BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF SEATTLE IN RE: THE APPEAL ofthe QUEEN ANNE COMMUNITY COUNCIL ol? the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT For the CITYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The Queen Anne Community Council appeals the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the proposed amendments to Accessory Dwelling Unit legislation. APPELLANT INFORMATION Appellant: Queen Anne Community Council 1818 1?1 Avenue West. Seattle, WA 981 19 (Contact only through authorized representative) Authorized Representatives (on both of whom service is requested): Martin I?Ienry Kaplan, Architect AIA 360 Highland Drive, Seattle. WA 98109 206?682?8600 mhk@martinhenrykaplan.com Jeffrey M. Eustis Aramburu Eustis, LLP 720 Third Ave. Ste 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 (206)625?95 5 Notice oFAppeal I DECISION BEING APPEALED Decision: The legal adequacy ol?the Final Environmental Impact Statement dated October 4, 2018 for the Citywide Implementation ofthe ADU-FEIS, which is available at: Property Address: City wide Elements of Decision being appealed. (Also see discussion below re objections to decision) a. Adequacy ofElS b. Violations ol? SEPA APPEAL INFORMATION 1. Interest of Appellant in the decision (Standing) 1.2 The City ofSeattle is a collection of over 30 distinct and diverse neighborhoods that Form the historical heart and soul of our entire city. Each of these neighborhoods is recognized and buttressed by its unique environmental qualities. cultural and historical identities, discrete topography and challenging in?'astructure, unique mixes ol?businesses, multi?family and single?family housing, green space and tree canopy, water and sun orientation, among a gifted host ol? other unequalled assets that have de?ned our city of Seattle for well over a century. The Queen Anne Community Council (QACC), one ol" the oldest and most active community organizations in Seattle, represents over 30,000 residents and business owners within our Queen Anne neighborhood. A registered a 501(c)(4) organization. the QACC advocates on a range ofissues, including urban development and planning, transportation concerns, protection of our trees and parks, etc. Like community councils city?wide, QACC is the steward or our Queen Anne Neighborhood Plan that residents have counted on since the late 1970?s to guide our future development growth, along with many other issues of livability as codi?ed within our City's Comprehensive Plan. Our stewardship running back over 75 years. has always been characterized by welcoming growth and increased density, but also respecting the important qualities ofour neighborhoods throughout our City. In fact, going back decades to when PSRC began 'l?orecasting growth as mandated by the GMA, Queen Anne has always gladly accepted more density than directed its way. Over 30 years ago we participated with thousands of Seattleites across the city in what became a national model ofNeighborhood Planning. Notice olAppeal 2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 These Neighborhood Plans grew out ofincredible commitments by each Seattle neighborhood to identify and carefully craft and codify within the city's Comprehensive Plan the speci?c qualities. goals, issues and opportunities of each community throughout our city. Hundreds ofthousands ofSeattleites have relied upon these plans for decades as they chose neighborhoods within which to live, raise their families, and invest their time, public service, and personal resources. The proposed legislation contains provisions that will eliminate single?family zoning in Queen Anne and within every neighborhood throughout the City. It ignores, disrespects, and eliminates the city-wide Neighborhood Plans. This unprecedented and wholesale land use change will negatively impact over [35,000 single family properties and over 350.000 residents that choose to live in single-family homes in Seattle?s neighborhoods. Representing its members and speaking for over 350.000 Seattleites that reside in single?family neighborhoods throughout Seattle, the Queen Anne Community Council appealed the City?s SEPA determination ofnon?signi?cance (DNS) on June 6, 2018 issued by the Director, Office ofPlanning and Community Development, Hearing Examiners File No. In May 2018, The City had proposed to Lip-zone and eliminate every Seattle single?family zoned neighborhood without performing one environmental impact study, any citywide public meetings, and hearings focused upon the rip?zone proposal, and stealthily advanced this legislation with a SEPA determination of non-significance (DNS). On June 6, 2018, the Queen Anne Community Council appealed the determination of non-significance (DNS) issued by the City for the proposed legislation to reduce the regulations controlling the development of attached and detached accessory dwelling units (ADU). On December 13, 2016, The Hearing Examiner rendered her decision granting Queen Anne?s appeal. The City waited over six months and then committed to preparing a full 1318, which was not released in final form until nearly two years later. The Hearing Examiner?s decision was clear identifying many positions and policies that were proverr false and/or required serious, comprehensive, and accountable studies of every environmental impact. The Queen Anne Community Council unequivocally supports the city?s goals of increasing affordability, diversity ofhousing choices, and considerations ofequity in Queen Anne and throughout our city in every neighborhood. However, the Notice oprpeal 3 17 91911013 3911 ?113) 9111 19111 111 111.1911 1911111990111 p919?11113 9A911 319111119111 311 13119 11911110 3 [11111111911103 91111171 1199110 9111 ?313 111919111113 111112391 9 9.19119.111 01 9.1111191 13 3131 171333110 31119111911nb91 111911191 1911191111101111119 9111 11111111 01 9.1111191 13119 1191191911913 1119911111313 9 31 3111i 3131 9111 111 1391913131109 919111 31903 3111311011 311111;) 9111 199111 01 3119111 93111191119119 ON 313001110111131911 13119 31111102 1111111911?9131113 919111111119 01 A1011 111 311011911911 10111111 9.19m 313 9111 111 139.19p131109 39111191119119 1111.10 17111 '313 9111 111 1391913131109 1011 919111 39111191119119 91119119119 ?19119111 3111110 311119911 9111 19 19110113 911 111111 3V 391119110111 211111191149131113110 11119911 3111119 9.111119 9111 31111102 -1111 919111 313 9111 111 110119.1913131109 101 139111939111 39111191119119 13119 39910119 111110 9111 31-1 19919901111119 31111111 9193 13119 9.111993 9 13119 ?1919919119 130011.10111131911 19199113 ?1111191113 3191111 111 13911 9111 939191191 01 3991110391 13119 91111110 31119191391191 11921119 011111131: 19110 3111111111119131111 11111919113 9 39 139111.193 19111 391399913 99.1111 19110 1391111309 311913 130011101111319N 19913111113111 3919111111119 1991. 111 13119 39101131 313 9111 11191101110131 3191110 [(119111 31101119 ?111101199 99.11 13119 999113 119110 01 3919119991139 ?39910119 1101.1911011311911 i11111119119119 3111311911 ?A1111q91310119 ?9213 101 11191111110139.111 111 1101191111919131113 9111 '11999 10 11111191301101 13119 39111191113 9111311111 9111 ?11999 10 131911109 19911013111 9111 39101131 13119 911193 9111 111199319 313001110111131911 119 3199.11 313 9111 313001110111131911 911b11111 19013111113111 0E 19/10 119111 11991111911 91911119191111) 01 31111191 911993131191 3110911930111011 9110 39 1119 9.111119 9111 3199.11 139913111 313 9111 3171333 1111 13911111391 39 39111191119119 9111111193 111939111 13119 1913131109 01 311111 313 3111 711-1 11191 1111 139.1111b91 39 313 9111 111 139111939111 10 1391913131109 11131101193 1011 91911 39111191119119 13911111393 31119 9111 330.199 313001110111131911 111 31111102?1111 1390.111 31 313 911110 391111991110 9111 3111119991 .1011 1391913131109 911191119119 111110 9111 '130011.10111131911 11119919131113 1119119110 1101319111109 13119 10991110191191) 9111, 311139919111 91111111 31111102 1111111911-9131113 311119111111119?10 113919.113 13119 1903 9131113 9 111911191111111 131 311911111 9111191119119 211110 11111 3111311011 VFIVH 9111 199111 01 311911111 9111191119119 1011 9.19 313 9111 111 139111939111 ?39111191119119? 9111 [1'1 1391-99119 9q 110119131391 13930110111 9111 131110113 13001110111131911 91111V 1199110 911110 31119131391 191110 13119 1191111133 11111111199103 911111; 1199110 9111110 319111119111 11131111 139113111 911 1311101111 3199111111 1191111111 ?39111339111 11011911111011 191110 13119 ?3199113 130011.10111131911 1131101111 9191119119 01 111111119 9111 13119 ?3111311911 199113-110 9111911911910 1111101119 9111 ?11101199 991110 3301 13119 1919919119 130011.10111131911 111 93119119 9111 ?3311113111111 911013111 ?10 3301 9111 ?31101191111101110 11191119991113113 9111 ?3111311011 911191310119 13119 139130111 910111 ?.191310 ~.10 11011911113913 13119 11191119991113113 9111 1101111 3199111111 931911139 3111131119111 ?130011.10111131911 9111993 191110 11.19119 1111111111 13119 31119131391 911111171 1199110 119 110 930111111 11191 1930110111 9111 19111 3199111111 19111911111011Aua 931911139 "1119911111313 9211113119 p119 331193113 ?930193113 01 311911 03 3111013 111 13119 391911011 9391103 13191131993 111911119 9111 01 39111191119119 911191103991 111191111913131109 01 311911 3 denied them the statutory rights of producing a fully compliant EIS and is embarking upon a path of decision-making not fully informed. 2. Objections to the decision. The Queen Anne Community Council appeals the legal adequacy of the FEIS on the following grounds: 2.1 The FEIS fails to adequately disclose, discuss and analyze the direct. indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed actions in conjunction with the City of Seattle and the State of Washington guaranteed rights and opportunities to be involved in government processes. especially those involving environmental and land use decisions. The credibility and effectiveness ofland use decisions depends upon a fair and open process. Adherence to a fair process is recognized in Washington and federal courts as requiring procedural due process. 2.2 The FEIS fails to adequately disclose. discuss and analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts ofthe proposed actions in conjunction with the harms caused to Queen Anne residents and businesses, and all Seattleites that include. but are not limited to: reductions in currently available affordable housing, an increase in housing costs with a corresponding reduction in diversity and equity for residents. increases in housing costs for existing residents penalizing those with low and fixed incomes including seniors, increases in density and its impacts without appropriate mitigation and supporting in ti'astructure, and a decline in quality of life and livability for current and future residents. 2.3 The FEIS fails to consider cumulative impacts ofthe proposed actions in conjunction with other significant land use changes as proposed within HALA. and other legislation. 2.4 The FEIS fails to consider an adequate range of alternatives that specifically consider the geographic, topographic, and locational differentiation ofthe city of: Seattle. The unique qualities, historical and cultural identities. average property sizes, infrastructure adequacy and mobility limitations, open space and tree canopy, parking availability and restrictions, among many others were ignored as the City proposed a one-size?frts-all conversion ofall neighborhoods. 2.5 The FEIS fails to consider an adequate range of alternatives that could accomplish the proposal?s objectives, but at a lower level ofenvironmental impact. as further alleged under Part 1 above. 2.6 The FEIS fails to disclose. discuss and analyze the limitations, uncertainties and Notice of Appeal - 5 data gaps within its de?cient and purposefully misleading analysis ofparking and transportation and include a comprehensive city-wide, worst?case analysis. For instance. Appendix 13, Exhibit illustrates the four areas of the city that were chosen to study as a representative sample of typical impacts to parking. These four study areas are located miles away from our city center and ignore neighborhoods most impacted by the proposal. They bear little relationship to neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Magnolia, Wallingford, Fremont. Queen Anne. University District. First Hill, Central Area, Columbia City. Ballard and many others. 2.7 The fails to disclose. discuss and assess the limitations, uncertainties and data gaps within its delicient analysis of environmental impacts associated with allowing l2 unrelated individuals to reside on one property. A subject property could be as small as 3,200 sq ft. .lohn Shaw, City of Seattle Traf?c Engineer testil'ied during Queen Anne?s Appeal in Case that the average Seattle family has at least l".2 cars. Matt l-lutchins. Architect and City expert testified that he shared a house in a single?family neighborhood with six people all of whom had cars. The FEIS is silent and deficient in considering the potential severe environmental impacts upon parking and traffic circulations from increases in unelated residents occupying one property. 2.8 The FEIS fails to consider an adequate range of alternatives that specifically consider the removal ofthe Owner?Occupancy requirement. The FEIS provides no comprehensive background studies to support the EIS contention that removal of owner occupancy requirements will have no environmental impacts. Sam Lai and Matt Hutchins, the City?s developer and architect experts, agreed with Appellant expert Bill Reid. Real Estate Economist, that the removal of the owner- occupancy requirement would contribute to influencing a ?fundamental change to the land-use form." Mr. Lai?s own company buys undervalued single?family homes and converts them to new market rate speculative investments. The is deficient in failing to address the signilicant environmental impacts upon the existing housing stock and its owners and occupants related to the removal ofthe owner occupancy requirement. 2.9 The FEIS fails to consider an adequate range ofalternatives that specifically considers the potential environment impacts associated with stresses upon Public Services and Utilities. The FEIS relies upon a simple premise that this legislation will only produce a minimal number ofADUs and due to their distribution city? wide. there will be no environmental impacts. On the other hand, during the Appeal in Case W?l 6?004, Nick Welch. City Planner acknowledged in email that the intent of this legislations is to ?unleash growth in every single?family? neighborhood. So, while the City claims, without specific neighborhood studies, data or proof, that there will be no impacts. the stated goals and objectives ofthe legislation absolutely contradict that assertion. OPCD's determination on the Notice ol?Appeal 6 proposal's likely public service impacts is not based on information suf?cient to evaluate those impacts. 2.10 The fails to complete an adequate study of Housing and Socio Economics as presented within the EIS section 4.1. This section relies upon a study ot"I-lighest and Best Use? to present non?impact conclusions concerning Displacement, Affordability. Land Values. Valuations. ADU Production Forecasts. Teardowns. Owner Occupancy and other environmental impacts. On FEIS Page 4?13 the City de?nes: (emphasis added) A highest and best use analysis evaluates the reasonable use ofa property based on what is physically possible. isIfinanciallyfeasible, and results in the highest present value. To analyze how alternatives might affect underlying cleric/(nutrient conditions in the study area. we used highest and best use aimlysis. This analysis considers how the potet-ttial Land Use (.?ode changes could alter the highest- value use of'a properly. In other words, this approach evaluates hon-t the proposed alternatives would affect underlying development economics/or lots in Seattle 's single?family zones. This analysis identi?es the most economically productive use fora particular site, but it does not necessarily predict what will actually happen on a site. This is because it does not consider the motivation and preferences ot'indiyidual property owners or market demaud?for a particular real estate product (eg. an or a single-family house). Thus. highest and best use can tell us how the alternatives could change the underlying real-estate economics in the stuc'lJ-t area. but it does not predict specific development outcomesfor a given parcel or tell as how the alternatives could (?eet overall development rates in the study area. The Highest and Best Use analysis. forming the basis for many ofthe FEIS ?ndings ofno environmental impacts, is de?cient as the EIS clearly reveals that their analysis ?does not necessarily predict what will actually happen on a It Fails to consider the true impacts upon every neighborhood including the elimination of the owner?occupancy requirement and of parking requirements and the potential speculative investments that will rede?ne highest and best use. among many others. 2.1] The FEIS fails to consider an adequate range of alternatives that speci?cally considers the impacts from allowing 3 dwelling units on one property. The FEIS addresses the City proposal to tip-zone every neighborhood and ignore the unique characteristics ofeach. In doing so. the FEIS is de?cient in that it fails to recognize the extraordinary issues and opportunities associated with neighborhoods having a variety of lot sizes. While some larger properties could easily accommodate multiple units and an increased number of unrelated residents. many other neighborhoods with smaller lots would suffer from extreme Notice ol'Appeal 7 environmental impacts from increasing densities of 12 residents per property. three units on a site. and no on?site parking or ownership requirements. 2.12 The fails to consider an adequate range ofalternatives that specifically considers impacts from increasing the rear lot coverage by 500 0 from 40% to 60%. The FEIS fails to consider in a meaningful way the impacts to neighbors and the tree canopy as well. This increase in rear lot coverage fails to consider the cumulative impacts from allowing 2 separate 1.000 sq ft DADU's plus a home on one site while allowing an unlimited sized garage as well. While reliance upon a 35% lot coverage limitation on lots greater than 5.000 sq ft may be acceptable. the increase lot coverage on smaller lots would create significant adverse impacts on neighborhood character. aesthetics. urban design and tree canopy coverage that are not sufficiently disclosed. discussed and analyzed. Proposed lots of3.200 sq ft actually allow for a significantly higher. 46% lot coverage which has not been considered. 2.13 The fails to consider an adequate range ofalternatives that specifically consider the impacts to preserving the tree canopy. 2.14 The .FEIS fails to consider an adequate range ofalternatives that speci?cally-t consider the impacts from limiting the size ofhomes by establishing a new ?oor area ratio of .5 (FAR) standard that limits the maximum size ofnew single?family homes to 2.500 sq ft. for a 5,000 sq ft lot. 4,000 sq ft lots have a maximum of 2.000 sq ft. While the city posits that this legislation is founded upon creating higher densities in single?family neighborhoods, this new restriction limits density to those who would have no desire to add onto an existing 2.500 sq ft home. 2.15 The fails to adequately disclose, discuss and analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts upon the elements ofthe environment (SMC 25.05.44) including upon the displacement and destruction ofolder, more modest and affordable housing. the displacement of populations, the loss of historic buildings, the change in neighborhood character. the unstudied stresses on existing utilities and inli'astructure. the amount ofavailable on?street parking. and the ability of residents and emergency vehicles to circulate through neighborhood streets. and other population pressures among many more. 3. What relief do you want? The Queen Anne Community Council requests that: 3.1 The be found to be legally inadequate; Notice of Appeal - 8 3.2 The 1318 should be remanded to the OPCD to bring it into l?ull compliance with SEPA: 3.3 Further action on the proposal he stayed pending OPCD's full compliance with SEPA: 3.4 The Queen Anne Community Council reserves the right to seek such other, I?urther reliefas may be appropriate under the law including an award ol? attorney?s fees and costs in the appropriate forum. Respectfully submitted this 18"1 day of October, 2018. QUEEN NNE COMMUNITY Cor CI. .M M?lb i1 bl/le? ?r phi n. VArchitect VAIA ARAIN Ml 1% let ti?s mam 92?6?2v Meys to All the Queen Anne Community Council Notice ol?Appeal - 9