202
Comment 1
Additional study was performed for this FEIS following the reconfiguration of the Gilman
Avenue W/W Emerson Place intersection. Please see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Section
4.4, Transportation, for this analysis, and the response to Letter 12, Comment 9.
Response to Sara Coulter - Letter 203
Comment 1
Comment 2
See Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input. Thank you for information on the informal poll
that was taken. Your comments in support of Alternative 3 will be used to inform decision-
makers. This FEIS contains all comments received during the 45-day comment period.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Additional study of the Gilman Way/Emerson Street intersection was conducted for this FEIS.
See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Section 4.4, Transportation, for details. Also see the
responses to Letter 12, Comment 9, and Letter 29, Comment 2.
Comment 5
Additional study of the three access points to the Magnolia neighborhood was conducted for
this FEIS. See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Section 4.4, Transportation, for details. Also
see the response to Letter 12, Comment 13.
Comment 6
Thank you for information on Magnolia Bridge closure and on bike lanes. See Section, 3.10,
Transportation, and Section 4.4, Transportation, for additional analysis on transportation.
Comment 7
Your comment regarding development of the Talaris site is noted for the record. See Section
4.1, Alternatives, for more information on the off-site alternatives.
Comment 8
The NEPA EA conducted in 2012 made the following assessment of the West Point wastewater
treatment plant capacity:

Wastewater generated on the instillation is carried north by a single 8-inch sewer
line that connects to a major truck line for stormwater and wastewater on
Commodore Way. Wastewater is conveyed to King County’s West Point Sewage
Treatment Plant on the edge of Discovery Park where it is treated. The treatment
plant currently has a capacity for 2.0 million gallons per day, and has adequate
capacity to handle current demand and any demand that would be created by
implementation of this redevelopment plan (City of Seattle, 2008). This treatment
plant is expected to have adequate capacity to serve the projected service
population through the year 2026.
The referenced article identified that the failure of the wastewater treatment plant was due to
“an offsite interruption to power during the storm.”
SEPA does not require the analysis of financial concerns.
See Section 4.6, Cumulative Impacts, for the cumulative impacts analysis.
Comment 9
Comment 10
In 2006-7, the City of Seattle conducted a Notice of Interest (NOI) process, in accordance with
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) procedures, and selected both Catholic Housing Services
and Habitat for Humanity as partners. While the redevelopment planning process has been
delayed for many years, and undergone evolution based on changing conditions, both agencies
remain committed to the project, and have a long track record of providing quality affordable
housing for vulnerable populations.
Comment 11
Under Alternative 3, the entire site would be in public park uses. The impacts of Alternative 3
are analyzed under all the elements of the environment studied in this EIS. See section 4.6,
Cumulative Impacts, for the cumulative impacts analysis.
Comment 12
population for a portion of those supportive housing units. This is described in Alternative 1 of
the Fort Lawton Environmental Impact Study.
The housing must be operated according to an approved management plan. Catholic Housing
Services is proposing a comprehensive package of services focused on stability for the
access 24 hours a day to residential counselors. Approval of the proposal is contingent on
adequate funding for staffing for demonstrated best practices in permanent supportive
services. Supportive housing – the combination of affordable housing with supportive services –

is widely considered a comparatively cost efficient and humane approach to enabling health
and recovery for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or similar crisis.
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination
in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based
on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Seattle's list of fair
housing protections is far longer. It is also illegal for landlords to unfairly deny applicants
housing based on criminal history. The Fair Chance Housing Legislation addresses bias against
people who, although they had served their time, faced barriers to safe, stable housing, and
could be denied the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families.
publicly funded affordable housing. Income-restricted affordable housing providers must report
annually to public funders. The Seattle Office of Housing’s compliance and performance
assessments cover a comprehensive list of compliance and performance areas, including
community relations (measured by good maintenance, street appearance, and responsiveness
to neighborhood concerns and complaints). Housing providers must also demonstrate
affirmative marketing and nondiscrimination consistent with federal, state, and local fair
housing laws and regulations.
Comment 13
Please see Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H for an analysis of
historic and cultural resources that are located on and in the vicinity of the Fort Lawton site,
including the Fort Lawton Cemetery. See Section 4.6, Cumulative Impacts, for the cumulative
impacts analysis.
Response to Gene Counts - Letter 204

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding ingress/egress to the neighborhood is noted. Please see
Comment 2
Earlier studies of redevelopment at the Fort Lawton site had proposed connecting its streets to
those in your neighborhood. However, the current Alternatives 1 and 3 propose no such
connections. All access will occur from Texas Way W, and would connect to the arterial system
via W Government Way and W Commodore Way.
Also see the response to Letter 29, Comment 2.
Comment 3
See the response to Letter 2, Comment 20 and Letter 12, Comment 9.
Response to Lilian Coutts - Letter 205

Comment 1

Response to Debra Covert-Bowlds - Letter 206
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding transit is noted. See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1 and
Section 3.10, Transportation, and Section 4.4, Transportation, for a description of the further
analysis on transit service conducted for this FEIS.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding affordable housing is noted for the record.
Response to Kristy Crabtree - Letter 207

Comment 1
Response to Pat Craft - Letter 208

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to development of housing on the Fort Lawton site,
and support of a Discovery Park Alternative is noted for the record. Please see the response to
Letter 4, Comment 1. Also, please see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Comment 2
DEIS comments are an important component of the FEIS. This FEIS contains all written and
verbal comments received during the comment period, as well as responses to substantive
comments.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding location of the Fort Lawton site in comparison to Yesler Terrace is
noted.
Comment 4
Seattle Police Department, Seattle Fire Department and Seattle Public Schools are expected to
have capacity to meet additional demand under Alternative 1 (see Section 3.11, Public Services,
and Section 4.2, Public Services, including the additional analysis of school capacity prepared
for this FEIS). See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1 for information on access to transit
and services. See the response to Letter 164, Comment 2, for information on supportive
services provided under Alternative 1.
Comment 5
Your comment regarding City of Seattle investments in the Magnolia area is noted.

Comment 6
Your concern about school capacity and support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted. See
Response to Don Crevie - Letter 209

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of higher density affordable housing is noted for the
Response to Kate Criss - Letter 210

Comment 1
Response to Nina Crocker - Letter 211

Comment 1
Response to Sarah Croft - Letter 212

Comment 1
Comment 2
noted. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more information on off-site locations.
Comment 3
Comment 4
For more information on access to transit and services under Alternative 1, see the response to
Comment 5
Your comment regarding preference for Alternative 1 compared to Alternatives 2 and 4 is
noted.
Response to Laura Crotty - Letter 213

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1 regarding services that are available to the
Fort Lawton site, and Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for analysis of the impacts
of the EIS alternatives on transportation.

Comment 2
Your comment regarding wildlife habitat on the Fort Lawton site is noted for the record. Under
Alternative 1, the amount of open space, including wildlife habitat, would increase over existing
conditions. Existing forested habitat areas in the north and south parts of the site would be
preserved in their natural condition, as would wildlife habitat and corridors for wildlife
movement between Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Discovery Park (see Section 3.2,
Biological Resources, and Appendix C for details). Up to 4.7 acres of land in the west portion of
the site owned by the U.S. Army would be incorporated into Discovery Park and could also be
preserved as a natural area.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding other potential locations for affordable housing is noted. See the
response to Letter 40, Comment 1 regarding access to services and transit.
Response to Lynne M Crowder - Letter 214

Comment 1
Response to Jessie Culbert - Letter 215

Comment 1
for the record. See the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Response to Aleksandra Culver - Letter 216

Comment 1
Response to Spike Curtis - Letter 217

Comment 1
Response to Warren Cutlip - Letter 218

Comment 1
Response to Tiare D - Letter 219

Comment 1

Response to Seattle D - Letter 220
Comment 1
Comment 2
indicted that it has capacity to service the project. See the response to Letter 21, Comment 2.
Comment 3
Thank you, your comment regarding the development of affordable housing is noted. Under
Alternative 1, mental health services would be available to formerly homeless senior residents.
Response to Matt Dalessio - Letter 221

Comment 1
Response to Greg Dandeles - Letter 222

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 in in support of retaining Discovery
Park is noted for the record. The Fort Lawton site is not currently located in Discovery Park;
rather, it is situated adjacent to the west edge of the park.
Comment 2
Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter and to Letter 4, Comment 1.
Response to Gregory M. Dandeles - Letter 223

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding affordable housing at the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
record. The Fort Lawton site is not currently located in Discovery Park; rather, it is situated
adjacent to the west edge of the park.
None of the EIS alternatives would include a homeless shelter. Alternative 1 would include
permanent housing for formerly homeless seniors, as well as affordable homeownership and
affordable rental units, on the Fort Lawton site. Formerly homeless senior supportive house
would incorporate a variety of social services to ensure residential stability (see the response to
Letter 164, Comment 2). The proposed development is not anticipated to lead to public safety
issues (see the response to Letter 21, Comment 2).
Comment 2
Please see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1 and the response to Comment 1 in this letter.

Response to Channing Daniel - Letter 224
Comment 1
Response to Shannon Danielson - Letter 225

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a school alternative is noted for the record. Please see
Response to Emily Darling - Letter 226

Comment 1
Response to Jean Darsie - Letter 227

Comment 1
Response to Patricia David - Letter 228

Comment 1
Response to Cody Davis - Letter 229

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
record. For information on school capacity, please see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1.
For information on transit and access to services, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
For additional analysis of the entrances in/out of Magnolia, see Section 3.10, Transportation,
and Section 4.4, Transportation.
Response to Jim Davis - Letter 230

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding development of the Talaris site is noted for the record. Please see
Section 4.1, Alternatives, for more information on off-site locations.

Response to Johnathan Davis - Letter 231
Comment 1
Response to Maddie Davis - Letter 232

Comment 1
Response to Annette de Soto - Letter 233

Comment 1
Response to Cheryl DeBoise - Letter 234

Comment 1
Response to Jacque Decker - Letter 235

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment regarding transportation, transit and public schools is noted. See Section 3.10,
Transportation, and Section 4.4, Transportation, for additional analysis on transportation and
transit, and Section 3.11, Public Services, and Section 4.2, Public Services, for additional
analysis on schools.
Response to Stephen E DeForest - Letter 236

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 is noted.

Comment 3
noted.
Response to Asphodel Denning- Letter 237

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
12, Comment 21.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Monica Depiesse - Letter 238

Comment 1
Response to Rebecca Deutsch - Letter 239

Comment 1

Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
12, Comment 21.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Rebecca Deutsch - Letter 240

Comment 1
Response to Rahul Dhar - Letter 241

Comment 1
Response to Matteo Di Giulio - Letter 242

Comment 1
Response to Joshua Diaz - Letter 243

Comment 1

Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding housing prices and support of Alternative 1 is noted.
Response to Catherine Dichter - Letter 244

Comment 1
Response to Barbara Dingfield - Letter 245

Comment 1
Response to Lydia Dobrovolny - Letter 246

Comment 1
Response to Suzanne Dolberg - Letter 247

Comment 1
Response to Mackenzie Dolstad - Letter 248

Comment 1
Response to David Donovan - Letter 249

Comment 1
Comment 2
All the elements of the environment noted in this comment are studied in the EIS. For
information on access to services and transit, please see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
For information on police capacity/public safety, see the response to Letter 21, Comment 2.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding park use on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
The DEIS was published in December 2017. Any changes that have occurred since the
publication of the DEIS are reflected in this FEIS.

Comment 4
For information on access to services and transit, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
For information on police capacity/public safety, see the response to Letter 21, Comment 2. For
information on school capacity, see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1.
Response to Reilly Donovan - Letter 250

Comment 1
Comment 2
All the elements of the environment noted in this comment are studied in the EIS. Your
comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted. Please see the response to Letter
40, Comment 1.
Response to Carolyn Draper - Letter 251

Comment 1
Response to John Dulaney - Letter 252

Comment 1
Response to Brian Duncan - Letter 253

Comment 1
Response to Roxanne Duniway - Letter 254

Comment 1
Response to Sue Duvall - Letter 255

Comment 1
Response to Patricia Eamon - Letter 256

Comment 1

Response to Debby Eastman - Letter 257
Comment 1
Response to Rae Eaton - Letter 258

Comment 1
Response to Madeleine Eddy - Letter 259

Comment 1
Response to Mike Eddy - Letter 260

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the opportunity to provide public input is noted for the
record. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input. As noted in this section, all comments
received on the DEIS will be given equal weight.
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 69, Comment 1, and Letter 61, Comment 1.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding the need to accelerate mass transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities is
noted.
Response to Mia Edera - Letter 261

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of higher density affordable housing is noted. Please see the
Comment 3
Your comment regarding increasing affordable housing and opportunities for transit
throughout the city is noted.

Response to Nicholas Efthimiadis - Letter 262
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of higher density affordable housing is noted. Please see
Response to Susan Eggleton - Letter 263

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Jonathan Ehrich - Letter 264

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Natasha Ehrlich - Letter 265

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding safety is noted for the record. Please see the responses to
Letter 21, Comment 2, and Letter 77, Comment 5.
Comment 2
Response to Michael Eliason - Letter 266

Comment 1
Response to Leslie Elliott - Letter 267

Comment 1
Response to Cindy Arends Elsberry - Letter 268

Comment 1

Comment 2
Comment 3
See the responses to Letter 40, Comment 1, regarding transit service, and Letter 61, Comment
1, regarding school capacity.
Comment 4
Under Alternative 1, supportive services would be provided for residents living in senior
supportive apartments. These would include case management, assistance with obtaining
outside services (e.g. medical, behavioral, chore services, groceries, etc.), residential
counselors, and other services focused on residential stability (see Chapter 2, for details).
Response to Andrew Engelson - Letter 269
Comment 1
Response to Susan Eramia - Letter 270

Comment 1
Please the response to Letter 4, Comment 1.
Response to Ericka - Letter 271

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternatives 3 and 4 is noted for the record. For
information on a school alternative, please see the response to Letter 69, Comment 1.
Comment 2
See the responses to Letter 61, Comment 1, and Letter 40, Comment 1.
Response to Asako Esperum - Letter 272

Comment 1
The City has not seen research indicating that there are enough beds to serve the homeless
population. The 2017 point in time count of people experiencing homelessness in Seattle
totaled 8,476 people. Updated information about how Seattle is addressing homelessness is
available from the Seattle Human Services Department.
Increasing the supply of permanent supportive housing is a priority for the City.

Comment 2
Thank you, your comments regarding infrastructure and services is noted. Please see the
responses to Letter 40, Comment 1; Letter 61, Comment 1; and Letter 164, Comment 2.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding locating affordable housing at the current Memorial Stadium site is
noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for a discussion of alternatives sites for the affordable
housing. Your preference for a high school on the Fort Lawton site is noted. See Letter 69,
Comment 1.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding representing all people in the city is noted.
Response to Asako Esperum - Letter 273

Comment 1
Response to Destinee Evers - Letter 274

Comment 1
Response to Alicia Eyler - Letter 275

Comment 1
Response to Ed Faccone - Letter 276

Comment 1
Response to Kelly Fahlman - Letter 277

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Regarding the
availability of bus access and services, please see the responses to Letter 40, Comment 1 and
Comment 2

Response to Kristen Faiferlick - Letter 278
Comment 1
Response to Kelda Fairleigh - Letter 279

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of providing school uses on the Fort Lawton site is noted
Response to Kelsey Fatland - Letter 280

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of providing school uses on the Fort Lawton site is noted
for the record. Please see the responses to Letter 34, Comment 1 and Letter 61, Comment 1.
Response to Laura Felice - Letter 281

Comment 1
Response to Erin Fenner - Letter 282

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a higher density alternative. Please see the response to
Response to Robert S. Fenwick - Letter 283

Comment 1
Response to Jeff Few - Letter 284

Comment 1
Response to Richard Figinski - Letter 285

Comment 1
Response to Elizabeth Filep - Letter 286

Comment 1

Response to Janyce Fink - Letter 287
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding Discovery Park and development within the City of Seattle
Comment 2
Response to Matthew Finnell - Letter 288

Comment 1
Response to Tara Fischer - Letter 289

Comment 1
Response to Shary Flenniken - Letter 290

Comment 1
Response to Tim Fliss - Letter 291

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding providing other uses on site is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for
a discussion of other alternatives.
Comment 4
Alternatives, for more information.
Comment 5
Your comment regarding the need for affordable housing and higher density development is
noted.

Response to Beree’s Flynn - Letter 292
Comment 1
Response to Colm Flynn - Letter 293

Comment 1
Response to Gregory Flynn - Letter 294

Comment 1
Response to Drew Foerster - Letter 295

Comment 1
Response to Mark A. Foltz - Letter 296

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding rezoning the Fort Lawton site to LR 3 is noted. At this point,
Alternative 1 includes rezoning a portion of the Fort Lawton site from the existing SF 7200
zoning to Lowrise 2, Mandatory Housing Affordability (LR2 (M1). LR2 (M1) zoning would be
consistent with the Multi-Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation for the site which
is intended to allow a variety of housing types and densities suitable for a broad array of
households and income levels. See Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies,
for details.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding using duplexes and triplexes in the building design is noted. Under
Alternative 1, affordable homeownership townhouses would be provided in twenty, three-story
duplex buildings. Affordable homeownership rowhouses would be provided in two, three-story
six-plex buildings (see Chapter 2 for details).
Comment 4
Because the change in tailpipe emissions under Alternative 1 would be very small relative to the
overall regional tailpipe emissions and because the region is currently designated as an
attainment area, Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts on regional air quality (see
Section 3.3, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendix D for details.

King County Metro transit bus stops would be provided at two locations along Texas Way Won
the Fort Lawton site to encourage mass-transit use. the Office of Housing and its partners
would also implement programs that reduce a resident’s need to own a vehicle. The programs
could include providing a shared bicycle fleet or encouraging use of bike sharing programs,
encouraging use of car sharing programs and providing information about bus service (see
Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I).
Comment 5
Your comment regarding pedestrian and bicycle connections from the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Comment 6
Alternative 1 would include a total of 266 parking spaces; proposed parking would meet the
requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC 23.54.015). Some shared parking could be
provided by existing uses on an adjacent to the Fort Lawton site (see Section 3.10,
Transportation, and Appendix I).
Under Alternative 1, 40% of the site would be covered in impervious surfaces, relative to 55%
under existing conditions. A permanent stormwater control system would be installed to
manage stormwater runoff from these impervious surfaces. The facilities could include
elements such as stormwater lines, catch basins, manholes, vaults, raingardens, bioretention
facilities, dispersal trenches, and/or underdrain systems. No significant stormwater impacts are
expected (see Section 3.12, Utilities, for details).
Comment 7
Your comment is regarding coordination with local cultural resources is noted. Under
Alternative 1, residential counselors provided to residents of senior supportive housing would
engage residents in on-site recreational and social activities, which could include creating
opportunities for resident involvement in internal and external neighborhood volunteer
activities. A meeting space would be available for tenants of affordable rental housing, which
would be provide space for tenants to come together socially and to facilitate tenant-based
empowerment activities. Partnerships with local cultural resources, such as the Daybreak Star
Indian Cultural Center, could be considered.
Response to Leah Ford - Letter 297

Comment 1
Response to David Forrest - Letter 298

Comment 1

Response to Amy Forston - Letter 299
Comment 1
Response to Veronica Foster - Letter 300

Comment 1
Response to Meaghan Fox - Letter 301

Comment 1
Comment 2
Please see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for analysis of the impacts of the EIS
alternatives on traffic operations and access. See the response to Letter 21, Comment 2
regarding crime. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, and 4.2, Public Services, regarding public schools
and Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input, regarding opportunities for public involvement.
Response to Melissa Fox - Letter 302

Comment 1
Response to Joseph Engel Szwaja Franken - Letter 303

Comment 1
Response to Kira Franz - Letter 304

Comment 1
Response to Trista Winnie Fraser - Letter 305

Comment 1
Response to Jonathan Frazier - Letter 306

Comment 1

Comment 2
Your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted for the
record. See the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Comment 3
Thank you, your comment regarding housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Response to Polly Freeman - Letter 307

Comment 1
the response to Letter 37, Comment 1, regarding climate change.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment regarding affordable ownership housing deed restrictions is noted. See the
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Dana Fried - Letter 308

Comment 1
Response to Max Friedfeld - Letter 309

Comment 1

Response to Nick Fuller - Letter 310
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of redevelopment on the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
record. Under Alternative 1, affordable homeownership townhouses would be provided in
twenty, three-story duplex buildings. Affordable homeownership rowhouses would be provided
in two, three-story six-plex buildings (see Chapter 2 for details).
Response to Rob Fuller - Letter 311

Comment 1
Response to Danielle Gaerden - Letter 312

Comment 1
alternative is noted for the record. See the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Response to Will Gagne-Maynard - Letter 313

Comment 1
Response to Heidi Gainer - Letter 314

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4

Comment 5
Response to Robert Gale - Letter 315

Comment 1
Response to Kevin Gallagher - Letter 316
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Matt Gangemi - Letter 317

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a higher density affordably housing alternative is noted

Response to Tom Garcia - Letter 318
Comment 1
Comment 2
The increase in population on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would result in
additional demand for Seattle Police Department (SPD) and Seattle Fire Department (SFD)
services. However, both SPD and SFD staffing has the capacity to meet this increased need (See
Section 3.11, Public Services, and Section 4.2, Public Services, for details. The fire hydrants in
Discovery Park are still maintained for use.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment regarding the threat of earthquake on buildings and structures in the area is
noted. See the response to Letter 296, Comment 7.
Response to Wayne Garrow - Letter 319

Comment 1
Response to Ann Gateley - Letter 320

Comment 1
Response to Ahmed Gaya - Letter 321

Comment 1
Response to Hugh Geenen - Letter 322

Comment 1
Response to Amanda L. Gemmill - Letter 323

Comment 1

Response to Bruno George - Letter 324
Comment 1
Response to Donovan Gesting - Letter 325

Comment 1
Response to Judi Gibbs - Letter 326

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted. Please see the
Response to Susan Gilbert - Letter 327

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a school alternative is noted for the record. See the
Comment 2
Your comment is support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted for the record. See the
Comment 3
Response to Dionna Glaze - Letter 328

Comment 1
All comments received during the DEIS comment period are included in this FEIS and are given
equal consideration.
Comment 2
Response to Shaun Glaze - Letter 329

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding affordable housing and social justice is noted for the record. Please
see Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics, and Section 3.14, Environmental Justice, for
details.

Response to Demian Godon - Letter 330
Comment 1
Response to Andrew Golden - Letter 331

Comment 1
Response to Eldan Goldenberg - Letter 332

Comment 1
Response to Jennifer Goldman - Letter 333

Comment 1
Response to Michael Goldman - Letter 334

Comment 1
Response to Kelley Goldmanis - Letter 335
Comment 1
Response to Norman G. Gonsalves - Letter 336
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding offering educational opportunities in urban ecology and a summer
outdoor school program for children who would live in the project is noted.

Response to Mikhaila Gonzales - Letter 337
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Richard and Carol Goodall - Letter 338

Comment 1
Response to John Gosink - Letter 339

Comment 1
Response to Susan Gossman - Letter 340

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding providing low-income housing in another location than the
Fort Lawton site is noted for the record. The Fort Lawton site is not currently part of Discovery

Park. Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1 for more information on the proposed
development’s relationship to Discovery Park.
Response to Chris Goverlla - Letter 341

Comment 1
Response to Jon Grant - Letter 342

Comment 1
Response to Sam Grantham - Letter 343

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding including school facilities on site is noted. Please see response to
Comment 3
Your support of Alternative 2, after Alternative 3, is noted.
Response to John Green - Letter 344

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted for the record. See
Response to Julie Green - Letter 345
Comment 1
Response to Cheryl Gregory - Letter 346
Comment 1
Response to Marc Grenly - Letter 347

Comment 1

Response to Alison Grevstad - Letter 348
Comment 1
support of including a portion of the site in school uses is also noted. See the response to Letter
34, Comment 1.
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1, regarding amenities/services and transportation in
the Fort Lawton area.
Response to Alexandra Griffith and Rombod Aghakhani - Letter 349

Comment 1
Response to Gerald and Annette Grimm – Letter 350

Comment 1
response to Letter 40, Comment 1, regarding transit and services available in the Fort Lawton
area.
Response to Karin Grimm - Letter 351

Comment 1
Comment 2
There is potential for erosion and sedimentation of downstream water resources to occur
during construction and operation of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. However, with the installation and
operation of the proposed temporary and permanent stormwater control systems and required
BMPs, none of the three build alternatives are expected to significantly impact biological
resources downstream (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for details.
Comment 3
Traffic noise generated under Alternatives 1 and 3 is anticipated to be approximately the same.
Operational noise under Alternative 3 is anticipated to be higher than under Alternative 1,
given the increase in multi-purpose field uses. Under both alternatives, buffering would be used
to reduce the impacts of noise from the site on the surrounding area. Increases in noise under
all the development alternatives is not anticipated to be significant relative to City and State
regulatory criteria (see Section 3.4, Noise, and Appendix E for details).
Comment 4
Your comment regarding development and loss of tree canopy in the City of Seattle is noted.
Proposed development under Alternatives 1 and 3 would retain the forest areas in the north

and south portions of the site, and along the east site boundary; these areas would be
developed under Alternative 2. Alternatives 1 and 3 would provide additional landscaping
throughout the site, in compliance with City requirements. Landscaping under Alternative 2
would be at the discretion of builders and homeowners
Comment 5
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the affordable housing would occur at an off-site location, possibly
in Magnolia.
Comment 6
Your comment regarding affordable housing and Discovery Park is noted.
Response to Robbie Grimm - Letter 352

Comment 1
Thank you, your comments regarding increased crime with the proposed affordable housing is
noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 21, Comment 2.
Response to Geneva Griswold – Letter 353
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6

Response to Nell Gross - Letter 354
Comment 1
Response to Nell Gross - Letter 355

Comment 1
Response to Sandy Gunder - Letter 356

Comment 1
Response to Austin Gunsauley - Letter 357

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Monika D Guzikowska - Letter 358

Comment 1
Response to Christina Hall - Letter 359

Comment 1
Response to Brad Halverson - Letter 360

Comment 1
response to Letter 40, Comment 1, regarding the availability of services.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding a school alternative is noted. See the response to Letter 69, Comment
1.
Response to Erik Hammen - Letter 361

Comment 1

Response to Chong Han - Letter 362
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding affordable housing is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Alternative 1 would require than a portion of the site be rezoned from the existing SF 7200
zoning to LR2 (M1) zoning. See Chapter 2 for details.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding affordable housing throughout the Seattle is noted.
Response to Dave Handa - Letter 363

Comment 1
Response to Eric Handstad - Letter 364

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Madeline M. Hanhardt - Letter 365

Comment 1
Response to Amy Hansen - Letter 366
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3

Comment 4
12, Comment 21.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Stacey Hanson - Letter 367
Comment 1
Response to Tanya Hanson - Letter 368

Comment 1
Response to Matthew Harding - Letter 369

Comment 1
Response to Rob Harrison - Letter 370

Comment 1
Response to Nichole Hart - Letter 371

Comment 1
Response to Donna Hartmann-Miller - Letter 372

Comment 1
The existing stormwater drainage conveyance pipe is 18-inch, of unknown material (assumed
concrete) and of unknown slope (assumed to be a minimum of 2%). The capacity of the pipe at
full flow is 14.85 cubic feet per second, which is above the anticipated flow rates from the Fort
Lawton site.

Response to Erika Haskell - Letter 373
Comment 1
see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input. Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is
noted.
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1, regarding transit service.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding looking to the State for resources to aid in the homelessness crisis is
noted. The City often partners with the State to jointly invest in affordable and homeless
housing, and expects to continue to do so in the future.
Comment 4
Comment 5
The Office of Housing has been working closely with Seattle Public Schools (SPS) to align the
Fort Lawton redevelopment with SPS planning. SPS did evaluate the site, including the option of
renovating the existing structures, and concluded it did not merit further consideration, based
on the condition of the buildings, and the cost of renovation, which would require seismic
upgrades.
Response to Claudia Heiden - Letter 374

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding Discovery Park is noted.
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6

Comment 7
While surveys were not issued as part of the SEPA process, a variety of opportunities were
provided for public comment. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Comment 8
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted. The Fort Lawton site is not
currently located in Discovery Park; rather, it is situated adjoining the east edge of the park.
Response to Bron Heintz - Letter 375

Comment 1
Response to Susan Helf - Letter 376

Comment 1
Response to Yoav Helfman - Letter 377

Comment 1
Response to Nicki Hellenkamp - Letter 378

Comment 1
Response to Laura Heller - Letter 379

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding mixed-use housing is noted for the record. Please see
Section 4.1, Alternatives, for details on other alternatives.
Comment 2
See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for additional discussion on access and transit
service.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Existing forested habitat areas would be preserved in the north and south parts of the site
under Alternatives 1. Proposed development would reduce impervious surfaces from 55% of
the site under existing conditions to 40%. Your comment regarding using porous pavement is
noted.

Comment 5
Your comment regarding sustainability. Under Alternative 1, sustainable design principles for
the Fort Lawton Project would include:
Housing developed on the Fort Lawton site would adhere to the Evergreen Sustainable
Development Standards (ESDS). These standards include: maximizing density; providing: access
to open space, walkable neighborhoods, water conserving fixtures, reductions in energy use
and increased insulation; and use of low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) materials (see
Chapter 2).
Comment 6
Comment 7,
Thank you, your comment regarding homelessness in the Seattle is noted for the record.
Response to Megan Helmer - Letter 380

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding affordable housing near Discovery Park is noted for the
record.
Comment 2
The Fort Lawton site is not currently located in Discovery Park; rather, it is situated adjoining
the east edge of the park. The site is the property of the U.S. Army. It is under consideration for
affordable housing because of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program, in which
portions of military bases may be conveyed at no cost for housing or services for homeless
people, and conveyed at a reduced or no cost for other federally-designated public uses, such
as affordable housing developments.
Response to Marnie Hendrix - Letter 381

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1, and in support of a school alternative,
is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 69, Comment 1.
Comment 2

Response to Sharon Hennessy - Letter 382
Comment 1
Response to Ian Hepburn - Letter 383

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. See the response
Response to Eric Herbig - Letter 384
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to David A. Herrick - Letter 385
Comment 1
Response to Pete Higgins - Letter 386
Comment 1

Response to Edward Highfield - Letter 387
Comment 1
Response to Colin Hinshaw - Letter 388
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Your comment
regarding the inclusion of market-rate housing is noted.
Response to Josh Hirshland - Letter 389

Comment 1
Response to Suzanne Hittman - Letter 390

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Monika Holm - Letter 391

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of higher density affordable housing is noted. See the
Response to Tim Holmgren - Letter 392

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 2 is noted. See the responses to Letter 12, Comment
13; Letter 29, Comment 2; and Letter 127, Comments 1 and 3.
Comment 4
Your comment in opposition to a school alternative is noted for the record.

Comment 5
Your comment in support of park uses at the Fort Lawton site is noted. Under Alternative 3, the
entire Fort Lawton site would be developed in public park uses.
Response to Andrew Holtzclaw - Letter 393

Comment 1
Comment 2
See Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H. The Fort Lawton site is not
on the National Register of Historic Places. The City Landmark status of buildings on the Fort
Lawton site has not been determined, but most do not appear to meet the criteria to be eligible
for Landmark designation. This would be confirmed prior to removal. Significant impacts to
historic resources are not expected.
For information on adding the site to Discovery Park, see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1.
Response to A.J. Honore - Letter 394

Comment 1
Response to Amy Hooey - Letter 395

Comment 1
Public Schools at the Fort Lawton site is noted for the record. See response to Letter 34,
Comment 1.
Response to Shanta Horlander - Letter 396

Comment 1
Response to Edward Highfield - Letter 397

Comment 1
Response to Jamie Hoskinson - Letter 398

Comment 1
see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input, for details.

Comment 2
Comment 3
See the responses to Letter 12, Comment 9 and 13; Letter 29, Comment 2; and Letter 127,
Comments 1 and 3.
Comment 4
Comment 5
All comments received during the DEIS comment period will receive equal weight.
Response to Sara Haspador - Letter 399

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment is support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted.
Response to Janice Hougen - Letter 400

Comment 1
Response to Donna Howard - Letter 401

Comment 1
Response to Oralea Howard - Letter 402

Comment 1
Response to Jared Howe - Letter 403

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3

Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Dee Anna Hulbert - Letter 404

Comment 1
Response to Emily Hunnicutt - Letter 405

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding transit service is noted for the record. Please see Section
3.10, Transportation, Section 4.4, Transportation, and Appendix I for additional discussion on
transit service.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Response to Ami Huntley - Letter 406

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to Katie Hurley - Letter 407
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Matt Hutchins - Letter 408

Comment 1

Comment 1
Comment 2

Comment 1

Comment 1
Response to Isa Hutchinson - Letter 412

Comment 1
Response to T Ingraham - Letter 413

Comment 1

Response to Claire Ireba - Letter 414
Comment 1
Response to Carol Isaac - Letter 415

Comment 1
see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input. As noted in that section, all comments on the
DEIS are given equal weight.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding affordable housing and transit use is noted.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Response to Margaret Isaac - Letter 416

Comment 1
Response to Abigail Isquith - Letter 417

Comment 1
Response to Joy Jaber – Letter 418

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding multiple chemical sensitivities and the provision of housing
units to support such sensitivities is noted.
Response to Cheryl Jacobs – Letter 419

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment on school capacity in the Fort Lawton vicinity is noted. Please see the

Response to Kathryn Jacoby - Letter 420
Comment 1
Response to Marilyn Jarrell - Letter 421

Comment 1
Response to Stan Jeffs - Letter 422

Comment 1
Response to Brad Jencks - Letter 423

Comment 1
Response to Joe - Letter 424

Comment 1
Response to Cynthia Johnson and Tim Humes - Letter 425

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted for the record. The
Fort Lawton site is not currently in park use; it is a vacant former military facility. While some
neighbors may use the site for recreation, any recreational use is unauthorized. Please see the
Comment 2
Your comment regarding affordable housing in the Seattle is noted.
Comment 3
Response to Thomas Johnson - Letter 426

Comment 1

Response to Emily Johnston - Letter 427
Comment 1
Response to Mose Johnston - Letter 428

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Calvin Jones - Letter 429

Comment 1
Response to Jett Jones - Letter 430

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to Justin Jones - Letter 431
Comment 1
Response to Kim Jones - Letter 432

Comment 1
Response to Nelly Kakulya - Letter 433

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. See the response to Letter
61, Comment 1, regarding school capacity.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment in support of a school alternative is noted. See the response to Letter 69,
Comment 1.
Comment 5
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative, after a school alternative, is noted.
Comment 6
Response to Summer Kakuomoto - Letter 434

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition to residential development on the Fort Lawton site is noted.

Response to Jessica Kamin - Letter 435
Comment 1
the responses to Letter 34, Comment 1, and Letter 61, Comment 1.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding potential locations for affordable housing is noted.
Comment 4
Your comment in support of a school alternative is noted.
Response to Robert Kaminski - Letter 436

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding sustainability is noted. Under Alternative 1, sustainable design
principles for the Fort Lawton Project would include:
Housing developed on the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 would adhere to the Evergreen
Sustainable Development Standards (ESDS). These standards include: maximizing density;
providing: access to open space, walkable neighborhoods, water conserving fixtures, reductions
in energy use and increased insulation; and use of low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
materials (see Chapter 2 for details).
Comment 4

Comment 5
Response to Kathleen Kapla - Letter 437

Comment 1
Response to Kaeley Kaplan - Letter 438

Comment 1
Response to Ryan Kartheiser - Letter 439

Comment 1
Response to Andrew Katz - Letter 440

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Laurie Kavanagh - Letter 441

Comment 1
Response to Barbara Kavanaugh - Letter 442

Comment 1
Response to Josh Keeler - Letter 443

Comment 1
Response to Pamela Keeley - Letter 444

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of providing housing for Native Americans on the Fort
Lawton site is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 85, Comment 3.

Response to Courtney Keen - Letter 445
Comment 1
Response to Phoebe Keleman - Letter 446

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding affordable housing is noted.
Response to Kathryn Keller - Letter 447

Comment 1
Response to Bryan Kelly - Letter 448

Comment 1
Response to Alison Kelly-Rostholder - Letter 449

Comment 1
Response to Alex Kelsey - Letter 450

Comment 1
Response to Mary Ann Kelson - Letter 451

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to K. Kennell - Letter 452
Comment 1
Response to Erin Lillis Kent - Letter 453

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. The Fort Lawton site is not part of Discovery
Park; the site is located immediately east of the park and is a vacant former military facility.
Response to Nicholas Kent - Letter 454

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Kristine Kershul - Letter 455

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the availability of services and transportation facilities to
serve the Fort Lawton site is noted. Please see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
Comment 2
Comment 1.
Response to Jerry Kessinger - Letter 456

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3

Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Yih Pin Khoo - Letter 457

Comment 1
Response to Barbara Kiley - Letter 458

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding available land in Seattle is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Comment 1.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding using a portion of the site as an educational facility for the park is
noted.
Response to Barbara Kiley - Letter 459

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 or a school alternative is noted for the
Comment 2
Your comment regarding priorities for affordable housing residents is noted. See the response
Comment 3
Your comments regarding the design of affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted. As
described in Chapter 2, the Fort Lawton Project is intended to be a well-designed community
that would be compatible with the surrounding Magnolia neighborhood and Discovery Park.
Figure 3.7-7 provides examples of existing affordable developments with housing types similar
to those proposed at Fort Lawton.

Response to Michael Kiley - Letter 460
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 1.
Response to Louis Kim - Letter 461

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding existing crime in the Magnolia neighborhood is noted. Please see
Section 3.11, Public Services, for a description of existing police service to the Fort Lawton site.
Also see the response to Letter 21, Comment 2.
Comment 3
Alternatives 1 and 3 would offer parks and recreation space. Your comment in favor of
Alternative 2 or a school alternative is noted. See the response to Letter 69, Comment 1,
regarding a school alternative. If Alternative 2 were developed, the property cannot be
leveraged to fund housing offsite. See the response to Letter 173, Comment 5.
Comment 4
Comment 5
Response to Colleen Kimsey - Letter 462

Comment 1
Response to Valerie Kinast - Letter 463

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of providing housing for Native Americans on the Fort
Lawton site is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 85, Comment 3.

Response to Kimberly Kinchen - Letter 464
Comment 1
Response to Dave Kirkeby - Letter 465

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
See Section 3.11, Public Services. While it is anticipated that new development and associated
on-site population would result in an increase in fire response and EMS calls, the Seattle Fire
Department anticipates that they would have the staffing and equipment to continue to meet
service needs on the site and in the remainder of the city of Seattle with development under
the EIS alternatives.
Comment 6

Comment 7
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted. The Fort Lawton site is not
part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east of the park and is a vacant former
military facility. See Letter 4, Comment 1.
Comment 8
Comment 9
Your comment regarding supporting less fortunate populations is noted.

Response to Bryan Kirschner and Holly Ferguson – Letter 466
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing under the Fair Housing Act is
noted.
Response to Michael and Beret Kischner - Letter 467

Comment 1
Response to Joe Klonowski - Letter 468

Comment 1
Response to Mike Knezevich - Letter 469

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted.
Response to Linde Knighton - Letter 470

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding affordable housing is noted for the record. The use of
recycled shipping containers is not currently included in Alternative 1. As described in Chapter
2, the Fort Lawton Project is intended to be a well-designed community that would be
compatible with the surrounding Magnolia neighborhood and Discovery Park. Figure 3.7-7
provides examples of existing affordable developments with housing types similar to those
proposed at Fort Lawton.

Response to Vasiliy Kochergin - Letter 471
Comment 1
Thank you for your comment regarding recreational use of the Fort Lawton site. The site is
currently owned by the U.S. Army and any recreational use is unauthorized.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Seattle Public Schools maintains data regarding the student yield rate for all students in grades
K-12 in each part of the city of Seattle for various types of housing. The rate indicates the
percentage of students that would be generated based on the number and types of housing.
Within the McClure Middle School area (which would include the Fort Lawton site), the student
yield rate for apartments in 2.3%, for condominiums is 1.9%, and for single-family residences is
27.6%. Based on the methodology described about, development under Alternative 1 would
generate approximately 41 new students (see Section 3.11, Public Services, for details).
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 and its potential impacts is noted.
Response to Ekaterina Kochergina - Letter 472

Comment 1
record. The Fort Lawton site is not part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east of
the park and is a vacant former military facility.
Comment 2
Comment 3
The Fort Lawton site is not currently part of Discovery Park. See the response to Letter 4,
Comment 1, for more information on the relationship between the proposed development and
Discovery Park.
Comment 4
Comment 1.

Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Your comment regarding locating affordable housing at Seattle Center is noted.
Response to Sara M. Koenig - Letter 473

Comment 1
34, Comment 1.
Response to Kate Koliha - Letter 474

Comment 1
Response to Bryce Kolton - Letter 475

Comment 1
Response to Gary Konop - Letter 476

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding impacts on wildlife is noted. While construction activity under the EIS
alternatives would temporarily disturb wildlife, no long-term direct impacts are expected to
critical areas, wildlife habitat or sensitive wildlife species. Indirect impacts to retained habitat
and wildlife may increase due to increase human activity. Open space under Alternative 1
would increase, which may provide additional wildlife habitat over existing conditions (see
Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for details).
Response to Bryan Kopel - Letter 477

Comment 1

Response to Bill Korbonits - Letter 478
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted for the record. Under Alternative
3, the entire Fort Lawton site would be in public park uses; however, the site would not be part
of Discovery Park. See Letter 4, Comment 1, for discussion of a Discovery Park alternative.
Response to Conrad Kornmann - Letter 479

Comment 1
Thank you, for your comment in support of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 is noted for the
record.
Response to Rodney Kreps - Letter 480

Comment 1
Response to Dustin Kreutz - Letter 481

Comment 1
Response to Ken Kroemer - Letter 482

Comment 1
Response to Walt Kuciej - Letter 483

Comment 1
Response to Hal Kussick - Letter 484

Comment 1
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 19, Comment 1. It should be noted that commenters at the public
hearing included residents of the Magnolia neighborhood, as well as homeless individuals who
also have a stake in the outcome of this project.

Comment 3
Your comment regarding the impact of construction vehicles on the surrounding neighborhood
and Discovery Park is noted. During construction of Alternative 1, temporary increases in noise
are expected due to the use of heavy equipment and hauling of construction materials. It
should be noted that the estimated project schedule does not include seven years of
continuous construction activity. Rather, there would be an initial design and permitting phase,
followed by various phases of construction that commence and complete, including periods
when construction would be limited by the heron nesting season (February 1st through July
31st). The project would adhere to required limits for construction activity within residential
zones (SMC Chapter 25.08.425) (see Section 3.4, Noise, and Appendix E for details).
Alternative 1 would generate construction truck traffic and employee traffic. The vicinity
roadway system is expected to be able to accommodate all construction traffic. All truck staging
and contractor parking would occur on the site. No significant impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood are expected. See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details).
Comment 4
Alternative 1 would include 238 affordable housing units. A significant increase in size or
density would require additional SEPA review. See the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Comment 5
See the response to Letter 90, Comment 3. The study on the potential impacts of affordable
housing on property values referenced in the EIS was not sponsored by the City. It was
prepared by Trulia, an online residential real estate site for home buyers, sellers, renters and
real estate professionals.
Comment 6
Your comment support for Alternative 3 is noted.
Response to Dale Kutzera - Letter 485

Comment 1
Both the Office of Housing and Seattle Public Schools evaluated the merits of preserving the
existing structures for re-use as either housing or school facilities, and concluded that given the
configuration and condition of the properties, preservation was a less desirable option than
demolition and development of new facilities. The existing office layouts were not conducive to
providing the range of affordable ownership and rental housing desired by the City, and the
cost of renovation (which would include substantial heating, plumbing, electrical and seismic
upgrades) would not have represented a more efficient approach. Constructing new housing
yields more options and flexibility to create an efficient site plan, as well as a mix of housing
types that are compatible with the existing residential neighborhood. Regarding the proposed
park use of the shed and parking lots, the City has included that in the plan because of Seattle
Department of Parks and Recreation’s need for a maintenance facility to support the open
space and recreation facilities in the area.

Comment 2
See the response to Letter 173, Comment 5. Your comment regarding including market-rate
housing is noted.
Comment 3
Your comment in opposition to using Building 245 for parks maintenance by SPR is noted.
Response to Keith Kyle - Letter 486

Comment 1
Response to Amy Lakhani - Letter 487

Comment 1
34, Comment 1.
Response to Tom Lang - Letter 488

Comment 1
Response to Ian Langer - Letter 489

Comment 1
Response to James L. Larson - Letter 490

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding incorporating the Fort Lawton site into Discovery Park is noted.
Comment 3
The potential impacts of Alternative 1 on Discovery Park are analyzed in several sections of the
EIS, including: Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies; Section 3.7,
Aesthetics/Visual Resources; Section 3.10, Transportation; and Section 3.11, Public Services.
Also see Letter 21, Comment 2, regarding the potential for affordable housing to increase crime
in the surrounding area.

Comment 4
Your comment regarding greenbelts and in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted.
Response to Marc Lawrence - Letter 491

Comment 1
response to Letter 40, Comment 1, regarding transit.
Comment 2
Response to Celeste Lawson - Letter 492

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding school capacity in the Fort Lawton vicinity is noted for the
Comment 2
See the response to Comment 1 in this letter, and Section 3.11, Public Services, for additional
information on schools.
Response to David Lawson - Letter 493

Comment 1
Response to Jessie Lawton-Crane - Letter 494

Comment 1
Response to Justin Lee - Letter 495

Comment 1
Response to Emily Leedy - Letter 496

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the capacity of schools in the Fort Lawton vicinity is noted
for the record. Please see Letter 61, Comment 1.

Comment 2
Comment 1.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment in support of a school alternative is noted for the record.
Response to Nancy Lehwalder - Letter 497

Comment 1
Comment 2
Supportive housing would be available to those with 0-30% AMI.
Response to Shannon Leslie - Letter 498

Comment 1
Response to Grant H. Leum - Letter 499

Comment 1
Response to Sharon LeVine - Letter 500

Comment 1
Response to Haoquan Li - Letter 501

Comment 1
Response to Lars Liden - Letter 502

Comment 1

Response to Dan Liebling - Letter 503
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding commercial uses on the Fort Lawton site is noted. See Section 4.1,
Alternatives, for details on other alternatives for the site.
Response to Jill Lightner - Letter 504

Comment 1
Response to Mark Linsey - Letter 505

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a higher density alternative is noted. See the response to Letter 15,
Comment 2.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding transit services is noted. See Section 3.10, Transportation, and
Section 4.4, Transportation, for further analysis on transit service.
Response to Lesa Linster - Letter 506

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding resources and services for affordable housing is noted. See the
response to Letter 40, Comment 1 for further details.
Response to Sarah Lippek - Letter 507

Comment 1

Response to Meredith Lirman - Letter 508
Comment 1
Response to Bri Little - Letter 509

Comment 1
Response to Howard Litwak - Letter 510

Comment 1
Response to Alice Lockhart - Letter 511

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Response to Sara Loew – Letter 512

Comment 1

Response to Steve Lovekin - Letter 513
Comment 1
Comment 2
As described in Chapter 2, the purpose of the project, as stated by the Seattle Office of
Housing, is to create an affordable, livable community with safe, high quality housing options
for those with low or no incomes. The project is intended to not only address homelessness,
but also to address the shortage of affordable housing in Seattle that has intensified in recent
years.
Per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the FY 2017 AMI for a family of
four in the Seattle Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) is $96,000. The AMI is
not based on the median income in Magnolia. Senior Supportive Housing would be for
household with incomes at or below 30% of the AMI. Affordable Rental Apartments would be
for households with incomes at or below 60% of the AMI, and Affordable Homeownership
would be for households with incomes at or below 80% of the AMI.
Many households are anticipated to earn significantly less than this threshold. AMI also varies
significantly depending on the number of individuals in a household.
Comment 3
As noted in the response to Comment 2 in this letter, the purpose of the project is to create an
affordable, livable community with safe, high quality housing options for those with low or no
incomes. Alternative 1 would provide a mix of housing options, including 85 units of supportive
housing for homeless seniors, 100 affordable rental apartments, 40 affordable ownership
townhouses and 12 affordable ownership rowhouses. The development is intended to address
the growing need for affordable housing, in addition to providing housing for the homeless.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding the opportunity for public input is noted. See Section 4.5,
Opportunity for Public Input, for details. All comments received during the DEIS public
comment period will be given equal weight.
Comment 5
Your comment regarding the Magnolia Community Club is noted.
Comment 6
Your comment in support of park use on the site is noted.
Comment 7
Comment 8

Comment 9
Comment 10
Comment 11
Both CHS and Habitat are experienced housing providers that have been in existence since 1979
and 1986, respectively. However, if either Catholic Housing Services or Habitat for Humanity are
no longer overseeing the proposed affordable housing, the Office of Housing would work to
ensure a qualified substitute would assume the responsibilities of managing the project.
Comment 12
Response to Briana Lovel - Letter 514

Comment 1
Response to Sammy Low - Letter 515

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6

Response to Jessica Lucas - Letter 516
Comment 1
Response to Scott Luchessa - Letter 517

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding parking and stormwater control are noted. A transportation analysis
was prepared for the DEIS, including study of proposed parking under the EIS alternatives. The
analysis determined that the proposed parking would meet Seattle Municipal Code
requirements. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, peak parking demand could exceed supply at the
Fort Lawton site. Excess parking demand could be addressed through parking management
strategies (see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details). A permanent
stormwater system would be installed under the EIS alternatives. The system under
Alternatives 1 and 3 could include elements such as stormwater lines, catch basins, manholes,
vaults, raingardens, bioretention facilities, dispersal trenches and/or underdrain systems (see
Section 3.12, Utilities, for details).
Comment 3
Your comment regarding including a potential p-patch garden in the project is noted.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding including a pedestrian connection to 36th Avenue W is noted.
Comment 5
Your comment regarding the removal of invasive species is noted for the record.
Comment 6
response to Letter 15, Comment 2. Under Alternative 1, a rezone of a portion of the site from
SF 7200 to LR2 (M1) is proposed (see Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies,
for details).
Comment 7
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, native, drought tolerant species would be planted in landscaped
areas. Under Alternative 2, landscaping would be determined by the builders and homeowners.
Comment 8
As described in Section 3.5, Environmental Health, potential environmental health hazards are
present at the Fort Lawton site, including asbestos, lead-based paint and PCBs in existing
buildings, and possibly undiscovered underground storage tanks or contaminants. Appendix F

provides a list of the documents that were reviewed for this EIS to assess the environmental
conditions/hazards that could be present at the Fort Lawton site. These documents include past
Environmental Site Assessments. Under all the EIS alternatives, disturbance of the site and
removal of buildings could release contaminants. With the implementation of a site-specific
health and safety plan and a Surface Water Pollution Protection Plan, no significant
environmental health impacts are expected.
Response to Benjamin Lucking - Letter 518

Comment 1
Response to Benjamin D. Lukoff - Letter 519

Comment 1
Response to Sonja Lund - Letter 520

Comment 1
Response to Tom Lux - Letter 521

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6

Response to Kevin MacDonald - Letter 522
Comment 1
Response to Marti MacDougall - Letter 523

Comment 1
Response to Kate MacFarlane - Letter 524

Comment 1
Response to Melroy Machado - Letter 525

Comment 1
Response to Ahna Machan - Letter 526

Comment 1
Response to Claire Magula - Letter 527

Comment 1
Response to Jean Maier – Letter 528

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Sean Mallon - Letter 529

Comment 1
Comment 2

Comment 3
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative or a school alternative is noted. See
the responses to Letter 4, Comment 1; Letter 61, Comment 1; and Letter 69, Comment 1.
Comment 4
See the response to letter 172, Comment 5.
As described in Chapter 2, the City began the Fort Lawton redevelopment process in 2006.
From 2006 through 2008, the City conducted an extensive community engagement process that
resulted in a detailed redevelopment plan (2008 Plan) 7 to create a diverse, mixed-income
community with housing for homeless individuals and families and market-rate housing
(totaling up to 216 units), while also preserving existing wildlife habitat and creating a new
neighborhood park. The City is now carrying forward its past planning efforts into a vision for
the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center that creates an affordable, livable community for people
with low incomes, and takes advantage of the opportunity to increase recreational and open
space.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
As a commenter, you are a party of record on the project.
Response to Brian Mankinen - Letter 530

Comment 1
Comment 2
This FEIS, together with the DEIS issued in December 2017, are the SEPA review for the Fort
Lawton Army Reserve Center Project. The following elements of the environment are analyzed
in the EIS. Conditions during construction and operation of the project are evaluated.
• Geology/Soils • Noise
• Air Quality • Land Use
• Biological Resources • Aesthetics/Visual Resources
• Environmental Health • Recreation/Open Space
7

• Historic/Cultural Resources • Utilities
• Transportation • Housing/Socioeconomics
• Public Services • Environmental Justice
The U.S. Army will provide additional NEPA review of the updated redevelopment plan that is
selected by the City.
Comment 3
Response to Michele Marchi - Letter 531

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a park alternative is noted for the record. We
understand that you are not represented by Magnolia Community Council.
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted. Please see the response to
Response to Davida Marion - Letter 532

Comment 1
Response to Jonathan Mark - Letter 533

Comment 1
Response to Steve Marquardt - Letter 534

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding amenities in the Fort Lawton vicinity is noted.
Response to Anthony Marris-Swann - Letter 535

Comment 1

Response to David Marshall - Letter 536
Comment 1
Response to Stuart Marshall - Letter 537

Comment 1
Your comment regarding providing an analysis of the interaction between affordable housing
residents and the community is noted. However, community interaction is not an element of
the environment used in SEPA (see WAC 197-11-444 for these elements).
Comment 2
Three action alternatives are included in the EIS: Alternative 1 (Applicant’s Preferred
Alternative) – Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses Onsite; Alternative 2 -
Market-Rate Housing Onsite, Affordable/Homeless Housing Offsite; and Alternative 3 - Public
Park Onsite, Affordable/Homeless Housing Offsite. As described in Chapter 2, the EIS
alternatives are intended to represent a reasonable range of land uses and densities to address
the applicant’s development objectives for the site, the existing regulatory framework and
economic factors. As the environmental review and land use approval process associated with
the project proceeds, the Proposed Action chosen by the decision-makers may include
components of some or all three alternatives. However, it is assumed that the scope of the
Proposed Action that is ultimately approved will be within the range of assumptions and
impacts tested in this FEIS. Therefore, the ultimate redevelopment plan could contain
affordable and market-rate housing.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding an alternative that includes affordable housing and market-rate
housing at both the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites is noted. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives,
for further details.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding the DEIS analysis is noted.
Response to Carly Martin - Letter 538

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment supporting Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Your comment to
potentially make available more area for a school is noted.
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition to including 30% AMI supportive housing is noted. Alternative 1
would include affordable rental apartments for low-income households earning up to 60% AMI,
affordable homeownership opportunities for families earning up to 80% AMI, and supportive
housing for formerly homeless seniors with up to 30% AMI (see Chapter 2 for details).

Comment 3
Comment 4
Response to Doris Martin - Letter 539

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 4 is noted for the record. The Fort Lawton
site is not part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east of the park and is a vacant
former military facility.
Comment 2
Under Alternative 3, the entire site would be developed as a public park with passive and active
recreation facilities, including two multi-purpose fields. Up to 4.7 acres in the west portion of
the site owned by the U.S. Army would be incorporated into Discovery Park (see Chapter 2 for
details on this alternative).
Response to Marco Martinez - Letter 540

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding senior supportive housing under Alternative 1 and the possibility of
including a senior center is noted.
Response to Denis Martynowych - Letter 541

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3

Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Mary - Letter 542

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the potential for an increase in crime with the affordable
housing is noted for the record. See the responses to Letter 21, Comment 2, and Letter 77,
Comment 5.
Response to Whitney Mason - Letter 543

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of housing or school uses on site is noted for the record.
Comment 2
See Section 3.10, Transportation, Section 3.12, Public Services, and Section 3.13, Utilities, for
analyses of the capacity of existing infrastructure and services to meet the demands from the
EIS alternatives. Additional analysis of the capacity of the road system and schools in the Fort
Lawton vicinity is included in this FEIS. See the responses to Letter 12, Comments 9 and 13, and
Response to Marla Master - Letter 544

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition to a higher density affordable housing alternative and its impacts
on Discovery Park is noted.
Response to Anne Mathews - Letter 545

Comment 1

Response to Mycah Mattox - Letter 546
Comment 1
Response to Liz Hills Maxfield - Letter 547

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted for the record. However, the Fort
Lawton site is not currently part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east of the
park and is a vacant former military facility. Under Alternative 3, the entire site would be
developed as a public park with passive and active recreation facilities, including two multi-
purpose fields. Up to 4.7 acres in the west portion of the site owned by the U.S. Army would be
incorporated into Discovery Park (see Chapter 2 for details).

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park or school alternative is noted. See the responses
to Letter 4, Comment 1, and Letter 69, Comment 1.
Comment 5

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding school use on a portion of the site is noted. See the responses to
Letter 34, Comment 1, and Letter 61, Comment 1.

Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 1.
Response to Kevin Maxon - Letter 550

Comment 1
Response to Sue Maxon - Letter 551

Comment 1
Response to William Maxwell - Letter 552

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding the need for parks and open space in Seattle is noted. Please see to
Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, and Section 4.3, Recreation and Open Space, for
details on existing recreation and open space conditions, and an analysis of the impacts of the
EIS alternatives on these conditions.
Comment 3
Comment 4
While some residents of Magnolia could work at the future Expedia site, that project is not
expected to generate additional traffic near the site since residents would likely commute out
of the neighborhood to an employment site with or without the Expedia project. Background
traffic growth rate associated with new development in Magnolia was assumed, and is
described in DEIS Section 3.10.1 (or Section 2.1.2 of the Transportation Technical Report in
Appendix I). This same background growth rate is assumed for the additional transportation
analysis conducted for this FEIS.

Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for details on off-site locations.
Comment 8
Alternative 1 is the applicant’s preferred alternative. However, no decisions have been made on
the project. Your comment regarding public comment opportunities is noted. See Section 4.5,
Opportunities for Public Input.
Response to Catherine Mayhew - Letter 553

Comment 1
Response to William Gagne Maynard - Letter 554

Comment 1
Response to Clarence McAllister - Letter 555

Comment 1
Response to Amanda McCaffrey - Letter 556

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of affordable housing throughout Seattle and for Alternative 1 is
noted.
Response to Doyle McCarthy - Letter 557

Comment 1

Response to Dave McCaul - Letter 558
Comment 1
Response to Margaret McCauley - Letter 559

Comment 1
Response to Morgan McClanahan - Letter 560

Comment 1
Response to Tim McConnell - Letter 561

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding increasing taxes on rental, secondary and income properties to help
fund affordable housing is noted.
Response to Victoria McCormick - Letter 562

Comment 1
Response to Victoria McCormick - Letter 563

Comment 1
Response to David McDaniel – Letter 564

Comment 1

Response to Jennifer McDowall - Letter 565
Comment 1
Response to Toni McElroy - Letter 566

Comment 1
Response to Deborah Brown McGarry - Letter 567

Comment 1
Response to James S. McIntosh - Letter 568

Comment 1
incorporated into Discovery Park (see Chapter 2 for details)
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding developing affordable housing through infill development in other
locations is noted. See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
Comment 4
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted.
Comment 5
Thank you for information on the history of Discovery Park and the Fort Lawton site. See
Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H for additional information on the
site’s history.

Comment 6
Your comment in opposition to developing housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Comment 7
See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1. Please also see Section 3.10, Transportation;
Section 4.4, Transportation; and Appendix I for details on transit service.
Comment 8
Comment 9
Your comment regarding development in Seattle and loss of open space and trees is noted.
Under Alternative 1, impervious surface area would be reduced compared to existing
conditions. Existing forested areas in the north and south portions of the site would be
retained, and additional landscaping provided (see Chapter 2 for details)
Comment 10
The comment regarding wildlife in Discovery Park and on the Fort Lawton site is noted. Please
see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for further information.
Comment 11
Your comment regarding potential park uses on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Response to Chuck McKeever - Letter 569

Comment 1
Response to Juanita McLaughlin - Letter 570

Comment 1
Response to Bronwyn McNutt - Letter 571

Comment 1
Response to Garland McQuinn - Letter 572

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Megan - Letter 573

Comment 1
Response to Bruno Mello - Letter 574

Comment 1
Response to Jeremy Mendonsa - Letter 575

Comment 1
Response to Finn Menzies - Letter 576

Comment 1
Response to Aaron Merhoff - Letter 577

Comment 1
Comment 2
For information on transit and access to services and employment, see the response to Letter
40, Comment 1. For information on school capacity, see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Your comment in support of development including market-rate and affordable housing on the
Fort Lawton site is noted. See the response to letter 537, Comment 2.
Comment 6

Response to Aaron Merhoff - Letter 578
Comment 1
Thank you, please see the response to Letter 577, Comment 1.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Christine Merker - Letter 579

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment in support of affordable housing is noted.
Response to Nancy Mero - Letter 580

Comment 1
Response to Richard Mesmer - Letter 581

Comment 1
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 203, Comment 8, regarding the West Point wastewater treatment
plant. See Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for information on wildlife use of

the Fort Lawton site and the surrounding area, and an analysis of the impacts of the EIS
alternatives on wildlife.
Comment 3
See Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, for a discussion of the Discovery
Park Master Plan. As noted in the discussion, the Court of Appeals determined that the City was
not required to publicly determine the applicability of the Discovery Park Master Plan to the
Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, public parks would be provided
on the Fort Lawton site, including passive and active recreation areas. Up to 4.7 acres of
forestland owned by the U.S. Army in the west portion of the Fort Lawton site would also be
incorporated into Discovery Park under these alternatives. No public parks would be included
Response to Scott Meyer - Letter 582

Comment 1
Response to Michael - Letter 583

Comment 1
Response to E. Michaels - Letter 584

Comment 1
Response to Nikita Milani - Letter 585

Comment 1
Response to Scott Miles - Letter 586

Comment 1
Response to Andy Miller - Letter 587

Comment 1

Response to Anne Miller - Letter 588
Comment 1
Response to Gordon Miller - Letter 589

Comment 1
Response to Kathryn Miller - Letter 590

Comment 1
Response to Ashley Millett - Letter 591

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding providing area for school use on the Fort Lawton site is
Response to Ashley Millett - Letter 592

Comment 1
Thank you, your comments on public safety are noted for the record. Please see the response
to Letter 21, Comment 2, for information on public safety and the response to Letter 164,
Comment 2, for information on supportive services.
Comment 2
In 2015, the average response time for Priority 1 911 calls in the West Precinct (which includes
Magnolia) was 8 minutes and 42 seconds. 8 This response time is less than in three of the four
other Seattle precincts.
Comment 3
The temporary increase in demand for police and fire services described in Section 3.11, Public
Services, would be due to potential construction site theft, vandalism and construction-related
fires or accidents. These construction-related demands would no longer exist once construction
is complete. Once full-buildout of the project is complete, there would be an increase in
demand for police and fire/emergency services (relative to conditions prior to development)
due to an increase in on-site population. Seattle Police Department and Seattle Fire
Department expect that they would have the capacity to meet these needs. Senior supportive
housing is not anticipated to cause a substantial increase in demand for police services.
8
“Real Police Response Time Figures by Precinct.” Council Connection, 2016.

Comment 4
Your comment regarding on-site managers for the senior supportive housing is noted. While
only one manager is proposed under Alternative 1, additional supportive services would be
provided onsite. For example, case managers would be provided to assist in crisis intervention,
eviction prevention and linkages to other resources such as chore services and health care.
Residents would also have access 24 hours a day to residential counselors (see Chapter 2 for
details). Because of the services provided and based on prior experience within similar
developments, one manager is anticipated to be sufficient for the proposed senior supportive
housing.
Comment 5
Seattle Public Schools (SPS) maintains data regarding the student yield rate for all students in
grades K-12 in each part of the city of Seattle for various types of housing. The rate indicates
the percentage of students that would be generated based on the number and types of
housing. Within the McClure Middle School area (which would include the Fort Lawton site),
the student yield rate for apartments in 2.3%, for condominiums is 1.9% and for single-family
residences is 27.6%. Based on these rates, development under Alternative 1 would generate
approximately 41 new students (see Section 3.11, Public Services, for details). See the response
to Letter 61, Comment 1 regarding additional analysis that was conducted for this FEIS on the
capacity of the schools near the Fort Lawton site to serve the project.
Comment 6
As noted in Section 3.11, Public Services, similar to other public services within the City of
Seattle, tax revenues generated directly and indirectly from development projects help to
support public services such as police, fire/emergency services and schools. SPS’s planning
process would also help address impacts on schools.
Comment 7
Your comment regarding SPS’s enrollment and capacity estimates are noted. See the response
to Comment 5 in this this letter.
Comment 8
The Fort Lawton EIS was not prepared by the Seattle City Council. As allowed by SEPA,
Alternative 1 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative in the EIS. However, the City has
not made a final decision on this or any other alternative. The DEIS and FEIS together comprise
the document that the City will use—along with other analyses and public input—to make
decisions on the proposed Fort Lawton Project. After the issuance of this FEIS, City staff will
make recommendations to the decision-makers on the Fort Lawton Project. Additional
opportunities for public input will occur during this process (see Section 4.5, Opportunity for
Public Input).
Response to Nicholas Mirra - Letter 593

Comment 1

Response to Leah Missik - Letter 594
Comment 1
Response to Patricia Moe - Letter 595

Comment 1
Comment 2
Based on the number of residents (586 people) that would reside on the site with development
under Alternative 1, there would be a demand for approximately 4.7 acres of parks and
recreation facilities. This demand would be satisfied by the provision of approximately 8.2 acres
of passive recreation areas and 5.4 acres of active recreation areas onsite, as well as the
incorporation of approximately 4.7 acres of land to Discovery Park. This increase in recreation
area would be available to the public (see Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, for details).
Comment 3
There are no plans for an additional hearing on the DEIS. The DEIS can be reviewed and
downloaded online at http://www.seattle.gov/housing/ft-lawton.
Response to David Moehring - Letter 596

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternatives 1 and 3 is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding providing environmental education opportunities is noted.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your suggestions for the design of residential open space are noted.
Comment 5
A school is currently not included in any of the EIS alternatives; thus, the EIS does not address
impacts of a school on the Fort Lawton site. See the response to Letter 34, Comment 1.
Comment 6

near nesting habitat.
The DEIS analyzed the impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat at the Fort Lawton site in relation
to Discovery Park. The analysis indicated that under Alternatives 1 and 3, wildlife habitat and
corridors for wildlife movement between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Memorial Reserve Park
would be preserved within the proposed natural areas (e.g., in the forest areas in the north and
south portions of the site). Also, up to 4.7 acres of forest land owned by the U.S. Army in the
west portion of the site would be incorporated into Discovery Park and preserved as natural
area. Under Alternative 2, the north forest area that provides wildlife habitat and a wildlife
corridor between the parks would be partially developed, and the south forest area completely
removed. The forest land owned by the U.S. Army may or may not be incorporated into
Discovery Park under this alternative. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have greater potential to
impact wildlife/wildlife habitat than Alternatives 1 and 3 (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources,
Comment 7
Thank you for information on the Magnolia community NextDoor poll.
Comment 8
Your comment regarding development of affordable housing at dispersed locations within
Magnolia is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Response to Rick Mohler - Letter 597

Comment 1
Response to Johannes Mohrmann - Letter 598

Comment 1
Response to Lyle Moise - Letter 599

Comment 1
Response to Patrick Mondello - Letter 600

Comment 1

Response to Colleen Monette - Letter 601
Comment 1
Response to Donna Moniz - Letter 602

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding Discovery Park is noted for the record. Please see the
Response to Jen Moon - Letter 603

Comment 1
Response to KJ Moon - Letter 604

Comment 1
Response to Cary Moon - Letter 605

Comment 1
Response to Robert Moore - Letter 606

Comment 1
Response to Teresa, Tom, and Caitlin Moore - Letter 607

Comment 1
incorporated into Discovery Park (see Chapter 2 for details)
Comment 2
Comment 3

Response to Debra Morrison - Letter 608
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Lyle Morse - Letter 609

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Response to Charlie Morss - Letter 610

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of the Friends of Discovery Park issue paper is noted for
Response to Linda C Morton - Letter 611

Comment 1
Response to David Moser - Letter 612

Comment 1
Response to Cliff Mountjoy-Venning - Letter 613

Comment 1
Response to Matthew Moyano - Letter 614

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. See the

Comment 2
Your comment regarding development of the fort/Discovery Park is noted. However, the Fort
park and is a vacant former military facility.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding preference for affordable housing on the Talaris site is noted.
Comment 4
Response to Claudine Murphia - Letter 615

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted for the record. Your preference
for a natural park is noted.
Response to Meaghan Murphy - Letter 616

Comment 1
Response to Melissa Murphy - Letter 617

Comment 1
Response to Kathy Mutchler - Letter 618

Comment 1
The Fort Lawton site is not currently part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east
of the park and is a vacant former military facility. Approximately 55% of the site is currently
built area/impervious surfaces, which would be reduced to 40% under Alternative 1. Existing
forested habitat areas would be preserved in the north and south parts of the site, and up to
4.7 acres of forested habitat in the west portions of the site owned by the U.S. Army would be
incorporated into Discovery Park under this alternative (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources,
Comment 2
Your comment regarding the rights of indigenous people is noted. See the response to Letter
85, Comment 3.
Comment 3
Your comment in opposition to residential development on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Please see the response to Comment 1 in this letter.

Response to Miller Myers - Letter 619
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding existing preserving trees and wildlife on the Fort Lawton
site is noted for the record. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, the existing forested habitat areas in
the north and south parts of the site would be preserved in their natural condition, as would
wildlife habitat and corridors for wildlife movement between Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park
and Discovery Park. Under Alternative 2, these areas could be developed as market-rate
housing (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources and Appendix C for details).
Response to Ramez Naam - Letter 620

Comment 1
Response to Risa Nagel - Letter 621

Comment 1
Response to Izumi Nance - Letter 622

Comment 1
Response to Chad Newton - Letter 623

Comment 1
Comment 2
The City’s current schedule for development of Alternative 1 is aggressive but realistic. To the
extent possible, the City will try to accelerate the schedule while following the necessary steps
for permitting of the project
Comment 3
Response to Chad Newton - Letter 624

Comment 1
Your comment regarding street access for Alternatives 1 and 2 is noted for the record.
Response to Molly R. Nixon - Letter 625

Comment 1

Response to Kara Noar - Letter 626
Comment 1
Response to Ty Nolan - Letter 627

Comment 1
Response to Bill Nordwall - Letter 628

Comment 1
Response to Baird Nuckolls - Letter 629

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your positive experience with Habitat for Humanity and OPAL low-income housing, and
preference for smaller scale development, is noted.
Comment 3
Comment 4
The DEIS transportation analysis included the intersections at the entrance to Discovery Park—
Discovery Park Boulevard / Texas Way and W Government Way / Discovery Park Boulevard /
36th Avenue W. As shown in Table 3.10-4 (or Table 11 in Appendix I), project-generated trips
under Alternative 1 would add a small amount of delay during the peak hours (3 seconds
average delay per vehicle, or less) but would not change overall levels of service compared to
conditions without the project. Mitigation measures identified in the DEIS include completion
of the sidewalk network in the area, and addition of crosswalks and curb ramps. As discussed in
Section 3.10-2 (or Section 3.2.6 of the Transportation Technical Report in Appendix I), historical
collision data show that there are no existing safety issues in the site vicinity. The project does
not include any changes to the roadway network, and combined with the factors described
above, is not expected to result in new safety concerns.
Response to Neal Nuckolls - Letter 630

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Please see

Comment 2
Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, provided a detailed analysis of the
potential impacts of Alternative 1. The analyses concluded that no significant land use impacts
are anticipated. For Alternative 1, this is due to the compatibility of the proposed housing and
public park uses with off-site uses, layout of uses, provision of buffers/separation, and the lack
of new vehicular/pedestrian connection to certain off-site uses.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment in favor of a park or school alternative is noted. Under Alternative 3, the entire
Fort Lawton site would be in park uses. See the response to Letter 69, Comment 1.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Thank you, your comment regarding preference for Alternative 3 and then Alternative 2 is
noted.
Response to Neal Nuckolls - Letter 631

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a school or Discovery Park alternative is noted. Please see the
Response to Ezra Nuite - Letter 632

Comment 1
Response to Brendan O’Connor- Letter 633

Comment 1
Thank you for your comment in support of Alterative 1. Your comment in support of a higher
density affordable housing alternative is noted. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment
2.

Response to Brendan O’Connor- Letter 634
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alterative 1 is noted for the record. Please see the
Response to Kari O’Driscoll - Letter 635

Comment 1
Response to Nero O’Reilly - Letter 636

Comment 1
Response to Melody O’Seadna - Letter 637

Comment 1
Response to Liz O’Donoghue - Letter 638

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record
Response to Josh Oakley - Letter 639

Comment 1
Response to Daniel Ojalvo - Letter 640

Comment 1
Response to Gabrielle Olivera - Letter 641

Comment 1
Response to Eliot David Olson - Letter 642

Comment 1

Response to Kathryn Olson - Letter 643
Comment 1
Response to Susan Oneil - Letter 644

Comment 1
Response to Guy Oron - Letter 645

Comment 1
Response to Chelsea M. Pagan - Letter 646

Comment 1
Response to Nathan Page - Letter 647

Comment 1
Response to Nicole Palczewski - Letter 648

Comment 1
Response to Rebecca Demarest Panzer - Letter 649

Comment 1
Response to Leah Papernick - Letter 650

Comment 1
Response to Jung Park - Letter 651

Comment 1
The Fort Lawton site is not currently part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east
of the park and is a vacant former military facility. While some neighbors may use the site for
recreation, any recreational use is unauthorized. Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment
1.

Comment 2
Response to Alison Park-Douglas - Letter 652

Comment 1
Response to Alex Parkman - Letter 653

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding opportunity of public input is noted for the record. Please
see Section 4.5, Opportunity of Public Input.
Response to Amanda Parnell - Letter 654

Comment 1
Response to Adina Parsley - Letter 655

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6

Response to Zoe Parsons - Letter 656
Comment 1
Response to James Pasch - Letter 657

Comment 1
Comment 2
As described in Section 3.9, Historic and Cultural Resources, and Appendix H, the cultural
resources department at the Duwamish, Muckleshoot, Snoqualmie and Suquamish tribes were
contacted to inquire about project-related cultural information or concerns.
Response to Giulia Pasciuto - Letter 658

Comment 1
Response to Pat - Letter 659

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding mixed housing, including market-rate and supportive
housing is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 172, Comment 5.
Comment 2
Comment 3
See Section 3.10, Transportation, Section 3.11, Public Services, and Section 3.12, Utilities, for
analyses of the capacity of existing infrastructure and services to meet the demands from the
EIS alternatives. Additional analysis of the capacity of the road system and schools in the Fort
Lawton vicinity is included in this FEIS. See the responses to Letter 12, Comments 9 and 13, and
Comment 4
Comment 1.
Response to Arthur R. Patterson - Letter 660

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Jason A. Paul - Letter 661

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the impacts of low-income housing on crime and property
values is noted for the record. Please see the responses to Letter 21, Comment 2 and Letter 90,
Comment 3.
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 90, Comment 3. Please note that the affordable and formerly
homeless housing proposed under Alternative 1 is not intended to be temporary shelter. Please
see Chapter 2 for details on the proposed senior supportive housing, affordable rental housing
and affordable ownership housing.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Many residents of affordable housing are anticipated to be car owners. Few residents of the
senior supportive housing are expected to own cars, but additional supportive services and
possibly shuttle services will be provided for these residents (see the response to Letter 164,
Comment 2). For information on access to transit and services, see the response to Letter 40,
Comment 1.
Comment 5
Your comment regarding potential alternative locations for affordable housing is noted. Please
see Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 6
Your comment regarding homeless shelters and crime is noted. See the response to Comment 2
in this letter.
Response to Todd Paulson - Letter 662

Comment 1
Comment 2
Please see the responses to Letter 12, Comments 9 and 13.
Comment 3

Comment 4
Comment 1.
Response to Dave Pearson – Letter 663

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternatives 1 and 2 is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
In response to comments on the DEIS, a discussion of the City of Seattle’s rezone criteria that
relate to a rezone of the Fort Lawton site under Alternative 1 is provided in this FEIS (including
SMC 23.34.007, SMC 23.34.008, 23.34.010, 23.34.011, 23.34.013, 23.34.014 and 23.34.018).
See Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, and Section 4.7, Rezone Criteria
Analysis.
Response to Beatrice Peaslee - Letter 664

Comment 1
Response to Anna Pedroso - Letter 665

Comment 1
Thank you, your support of Alternative 4 is noted for the record. For more detailed analysis of
the impacts of the EIS alternatives in certain technical areas, including biological resources,
please see the technical reports in the EIS appendices.
Response to Casey Peel - Letter 666

Comment 1
Response to Gabriel Pelly - Letter 667

Comment 1

Response to Melissa Pennington - Letter 668
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Aaron T. Perez - Letter 669

Comment 1
Response to Lynn Perry - Letter 670

Comment 1
Response to Abby E Peterson and Brent K Martin - Letter 671

Comment 1
Response to Eric Peterson - Letter 672

Comment 1
Response to Kimberly Phan - Letter 673

Comment 1
Response to Ethan Phelps-Goodman - Letter 674

Comment 1
Response to Shannon Phillips - Letter 675

Comment 1

Response to Susan G. Phinney - Letter 676
Comment 1
Comment 2
As described in Chapter 2, Alternative 1 is anticipated to accommodate approximately 596 new
residents. 9
Comment 3
See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for an analysis of the transportation impacts
under the EIS alternatives. The analysis indicates that at full buildout, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
would increase daily vehicle trips above existing levels in the Fort Lawton vicinity. However, no
significant LOS changes are expected at intersections near either of the site.
Comment 4
Comment 5
For the transportation analysis, the trip generation from the senior supportive housing under
Alternative 1 was based on the analysis performed for the Ballard Senior Housing Project. It was
determined that very few senior housing residents own vehicles. Most trips generated by low-
income senior housing projects are generated by staff, caregivers, and visitors. The Fort Lawton
analysis assumed that the senior housing would generate 1 peak hour trip for every 10
residential units (a rate of 0.10 trips per unit) (see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I
for details on trip generation).
Comment 6
Comment 7
Your comment regarding providing a smaller affordable housing development is noted.
Comment 8
The proposed plan reflects a balance of achieving multiple housing and parks objectives,
including achieving a range of housing types and affordability levels, creating an efficient
development site plan, preserving existing wildlife habitat and creating significant new public
park and recreation opportunities. This plan will continue to be refined as the development
9
Population estimates are based on comparable projects and are calculated as follow:
• Senior Supportive housing – 85 residents (1.0 resident per unit) and 1 manager (1.0 manager per manager
unit);
• Affordable rental – 250 residents (2.5 residents per unit); and
• Affordable ownership – 310 residents (5.0 residents per unit).

moves forward through the permitting process. Both the Office of Housing and Seattle Public
Schools evaluated the merits of preserving the existing structures for re-use as either housing
or school facilities, and concluded that given the configuration and condition of the properties,
preservation was a less desirable option than demolition and development of new facilities. See
Comment 9
Your comment regarding reducing the size and impacts of the project is noted.
Response to Owen Pickford - Letter 677

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Cindy Pierce - Letter 678

Comment 1
record. Your comment in support of Alternative 3 or a Discovery Park alternative is noted. See
the response to Letter 4, Comment 1 and Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Response to Natasha Pietila - Letter 679

Comment 1
Response to Elisa Pittner - Letter 680

Comment 1
Response to John Platt - Letter 681

Comment 1
Comment 2
As possible, Office of Housing will contact you regarding your idea on low-income/homeless
housing.

Response to DeAnna Poling - Letter 682
Comment 1
Response to Ira Pollock - Letter 683

Comment 1
Response to Bonnie Porter - Letter 684

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding school capacity and your support for a school alternative
are noted for the record. Please see the responses to Letter 61, Comment 1 and Letter 69,
Comment 1.
Comment 2
Comment 3
A description of existing police and fire/emergency services in the Fort Lawton vicinity, and an
analysis of the impacts of the EIS alternatives on these services is provided in Section 3.11,
Public Services. The analysis notes that increases in on-site population with development on
the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in an increase in demand for police
and fire/emergency services. Through tax revenues generated directly and indirectly from
development of the Fort Lawton site and the service purveyors’ planning processes, Seattle
Police Department and Seattle Fire Department have indicated that they could handle the
increased demand for services from proposed development at the site; therefore, no significant
Comment 4
Response to Bonnie Porter - Letter 685

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternatives 1 and 2, and your support for
Alternatives 3 and 4 is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1
regarding infrastructure and services.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding remodeling existing buildings on Aurora Avenue for affordable
housing is noted.

Comment 3
See the response to Letter 61, Comment 1, and Section 3.11, Public Services, for information on
school capacity.
Comment 4
Your comment in opposition to Alternatives 1 and 2 is noted.
Response to Mark Porter - Letter 686

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to all the EIS alternatives is noted for the record. Of the
alternatives analyzed in the EIS, Alternative 1 proposes the most housing units (238).
Alternative 1 is anticipated to accommodate approximately 596 new residents. An alternative
with higher density affordable housing is not analyzed in the EIS. Please see Letter 15,
Comment 2. Also see Section 3.10, Transportation; Section 4.4, Transportation; and Appendix I
regarding the ability of transportation infrastructure to support the EIS alternatives.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding homelessness is noted.
Comment 4
Comment 1.
Comment 5
Your comment in support of a school alternative, after a Discovery Park alternative, is noted.
Comment 6
Your comment in support of developing affordable housing in Downtown Seattle is noted.
Response to Mary Jo Porter - Letter 687

Comment 1
Response to Alan and Karen Potter - Letter 688

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. Also see Letter 2, Comment 18 regarding the
Discovery Park Master Plan.

Comment 2
Your support for Alternative 3, after a Discovery Park alternative, is noted.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding park supervision is noted.
Comment 4
The City of Seattle Office of Housing is the applicant for the Fort Lawton Project. While the City
Council is included in the decision-making process for the project, they are not able to remove
the SEPA applicant from the process. SEPA allows identification of a Preferred Alternative in an
EIS. However, no final decisions have been made on the project.
Comment 5
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted.
Response to Sarah Power - Letter 689

Comment 1
Thank you, comment regarding access to services is noted for the record. Please see the
Comment 2
Response to Albert H. Powers - Letter 690

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to residential development on the Fort Lawton site,
and in support of a school alternative, is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter
69, Comment 1.
Response to Harold Pratt - Letter 691

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding reducing the proposed parking is noted. See Section 3.10,
Transportation, and Appendix I for the analysis of parking and transit service.
Response to Meredith Preston - Letter 692

Comment 1
response to Letter 90, Comment 3 regarding property values.

Comment 2
See the response to Letter 21, Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Your comment regarding impacts of proposed development of Discovery Park is noted.
Response to Elizabeth Pring - Letter 693

Comment 1
Response to Gayle A. Puccinelli - Letter 694

Comment 1
response to Letter 4, Comment 1 regarding the Discovery Park Master Plan.
Comment 2
Comment 3
See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1 for information on transit/services. See Letter 61,
Comment 1 for information on school capacity.
Comment 4
Comment 5
Your comment regarding the Talaris site as a possible off-site location is noted. See Section 4.1,
Alternatives.
Comment 6
Opportunity for Public Input.

Comment 7
Comment 1.
Response to John Putre - Letter 695

Comment 1
Response to Amanda Qu - Letter 696

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Greg Quetin - Letter 697

Comment 1
Response to Jamal Raad - Letter 698

Comment 1
Response to Thomas Rakes - Letter 699

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding homelessness and affordable housing in the City of Seattle
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding ownership and rental rates of the affordable housing is noted.
Response to Jane Rall - Letter 700

Comment 1
Thank you, your comments regarding impacts on Discovery Park are noted for the record. The
potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on Discovery Park are analyzed for several elements of

the environment, including biological resources, land use and aesthetics/visual resources. See
4.3, Recreation and Open Space, for details.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Jane Rall - Letter 701

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your suggestion of providing information on the history of Discovery Park is noted.
Response to Heather Ralph - Letter 702

Comment 1
Response to Maya Ramakrishnan - Letter 703

Comment 1
Response to Kevin Ramsey - Letter 704

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to Erin Rants - Letter 705
Comment 1
Response to Anton Rapo - Letter 706

Comment 1
Comment 2
Thank you, your comment regarding developing affordable housing in another location is noted
for the record. See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1 regarding the capacity of transit
service in the Fort Lawton area.
Response to Dorothy Rasener - Letter 707

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding the Magnolia neighborhood is noted.
Response to Rachel Ravitch - Letter 708

Comment 1
Response to Annie Raymond - Letter 709

Comment 1
Response to Kim Raymoure - Letter 710

Comment 1
Response to Helen Read - Letter 711

Comment 1

Response to Whitney Rearick - Letter 712
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 and for a higher density affordable
housing alternative is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding the impacts of not building affordable housing at Fort Lawton, and the
potential increase in low-income residents forced to move to a suburban environment, is
noted. While increasing the number of people living a “car-based lifestyle” would likely lead to
higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, this comparison is not within the scope of this EIS (see
Section 3.3, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendix D for details on the GHG
analysis).
Comment 3
Your comment regarding commercial/retail uses is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for a
discussion of “Other Alternatives.” For information on transit and access to services, see the
Response to Simha Reddy - Letter 713

Comment 1
Response to Leslie Reed - Letter 714

Comment 1
Response to Irene Reep - Letter 715

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4

Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Your comment in support of providing affordable housing in Seattle is noted.
Response to Joni Reeves - Letter 716

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
The cumulative impacts of the Fort Lawton Project are discussed in Section 4.6, Cumulative
Impacts. Also, see the response to Letter 80, Comment 3.
Comment 6
Comment 7
See the responses to Letter 80, Comment 6.
Comment 8
Comment 9

Response to Nicole Reid - Letter 717
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Response to Susan Reilly - Letter 718

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding the value of Discovery Park is noted.
Response to William Reilly - Letter 719

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. The Fort
Lawton site is currently not part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east of the
Response to Rae Rein - Letter 720

Comment 1
Response to Don Reising - Letter 721

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to development of the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
record.
Comment 2
Comment 3

Response to Linda Reiter - Letter 722
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Unlike unsanctioned encampments, the affordable housing under Alternative 1 must be
operated according to an approved management plan, and remain in compliance with all City
housing and building codes. Catholic Housing Services is proposing a comprehensive package of
services focused on stability for the residents. Case management services would be provided
onsite by Catholic Community Services of Western Washington. Case managers would leverage
behavioral health services, including chemical dependency treatment and/or mental health
services, as needed. In addition to case management services, all residents would have access
24 hours a day to residential counselors.
Providers of oncome-restricted affordable housing must report annually to public funders. The
Seattle Office of Housing’s regular assessments cover a comprehensive list of compliance and
performance areas, including community relations (measured by good maintenance, street
appearance, and responsiveness to neighborhood concerns and complaints). Housing providers
must also demonstrate affirmative marketing and nondiscrimination consistent with federal,
state, and local fair housing laws and regulations.
Comment 4
Comment 5
further SEPA review would be conducted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, for further details.
Response to Brian Retford - Letter 723

Comment 1

Comment 2
Your comment regarding the development of affordable housing on both the Fort Lawton and
Talaris sites is noted for the record. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 3
Response to James Reynolds - Letter 724

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding opportunity for public input is noted for the record.
Responses to all written and verbal comments received during the DEIS comment period will be
given equal weight. Please see Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
The Fort Lawton site is currently not part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east
of the park and is a vacant former military facility. While some neighbors may use the site for
recreation, any recreational use is unauthorized.
See the response to Letter 12, Comment 21 for information on how the affordability of the
housing in the Fort Lawton Project will be maintained.
See Chapter 4 for discussion of the capacity of services and infrastructure in the Fort Lawton
area to handle the additional demands of the EIS alternatives.
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted. See response to Letter 4,
Comment 1.
Response to Jordan Reynolds - Letter 725

Comment 1
Comment 1.
Response to Serena Rice - Letter 726

Comment 1
Response to Shawn Richards - Letter 727

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a school alternative is noted. Please see the response to Letter 34,
Comment 1.

Response to Rob Ricketts - Letter 728
Comment 1
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. The Fort Lawton site is
currently not part of Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east of the park and is a
vacant former military facility.
Comment 2
None of the EIS alternatives would include a homeless shelter. Alternative 1 would include
permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless seniors, as well as affordable
homeownership and affordable rental units, on the Fort Lawton site. Formerly homeless senior
supportive house would incorporate a variety of social services to ensure residential stability
(see the response to Letter 164, Comment 2). Also see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1
regarding transit and services.
Response to Yucca Rieschel - Letter 729

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding alternative sites for the affordable housing in the Magnolia
neighborhood is noted.
Comment 3
It is acknowledged that the proposed affordable housing would not be immediately available.
To the extent possible, the City will try to accelerate the schedule while following the necessary
Response to Chad Rinehart - Letter 730

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of school use on the Fort Lawton site is noted. Please see the
Response to Andrea and LaVar Riniker - Letter 731

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of mixed housing, including market-rate housing and
affordable housing, is noted for the record. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives.

Comment 2
Seattle Public Schools currently does not have fully formed plans for development of a school
on the Fort Lawton site. Should SPS pursue this option, it would need to conduct additional,
separate environmental review of their school proposal.
Comment 3
No final decision has been made on the Fort Lawton project. The DEIS and FEIS together
comprise the document that the City will use—along with other analyses and public input—to
make decisions on the proposed project. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Response to LaVar Riniker - Letter 732

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding mixed housing, including market-rate housing and
affordable housing, is noted for the record. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1, for information on transit and access to services.
See the response to Letter 164, Comment 2, for information on supportive services provided
Comment 3
The Talaris site is still considered a viable location for the affordable housing as sale of the
property is not complete and Quadrant does not have firm plans for the property. See Section
4.1, Alternatives, for more information on off-site alternatives.
Response to Phil Ritter - Letter 733

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4

Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Michael Roberto - Letter 734

Comment 1
Response to Kim K. Roberts - Letter 735

Comment 1
Response to Jason Robideau - Letter 736

Comment 1
Response to Roxanne Robles - Letter 737

Comment 1
Response to Diana Rocha - Letter 738

Comment 1
Response to Dawn Rodney - Letter 739

Comment 1
Response to Marissa Lynn Roesijadi - Letter 740

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to Christine Walsh Rogers - Letter 741
Comment 1
Response to Trace Ronning - Letter 742

Comment 1
Response to Gilbert Rooth - Letter 743
Comment 1
Section 3.10, Transportation; Section 4.4, Transportation; and Appendix I for information on
the capacity of the transportation system in the Fort Lawton vicinity to handle development
under the EIS alternatives. For information on school capacity, see the response to Letter 61,
Comment 1. For information on transit and access to services, see the response to Letter 40,
Comment 1.
Response to Jennifer Rooth - Letter 744

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Section 4.4, Transportation, as well as the responses to
Letter 12, Comment 9 and Letter 29, Comment 2.
Comment 5
Response to Todd B. Rosin - Letter 745

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
record.
Comment 2

Comment 3
See the response to Letter 21, Comment 2. The Seattle Police Department has indicated that
they have the capacity to address the additional demand for service generated by the EIS
alternatives (see Section 3.11, Public Services, and Section 4.2, Public Services, for details).
Comment 4
Comment 5
Your comment regarding affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Response to Betsy Ross - Letter 746

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Your support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted. See the response to Letter 4, Comment 1.
Comment 6
Response to Chuck Ross - Letter 747

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the Talaris site as the off-site alternative is noted for the
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4

Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
Comment 9
Response to Diane Rudholm - Letter 748

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Tere Ryder - Letter 749

Comment 1
Response to Abe Saeed - Letter 750

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4

Comment 5
Please see Section 4.3, Recreation and Open Space, for a discussion of the potential impacts of
the EIS alternatives on the Discovery Park.
Comment 6
Comment 7
Public Input.
Response to Lindsay Saeed - Letter 751

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted. Please see the response to Letter 40,
Comment 1.
Comment 3
Comment 4
See Section 4.2, Public Services, and Section 3.11, Public Services, for information on existing
police service and the ability of Seattle Police Department to address the additional demand
generated by development under the EIS alternatives.
Comment 5
See the response to Letter 61, Comment 1. The partnership with SPS could occur under
Alternative 1 (Affordable Housing Onsite).
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
Thank you, your comment regarding Alternative 3 is noted for the record.
Response to Andres Salomon - Letter 752

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Saunatina Sanchez - Letter 753

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Andrew Sang - Letter 754

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding mixed housing uses, including market-rate and affordable housing is
noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives, and the response to Letter 537, Comment 2.
Response to Bradley Scarp - Letter 755

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6

Comment 7
Your comment regarding preference for alternative locations for the affordable housing is
noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 8
Under Alternative 3, the entire site would be in public park uses. Please see Chapter 2 for a
description of this alternative. A Discovery Park alternative is not included in the EIS. See the
Comment 9
Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 include active and passive public park uses. The park uses
are combined with affordable housing under Alternative 1. Alternative 1 features two multi-
purpose fields, compared to Alternative 3 with three multi-purpose fields (see Chapter 2 for
details).
Comment 10
The public park uses under Alternatives 1 and 3 would include active recreation facilities, which
are not present in Discovery Park.
Comment 11
See the response to Comment 10 in this letter. Funding is not currently available for
development of the active recreation uses under Alternatives 1 and 2.
Comment 12
Your comment regarding the proposed parks maintenance facility is noted. Seattle Parks and
Recreation has determined that this building is suitable for a maintenance facility.
Comment 13
Comment 14
Comment 15
Comment 16
Your comment regarding parks maintenance facilities is noted.
Comment 17
Your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted. See Section 4.3, Recreation and Open
Space, for further a discussion of the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on Discovery
Park.

Response to David Scheer - Letter 756
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Gilbert Scherer - Letter 757

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the Magnolia neighborhood and Discovery Park is noted
for the record.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted. A higher density affordable housing
alternative would require additional SEPA review. See the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Response to Steve Schimmelman - Letter 758

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. The Fort Lawton site is currently not part of
Discovery Park; the site is located immediately east of the park and is a vacant former military
facility.

Response to Gwynne Schnaittacher - Letter 759
Comment 1
Response to Karen Schneider - Letter 760

Comment 1
Response to Karen Schneider - Letter 761

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Response to Arwen Schreiber - Letter 762

Comment 1

Comment 2
Comment 1.
Response to Jen Schripsema - Letter 763

Comment 1
Response to Dave Schuldt - Letter 764

Comment 1
Response to Ari Schumer - Letter 765

Comment 1
Response to Nathan Schumer - Letter 766

Comment 1
Response to Penelope Scordas - Letter 767

Comment 1
Response to Ben Scott - Letter 768

Comment 1
Response to Shaun Scott - Letter 769

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to Ann Scranton - Letter 770
Comment 1
Comment 1.
Response to Edward Seafeldt - Letter 771

Comment 1
Response to Margie Seafeldt - Letter 772

Comment 1
Thank you, for your comment in support of Alternative 4 is noted for the record. No decision
has been made on the project. The DEIS and FEIS together comprise the document that the City
will use—along with other analyses and public input—to make decisions on the proposed Fort
Lawton Project. After the FEIS is issued, City staff will make recommendations to the decision-
makers on the Fort Lawton Project. Additional opportunities for public input will occur during
this process. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Response to Allegra Searle-LeBel - Letter 773

Comment 1
Response to Roseann Seeley - Letter 774

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is note for the record,
please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1.
Response to Michael Seiwerath - Letter 775

Comment 1
Response to Carrie Sellar - Letter 776

Comment 1

Response to Alain Semet - Letter 777
Comment 1
regarding the Talaris site is noted. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 2
There are substantial differences between Alternative 2 and Alternative 4. Under 2, market-rate
housing would be developed on the Fort Lawton site; under Alternative 4 no development
would occur in the near term. In either case, the City would no longer be involved. The U.S.
Army would sell the property to a developer for Alternative 2 and take over caretaker status of
the property for Alternative 4.
Comment 3
The City evaluated the merits of preserving the existing structures on the Fort Lawton site for
re-use as either housing or school facilities, and concluded that given the configuration and
condition of the properties, preservation was a less desirable option than demolition and
development of new facilities. See the response to Letter 485, Comment 1, for details.
Comment 4
The project that is ultimately approved must be within the range of the EIS alternative studied
in this EIS. A substantial change in the size of Alternative 1 would require additional SEPA
review.
Response to Marva Semet - Letter 778

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 1.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding wildlife and habitat areas in the vicinity of the Fort Lawton site is
noted. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, existing forested areas that provide wildlife habitat and
wildlife corridors would be preserved in the north and south parts of the site, and up to 4.7
acres of forested area in the west portion of the site owned by the U.S. Army would be
incorporated into Discovery Park under these alternatives. Additional landscaping would also
be provided. Please see Chapter 2 and Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for
details.
Comment 4
Your comment regarding the use of anticoagulants and herbicides is noted. See Section 3.12,
Utilities, for information on proposed water quality treatment measures.

Comment 5
Your comment in support of park use at the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Response to Phil Sewell - Letter 779

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Amit Shah - Letter 780

Comment 1
park and is a vacant former military facility. The City considers that an adequate range of
alternatives have been studied in the EIS. Please see the responses to Letter 2, Comments 4 and
5, and Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 2
Comment 3
See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Section 3.11, Public Services, regarding the ability of the
infrastructure and services in the Fort Lawton vicinity to meet the demands from the EIS
alternatives. Cleanliness is not a SEPA element to be addressed in an EIS. Section 1.5,
Mitigation Measures, provides a summary of the mitigation measures identified in the EIS.
Response to John Shao - Letter 781

Comment 1
Your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative is noted for the record. Please see the
Response to Greg Shaw – Letter 782

Comment 1
alternative is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2. Your
comment regarding providing affordable housing elsewhere in Seattle is noted.
Response to Aaron J. Shay - Letter 783

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Mesa Sherriff - Letter 784

Comment 1
Response to Becky Shields - Letter 785

Comment 1
Comment 1.
Response to Jeannine Shingler - Letter 786

Comment 1
Response to Miya Cohen-Sieg and Ross Sieg - Letter 787

Comment 1
Response to Jenette Sifuentes - Letter 788

Comment 1
Response to John Sillcox - Letter 789

Comment 1
Response to Laura Silverton - Letter 790

Comment 1
Response to Tyler Simpson - Letter 791

Comment 1

Response to Brian Sindel - Letter 792
Comment 1
Response to Avani Singh - Letter 793

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative or a school alternative is
noted for the record. Please see the responses to Letter 4, Comment 1 and Letter 69, Comment
1.
Response to Egill Skall - Letter 794

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Alternative 1
would include 85 formerly homeless senior supportive apartments, as well as 100 affordable
rental units and 52 affordable owner units. Supportive services would be provided for residents
living in senior supportive apartments. These would include case management, assistance with
obtaining outside services (e.g. medical, behavioral, chore services, groceries, etc.), residential
counselors, and other services focused on residential stability (see Chapter 2, for details). See
Section 4.3, Recreation and Open Space, for a discussion of the potential impacts of the EIS
alternatives on Discovery Park.
Response to Egill Skall - Letter 795

Comment 1
Section 3.6, Land Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, for an analysis of the potential
impacts of the EIS alternatives on surrounding uses, Section 3.10, Transportation, for analysis
of impacts on transportation infrastructure, and Section 3.11, Public Services, for analysis of
impacts on public services.
Response to Erica Sklar - Letter 796

Comment 1
Response to Pob Sloat - Letter 797

Comment 1
Response to John Vander Sluis - Letter 798

Comment 1

Response to Carolyn J Smith - Letter 799
Comment 1
response to Letter 21, Comment 2 regarding crime.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 1.
Comment 4
Your comment in support of park use on the Fort Lawton site is noted.
Response to Clark G. Smith - Letter 800

Comment 1
Comment 2
Please see Section 3.11, Public Services, for information on Seattle Police Department’s ability
to address the increased demand from the EIS alternatives, and the response to Letter 21,
Comment 2 regarding the potential for the affordable housing to result in spillover crime in the
surrounding area.
Comment 3
See the responses to Letter 12, Comments 9 and 13; Letter 29, Comment 2; and Letter 127,
Comments 1 and 3.
Comment 4
Comment 1.
Comment 5
Your comment in opposition to housing on the Fort Lawton site and in support of a park
alternative is noted. Under Alternative 3, the entire site would be in public park uses (see
Chapter 2 for details).
Response to George D. Smith - Letter 801

Comment 1

Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding affordable housing in the City of Seattle is noted.
Comment 4
Comment 5
Your comment regarding providing accessibility in the proposed apartment building is noted.
The final design of this structure is not complete.
Comment 6
Your comment regarding efficient use of the site is noted.
Comment 7
Your comment regarding making provisions for possible future higher density affordable
housing is noted.
Comment 8
Your comment regarding the provision of parking is noted. See Section 3.10, Transportation,
for details on parking demand and provisions for parking management.
Response to Jennifer Smith - Letter 802

Comment 1
Response to John Smith - Letter 803

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of in support of Alternative 4 and then Alternative 3 is
noted for the record.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Thank you, your comment regarding homelessness in the City of Seattle is noted.

Response to Postyn Smith - Letter 804
Comment 1
Response to Travis Smith - Letter 805

Comment 1
Response to Jessica Smits - Letter 806

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of using all or part of the Fort Lawton site for school uses
is noted for the record. Please see the responses to Letter 34, Comment 1, and Letter 61,
Comment 1.
Comment 2
Response to Jeff Snyder - Letter 807

Comment 1
Response to Andrew Soderland - Letter 808

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Daniel Sohn - Letter 809

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to Melissa Sokolowsky - Letter 810
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record
Response to Ruth Solnit - Letter 811

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding providing additional parking is noted. Parking under Alternative 1
would meet the requirements in the Seattle Municipal Code. Additional parking spaces could be
provided by sharing spaces with existing uses on and adjacent to the site (e.g., Building 245 and
the FLARC building). See Section 3.10, Transportation, for details on parking.
Comment 3
Comment 4
A resident community space is currently included under Alternative 1. The community space
would house a meeting room with a small kitchenette and on-site management office. The
meeting space would be available for the tenants to come together socially and to facilitate
tenant-based empowerment activities. If possible, a computer lab would also be housed in the
community space. Childcare is not currently included under Alternative 1, but could be
considered (see Chapter 2 for details).
Comment 5
Your comment in opposition to higher density affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site is
Response to Troy Sorensen - Letter 812

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding government supported housing programs is noted.
Comment 3
Comment 4

Comment 5
Your comment regarding locating affordable housing elsewhere in Seattle is noted. See the
Comment 6
Comment 7
Your comment regarding the Talaris site is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 8
No decision has been made on the Fort Lawton Project to date. The DEIS and FEIS together
comprise the document that the City will use—along with other analyses and public input—to
make decisions on the proposed project. After the FEIS is issued, City staff will make
recommendations to the decision-makers on the Fort Lawton Project. Additional opportunities
for public input will occur during this process. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Response to Nicole Southwell - Letter 813

Comment 1
Response to Cameron Sparr - Letter 814

Comment 1
Response to Erica Sponsler - Letter 815

Comment 1
Response to Jennier Spriggs - Letter 816

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Patricia Springer - Letter 817

Comment 1

Response to Brent Stach - Letter 818
Comment 1
the record. The Fort Lawton site is currently not part of Discovery Park; the site is located
immediately east of the park and is a vacant former military facility.
Response to Amanda Stanek - Letter 819

Comment 1
Response to Megan Stanley - Letter 820

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition development of Alternative 1 is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Comment 1.
Comment 3
Response to Neal Starkman - Letter 821

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. Also see Section 4.3, Recreation and Open
Space, for a discussion of the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on Discovery Park.
Response to Neal Starkman – Letter 822

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. Also see Section 4.3, Recreation and Open
Space, for a discussion of the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on Discovery Park.
Response to Richard Starnes - Letter 823

Comment 1

Response to Mary Steele-Klein - Letter 824
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding affordable housing and treatment of drug/alcohol addiction is noted.
Comment 3
Your comment in support of rent control and scattered site low-income housing is noted.
Comment 4
Alternative 1 includes 238 total housing units. A higher density affordable housing alternative is
not studied in this EIS. See the response to Letter 15, Comment 2
Comment 5
Comment 6
Your comment in support of scattered site low-income housing is noted.
Comment 7
For information regarding transit and services, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1. For
information on schools, see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1. For information on
supportive services (e.g. case management and mental health counseling), see the response to
Comment 8
Public Input.
Comment 9
An additional public meeting for Magnolia residents is not planned. Written comments on the
DEIS will be given equal weight to verbal comments taken at the DEIS public meeting held on
January 9, 2017. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for Public Input.
Response to Karen Stephano - Letter 825

Comment 1

Comment 2
For information on school capacity, please see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1. For
information on transit and access to services, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1. For
information on police/public safety, see the response to Letter 21, Comment 2.
People with disabilities residing in senior supportive housing under Alternative 1 would be
provided with additional support and resources to ensure that their needs are met.
Supportive services would be provided by Catholic Community Services of Western
Washington, Catholic Housing Services, and Habitat for Humanity. See the response to Letter
164, Comment 2, for more information on services provided under Alternative 1.
Comment 3
Your comment in support of multi-level socioeconomic housing and regarding services and
infrastructure is noted. See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
Response to Cyrena Stefano - Letter 826

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your preference for high-density downtown areas for affordable housing is noted. For
information on school capacity, see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1. For information on
access to transit and services, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
Comment 3
Your support of a park use on the Fort Lawton site is noted. The site is currently not part of
Discovery Park; it is located immediately east of the park and is a vacant former military facility.
Comment 4
The Fort Lawton DEIS was published in December 2017. To respond to comments received on
the DEIS, additional information and analysis is provided in this FEIS (e.g., in Section 3.6, Land
Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies; Section 3.10, Transportation; and Section 3.11, Public
Services). See Chapter 4 for summaries of these analyses.
Response to Stephanie Stein - Letter 827

Comment 1
Thank you, your support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted for the
Response to Jake Steinberg - Letter 828

Comment 1
Thank you, your support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted for the

Response to Tonya Ricks Sterr - Letter 829
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment in support of dense affordable housing is noted.
Response to Lori Stevens - Letter 830

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of preserving green spaces is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Your comments regarding homeless organizations, health care costs and the design of
affordable housing are noted.
Comment 3
Letter 4, Comment 1. Also see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for analysis of
potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on wildlife habitat and wildlife.
Response to Rachel Stevens – Letter 831

Comment 1
Response to Libby Stevenson - Letter 832

Comment 1
Comment 2
Please see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for the analysis of the impacts of the
EIS alternatives on traffic and transportation systems.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Public Input.

Response to Erin Stewart - Letter 833
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Lindsay Stewart - Letter 834

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Erik Stinson - Letter 835

Comment 1
Response to Elliot Stoller - Letter 836

Comment 1
Response to Steph Stone – Letter 837

Comment 1
Response to Ian Strader - Letter 838

Comment 1
Response to Kesterson Strople - Letter 839

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding residential development in the City of Seattle is noted.

Comment 3
Comment 4
Response to Kesterson Strople - Letter 840

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the availability of services in the Magnolia area is noted for
Comment 2
Parking under all the EIS alternatives would meet the requirements in the Seattle Municipal
Code. See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for details on parking supply and
demand.
Comment 3
See the responses to Letter 12, Comments 9 and 13; Letter 29, Comment 2; and Letter 127,
Comments 1 and 3.
Response to Lucinda Stroud - Letter 841

Comment 1
Response to Terri Suess - Letter 842

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding the design of the affordable housing is noted.
Comment 3
Response to Hannah Sullivan - Letter 843

Comment 1

Response to Max Suman - Letter 844
Comment 1
Response to Noelle Sun - Letter 845

Comment 1
Response to James Sutter - Letter 846

Comment 1
Response to Karen Sutton - Letter 847

Comment 1
Response to Joseph Swain - Letter 848

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Kara Sweidel - Letter 849

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Nick Szumlas - Letter 850

Comment 1
Comment 2

Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Joe Szwaja - Letter 851

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Vicky Tamaru - Letter 852

Comment 1
Response to Rosalind Tan - Letter 853

Comment 1
Thank you, your support of a school alternative is noted for the record. Please see the response
Comment 2
Your opposition to including a portion of the site in school uses under Alternatives 1 and 3 is
noted for the record. See Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I for the analysis of the
impacts of the EIS alternatives on transportation.
Comment 3
Comment 4

Comment 5
Your comment regarding schools and transportation is noted. See Section 3.11, Public Services,
for the analysis of potential impacts to schools, including student generation under the EIS
alternatives. See the responses to Letter 12, Comments 12 and 13.
Comment 6
Your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted. As described in DEIS Section 3.6, Land
Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, in 2010 the Court of Appeals determined that the City
was not required to publicly determine the applicability of the Discovery Park Master Plan to
the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan.
Response to Charles Tang - Letter 854

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Erica Tarrant - Letter 855

Comment 1
Response to Emily Taylor - Letter 856

Comment 1
Response to Gretchen Taylor - Letter 857

Comment 1
Response to Jason Taylor - Letter 858

Comment 1
Response to Karen Taylor - Letter 859

Comment 1

Response to Patrick Taylor - Letter 860
Comment 1
Response to Anne Thomas - Letter 861

Comment 1
Response to Jan Thomas - Letter 862

Comment 1
Response to Peter Thomas - Letter 863

Comment 1
Response to Wendy Thompson - Letter 864

Comment 1
Response to Chase Thompson - Letter 865

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Response to David Thompson - Letter 866

Comment 1
Response to Schuyler Thompson - Letter 867

Comment 1

Response to Matt Tilghman-Havens - Letter 868
Comment 1
Response to Patricia Timmerman - Letter 869

Comment 1
Response to Phyllis Tobias - Letter 870

Comment 1
Section 3.10, Transportation; Appendix I; and Section 3.11, Public Services, for analysis of the
capacity of infrastructure and services in the Magnolia area to accommodate development
under the EIS alternatives. Parking under the EIS alternatives is also evaluated in the
transportation report and section. See Chapter 4 for summaries of these analyses.
Response to Phyllis Tobias - Letter 871

Comment 1
Response to Arthur Torelli - Letter 872

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted for the record. Your support of
the Mandatory Housing Affordability policy, which requires new development to include
affordable homes or contribute to a City fund for affordable housing, is also noted.
Response to Jane Towery - Letter 873

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to residential development on the Fort Lawton site is
noted for the record. Under Alternative 1, 238 affordable and formerly homeless housing units
would be built onsite. Please see the response to Letter 12, Comment 13 regarding the traffic
access to the Magnolia neighborhood, and Letter 90, Comment 3 regarding property values.
Also see Section 4.3, Recreation and Open Space, for a discussion of the potential impacts of
the EIS alternatives on Discovery Park.
Response to Max Turner - Letter 874

Comment 1

Response to Arthur Torelli - Letter 875
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted for the record. Your support of
the Mandatory Housing Affordability policy, which requires new development to include
affordable homes or contribute to a City fund for affordable housing, is also noted.
Response to Jane Towery - Letter 876

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to residential development on the Fort Lawton site is
noted for the record. Under Alternative 1, 238 affordable and formerly homeless housing units
would be built onsite. Please see the response to Letter 12, Comment 13 regarding the traffic
access to the Magnolia neighborhood, and Letter 90, Comment 3 regarding property values.
Also see Section 4.3, Recreation and Open Space, for a discussion of the potential impacts of
the EIS alternatives on Discovery Park.
Response to Alexander Tran - Letter 877

Comment 1
Response to Janis Traven - Letter 878

Comment 1
Response to Chris Trimis - Letter 879

Comment 1
Response to Cheryl Trooskin-Zoller - Letter 880

Comment 1
Response to Doug Trumm - Letter 881

Comment 1
Comment 2

Comment 3
Your comment regarding affordable housing and transit is noted. See the response to Letter 12,
Comment 12.
Response to Jeffrey Tucker - Letter 882

Comment 1
Response to Hilary Turnberg - Letter 883

Comment 1
Response to Max Turner - Letter 884

Comment 1
Response to Teresa Underwood-LeMoine - Letter 885

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding opportunity for public input is noted. Please see Section 4.5,
Comment 3
Your comment regarding affordable housing and homelessness in Seattle is noted.
Comment 4
Comment 5
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Building 245 would be retained and used as a maintenance facility
for Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR). This is included in the proposal to provide for the needs
of all the parks in the Central West District of the City, which includes all of Magnolia, Queen
Anne, and Downtown. The existing maintenance facility in Discovery Park will continue to be
necessary specifically for the maintenance of Discovery Park.
Response to Elizabeth Uselton - Letter 886

Comment 1

Response to Lisa Valent - Letter 887
Comment 1
Response to Janice Van Cleve - Letter 888

Comment 1
Response to Kelly Van Gelder and Alex Shapleigh - Letter 889

Comment 1
Response to Stevie VanBronkhorst - Letter 890

Comment 1
Response to Marinda Vargas - Letter 891

Comment 1
Response to Natasha Varner - Letter 892

Comment 1
Response to Zoe Vartanian - Letter 893

Comment 1
Response to Lindsey Vigor - Letter 894

Comment 1
Response to Laura Villarreal - Letter 895

Comment 1

Comment 2
Your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted for the
Response to Lada Vishtak and Chris McKeon - Letter 896

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of including school use on the Fort Lawton site is noted
for the record. Please see the response to Letter 34, Comment 1. Your comment regarding the
addition of the Fort Lawton site to Discovery Park is also noted. Please see the response to
Response to Richard Visick - Letter 897

Comment 1
Response to Tina Vivio - Letter 898

Comment 1
Response to Adit Vohra - Letter 899

Comment 1
Comment 2
1.
Comment 3
Your comment in support of Alternative 2 and an off-site location for affordable housing is
noted.
Comment 4
Your comment in support of Alternative 3 as your preferred alternative is noted.
Response to Ramen Vohra - Letter 900

Comment 1

Comment 2
1.
Comment 3
Per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the FY 2017 AMI for a family of
four in the Seattle Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) is $96,000. The AMI is
not based on the median income in Magnolia. Senior Supportive Housing would be for
household with incomes at or below 30% of the AMI. Affordable Rental Apartments would be
for households with incomes at or below 60% of the AMI, and Affordable Homeownership
would be for households with incomes at or below 80% of the AMI. Many households are
anticipated to earn significantly less than this threshold. AMI also varies significantly depending
on the number of individuals in a household (see Section 3.13, Housing and Socioeconomics,
for details).
Comment 4
Your comment in support of Alternative 2 and an off-site location for affordable housing is
noted.
Comment 5
Your comment in support of Alternative 3 as your preferred alternative is noted.
Response to Kathleen Volkman - Letter 901

Comment 1
Response to Stephanie Vollmer-Juhl - Letter 902

Comment 1
Response to Clay Vredevoogd - Letter 903

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a Discovery Park alternative or a school alternative is
noted for the record. Please see the responses to Letter 4, Comment 1 and Letter 69, Comment
1.
Comment 2
Response to Nellie Waddell - Letter 904

Comment 1

Response to Ann K. Wagner - Letter 905
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of higher density housing is noted.
Response to Susan and Jeff Walker - Letter 906

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 1. Your comment in support of using vacant large-format retail stores for housing is
also noted.
Response to Susan and Jeff Walker - Letter 907

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. Your comment in support of using vacant
large-format retail stores for housing is also noted.
Response to Judy Walker - Letter 908

Comment 1
Response to Lawrence Wallman - Letter 909

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding crime in Discovery Park is noted for the record. Please see
Comment 2
Comment 1.

Response to Ashleigh Walls - Letter 910
Comment 1
Response to Annie Walters - Letter 911

Comment 1
Response to Curtis Walton - Letter 912

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Amanda Wanner - Letter 913

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding bicycle use is noted.
Response to Amanda Wanner - Letter 914

Comment 1
Response to Rian Wanstreet - Letter 915

Comment 1
Response to Aiden Ward - Letter 916

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding disruption of wildlife is noted. While construction activity would
temporarily disturb wildlife under Alternative 1, no long-term direct impacts are expected to
critical areas, wildlife habitat, or sensitive wildlife species. Indirect impacts to retained habitat
and wildlife may increase due to increased human activity. Open space under Alternative 1

would increase, which may provide additional wildlife habitat over existing conditions. For
more information on impacts to wildlife, see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C.
Response to Alan Ward - Letter 917

Comment 1
Comment 2
For information on access to transit and services, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
For information on supportive services available under Alternative 1, see the response to Letter
164, Comment 2. For information on school capacity, see the response to Letter 61, Comment
1. For information on transportation, see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I. For
information on police/public safety, see the response to Letter 22, Comment 2, and Section
3.11, Public Services.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding using Northgate as a potential location for affordable housing is
noted.
Comment 4
Comment 5
See the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. Your comment regarding a school alternative is
Response to Benjamin Ward - Letter 918

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. Also see the discussion in Section 4.3,
Recreation and Open Space, regarding the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on
Discovery Park.
Response to Dorota Ward - Letter 919

Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. Also see the discussion in Section 4.3,
Recreation and Open Space, regarding the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on
Discovery Park.

Comment 2
For information on school capacity, see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1. For information
on access to services and transit, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
Comment 3
Response to Ian Ward - Letter 920

Comment 1
response to Letter 4, Comment 1. Also see the discussion in Section 4.3, Recreation and Open
Space, regarding the potential impacts of the EIS alternatives on Discovery Park.
Response to Jay Wardle - Letter 921

Comment 1
Response to Lauri Watkins - Letter 922

Comment 1
Response to Corrie Watterson - Letter 923

Comment 1
Response to Emily Weaver Brown - Letter 924

Comment 1
Response to Storme Webber - Letter 925

Comment 1
Response to Beckett Weeks - Letter 926

Comment 1

Response to Jason Weill - Letter 927
Comment 1
Response to Heather Weimann - Letter 928

Comment 1
Response to Colin Weinbender - Letter 929

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Michele Weingeist - Letter 930

Comment 1
Response to Oliver Weisert - Letter 931

Comment 1
Response to Gordon Werner- Letter 932

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Erica N. West - Letter 933

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Linda Whang - Letter 934

Comment 1
Response to Alex White - Letter 935

Comment 1
Response to Jacob Wicks - Letter 936

Comment 1
Comment 2
further SEPA review would be conducted.
Response to Raandi Wiebe - Letter 937

Comment 1
Comment 2
For information on transit and access to services, see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1.
For information on school capacity, see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1.
Response to Jeremy Wilkening - Letter 938

Comment 1

Response to Susan Wilkening - Letter 939
Comment 1
Response to Sean Wilkins - Letter 940

Comment 1
Response to Steven Wilkins - Letter 941

Comment 1
Response to Jesse Willard - Letter 942

Comment 1
Response to Dana Williams - Letter 943

Comment 1
Response to Bill and Joann Williamson - Letter 944

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding the phasing of development is noted for the record. Please
note that the project is anticipated to be developed in phases over multiple years (see phasing
schedule for Alternative 1 in Table 2-4). See the response to Letter 127, Comment 1 regarding
the transportation impacts of the EIS alternatives.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding on-site managers for the senior supportive housing is noted. Please
note that while the proposal includes only one live-in manager, additional staffing would be
provided to deliver supportive services and other resident support. For example, case managers
would be provided to assist in crisis intervention, eviction prevention, and linkages to other
resources such as chore services and health care. Residents would also have access 24 hours a
day to residential counselors (see Chapter 2 for details). Because of the services provided and
based on prior experience within similar developments, one manager is anticipated to be
sufficient for the proposed senior supportive housing.
Comment 3
The City of Seattle currently prohibits vehicles over 80 inches wide (e.g., RVs, tractor trailers,
and large trucks) from parking on streets or in alleys outside of industrial areas between

midnight and 6 AM (11.72.070). The Fort Lawton site is not considered an industrial area; thus,
overnight RV parking is prohibited.
Comment 4
See the discussion in Section 4.3, Recreation and Open Space, regarding the potential impacts
of the EIS alternatives on Discovery Park. Your comment regarding the condition of Discovery
Park is noted.
Based on the number of residents (586 people) that would reside on the site under Alternative
1, there would be a demand for approximately 4.7 acres of parks and recreation facilities. This
demand would be satisfied by the provision of approximately 8.2 acres of passive recreation
areas and 5.4 acres of active recreation areas onsite, as well as the incorporation of
approximately 4.7 acres of land owned by the U.S. Army to Discovery Park. This increase in
recreation area would provide an additional amenity for nearby residents and the city of Seattle
as a whole (see Section 3.8, Recreation and Open Space, and Section 4.3, Recreation and Open
Space, for details).
Comment 5
The proposed housing at Fort Lawton under Alternative 1 would be affordable to people
earning a range of incomes below 80% AMI, and largely below 60% AMI where there is the
greatest need. To the extent individuals working in education, police and fire occupations meet
income qualifications, they would be eligible to apply for housing in the proposed development.
Comment 6
Response to Olivia Williamson - Letter 945

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 is noted for the record. Under
Alternative 1, the amount of open space onsite would increase over existing conditions. Existing
forested habitat areas in the north and south parts of the site that provide wildlife habitat and
corridors for wildlife movement between Kiwanis Memorial Preserve Park and Discovery Park
would be preserved in their natural condition. Up to 4.7 acres of land in the west portion of the
site owned by the U.S. Army would be dedicated to Discovery Park and preserved as natural
area. Additional landscaping would be provided throughout the site (see Chapter 2 for details).
Comment 2
Your comment regarding providing fewer affordable housing units is noted.
Response to Judith Windleharth - Letter 946

Comment 1

Response to John Rundall and Marian Wineman - Letter 947
Comment 1
Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. As described in DEIS Section 3.6, Land
Use/Relationship to Plans and Policies, in 2010 the Court of Appeals determined that the City
was not required to publicly determine the applicability of the Discovery Park Master Plan to
the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan. See the response to Letter 945, Comment 1 regarding
preservation of wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors under Alternative 1. Your comment
regarding other locations for affordable housing and active recreation is noted.
Comment 2
Your comment in opposition to use of Building 245 for park maintenance is noted.
Response to Andrew Witkowski - Letter 948

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Response to Karleen Wolfe - Letter 949

Comment 1
response to Letter 4, Comment 1 for more information on the proposed development’s
relationship to Discovery Park.
Response to Shirley Wong - Letter 950

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Mary Wong - Letter 951

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in opposition to Alternative 1 and in support of a Discovery Park
Alternative is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 4, Comment 1. For
information in impacts of the EIS alternatives on the ecosystem, see Section 3.2, Biological

Resources, and Appendix C. For information on air pollution, see Section 3.3, Air Quality, and
Appendix D. For information on traffic, see Section 3.10, Transportation, and Appendix I. For
information on property values, see the response to Letter 90, Comment 3.
Response to Kjerstin Wood - Letter 952

Comment 1
Response to James Woodley - Letter 953

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Nancy Worssam - Letter 954
Comment 1
Thank you, your concerns about homelessness and the environment are noted for the record.
Response to Daniel Worthington - DEIS Letter 955
Comment 1
Response to Shane Wyatt - Letter 956

Comment 1
Response to Tom Wyliehart - Letter 957

Comment 1
Response to Zhu Zhu Xiao - Letter 958

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Pauline Yerkovich - Letter 959

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Your comment regarding the changes in Seattle and in support of Alternative 3 are noted. Your
comment regarding opportunity for public input is also noted. See Section 4.5, Opportunity for
Public Input.
Response to Larry Yok - Letter 960

Comment 1
Response to Janet Young - Letter 961

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Melinda Young-Flynn - Letter 962

Comment 1
Response to Krysta Yousoufian - Letter 963

Comment 1

Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Response to Jennifer Yu - Letter 964

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Iulia Zavodov - Letter 965

Comment 1
Response to Marc Zawislak - Letter 966

Comment 1
Response to Kathy Zeim - Letter 967

Comment 1

Response to Julia Zelman - Letter 968
Comment 1
Response to Susan Zeman - Letter 969

Comment 1
Response to Lu Zeng - Letter 970

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Josh Zimmerman - Letter 971

Comment 1
Response to Patricia and William Zoberst - Letter 972

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6

Comment 7
Thank you for the information regarding the Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly. Threatened and
endangered species were identified using the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape). In addition to the
use of online resources, previous studies conducted at the Fort Lawton and Talaris sites were
reviewed and a site visit was conducted on June 28, 2017 at Fort Lawton to verify findings (see
Appendix C). The Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly was not identified on the Fort Lawton site
through this process.
near nesting habitat (see Section 3.2, Biological Resources, and Appendix C for details).
Comment 8
Your comment regarding other possible uses for the Fort Lawton site is noted. See Section 4.1,
Alternatives.
Comment 9
Use of the property as a wildlife habitat/buffer was not included as an alternative in the EIS
because it would not meet the applicant’s objectives for the proposal (see Chapter 2 for the
applicant’s objectives). See Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 10
Comment 1.
Comment 11
As described in Chapter 2, Fort Lawton is one of the last remaining military bases to be
disposed of under the U.S. Army 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Following
the decision to close the base, the Army named the City of Seattle the Local Redevelopment
property. From 2006 through 2008, the City conducted an extensive community engagement
process that resulted in a detailed redevelopment plan (2008 Plan) 10 to create a diverse, mixed-
income community with housing for homeless individuals and families and market-rate
housing. The City is now carrying forward its past planning efforts into a vision for the Fort
Lawton Army Reserve Center that creates an affordable, livable community for people with low
incomes, and takes advantage of the opportunity to increase recreational and open space.
10

Response to Leah Zoller - Letter 973
Comment 1
Public Meeting Forms
Response to Charles Bond – Public Meeting Form 1

Comment 1
for the record. Please see Letter 15, Comment 2.
Response to Kate Brunette – Public Meeting Form 2

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is noted`. Please
see Letter 15, Comment 2.
Response to Tony Bulpin – Public Meeting Form 3

Comment 1
Response to Lindsay Butler – Public Meeting Form 4

Comment 1
Comment 2
While it is anticipated that new development and associated on-site population would result in
an increase in demand for fire/EMS service, and demand for police service, the Seattle Fire
Department and Seattle Police Department anticipate that they would have the capacity to
continue to meet service the site and remainder of Seattle (see Section 3.11, Public Services,
and Section 4.2, Public Services, for details.
Comment 3
See the responses to Letter 12, Comment 9, 12 and 13, Section 3.10, Transportation, Section
4.4, Transportation and Appendix I.
Comment 4
Senior supportive housing would have a comprehensive package of services focusing on
residential stability, including case managers. Case managers could aid in coordinating visits to

VA offices or providing similar resources onsite. A possible mitigation measure is also included
in the EIS as follows:
• King County Metro could provide shuttle services between the Fort Lawton Project and
downtown to enhance residents; access to services and employment opportunities.
Comment 5
Your comment in support of Alternative 1--if impacts can be mitigated--is noted.
Response to Kristina Croonquist – Public Meeting Form 5

Comment 1
Comment 2
See the response to Letter 61, Comment 1 regarding school service, and the response to Letter
12, Comment 12 regarding transit service.
Under Alternative 1, a community space for tenants would be an integral part of the design of
the affordable rental housing. The community space would house a meeting room with a small
kitchenette and on-site management offices (see Chapter 2 for details). A space within the
housing that is available to the public is not current part of plans for Alternative 1.
Response to Mike Eliason – Public Meeting Form 6

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 or 2 is noted for the record. Your
comment in support of a higher density affordable housing alternative is also noted. Please see
the response to Letter 15, comment 2
Response to Rob Fusco – Public Meeting Form 7

Comment 1
Thank you for your comment in support of affordable housing throughout Seattle is noted for
the record.
Comment 2
Response to Adrian Fussel and Diana Yelton – Public Meeting Form 8

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Tim Gould – Public Meeting Form 9

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1, together with other uses on the Fort
Lawton site is noted for the record. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives, for a discussion of
other possible uses of the site.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Earlier studies of redevelopment at the Fort Lawton site had proposed connecting its streets to
those in the adjacent neighborhood. However, the current Alternatives 1 and 3 propose no
such connections. All access will occur from Texas Way W, and would connect to the arterial
system via W Government Way and W Commodore Way.
Comment 5
Response to Jon Grant – Public Meeting Form 10

Comment 1
Response to Heather Herbst – Public Meeting Form 11

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment is support of Alternative 1, as well as affordable housing at the Talaris site is
noted. Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 3
Your regarding the need for affordable housing is noted.

Response to Tim Hesterberg – Public Meeting Form 12
Comment 1
Response to MD Hordman – Public Meeting Form 13

Comment 1
Response to Melissa Hyatt – Public Meeting Form 14

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding providing only rental housing and stepping up the rental rates is
noted.
Response to Cheryl Jacobs – Public Meeting Form 15

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment is support of a school alternative is noted for the record. Please see
Comment 2
As described in Chapter 2, the City has offered SPS the opportunity to pursue ownership of a
portion of the Fort Lawton site proposed to be devoted to active recreation under Alternative
1. SPS currently does not have fully formed plans for development of a school on the Fort
Lawton site; however, they determined that six acres is adequate for a school. Should SPS
pursue this option, it would need to conduct additional, separate environmental review of the
school proposal.
Comment 3
Your comment regarding Discovery Park as an educational opportunity is noted.

Response to Sonia Lei – Public Meeting Form 16
Comment 1
Response to Zach Lubarsky – Public Meeting Form 17

Comment 1
alternative. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding making the Fort Lawton site an Urban Village is noted.
Response to Jon Meier – Public Meeting Form 18

Comment 1
Response to Gabriella Moller – Public Meeting Form 19

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding development of Alternative 1 together with affordable housing at the
Talaris site is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Response to Sue Olson – Public Meeting Form 20

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to Elizabeth Poh – Public Meeting Form 21
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 1 is noted for the record. The City’s current
schedule for the development of Alternative 1 is aggressive but realistic. To the extent possible,
the City will try to accelerate the schedule while following the necessary steps for permitting of
the project.
Response to Dave Schuldt – Public Meeting Form 22

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment regarding the suitability of the Fort Lawton site for children is noted.
Response to George Schweikart – Public Meeting Form 23

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of school use on the Fort Lawton site is noted for the
Response to Randy Simon – Public Meeting Form 24

Comment 1
Response to Daniel Sohn – Public Meeting Form 25

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Lyon Terry – Public Meeting Form 26

Comment 1
Comment 2
Please see the response to Letter 12, Comments 9, 12 and 13.

Response to Camilla Walter – Public Meeting Form 27
Comment 1
Response to Heather Weimann – Public Meeting Form 28

Comment 1
Public Meeting Testimony
Response to Laura Villarreal – Public Meeting Testimony 1
Comment 1
Response to Terry Cook - Public Meeting Testimony 2

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment in support of Alternative 1 together with affordable housing at the Talaris site is
noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Response to Vince Stricherz - Public Meeting Testimony 3

Comment 1
Response to Charles Redell - Public Meeting Testimony 4

Comment 1
Response to Erin House - Public Meeting Testimony 5

Comment 1

Response to Elizabeth James - Public Meeting Testimony 6
Comment 1
the response to Letter 12, Comment 12, regarding transit services, and Letter 40, Comment 1,
regarding availability of services in the Magnolia area.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding including market-rate housing under Alternative 1 is noted.
Response to Jeff Snyder - Public Meeting Testimony 7

Comment 1
Response to Aden Nardone - Public Meeting Testimony 8

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted for the record.
Please see the response to Letter 40, Comment 1 regarding transit and accessibility to services.
Also see the responses to Letter 12, Comments 9 and 13, and Section 4.4, Transportation, and
Section 3.10, Transportation, regarding the capacity of the transportation infrastructure in the
Magnolia area to serve the EIS alternatives.
Comment 2
further SEPA review would be conducted.
Response to Nicki Olivier - Public Meeting Testimony 9

Comment 1
Response to Rachael Ludwick - Public Meeting Testimony 10

Comment 1

Response to Dimitri Groce - Public Meeting Testimony 11
Comment 1
Response to Dan Cantrell - Public Meeting Testimony 12

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of Alternative 1, together with affordable housing at the Talaris site is
noted. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Response to Alexander Froelich - Public Meeting Testimony 13

Comment 1
Response to Patricia Ayikama - Public Meeting Testimony 14

Comment 1
Response to Ethan Phelps-Goodman - Public Meeting Testimony 15

Comment 1
Response to Carissa Knipe - Public Meeting Testimony 16

Comment 1
Response to Terra Anderson - Public Meeting Testimony 17

Comment 1
Response to Catherine Hinrichson - Public Meeting Testimony 18

Comment 1

Response to Oona Kelly - Public Meeting Testimony 19
Comment 1
Response to Angela Compton - Public Meeting Testimony 20

Comment 1
Response to Hillary Coleman - Public Meeting Testimony 21

Comment 1
Response to Helen Gilbert - Public Meeting Testimony 22

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of a lower density affordable housing alternative on the
Fort Lawton site is noted for the record. Please see Section 4.1, Alternatives. A mix of
affordable housing would be provided under Alternative 1, including:
• Senior Supportive Housing – Subsidized rental housing for senior citizens (55 years
of age and older), including veterans, who were formerly homeless and have income
at or below 30% of the area median income (AMI); 11
• Affordable Homeownership – Housing available for sale to households with an
income at or below 80% of the AMI; and
• Affordable Rental – Housing available for rent to households with an income at or
below 60% of the AMI.
Comment 2
Although affordable housing is typically owned and managed by private nonprofits, public
agencies still retain significant oversight. Providers of income-restricted affordable housing
must report annually to public funders. The Seattle Office of Housing’s regular assessments
cover a comprehensive list of compliance and performance areas, including community
relations (measured by good maintenance, street appearance, and responsiveness to
neighborhood concerns and complaints).
Response to Henry Noble - Public Meeting Testimony 23

Comment 1
11
Per the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s FY 2017 Income Limits Documentation System,
the 2017 AMI for a family of four in the Seattle-Bellevue area is $96,000.

Response to Erica West - Public Meeting Testimony 24
Comment 1
Response to Carol Issac - Public Meeting Testimony 25

Comment 1
Response to Brooke Brod - Public Meeting Testimony 26

Comment 1
Response to Mark Foltz - Public Meeting Testimony 27

Comment 1
Comment 2
the response to Letter 15, Comment 2
Comment 3
See the response to Letter 40, Comment 1. Your comment regarding improving bike and
pedestrian connections to Ballard is noted.
Response to Charles Bond - Public Meeting Testimony 28

Comment 1
Response to Nick Woods - Public Meeting Testimony 29

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Allison Bolgiano - Public Meeting Testimony 30

Comment 1

Response to Tara Millerberry - Public Meeting Testimony 31
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Greg Shaw - Public Meeting Testimony 32

Comment 1
Response to Amy Bailey - Public Meeting Testimony 33

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of providing affordable housing in Seattle is noted for the
record.
Response to Laura Lou Bernstein - Public Meeting Testimony 34

Comment 1
Response to Jessica Westgren - Public Meeting Testimony 35

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Karen Nims - Public Meeting Testimony 36

Comment 1
Comment 2

Response to James Madden - Public Meeting Testimony 37
Comment 1
Response to Clark Batham - Public Meeting Testimony 38

Comment 1
Response to Susan Russell - Public Meeting Testimony 39

Comment 1
Response to Shelly Cohen - Public Meeting Testimony 40

Comment 1
Response to Tiffany McCoy - Public Meeting Testimony 41

Comment 1
Response to Richard Gambino - Public Meeting Testimony 42

Comment 1
Response to George Smith - Public Meeting Testimony 43

Comment 1
Response to Neal Lampi - Public Meeting Testimony 44

Comment 1
Response to Jenny Allen - Public Meeting Testimony 45

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Sharon Jones - Public Meeting Testimony 46

Comment 1
Thank you for your comment in support of providing affordable housing is noted for the record.
Response to Tim Hesterberg - Public Meeting Testimony 47

Comment 1
Response to Lisa Sawyer - Public Meeting Testimony 48

Comment 1
Response to Keaton Slonsky - Public Meeting Testimony 49

Comment 1
Response to Shawn Hosford - Public Meeting Testimony 50

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment in support of providing affordable housing throughout Seattle is noted.
Comment 4
Response to Lisa Barnes - Public Meeting Testimony 51

Comment 1

Response to Mary Von Bronkhorst - Public Meeting Testimony 52
Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of Alternative 1 together with development of affordable housing at
the Talaris site is noted.
Comment 3
Your comment in support of school use on a portion of the Fort Lawton site is noted. See the
Comment 4
Your suggestion regarding partnering with Amazon and Kroger QFC is noted.
Response to Raven Campbell - Public Meeting Testimony 53

Comment 1
Response to Mike Eliason - Public Meeting Testimony 54

Comment 1
for the record. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2
Comment 2
Your comment in support of other including other uses with the proposed affordable housing
on the Fort Lawton is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 3
Your comment in support of providing affordable housing in other parts of Seattle is noted.
Response to Daniel Ammons - Public Meeting Testimony 55

Comment 1
Comment 2

Comment 3
Your comment in support of affordable housing on the Talaris site and throughout Seattle is
noted.
Response to Chris Sanders - Public Meeting Testimony 56

Comment 1
Response to Iulia Zavodov - Public Meeting Testimony 57
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of affordable housing on the Fort Lawton site is noted for
the record. Your comment disputing the potential for spillover crime in the surrounding area
from affordable housing is noted. See Letter 21, Comment 2.
Response to Susan Helf - Public Meeting Testimony 58

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Terri Suess - Public Meeting Testimony 59

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment regarding providing affordable housing throughout Seattle is noted
Comment 3
Response to Joseph Lachman - Public Meeting Testimony 60

Comment 1

Comment 2
Response to Myra Lara - Public Meeting Testimony 61

Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Your comment is support of affordable housing throughout Seattle.
Response to Doug Conrad - Public Meeting Testimony 62

Comment 1
Response to Anitra Freeman - Public Meeting Testimony 63

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Janis Traven - Public Meeting Testimony 64

Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Lisa Evans - Public Meeting Testimony 65

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding increased demand for school services under the EIS
alternatives is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1.

Response to Valarie Cooper - Public Meeting Testimony 66
Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding increased demand for school services under the EIS
alternatives is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 61, Comment 1.
Response to James Jarosz - Public Meeting Testimony 67

Comment 1
Response to Alouin Semet - Public Meeting Testimony 68

Comment 1
Thank you, your comments regarding Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are noted for the record.
Comment 2
The City evaluated the merits of preserving the existing structures for re-use as either housing
or school facilities, and concluded that given the configuration and condition of the properties,
preservation was a less desirable option than demolition and development of new facilities. The
existing office layouts were not conducive to providing the range of affordable ownership and
rental housing desired by the City, and the cost of renovation (which would include substantial
heating, plumbing, electrical and seismic upgrades) would not have represented a more
efficient approach. Constructing new housing yields more options and flexibility to create an
efficient site plan, as well as a mix of housing types that are compatible with the existing
residential neighborhood.
Response to Doug Woos - Public Meeting Testimony 69

Comment 1
Comment 2
Your comment in support of Alternative 1, and development of affordable housing at the Talaris
site and throughout Seattle is noted.
Response to Alice Lockhart - Public Meeting Testimony 70

Comment 1

Response to Melissa Hyatt - Public Meeting Testimony 71
Comment 1
for the record. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2. Your comment regarding
including other uses in the development is noted. See Section 4.1, Alternatives.
Comment 2
Response to Steven Buckminster - Public Meeting Testimony 72

Comment 1
Thank you for information on your proposed campus for affordable housing and associated
activities.
Response to Rye Bey - Public Meeting Testimony 73

Comment 1
Thank you for information on your proposed campus for affordable housing and associated
activities.
Response to Kevin Reynolds - Public Meeting Testimony 74

Comment 1
Thank you, your opposition to Alternative 2 is noted for the record.
Comment 2
Response to Lee Colleton - Public Meeting Testimony 75

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment regarding providing housing and support services for Native
Americans is noted for the record. Please see the response to Letter 85, Comment 3.
Comment 2
Your comment regarding dependency on cars and its relationship to climate change is noted.
Response to Matthew Lang - Public Meeting Testimony 76

Comment 1

Response to Dan Hernbrott - Public Meeting Testimony 77
Comment 1
Comment 2
Response to Mary Steeleklen - Public Meeting Testimony 78

Comment 1
Response to James McIntosh - Public Meeting Testimony 79

Comment 1
Thank you, your comment in support of Alternative 3 is noted for the record. However, while
under Alternative 3 the entire Fort Lawton site would be in public park uses, incorporation of
the site into Discovery Park is not propose. Please see Letter 4, Comment 1 regarding a
Discovery Park alternative.
Response to Judy Willson - Public Meeting Testimony 80

Comment 1
regarding taxes and homelessness is also noted.
Comment 2
Response to Bradley Scarp - Public Meeting Testimony 81

Comment 1
the response to Letter 12, Comment 12 regarding transit services, and Letter 40, Comment 1
regarding availability of services in the Magnolia area.
Response to Andrew Sang - Public Meeting Testimony 82

Comment 1
for the record. Please see the response to Letter 15, Comment 2

Comment 2
Your comment in support of including school uses in the Fort Lawton Project is noted. Please

Chapter 6
Distribution List
CHAPTER 6
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Tribes
Duwamish Tribe
Muckleshoot Tribe, Fisheries Division
Snoqualmie Tribe
Stillaguamish Tribe
Suquamish Tribe
Tulalip Indian Tribe
Federal Agencies
U.S. Army Base Transition Coordinator

U.S. Army BRAC Environmental Coordinator
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Department of Veterans Affairs
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
State Agencies
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Review Section
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington State Department of Health, Environmental Health Division
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Division
Local Agencies
King County Metro, Real Estate/Land Use/Environmental Planning

King County Wastewater Treatment Division, Environmental Planning
Public Health Seattle & King County, Environmental Health Division
Seattle City Light
Port of Seattle, Environmental Management
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board
Seattle Public Schools

March 2018 Distribution List
Organizations
Laurelhurst Community Club

Friends of Batelle/Talaris

March 2018 Distribution List
Chapter 7
References
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
Associated General Contractors of Washington and Fugitive Dust Task Force. Guide to
Handling Fugitive Dust from Construction Projects. 1997.
ATC Associates, Inc. Phase II ESA. July 2009.
City-Data. Seattle Median Rent. October 2017
City of Seattle. Assessment of Fair Housing. 2017.
City of Seattle. Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Plan. September 2008.
City of Seattle. Ordinances #97025 and #114057. 2017.
City of Seattle. Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan. 2016.
City of Seattle. Seattle Municipal Code. 2017.
City of Seattle. Viewpoints Locator Map. 2017.
EPA. Environmental Justice. June 2017.
EXCEL Engineering, Inc. Environmental Condition of Property (ECP) Update Report. April
2013.
FEMA. Fema Floudplan Map No. 53033C0630F, Panel 630. May 1995.
Final EA for BRAC 05 Recommendations for Closure, Disposal and Reuse of Fort Lawton,
United States Army Reserve Center (FACID, WA030, WA031, WA012). July 2012.
Fuller, Mossbarger, Scott and May Engineers, Inc., Environmental Conditions Property
Report. September 2007.
GreatSchools. GreatSchools.org. 2017.
Heffron Transportation. Ballard Senior Housing Project. 2012.
Heffron Transportation. Fort Lawton Transportation Report. October 2017.
Heffron Transportation. Parking and Transportation Impact Analysis for the Loyal Heights
Playfield Improvements. 2006.
Heffron Transportation. Sand Point Way Corridor Study Draft Report. March 2017.
King County Metro. Metro Connects: Long Range Plan 2016. January 2017.

March 2018 References
Landau Associates, LLC. Fort Lawton Air Quality Report. October 2017.
Landau Associates, LLC. Fort Lawton Geotechnical Report. October 2017.
Landau Associates, LLC. Fort Lawton Historic and Cultural Resources Report. October 2017.
Landau Associates, LLC. Fort Lawton Noise Report. October 2017.
Lens, Michael C. Subsidized Housing and Crime: Theory, Mechanisms and Evidence. January
2013.
MIG|SvR. Fort Lawton Utilities Report. October 2017.
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Roadmap for Climate Protection: Reducing GHG Emissions in
Puget Sound. 2004.
Rose Environmental. Periodic ACM/PACM Condition Assessment – Lawton US Army Reserve
Center, Seattle, Washington. December 2012.
Seattle Fire Department. 2016 Annual Report. 2017.
Seattle Fire Department. Personal Communication with Jay Hagen, Assistant Chief –
Operations Division. September 2017.
Seattle Housing Authority. SHA Housing Choice Voucher Program. 2017.
Seattle Office of Housing. Seattle Housing Units. 2017
Seattle Parks and Recreation. SPR Website. 2017.
Seattle Police Department Finance, Policy, and Planning. Personal Communication with
Alyssa Pulliam. September 2017.
Seattle Police Department. Magnolia Micro Community Policing Plan. September 2017.
Seattle Police Department. University District Micro Community Policing Plan. September
2017.
Seattle Public Schools. Seattle Public Schools Website. September 2017.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Geotechnical Report. October 2013.
Tiscareno Architects. Fort Lawton Photo Simulations. October 2017.
The Transpo Group. Transportation Impact Analysis for the 4000 Property. October 2013.
Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. 2016.
US Army Corp of Engineers, Mobile District. Final Environmental Assessment (EA) Report.
July 2012.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Omaha District. Final Site Investigation Report. May 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. 2009-2015.
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, CHAS. 2010-2014 5-year American
Community Survey. 2014.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. FY 2017 Income Limits
Documentation System. 2017.
U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. 2012.
The Watershed Company. Fort Lawton Biological Resources Report. October 2017.
Young, Cheryl. There Doesn’t Go the Neighborhood, Low-Income Housing Has No Impact on
Nearby Home Values. Trulia’s Blog. November 2016.
Zillow. Zillow Home Value Index. August 2017.


FtLawton Final EIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FtLawton Final EIS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FtLawton Final EIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Environmental

Fort Lawton Army Reserve

Prepared by the City of Seattle

March 29, 2018

Dear Affected Agencies, Tribes, Organizations and Interested Parties:

The FEIS includes the following:

Date of DEIS Issuance ........................................................................... December 14, 2017

Date of FEIS Issuance................................................................................... March 29, 2018

Name of Project Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center

Applicant City of Seattle Office of Housing (Office of Housing)

Location The approximately 34-acre Fort Lawton site is located in

Prior Environmental NEPA environmental review was accomplished by the

EIS Required The Office of Housing, as SEPA lead agency, determined

Proposed Actions • City Council approval of a redevelopment plan;

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page i Fact Sheet

Alternative 2 – Market-Rate Housing Onsite; Affordable

Alternative 3 – Public Park Onsite; Affordable and

Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative: No

Lead Agency SEPA Steve Walker, Director

EIS Contact Person Lindsay Masters, Project Manager

Required Approvals Preliminary analysis indicates that the following

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page ii Fact Sheet

Federal and/or State Permits and Approvals:

Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc.

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page iv Fact Sheet

EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC

Seattle Office of Housing

Date of Issuance of this March 29, 2018

• Seattle Office of Housing

A limited number of complimentary CD copies of this

The FEIS can also be reviewed and downloaded online at:

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page v Fact Sheet

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION(S) AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2-1

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS,

3.1 Earth ...................................................................................................................... 3.1-1

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page vi Fact Sheet

4. KEY TOPIC AREAS/UPDATED INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page ix Fact Sheet

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page x Fact Sheet

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page xi Fact Sheet

Seattle Office of Housing (the project applicant) is considering redevelopment options

1.2 PROPOSED ACTIONS

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 1-1 Chapter 1

1.3 EIS ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 – Mixed Income Affordable Housing and Public Park Uses

Under Alternative 1, assumed development would feature a mix of affordable housing on

No development would occur on the Talaris site under Alternative 1.

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 1-2 Chapter 1

Under Alternative 2, development of market-rate single-family housing under current

Alternative 3 – Public Park Onsite; Affordable and Homeless Housing

Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative

Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center FEIS Page 1-3 Chapter 1

Alternative 1 (Applicants Preferred Alternative) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 – No Action Alternative

• Portions of the site are underlain by soft deposits.

• The potential for landslide impacts is considered moderately

• Ice contact and recessional outwash and relatively thick peat

• Impervious surfaces would increase from 30% to 50% of the