Maple Leaf residents who sign this petition oppose the designation of Maple Leaf as a Neighborhood Center as part of Mayor Harrell’s proposed One Seattle Growth Strategy for reasons that include:

False assumptions and misleading Information are used to justify proposing Maple Leaf as a Neighborhood Center. For example:

• Maple Leaf is incorrectly asserted to have access to frequent transit connecting the neighborhood to key citywide destinations. In reality, Maple Leaf just has the 67 bus, which only runs a few miles to the University District and to Northgate, is late on 39% of reported trips, and does not run frequently on weekends.
• There is no east/west transit.
• The assumed travel times of 11 min to UW and 23 min to Downtown are not realistic and clearly do not include the necessary time spent walking, waiting, and transferring.
• Maple Leaf lacks proximity to vital services. There are no grocery stores and few healthcare facilities in Maple Leaf, despite the proposal listing 7-Eleven and our neighborhood veterinary clinic as such.
• Perkins School is listed as a neighborhood amenity, despite it being a private school with an all-city draw. The plan also overstates the existence of preschools.
• Planting street trees in Maple Leaf is not viable and would not compensate for the loss of large trees that could result from proposed zoning changes. There is little to no right-of-way where street trees could be planted and maintained within the proposed Neighborhood Center.

Impacts on trees stemming from the proposed Neighborhood Center are minimized or disregarded. For example:

• The significant loss of large trees due to overly intense development would decrease canopy cover, increase heating, destabilize soils, and impact drainage in our hilly neighborhood, all essential environmental services.
• The current Tree Protection Ordinance is inadequate to protect trees.
• Loss of trees, especially large evergreens, and lack of landscaping/gardens will decrease habitat for birds, pollinators, and urban wildlife.
• The diminished setbacks proposed would prevent residents from planting trees and growing gardens, as already evidenced in new housing construction.

Maple Leaf has a lack of adequate transportation infrastructure to support the new zoning designation. For example:

• The lack of existing transit connectivity, long walk to light rail, and hilly make it difficult for residents to access vital amenities and move around the city without driving.
• The current road infrastructure and use is unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians. Drivers frequently speed through stop signs adjacent to 12th Ave NE and recklessly run red lights that were designed to provide crucial pedestrian crossings on Roosevelt Ave.
• Existing traffic on arterials and cut through traffic on neighborhood streets is already substantial, and on-street parking is highly constrained.
• Large emergency vehicles are challenged by the road configuration of neighborhood streets, struggling to navigate the narrow and congested cross streets and traffic circles.
• Recently installed stop signs and traffic calming within the proposed Neighborhood Center have reduced the safety of residents walking and bicycling on residential streets. Maple Leaf resident survey counts observe that well over half of drivers do NOT stop at these stop signs.

Maple Leaf faces existing challenges that hinder its walkability. For example:

• Many sidewalks within the proposed boundary are narrow, uneven, and unlikely to be ADA compliant.
• Nearby parts of the neighborhood lack sidewalks entirely, forcing pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers to share the same narrow space on residential streets and limit connectivity to other parts of the neighborhood.
• Maple Leaf is on a hill creating challenges for people with wheelchairs, walkers, and others with mobility challenges.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicated that the proposed zoning changes would not cause significant negative impacts. However, the DEIS was woefully inadequate and based on many broad generalizations not backed up by data or scientific analysis. For example:

• The assumption that planting street trees could compensate for cutting larger trees associated with development. Even if a few street trees were able to be planted in the proposed Neighborhood Center, they would NOT create the same benefits of shade, cooling, water filtration, wildlife habitat, greenhouse gas absorption, erosion control, and soil health as larger mature trees lost to development.
• Assumptions about available wastewater treatment capacity, water supply, electrical supply, effectiveness of stormwater treatment, and the loss of habitat not impacting birds and wildlife are not based on scientific study and/or adequate analysis.