The analysis resulting in the Decision issued on Project #3018711 allowing University Prep. to expand upon Church property (located at 7740 24th AVE NE) is logically flawed and therefore incorrect based on a simple reading of Interpretation No. 13-010. The City should consider its Interpretation error during the current review.
Under Seattle Municipal code 23.44.022.D.3, private Institutional expansion beyond 2.5 acres in single family zones is permitted if the subject site being considered for expansion (here, Church property) is, “non-residential,” in nature.
While Ms. Samantha Updegrave, Senior Land Use Planner, concluded that this Church property did not have residential structures on its parcel, this conclusion was in fact wrong. Rather, Ms. Updegrave should have considered the currently modified Church property as having the equivalent of residential structure on it, because the Church parcel previously had a residential structure that is now modified for non-residential use in the form of accessory parking.
This argument is supported by the Findings of Fact she herself wrote in her Interpretation when read at face value. In this view, University Prep. should not be allowed to expand onto the Church property--because its campus would then exceed the 2.5 acre limit established under SMC 23.44.022.D.3. Two facts, detailed by Ms. Samantha Updegrave, Senior Land Use Planner, herself clearly support this contention as follows:
First, according to her Findings of Fact #2 (page 2 of Interpretation), Ms. Updegrave writes:
"Under Seattle Building Permit No. BN50071, issued Nov. 20, 1974, "Permission was granted to establish a daycare facility within the existing church building, remove portions of the existing parsonage and establish the use of an accessory office, and to demolish an existing residence and to construct an accessory parking lot ..."
Fact #2 establishes that the Church parcel had an existing residential structure that was demolished to construct an accessory parking lot.
Second, according to her Findings of Fact #10 (page 4 of Interpretation), she writes:
"Under former Section 23.16.002.A the adopted policies for Institutions and Facilities in Single Family Zones provided as follows:
Demolition of Residential Structures: Residential structures, including those modified for non-residential use, shall NOT be demolished for facility or institution establishment, expansion or parking unless a need has been demonstrated for the services of the institution or facility in the surrounding community and no other practical alternative size is available. It is the intent through this standard to preserve housing in a single family residential areas, and permit conversion or demolition of housing only as a last resort when the public benefits clearly outweigh the loss of housing."
Fact 10 establishes that even if Residential structures are, “modified for non-residential use,” (such as in this case to create accessory parking, as per Fact 2), the modified entity may NOT be used subsequently for, “Institution establishment, expansion or parking.” If the City did not care about what happened to modified structures that are non-residential in nature, its policy for Institutions and Facilities in Single Family Zones would not have included the key clause, "...including those modified for non-residential use..." However, as evidenced by inclusion of this key clause, the City does in fact critically care about the loss of housing and how modified residential structures are subsequently used--especially when concerning the subsequent expansion or establishment of Institutions and Facilities in single family zones using these modified structures.
The City clearly wants to protect even modified non- residential structures from being used for further Institutional expansion. Accordingly, with this similar logic, the City must consider the Church property in this current form as having the equivalent of a residential structure on it (currently in modified form as accessory parking). The language within former Section 23.16.002.1 indicates the rationale without equivocation: "It is the intent through this standard to preserve housing in a single family residential areas."
In any prima facie reading then, the Church property must be considered as having residential structures on it, not as otherwise erroneously concluded by Ms. Updegrave. If the City regularly allowed single family zoned residential structures to be first modified, demolished or otherwise converted to non-residential uses, and then allowed their subsequent conversion for Institutional expansion in single family zones, then the primary, stated goal preserving housing in single family residential areas could be easily subverted. Thus, the initial determination by Ms. Updegrave that the Church parcel is non-residential in nature must be incorrect, as it is logically inconsistent with the rationale detailed in Fact 10. The City should correct this Interpretation during this period of Public comment and review.
Continued reading of Ms. Updegrave's Interpretation shows how apparently confused she is. In her Fact #11, she writes, "No polices or legislative history was discovered that discusses establishment of expansion of Institutions on property developed with non-residential structures, as opposed to vacant land." This clearly contradicts her own Fact #10, which clearly is a historical policy itself, with a declared specific intent of, "[preserving] housing in single family residential areas," while specifically commenting on, "Residential structures, including those modified for non-residential use". It is as if Ms. Updegrave did not even read nor think through what she wrote, as it is completely baffling how illogical these conclusions are!
=======================
If City chooses to disregard these Facts and to ignore these plainly obvious flaws in this Interpretation, Fact #10 nevertheless establishes that Institutional expansion may be allowed, "only as a last resort", and there has to be a, "need...demonstrated for the services of the institution or facility in the surrounding community.” It is not evident that U. Prep has met or is able to meet these conditions. In this regard, the City must please provide the evidence for the following:
1) the alternate plans that establish the current proposed expansion using the Church property is unequivocally, “of last resort.” Potentially expanding onto Church property simply because the initial 2014 Interpretation (erroneously) classified the Church property as non-residential does not itself constitute a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of all the potential alternate options available to U. Prep.
Rather, the City should show and document all of the alternate approaches that U. Prep. Institution has considered. Specifically, the City should show that U. Prep. has invested comparable time, effort, and financial resources (for example, as supported by detailed meeting minutes, paid invoices, etc.) to carefully explore and critically consider alternate options that do NOT include use of the Church parcel, which
otherwise consumes property originally designated for single family housing. This would then demonstrate in good faith to the neighbors of the surrounding community that the current proposed expansion plan is not the only plan considered, but rather is in fact the one that was selected as, “of last resort.” These alternate plans should be shared publicly, as there may be other options or approaches that may in part or whole be more preferable to the surrounding community neighbors.
2). the, "need" for this expansion, showing specifically that this, "need," is derived from the "surrounding" community---meaning those neighbors who live directly adjacent and nearby to the Church property (and not needs of U. Prep's Board of Trustees, student body, prospective students, alumni, or anyone else). If necessary, the City should provide their definition of the word, "surrounding," if their definition does NOT consider adjacent neighbors as being the principle persons making up the, "surrounding community.” Of many neighbors who live adjacent to the proposed site of institutional expansion, none appear to agree with the proposed scope of expansion (please see posted comments on City website from many, many adjacent neighbors who oppose the proposed expansion).
Additionally, the City should detail the proportion of the current U. Prep. student body that is composed of residents who live in the, “surrounding community,” to confirm that this institution is indeed meeting a, "surrounding need." If, however, many students at U. Prep. come from outside of the, “surrounding community,” such as from other parts of Seattle or even further away from cities on the Eastside such as Bellevue, Issaquah, etc., then the school currently and subsequently with its proposed Expansion necessarily cannot by definition be meeting a, “surrounding community,” need.
Based on the submitted traffic study by Heffron Transportation, data from Table 3 (page 17) show that only 3% of students either walk or bike to school, indicating that very few students live in the surrounding community. By contrast, most students appear to either drive, carpool, are dropped off, or take custom Metro or public buses from more distant parts of Seattle and other neighborhoods. These data together suggest that U. Prep. is very likely not meeting a, “surrounding community need,” in the manner a local public school (such as Wedgwood Elementary or Eckstein Middle School) might, in which almost all of the students who attend the school live in the adjacent, surrounding community. The City should explain how allowing the proposed expansion of this private Institution meets, “a need [that] has been demonstrated for the services of the institution or facility in the surrounding community...” if indeed many students live afar and not within the surrounding community.
3) and lastly, the data and analysis that clearly document the, "public benefits,” of this proposed private institutional Expansion outweigh the loss of housing.
At face value, the proposed Expansion will be detrimental to the public good of the surrounding community. It will demolish the NE Seattle Tool Library, which is a local beloved public entity, and will undoubtedly create more traffic, noise, and congestion in the neighborhood. It is therefore important to the surrounding community to understand the benefitS (plural) that will be forthcoming to this neighborhood, should this Expansion project be allowed to proceed.
Of further note, this private school appears to charge tens of thousands of dollars for private education that arguably few families in Seattle can readily afford, even despite whatever partial tuition waiver/scholarships may be offered. This suggests that the school cannot be of general public benefit, but is likely to be mostly of benefit to those whose families are financially well-off. Further, because U. Prep. has a private application-based admissions lacking public accountability, it can be reasonably assumed at times to be biased in favor of the few children of wealthy donors or alumni.
Accordingly, U. Prep's benefits as an Institutional will never be as equally accessible or available to the general public as a local Seattle public school might be. In this regard, it should not be afforded exceptional privileges allowed as a last resort, such as expanding beyond 2.5 acres in areas zoned for single-family housing.
In summary, based on a simple and straight-forward reading of Interpretation 13- 010, it seems apparent that the logic and reasoning behind this Decision is clearly flawed. There are flat out contradictory Facts used by the Senior Land Use Planner in this determination.
Continued disregard of this error and these facts as presented would inevitably set a precedent by which private Institutions within single family zones might readily expand beyond currently prescribed limits by first, acquisition of adjacent residential properties (which is, in fact, one of U. Prep’s stated strategic goals; see their web page on Strategic Plan 2020, where they state: “Actively pursue the acquisition of proximate facilities,” (web page accessed 09-02-17)), second, by conversion of existing residential structures into non-residential entities for non- residential use, and then lastly seeking administrative conditional approval to achieve Institutional expansion goals.
The proposed U. Prep. expansion using the Church property in principle and spirit does not come anywhere close to meeting the clearly stated goal or rationale of preserving housing in single family zones, but rather creates a way for private Institutions to subtly and eventually subvert this goal. The City should not grant continued administrative conditional approval for U. Prep. to expand using the Church parcel, but rather should correct its original Decision.
This Church property should remain preserved for single family residential use.