FOLLOWUP: Appeal dismissed in West Seattle ‘104 rooms = 14 units’ case

A decision is in, and the hearing is off.

Checking the city files, we discovered that Hearing Examiner Sue Tanner has dismissed the most-recent 3050 Avalon Way project appeal filed by neighborhood group NERD (Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development):

As we reported three weeks ago, this all started when the group requested an interpretation of whether the city was properly treating the microhousing project as 14 “dwelling units” instead of 104 apartments. The latter number is how many “sleeping rooms” the project calls for, but they are clustered with 14 shared kitchens, and under the city rules that were in effect at the time of the application, each cluster with a kitchen constituted one “dwelling unit.” (The rules have since changed.) The number of units makes a big difference in how a development is reviewed – whether it will require Design Review, and what kind of environmental review. One year ago, the project had been under orders to either go through Design Review or make changes, as explained here; the developer opted for the latter.

After the interpretation arrived in August, affirming the “it’s 14 dwelling units, not 104 apartments” decision, NERD filed an appeal (read it here), contending among other things that the project shouldn’t have been considered as “vested” under the old rules. The case was to be argued in the Hearing Examiner’s chambers on November 5th.

Then after a pre-hearing conference in mid-September, both the city and the developer moved to dismiss the appeal. This past Wednesday, Tanner granted those motions (as detailed in the document embedded atop this report), ending the case and cancelling the November hearing. The ruling largely dwells on a technicality – saying that an appeal wasn’t filed against the Determination of (Environmental) Non-Significance for the project, and that because it wasn’t, the examiner did not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the interpretation.

A Hearing Examiner ruling is the city’s last word in a case like this, meaning that for a decision to be challenged any further, it would have to be taken to court. We have a message out asking NERD if they’re considering that. Otherwise, the project has its land-use permit, but appears to still be awaiting its construction permit.

RT October 19, 2015 (9:01 am)

This is discouraging news. And another nail in the coffin for rational planning.

LarryB October 19, 2015 (9:16 am)

Near term – dorm for newly-graduated or newly-arrived tech workers

Medium term – housing for displaced families

Long term – flop house

If it stops at the medium term, it might not be so bad, but I’m not convinced it will. Once the tech boom subsides, fewer dorm-style buildings will be viable.

dsa October 19, 2015 (9:21 am)

“…The ruling largely dwells on a technicality – saying that an appeal wasn’t filed against the Determination of (Environmental) Non-Significance for the project,…”
.
This is so wrong. Projects public and private slip by because the agency uses a checklist type form and declares them DNS. It’s easy to miss.

not NERDY October 19, 2015 (10:38 am)

Taking the time to read the document before posting, it may largely be “a technicality”, but I read several other technicalities noted in the decision.
–
However, the whole legal process that the NIMBY (NERD) group entered into is nothing if not a technicality based system. The NERDS appeal was after all based on technicalities.
–
I welcome the system acting to protect the codes in place and not bend to the threat of a well financed lawsuit brought by a few neighbors.

Brian October 19, 2015 (10:50 am)

@nerdy: yeah, let’s see if you’re whistling the same tune when a proposal pops up in your neighborhood…

not NERDY October 19, 2015 (12:23 pm)

@Brian,
1) Before buying one block off 35th, I did my ‘due diligence’ in checking adjacent zoning. The price paid reflects the underlying zoning. Housing adjacent to underlying multi-family zones reflects that risk in lower prices.
2) I am in favor of increased capacity and as that happens, I welcome our new neighbors.
3)These apartments are being legally developed in their intended zone(s) and are obviously filling a need not met elsewhere.

Truthteller October 19, 2015 (6:26 pm)

I think we should just get it over with and build 10,000 units in Schmitz Park, and 10,000 more in the gully. To hell with trees, open spaces, and freedom. We want more apartments, traffic, accidents and most of all people!!!!! We love to give money to out of state developers and the city. We love to build without water restrictions. Why do any forward thinking or planning when we can line our pockets with gold now?

JanS October 19, 2015 (6:29 pm)

dear not NERDY…they are not apartments…they are small rooms that you share kitchen facilities with strangers. In other words, dorms. Capacity is one thing – overcrowding and…the breaks that the developers get from these kinds of buildings are another. And, we see that public transportation is not improving in West Seattle to handle the growth. There is no parking at that building of 114 separate rooms. Do you honestly think these people will not have cars? is the city naive enough to think that? Of course not. Any lease should specify that whoever lives there cannot have a car, in my book. These people are not going to take public transportation to go skiing, to go to a movie, a mall, a Sunday afternoon excursion into the mountains, or whatever. They will park their vehicles on an already overcrowded street. The quality of life goes down in that neighborhood just because of buildings like this. These are just my opinions….but I’m betting there are a lot of people in WS who agree.

Debra October 19, 2015 (6:53 pm)

So for those of us 30 years ago did our homework regarding zoning and fully engaged in the urban development and guess what the developers and the city changed the rules after the community engaged on what they wanted to see
So the lower cost was not reflected but the rules changed
Having tiny little dorm rooms was never ever part of the agreement between the community and the city
Bottom line is the developers rule the city, agreements are not adhered to, and those who don’t believe this will turn into urban blight, only need to look at other cities
this has changed west Seattle with increase crime, traffic, pan handling, shame on our leaders who did not keep their agree,net and won’t in the future

not NERDY October 19, 2015 (10:59 pm)

Reply to JanS,
These living units are defined as apartments.
A pejorative use of the word ‘dorm’ dates you, as many new university dorms have suites nicer than most private sector apartments eh, dorms.
The people who rent these dorms/apartments/micro-housing units or whatever you choose to call them have as much right to park on the street as you or I.
If one desires the convenience, safety and guaranteed spot to plant their vehicle, they can rent a dorm/apartment/micro-housing unit or house with off street parking.
–
@Debra,
Your revisionist history of the codes gets it backwards. Before the boundaries established 30 years ago, there were no restrictions.
The good news if you did your homework 30 years ago as you claim, you made a very good decision to buy back then and your investment has more than equaled the American Dream of home ownership. You scored and held onto an incredible investment, all the while enjoying such great access to the Junction. Purely as an investment, your house likely outperforms mine. Congratulations.

JanS October 20, 2015 (12:20 am)

well, NERDY, I’m 68. So, yeah, I’m using the term dorm the way I know them.I don’t give a damn that they are being called apartmentsd by the developer. That’s not what they are. And down the road they’ll be more like tenements – just give it 5 years. They are not affordable, renting for usually more than 800 bucks a month for about 220 sq. feet. Some of the bathrooms in some buildings like this on Avalon already built don’t even have a sink in the bathroom. Ewwwwwww.

I never said one is guaranteed a place to park. What I said is these buildings are being built with no parking because the city feels like they are near transit hubs. Thhe developers are touting the fact that these bldgs. fit the city plan of less cars. What a laugh. There will be lots of cars. Parking on Avalon is already at a premium. Ask the Luna Park Cafe.I no longer frequent that restaurant, since there is never a place to park. Yes, I drive a car…by myself. I work at home, avoid the commute. But I do not take Metro anywhere, since I am disabled, cannot walk far, and I live in the Admiral District…they’ve basically taken our bus service away here.

I think many would be more amenable to these buildings if they were given a smaller footprint, were more affordable, and if the city planners, etc. would actually plan. Developers own the city leaders as far as I’m concerned…they’ve never met a developer they didn’t like (or the money the developers throw at them to get their way). It’s simply my opinion, just as what you post is your opinion.

Oh, and I was a homeowner once…life got in the way, and I am no longer…sigh.

RT October 20, 2015 (8:58 am)

The points made by JanS are right on. Those of us in some sectors of the Admiral District have been cut off from decent bus service for a while…and the remaining few, reasonable routes subject to cancellation multiple times. I’d love to be able to use public transit more….just doesn’t compute when I can’t count on a bus to show up or to have space for me. The urban planning decisions that have been made lately do not address our overtaxed (no pun intended) system as it exists nor as it is proposed. Density should be encouraged in core areas with easy access to the destinations most people are traveling to.

There was a terrific letter to the editor in the October 16th issue of Westside Weekly by Carolyn Cooper addressing some of the issues that keep coming up here. Check it out!

One other thought: just because people want to move to an area doesn’t mean they will be able to. Capacity does have its limits. We are getting close to a tipping point that may create a lesser Seattle ….not in the way that Mr. Watson envisioned, sadly.

not NERDY October 20, 2015 (10:03 am)

JanS and others need to embrace the changes that have occurred over the last quarter century. I too am old @63 but never have any trouble parking anywhere in West Seattle. Though I am able and happy to walk a block or two, I rarely need to.

West Seattle is no longer the restaurant free zone it once was with Downtown the only choice.

Disabled people who don’t have a disabled parking permit might consider the variety of ride sharing and taxi services the younger crowd is enjoying. These often save money and allow freedom of all of those car hassles like searching for street parking and storing a car. I would not be surprised if some of your dormers do not own cars.
I still cannot conceive why people are so set on denigrating people who choose to live in small spaces. No one is making you live there, dorm or not.
The comments about a five year life of these buildings have already proven false as some have existed that long now. The “knife fights over kitchen space” have not occurred. If these buildings do not work out as ‘dorms’, er micro-housing, they could be converted to conventional apartments or condos.

RT is complaining about lack of transit services after the largest transit increase in Seattle’s history. The transit issues in the Admiral area mentioned are no reason to pull up the draw bridge as they can easily be adjusted to demand. I guess this is a carryover from all of those years of complaints of “how can they allow development when transportation is being cut?”
Once again West Seattlelites’ love of complaining is without any positive suggestions. Banning development would do absolutely nothing to improve our community. It would take away 25% of the tax funds being used for infrastructure during these times. Anyone who opines that the city is in the hands of developers is ignorant of our system and obviously has never dealt with the city bureaucracy.

Peter October 20, 2015 (12:31 pm)

“Neighbors Encouraging Reasonable Development.” Bullpucky. This group has never encouraged any development; they are specifically anti-development. The name of the group itself is an outright lie. I think that’s reflective of the character of the anti-gowth activists behind it.

RT October 20, 2015 (1:45 pm)

@Not Nerdy. The comments some of us have made about concerns about the design of these micro units have not denigrated the prospective tenants. On the contrary, we have questioned why infrastructure development that provides studio and one bedrooms apartments with their own kitchen space at an affordable rent cannot be built. There are plenty of areas in Seattle (Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, Greenlake, Wallingford, and even West Seattle) where attractive 3-4 story apartments mingle with residential blocks and commercial areas….all co-existing. The idea that the only affordable way to house people is in tall light-blocking buildings, and the only future for the “Emerald” city is to pave over its few remaining
human scale areas is flawed. Many suggested alternatives have been offered including more aggressive marketing and development of auxiliary dwelling units, broadened definitions of “mother-in-law” in home apartments, small cottages on viable lots, and , most importantly – increasing density in areas that have access to multiple means and avenues of transportation. Take a look at the map that was sent out with the promo materials for Prop 1. The Ballard and West Seattle peninsulas are still essentially ignored. Follow the north and south colorful lines on that map and that is where urban developers should be given the incentive to continue or initiate development.

Debra October 20, 2015 (8:23 pm)

Nerdy you are just wrong
Did you participate in the90s when the urban villages were being developed I did extensively and if you review the plans for west Seattle you can see the variation that happened that the community specifically asked for
Example no development was going to be greater than 2 stories along the junction/ California to keep the small Main Street appeal, hmm ,,,agreement that density would ease into single family neighborhoods, that promise wasn’t kept
And if you don’t think the city sold out to developers then you are not in tune with the history and the decisions that were made during the recession, interesting in your comment about the appreciation of my home you call it an investment I call it my home it shows the fundamental difference of how we see our community, your comment to jan regarding her disabled status and transportation and you have not had to walk any distance shows a complete lack of reality regarding access for the disabled community, shameful ignorant comment

not NERDY October 21, 2015 (9:14 am)

@ Debra,
Because a “Debra” that is hyper active in Junction area complaining has made false claims on WSB in the past about development adjacent to her house, I am assuming the same here.
So once again, please cite your proof of “no development was going to be greater than 2 stories along the junction/ California”?

In past post ‘Debra’ has also brought up her property values.
But more obvious is her false assertions about home ownership as I congratulated her on exceeding the the unqualified community description ‘American Dream’ and qualified my talk of value, “purely as an investment.”
I also must defend myself of the unacceptable and untrue claim of “a complete lack of reality regarding access for the disabled community, shameful ignorant comment.”
False and false.
What is my lack of reality?
JanS complains of not being able to park close enough to restaurants and bus routes not close enough for her.
No mention is made of disabled parking permits, friends, relatives, sharing rides, senior services transportation, churches, taxis or the growing number of alternative ride services, so I bring these up. These examples are safer, less expensive, more engaging and better than a disabled person relying on their personal vehicle or too distant bus stop.
Is that being shameful or ignorant?
My reality is based on my experience in the last decade as both my parents insisted on living fully in the house they built in West Seattle 60 years ago to the very end. We went through all of those services(except Uber), after too long a battle to get them to stop driving the streets of their beloved West Seattle.

Just Wait October 21, 2015 (11:57 am)

Debra and JanS, this is just the beginning. Both D1 candidates support expanding urban villages (one map shows the Junction expansion into the green space on 35th adjacent to Camp Long and many blocks into single family neighborhoods). Eventually not NERDY and others will have 6-story microhousing adjacent to them, and by then it will be too late. The city only requires 18 feet between tall buildings. Eminent domain to force out single family homeowners and renters in order to advance the affordability schtick is the next step in the HALA plan, just wait. Goodbye homes with yards, hello everyone crammed into parklets along the busy streets. When did Seattle become so liberal that it started hating middle-class homeowners and the aged folks living in single family neighborhoods – a good question for the candidates alleging to want to represent you. So much for accountability. Not to mention the transportation mess not being addressed by any of these affordability plans or Move Seattle.

freecitizen October 21, 2015 (2:01 pm)

Wow, “not NERDY” yes, you can say ignorant. This discussion is lively. I’m still trying to work on preventing single “re-channelization” of the rest of 35th AVE SW. Been to city council mtg, met with WA state congressman, sent letters to and/or called Rasmussen, Murray, found an earlier petition & promoted it, spoke with hundreds of West Seattleites and joined about 5 organizations to find out what they’re up to. This is tough, but I’ll win – at some point. Now for my neighborhood & overgrowth, if it’s reasonable to the neighborhood – ok. If not, push-on, the developers & contractors will!
Cheers & (only) three things at a time…

SeaweedToasted October 21, 2015 (4:14 pm)

Thanks to all the kind and thoughtful people that are speaking up! It’s refreshing to hear real stories about ongoing concerns and issues. I consider myself a #SeattleNERD and am proud of it! We really have been encouraging Reasonable Development! Gratefully, my neighbors care about each other, are patient and understanding, and can afford to pool resources (money and time) to hire lawyers to take on DPD. For years, we have been ignored and disrespected when it comes to getting involved with local Development and Planning. I’ve lived here since 1996 in a little 1924 home that has changed zoning over the years- it’s Midrise now. When I bought this house at age 25, I planned on living here for the long term and to always have a place that my friends and family can visit. Maybe one day, I’ll be the developer and provide more housing and maybe some income for my family.That seems like the best investment for us. I want to learn the best way to do that, but how do I plan for it if I’m competing with unsustainable buildings, a bureaucratic DPD, Big Money Developers and the broken legal system? I’ve been taking deep breaths through all this “outside” development. That’s what it feels like. A sign goes up and then boom, there’s a huge building with no green space, tiny sidewalks and lots of added noise and garbage. The developers don’t live here and I doubt they care about anything other than the bottom line. DPD doesn’t care or look out for us. That doesn’t seem to be part of their job- there is zero advocacy for the people who are already living here. We are smart and a diverse group. We care about each other. 3050 has been a vacant lot for years now. It’s our only big green space left on our island of a neighborhood wedged between the Bridge and busy Avalon. We’re right by the Pedestrian Bridge, the bike path, Rapid Ride, and the new bus routes to Genessee. It makes sense to take a breath and look more deeply into the real issues. I’ve done research about ECAs, SEPA, Urban Villages, zoning, permits, land use, watersheds, codes, tried to connect to developers, planners, owners, city council, neighborhood groups and through the Community Agencies…and most recently TRIED TO APPEAL the DNS because of environmental concerns! There were so many missing pieces to the “Appeal puzzle” that I missed the Appeal deadline, but was relieved that my NERD Friends got one in on time. From there, I made more calls trying to understand the Motion to Dismiss, the Hearing and all that other legalese. Now, here we are. What are the next steps? I don’t know! Do you? What can we do to press pause for a little longer to truly understand WTF is going on here? In real life! Sure, some reasons might seem nimby-ish, but that is not the whole important truth. There are environmental reasons. Human reasons. Existing challenges in our current structure. So many of you made comments about the real issues and that makes me happy. Gives me hope. Now to get back to work and figure out next steps! We have a 7,200 sq ft property in an environmentally critical area- steep slope and also very wet (leads to LongFellow Creek) and Salmon Watershed! They plan on wiping all the vegetation to build a huge 7 story building with, at least, 104 people living in tiny expensive rooms. I’ve talked with all sorts of friends and neighbors (professionals, single, parents, artists, athletes, world travellers) about “MicroHousing” but no one is interested in that kind of living- especially at that price. What to do, what to do. What is reasonable?

Sorry, comment time is over.