Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 68 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DISCOVERY PARK COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, community non-profit corporation, and ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, NO- C19-1105-J CC AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR REVIEW AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Petitioners,, CITY OF SEATTLE, THE UNITED STATES (RCW 36.700070) ARMY, and SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS Respondents. LAND USE PETITION Pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act, Ch. 36.70C RCW, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, and Chapters 7.16, 7.24 and 7.40 RCW and Article IV, Sec. 6 Of the Washington State Constitution the petitioners, and pursuant to the Court?s Order of November 14, 2019, Discovery Park Community Alliance, a Washington non-profit corporation, and Elizabeth A. Campbell bring this Amended Land Use Petition and Complaint For Certiorari and Review, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief based upon the allegations set forth below for review of City of Seattle Council Resolution 31887, Council Bill 119510 and Council Bill 119535 all dated June 10, 2019. AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT f??ls? PS To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE COMMON 717 Sprague Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATO RY 1 ?12323312333 3252255 Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 68 I. IDENTITY 0F PETITIONER 1.1 Petitioner. The name and mailing address of Petitioners: Discovery Park Community Alliance, a Washington non-profit corporation 3826 24th Avenue W. Seattle WA. 98199 Elizabeth A. Campbell 3826 24th Avenue W. Seattle, WA 98199 1.2 Petitioners' Attorney. The names and mailing address of Petitioners' attorneys: Allen T. Miller Lukins Annis, PS. 717 W. Sprague Ave., Suite 1600 Spokane, WA 99201 Petitioners? attorney will be withdrawing as attorney pursuant to the Court?s Order of January 31, 2020. II. IDENTITY OF RESPONDENTS 2.1 Respondents. The City of Seattle, a Washington municipal corporation, through the Seattle City Council, sponsored and adopted the decisions identified at Paragraph 4 of this Petition. 2.2 The United States Army, a federal agency. 2.3 The Seattle Public Schools. IDENTITY OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES 3.1 Additional Parties. RCW and RCW 36.70C.050 require the joinder in a land use petition of the "taxpayer for the property at issue in the records of the county assessor." The owner of the Fort Lawton Reserve Center is the United States of AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT Lum'fxi?s" $331233, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Ave., Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 2 3352315,, Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 68 America, Department of the Army. The King County Assessor's website lists City of Seattle FAS under the taxpayer's name, without an address, for parcel number 102503?9334. See Attachment hereto. Upon information and belief, means the Finance and Administrative Services department for the City of Seattle which leases the Fort Lawton Reserve Center pursuant to Ordinance 125309. Because the City of Seattle is listed as the Respondent, the departments within the City of Seattle will have adequate notice. IV. IDENTITY OF DECISIONS 4.1 Decisions. The decisions challenged by this action are: 4.1.1. City of Seattle Council Resolution 31887, passed on June 10, 2019. The decision maker was the City Council of the City of Seattle. A c0py of the City Council Resolution 31887 is attached as Attachment A. 4.1.2. City of Seattle Council Bill No: CB 119510/Ordinance 125842 passed on June 10, 2019. The decision maker was the City Council of the City of Seattle. A copy of the City Council Bill No: CB 119510 is attached as Attachment B. 4.1.3. City of Seattle Council Bill No: CB 119535/Ordinance 125841 passed on June 10, 2019. The decision maker was the City Council of the City of Seattle. A copy of the City Council Bill No: CB 119535 is attached as Attachment C. V. STANDING 5.1 Pursuant to RCW and common law rules, the Petitioners have standing to bring this action for the following reasons: The land use decisions have prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person. Petitioner Discovery Park Community Alliance is composed of residents and property owners adjacent to a City-proposed project at the Fort Lawton Reserve Center property, as is AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT $331353, pg To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Spmguc Ave? Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 3 ?1:335:33 m: (509) 747-2323 '25 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 68 Petitioner Campbell, all are users of Discovery Park. Discovery Park is immediately adjacent to the Fort Lawton Reserve Center property. The Petitioners will be prejudiced by the approval of Resolution 31887 CB 119510 and CB 119535, and their property interests affected, because the Respondent has failed to follow the established procedures, and the use which is proposed for that property will create adverse impacts on the surrounding community to which they are a part of, the land use decisions are contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan policies that aim to protect and improve upon open space and environmentally critical areas like Discovery Park. That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was required to consider when it made the land use decision. The City, under the terms of its local ordinance and the Base Closure Act and Realignment (BRAC) process, its statutes and rules requires that a final public hearing be held and that public input be received. The Petitioners herein are among those whose interests are required to be considered. A judgment in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision. Petitioners are prejudiced and harmed by the failure of the Respondent to follow the established procedures and the use which is proposed for that property will create adverse impacts on the surrounding community to which they are a part of. The reversal of the decisions to adopt Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 would eliminate the prejudice to Petitioners caused by the decisions. The Petitioners have exhausted administrative remedies to the extent required by la_w. The procedures of the City of Seattle following passage of Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 do not provide for any administrative remedies or review. The AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT $312518, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Sprague Ave, Suile 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 4 520:8?) 99,2915, Fax: 509 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 5 of 68 Petitioners have provided numerous comments to the City of Seattle during the public review process. Petitioners have exhausted available administrative review opportunities. VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6.1 The Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (the Redevelopment Act) establishes the mechanisms for the "timely closure and realignment of military installations inside the United States." 6.2 Base Realignment and Closure, is the process that the Department of Defense uses to reorganize its installation infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively support its forces, increase operational readiness, and facilitate new ways of doing business. 6.3 The process" refers to a temporary authority that amends the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (PL. 101?510), hereafter referred to as the Base Closure Act, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, (PL. 101-510; amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (PL. 101-510). 6.4 Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) and the Department of Defense's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Economic Security jointly developed and published regulations that implement the Redevelopment Act. The regulations, although identical, are found in two locations. HUD's regulations are codified at 24 CFR 586 and DoD's version is found at 32 CFR 176. 6.5 The Act requires the Secretary of Defense to determine within six months of a decision to close a military base whether other federal departments or agencies can use the property. If none can, the property is deemed "surplus" to the needs of the federal government AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT gm??lsy PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 ra lie Ava, Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 5 3595231555 Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 6 of 68 and made available for disposal through the BRAC process. The Secretary must "publish in the Federal Register and in a neWSpaper of general circulation in the communities in the vicinity of the installation," a notice of availability of "surplus" property "and may be available for conveyance to State and local governments and other eligible entities for public benefit purposes." 6.6 Thirty days thereafter, the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA), an entity "established by State or local government and recognized by the Secretary of Defense," in the present case before the Court, the City of Seattle, must "[p]ublish, in a newspaper of general circulation in the communities in the vicinity of the installation, the time period during which the LRA will receive notices of interest from representatives of the homeless and other interested parties,? 6.7 Notices of interest "shall describe the need of the [applicant] for the buildings or property," and must include, at a minimum, "a description of the planned use". "Other interested parties" means "any parties eligible for the conveyance of pIOperty under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA), a statute designed to provide "an economical and efficient system for [d]isposing of surplus [federal] property,? Non-profit educational institutions, if recommended by the Secretary of Education, are among the groups eligible for FPASA conveyances. 6.8 After the LRA publishes the required notice, the process bifurcates: Notices of interest submitted by representatives of the homeless and those submitted by FPASA-eligible "other interested parties" are considered on separate, parallel tracks. 6.9 On the public benefit conveyance track, the Secretary of Defense evaluates any LAW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNE, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Sprague Ave" Suile 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 6 ?gigging; 33315,, Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 7 of 68 notices of interest submitted by FPASA-eligible parties. This process occurs before the LRA submits its redevelopment plan to the HUD secretary. If the Secretary of Defense determines that an "other interested" applicant meets the eligibility standards established by the FPASA and associated regulations, the Secretary effects a "public benefit conveyance? of the requested property to that party. 6.10 Meanwhile, on the homeless?assistance track, the LRA begins by considering both homeless submissions and potential commercial uses in order to formulate a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the surplus property. 6.11 The LRA then submits its plan to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who in turn determines whether the LRA has ?balance[d]? commercial and homeless needs "in an appropriate manner." 6.12 After completion of the two parallel processes - that is, after the Secretary of Defense has conducted the public benefit conveyance screenings and the HUD Secretary has approved the LRA's plan the Secretary of Defense "shall dispose" of the remaining base property, giving ?substantial deference" to the redevelopment plan. 6.13 While the Military Department will give deference to the redevelopment plan in preparing the record of decision or other decision documents, it always retains ultimate responsibility and authority to make the final property disposal decisions. 6.14 Over 13 years ago, in May of 2006, the City of Seattle was recognized by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center (FLARC) Base Realignment and Closure process. AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT Fi??31233, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 ta u: Ave" Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 7 ?1:35:33; 3352315,, Fax: (509) 747-2313 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 8 of 68 6.15 The was and is required to meet statutory deadlines as part of the BRAC process all these years. Instead, the has not met a single mandatory deadline throughout the BRAC proceedings. 6.16 On September 27, 2017 and again on January 29, 2018, Petitioner Discovery Park Community Alliance submitted its comments via letters on the Fort Lawton Redevelopment and Proposed Environmental Impact Statement to the City of Seattle's Office of Housing. See Attachment incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 6.17 The Petitioner's comments on the EIS stressed that developing the FLARC property contradicts the City's Comprehensive Plan policies that aim to protect and improve upon open space and environmentally critical areas by suddenly allowing 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"). 6.18 In addition, Petitioner further indicated that rezoning to a high?density development on the Fort Lawton property would be inconsistent with the Land Use Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and the single family zoning of the Magnolia neighborhood and the historic and natural character Discovery Park and would create negative impacts and undermine the Comprehensive Plan's goals of planning deve10pment around urban centers and urban villages, providing adequate transit, providing for recreational opportunities and protecting the natural environment. The City also failed to consider other "reasonable alternatives? for the FLARC property including selecting an alternative, available site for the LRA's homeless assistance housing, and then develOping the FLARC site as a park or bank it 1 WAC LAW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNE, PS To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Sprague Ave? Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 8 ?$335333; 3333,15,, Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 9 of 68 as future park space, and continued to move forward with its redevelopment plans (prior to the completion of SEPA review) to develop the space in accordance with the City's preferred alternative. 6.19 The Petitioner's comments further pointed out that the City has substantially altered the redevelopment prOposal it submitted to HUD in 2007 and by doing was required to re-open the Notice of Interest process to competitive bidding and solicitation for new Notices of Interests from homeless housing and service providers or from any organization that is eligible for a public benefit conveyance; and that the City's reliance upon the Department of Defense's/US. Army Reserve 88th Regional Support Command's ("Corps") July 2012 Environmental Assessment and its October 18, 2012 Finding of No Significant Impact both documents based on the City's 2007 redevelopment plan, was improper due to the fact that the environmental review and finding were invalid. 6.20 There is also significant evidence that Seattle Public Schools (SPS) intends to build a school at the FLARC site, but both it and the City have only claimed that SPS's desired portion of the FLARC land is for "playfields" in an effort to avoid environmental review under the State Environmental and Protection Act of SPS's planned school on the FLARC property. 6.21 Despite the issues raised by the Petitioner, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project was issued by the City of Seattle's Office of Housing on March 29, 2018. Said FEIS forms the basis which allowed Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 to move forward for approval. AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR APROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 :3 we Ave? Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- 9 49595231555 Fax: (509) 747?2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 10 of 68 6.22 On June 10, 2019, the via the Seattle City Council, adopted Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 in violation of state and local law and regulations, making the decisions ultra vires and contrary to law. VII. STATEMENT OF EACH ERROR IN THE DECISION AND SUPPORTING FACTS The following is a separate statement of each error alleged to have been committed: 7.1 The Redevelopment Plan is Time Barred: 7.1.1 It is required by 24 CFR 586 that, ?From the deadline date for receipt of notices of interest described at the LRA shall have 270 days to complete and submit the LRA application to the apprOpriate Military Department and The beginning of the 270 day period was January 10, 2007 and therefor the deadline date for receipt of notices of interest would have been October 7, 2007. The did not submit its application (redevelopment plan and homeless assistance submission until October 13, 2008, over a year late. The has never made a request to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense or HUD, for the required 32 CFR ?176.15 waiver and extension of deadlines in this matter. 7.1.2 Federal regulations require that, "In the event there is 110 LRA recognized by DOD or if a redevelopment plan is not received from the LRA within 9 months from the date referred to in section 2905(b)(7)(F)(iv) of Pub. L. 101?510, (unless an extension of time has been granted by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment)), the Secretary concerned shall, after required consultation with the governor and heads of local governments, proceed with the disposal of property under applicable property disposal and environmental laws and regulations." 32 C.F.R. AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT $31335, PS To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR anew 717 Sprague Ave? Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATO RY 10 33355, Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 11 of 68 7.1.3 The Department of Defense is required to comply with the provisions of 32 CFR and must proceed to disposing of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center property through the alternative statutory methods available to it, including through negotiated sale, public sale, public auction, or possibly other conveyance methods pursuant to 40 U.S.0 ?545. 7.1.4 Therefore, the engaged in an unlawful procedure and/or failed to follow the proscribed process, and therefore the decision approving Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 are ultra vires, in violation of state and local law and regulations, and that said decision is contrary to law. 7.2 The Failed to Complete Conditions Precedent to the Decision. 7.2.1 CB 119510 meets the criteria for a Type IV (quasi-judicial) decision under SMC 23.76.004, as the proposed rezone would amend the City's Official Land Use Map 7.2.2 A Type IV rezone action is commenced by an eligible party under SMC 23.76.04 filing a land use application with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections 7.2.3 No such land use application for a rezone has been made to SDCI by the record of fee title holder for the Fort Lawton property, the Secretary of the Army, or any authorized agent thereof. 7.2.4 Even in the event that the holds the authority to pursue the rezone, the has not filed the requisite land use/rezone application under SMC Title 23.76.040 and completed the procedural steps for a Type IV rezone. 7.2.5 The has not set out the legal description of the proposed rezone; rather, the merely indicated that the ?legislation rezones a 9- to 10-acre LAW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNE, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 ue Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 11 33,231,, Fax: (509)741st Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 12 of 68 portion of the Fort Lawton property.? NO plat map, partial plat map, lot line adjustment or other adjustment of the parcel boundaries of the Fort Lawton property that can be used to delineate the exact location of the rezone have been provided by the City of Seattle, because none exists. 7.2.6 There also has been no requisite public notice of the rezone according to SMC 23.76. 7.2.7 On April 16, 2019 the Director of SDCI completed and filed with the City C0uncil his Director's report that is required pursuant to SMC 23.76.050. However, the Director did not file it with the Hearing Examiner as required by SMC 7.2.8 There also has been no public hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner's office for the Type IV rezone as required pursuant to SMC 7.2.9 Therefore, the engaged in an unlawful procedure and/or failed to follow the proscribed process, and therefore the decision approving CB 119510 is ultra Vires, in violation of state and local law and regulations, and that said decision is contrary to law. 7.3 The Cannot Include The Seattle Public Schools As A Party To The Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan. 7.3.1 The Seattle Public Schools (SPS) did not submit an N01 to the LRA. Because SPS never submitted a Notice of Interest (N01) to the by July 19, 2007 it therefore is disqualified from seeking a public benefit conveyance as part of the LRA's Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan per 24 CFR 7.3.2 DeSpite failure to submit a NOI, the redevelopment plan claims to set aside portions of the property for two SPS owned "public playfields." On AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT Lum?ggmg?g?s, PS To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR ALRA 717 Spraguc Suile 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY JUD 12 3331555 Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 13 of 68 March 29, 2018, the issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Said EIS does not reference an SPS school on the FLARC land. 7.3.3 However, on February 19, 2019, the voters in the city of Seattle approved Proposition Two BEX Capital Levy which authorized SP8 to proceed with the Fort Lawton project and approved the funds for SP8 to acquire and build on the FLARC land. While the legislation did provide for the Fort Lawton/Discovery Park playfields, the measure indicated that any or all of the improvements have been completed, or their completion duly provided for, or their completion found to be impractical, the District may apply the levy proceeds or any portion thereof to other portions of the improvements or to other capital purposes of the District, as the District in its discretion shall determine." 7.3.4 Records show that SPS intends to build a school at the FLARC and the ?public playfields" is a workaround by the to avoid environmental review of planned school on the FLARC property. The City Council in its recitals for CB 119535 affirms the has partnership agreements with SP8, that greatly expands on previous representations made to the public about the limited role that SPS was to have in the redevelopment plan. The claimed in its scoping, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that SPS had made no commitment to the LRA that it was going proceed with any attempt to obtain a conveyance of FLARC property that there was no need for the LRA to truly evaluate any role the SPS might have in the redevelopment plan. The agreements with SP8 commit the to work with SP8 in obtaining a public benefit conveyance of the FLARC property through the US. Department of Education. LAW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNE, PS To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A 717 Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 13 3352315,, Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 14 of 68 7.3.5 The and SPS have impermissibly taken final project action and have proceeded with their joint redevelopment plans for the FLARC property prior to any review of the LRA's redevelopment plan by HUD, prior to any recommendation from HUD to the DOD about whether DOD/Department of the Army should adopt the LRA's plan or not, prior to DOD preparing its NEPA mandated environmental assessment of the redevelopment plan and any disposal alternative(s) it might consider, and prior to final action being taken by the Department of Defense, its issuance of a Record Of Decision (ROD) or Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST). 7.3.6 Therefore, the engaged in an unlawful procedure and/or failed to follow the proscribed process, and therefore the decision approving CB 119535 is ultra vires, in violation of state and local law and regulations, and that said decision is contrary to law. 7.4 City of Seattle Must Approve the Archdiocesan Housing Authority Lease By Ordinance 7.4.1 The City/LRA's Fort Lawton RedeveIOpment Plan's Appendix H- Housing Assistance Submission' includes a lease between the City of Seattle and Catholic Housing Services of Western Washington (Archdiocesan Housing Authority), titled LEASE Between The City of Seattle a municipal corporation of the State of Washington and Archdiocesan Housing Authority a Washington nonprofit corporation, hereinafter referred to as Lease." 7.4.2 According to BRAC, the obligates itself to abide by the terms and conditions of the AHA Lease once it transmits part of the redevelopment plan application package. Thus, making the AHA Lease a "Legally Binding AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT Lum?g?gmg?gls, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717I Spraguc AWL, Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 14 ?33:13:3833) 49331555 Fax: (509) 747?313 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 15 of 68 Agreement" pursuant to 24 CFR HUD's BRAC technical assistance manuals state, "Each N01 selected for homeless assistance must be finalized in legally enforceable documents, referred to as the legally binding agreements (LBAs). The LBAs are the concrete result of negotiations between the LRA and the homeless assistance provider. HUD recommends that both parties engage legal counsel to negotiate and draft LBAs. The homeless assistance project described in the LBAs may differ from the N01 submitted by the homeless assistance provider. However, the LBAs must both commit the LRA to fulfilling the homeless assistance component of the redevelopment plan and commit the homeless assistance provider to carry out the proposed activity. In the future, if either the LRA or the homeless assistance provider fails to fulfill its commitment, the other should be able to enforce the contract through legal action.? HUD. "Guidebook on Military Base Reuse and Homeless Assistance?. US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. July 2006. 7.4.3 The Seattle City Council's approval for the AHA Lease must be separate from the resolution adopting the redevelopment plan and homeless assistance application package because the AHA Lease exceeds the Director of Finance and Administrative Services authority to enter into new leases per the Seattle Municipal Code Authority to negotiate and execute leases for City?owned or City-managed property states, "The authority in this section is limited as follows: B. The total term of any new lease together with all extensions of the initial term thereof, and the total term of any amended lease together with all extensions of the term thereof, shall not exceed five years in duration; provided, however, that this limitation shall not restrict the authority of the Director to negotiate and to AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT PS To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR APROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 15 3,935,, Fax: (509) 747-1323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 16 of 68 enter into subsequent leases of the same property for periods not to exceed five See also SMC 7.4.4 The Seattle City Council's authorization to enter into the AHA Lease is also required to be in the form of an ordinance not a resolution. City of Seattle resolutions re not binding law and are used for administrative or temporary matters, approval of the AHA Lease is a legislative act and Article IV of the Seattle City Charter at Section 7-Legislative Acts By Ordinance; Subject Matter; Title; Enacting Clause; requires, ?Every legislative act of said City shall be by ordinance. Every ordinance shall be clearly entitled and shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.? 7.4.5 Therefore, the engaged in an unlawful procedure and/or failed to follow the proscribed process, and therefore the decision approving Resolution 31887 is ultra vires, in violation of state and local law and regulations, and that said decision is contrary to law. 7.5 There is No Community Relations Plan that Coincides with the Current Redevelopment Proposal 7.5.1 The community relations plan is a legal requirement of the City of Seattle by law and by policy. The of Seattle requires that any developer and their partners in a housing project using funds provided through the City of Seattle's Office of Housing must, "Prior to application for OH funding for production or preservation of affordable rental housing or development of housing for low-income homebuyers, applicants AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT $31338, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 ta ue Ave? Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 16 nt?tffg?s?, Fax: (509)747-2313 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 17 of 68 are required to prepare and begin implementing a community relations plan, including neighborhood notification activities.?2 7.5.2 In 2008 the its partners, and the neighborhood near the project site negotiated a community relations plan. The managed homeless housing portion of the redevelopment project would have been a fraction of the greater housing project. By units, the managed homeless housing portion would be 42% of the total project uses. 7.5.3 As designed, the current redevelopment project is completely different from the prior redevelopment plan. The current redevelopment plan includes no mediating, market rate, independently living residents planned for the FLARC property. Rather than homeless assistance and low-income housing being a fraction of the use proposed, it is 100% of the use proposed. 7.5.4 No Community Relations Plan has been established for the uses, people, and programs that will be at the FLARC property. 7.5.5 By not creating a community relations plan for the current redevelopment plan project the has not complied with HUD's requirements and, by extension, has not complied with the State of Washington?s requirements or the City's own policies and funding requirements. The public is entitled to a community relations plan based on the current Redevelopment plan. 7.5.6 Therefore, the engaged in an unlawful procedure and/or failed to follow the proscribed process, and therefore the decision approving Resolution 31887 is 2 :Neighborhood Noti?cation and Community Relations Guidelines?. City of Seattle/Of?ce of the Housing. lawton CR guidelinepdf AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKILIGEJ EFRIEJFIS, PS TO LAND USE PETITION ACT PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 17 ?1563:1383; 3595231555 Fax: 509 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 18 of 68 ultra vires, in violation of state and local law and regulations, and that said decision is contrary to law. 7.6 The City Failed to Allow Public Review and Comment on the Homeless Assistance Submission 7.6.1 The is required by 32 CFR 176.20 et seq. to develop an application which includes a redevelopment plan and a homeless assistance submission. 7.6.2 According to HUD's Guidebook on Military Base Reuse and Homeless Assistance which it provided to the "The LRA must periodically make drafts of its redevelopment plan and homeless assistance submission documents available to the public for review and comment as the LRA prepares them. Once the redevelopment plan and the homeless assistance submission are completed, the LRA must hold at least one public hearing to receive input on these The LRA must submit the following three items: 0 The redevelopment plan 0 The homeless assistance submission 0 A summary of public comments on both documents."3 7.6.3 During February of 2019 and part of March of 2019, the made available on its website the Draft Redevelopment Plan (without its appendices) and solicited public comment on it. However, at no time did it disclose to the public the additional key document that is part of the LRA's application, the LRA's Homeless Assistance Submission 3 HUD. ?Guidebook on Military Base Reuse and Homeless Assistance.? US. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Office of Community Planning and Development-Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. P. 7. July 2006 ?The LRA must comply with applicable local law or ordinances regarding the formality of public hearings and may revise the plan and homeless assistance submission in accordance with issues raised at the hearing.? AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT Ems, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Spmgue Ave, Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 18 992991.55 Fax: (509) 747-233 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 19 of 68 7.6.4 The did not ask or allow the public to comment on the HAS as required by law as it was not made public until after the February public comment period and subsequent hearing on March 4, 2019. 7.6.5 The purpose of the public meeting held by the on March 4, 2019 was to fulfill the requirements of 32 CFR 176.20 to (1) to provide the public with a copy of the draft redevelopment plan and homeless assistance submission, (2) to gather public input on two items, and (3) hold a public hearing prior to its submission to HUD. 7.6.6 As per the City/LRA's public notices, and its website for the March 4, 2019 meeting, there was no mention of the Homeless Assistance Submission, only the Draft Redevelopment Plan was referenced. 7.6.7 At the March 4, 2019 meeting the only provided information and discussion on the Draft Redevelopment Plan. The made no mention of the Homeless Assistance Submission at the meeting. 7.6.8 On May 2, 2019, two months after the March 4, 2019 meeting, the posted the HAS on its website. However, the HAS posted on May 2, 2019 was incomplete for various reasons. 7.6.9 The has failed to complete all of its assorted components of its BRAC application package, provide them to the public in their entirety, in a manner that is accessible to all of the public, not just online, and provide for a public review and comment period, and public hearing as required pursuant to 32 CFR 176.20 7.6.10 Therefore, the engaged in an unlawful procedure and/or failed to follow the proscribed process, and therefore the decision approving Resolution 31887 is AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT in?gls, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR APROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION "117 3 Ave? Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 19 35931555 Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 20 of 68 ultra vires, in violation of state and local law and regulations, and that said decision is contrary to law. 7.7 The City Failed to Comply With SEPA 7.7.1 Petitioners' interests are within the zone of interests of SEPA because Petitioners are concerned and affected by the impacts the City/LRA's redevelopment plan will have on the environment, and on Discovery Park, given that fact that the plan has changed, not all adverse environment impacts, including those on Discovery Park, have been reviewed under the terms of SEPA, and that fact that the City/LRA?s redevelopment plan of the FLARC property contradicts the City's Comprehensive Plan policies that aim to protect and improve upon open space and environmentally critical areas. 7.7.2 Petitioner is prejudiced and harmed by the failure of the to consider environmental impacts under SEPA because full compliance with SEPA would require that the City Council reconsider its decisions and adopt plans for the Fort Lawton area that would be consistent with environmental protection and City's Comprehensive Plan. 7.7.3 The as stated herein, has acted illegally, arbitrarily and capriciously, and in violation of SEPA by not complying with SEPA and the City's SEPA regulations and the March 28, 2018 FEIS is contrary to law. CLAIMS 8.1 Petitioners reallege and incorporate by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. A. Land Use Petition Act. 8.2 The passage of Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 identified above are land use decisions under the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.7OC RCW. AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT Lm?g?g?g?gls, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 11: Ave, Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 20 ?giggifgm 4935231555 Fax: (509) 747-1323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 21 of 68 8.3 Under the terms of RCW 36.70C.130, and for the reasons stated in Section VII above, the City engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, adopted an erroneous interpretation of the law and made a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts when it approved and adopted Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 and therefore those decisions are ultra vires, in violation of state and local law and regulations, and said decisions are contrary to law. B. Petition for Writs of Review. 8.4 A petition for writ of review is pled in the alternative for both a statutory writ of certiorari pursuant to RCW 7.16 and a constitutional writ of certiorari pursuant to Article 4, Section 6 of the Washington State Constitution. 8.5 In the event that the Court concludes that any or all of the decisions identified within Section IV of this Petition and Complaint are not land us decisions reviewable under LUPA, there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law that would afford Petitioners relief in this case and Petitioners are entitled to review by statutory and constitutional writs of review. The errors alleged in the City's approval of Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 for purpose of this Cause of Action are set forth in Section VII of this Petition. 8.6 Moreover, the City's has acted illegally, arbitrarily and capriciously, and in violation of SEPA by not complying with SEPA and the City's SEPA regulations, and therefore the March 28, 2018 FEIS is contrary to law and must be vacated. 8.7 Furthermore, because the challenged actions effect Petitioners' valuable property rights, and the re-zoning will negatively effect prOperty values, the actions are irreconcilable with Article 1, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution because they constitute MW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNE, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 Sprague Ave, Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 21 re?ttit?fIEES) 3352315,, Fax: (509) 747.2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 22 of 68 the taking of private property for public or private use without just compensation having been first made. C. Declaratory Relief. 8.8 Pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, RCW 7.24, Petitioners are entitled to have the Court determine the legality of the City of Seattle actions and declare the rights, status, and other legal relations of Petitioners. 8.9 The Court has the authority to declare that the June 10, 2019 decision by the Seattle City Council to approve Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 is illegal for the reasons stated at Section VII above and to further void the decisions of the Seattle City Council. 8.10 Moreover, the City's has acted illegally, arbitrarily and capriciously, and in Violation of SEPA by not complying with SEPA and the City's SEPA regulations, and therefore the declare the March 28, 2018 FEIS is void. IX. RELIEF REQUESTED Petitioners request that the court enter the following relief: 9.1 For issuance of an order under LUPA directing the Respondents to prepare a record of the decisions challenged in this petition for review by this court. 9.2 Alternatively, for the issuance of writ of review pursuant to RCW 7.16 and Article 4, Section 6 of the Washington State Constitution, requiring that the City of Seattle certify to the Court a complete transcript of the proceedings below with respect to the adoption of the March 28, 2018 FEIS, Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 including all exhibits and evidence with respect to the actions taken and considered by the City of Seattle so that they may be reviewed by this Court. LAW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNE, PS To LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 22 3353,55 FM: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 23 of 68 9.3 Pursuant to RCW and (5) and the common law, the Court should enter orders allowing supplementation of the record and pretrial discovery. 9.4 Upon return of the decision record and/or the writs of review, the Court shall review the record and all other evidence and enter a judgment finding that the Respondents made an erroneous interpretation of the law, engaged in an unlawful procedure and/or failed to follow the proscribed process under the terms Of SEPA and of LUPA, that the decisions approving Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 are ultra vires, in violation of state and local law and regulations, and that said decision is contrary to law. 9.5 That upon return of the decision record and the writ, the Court shall grant de novo review of the March 28, 2018 FEIS and the decision to adopt Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 enter a judgment that the decision is erroneous and are contrary to law. 9.6 For a declaratory judgment pursuant to RCW 7.24.020, declaring that March 28, 2018 FEIS and the decision to adopt and approve Resolution 31887, CB 119510 and CB 119535 are null and void and of no effect. 9.7 For judgment against the Respondents and severally for Petitioners costs, expenses and attorneys' fees incurred herein. 9.8 For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. DATED this day of February, 2020 LUKINS ANNIS, P.S. ALLEN T. MILLER, WSBA #12936 Attorney for Petitioners LAW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNE, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR APROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 717 ra ue Ave, Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 23 23,22,255 Fax: (509) 747-233 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 24 of 68 LAW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNIS, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR A 3:51:20; ?gnlr?gumnou REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 24 Tsi?g?fgg??ggl?s Fax: (509) 747-2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 25 of 68 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sheana Loomis certify that on the below date, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served on all parties or their counsel of record, as follows. Rifcovery 121mg:- Cognr?tg?ty 11 >14 By U.S. Mail lance an Iza et amp Le 1 3826 24th Avenue By Seattle, WA 98199 7 . Email: By Email. neighborhoodwarrior@gmail.com ioger Wy?lne A By U.S. Mail 331stant 1ty ttorney Le lM Seattle City Attorney?s Of?ce By Ha?z-Ds?zlger 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 . 3? Seattle, WA 98104-7097 BY Emall Email: roger.wynne@seattle.gov . . t'f' '1 Seattle Public Schools By 1C 1 1e a1 2445 3rd Ave. g3 65.56%? Seattle, WA 98134 El By Hand-Dehvery By Email Chi?? U-S- Amy Litigation IE By U.S. Certified Mail Le a1 Messen er U.S. Army Legal Services Agency . 9275 Gunston Rd., Suite 3021 El BY Hand-D?lwery Bldg. 1450 By Emall Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060?5546 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the (91.4mm Sheana N. Loomis Legal Assistant to Attorney Allen T. Miller foregoing is true and correct. DATED this May of February, 2020. LAW OFFICES OF AMENDED LAND USE PETITION PURSUANT LUKINS ANNE, PS TO LAND USE PETITION PETITION FOR 717 Sprague Suite 1600 REVIEW AND DECLARATORY 25 ?35:32:13; 3595231555 Fax: (509) 747?2323 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 26 of 68 I SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL meanness? Ill? Legislation Text Flle Res 31887, Verslon: 1 CITY OF SEATTLE RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION adopting and approving an application for surplus federal property at?Fort Lawton, including a redevelopment plan, and authorizing the City of Seattle Office of Housing to forward an application to the United States Department of Defense and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in response to the closure of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center. WHEREAS, in 2005, the United States Congress authorized the closure of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center (Fort Lawton), and the US. Army published notices that the property will be available for non- military uses and ownership; and WHEREAS, the United States Army determined that Fort Lawton is surplus to the United States needs in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, and the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report, as approved; and WHEREAS, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act authorizes the Department of Defense and US. Army to make ?nal decisions regarding the disposition of base prOperty and facilities, and the requested the City submit the application for Fort Lawton, ineluding the redevelopment plan and 3 homeless assistance submission, to the and us. Department of Housing and Urban Development and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA), solicited and received Notices of Interest for property ?'om homeless assistance providers and other eligible recipients of public bene?t conveyances of federally-owned property; and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the LRA, prepared an application in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, and the 2005 Base Closure and SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 5 Printed on 611912019 powered by Legalstarm Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 27 of 68 Flla Res 31887, Verslon: 1 Realignment Commission Report, as approved; and WHEREAS, the application prepared by the City (2008 Plan), which included a redevelopment plan providing for mixed-income housing and parks space, was approved by City Council in 2008, and in 2010 HUD determined the application complies with the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, 10 U.S.C. ?2687 note, as amended, and its implementing regulations found at 24 CFR Part 586; and WHEREAS, opponents of the 2008 Plan sued the City, and in 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld a Superior Court decision on the lawsuit, which argued that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required prior to City Council adoption of redevelopment plan legislation; and WHEREAS, implementation of the 2008 Plan was also stalled by the Great Recession, which diminished its ?nancial viability, the market-rate housing component in particular; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City began working with the US. Army to plan for interim uses and in 2017 entered into a ?ve-year lease of Fort Lawton; and WHEREAS, in 2017, public outreach and comment for a modi?ed redevelopment proposal for Fort Lawton began, and in 2018, the City published the Fort Lawton FinalEnvironmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that analyzes probable adverse environmental impacts associated with the modified plan; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner decided in favor of the City on an appeal of the adequacy of the and WHEREAS, the ?nal Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan and Homeless Assistance Submission re?ects years of collaboration between the City and its partners, Catholic Housing Services of Western Washington, United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, and Habitat for Humanity of Seattle/King County, and involved substantial public outreach and comment; and WHEREAS, the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan balances Seattle?s critical need for affordable housing for households with low incomes and permanent housing for persons experiencing homelessness with the climate and livability bene?ts of parks and open space, by providing 85 units of supportive housing for SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 015 Printed on 611912019 . mod by Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 28 of 68 File Res 31887, Version: 1 seniors, up to 100 affordable rental housing units for households with incomes up to 60 percent of area median income, up to 52 affordable homes for purchase by families with incomes up to 80 percent of area median income, and increased parks and recreation space adjacent to Seattle?s 534-acre Discovery 3' Park; and WHEREAS, the Fort Lawton Homeless Assistance Submission includes information about homelessness in Seattle; notices of interest proposing assistance to persons and families experiencing homelessness; a legally binding agreement for Fort Lawton property to be used to provide homeless housing; an assessment of the balance with economic and other development needs; a description of outreach taken by the City, including a list of the representatives of people experiencing homelessness who were I contacted during the outreach process; and an overview of the citizen participation process, including comments received from at least one public hearing held before submitting the LRA application to and WHEREAS, the City will continue to work with Metro to make transit service improvements in the Fort Lawton/Magnolia neighborhood; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2019, Mayor Jenny Durkan announced that she will transmit the redevelopment plan for Fort Lawton to City Council, stating that ?As we continue to address Seattle?s housing and affordability crisis, this plan builds on our commitment to drive the development of hundreds of more affordable homes while ensuring that our neighborhoods can be vibrant, livable spaces for this generation and the next;? and WHEREAS, consistent with the City?s commitment to ?lrther fair housing, the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan will provide affordable housing in Magnolia and will require robust, effective af?rmative marketing to increase housing choices for protected classes in this high-opportunity neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan and Homeless Assistance Submission and held a Public Hearing to receive public comment; NOW, THEREFORE, CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 5 Printed on 611912019 mated by Leglttar'" . . Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 29 of 68 File Res 31887. Version: 1 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THE MAYOR THAT: . Section 1. The City of Seattle?s Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan, which includes the Homeless Assistance Submission, attached to this resolution as Attachment 1 and incorporated by reference, is adopted I and approved. . Section 2. The City of Seattle's Director of Housing is authorized to forward an application to the Unite-Id States Department of Defense and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for (3 conveyance of Fort Lawton to The City of Seattle and partner agencies pursuant to 24 CFR Part 586 and 32 CFR Part 176. Adopted by the City Council the day of 2019, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this day of 2019. President of the City Council The Mayor concurred?the day of 2019, Jenny A. Durkan, Mayor Filed by me ?ris day. of 2019. SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 of 5 Printed on 611912019 powered by Ladder?" Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 30 of 68 Flle if: Res 31887. Version: 1 Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk (Seal) Attachments: Attachment 1 - Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan, 2019 Update Appendix - Homeless Assistance Submission Appendix - Lease same COUNCIL Page 5 of 5 Pdnled on one/2019 powered by Logism'" Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 31 of 68 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL mustang-stair? Legislation Text Flla CB 119510, Verslon: 1 CITY OF SEATTLE ORDINANCE COUNCIL BILL I AN ORDINANCE related to land use and zoning, amending page 52 of the Official Land Use Map, Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 23.32, to rezone property at the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center. WHEREAS, in 2005, the United States Congress authorized the closure of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center (?Fort Lawton"), and the U.S. Army published notices that the property will be available for non -military uses and ownership; and WHEREAS, the United States Army determined that Fort Lawton is surplus to the United States needs in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, and the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report, as approved; and WHEREAS, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) and U.S. Army to make ?nal decisions regarding the disposition of base property and facilities, and the requested The City of Seattle (?City?) submit the application for Fort Lawton, including the redevelopment plan and homeless assistance submission, to the and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA), solicited and received Notices of Interest for property from homeless assistance providers and ether eligible recipients of public bene?t conveyances of federally owned property; and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the LRA, prepared an application in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, and the 2005 Base Closure and CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 5 Printed on an 92019 powered by ministerm F. Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 32 of 68 Fllo 08 119510. Version: 1 . Realignment Commission Report, as approved; and WHEREAS, the application prepared by the City (?2008 Plan?), which included a redevelopment plan providing for mixed-income housing and parks space, was approved by the City Council in 2008, and in 2010 HUD determined the application complies with the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, as amended, and its implementing regulations found at 24 CFR Part 586; and WHEREAS, opponents of the 2008 Plan sued the City, and in 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld a Superior . Court decision on the lawsuit, which argued that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required prior to City Council adaption of redevelopment plan legislation; and WHEREAS, implementation of the 2008 Plan was also stalled by the Great Recession, which diminished its ?nancial viability, the market-rate housing component in particular; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City began working with the US. Army to plan for interim uses and in 2017 entered i into a ?ve-year lease of Fort Lawton; and WHEREAS, in 2017, public outreach and comment for'a modi?ed redevelopment proposal for Fort Lawton began, and in 2018, the City published the Fort Lawton Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), . which analyzes probable adverse environmental impacts associated with the modi?ed plan; and i WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner decided in favor of the City on an appeal of the adequacy of the and WHEREAS, the ?nal Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan and Homeless Assistance Submission re?ects years of collaboration between the City and its partners, Catholic Housing Services of Western Washington, 3 United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, and Habitat for Humanity of Seattle/King County, and involved substantial public outreach and comment; and WHEREAS, the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan balances Seattle?s critical need for affordable housing for households with low incomes and permanent housing for persons experiencing homelessness with the climate and livability bene?ts of parks and open space, by providing 85 units of supportive housing for - SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 of 5 Printed on 611912019 powered by Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 33 of 68 File CB 119510. Version: 1 seniors, up to 100 affordable rental housing units for households with incomes up to 60 percent of area median income, up to 52 affordable homes for purchase by families with incomes up to 80 percent of area median income, and increased parks and recreation space adjacent to Seattle?s 534-acre Discovery Park; and WHEREAS, the Fort Lawton Homeless Assistance Submission includes information about homelessness in Seattle; notices of interest proposing assistance to persons and families experiencing homelessness; a legally binding agreement for Fort Lawton property to be used to provide homeless housing; an assessment of the balance with economic and other development needs; a description of outreach taken by the City, including a list of the representatives of people experiencing homelessness who were contacted during the outreach process; and an overview of the citizen participation process, including .- comments received from at least one public hearing held before submitting the LRA application to and WHEREAS, the City will continue to work with Metro to make transit service improvements in the Fort Lawton/Magnolia neighborhood; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2019, Mayor Jenny Durkan announced that she will transmit the redevelopment plan for Fort Lawton to City Council, stating that ?As we continue to address Seattle?s housing and affordability crisis, this plan builds on our commitment to drive the development of hundreds of more affordable homes while ensuring that our neighborhoods can be vibrant, livable spaces for this generation and the next?; and WHEREAS, the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan includes robust, effective af?rmative marketing of housing at Fort Lawton to increase housing choices for protected classes in a high-opportunity neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan and Homeless Assistance Submission and held a Public Hearing to receive public comment; and SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 5 Printed on 611 9/2019 by Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 34 of 68 File 11: on 119510. Version: 1 WHEREAS, City staff prepared a rezone analysis and ?nal recommendation; and WHEREAS, the property?s land use designation is Multifamily Residential Area on the City?s Future Land Use Map as envisioned in the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Of?cial Land Use Map, Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code, is amended to rezone property on page 52 of the Official Land Use Map, as shown on Exhibit A attached to this ordinance. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days a?er its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020. :5 Passed by the City Council the day of 2019, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this day of 2019. President of the City Council Approved by me this day of 2019. Jenny A. Durkan, Mayor Filed by me this day of 2019. SEATILE CITY COUNCIL Page 4 of 5 Printed on 811912019 powered by Legistu'? Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 35 of 68 Fllo CB 119510. Version: 1 Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk (Seal) Attachments: Exhibit A - Proposed Rezone i i SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 of 5 Printed on 611912019 pomrod by Looms" Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 36 of 68 SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL stilt? File CB 119535. 1 Legislation Text CITY OF SEATTLE ORDINANCE COUNCIL BILL AN ORDINANCE relating to the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan Application; authorizing a Memorandum of Agreement setting forth the terms of collaboration between The City of Seattle and Seattle School District No. in the redevelopment of the former Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center. WHEREAS, in 2005, the United States Congress authorized the closure of the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center (?Fort Lawton?), and the U.S. Army published notices that the property will be available for non -military uses and ownership; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Army determined that Fort Lawton is surplus to the United States? needs in accordance . with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, and the 2005 Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report, as approved; and 3 WHEREAS, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) and U.S. Army to make ?nal decisions regarding the disposition of base property and facilities, and the - requested The City of Seattle (?City?) submit the application for Fort Lawton, including the r, redevelopment plan and homeless assistance submission, to the and U.S. Department of Housing I and Urban Development and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA), solicited and received Notices of Interest for property from homeless assistance providers and other eligible recipients of public bene?t conveyances of federally owned property; and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the LRA, prepared an application in accordance with the Defense Base Closure t. and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, and the 2005 Base Closure and SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 1 0! 5 Prhled on 6119f2019 pawarod by Legis?lar" Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 37 of 68 Flle CB 119535, Version: 1 Realignment Commission Report, as approved; and WHEREAS, the application prepared by the City (?2008 Plan"), which included a redevelopment plan providing for mixed-income housing and parks space, was approved by the City Council in 2008, and in 2010 HUD determined the application complies with the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, as amended, and its implementing regulations found at 24 CFR Part 586; and WHEREAS, opponents of the 2008 Plan sued the City, and in 2010, the Court of Appeals upheld a Superior Court decision on the lawsuit, arguing that review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required prior to City Council adoption of redevelopment plan legislation; and WHEREAS, implementation of the 2008 Plan was also stalled by the Great Recession, which diminished its ?nancial viability, the market-rate housing component in particular; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City began working with the US. Army to plan for interim uses and in 2017 entered into a five-year lease of Fort Lawton; and WHEREAS, in 2017, public outreach and comment for a modi?ed redevelopment proposal for Fort Lawton began; and WHEREAS, the City received a large volume of comments urging modi?cation of the preferred alternative to include a school and also received a petition, started through the website changeorg, requesting that the City partner with Seattle Public Schools (aka Seattle School District No. l) to develop a high school and additional park space at Fort Lawton; and WHEREAS, in response, Seattle Public Schools conducted a thorough review that addressed basic feasibility I questions and cited key challenges to siting a school at Fort Lawton including lack of immediate resources and inability to demonstrate immediate need for a school in the area; and WHEREAS, in 2018, the City published the Fort Lawton Final Environmental Impact Statement (F EIS), which analyzes probable adverse environmental impacts associated with the modified plan; and SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 2 of 5 Printed on $191201 9 powered by Legistat'? Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 38 of 68 Flle CB 119535. Version: 1 WHEREAS, in response to continued interest in Seattle Public Schools participationin redevelopment at Fort Lawton by some Magnolia residents, the City modi?ed the parks component of the preferred alternative as analyzed in the FEIS to include acquisition and development of two unlit multipurpose athletic ?elds; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner decided in favor of the City on an appeal of the adequacy of the and WHEREAS, the ?nal Fort Lawton Application re?ects years of collaboration between the City and its partners, Catholic Housing Services of Western Washington, United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, and Habitat for Humanity of SeattlelKing County, and involved substantial public outreach and comment; and WHEREAS, the Fort Lawton Application balances Seattle?s critical need for affordable housing for households 3 with low incomes and permanent housing for persons experiencing homelessness with the climate and livability bene?ts of parks and open space, by providing 85 units of supportive housing for seniors, up to 100 affordable rentalhousing units for households with incomes up to 60 percent of area median income, up to 52 affordable homes for purchase by families with incomes up to 80 percent of area median income, and increased parks and recreation space adjacent to Seattle?s 534-acre Discovery Park; . a and WHEREAS, Seattle Public Schools shares the City?s vision for a redevelopment that includes affordable housing, park, and recreational uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Fort Lawton Application, including Redevelopment Plan and Homeless Assistance Submission, and held a Public Hearing to receive public comment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Director of the Of?ce of Housing and Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, or such o?icials? designees, are authorized to execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), substantially in the form SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 3 015 Prlnied on 811912019 powered by Legislat'" Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 39 of 68 File CB 119535. Version: 1 of Attachment A to this ordinance, between The City of Seattle and Seattle School District No. 1 concerning the Application for Federal Surplus Property at Fort Lawton, which includes a Redevelopment Plan and Homeless Assistance Submission, and conveyance of parcels currently owned by the U.S. Army to The City of Seattle and partner organizations in accordance with the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days a?er its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten days a?er presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020. Passed by the City Council the day of 2019, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this day of? 2019. President of the City Council Approved by me this day of 2019. Jenny A. Durkan, Mayor Filed by me this day of 2019. j' Monica Martinez Simmons, City Clerk SEATTLE CITY Page 4 ol 5 Printed on 6119201 9 powered by Legistarn? Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 40 of 68 Flle CB 119535. Version: 1 (Seal) Attachments: Attachment A- Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan between Seattle School District No. 1 and City of Seattle SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Page 5 of 5 on mated by Leglstar" Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 41 of 68 Hiw dn King County Department of Assessments v.12 2' H-Bug-m 12%. E: - mm ?ag :w :25; 919cents-Four um mm mm Nehemiah: mum" MOI PTHI n'roocmcum'nn- 2 3 mm?? :3 (9&3 :3 ?ubx Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 42 of 68 Am sumac - IWWIMI 0rd. lurxlilv-Iulmvm] ?IE-alum I [mm] 1 Imam? llumlmm TM IOU. MYORY era 5: 145-. ?if at: Information Ger help ammo" REVIEW HOME 51.. Gel: help Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 43 of 68 LETTER 2 FOSTER chum (206)447-6407 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-1935 leebroten?foster-com January 29, 2018 Ms. Lindsay Masters Of?ce of Housing City of Seattle P.O. Box 94725 Seattle, WA 9?12?z?225 . Emaitle Re? Comments on the Dra? Environmental Impact Statement for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project issued on December 14, 2017 - Dear. Ms Masters; . This law ?rm represents the Discovery Park Community Alliance on matters related to the Seattle Office of Housing?s (?Housing's?) Fort Lawton Redevelopment proposal. This letter provides comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center Redevelopment Project 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 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 participation in the single public meeting necessitates additional public meetings to comment on the DEIS to ensure thatcomments from diverse community members are ?rlly 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 Chapter 43.2 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 bene?ts that preservation of Fort Lawton as a park would have, and ignores the 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 de?cient for the nu Third Avenue. Suite 3000. Seattle. Washington 98101-3292 tel: 206.447.4400 fax: 206.447.9700 fasteneom Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 44 of 68 January 29.12918 . Of?ce of Page 2 following reasons. Alternatives 32,: 3 and :4 are" 1101 ?reasonable alternatlves? ?requu'ed by 1 (2)1113 DEIS fails. 13 d1solose and analyze Signi?cant adverse impacts assoclated -.with the 3? 8331113 Publ1c School uses 111; ?011 Lawton, "the: DEIS _Ife'ils to evaluate qumemus 1 environmental impacis of the four alternatives, (4) 1113?} .DEIISI- fails- to address the irreconcilable con?icts between the. preferred 1 and the federai gevermnent? 3. Defense Base Ci3snre .. and Re-ahgnment Act 315? 1990 process as well 43-5 the} I't?ederIaI- government? considerations under 1113 National Enwronmental P3Ilicy Act 'cont. Eor 911 of these. reasons, DPCA is.ask1ng Housmg t9 revise the 131318 _.to fully and _t?airiy consider ItIh3 envnronmental impacts 31?; 1he.': preject before? 1sS11Iin'g' a Finai Enwronmental Impact Statement r. 1. Alternatives 5411's. not ?I?rEasonaIbie alternatives? as required by SEPA. of- SEPA beeagse it fails to.pt?p3?e I . - - 'Z?Iatwe :i antiifaiisl to the 31131613111115, as 1 the decision maker, with suf?clent mformatlon to inIaIk? a' reasdned decisi311 between the four alternatives. 1 The purpose of. SEPA is. to avoid environmental degradation, to preServe, and even to enhance. envn'onmentai 91111111)!- 13y requiring the 113113113 31" local government agencies to be based on suf?cient envu'onmental information and be in accord with substantive: .2: I50 0 CI. 3'3 I'd- .5 .0- '5i 1 3 I553 'information" 10'. make 11- reasoned deols1on.? Citizens Alliance IjPIrotect Our Wetlands City bf 1 Arrival-11,126 Wn.2d 356 33211894 21113000995). Th3 process of prepanng an BIS Ian- environmental impIactis statement 13. provide the decision maker with: ?tsnf?crent is:1ntended to. assist the. agenc1es 111111 to improve their 111111111 11113 decisions, 3nd 13 encourage the resolution of potential i 4 concerns __or problems prior. to issuing a ?nal statement. An environmental impact statement' 18 m'oIIre than a disclosure d3cumen?t.. It shall be need by agency 111. conjunction with Other relevant materials IaIn'd conmderatrons to IpiaIn actions and mak'IeI decisions. WAC An adequate EIS eieariy, concisely, and impartially describes- a proposai's signi?cant impacts and environmentally preferable alternatives, including mitigation measures. WAC I197.- 400(4); The inusIt be. reliable and backed by sufficient environmentalI analysis. WAC 197,-1 The. BIS 1111131113 prepared eariy- enoqgh to inform and guide. decision makers, rather or Justify decisions. already made. WAC 1911-11-406 See B'an-Ie v. Kits-up. Cbun'ly, 93 .Wn. 2d 843, 613 P. 2d seeks to inform and guide .1 . rr' Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 45 of 68 January 29, 2018 Ms. Lindsay Masters Office of Housing Page 3 decisions' in: part through the. consideration of ?Teasonabie alternatives," which are de?ned by the I SEPA regulations as. an. action that :?cou'ld feasibly attain or. approximate a preposal?s objectives, bet at a? lower envrronmental best _or' decreased level of env1ronmental degradation Reasonable alternatives may be those over which an agency with Jurisdiction has authority to oonfrol impacts either directly, _or indirectly through requirement _bf mitigation measures. .(See WAG 1440(5) and I97-I 1-660 WAC Ifthereis information on Signi?cant adverse impacts that is essential _to _a reasoned choice among alternatives and: the sosts of obtaining such information are not exorbitant, the; .Iead agency must obtain the Information and include :it in an.env1ronmental impact statement. WAC 19-8375: -. -. a Housing states that ?[t]he O'se 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 the growing demand for ope11 space and recreational opportunities 131318 at 248. Housing selected Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative, which calls for the construction. of 238 units of high- -density a?'ordabIe- housing and limited park uses on the Fort- Lawton site. The D1318 promdes three alternatives .to- the preferred AItemative 1. none of which are ?reasonable alternatives" as required by= SEPA fat: the reasbns discussed below. Alternative 2 proposes development of: 1:13? market-rate single-family units _on the Eort 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 a??brdable housing at the Talaris site. Thus, Altematives -2 and 3 rely entirely on the feasibility. of developing 238 units of affordable housing at the Talaris site. The DBIS fails _to evaluate :_any other potential off-site location .for affordable housing besides Tataris, 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' 13 provided in order to canceptually analyze probably adverse impacts that would- be expected with; redevelopment at that site 'or other off-site locations in the; City landfoimeiiy homeless housing DEIS atip. ?13] (emphasis added). cont. Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 46 of 68 January 29, 201.8 Ms. Lindsay Masters Of?ce of Housmg Page 4 Under the DEIS. Alternatives-I; 2 and 3 do not- present -?reasoneble altemetivesj? because the're' 1s absolutely no information In the DEIS that decision melte'r to make reasoned decision as to whether the'o'tf ff-?sitc affordable housmg of; those alternanves, combined the proposed uses 91' the?. Fort ;:Lawtt1n site could feasibly 11th or approxrmate the Ieffordable housing objectives 15f Alternahve 1, but _at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of dIe WAC 197-11-786, This vital mformatlon Its not dif?oult or expensive to obtam. Housmg could 1denufy 15nd evaluate speci?c sites in Seattle in iddition to Talaris thet offer opporhuuttes for affordable Housing development to offer feasible alternatives to the proposed-I Alternative 1. Furthermore, asIre1sed 11.. our September 2017 letter, Housing' reliance on acquiring the TaIlaris site -. one of the most expenswe properties in City (last sold for $15. 6 million 1n 2000) and zoned ?555 single-famlly res1dential use for off-site affordable "hnusing as the only enamels; that would preserve Fort Lawton as 91111111151111: is inherently unreasonable. .. "1 To} to . This 'rnonthe it. was publieally announced that Quadrant Homes has agreed to buy Taleris and proposes building 63 smgle-fannly homes on large lots on the site estimated to sell for about 2 million dollars each.-I With Talaris o?'the market and no other opportunities ldent1t? ed or evaluated by Housing for affordable housmg, Alternatives 2 1111513 canooItI meet the definition of "reasonable alternatwes." Without Alternative the only alternative that would 515551115155 park space. the DEIS utterly fails to address the adverse environmental impects 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 is sunply rahonahzmg or Justifymg a decision already made by Housing to pursue 234 unlts of- affordable housing at Fort Lawton without regard for reasonable alternatives that 1155515151 avo1d the environmental degnrdatlon that Altemetivc I will cause. This is ?under: WAC 19741-406 (BIS "will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions 51151311111116"), Without- Altematives preferred Alternative I and Alternative 4 of ?no- sction" remain. SEPIA mandates that the. ?no-actron? altemative be evaluated and compared to the other altemetive's. WAC- BIS _I'rnust ?[p]resent a comparison of the environmental impacts of the reasonable and include the no action alternative. WAC An BISI that evaluates only ?a proposed Alternative and no-action site?mative- may be; deemed inadequete forI not analyzing a suf?cient range of alternatives. Town of Woodway' v. Snohomirh City, 180. WdiZd 165, 171, 322 1219 (2014) (?ngth board the county? 8 BIS was faulty because it did not consider multiple .?the only alternative it considered was no change at Daston Series Assam. v. Cent. Page! See pitched'forI-oasis-sitd. Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 47 of 68 January 29. 2018 Ms Lmdsay Masters Of?ce 'of Housing Pages Sound Growth Hearings 159 244 PI. 39 1993 (2019) (noting that the Growth Board found an? IBIS madequate because it- did not analyze suf?cient ?range of alternanves) l?Ahuu-n-o Alternatlve 4; is, "not a reasonable alternatwe to the proposed Alternahve I1Ibeeause it IdeIes .. not attain. any cf the obJeetIVes 9f the proposal WAC 19741-786 (1'1 reasonable alternatwe 1s ?an. action that .epuld attain er: approx1mate a proposal?s objectlves"), Friends of 1 United Methodist Church 11.50151 of Seattle, 130 W11. App :1031 (2003) (decision not reported 111 P.3d) (alternative was, not reasonable because its :diI{1_' not attain the. Iprojeet,-, Under . Alternative Fort Lawton would remain in its existmg condmon, not. sewing any publie- open space. recreational of housing purposes and; therefore, not ?d?lling any of the objectives of 1 Housing! Fort Lawton Reserve Center Redevelopment Project. Beeau'sez Alternatives 2, 3 and. 4 are not reasonable altematives,I as de?ned under the .SEPA ?les?! see; Alternahve .15- :the- onll"- real.- alternative left in the DEIS .__With - .11.- cont. Alternative, l-standmg alone with unreasonable alt?rnative' :to' cempare?its environmental impacts against, the. DEIS accomplishes nothing more than: rubber-stamping approval of Housing? prepesed Alternatrve This? is inadequate under SEPA. See WAC 19] 1406. See Ban-1e v. Klisap Counpr,I 93 W11. 2d 843, 613 2d. 1148 (1980)?. The entire purpose of" an 1318' 15 to provide . reasonable alternatives of 'a reasonable number and range to proVid'e essential infonna't'ion on adverse envnonmenta] impacts that allows for a' reasoned choice Iarnong alternatives. Weyerhqmer Prerce Cpg., 124 ?Wu 2d 29; 419873 P.2d 498 (1994) (?f?l?here must be a 1 reasenIabiy. detailed analysis 9'1" 11- reasonable number and. range of alternatives. 'The 13513 for the Fort Lawton Reserve Center Redevelopment Prejeet fails to meet this standard because it offers only 911e, feas1ble alternahve' preferred Alternatwe Contrary to SEPA, the DEIS l'eaVes :1 no opportumty a reasoned eheiee among other attematives that could '-be feasibly attained or approximate the prOJect?s objectives. Housmg revise the DIEIISI- to offer and evaluate ?reasonable alternatives that would mungate adverse effeets of proposed actions on the env1ronment as required by SEPAI. WAC The alternatives should include at least one off-site alternative that could feasibly attain 9'1" approxrmate the gesls ef- the. project. See WAC 197-11- To have ?lly. evaluated the unpaets to the environment, the DEIS should include at least one reasonable alternative that preserves 111. of. Bert Lawton as public park space. If preservation, of Fert Lawton as Ia 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. -10 511 . Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 48 of 68 January 29, 2018; Ms. Lindsay Masters Office of Housing Page 6 2.. The DEIS fails Ito disclose and an alyzeI probable signi?cant adverse impacts associated with Seattle Public School uses at Fort Lawton. . On November 20, 2017 the C1ty of? Seattle and Seattle Public Schools entered I into 11 Partnersth Agreement: whereby the C1ty and SPS agreed to _a collaborabve partnershIp to ?jointly achieve unique opportunrtles for developmg facilities,- including in the Fort Lawton Redevelopment Plan,? The detatled agreement includes provmons for a joint development agreement, and ?nanc1al comm1tments and mobility planning. While the agreement sets forth plans to utilize -_aI portion of,tl1__eI_I. Fort Lawton property for Ia range of school-relatedIusIes,tl1e DEIS states that the env1ronmental impacts of. such a parhtership would be evaluated at- a later date DEIS at p. 2-8. This. position is untenable under SEPA. SEPA requires that a proposal Idennfy all the related and mterdependent pieces of the proposal Actions. are: mlated? if: they are. dependent on: each eother. In this case, SEPA dictates that Alternahve I. and the. proposal must be constdered together as one proposal' 1n the same 12 SEPA requires agencies to disclose the reasonably foreseeable impacts of its proposals The disclosure of impacts- related to SP8 uses is governed by WAC. 197-11?080, which necessitates add1honal d1sclosure or a' worst case analysis be advanced, concerning the impacts of; SPS uses at 'Fort Landon. 3. The DEIS fails to evaluate numerous Significant, adverse environmental impacts of each of the proposed altern atives. In addition to. the failure of the DEIS to provide reasonable altematives to preferred Alternative 1.1.3? described in Section 1 above, the ts inadequate' to its analysis of numerous adverse envu'onmental impacts of each- of the alternatives. Without Suf?cient analysis, it is impossiblet for a decision maker 'to' make a reasoned decision on the proposal. The de?ciencies of the 1n its analyse or adverse. envnonmental impacts are summarized below. Revision of the DEIS before the 1's reguired to' address each of these de?ciencies. a. Land Ute The DBIIS does not. adequately address;- the. land use issues accompanying its preferred Alternative 1, or Alternattves 2 Io'n3 As the City achowledges, the Fort Lawton property is - currently zoned SingleFarmly 7200,. surrounded by areas zbned 7200 and SF 5,000 with '3 minimal Iowrise 3 JINCI and NC2- to the southeast. Even if the City rezones the: Fort Lawton area away dom s1ngle-fam1ly, siich' a rezone would remain inconsistent with the rezone factors' 1n :1 the Land Use}: Code and out against: many of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Development' 1n the Fort Lawton area of high-density housing will have iIreVersible negative 3 The egreement is t1tled. ?Seattle Public 'Sch00ls and _City of Seattle Public Process Partnership Agreement: School District Facilities! Fort- Lawton, Memorial Stadium, and Seattle Center," Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 49 of 68 January-2951291182 Office of?busing Page 7 thegrowth murban ?e?fers an?d'urban villages ?envisibned by-Ein the 63116131313 state; 12*? 'zor?ri?g to. wa?se tea-idem, 'zOnihgfengLR 3) sat-'21" [slqipelieyied to'refe'r emu-waves 2- and-3] onulgtg-equirethat aportiohof SF ammdm?tvoalsielsosbyrequired.- . A 1?D'rlnnvn; L, x, p?i?di/iSiOfiS bit-he SWIG-2334. states:- whish the 9t criteria for the.?pe?i?e?20ne2?natch the chara?teri'stics of the'area to. be rezonedb'etter than-any other'lzone? designation. Speci?eaily,?1eCode states that an area zoned ?singie?'familymay not berezorred to multifamily: than siqgierfarnily?is not appropriate zonedarea does not meet the criterie The. :rszone criteria; 9. gradual,- tltepsition betwcen zoning; categories is preferred. The City's preposal 'to, alter the zoning ,of the Fort [emensite is net policy of gre?ggi, mjtip'ql gag evideneerj?by tire-City's; Figure 3.6-3; a and Magriolia area. Wbuldrbe required for both sites,u_nder Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, ?h??hg l, and City Counq'. such n. as amendm??titoi's?behapter'g? pf-SMGvas?imd 113?- fathecntem inSM02334QO8w?l were?. i Mia-rem: is "made. weq??telg?ed?msjhe ,Gode?ej?mon?e criteria. While addresses some .aepgete historic; [and 11's.: patterns' and. current zoning?itg?oee hbii?m?a? ?Woncdand weuld the Code 'Giiren-fthat nezone ?pivothl to using either Fort 'LhWton or - g14 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 50 of 68 January 29, 2018 Ma. Lindsay. Masters Of?ce of Housing 8 Talans for.- atfordable housing development, Housing _s failure to specifically address the rezone criteria in. SMC 23. 34 falls to. provide the declslon maker- with information needed to inako a reasoned decision on the proposal With respect to the Talans rule (on some other, unidenti?ed site for off-site affordable housing), the DEIS again ?lls -.to analyse the criteria for- rezoning the site from 5000 to Lownse The Tatar-1s. siiez' is surrounded by areas zoned pnmanly 5000, With. some NC2 and LR3 to. tile north 1111121111 of Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan designates ?ltnre land use 'of Taldris as. resldentlal, not Lowriso. As with the Fort. Lawton site. without any analysis of the. rezone criteria and feasibility of a rez'on'e. it is for. Housing to make a reasoned declslon anions ?5referred Alternatlve 1 and Alternatives 2 and 3. b. Recreation and. Open Space? 11111111? 0'11. _:o_pen spaco?ints snout; . . 95 . . and reclaun ark property 151} public use 3111 bene?t, and ensure continued access to 1111111111111 1951 the growrng goals of considenng ?retaining City-owned properiles that are in envn?onmentally cntical areas. as natural areas." Comprehensive Plan (P. 3 .6);id .at 70 (LU. 1.7. 26). Developing .Foi?t Lawton affordable er. market-rate housing works against the idenn?ed policy to "[e]nllanco habitat by reston'ng forests and '71: i expanding- the tree. canopy on City-owned land. Id. at 142 (P 3 The DEIS foreclosea a. park-only, altcmanve. DEIS points out that, during the scoping process requests .for- a 'pIark-Ionly alternative were turned away because such an analysis did not ?nther the City?s nuss1on as increase affordable housing within the City. 01318 at p. 2-8. However. the Comprehensive Plan states it is a policy of the city to ?[mJake the most of the linnted avallable land developing parks and open. spaces. so that they can accommodate a variety 6f; active and passive reel-canons] uses. Comprehensive Plan at 140 (P 13). The City has a unlqno;opportnn1tyih the; Fort Lawton _site. to. demonstrate its cemmitrnent to open space and recreation an all future residents The significance of open space is apparent now more than ever, as Seattle is one of the fastest-grouting cities in the country. Housing" _decis'ion 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 ofpreserving open space. Despite the fact that the. .1986 Discovery Park: Master Plan is not binding on Fort Lawt?il?,? Port Lawton, as part of the former base. is inextncably linked to Discovery Pal-kl Housing does net provide adequate analysis of how developments at the Fort Lawton site The DEIS fails address how. its. altemanves conform to the City? a Plan . either affordable housing .91; market-rate housing -- complement or impede the ?xture of i Discovery Park. Nor does the IDEIS contemplate how forfeiting open space plans at Fort Lawton 3 ?i?he City acknowledges that this 1111 stated in Megnolta Neighborhood Planning Council ofSeaitle, 155 W11. App. 305 (2010)." 11!: .1.- -w .14, 'cont 515 I16 ?17 1-1 tie 1.7 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 51 of 68 January. 29, 2018 Ms. Lindsay Masters Of?ce of Housing - Pa?eS may negatively 1mpact development DiscOVery Parit- iiself 1n the future. Such an is impo'rtant: for 1111chng the'__ future of? Discovery Parkj the '?'lture of open 'space in Seattle, and the potential for ?lture efforts to clap away. "at the park. In the .1972 Dlscovery Par-it MasterPlan, the.following?stattementwas made; In the years _to come there will he almost irresistible pressure. to carve; out areas of- .tha park' 1n :order to- prov1de sitea for. various civic structures or space far, specral act1v1tres. There will' in the future he structures arid activities without numlier for which it wi-Il be' contended, this park can? provide an "ideal srte" _at no cost. The pressures. r91 those sites: may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They musi be resisted with resoluhon, If thay are _not- the park Will he so ?agmented that it _oan _11o longer serve its central .- v-N" .1 . . au- Whrle _Fort' Lawton is not presently part of. DiscoVery Park, the spirit of- this quote resonates today Housih?g should evaluate at- least one reasonable alternative that preseaves Fort Lawton as. public park space,- which may include the provision of community services such? 1n a park setting. 5 - c. Transportation The DBIS does riot, adequately address transportation concerns relating to' traf?c, public treasih. and parking Addltional review and analysis of- these effects is important in order to provide ali accurate picture :of; how development on either site. will cause transportation-related impacts. _:The DEIS's consideratlon of adverse. impacts on ?anspoi'tation' ls de?cient in the following ways: f'Ix'li'?DEiSWiIii ?h asrs- t6: Jocahlhtersecflont, By focusing on 'a limited number of: street intersectlons, the DEIS has riot adoriuately addressed. the .scopa of the 1mpact of add1tronal cars ?on the existing over-burdened transportation mfrastructure 1n the area surroundmg Fort Lawion _The DJBIS: states that Alternative 1 would generate an .118th addltional ,2do_ vehicle hips per day goirrg- to. and from the Fort [.11me area. DBIS atf'p'. impacts 'are anticipated; at the 4 Discovery Pad:- Master Plan, Fort Plirli Plan (I 972) (emphasis 'added), available 111:. sca'ttlea gov/Documenthepartmen .pdf 5- The BRAGprocess provides iho City with. the opporturiity of pursuing' a Public Bene?t Conveyance for park use. See BRAC Manual Section C. 5 .4. 10. 31 cont. . . .. .. .. Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 52 of 68 .1: January 29.5.2918 Mar Lindsay Masters A . Of?ce of Housing, . Page 10 Part. Lawton ails continue-t9 operate. at?i'os Bfwhi'?b aanacceatablolevelofopem?on DEIS 10:19-- aboaa?faur interseetionstd evaluatef'orputposes ?fe-traf?c volume?. Dials-st 12.3.1993. Housing expects these theDBIs. _?fgit's to. the greater MasnOlia area. These War?an is already ?eamrde?eagmaw; Ave.;w.. both of which; provide 19 irreplaceable accents-591.1. hwton? ImpactSWIthmPectto Mic cradles?roadster! have notbeen federated: QMa'gnaliagiaiibiafvaslibit?? araccesa.aoinrs..rvhieh already cm?- ex?erienceeongestim.? Thefaddition ?of approximately. egognew residents, and approximately 1.2.00 egress to t?e site'for raidentsandvisitorsgfas?Well as. to the surrounding area and existing residents. Housinsisheuid expanding ?8 review. to. streetsahdl?ihtez?setftiohseve-3a?? 1: in a?cts?. the assessmentof anveih?ir?ra?iimpacts caused by pipelinepmJectsand fitti??ip?ted growthm the greater Magnum area. The DEIS states, "th'ere?iailittle. the. immediate vicinity!? DEIS at p. 3.1074; newer".- .thia assertion madman Mandatory Housing i to dwelling unit regulations on the 20 immediateivicimty 191$; undercuts goalsgof ensuring there-are suf?cient services and resources'for residents. by?eiitici?ating'therewill be little'growth from the new . devalapmanti- ?Baxo'rid. Pity. Miss?shuns?) Malia-and p?tatei?dcvelopments in the Interbay areaawiil'jyery likely ini?act transportation and'publiexservices, yet the DEIS does not account for and; .impaata-Ag?asmaah #3919893? and analysispt?ie patentiaiadverse traf?c impacts on the greater M??gnqliaegnimunityihas esteem developed. The analysis must disclose and assessitea?ona?ly forese?eableggr?oivth and density changes inthe vicinity of the proposal. gflitisg??tser?a'iartsfu A . .-.. tag discuss the ini?actsibftraf?c the Talaris site. It concludes thetdeveloprnent "at Taind?'weuldonly less than One second delay at two noti?bnsidera Sigri?cant irnpact, However, two intersections near-Talarawiu operateat LOSIB and B. (which constitute'tiieworst ratings and indiaate Poortraf?ooam?omm?a madam). additianal informaticn describing how the i 21 City expects 'to mitigate increasesinhfe?ic?js necessary toiprovide a more adequate picture of how developmentatffatala?arail! errata: transmutation-arid? Thermals provides ho analysis anyfothei? off-site location for a??ordable'hOusing. . ati'ii'th'e?iifsif?e?; - deems ma) ?Estates/rm: Way; (2) Discovery Park Boulevard/Texas le; (3) dammrwayzats? am'w': ante Di?over'y Bark surname/34" Avenue w. a Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 53 of 68 January 29, 2018 Ms. Lindsay Masters Office of Housing Page llI the demonstrates that public will-be'1nadequate to serve ant1c1pated demand. Presently, only one. bus liiIIte services the area?the Metro Transit 33 :King County 1512: Metro' 11 Long Range P1111 does not antimpate additional bus routes: existing level of local bus service .18 planned to remain dubii'gh its' lIoIn'g' range planning year er 2040. DIEIS 'at 3. 10-5 Altemativel is expected to accommodate approxunutely I596 yew res1dents DEIS at p; 2-21 On?Ie bus line cannot adequately accommodate thiiz' 1ncrease- in demand. The aces snot adequately account for ?d1e impact ofonl one bus route on future mrdents 11nd. truf?e congestion Tbe Long Rangeflan _s identi cation of ?frequent" bus semee by 2040 does not constitute Iadeqttate censide'rati'on of transit impacts?and with full build-out at Fort Lawton expected by 2025, potential ?-eguent service by 2040 does not adequately address or. m1tlgate impacts. The DEIS lists Metro Route 24,. half _a mile away from the site, as- a bus route 'for consrderanOn However, it is unrealistic that hundreds of res1dents many of whom will be senior will be able to walk 11 halfmile'I for the .IfifejicIiIfI- Isis 1' 1111- I 5-5 lt?triI?. The DEIS cites '2010 Census asteI; the 25% of residenttal trips Magnolia occur by transit. Based on this projection, it. concludes the existing bus service would be adequate, which overlooks the reality that many senior IcitiIchn residents may not drive many residents may not own vehicles. 2111131111113 resldents may net have a driver? 5 license. The fact that 25% of residential 111 Magnoha occur by tranSit right now is. not _a transferable fact' 1n light of the proposed uses at Fort Lawton The IDBIS does. not adequately disclose and assess the impacts of moreascd transit demand as a result of the proposalro' r?an?rs- It is not realistic re} the to mcorporate bike: 'shuIre program's'as an adequate me'asiire Iof alternative means for rendents to transit 111 and out of the F011 Lawton area. As described above, many residents' Will be senior citizens who will not be able to utilize bike share programs. Furthermore, the, tapography ofa1e area, distance to resources and services, and practicality generally do not lend themselves to assuming residents of the new deveIOpme?ntI will use a bike share program. As stated" 111' the September 20:11- letter, eXpuns'ibn of bike lanes and 'routes- is not env191oned by the. Crty in the area around. ForIt Iewton. It? is unlikely that young children anti/'0? Ithsii'I parents will be able to utilize nu bike 11th program to ride to the grocery store or carry out other essential errands. Mitigation of this kind? 111 not realistic. . . 111- respect to parkmg and does not fully address them. Alternative 1. 266 parting spaces would _be pronded, with I . demand ranging If'rbm 257-294 spaces, indicating parking demands wand exceed a1iailahle IDIBISI at 3. 10-12. The DEIS concludes that no signi?cant impacts are expected as a result, citing that the parking demand from the affordable housing could be addressed through parking management strategies. DEIS at p. is no adequate disclosure or analysis of these parking management ut' .. The mformutmn 91'9?1.23 25 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 54 of 68 January 29, 2II0I8 Ms. Lindsay Masters Of?ce of Housing Page 12 strategies! and how they might truly mitigate parkmg concerns In _order to fully- understand the impacts of development 11111151 Altcmat1ve-,-1 additional disclosure ahd analysis" 191' required. Historic and citririipme'rvatie?n I The Fort Lawton property has; a' king; hishery 'of use. as a forested natural area. and a military base. Development of; housmg on- the Fort Lawton site under Alternatives I and 2 is inconsistent with both the current use 61? the site and the h1stone centext of the site; Nor' 111 it in alignment with City policres to allow ImuItifamilIy. development .on. a property that was historically public and located 111 a single-family residential area. See SMC 23. 34. 008. F. I see also Comprehensive _PIa'n 'at 66 (LU-614 aims to ?[m]aintain the city' 3 cultural identity and heritage"). The d1sclosure and; and cultural resources on bothmro ethics is 41136511911111; 111111 tests we: Landmark DEIS at p. The DEIS continually describes the hismric nature of the Fort La'wt'or'i arce,Ib11t concludes that the existing buildings lack signi?cant associations, dcingnI 'or; prominence, or do hot meet the threshold of 25 years to qualify for landmark designation However "the DEIS indieate's at Ic'est= one hall, HarIvc'y Hall could meet the criteria for. Seattle Landmark. The IiItInpacts of; designating Harvey Hall or Leisy Hall as landmarks and the Fort Lawton 'to high-density heusing' 13 not adequately studied 1n the DEIS. The DEIIS [fails to adequately address the potential impacts on the Fort Lawton Cemetery Under ?other posmble measures" of m1tigat1on the DEIS mentions the potential of retaining 3 undeveloped buffer to avoid affecting the. integrity of the Cemetery setting by the introduction of new built environment elements. DEIS at 11.39-15.11 is unclear from the DEIS h6w the introduction of hundreds of. housmg units and hundreds of new residents would impact the setting of the j-IFort Lawton Cemetery Parttcularly. under Alternative 2, market-rate housing would be built directly. across the street, seemingly tens I'o'f feet entity from. the cemetery. The effects of this action _IaIre not; adequately discussed. Additionally, the Fort Lawton Cemetery 1s eligible fer hating the National Register of. Htstonc Places. The DEIS "docs net explore how the 'edditi6n of housmg at Fort .Lawhon'. afferdable or mar'kehrate. would impact the Cemetery as a historic piece of- the greater Fort L'a'wton' area. Taiaris was already dcs1gnated as an historic landmark by the City of Seattle 1n 2013, and is eligible for hsting in the' National Register for' Historic Places. DEIS at p. 3. 9-8. The DEIS points out that. attentions to the exisnng Istte would be inconsistent with the siting and design of existing buildings and the surrounding nelghborhood. DEIS at p.13 9.213. Taking into account the fact that Certi?cates 6f Apps-111111911111 need to be obtained for alterations to the site, these impacts connibute to the unreasonablcness of Tal'aris as an alternative siteuse renting.? Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 55 of 68 January 29 2018 Ms Lmdsay Masters Of?ce of Houslng Page 13 e. Blol'ogl?al?Resou recs, T116, DEIS n9t- adequately dISclose and analyze probable s1gn1?cant 9dv6r'se impacts 6n 'w_ildlife,E and w1ldl1t?e hab1tat. Th'e DEIS acknowledges -p__er1'nanen_t displacemgent of_ 961tain 1 wildlif9 _?fleso tolerant of urban uses" ,may ocgur, but, st91es that past: military "of Fort Lawton 3 30 and conference center uses 91 Talans _ni9'y' 9ls'o h9v6,1rnpacted these species} a' 3 prospective, not 61' ,.how the- proposal will impact biological resources, including-_- wildlif?. In 6111691! to. make: a- reasoned.- choice a1116ng. 31112111111119. there must be a sufficient disclosure of biolog1cal resources2 such 9s, wetlands and _a comprehenswe assessment 611116111 the proposal 111611111 impact those resources The DEIS summarily c6n'cludes. that" wetland or stream 1611111193 rn9y 69 present However concludes! ?add1tional stu'c'lies would be 116_e,_ded to i' documeht'Wetlands andlor streams and then? required buff6rs" 111' the north portion of the site. DEIS 2.-2.. iSuc'h' mformation shouldbe 96135, (31 to 1116 6316111 resources Relying 611 ?prelinunarjr gite pli'm's?: the' DEIS 66116111665 n6' direct impactsto known wetlands will 666111. Y6t-. it= acknowledges that the boundaries and classi?cations of the wetlands would need DEIS at '3 .2-8. The treatment 61? w?na?d 9nd s1rn11ar biological resources is madequate on its face. The DEIS. .fails t6 disclose and adequately- address adyerse impacts, .on. wildlife at both F611 Lemon and- Tulane T991333 grates that Great, 3196,1169)? have, beep fouhd on or- near the site in the past, 61,166,669, 1'1'6t_descr1be h6w development at, Fort Lawton might impact Great Blue Heron' 1'11 the, ?1ture Also the, DEIS descnbes that- site plans would avoid directly' Impacting 32 a Bald Eagle- nest 1196,;- and surrounding 9166s,- but. bases its. conclusion 611 ?preliminary site plans" o'nly'. SEPA requires that additional ihfoinmt'ion be obtained and disclosed with respect to probable signi?ciint; adverse. impacts to both' Ii?te'd and de-IiSted species, including the Bald Eagle. The for permanent of; species during} 911,11 91,161: construction is 'not adequately d1scussed nor 13.1119: potenhal fori d1srupt10n during 61666199869866. Fort Lawton' ls adjacent to.- over; 1500' a_c'res_ 6f open park space that, serves as wildlife habitat. The DEIS must address potenhal adverse impacts-16 midlife 'a'nd wildlife 1115115119 at the Fort, Lawton site in relation to D1scovery Park. This "-Fbrt Lawton, property presents, a rare,- opportunity to restore wildlife habitat 11,1111 prov1de contiguous wildlife habitat within 'Se'91tle. See Comprehensive Plan at 68 (Lil l7. 2, 1'7, 20 Aim t6 picmOte and protect contiguous wildlife-habitat areas). Earth The 131319911316 adequately dmclose th?e' potenttal for landslides as a function of existing} steep 3169611 11116: er?ition hazards at. tl'1'62F61t Laiwton site. This is a serious concern for neighboring residenhal properhes Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 56 of 68 January? 29. 2018 Ms; Lindsay Masters O?ice of Housing Page 14 The DELS. also fails its; adequately disclose and analyze the risk of. methane irrigratin?g from the neighboring land?ll onto the ?I?alaris Site It concludes that the risls' cf methane potential for adverse unpacts to human health is. cant The Talaris housing area wguld include numerous; children and elderly With potential health' 1ssues. 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 Taiaris site. g. Noise The DEIS fails to adequately address the adverse impacts Inf-- noise under all of the . .11, but staies- these are theinporary -111creases: in noise. But With? 5' i? 11E- occuriing .ov'er severat?years, Hal-age impacts Would ;be far i?r?ns temporary. The DEIS does not adequately disclose arid: 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. It. Publicsehvice's The DBIS does. not adequately disclose' the impact 9n puhlic services or the lack thereof for both sites. Specifically, the .DEIS does 1161 proVide suf?cient analysis of how on-site services will mitigate the need for a 'level of increased responsiveness on the part of local law enforcemeht. The. DEIS. contemplates that certain services will be provided on-site, including case management Services. .by Catholic: Community Servihes of Western Washington and residential eounselors. at- ll The DBIS cites to- these. services: as possible mitigation for. the?. needito utilize police serv1ce, not adequately address how these services will; ivoris to. prevent involvement by. law enforcement or serve medical needs. Any in?ux of nearly six hundred people area will require an increased local law enforcement presence. An' increase in" elderly reisidents and children will also require additional 1 medical services in close proxmiity to the site.- The DEIS also fails; to probable adverse impacts on public schools. Qvercapacity of schools is an; issue at. _bo_th sites' Lawton. Elementary school will be o'ver- . ?37 ll capacity, as. well 11?. Middle School near Talaris. While the DEIS does identify that the 5; Seattle Pu'l1lio Schpois (SPS) anticipates opening additional schools near Fort Lawton, the does not adequately address hint? and exactly When SPS "may oXercis'e- its ability to accommodate growth, including adjusting attendance area boundaries: and meeting requirements of providing' I . additional transportation services. 1 .34, cont. 35 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 57 of 68 January 29; 2018 Ms. Lindsay Masters Of?ine of Housing Page 15 i1. AestheticsIVlsual Resourees The DEIS does not adequately disclose and analyze. the amount of localized. light spillage to areas adjacent t6: the Fort Benton or Tetans sites: Additionally, is prevailed in _?EheI'? UIEIS Appendix (By-abut siich docu? 9111 does 110E nadeqpat?y, describe the effects of shadows '?'hrn both sites onto- surrounding areas in a way that? is understandable and accessible. is d1f?cult;E9 discern: from the documentation the effects of incrensed. shadows from new. development under Alternatives and 2 Fort- Lawton on neighboring areas to the North atid East Furthermore. shadow documentation is not provided for: the. Talaris siEe __where site- plans?showing housmg built up ._t9 EheI property line (Figure 201t)?would likely reenlt" 1n hnpaets' to' neighboring areas With respect E0 shadows Such a design' is a dramatic; change from the present con?guration of the she; and the impacts on neighho?n'g areas to the Talaris site are not adequately disclosed add analyzed . I - .. .- The DBIS. disclosure iinEl analyms of housing impacts :is inadequate. The DBIS states 1 that' no signi?cant housing impacts are expected to result from any. of the redev??lbpnient alternatives, in; spite 9f the. fast that Over" 209 housing unltS-Wlu be added to the Fort Lawton andlor Talaris sites under Alternatives ninth includes an area that has historically never hosted housing (Pint Lawton) or hosted housing on: the scale it:' is projected to host (Talaris). The DEIS tails adequately describe h9w high-dens1ty residential development at Port Lawton makes sense based 911 its nee :Iof designation as part of an Urban Center or Urban Village. Such :cuEs against the City? 13 goal to grow in designated Urban Centers. or Urban Villages. Seattle .sI Comprehensive Pinn has 'Igoals _of accommodating ?a majority of: the City.? expected household growth: in; when centers _aj'ne urban villages" and ?a substantial portion of the city? growth' in 11nd; reSidential _Iui'ba'i'i Villages See' Comprehensive Plan at 28,32 (GS 02 and GS 2 also id.- 'at 42 (LU GI aiina to ?[aJchieve a development. pattern consistent with the urban yilisge strategy?) While- the tires designated for mulIti-farhily residential uses in the Seattle 2035 Comprehenswe Plan; implementation of Alternative 1 remains inconsistent with the City?s Urban Center and Urban Village Sh'ateg'ya 4-. The City. has ?failed'tofolloiv requirements under federal-law. a. The City has-failed?to follbw BRAC procedures. The City?- 3 DEIIS is predicated on contracting with both Catholic community Services and Habitat for Humanity as service provident- and housing construction and 38 management parsiers._ Howeven this assemblage of housing partners is not what the original Notice of Intent contemplated 111 2007-.- The Preferred- A-ltemativ'e is also a different project in con?guration, pregramming and '0v'erall scope. 1?5 1 u. 40 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 58 of 68 January 29, 2018 Ms. nudity Masters Office of. HOusing Page 16 I In 2006-2007 55. organizations submitted proposals -as part of the N01 procem-I. IBRAC procedure affords all orgamzauona a: fair opportunity to? submit proposals and have them evaluated on equal footlng. Today, the Seattle Housmg Authority is no..__lor1gIIeIr the master developer at Fort Lawton. Instead, HH has- expanded its- role as the lead housing partner at Fart Lawton. Of?ce of Housmg has Simply 1gnored BRAC procedure and' is now embracing a different maste'r- developer and? a different housing proposal altogether. BRAC procedure warrants that we N01 process be re?opened to competitive bidding and prov1ders who are; players and entrants in the homeless? and lbw-income housing ?elds to participate hi the process. b. The City.cannot incorporate and reasonably rely upon the previous NEPA Assessment for ISEIPA purposes. I40, cont. I .- .--r?nmenta1 Assessment?t .. Finding of No Signi?cant Impact may no. longer be relied upon by. the. City. HUD, the Department of- the Interior or the Corps because, they are based on a dl??erentI project than what 1s now proposed among-I the BIIS Alternatives The FONSI relied upon an earlier Traditional Disposal and Reuse Alternative The oetober= 18,- 52012 FONSII was based on a smaller amount of total housmg units (216) and a completely. different range and size of housing types. Thus, the EA and FONSI were based on an analysis of different envirohmental impacts. I The TDRA antio1pated demolition of all existing structures, and the construction of 125 market-rate units ranging horn smaller to; large .rnaIrlIce't rIaIte single-family homes, 85 homeless units and GI low-mcome townhomes In eontrast, none of the DEIS AltematiVes mirror that proppsal.Altemat1ve I1 contemplates more; housing units than that studied by the- Corps (238 r? Altematwei 2 and Mike lhte 238 housln?galmts offalte An the nuriilier of total ul?dts to be liter ?range .in footprint or sfi'r're IiIof those struetitres', and their associated environmentaI impacts is. a fundamental 'ehangeII' 1n a proposal that requires that any pre-exrsting env1ronmentsl For these reasons, the City cannot incorporate and reasonably rely upon the; _preyious NEIPA Environmental Assessment. See WAC 197,-11- 63,5; ;'Ihe ._Gity acknowledged this faetg' 1n the IIby. stating,_I? .updated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review . -. will be required. DEIS at IV. The Corpsoannot.relyonthe.DEIS as currently con?gured Under NEPA, the Military Departments must identify and consider the proposed action and reasonable alternatives and ?their respective environmental-3 napacts. Not only does the City acknowledge 1n the} that pnor reyiew ._iIs madequate, to the extent that-i the Corps intends to rely on the City?sII ?awed SEPA alternativIes analysis in support of a new FONSI or that analysis is flawed for the; reasons. stated above. Accordingly, the City?s 3.55 ?nd: I 41 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 59 of 68 January 29, 2018 Ms. Lindsay Masters Of?ce of Housing Page 17 Redevelopment Plan cannot be given substantial deference under BRAC regulations and federal law. 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 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. PLLC . .. deseph A. Brogan co: DPCA Enclosure: Attachment A - September 2017 Letter E42, i cont. 43 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 60 of 68 ATTACHMENT A Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 61 of 68 :0 1 ea rises: .. telnet. (296) 442-6501 Direct WI (206) 740-1935 loo. 11911110151111. eom Ms. Lindsay: Masters Of?ce of Housing City of Seattle. P. 0. Box 94725, Seattle, WA 9812444725 Re: Discovery Park Community Alliance Comments on the Fort Lawton Dear Ms. Masters:? This 19w. ?rm. represents the. Discovery Park Commumty Allianee. on matters related to the Seatile erase o'f Housmg ?1 ("Housing Fort Lawton RedeVelopment proposal. is a growing association of oven-.100 residents from the Magnolia neighborhood and from the. city. of. Seattle at large who are dedicated to ensuring that the Fort Lawton Army Reserve Center property 13- annexed to Discovery Park. This. letter: addresses ,?th'e followmg reasons for supporting the expansion .of Discovery Part1.tit1eugh the federal government? Defense Base. Closure and Realignment Act of 19.90 process, (2) Legal impediments te the City of Seattle C?City??) and Housing? 3 plans to rezone and redevelop the. ELARC property, Legal de?ciencies' 1n Housing? 3 proposed anuonmental Impact Statement Alternatives; and (4) Legal and procedural irregularities concerning the City's actions, past and present. The members of DPCA suicerely believe that .the- BRAC process presents a rare and unique opportunity to' make a reasoned shame about the legacy one ofthe City? 8 most treasured public Spaces, Discovery Park; The Clty s. long-range master plan for Part Lawton calls for the park. .to be a place 61'. quiet and tranqtuhty .It is a. sahctila'ry for wildlife, and an outdoor classroom for generations of Seattle? citizens to. learn about the natural world. 44 The City? Comprehensive Plan ipcllides'. a .ge'ai? of provrding one acre p?f ?breathing room? open lapace. fer eyery 100. residents in. Seattle The City has=cont1nued to acquire select open spaces to meet the derri'ands effutin'e population growth. arid to preserve. 'wooded hillsides, . 'rla. 11944741001111?th 117111 int sum: ?1er! [Jr-111'- \Sl?lihNti -1 '1'11-1 ?Ml- .it'l?all?aiil? 51'1? Illill'alslekxnm ?611!" I Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 62 of 68 Ms. Lindsay Masters Sept__ombe1' 27., .2017 Page 2 creek, comdors and other midlife habitat. As recently as June, 2017, Hdo'sihg presented data" 1n of demonstrated need _Ihe City estimates 11111! Seattle .1: population will increase by 120 000 now residents o'v'e'r. ihe ne?x't 18"" years. Parks _'and Recreation (SPR) 12111111121119 continue to acquire parkland in. order to maintain the desired citywide level of service Of?co'of Homing Mootrng?, 11111: 19,: 2017.. As the designated Local Redevel Ement Authonty the City has the opportunity to make a substantlal mvostment 1n plann for adequate parkland for. pram; and ?rtu're generations The FLARC facil1t1es are immedralely adj agent to. Park, and present a. logical and ideal extension 61" p11blic p'_ark 'p'rdper'ty. No o111e1' BIS alternative meets 1his stat?d need1.11.. .: 21.. .- . . aim to protoctLa'nd'improyeupjon areas, _1nolud1ng: a" ?Mal;e_ the haunted avarlablo land by developing parks and. open spaces. so that they can accommodate a variety. or 1111th6 and passive recreadtma'l' rises. Comprehensive Plan at 1'40 (P 113). a" ?Enhance wildlife habitat by' restoring forests and oxpandmg the tree canopy; on City- owned lap _ld. at 142 (P: 3 The Fort: Law10n' property includos. Envi'rdnino'ntally Critical 'Areas for-1111011; habitat, among other ECAs. Areas to the. north, west, and sooth of the. property are. doverod in' 11an tree' canopy coverage. The Fort Lawton property presents 'a rare opportumty 1n. the. City to. restore Wildlife habitat and expand tree canopy coverage See Comprehenswe Plan 111111 _to. promote and protect contiguous wddlife-habrtat areas). This opportunity. would be lost if. the City were to develop the FLARC property with market rate .or low-income. housing. ?Preserve and racism park, property for. public. use and bene?t, and ensure condoned access .1d'pa1'kland for 1116 growing populanon.? 111'. (P. .3 6). ?Consider- rotaming' Ctty-owned properties that are in environmentally critical areas as natural area's." [it 111'- 70 17.; 26) The Fort Lawton property has a long lustory of use as a forested natural area and a military base. It is moonsistent _not only wath 111d current use of- the area but: also the unique, historic context of the site. to suddenly allow mulhfamlly development: on a property that was historically public and _lodated 111 11 511131119 family residential area.- See 23 008' F. 1 see also Comprehirisive Plan ?11.66 014 aims to ?[m]ain1ain the city's cultural identity and heritage? 44, cont. Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 63 of 68 Ms. Lindsay. Masters . September 27-. 2017 Page 3 BRAC procedure an avenue by Which the: LRA. can pursue Public Bene?t Conveyance. for park purposes BRAC Manual at 1C5: (200.6). with - BRAC procedure, Housmg should have pursued this sponsorship with the Nationai Park Service i 44, for. the entire. FLARCiproperty prior: completing the 2008. Redevelopment Plan 2? However. since the State Court Tot?- Appeals rendered ti1e2008II Plan ?void sod i cont.? without effect, the City has at: opportumty to enge'ge onbe again with the Housing and f. Urban Deve10pment and the Deportateot of Defense to pursue 9. PEG for the i entire FLARC property. II. The FLARC property is currently zoned Single-Family 7200. The surrounding areas are zoned Single-Family 7200 or SF 5000 The property is surrounded ?by, single-family residences neighborhood and Discovery Park to rezone'the Fort Lawton property for the mulfam?y, low- rlse development, as proposed in Alternative 2. When3conslder1ng any rezone, the. City Council must weigh and balance the provisiOns of Chapter 23. 34 23.3.4 99.7 IA.: I?.The most appropriate zone desrgnatlon shall _be that for which the provisions for designation of the. zone typo and the Ilobationa'l criteria for the speci?c zone match the. characteristics of the area. to be rezoned bctter than any other zone designation." SMC. 23. 34. 008. "An IereaI zoned smgle-famiiy?that meets ._the criteria of Section 23. 34. 01] for single 45 family designation may.__ not be rezoned to multifam?y,? SMC 23. 34.013 (emphasis added). 1 Additionally, smgle-fanuly zoned. areas ?rosy be; mapped to zone: more intense than Single- family 5000 only 11? the City Councti that the area does not meet the criteria for single-family designation.? SMC 23. 34.? 010. A. 1 . The Fort Lawton property meets. the criteria for single-family zoning as it is surrounded enurely by angle-family residential and park uses Any. rezone of the property as would be necessary to. carry out proposed AIternative 2 Would violate SMC 23. 34.01 -3 and SMC 23.34. 0101A. Even if- the City. could rezone the Fort Lawton property. for multifamily use, it would be inconsistent with the rezone factors set forth in the Land Use Code and the goals and policies of 1 Except as otherwise prpvide'd Section 23. 34. 010,13; which "does not apply because the Fort Lawton property is not located in an urbai': Vill'ake. 2 Except as provided in 'or. of Section _23 $4.010, Which _wouid. not 'apply to 4 proposed rezone of the Fort Lawton property because it is riot [bested in an limit village or the Overlay District.? 1111:1141 Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 64 of 68 Ms. Lindsay. Masters September 27-, 2017 Page 4 the Comprehensive P_Ian.. The Code requires the negative and positive impacts of . evcry proposed rezone SMC 23 008. Allowing lugh-dens1ty development on _thc I i Fort Lawton, property would impacts and undermine tho Comprehensrve PIan' 3 I goals of planmng development around urban centers and urban vtllages, adequate transit, providing for recreational opportunities and protectmg the raw environment, and protecting the historic character of the area. .1 Fort Lawton not located In an, urban center. or urban Village. To the concern the, property' 1s, extremely removed from any urban centers or v1llages, separated from Ballard and the Downtown __by the Ballard-Interbay manufacturmg Industrial center. Allowing multifamily I development" 111 s- zone outside of an urban center or urban village con?icts with the City? Comprehenswe Plan? 5 goals of accommodating "a majority of the city?s expected household growth' 1n urban centers and urban vintages? and substantial portion of the cin? a growth' hub and residential urban Villages SEE Comprehensive Plan see also Id- at 42 (LU. (3I aims to ?[a]ch1cve a development pattern consistent with the cont urban vili'age strategy?) . .i - ., .L The IIort, Lawton property Is. serV1ced by. only one bus- route that runs exclusiver Ii?om Discovery Park to the Downtown No priority corridors for transit investment are anticipated near the property by the Comprehensive Plan. See Comprehensive Plan at 19 (Transportation Figure 4). Nor does. it appear that the City has any. plan to immanent or enhance bicycle access to the property: Without adequate access public transportation, it will, _not be feasible for residents to access basic services, including Various forms of pub! to assistance and. medical care, without a car. Additionally, the streets surrounding the Fort Lawton property are currently quiet, residential streets wuhout sidewalks. The. Comprehenswe Plan treats areas around the Fort Lawton property as low to moderately-low priority for. pedestnan investments by the City, leaving the area lackingboth the transrt and, pedestrian Infrastructure necessary to effectively 5 serve multifaniily residents.- SEE id. at _82 (Transportation Figure 7). The Proposed BIS Alternatives appear designed to lead inexorably to a single 46 conclusion?Altemative 2, and the agency record supports this conclusion. As an imtiai- hunter, SBPA review cannot proceed wighout a ?clearly de?ned proposal, and nothing the City has, circulated dius far- de?nes the ?proposal. SBPA de?nes ?preposal? as ?proposed action WAC 197-1 12784, and none of the documents circulated at the recent scoping- meetings deecnbes the. proposed action. As a result, the purported alternatives cover vastly disparate government actions that do not provide any meaningful understanding of the environmental impacts of what the, _City proposes to do. 47 Under SBPA, a ?reasonable alternative,? is an action ?that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal?s obJectives, but, at a, low environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.? WAC 191-1 Without _a clearly defined ?proposal, the public cannot ascertain the ?proposal?s 'objectiv?s,? and no set of project objectives could be met if 5?an I: Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 65 of 68 Ms. Lindsay Masters SepteiInber 27, 2017 Page 5 by the three action alternatives ldenh?ed tn the scoping notice: The proposed alternatives read more like In v1slon1ng eneroise that seeks the public?s input into the substantive decis1on the City 47! should make, rather then an earnest attempt to identify ways to achieve a- singular goal at the cunt. lowest envrronmental 66st. The Only common thread between the three action. alternatives is the provrston of' reasonable alternahve," the City must some hope of- acqumng control of the. alternative site. Yet. the. City? a materials suggest affordable housing could be developed at the Tatar-is site without any showrng that the City can compete on the open market for such prime real estate, 'or condemn it upon payment of IfaIir market value. Neither has the City demonstrated the political will required to. develop Talans into Ilow- or rte-income housing. By way of example, the BIS wohld be or; less informed by a. study of; the unpaets. building homeless and a?ordable: 1191151ng in the middle of Port of Seattle Termmai it is unlikely the City will acouire the Talaris property eyen assuming the. City has the authorityI to condemn it. ?thh'i II that such deveIOpment 111' each alternative 1s. related to the proposal?s objective of prov1d1ng 49 affordable housmg Alternative 2 -the one that Council selected? _1n 2008 and that the Of?ce of Housing clearly prefers?develops Fort Lawton as a mix of single,- and multi-family affordable housing. with accompanying park space. Alternative. 3, Market Rate Housing, as. presented,__ is confusing. The Of?ce of Housing has no authority to develop market-rate housmg, soII it could not, for example, build and sell market-rate, smgle-famdy housing at Fort Lawton as a revenue stream to fund affordable housing elsewherer Perhaps the idea. 18 to turn the City into a real estate speculator, acquiring Fort Lawton at no cost in exchange for a promise to build a??ordable housing elsewhere, then selling it undeveloped on the open market to pay for the affordable housing. Otherwise, the 50 alternative requires the City-I to stand aside while the Anny sells Fort Lawton to private developers. As such; it' re ho diMnt from the no-action alternative, and it? 111 no longer clear whether it' is at all related to development of affordable housing offsite. Alternative 4 has even less 61?s Ilink than Alternative 3 between acquisition of Fort Lawton and the development of affordable housing offsite. Alternative 4 would require the City to develop Fort Lawns into park space and acquire lah?d elsewhere to develop as affordable housing. Particularly siI'nce the. voter approved creation of the Seattle; Parks District with its ?Fix 51 it First" mission, it' 18 net obvious that the City has the ability to ?nd develIo ment of- a new park and the ability to. acquire an alternative site?presumably Talarls?for deve opment as affordable housing. If the, Cityf .3 selection of. alternattves leadsI to confusion, at least the reason for selecting I those. alternatIVes 11;. clear 1116 (mice. 61? Housing is an3_ eye; a decision the City Couneil l. made no later- than ?2608 to bole; an redrawn housing project at Fort Lawton. But _a lead 5 52 agency can?n'ot? bias its analysis to make its favorite altematiVe appear to be the only viable 11mm? Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 66 of 68 Ms. Lindsay Masters. September 21,2011. Page 6 alternative SEPA may allow the City a preferred alternative, but it also reqmres an earnest study El 52? of?heasonable alternatives The City? 3 Efforts thus far.- have. not begun to meet this requirement. . cont. The City should acqmre =Fort Lawton and either- develop it as a part; or limit it as future park space. We understand that the BRAC allows the City to acquire the land. at no cost for 53 development_ meeting a publrc purpose, and expans10n of- Discovery Park. is a public goal that the 1 City should? pursue. 1 The City? a proposed Altemahve _4 corn?s. closest 'to the DECA's preferred use for the FLARC, development of the petite site. as a public park The objectionable component is that the proposal ts inextncably linked to construction of homeless and affordable housing at an ctr-site 5 location, the Talaris Conference Center Housmg acknowledges that __the site would need __to _be 54 why the Ctty would seek some of the most expensWe real estate' 111 the City to provide- affordable housing Any alternative thet rehes on acquismon and construction of homeless and affordable housmg at Talans simp oes not amount- 'to a reasonable. alternative under the DPCA submits that the City should tie-link the housing component from Alternative Public Park? Qnssite, and study 1111 alternative in the. Draft BIS that' 18 strictly about the . 55 development of the entire FLARC site- as a public part, with no linkage to constructing housing at an off- site locatipn.. 1V. A fundamental tenet of envu'onmental review" rs that a lead agency provide complete disclosure of envuonmeutal comequencea of a proposal. King County-.1: Washington State Boundary Review Boardfor ?King County asti. City of Black Diamond, 122 Wn.2d 648, 663- 664, 860 P. 2d 1024 (1993) .111 Black Diamond ?1116 Washington State Supreme Court cautioned that without such. disclosure, ?the merits made by. government decistons (made without envrronmental impacts statements) may carry the project forward regardless. That lnertia' 13 present here. 1 In the Washington State Court [of Appeals held that the City failed to provide 56 complete disclosure of. the. environmental consequences of its declston to adopt- Resolution 31086 and the 2008 Fort Lawton RedeveIOpment Plan, and _the Court ordered the City to complete i SEPA review, See Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council v. City of Seattle, 155 Wn. App. 305, 316, 230 In 2008-2009 the City proceedcd .to dra? _itwo separate. leases with the Archdiocesan Housing Authority new Catholic Housing Services to implement Alternative =1 3 2. CH3 is now the- lead developer for housing both homeless individuals and. families at Fort . I Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 67 of 68 Ms. Lindsay Masters September 27, .2017 Page 7 Lawton. The C1t'y- has characterized these leases as ?Legally Binding Agreements?" in correspondence to the NPS Additional public records obtained by DPCA provide clear, Ievtdence that despite the 111111 that Housing is considering i?our alternatives in 113 2017-1318 Sceping Process, it has already engaged and1s 11111111er working With 11s architect 19 develop site plans to'. implement Alternative 2: (SMR, Site Plans dated June .19; 20.171. submits this ls nether. evidence that the City? 11 BIS process is nothing more then In; procedural smokescreen to. comply With the Court of Appeals? mandate While.- the City moves forward With plans to implement its preferred alternative, Alternative This 111 precisely the type of governmental action the Court referred to as the ?snoWballing effect?- in the Black Diamond case. B. The City s1 predicated on contracting with both Catholic Community Services and Habitat for, Humanity as service provrders and housing construction land. and selection process that occurred over ten years ago The preposat thetI is, new contemplated in Alternative the N01. partners proposed in 210.07. It is a different project' in con?guration, programming and ever-ah scope. 1113, net a sustainable prOpbsiti'on that the City can simply default to the earlier NOI- partners even though the 'proposel' is now different than what was evaluated under the competitive BRAC process. In 2006-20117; 55 organizations submitted proposals as part of the N01 process. BRAC procedure affords all organizations a- I'fair opportunity .te submit proposals and have them evaluated on equal footing.I 19,111,, the Seattle Housing Authority is no longer the master developer at -IForIt Lawton, Instead I-HIH has expanded its role as the lead housing partner at Fort Lawton. The Oi?ce of Housing has ignored BRAC procedure and is now embracing a different master developer-I and. a different. housing proposal altogether. BRAC. procedure warrants that the. INOII process be to competitive bidding and that a new REP solicitation process be undertaken Ito a111oW the many other stakeholders and providers Who;' are players and entrants in the homeless and loW-in'come housing ?elds to participate in the process. - 1'1n- 5Arn'i i' ironrnental Assessment: The 11. S1. Anny Corps ofEngineers :CfCorps?) Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Signi?cant Impact may no. longer be relied upon by. the. City (or the Corps) because they are based on a d?femnt project than what? is new. proposed among the EIS Alternatives. Corps FONSII relied? tipon an earlier, Traditional Disposal and Reuse Altemetive The October '18, 2012 FONSI Was based on. a smaller amount of total housing units (.216) and?? a completely different range, and size of Iho'using types Thus, the BA and FONSII were based on an? analysis or different environmental impacts. 5151111111 56, Etont 57 58 revisit its comphance 'with BRAC SEPA and planning i Case Document 32 Filed 02/10/20 Page 68 of 68 Ms. Lindsay Masters September27, 2017 Page 8 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 townhornes. In contrast, none of the present Proposed EIS Alternatives mirror thai propdsal. Alternative 2, Mixed Income A?brdable Housing and Park, proposes up to 235 units, with 75-100 units of affordable rental housing, 50 affordable ownership homes, and 85 units of senior supportive housing. Housing types include Lowrise apartments, rowhouses and townhouses. An' mcrease in the number of total units to be constructed, the change' 1n 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, neither the City nor the Department of the Army can continue to rely 011 the previous environmental review to support a potential Record of Decision. V. Conclusion. Given the serious nature of the irregularities and de?ciencies' 1n the BRAC, SEPA, and planning processes outlined here, and- given the lack of confonmty that the alternattves proffered requirements anti restart the FLARC redevelopment process in a manner that is' 1n accordance with statutes and regulations which govern the process. Likewise. the City must revisit and develop realistic alternatives that are consistent with its zoning regulations, growth plans and master planning documents In light of the above, DPCA requests a meeting with Housing to address these matters and to ensure that the City develop alternatives for the FLARC property that are based on an inclusive, public process. I am available at (206) 447-6407, and look forward to working with you to schedule such a meeting. Sincerely, BR PEPPER PLLC "16551111 A. Brogan CC: . simm I 58, 3 cont.