1
2
3
4
5
6 BEFORE THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD 7 LAURELHURST COMMUNITY CLUB, 8 FRIENDS OF BROOKLYN, RAVENNA- BRYANT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, NO. 03-3-0016 (“Laurelhurst II”) 9 UNIVERSITY DISTRICT COMMUNITY COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY PARK 10 COMMUNITY CLUB, SEATTLE PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY OF 11 DISPLACEMENT COALITION, SEATTLE’S AND UNIVERSITY OF HAWTHORNE HILLS COMMUNITY WASHINGTON’S MOTION TO DISMISS 12 COUNCIL, and NORTHEAST DISTRICT COUNCIL, 13 Petitioners, 14 vs. 15 CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation; 16 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, an agency of the State of Washington 17 Respondents. 18
19 I. INTRODUCTION
20 Playing fast and loose with the facts, respondents the City of Seattle (“City”) and the 21 University of Washington (“University”) move the Board to dismiss petitioners’ appeal, hoping 22 the Board will be quick to disclaim any authority for review. 23 Having argued to the Board last spring that the University’s Ten-Year Campus Master Plan 24 did not come within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction because it was nothing more than a site 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 1 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 1 specific development approval, approved pursuant to specific development regulations such as the
2 Major Institution Code and the 1998 City-University Agreement, the City and University now
3 astonishingly turn around and argue that the 1998 Agreement is really not a development
4 regulation after all. Instead, they claim, the 1998 Agreement is a contract and its mandatory
5 leasing restrictions are mere “contractual provisions” that can be amended or even stricken
6 entirely, without review by the Board under the Growth Management Act (“GMA”). Respondents rely on this new characterization of the 1998 Agreement to explain why they 7 failed to respect the GMA public participation goals and requirements when they decided to 8 eliminate leasing restrictions last spring. However, in doing so, respondents ignore the Board’s 9 own words in its June 18, 2003 Order on Motions in Laurelhurst I when it explicitly concluded 10 that the 1998 Agreement was a GMA development regulation. June 18, 2003, Order on Motions 11 at 11. 12 The Board should call a halt to the evasive shell game the City and University play with 13 petitioners and this Board pretending that they can label – and re-label – a regulation to avoid 14 compliance with the GMA. The alternative is an unbecoming abuse of the public process. 15
16 II. COUNTERSTATEMENT TO RESPONDENTS’ FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 17 The City and University claim – without any citation to the record –they realized that
18 “amendments to the 1998 Agreement were necessary” because, they assert, the University had 19 nearly reached its lease limit in 2002. Motion to Dismiss at 3. However, the 1998 Agreement 20 includes an express requirement that alteration of the lease limits was to occur through an 21 established City process. 1998 Agreement, Exhibit C4.3, Section II.E.6: 22
23 Effect of Master Planning and Neighborhood Planning. Changes to the lease limit may be proposed through the master planning adoption or amendment process, consistent with the 24 1 Respondents base their motion to dismiss on a record that contains huge gaps and requires supplementation. See, 25 Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement The Record.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 2 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 process that may be set forth in the adopted neighborhood plans; except that in the Master 1 Plan adopted for the period from 2001 to 2011, the amount of leased space within the 2 Primary and Secondary Impact Zones shall be limited to 550,000 gross square feet (gsf) and to the “permitted leasing zone” depicted in Exhibit A and any change to these 2 3 limitations shall be proposed as a major amendment to the Master Plan. (emphasis added). 4 Respondents never explain their discard of this process. 5
6 The City and University present the “factual” background for the leasing and acquisition
7 policies in the 1998 Agreement in such a way as to suggest that the policies were internal to the
8 University and merely tolerated by the City. E.g., Motion to Dismiss, pp. 3 and 7. In fact, the
9 record suggests quite the opposite is true. In 1977, the City and University adopted a joint 10 statement of goals and policies (Exhibit A to the Motion to Dismiss) which, among other things, 11 established leasing and acquisition “policies” for the University. However, the University’s 12 “leasing policy” did not include any quantitative restrictions, such as a square foot limit or 13 specified areas where new leasing activity was prohibited outright. C1.64 at p. 8. In fact, the 14
15 University’s “leasing policy” contained absolutely no mandatory limits on the ability of the
16 University to lease or acquire property outside its MIO boundary.3 Id. The quantitative leasing
17 restrictions, including the square foot limit were introduced in the first City approved Master Plan
18 in 1985 (General Physical Development Plan). Id. The reporting requirements for leasing 19 2 “Major Amendments” to the CMP are governed by Section II.C.5 of the Agreement, which requires that the 20 amendment and environmental review go through the same process as the initial Master Plan. This process includes review by CUCAC, DCLU, and the Hearing Examiner, prior to consideration by the Council. In other words, the Major Amendment process as envisioned in the 1998 City University Agreement ensures early and continuous 21 participation by affected groups. 3 The City/University fail to attach the actual 1977 policy respecting “leasing off-campus facilities,” an attachment to 22 the Joint Statement. However, the body of the Joint Statement provides only that: The University, in planning an allocating its uses of land to satisfy its teaching, research and public service 23 missions, shall make every effort … (5) to limit the leasing of off-campus facilities in accordance with a published policy (attached) which restricts leasing off campus to those uses which are compatible with the 24 general area and which are not appropriately located on campus because of inadequate capacity of [sic] incompatibility. 25 1977 Joint Statement of Goals and Policies, at p. 2.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 3 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 activities was included in the 1983 City-University Agreement, settling the City’s lawsuit against 1
2 the University to enforce SEPA and land use regulation regarding a proposed expansion of
4 3 University Hospital. Id., at 9.
4 The City and University further assert – as part of their motion’s “factual background”
5 that, under the terms of the 1998 Agreement, the leasing restrictions can only be changed with the 6 University’s agreement. Motion to Dismiss at 3. However, the agreement controlling University 7 use and development cannot be altered without agreement by both the University and the City. 8 The University has no more authority than the City to unilaterally amend the policies in the 1998 9 Agreement. It was required to – and did – seek the City’s approval. 10
11 The respondents’ claims that the University had nearly reached its limit of lease space in
12 the University District and that this somehow barred researchers from leasing additional space in
13 the area (Motion at 3), is also unsupported. In fact, at the end of the 2000 reporting period, the
14 University of Washington was already leasing 400,000 gross square feet (gsf) within its Major 15 Institution Overlay (“MIO”) boundary to non-University uses. City/DCLU Report to City Council 16 on Major Institution Status Reports, December 21, 2001, UW 61 at p. 15. This square footage 17 vastly exceeds – by 400% -- the amount of MIO space leased by other Major Institutions for 18
19 unrelated uses, with the exception of Swedish Medical Center, which, coincidently leases
20 absolutely no property outside (but within 2,500 feet of) its MIO Boundary.5
21 4 The 1998 Agreement updated the 1983 City-University Agreement “in anticipation of development of a new Master Plan.” March 27, 2003, Memorandum to Councilmembers from Legislative Staff re Historical Background – UW 22 Lease Lid, C-1.64, at p. 10. The amendments were initially negotiated with communities surrounding the University and the University and then adopted by the City. Id. 23 5 DCLU provides the following reasons for including in its status reports statistics concerning Major Institution leasing activity to non-Major Institution uses: 24 Since late 1996, Major Institutions have been permitted more flexibility in leasing and purchasing properties for their use outside but within 2,500 feet of the MIO district boundaries. Due to this change, DCLU was 25 directed by City Council to track leasing activities to non-Major Institution uses within MIO district
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 4 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 To be considered a “non-major institution use” under the Major Institution Code, a use 1
2 cannot be described as “functionally integrated with or substantively related to, the central mission
3 of the major institution.” SMC 23.69.008. Therefore, whatever these non-Major Institution uses
4 are on the UW Campus, even as of three years ago they were occupying 400,000 square feet of
5 valuable space which respondents tell this Board is needed by the University “to meet its 6 important public educational and research mission.” The University’s need for additional 7 “flexibility” through unlimited leasing and acquisition in the vulnerable neighborhoods 8 immediately surrounding its current MIO boundary is simply not supported by these record facts. 9 Notwithstanding the UW statistics included in DCLU’s previous Master Institution status 10
11 reports, DCLU’s January 7, 2003 Status Report (provided to the City Council immediately prior to
12 the Council’s consideration of the lease lid amendment) inaccurately stated that the University of
13 Washington had never reported on its leasing activity to non-University uses within the campus
14 boundary, and omitted the information – previously reported – for the past five years. Proposed 15 LCC 1 at 30. It is the (inaccurate) information contained in this report summary that would have 16 been relied upon by City Councilmembers and staff, as well as the public, in considering the 17 University’s leasing activities over the last few years. Curiously, this status report was 18
19 subsequently omitted from the record.
20
21 boundaries. The purpose is to monitor this activity to determine if there appear to be unintended negative 22 impacts on the surrounding area. For example, do the institutions seem to be leasing or purchasing properties outside their boundaries when they appear to have available space within their boundaries as indicated by 23 leases to non-Major Institution uses? It was not the intent of the legislation to give Major Institutions this flexibility in the surrounding area in order to create opportunities within the MIO district boundary for any 24 significant increase in leasing space to non-Major Institution uses. Review of the leasing information submitted by the Major Institutions indicates no trend in this direction. 25 UW-61, at p. 14.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 5 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 The leasing restrictions in the 1998 Agreement were the result of decades of negotiations 1
2 between the University and the City – and the neighborhoods – attempting to balance the
3 University’s purported need for “flexibility” in development and expansion, and the recognized
4 adverse land use impacts this growth and development would have on the neighborhoods
5 surrounding the University. C1.64, at pp. 8-10; Declaration of Jeannie Hale at ¶¶4-6. In addition, 6 the leasing restrictions were adopted into the City of Seattle’s Land Use Code as part of the 1998 7 Agreement. June 3, 2003, City and University Rebuttal on Motion to Dismiss Petition for Review 8 in Laurelhurst I at pp. 2-3; SMC 23.69.006. The amendment of the 1998 Agreement by the City 9 and the University to eliminate the leasing restrictions constitutes an amendment of development 10
11 regulations just as though the City had undertaken to amend the leasing restrictions it imposes on
12 other major institutions in SMC 23.69.022. The amendment of development regulations by GMA
13 planning cities and state agencies requires compliance with the GMA and with local
14 comprehensive plan goals and policies. Such action is also subject to this Board’s review pursuant 15 to the GMA. 16 III. ARGUMENT 17 A. The 1998 City-University Agreement Leasing and Acquisition Restrictions – And 18 Their Sudden Elimination – Are Subject To This Board’s Jurisdiction. 19 1. This Board Has Previously Concluded That The 1998 City-University 20 Agreement Is A GMA Development Regulation
21 Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss is based on a single assertion that directly contradicts
22 conclusions made by this Board in the Laurelhurst I appeal concerning the 1998 City-University 23 Agreement: 24
25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 6 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 The Board concludes that the MIMP is governed by GMA development regulations, 1 namely, the MIO and the 1998 City-University Agreement. 2 June 18, 2003, Order on Motions at 11.6 The Board explained: 3 The 1998 City-University Agreement was adopted as part of the MIO that governs all 4 institutions also found in SMC 23.69, specifically, SMC 23.69.006. [citations omitted] Thus, instead of 23.69.006 acting as an exception to 23.69.024 the University must comply 5 with the MIO and the additional requirements of 23.69.006 that reflect the agreement. 6 Id. Thus, the Board has already held that the terms of the 1998 City-University Agreement were 7 part of the City’s “GMA development regulations” that “govern the land use approvals for major 8 institutions, including the University.” Id. The City and the University, which were parties to 9 Laurelhurst I and happy to accept its benefits, are bound by its conclusions here. 10
11 Moreover, the Board did not draw these conclusions in a vacuum. These conclusions
12 reflected arguments made by the City and University in their attempts to shield yet another
13 planning document/development regulation – the University’s Ten-Year Campus Master Plan --
14 from the Board’s purview.7 In those arguments, respondents noted: 15 After a lengthy public process and extensive negotiations involving the University, the 16 City, CUCAC, and several affected community groups, including petitioners Laurelhurst Community Club and the University Park Community Club,8 the City and University in 17 1998 entered into a new agreement (“the 1998 Agreement”) regarding future master planning for the University. . . . The City’s Major Institution Ordinance was then 18 amended to incorporate the terms of the 1998 Agreement by reference. SMC 23.69.006. 19 June 3, 2003, Respondent and Intervenor’s Rebuttal to Petitioner’s Response to Motion to Dismiss 20 Petition for Review, in Laurelhurst I, at pp. 2-3. Respondents further explained: 21
22 6 See, also, Board’s Order on Motions, at p. 12. Id. at p. 12. 23 7 As the Board is aware, Petitioners respectfully disagree with the Board’s conclusion that the UW CMP is not subject to the Board’s jurisdiction, and have appealed that decision to King County Superior Court pursuant to RCW 24 36.70A.300(5) and the Administrative Procedures Act (Ch. 34.05 RCW). 8 It is interesting that respondents previously touted to the Board the communities’ participation in the negotiations for 25 the 1998 Agreement, even as they now pretend the communities are (or should be) invisible.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 7 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 In approving the CMP, the City reviewed the record to determine whether the University’s 1 application satisfied the specific approval criteria established in the 1998 Agreement, 2 which was incorporated by reference into the Major Institutions Ordinance. SMC 23.69.006(B). These criteria included whether the proposed Master Plan: 1) allowed the 3 City to fulfill its mission of public institution, research, and services; 2) adequately mitigated the environmental impacts of proposed development; and 3) reasonably balanced 4 “the public benefits of development and change with the need to maintain livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods.” 1998 Agreement, Section II(B)(8)(d), (9), (11). 5
6 Id. at pp. 22-23. In light of the fact that is was they who characterized the 1998 Agreement as a
7 development regulation when doing so helped persuade the Board not to review the University’s
8 CMP, the Board should not participate in respondents’ game of hide the ball. It would set an
9 insidious precedent, under which GMA planning jurisdictions are encouraged to attempt to 10 disguise new legislation as non-GMA related, rather than proceeding with the open public 11 discourse upon which the GMA is based. 12 2. The Board’s Conclusions Are Supported By The GMA Definition Of 13 “Development Regulation”
14 The City’s indispensable role as a party to the 1998 City-University Agreement (and the 15 recent amendment thereof) clearly places the Agreement in the category of “development 16 regulations” or “regulation” under the GMA. Notably, the GMA definition of “development 17 regulation” encompasses a long, non-exclusive list of “controls”: 18
19 “Development regulations” or “regulation” means the controls placed on development or land use activities by a County or City, including but not limited to, zoning ordinances, 20 critical areas ordinances, shoreline master programs, official controls, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances together 21 with any amendments thereto.
22 RCW 36.70A.030(7), City/University Motion at pp. 4-5. 23 The leasing and acquisition policies plainly regulate University “development,” in light of 24 the way that term is defined in the City’s Major Institution Code: 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 8 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 The establishment of any new Major Institution use or the expansion of an existing Major 1 Institution use, the relocation of an existing Major Institution use for a period of at least 2 one (1) year, or the vacation of streets for such uses.
3 SMC 23.69.007. The leasing and acquisition restrictions in the 1998 Agreement regulate
4 University “land use activities” in that they constitute an official control on land use and
5 development. Obviously, a University of Washington major institution use is regulated – 6 precluded – on a particular site if the University can neither acquire nor lease the property. This is 7 precisely what the lease lid did. 8 The 1998 City-University Agreement constitutes land use planning and regulation. That 9 the regulation is carried out through an Agreement between the City and the University that was 10
11 adopted into the City’s Land Use Code (SMC 23.69.006) makes it no less an official City
12 instrument controlling development and land use activities.
13 3. Substance and Policy Context of City/University Action Shows Leasing Restrictions Are Development Regulations Subject to Board Review. 14
15 In its June 18, 2003 Order, along with concluding that the 1998 Agreement – like the 16 Major Institution Code -- was a GMA development regulation, this Board noted the importance of 17 reviewing “substance and policy context” when making a determination regarding its authority to 18 review a local action: In making the determination of whether a local action is subject to the GMA generally and 19 Board jurisdiction specifically, it is important to focus on the substance and policy context 20 of that action, rather than the procedure employed or the label attached. … That determination must be made after reviewing many facts and factors. 21 June 18, 2003 Order on Motions, CPSGMHB No. 03-3-0008 (Laurelhurst I), at p.11-12. 22 Substantively, as discussed above, the lease restrictions are an official control on University land 23
24 use and development activity. As for the policy context, there was no mistaking that any
25 substantial alteration to or elimination of the lease lid was an issue that was to be addressed
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 9 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 through a major amendment to the 2003 Campus Master Plan – a lengthy GMA process that 1
2 included review by the City-University Community Advisory Committee, the Department of
3 Design, Construction and Land Use, the City Hearing Examiner, and the City Council. Until the
4 City and University filed their motion last Friday, elimination of the lease lid was never (publicly)
5 described as or considered a “contractual” issue. 6 4. The City’s Major Institution Code Regulates In Exactly The Same Manner As 7 The 1998 Agreement – Right Down To Lease Restrictions Within 2,500 Feet Of An MIO Boundary 8 The City and University pretend that the leasing restrictions placed on the University as 9 part of the City’s regulation of its major institutions are not development regulations because they 10
11 regulate ownership rather than use. In doing so, they argue as if the concept of such regulation is
12 foreign to the City’s Land Use Code. In fact, the City’s Major Institution Code – an integral part
13 of the City’s Land Use Code that implements its GMA Comprehensive Plan -- regulates large
14 portions of the City based on no other criteria than the institutions’ ownership and control of the 15 subject property. 16 A short explanation of the City’s development regulations for “Major Institutions” will 17 provide the necessary context and explain the terminology. Within the Seattle Land Use Code, 18
19 SMC Chapter 23.69 regulates Seattle’s major educational and medical institutions. Chapter 23.69
20 is commonly referred to as the “Major Institution Ordinance”. “Major Institution” is defined by
21 SMC 23.84.025 to mean:
22 [A]n institution providing medical or educational services to the community. A Major 23 Institution, by nature of its function and size, dominates and has the potential to change the character of the surrounding area and/or create significant negative impacts on the area. 24 To qualify as a Major Institution, an institution must have a minimum site size of sixty thousand (60,000) square feet of which fifty thousand (50,000) square feet must be 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 10 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 contiguous, and have a minimum gross floor area of three hundred thousand (300,000) 1 square feet. The institution may be located in a single building or a group of buildings 2 which includes facilities to conduct classes or related activities needed for the operation of the institution. 3 An institutional “use” is only regulated under the City’s Major Institution Code if is undertaken by 4 one of the 13 entities (public or private) that has been designated a “Major Institution” by the 5 9 6 City.
7 Not surprisingly, the City/University motion conveniently ignores the fact that the Major
8 Institution Code itself contains mandatory leasing restrictions on Seattle’s other major institutions:
9 23.69.022 Uses permitted within 2,500 feet of a Major Institution Overlay District. 10
11 A. A Major Institution shall be permitted to lease space, or otherwise locate a use outside a Major Institution Overlay (MIO) District, and within two thousand five hundred 12 (2,500) feet of the MIO District boundary, subject to the following limitations:
13 1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to contractual arrangements with other entities, except for leases or other agreements for occupying space. 14 2. No such use shall be allowed at the street-level in a commercial zone, unless the 15 use is determined to be similar to a personal and household retail sales and service use, eating and drinking establishment, customer service office, entertainment use or child care 16 center and is allowed in the zone. If the use is allowed in the zone but is determined not to be similar to a personal and household retail sales and service use, eating and drinking 17 establishment, customer service office, entertainment use or child care center, the Director may not allow the use at street level in a commercial zone unless provided otherwise in an 18 adopted master plan or in a Council-approved neighborhood. 19 3. Except as permitted in an adopted master plan, the use shall not result in the demolition of a structure(s) that contains a residential use nor shall it change a residential 20 use to a nonresidential use; . . . 21
22 9 The colleges and hospitals classified as “Major Institutions” under Chapter 23.69 are: 23 Children’s Hospital Providence Hospital South Seattle Comm. College Group Health Hospital Seattle Community College Swedish Hospital 24 Harborview Med. Center Seattle Central Comm. College University of Washington N. Seattle Comm. College Seattle Pacific University Virginia Mason Hospital 25 Northwest Hospital
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 11 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 In fact, until it was amended in 1996, the MI code contained square foot limitations like those 1
2 found in the 1998 Agreement:
3 The City conducted a two-year review of the Major Institutions Code which concluded in 1996. Among the revisions adopted at the time, applicable to major institutions other than 4 the UW, the Code was amended to remove square foot limitations upon major institution leasing within 2,500 feet of their boundaries. Instead, other limitations were added or 5 retained, including street-level use limitations; prohibition of demolition or change of use 6 of residential structures; a conditional use requirement for major medical facilities, and opportunity for institution advisory committees to comment. According to DCLU’s 1997 7 report, the Council’s objectives were to allow flexibility to the institutions, to preserve a diversity of street-level uses and to continue to protect housing from being demolished or 8 converted in surrounding areas.
9 March 27, 2003, Memorandum to Council from Council Staff, C-1.64, at p. 9, emphasis added. 10 This staff memo goes on to explain the affect this action had on the UW: 11 At the time, the City Council also adopted a resolution calling for review of the City- 12 University Agreement which had not been included in the review of the Major Institutions Code. The resolution directed staff to review the 1977 goals and the 1983 Agreement, 13 compare the regulations governing the UW to those for other institutions and recommend whether there should be changes. DCLU issued a Discussion Paper in March of 1997 14 which gives much of the history and considers, among other things, the issue of the lease 10 15 lid and identifies three options but does not make a recommendation.
16 Id. The 1998 Agreement’s leasing and acquisition restrictions regulate (i.e., “control”) how
17 property in the city can be used or developed in exactly the same manner as the City’s major
18 institution regulations control use and development. Both are applied based on property 19 ownership by the institution (whether in fee or as a leasehold interest) combined with the type of 20 use.11 The City cannot disclaim its own Major Institution Code, an integral part of its Land Use 21 Code, by claiming it is not a development regulation subject to review by this Board. These Major 22
23 10 This March 1997 Discussion Paper was one of the many relevant documents omitted from the City and University records, upon which their motion relies. See Petitioner’s November 14, 2003, Motion to Supplement the Record, at 24 pp. 10-12. 11 Moreover, as discussed in Section III.A.5 below, Seattle’s land use code contains many other regulations that are 25 based on the identity or status of the owner or user rather than use.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 12 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 Institution regulations are based on Major Institution control of property within the city limits – 1
2 the same premise which the respondents attack here as unprecedented. In short, respondents’
3 arguments are belied by the City’s own code.
4 5. Seattle’s Land Use Code Routinely Regulates Users by Ownership and Status
5 The Seattle Land Use Code contains many more examples of development regulations that are 6 based on ownership status of the user rather than the prospective use. For example, parking 7 requirements for "community centers" (such as those operated by a non-profit organization) are 8 different than those for "community centers owned and operated by the Seattle Department of 9 Parks and Recreation (DOPAR)". See SMC 23.54.015, Chart A. There are numerous other 10
11 examples of uses that are regulated differently on the more general basis of whether they are
12 public or private:
13 On the same Chart A for parking quantity, the requirement for "School, private elementary or secondary" is different than the requirement for "School, public elementary or 14 secondary" SMC 23.54.015, Chart A. 15 Public schools meeting development standards are permitted outright in single family zones, but private schools meeting development standards are only permitted in single 16 family zones as an administrative conditional use. SMC 23.44.006; 23.44.022. The development standards for public schools are also different than for private schools. 17 See SMC 23.44.006.G and 23.44.022.A and .D.
18 Similarly, uses in public facilities are regulated differently than the same ones when privately 19 established. Compare, e.g., SMC 23.44.036 (uses in public facilities in single family zones), 20 23.45.106 (for the same in multifamily zones), and 23.80 (general provisions for essential public 21 facilities). In general, these provisions allow otherwise prohibited activities/uses to occur when 22
23 they are undertaken by the public sector or they relax development standards for the public
24 activity/use compared to the same private activity/use.
25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 13 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 Again, the claim by respondents that regulation of land use activities focused on the 1
2 identity or status of the user or owner is foreign to the Land Use Code is undercut by the Code
3 itself.
4 6. 1998 Agreement Purports To Regulate University Land Use and Development Activity -- And Nothing Else 5
6 The City and University further assert that, even if the Board determines that the 1998
7 City-University Agreement is a GMA development regulation, the specific leasing and acquisition
8 restrictions contained in the agreement (Section II.E) are not. Motion at pp. 8-9. As respondents
9 acknowledge, the 1998 Agreement was intended to address a wide array of issues: 10 Relations between the City and the University of Washington, the Master Plan process 11 (formulation, approval and amendment), uses on campus, uses outside the campus boundaries, off-campus land acquisition and leasing, membership responsibilities of 12 CUCAC, transportation policies, coordinated traffic planning for special events, permit acquisition and conditioning, relationship of current and future master plans to the 13 agreement, zoning and environmental review authority, resolution of disputes, and amendment or termination of the Agreement itself. 14
15 SMC 23.69.006(B). Despite respondents’ spin (e.g., claiming that the Agreement is concerned
16 with “special events” (Motion to Dismiss at 8)) the underlying “nature and function” of the issues
17 in the quoted paragraph concern land use and/or development and consequent traffic generation.12
18 The respondents’ argument for finding that the “acquisition and leasing policies” are not 19 development regulations is based on a spin of the superficial label they have been given, while 20 ignoring the actual (and intended) effect of those provisions on the University’s land use and 21 development activity in the primary and secondary impact zones. 22
23 Respondents also point to 1998 Agreement sections respecting legal disclaimers and
24 dispute resolution procedures as demonstrating that the policies at issue here do not address land
25 12 It is not as though the issues described in SMC 23.69.006(B) relate to curriculum, taxes or alumni relations.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 14 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 use and development activities by the University even though the Agreement was adopted into the 1
2 Seattle Land Use Code. Clearly, however, the legal disclaimers and dispute resolution provisions
3 are part of the overall Agreement, the purpose of which is to control University land use and
4 development activity so as to minimize its impacts on the vulnerable neighborhoods that surround
5 it. 6 In light of this, the holding in City of Burien v. Ctiy of Seatac case (CPSGMHB Case No. 7 98-3-0010, 8/10/98 FDO), cited by respondents (Motion at 6), actually supports the Board's 8 jurisdiction to review the City/University action in eliminating the leasing restrictions contained in 9 the 1998 Agreement. There, the Board ruled that: 10 Provisions of the [Interlocal Agreement] ILA, if any, that are included as Plan or zoning 11 code amendments are subject to the provisions of RCW 36.70A.140 during the plan or zoning code amendment process. 12 City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 113 Wn.App 375, 13 384, 53 P.3d 1028 (Div. 1 2002). Contrary to the Interlocal Agreement addressed by the Board in 14 the Burien case, the 1998 Agreement -- adopted into Seattle's Land Use Code in SMC 23.69.006 -- 15
16 pertains narrowly to the University's land use and development activities and is aimed at
17 minimizing the resulting land use (including transportation) impacts on the surrounding
18 neighborhoods. Thus, it is subject to review by the Board for compliance with the GMA.
19 Respondents' reliance on this case is misplaced. 20
21
22
23
24
25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 15 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 7. The 1998 Agreement Leasing Restrictions Did Not Constitute “Restraint On 1 Alienation” 2 Contrary to the City and University’s assertion, the leasing and acquisition restrictions on 3 the University in the impact zones does not constitute a “restraint on alienation.” Blacks Law 4 Dictionary (Rev. 4th ed.) defines “restraint on alienation” as follows: 5
6 Restriction of the power of aliening property. See perpetuity.
7 To “alien” property is to convey or transfer title to the property. Id. Respondents can point to
8 nothing in the leasing and acquisition restrictions that restrict the University in its ability to sell or
9 lease its own property to others. In light of this, respondents’ discussion of the illegality of 10 restraints on alienation is superfluous.13 11 Further, the University, as a public entity, is not entitled to raise such due process objection 12 in any event. The due process clause does not protect government entities from state action. 13 Samuels Furniture, Inc. v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440, 462-463, 14
15 54 P.3d 1194 (2002). As stated in McQuillin’s treatise on the law of municipal corporations:
16 The requirements of due process protect all persons within the nation, wherever they may be domiciled. It has been ruled that the requirement does not apply against state action 17 respecting municipalities since municipalities are not ‘persons’ within the requirement. In other words, due process and due course of law are guarantees to citizens and not 18 governments or their agents. Thus, under both Federal and State due process 19 constitutional provisions, neither the state or any agent of it is entitled to due process.
20 McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, Section 19.11 (3rd ed. 1996) (emphasis added).
21 Respondents’ reliance on City of Olympia v. Palzer14 is similarly misguided. In Palzer,
22 Division 2 of the Court of Appeals held that a zoning ordinance was invalid insofar as it conflicted 23
24 13 Further, the City, which has signed the motion to dismiss here, cannot believe that it has no legal authority to limit a Major Institutions’ ability to lease property, in light of the regulations in the remainder of the Major Institution Code. 25 14 42 Wn. App. 751, 754, n. 3, 713 P.2d 1125 ( Div 2 1986).
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 16 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 with the state tax sales statute. The Court was asked to address whether a city ordinance could 1
2 restrict county tax sales where a city’s PUD rezone ordinance respecting the property had
3 specified that the subject tracts be “owned by a property owners’ association, municipal or state
4 body, or by the present property owners.” The Court held that, although the City ordinance could
5 not restrict subsequent county tax sales by limiting the potential buyers, the use restrictions 6 contained in the ordinance continued to apply to the property. City of Olympia v. Palzer, 42 Wn. 7 App. at 753. 8 B. Petitioners Have Standing To Challenge The City and University Actions Before This 9 Board 10 1. Petitioners Have Participation Standing Under The Amended RCW 11 36.70A.280(2)(b) and Wells v. WWGMHB
12 Respondents move for dismissal based on the general allegation that some of the 13 petitioners may not have “had a member or person who specifically identified himself or herself as 14 a representative of that organization when providing oral or written comments.” Motion at 9. 15 Respondents further cite to the recent amendment of the GMA’s Growth Board standing 16 provisions (RCW 36.70A.280(2)) and argue, generally, that petitioner organizations have not 17 shown that their participation before the City met the new standards for participation standing.
18 In July of this year, these provisions were amended to reflect the court of appeals’ holding
19 in Wells v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 100 Wn. App. 657, 670-
20 676, 997 P.2 405 (Div. 1 2000). Respondents’ Motion at 10. In doing so, the Legislature noted
21 that, to establish participation standing before the Board, petitioners are required to show that their 22 participation before the local jurisdiction was “reasonably related” to the issues they present to 23 the Board. However, contrary to respondents’ apparent assertions, this legislative clarification did 24 not add a requirement that, to survive a challenge to their standing, petitioners must present their 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 17 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 entire case on the merits in their Petition for Review. In fact, the Wells Court pre-empted the 1
2 assertion now made by respondents:
3 Persons who wish to raise issues before a growth management hearings board should participate actively in the planning process for the geographic areas or subject of interest to 4 them. The GMA assumes a local government will have an opportunity to address those concerns before an appeal to the growth management hearings board. This facilitates the 5 county's ultimate planning responsibility and avoids unnecessary appeals. However, it 6 would be unrealistic given the time and resource constraints inherent in the planning process to require each individual petitioner to demonstrate to the growth management 7 hearings board that he or she raised a specific legal issue before the board can consider it. The growth management hearings boards, with their expertise in these matters and their 8 role as finders of fact, are best suited to decide whether, under the facts presented in a particular circumstance, a petitioner has established participation in a "matter." 9
10 Id. at 674, emphasis added. The Court also noted that: We recognize that this approach leaves each board with considerable discretion to 11 determine whether the facts support the necessary connection in each case. 12 Id. at 673. The attempt by the City and University to twist the legislative clarification to impose 13 additional burdens on legitimate petitioners, requiring them to “front load” their appeals, is 14 contrary to the policies underlying the GMA. 15
16 Respondents’ motion not only overstates the stringency of the standing requirement, but
17 also fails to raise specific challenges to individual petitioners’ standing. Respondents’ fail to point
18 to anything in their own records that would suggest petitioners’ participation below was
19 insufficient. Nor do they identify which petitioners they claim do not have standing.15 20 To anticipate objections which respondents have failed to make, petitioners have prepared 21 the following chart, which provides a sampling of the statutory and Comprehensive Plan goals and 22 requirements that Petitioners raise in their legal issues, followed by a sampling16 of comments 23
24 15 Nor will an attempt by respondents to repair their motion on Reply suffice. Their obligation as movants was to state the motion’s grounds when petitioner will have a chance to respond – not after. 25 16 Neither the list of goals and requirements nor the list of petitioners’ comments is by any means comprehensive.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 18 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 made by individual petitioners to the City Council last spring, prior to its vote to eliminate the 1
2 lease lid. For purposes of organization, the issues are broken down here into four categories: (1)
3 Minimizing Impacts and Balancing University Flexibility With Neighborhood Protection; (2)
4 Housing; (3) Neighborhood Planning; and (4) Public Participation.17
5
6 * * * 7
8 MINIMIZING MAJOR INSTITUTION IMPACTS / BALANCING UW GROWTH WITH 9 NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTIONS 10 RCW / Comp Plan Goal/Policy 11 LG 79: Maximize the benefits of major institutions, including health care and educational 12 services, while minimizing the adverse impacts associated with development and geographic expansion. 13 LG81: Balance each major institution’s ability to change and the public benefit derived 14 from change with the need to protect the livability and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods. 15 L262: Provide for the coordinated growth of major institutions through major institution 16 conceptual master plans and the establishment of major institutions overlay zones.
17 L263: Allow modifications to the underlying zone provisions in order to allow major institutions to thrive while ensuring that impacts of development on the surrounding 18 neighborhood are satisfactorily mitigated. 19 L264: Discourage the expansion of established major institution boundaries. 20 L269: New institutions shall be located in areas where such activities are compatible with 21 the surrounding land uses and where the impacts associated with existing and future development can be appropriately mitigated. 22
23 L270: Establish a Major Institution Overlay (MIO) to permit appropriate institutional development within boundaries while minimizing the adverse impacts associated with 24 development and geographic expansion. A further purpose is to balance the public
25 17 The attached Declaration of Jeannie Hale further describes petitioner LCC’s participation below.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 19 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 benefits of growth and change for major institutions with the need to maintain livability 1 and vitality of adjacent neighborhoods. Where appropriate, the establishment of MIO 2 boundaries may contribute to the transition of physical development to ensure compatibility between major institution areas and less intensive zones. 3 L285: The master plan should establish or modify boundaries; provide physical 4 developments standards for the overly district; define the development program for the specified time period; and describe a transportation management program. 5
6 L288: In considering rezones, the objective shall be to achieve a better relationship between residential or commercial uses and the Major Institution uses, and to reduce or 7 eliminate major land use conflicts in the area.
8 UC-G2: Vibrant commercial districts serving local needs and offering regional specialties. 9 UC-G6: A community that builds a unique physical identity on its historical and 10 architectural resources, attractive streets, university campus, and special features. 11 UC-P28: Seek to preserve and enhance the following design characteristics within the 12 community: Pedestrian orientation and visual interest to the pedestrian, high quality, human-scaled design details in larger buildings, streetscape continuity on commercial 13 corridors, integration between the UW campus and the surrounding community, buildings with attractive open space and low rise multi-family development that fits with the design 14 character of adjacent single family houses. 15 UC-P30: Accommodate new university growth in a way that benefits the surrounding 16 community.
17 Public Comments
18 4/10/03 –LCC/ Hale [at C3.5] “We are here to oppose elimination of the UW lease lid and 19 to urge you to develop a compromise that addresses the concerns of surrounding communities … we are now asking you to facilitate a compromise solution that addresses 20 both the needs of the Univ. and the concerns of the neighborhoods.”
21 6/12/03 – Northeast District Council (and members including Hawthorne Hills Community Council, University Park Community Club, Ravenna Bryant 22 Community Association, Laurelhurst Community Club, Roosevelt Neighborhood 23 Alliance) [at C3.9]– “Our members believe that [the Licata/McIver] proposal better balances the needs of the University with the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods 24 than the Drago/Nicastro plan to eliminate the Lid entirely. In particular, we believe that this proposal offers the University substantial immediate relief from the lease lid by 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 20 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 increasing it outright by nearly 200,000 square feet. … Finally, the exemption from the 1 Lid of any project with a residential component of greater than 30% give the University a 2 real incentive to ensure that housing is a significant part of their new built-to-suit leased projects.” 3 4/8/03 – LCC/Hale testimony [at C3.6] “elimination of the UW lease lid will allow Univ 4 leasing in ALL of the surrounding communities”
5 6/4/03 – Ravenna-Bryant Community Assn [at C3.7] – “…our major concerns: … 6 restricting the areas in which the increased leasing can occur…property acquisition by the UW…” 7 4/10/03 testimony of Northeast District Council [at C3.5] “Eliminating the lease lid 8 would ultimately lead to changes in the Major Institution Overlay (MIO) boundaries, thus allowing development in surrounding communities. Under the MIO designation, the Univ. 9 does not have to comply with local zoning laws, setback requirements and other development standards, and it is also exempt from the Univ. Community Urban Center 10 Plan. Instead, development is governed by the Campus Master Plan, which did not 11 seriously address Univ. leasing projects or plans.”
12 4/10/03 - Friends of Brooklyn/ Ramey [at C5.1] - "The University's expansion... has turned the south part of the University District into an office park.... [T]hey actually 13 removed about 1,000 households that could have housed people who would be permanent residents and replaced that with office parks. We believe this kind of trend will only 14 continue, that the University's goal to lift the lease lid is to allow it to encourage 15 developers to build office park type development..."
16 5/28/03 LCC/Hale letter [at C3.7] – “In addition to concerns about loss of housing, a blanket removal of the lease lid would result in piecemeal development with little or no 17 environmental review or mitigation of the major traffic and transportation impacts. With the City’s current budgetary shortfalls, it is unlikely that funds would be available to 18 provide the needed infrastructure.” 19 3/22/03 NEDC letter [at C3.7] – “”Under the MIO designation, the University does not 20 have to comply with local zoning laws, setback requirements and other development standards, and it is also exempt from the University Community Urban Center Plan. 21 Instead, development is governed by the Campus Master Plan, which did not seriously address University leasing projects or plans.” 22
23 3/22/03 – NEDC letter [at C3.7] “Should the University choose to lease space along The Ave, we are concerned that there are no safeguards to prevent the displacement of non- 24 University uses.”
25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 21 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 4/10/03 – LCC/Torrance testimony [at C3.5] – “With better housing in the District we 1 could believe this is the time to address housing concerns. With better housing in the 2 District we could create an environment that would support small businesses where people could walk to work. We could help create a living thriving community of citizens that 3 utilize their area. We need to think more about saving space for small businesses and zoning for multifamily housing in this area.” 4 5/28/03 – email from Seattle Displacement Coalition [at C3.9] – “In order to prevent loss 5 of housing and minimize pressure on existing uses in the District, the lease lid was put in 6 place over 20 years ago. Allowing for modest levels of University expansion into selected areas of the U-District, the lid strikes a degree of balance between neighborhood and U of 7 W. needs. Neighborhood and housing advocates say some limited adjustment to the lid could be made for certain areas of the District so long as these adjustments respect existing 8 community review and approval processes. But wholesale lifting of the lid as the Major proposes would destroy many dozens of low income units, displace small businesses, and 9 wipe out a neighborhood planning process that took the community decades to achieve.” 10 5/28/03 - LCC/Hale [at C3.7] – “We support economic development in this area, 11 revitalization of the Ave, flexibility of the University to meet its growing needs, job creation, preservation of housing and creation of new housing to meet the City’s housing 12 targets. The question is how we get there. We support a compromise that addresses these important issues as well as the impacts on surrounding communities.” 13 5/28/03 LCC/Hale [at C3.7] – “The dilemma is that the recently approved Master Plan 14 eliminates the prohibition against UW property acquisitions in [single-family residential 15 zones located in the University’s Primary and Secondary Impact Zones] – a prohibition that has existed for nearly three decades to protect adjacent communities from the adverse 16 impacts of University expansion. We recommend an additional amendment to the City- University Agreement to reinstate this important provision.” 17 6/2/03 RNA/Hans Aschenbach [at C3.9] – “While [the University] provides untold 18 benefits in research discoveries, humane education, salaries, medical treatment, etc. to 19 greater Seattle and the world, it has not been a very good neighbor to the immediate community…Eliminating the Lease Lid without dealing with related community issues is 20 a disservice to both the City and community stakeholders.”
21 4/10/03, Seattle Displacement Coalition/John Fox, "In all liklihood, lifting the lid will also convince a handful of large property owners who now control most of the Ave to hold 22 out, as some already are, for even higher rents on office and retail space. This would lead 23 at least in the short run to even more vacant storefronts and most assuredly spell doom for the remaining long-time businesses and the rich mix of newer first-generation ethnic 24 establishments that have become the mainstay of the Ave. or it's quite conceivable that it'll create an economic tipping point spelling demolition of some of the existing older historic 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 22 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 storefronts in the Ave." … "It took nearly two decades of neighborhood energy and 1 struggle with the UW often spilling over into large-scale and costly land use disputes to 2 forge a comprehensive neighborhood plan that now guildes University expansion. Central to that planning was the lease lid. It helped strike a balance between the U's insatiable 3 appetite for land and the very real needs of surrounding communities."
4 HOUSING
5 RCW / Comp Plan Goal/Policy 6 L280: Encourage the preservation of housing within major institution overlay districts and 7 the surrounding areas. Discourage conversion or demolition of housing within a major institution campus, and allow such action only when necessary for expansion of the 8 institution.
9 L282: Prohibit development by a major institution within 2,500 feet of the MIO district boundaries when it would result in the demolition of structures with residential uses or 10 change of these structures to non-residential uses. 11 H10: Reflect anticipated consumer preferences and housing demand of different 12 submarkets in the mix of housing types and densities permitted under Seattle’s zoned development capacity. Encourage a range of housing types including, but not limited to: 13 single-family housing; ground-related housing to provide an affordable alternative to single-family ownership; and moderate- and high-density multifamily apartments which 14 are needed to accommodate most of the growth over the 20-year life of this plan. 15 H11: Strive to make the environment, amenities and housing attributes in urban villages 16 attractive to all income groups, ages and households types.
17 UC-G1: Stable residential neighborhoods that can accommodate projected growth and foster desirable living conditions. 18
19 UC-G4: A community in which the housing needs and affordability levels of major demographic groups, including students, young adults, families with children, empty 20 nesters, and seniors, are met and which balances home ownership opportunities with rental unit supply. 21 Public Comments 22
23 5/28/03 LCC/Hale letter [at C3.7] – “In addition to concerns about loss of housing, a blanket removal of the lease lid would result in piecemeal development with little or no 24 environmental review or mitigation of the major traffic and transportation impacts. With the City’s current budgetary shortfalls, it is unlikely that funds would be available to 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 23 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 provide the needed infrastructure.” 1
2 5/28/03 – LCC/ letter [at C3.7] “The University is interested in leasing in new construction projects, rather than in existing buildings. This can only mean redevelopment 3 and loss of existing affordable and low income housing because there is very little vacant land in the area – 0.8 acres on eight different parcels. . . . we support incentives …to create 4 new housing, and a prohibition of leasing that results in residential demolitions or conversions. We support your recommendation to continue the current prohibition of UW 5 leases in residentially zoned areas.” 6 5/15/03 – University District Community Council/Matt Fox memo [at C3.7] – “The 7 other 2 proposals are critical to ensuring that new U of W leased projects do not displace existing residents and residential uses. We continue to support the proposed Housing 8 Quality Assurance Program advocated by University Park.”
9 5/5/03 University Park Community Club [at C3.7] “Yes, additional housing is critical to the area – but the Council needs to address the stability of the housing that already exists… 10 Without the resident homeowners who are committed to the area, any attempt at 11 revitalization will fail. The previously – proposed Housing Quality Assurance Program attempted to address this issue for our community.” 12 (undated) D’Allessandro/University Park Community Club [at C3.7] “All UW leasing 13 of residential property should be used solely for residential purposes. There should be no net loss of residential housing within the currently defined primary impact zone through 14 leasing or acquisitions. The condition and extent of existing single-family housing in the 15 University District must be preserved.”
16 4/8/03 – LCC/Hale testimony [at C3.6]: “The only information that we do know at this time is that there is a critical need for housing in the Univ District and an imbalance 17 between jobs and housing in terms of meeting growth management targets.”
18 4/10/03 – LCC/Torrance testimony [at C3.5] – “With better housing in the District we 19 could believe this is the time to address housing concerns. With better housing in the District we could create an environment that would support small businesses where people 20 could walk to work. We could help create a living thriving community of citizens that utilize their area. We need to think more about saving space for small businesses and 21 zoning for multifamily housing in this area.”
22 4/10/03 –LCC/ Hale [at C3.5] “There is currently an imbalance between housing and jobs 23 in the area. To convert commercial space to institutional uses and office space will only exacerbate the problem.” 24 5/5/03 – University Park Community Club [at C3.7] “We need our neighborhood to be 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 24 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 able to attract long term tenants, not only for apartments and condominiums, but the other 1 forms of owner-occupied housing that University Park provides.” 2 6/12/03 – CUCAC testimony [at C3.7] – “express support for a Housing Quality 3 Amendment that requires the University to ‘develop a housing quality assurance program…’” 4 5/28/03 – email from Seattle Displacement Coalition [at C3.9] – “In order to prevent loss 5 of housing and minimize pressure on existing uses in the District, the lease lid was put in 6 place over 20 years ago. Allowing for modest levels of University expansion into selected areas of the U-District, the lid strikes a degree of balance between neighborhood and U of 7 W. needs. Neighborhood and housing advocates say some limited adjustment to the lid could be made for certain areas of the District so long as these adjustments respect existing 8 community review and approval processes. But wholesale lifting of the lid as the Major proposes would destroy many dozens of low income units, displace small businesses, and 9 wipe out a neighborhood planning process that took the community decades to achieve.” 10 6/4/03 – Ravenna-Bryant Community Assn [at C3.7] – “…our major concerns: … the 11 importance of housing development to the overall economic health of the University District...” 12 4/10/03 - Friends of Brooklyn/ Ramey [at C5.1] - "The University's expansion... has 13 turned the south part of the University District into an office park.... [T]hey actually removed about 1,000 households that could have housed people who would be permanent 14 residents and replaced that with office parks. We believe this kind of trend will only 15 continue, that the University's goal to lift the lease lid is to allow it to encourage developers to build office park type development..." 16 6/13/03 – RNA/Hans Aschenbach [at C3.9] – We have a two fold housing problem here in 17 the University District: 1) Protecting the quality of the existing housing stock… 2) Creating new housing for the thousands of new students (short term residents) and UW 18 faculty and staff (long term residents). 19 NEIGHBORHOOD & UCUC PLANNING 20 RCW / Comp Plan Goal/Policy 21 NG6: Build strong, effective strategies for developing and implementing neighborhood 22 plans. 23 N19: Support neighborhood plan stewardship with the goal of promoting continued 24 cooperation between the City and local neighborhoods in implementing adopted neighborhood plan goals and policies, carrying out neighborhood plan work plan activities 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 25 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 and implementing this Comprehensive Plan. 1
2 These efforts should be directed toward not only accomplishing specific projects, but also toward fostering the ability of neighborhoods to inspire people with the energy, interest 3 and ability to work collaboratively with the City in implementing neighborhood plans.
4 UC-G1: Stable residential neighborhoods that can accommodate projected growth and foster desirable living conditions. 5
6 UC-G3 – An efficient transportation system that balances different modes, including public transit, pedestrian, bicycle and automobile, and minimizes negative impacts to the 7 community.
8 Public Comments 9 6/5/03 – Roosevelt Neighbors’ Alliance [at C3.9] – “Urban Center communities are made 10 up of good citizens, who: a) acted in good faith with the City, b) respected the City’s 11 wishes to concentrate growth in urban areas, c) spent countless volunteer hours working to map a plan for their City-designated urban center, d) accepted the urban center village 12 designation and took active interest in the planning, e) were given assurances that their urban centers would receive some benefits to compensate for taking on the majority of the 13 city’s growth while “saving” other neighborhoods from “uncontrolled” growth. The UCUC Plan (prepared by the Community and adopted by the Seattle City Council in 14 December 1998) contains detailed activities (including the rezone of specific blocks to best 15 accommodate growth) and it was promised to be implemented and supported by the City in return for this community to absorb a significant percentage of the city’s growth. The 16 community’s volunteerism and service to our city should have the respect of our city’s officials for the real sacrifices it required and the weight of responsibility it entailed. The 17 current lease lid fracas has shown the community that the City does not necessarily honor it’s [sic] obligations (as signed and sealed) to it’s [sic] hardworking citizens. It would be 18 appropriate to call the University Community Urban Center by its real name, to uphold 19 agreements made with the community and to honor the University Community Urban Center Plan.” 20 (undated) D’Alessandro/University Park Community Club [at C3.7] “For us this lease 21 lid legislation is not just a political litmus test. It is a testimonial to our view that the very survival of our neighborhood is threatened.” 22
23 University District Community Council; Statement for May 1, 2003 Ad-Hoc Coalition Press Conference [at C3.7] “The University Community Urban Center Plan (UCUC) 24 specifically stated that the U of W Campus Master Plan (CMP) should address ‘Determination of most appropriate locations and conditions for off-campus leases.’ This 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 26 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 discussion has never occurred, and the statement itself is not consistent with the Mayor’s 1 proposal to eliminate all restrictions of U of W leasing. The UCUC Plan envisioned a 2 framework under which there were some limits on the ability of the U of W to lease property in the immediate neighborhood, and these restrictions did not occur in a vacuum.” 3 6/12/03 – CUCAC letter [at C3.7] – “We support an amendment that calls for a Pedestrian 4 Overlay District on arterials in neighborhoods requesting this designation to preserve and encourage retail and pedestrian-oriented activities and no-auto modes of transportation.” 5
6 6/13/03 – RNA/Hans Aschenbach [at C3.9] – “If we keep a modified but intact lease lid, once Link Light Rail reaches the District, we have the ability to provide any Transit 7 Oriented Development with an immediate UW tenant by lifting the lease lid within a specified radius around any light rail station. Perhaps we could incentivize light rail to 8 UW by amending the McIvar-Licata Lease Lid Bill with a guarantee of lease lid lift around the stations. AS you know UW support of the Link has been very, very 9 disappointing.” 10 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 11 RCW / Comp Plan Goal/Policy 12 36.70A.020(11): The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption 13 of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040. The following goals are not listed in 14 order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development 15 of comprehensive plans and development regulations: (11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the 16 planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. 17 36.70A.035: (1) The public participation requirements of this chapter shall include notice 18 procedures that are reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and other 19 affected and interested individuals, tribes, government agencies, businesses, school districts, and organizations of proposed amendments to comprehensive plans and 20 development regulation. . .
21 (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) of this subsection, if the legislative body for a county or city chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a comprehensive plan or 22 development regulation, and the change is proposed after the opportunity for review and 23 comment has passed under the county's or city's procedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the local legislative body votes 24 on the proposed change.
25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 27 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 36.70A.130: (1)(b) Any amendment of or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall 1 conform to this chapter. Any amendment of or revision to development regulations shall 2 be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan.
3 (2)(a) Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program consistent with RCW 36.70A.035 and 36.70A.140 that identifies 4 procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the governing body of the county or city no more 5 frequently than once every year.
6 36.70A.140: The procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and 7 alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs, information services, and 8 consideration of and response to public comments.
9 L265: Encourage significant community involvement in the development, monitoring, implementation and amendment of major institution master plans, including the 10 establishment of citizen’s advisory committees containing community and major 11 institution representatives.
12 L266: Encourage Advisory Committee participation throughout the process of revision, amendment and refinement of the master plan proposal. 13 L267: Require preparation of either a master plan or a revision to the appropriate existing 14 master plan when a major development is proposed that is part of a major institution, and 15 does not conform with the of the [sic] underlying zoning and is not included in an existing master plan. 16 NG1: Recognize neighborhood planning an implementation as critical tools for refining 17 and turning into a reality the vision of the Comprehensive Plan.
18 NG2: Give all community members the opportunity to participate in shaping the future of 19 their neighborhoods.
20 NG5: Foster collaborative relationships between citizens and the City.
21 UC-P32: In pursuit of Comprehensive Plan Policy L130, ensure that the University Community plays an active role in the UW’s Campus Master Plan on subjects of mutual 22 interests. 23 Public Comments 24 4/1/03 – LCC/Hale [at C3.9] – “The Mayor’s proposal was developed with no 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 28 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 involvement of surrounding communities or CUCAC, little understanding of the 1 successful 18-month process between the University and its neighbors in negotiating the 2 1998 City-University Agreement addressing many issues, including the lease lid, and no analysis of the impacts of eliminating this long-term mechanism to protect adjacent 3 communities from the adverse impacts of University expansion.”
4 4/10/03 – Roosevelt Neighbors Alliance [at C3.9] – “We urge you to adopt a process allowing more input and analysis with the goal of crating a truly workable, pleasant, and 5 safe urban community.” 6 5/27/03 – University District Community Council/Fox email [at C3.9] – “We urge the 7 Council to delay the currently scheduled 5/29 Finance Committee vote on this new proposal to allow the community more than a day to analyze and respond to it.” 8 5/28/03 – University Park Community Club Board/D’Alessandro [at C3.9] – “In view 9 of the scheduled absence of at least one committee member and the apparent lack of transparency in the Committee’s approach to resolution of the matter, we urge the Council 10 to defer action on the ordinance until such time as all the Committee’s member may 11 attend.”
12 5/15/03 – University District Community Council/Matt Fox memo [at C3.7]– “The UDCC supports …raising the lid to 700,000 S.F., … which give the Council future 13 flexibility to ensure Comp plan consistency, and which preserve CUCAC’s longstanding role in reviewing and commenting upon UW leasing.” 14
15 5/28/03 LCC/Hale letter [at C3.7] “Please provide an opportunity for citizens and community groups to review and comment on the recently completed University District 16 Market Analysis. This report was presented to the Council with no opportunity for community review . . . We recommend that you direct the Mayor to work with all 17 impacted community and business groups and CUCAC …
18 4/8/03 – LCC/Hale testimony [at C3.6] - “the lease lid proposal eliminates the role of 19 CUCAC in reviewing Univ leasing.”
20 3/22/03 letter from NEDC [at C3.7] “We believe that this [lease lid lift] proposal was developed without the participation of impacted neighborhoods or the CUCAC…The 21 NEDC is disappointed that the Mayor’s proposal was developed without meaningful community involvement … [The City-University Agreement] process, widely regarded as 22 one of the more positive examples of University/community relations, stands in stark 23 contrast to the unveiling of the current proposal prior to any community involvement.”
24 4/8/03 – LCC/Hale testimony [at C3.6] “The Council should wait until the current appeal of the UW Master Plan is completed prior to acting on the lease lid proposal.” 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 29 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 1 3/22/03 NEDC letter [at C3.7] – The major amendment [to Campus Master Plan] process 2 that proceeds through the CUCAC is an important mechanism to ensure a careful review of projects and accountability to the City and impacted communities.” 3 (undated) D’Allessandro/University Park Community Club [at C3.7] “We oppose 4 elimination of the lease lid. We also oppose any temporary elimination of the lid, regardless of the time period involved. WE believe that such a move is simply a 5 preliminary to terminal elimination. However, if a temporary elimination of the lid is 6 approved, it should be subject to a sunset provision such that the lid would be automatically reinstated after an appointed time rather than requiring an affirmative action 7 by the Council to reactivate it.”
8 5/5/03 University Park Community Club [at C3.7] – “Adding to our concerns about the continued inability of CUCAC as an advisory group, most of the administrative duties of 9 this group have been shifted to UW, due to city budget cuts. The conflict of interest is obvious.” 10
11 6/4/03 – Ravenna-Bryant Community Association [at C3.7] – “Our position since introduction of the Mayor’s proposal is that this issue is best addressed through with [sic] 12 the City, the University and community groups working together, rather than the drastic proposal put forward by the Mayor…Amid the many land use issues you’re facing, and the 13 community backlash, this seems to be an excellent opportunity to display your commitment to working with the neighborhoods on a fair compromise that includes our 14 input.” 15 5/5/03 University Park Community Club [at C3.7] “Without University cooperation, 16 nothing will happen. The status quo will not change. And the University has demonstrated that they will not cooperate unless the City Council stands up to it when they 17 come looking for something. That tie is now, and the Lease-Lid issue could be the last opportunity for definitive and realistic cooperation.” 18
19 University District Community Council; Statement for May 1, 2003 Ad-Hoc Coalition Press Conference [at C3.7] “The University Community Urban Center Plan (UCUC) 20 specifically stated that the U of W Campus Master Plan (CMP) should address ‘Determination of most appropriate locations and conditions for off-campus leases.’ This 21 discussion has never occurred, and the statement itself is not consistent with the Mayor’s proposal to eliminate all restrictions of U of W leasing. The UCUC Plan envisioned a 22 framework under which there were some limits on the ability of the U of W to lease 23 property in the immediate neighborhood, and these restrictions did not occur in a vacuum.”
24 6/4/03 – LCC/Hale [at C3.9] – “We were disappointed that a representative from the University was allowed a place at the table [at City Council committee meetings] to 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 30 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 promote the University’s position, while communities were left out and unable to respond. 1 In response to legitimate concerns about what would happen if the City begins to lose 2 housing and retail as a result of UW leasing, the only response from the UW representative was that the City could pursue another amendment to the City-University Agreement at 3 that time – certainly not an easy undertaking.”
4 * * *
5
6 2. Petitioners Have Participation Standing To Raise Claims Against The University 7 Clearly, the Legislature intended that actions taken by state agencies could be challenged 8 under the GMA. See, RCW 36.70A.280 (A growth management hearings board shall hear and 9 determine only those petitions alleging either: (a) That a state agency, county, or city planning 10
11 under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter ...); RCW 36.70A.290
12 (The board shall base its decision on the record developed by the city, county, or the state and
13 supplemented with additional evidence if the board determines that such additional evidence
14 would be necessary or of substantial assistance to the Board in reaching its decision); RCW 15 36.70A.103 (State agencies shall comply with the local comprehensive plans and development 16 regulations and amendments thereto adopted pursuant to this chapter). And, the GMA contains no 17 special restrictions or requirements for petitions challenging an action taken by a state agency.18 18
19 Here, the action taken by the state agency was the amendment of the 1998 City-University
20 Agreement – an agreement originally negotiated between the University and the surrounding
21 communities (petitioners, here). The amendment eliminated substantive development regulations
22 that implemented the GMA Comprehensive Plan policies encouraging the control of University
23 18 It is not surprising that respondents’ cannot think of a Board case where petitioners were expressly “granted participation standing to bring claims against a state agency.” Motion at 11. There is simply a paucity of Board cases 24 involving challenges to state agency actions; and none where a petitioner's standing was made an issue. None of the Boards have dismissed a petition based on a finding that petitioner lacked standing to challenge the action taken by a 25 state agency.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 31 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 expansion into surrounding neighborhoods so as to minimize the acknowledged adverse land use 1
2 impacts. It also eliminated – with one swipe of the pen -- the special process by which the 1998
3 Agreement expressly required such actions to be taken.
4 The legal issues here are plain. The players are governed by the GMA. The University is
5 required, pursuant to the GMA, to act in compliance with local comprehensive plans. RCW 6 36.70A.103. There is nothing to suggest that participation standing to challenge a state agency’s 7 action cannot be found here. RCW 36.70A.280 contains no special restriction on standing to 8 challenge state agency actions, suggesting that none apply other than perhaps those applicable to 9 challenges to City or County action. Yet, the City and University again seek to turn public 10
11 participation under the GMA into a procedural hide and seek. Respondents’ assertion that
12 petitioners lack standing to challenge the University’s action should be rejected.
13 Respondents erroneous assertion that petitioners lack standing because they have not
14 produced “evidence” that they raised the issue of the University’s compliance with the 15 Comprehensive Plan before the City is off base. The sum and substance of petitioners’ comments, 16 summarized in the preceding section, leave no doubt that petitioners’ participation below was very 17 focused on the fact that the elimination of the lease lid by the City and the University was directly 18
19 inconsistent with the Comprehensive plan goals and policies listed above.
20 3. Petitioners Have Established APA Standing
21 To establish standing under the APA, petitioners must allege that they were prejudiced by
22 the City's action, that their asserted interests are among those that the city and agency (here, the 23 City and the University) were required to consider when they engaged in the challenged action, 24 and that a judgment in favor of petitioners would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice 25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 32 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 caused by the agency action. RCW 34.05.530; RCW 36.70A.280(2)(d). As discussed below and 1
2 in the attached Declaration of Jeannie Hale, petitioners satisfy these requirements.
3 As discussed above, the 1998 Agreement required that any change to the leasing
4 restrictions – let alone their elimination – would have to undergo the Major Amendment process.
5 … [I]n the Master Plan adopted for the period from 2001 to 2011, the amount of leased 6 space within the Primary and Secondary Impact Zones shall be limited to 550,000 gross square feet (gsf) and to the “permitted leasing zone” depicted in Exhibit A and any change 7 to these limitations shall be proposed as a major amendment to the Master Plan.
8 UW 67, 1998 Agreement, Section II.E. “Major Amendments” to the CMP are governed by 9 Section II.C.5 of the Agreement, which requires that the amendment and environmental review go 10 through the same process as the initial Master Plan. This process includes review by CUCAC, 11
12 DCLU, and the Hearing Examiner, prior to consideration by the Council. In other words, the
13 Major Amendment process as established in the 1998 City-University Agreement incorporated
14 into the City Land Use Code ensured early and continuous participation by the affected groups,
15 and it specifically acknowledged that the surrounding communities are the affected groups. UW 16 67, 1998 Agreement, Section II.G (“City-Community Advisory Committee”). 17 Thus, the City and University were required to consider and protect the interests of the 18 surrounding communities when substantially altering or eliminating the lease restrictions. In 19
20 performing an “end-run” around this requirement -- by summarily eliminating it rather than
21 complying with it -- the City and University essentially locked CUCAC and the individual
22 neighborhood groups out of the process. Rather than being provided a prominent position at the
23 table,19 the neighborhoods were left to scramble for information from Council staff regarding the 24 19 This procedural flaw was quite literal. As noted in the Declaration of Jeannie Hale at ¶13), at certain meetings the University was given a place at the City Council table where only Council normally sits while the public was 25 relegated to the “audience.”
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 33 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 narrow background information being provided to Council members, and the many different 1
2 proposals that were being floated before the Council for consideration. In light of this – contrary
3 to the intent of the 1998 Agreement – the communities were not able to participate meaningfully
4 in the process.
5 As set forth in the Petition for Review (¶¶ 5.5-5.7), petitioners are primarily community 6 organizations comprised of residents, and other property and/or business owners in the 7 neighborhoods immediately surrounding the University.20 In fact, these neighborhoods groups 8 draw their membership from areas within what the City and University have expressly designated 9 the University's primary and secondary impact areas in which leasing and acquisition was – until 10
11 very recently – restricted in an effort to “minimize adverse impacts upon the City and particularly
12 the communities surrounding the University, and to promote the health and vitality of the
13 residential, business and academic communities.” UW 67, 2.
14 The specific and perceptible harm alleged by petitioners on behalf of their members is 15 plainly presented in the petitioners’ written and oral testimony before the City Council, excerpted 16 above. Further, the City and the University have explicitly recognized by in their successive 17 agreements. Examples of this are found throughout the record. For instance, the stipulations 18
19 preceding the terms of the 1998 Agreement include the following:
20 The City and University recognize that the fulfillment of the University mission may also have adverse impacts upon the City and its surrounding communities by such things as the 21 generation of additional vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the University campus, affecting housing patterns and land use policies by the location of University facilities off the 22 campus.
23 20 The Seattle Displacement Coalition (“SDC”) is an exception as it is not technically a neighbhorhood group; however, as plainly indicated from its comments, quoted above, SDC has participation standing pursuant to RCW 24 36.70A.280(2)(b). Similarly, although the neighborhood lies just outside the impact zones, the Hawthorne Hills Community Council is a member of the Northeast District Council which has established participation standing as 25 well.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 34 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 1 . . . The City and the University recognize that the University and its continued development 2 impacts the environment of the University and its surrounding neighborhoods and the City services which support the entire community. 3 . . . 4 Both parties recognize the need for coordinated comprehensive planning of University 5 development in order to allow the University to pursue its goals of instruction research and service to Seattle and the broader society and at the same time to foresee, assess and 6 mitigate the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of long term development on the physical and human environment and on the City services. 7
8 1998 City-University Agreement, UW 67, at pp. 1-2. In other words, the leasing and acquisition 9 restrictions themselves were aimed at mitigating the acknowledged harm that derives from 10 unlimited University development and expansion into the surrounding residential and commercial 11 neighborhoods. Fundamentally, then, the elimination of the leasing and acquisition restrictions – 12
13 which will allow for unquantifiable new property acquisition, leasing and development off campus
14 in the primary and secondary impact areas -- will result in detrimental impacts on petitioners'
15 members' properties, residences and businesses. In going about their daily lives, members of these
16 neighborhood groups share their urban infrastructure, including sidewalks, streets, and parking 17 facilities, with the University's “population” of 55,500 students, faculty and staff. Further, 18 petitioners' members’ neighborhood environment, streets, and vistas will be detrimentally affected 19 by unrestricted property acquisition, leasing and development by the University -- off-campus -- in 20
21 petitioners' neighborhoods which the record itself shows is likely to further squeeze out the much-
22 needed small business and multi-family housing stock, in favor of large, institutional development.
23 Petitioners have also established standing as associations. The court of appeals noted, in
24 National Electrical Contractors Ass’n v. Employment Sec. Dept:21 25 21 109 Wn.App 213, 219-220, 34 P.2d 860 (2001).
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 35 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 The Washington Supreme Court recently held that an "interest sufficient to confer standing 1 may be shown in [a] personal or representative capacity." This statement reflects the 2 federal approach our courts have adopted to determine whether organizations and associations have standing. In United Automobile Workers v. Brock, the U.S. Supreme 3 Court stated that "the doctrine of associational standing recognizes that the primary reason people join an organization is often to create an effective vehicle for vindicating interests 4 that they share with others." Thus, "[e]ven in the absence of injury to itself, an association may have standing solely as the representative of its members." In Hunt v. Washington 5 State Apple Advertising Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-part test 22 6 for determining when an organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members.
7 Here, as the petitioners’ oral and written testimony excerpted above and the attached Declaration
8 of Jeannie Hale demonstrate, the interests the community organizations seek to protect are not
9 only “germane” but central to their organizational purposes. See, e.g., Hale Declaration, at ¶ 3. 10 Thus, petitioners have established participation standing under the GMA to challenge the 11 University’s and the City’s actions in eliminating the lease lid. Even in the unlikely event the 12 Board finds –as respondents suggest – that there is no participation standing to challenge actions 13 by a state agency, petitioners have established APA standing pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280(2)9d) 14
15 to do so.
16 IV. CONCLUSION
17 In light of the foregoing, the Board should deny the City/University motion to dismiss. To
18 do so would be the final step in insulating the University of Washington – and all of its land use 19 and development activities – from review under the GMA. Further, to resolve this issue of 20 standing as well as to perform its essential review of “the substance and policy context” of the 21 actions taken by the City and University, it is critical that the Board refuse to do so on the 22
23 incomplete record presented by the City and University.
24
25 22 Citations omitted.
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 36 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144 Dated this _____ day of November, 2003. 1
2 HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP
3
4 By Peter J. Eglick, WSBA #8809 5 Jane S. Kiker, WSBA #21586 6 Attorneys for Petitioners LCC, et al.
7 D:\Docs\2017-12-14\04b8e970560986f8513ecf76af10d44a.doc 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO CITY’S AND
UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 37 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846
(206) 292-1144