BEFORE THE WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT

HEARINGS BOARD

STATE OF WASHINGTON

LYNN BAHRYCH, JOHN GOEKLER,

MIKI BROSTROM, TOM SCHROEDER,

PETITIONERS,

CASE NO.___________

PETITION FOR REVIEW

v.

SAN JUAN COUNTY, a political

subdivision of the State

of Washington,

RESPONDENT.

_______________________________

PETITION

1. The Petitioners are Lynn Bahrych, John Goekler, Miki Brostrom, and Tom Schroeder, residents or property owners in San Juan County. Petitioners' addresses are: Lynn Bahrych, P.O. Box 106, Shaw Island, WA 98286, telephone (360)468-2396, FAX (360)468-3196; John Goekler, P.O. Box 203, Lopez, WA 98261, telephone (360)468-2778, FAX (360)468-3888; Miki Brostrom, P.O. Box 92, Waldron Island, WA 98297, telephone (206)232-7954; Tom Schroeder, P.O. Box 1636, Friday Harbor, WA 98250, telephone (360) 378-4877.

Petition for Review - 1

2. Petitioners' representatives for the purposes of this appeal are Lynn Bahrych and John Goekler, whose addresses, telephone numbers, and FAX numbers are shown above.

3. Respondent is San Juan County.

4. December 16, l998, was the date of publication of the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan (referred to hereafter as the "Plan" or "CP"), Unified Development Code ("UDC"), and Official Maps. This appeal is taken from the action of the Respondent to adopt the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code by Ordinance No. 2, l998, effective on December 20, l998. A copy of the key provisions of the Plan and UDC being appealed is attached as Exhibit A.

5. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (the "Board") has subject matter jurisdiction of this Petition under RCW 36.70A.280 due to the Respondent's failure to comply with RCW 36.70A, the Growth Management Act, ("GMA"); with RCW 90.58, the Shoreline Management Act, ("SMA"), which protects shorelines of state-wide significance including San Juan County shorelines; and with RCW 43.21C, the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA").

6. ISSUE ONE: ENCOURAGEMENT OF SPRAWL THROUGH DOUBLING OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY COUNTY-WIDE, INCLUDING IN RURAL LANDS.

a. The Comprehensive Plan and UDC permit doubling of residential density throughout the county, including rural lands and shorelines, regardless of lot size or land use designation. The Plan and UDC permit this additional density by allowing a second single-family residence for full-time occupancy or

Petition For Review - 2

commercial use wherever one single-family residence would be permitted. See CP Section 2.2.A.12, 2.2.A.13; CP Section 5.2.A.3; UDC Section 4.18, 4.19; and UDC Section 5.2.7. Several land use designations or "zones," including Rural Residential, are partially protected from this density increase under circumstances which are neither clear nor consistently described in the UDC. See Tables 3.1-3.2, including footnotes, and UDC Section 5.5.18.h.

b. This doubling of residential density throughout the county violates the GMA prohibition against creating a new pattern of low-density sprawl. RCW 36.70A.020(2) and 36.70A.070(5)(d). Growth Management Hearings Board decisions under RCW 36.70A.020(2) establish ten acres as the maximum density for rural environments. Any pattern of development allowing smaller parcels is not considered to be "rural." Peninsula Neighborhood Association v. Pierce County, Case No. 95-3-0071, Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, Final Decision and Order, page 19.

c. The GMHB in the Peninsula v. Pierce County case specifically ruled that construction of a detached new residential dwelling on a parcel smaller than 10 acres is generally prohibited because it would effectively allow two freestanding dwelling units. "The effect would necessarily be one freestanding dwelling on a lot smaller than 5 acres, which the Board has previously held to constitute urban growth." Final Decision and Order page 22.

d. This doubling of residential density also violates these Growth Management Act Planning goals: (1) to encourage

Petition For Review - 3

development in urban areas with adequate public facilities and services, RCW 36.70A.020(1); (2) to reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development, RCW 36.70A.020(2); (3) to protect private property rights of landowners, RCW 36.70A.020(6); (4) to encourage the retention of open space and conserve fish and wildlife habitat, RCW 36.70A.020(9); (5) to protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, RCW 36.70A.020(10); (6) to encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process, RCW 36.70A.020(11); and (7) to ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be available and adequate to serve the development without decreasing current service levels, RCW 36.70A.020(12).

e. The GMA requirement set forth in RCW 36.70A.110(1), of preventing urban growth outside of urban growth areas, is also violated by the Plan and UDC. See also WAC 365-195-010(7)(c)(plans should concentrate growth in urban areas). Instead of concentrating growth in the areas where residential density is now the greatest, the Plan and UDC distribute future residential growth throughout the rural landscape of San Juan County.

f. Private property rights are also diminished by doubling the residential density of the county. As the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ruled in Woodsmansee v. Ferry County, a failure to restrict development to appropriate levels can be a violation of property rights of adjacent property

Petition For Review - 4

owners: "In fact, not to restrict use is, in our opinion, often a

violation of property rights of adjacent property owners who have an equal right to enjoy their property without unsuitable development intrusion. Clearly, the GMA requires restrictions on development." Woodsmansee, Case No. 95-1-0010.

g. The requirements under the Plan and UDC for constructing a second single-family residence where the density limit is one residence are described in the performance standards set forth in Section 4 of the UDC. These performance standards constitute a checklist for the Permit Center to use in order to issue a "provisional permit." No shoreline substantial development permit is required for single-family construction within the shoreline jurisdiction, and no conditional use permit is required for single-family construction on upland parcels, except in Rural Residential. Rural Residential is the county's functional equivalent of a single-family residential zone in an urban environment. It consists of subdivisions, with relatively small lots, often less than an acre. Contrary to the GMA goal of concentrating growth in urbanized areas, such as Activity Centers and Rural Residential, the Plan and UDC direct growth to relatively undeveloped rural areas. See e.g., UDC 4.19.3.h (contains restrictions on guest house rentals that apply only to Activity Centers, Rural Residential, and Conservancy designations).

7. ISSUE TWO: SPRAWL AND UNCONTROLLED GROWTH WILL RESULT FROM THE INCREASE OF FROM FIVE TO EIGHT UNRELATED PERSONS INCLUDED IN A

Petition For Review - 5

SINGLE "FAMILY."

a. The Plan and the UDC increase the number of unrelated persons allowed to reside in a single-family residence and guest house from five to eight. In the UDC, Section 2, page 7, "family" is defined as "Individuals related by genetics, adoption, or marriage or a group of not more than eight unrelated individuals who share a single dwelling unit." A "dwelling unit" is then defined as "a main residence and a guest house" even if they are physically separate and not in fact a "unit." This means, for example, that a homeowner could rent a guest house with four bedrooms during the tourist season to four unrelated couples for a weekend or for an entire summer without any environmental review. The county would view them all as one "family." Since the average household size in San Juan County is 2.25 persons, this far exceeds the reasonable expectations of most island residents.

b. The new definition of "family" increases by 60% the number of unrelated individuals that previously could inhabit a single-family residence. Residential density has two components: the number of structures and the number of residents. This change in definition, and the goals, policies, and regulations that relate to it, increase residential density county-wide regardless of designation. This across-the-board increase violates RCW 36.70A.020(2) and RCW 36.70A.110(1).

c. This new definition of "family" was approved by the Board of County Commissioners a year after the Final Supplemental

Petition For Review - 6

Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS") was prepared and published. The increase in the number of unrelated persons considered as one "family" was added at the end of the GMA planning process by the Planning Commission and the BOCC, without the opportunity for public comment on the potential environmental impacts. The increase was not considered nor debated during the GMA planning process by the Citizens' Advisory Committees, the Citizens' Steering Committee, or the Citizens' Technical Advisory Committee. No SEPA review has ever been conducted on this issue.

8. ISSUE THREE: THE PUBLIC MANDATE FOR DENSITY REDUCTION IN RURAL ENVIRONMENTS AND FOR CONCENTRATION OF GROWTH IN ACTIVITY CENTERS WAS DISREGARDED.

a. The single issue that elicited the largest public response during the GMA planning process was density or residential "build-out." Public comments, including a petition with over a thousand signatures, consistently reflected the county-wide desire to avoid population build-out at current densities and to concentrate future growth in designated activity centers. The Citizens' Advisory Committees and the county-wide Steering Committee promoted density reduction through regulation and voluntary incentives and promoted the concentration of growth in Activity Centers. Even though the BOCC removed the provision for density reduction through regulation from the new Plan, the goal of density reduction was still to be pursued by means of voluntary incentives. At no time in the GMA planning process did the public

Petition For Review - 7

support a legislative increase in overall density.

b. The two changes discussed above violate the GMA planning goal of encouraging early and continuous public participation, as set forth in WAC 365-195-600. In the county's "bottom up" planning process, the Citizens Advisory Committees and the Steering Committee voted against guest house rentals. Although the Planning Commission approved guest house rentals under some circumstances, their version was not adopted by the BOCC in December of l998. Furthermore, at no point in the planning process did any of the Citizens' Advisory Committees approve or support raising the number of unrelated persons allowed in a single-family residence from five to eight. The public process was further violated by the adoption of these two changes between October 1, l998, and December 20, l998, without adequate public notification, public hearings, or SEPA review.

c. All of the public comment and all of the SEPA analysis was made on the premise that residential densities were unchanged from the l979 comprehensive plan. In fact, the Plan and UDC were passed with the express legislative findings by both the Planning Commission and the BOCC that "Residential densities in the rural land-use designations are unchanged from those established in the adoption of the 1979 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Regulations and the 1976 adoption of the Shoreline Master Program. . . .Various means to reduce density and/or reduce build-out potential were analyzed in the draft environmental and economic

Petition For Review - 8

impact statement (DEEIS) and in the supplemental EIS. The Land Use Element of the CP expresses the intention of the county to develop a voluntary transfer of development rights program or other density reduction strategies to address this issue." Ordinance No. 2, l998, Finding 9.

d. The adoption by the BOCC of the Plan changes that increase residential density in the face of overwhelming public demand for density reduction in rural areas constitutes a violation of GMA Planning Goal 11, RCW 36.70A.020(11)(Citizen Participation and Coordination). The GMA planning process is intended to be a "bottom up" effort, "involving early and continuous public participation." WAC 365-195-010(3).

9. ISSUE FOUR: THE INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY RENDERS THE PLAN INCONSISTENT INTERNALLY AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATIONS THAT IMPLEMENT IT.

a. The GMA requires that locally developed plans be consistent internally. WAC 365-195-010(4); WAC 365-195-070(7). Each plan must also be consistent with land use maps. WAC 365-195-500. The GMA further requires that development regulations adopted to implement the comprehensive plan be consistent with that plan. WAC 365-195-010(5).

b. The Comprehensive Plan is internally inconsistent in at least seven areas due to the new guest house and family expansion provisions. First, in Section 2.2.A, General Goal 3

Petition For Review - 9

states that high density residential development is to be directed into activity centers to prevent sprawl and to relieve growth pressure in the surrounding rural areas. However, the allowance of a second fully occupied residence on nearly every rural parcel in the county, and the expansion by 60% of the number of unrelated individuals who can occupy them, will direct growth to surrounding rural areas instead of to activity centers.

c. Second, in the shoreline element of the Plan, Section 3.3.C., the Rural Residential Environment is supposed to accommodate "considerable medium density" residential development, with a maximum density of two residences per acre. However, the new guest house provisions make it more difficult to obtain a permit for a fully occupied or rented guest house in Rural Residential by requiring a conditional use permit, which is not required in other rural designations. The maximum density set forth in this section could also be exceeded if CUP's were to be issued for half-acre parcels, thus allowing four residences per acre.

d. Third, Sections 3.3.D., 3.3.E, and 3.3.F. establish maximum residential densities which would all be exceeded by the construction of a second single-family residence on a parcel without a sufficient density allowance. Furthermore, the UDC specifically prohibits anything other than one single-family residence on a parcel in the Natural designation and specifically requires that the single residence be for the property owner's use. Petition For Review - 10

UDC Section 3.3.F.6. However, the new guest house and expanded family provisions are inconsistent with this because they not only

allow a second residence but they also allow a non-owner to occupy either residence.

e. Fourth, Section 3.5.D.2 states a policy of prohibiting non-water-oriented commercial uses in the shoreline. However, the new guest house and expanded family provisions permit a commercial use in the shoreline that is not water-oriented.

f. Fifth, Section 3.5.M.13 states the policy that the maximum allowable density on the Official Maps will not be exceeded by the number of residential units within the shoreline area on a parcel to be divided or developed with multi-family units. Adding a second fully occupied residence to a shoreline parcel without sufficient density is inconsistent with this policy.

g. Sixth, Section 6.5.B.1, establishing policies for driveways, states that approaches to county roads should be held to a minimum to improve traffic safety and minimize maintenance expenses. There is no provision, however, for handling the additional traffic associated with a second fully occupied residence and an expanded number of unrelated occupants, each one potentially with a vehicle.

h. Seventh, in Section 7, Capital Facilities, the level of service analysis is based on current residential densities. The growth projected for the six-year period from 1996 to 2001 is based on current build-out estimates of one residence per parcel. A

Petition For Review - 11

doubling of residential density has not been factored in to the Capital Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan, nor factored in to the regulations that implement it. Thus, all of the level of service provisions are inconsistent with the Plan and UDC as adopted.

i. The UDC also contains internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies with the Plan as a result of the guest house and family revisions. In Section 2, a "guest house" is defined as a residential unit designed for irregular residential occupancy by family members, guests, and persons providing health care or property maintenance for the owner. However, the new guest house policy contemplates new construction that is designed specifically for full-time commercial use.

j. In Section 3, Land Uses, the new guest house provisions are inconsistent with the regulations in the residential categories, specifically Tables 3.1 - 3.2, governing Single-Family Residences, Two-Family or Duplexes, and Multi-Family Residences. With the Single-Family category now encompassing a second free-standing or attached residence, it becomes the functional equivalent of a duplex. Where a duplex or two-family residence was allowed, now a multi-family residence could be the unintended result. In other words, the tables will not work with the current guest house and expanded family provisions in place.

k. In Section 3.2.4.a. the UDC clearly states that the maximum allowable densities are shown on the Official Maps. The

Petition For Review - 12

Official Maps are inconsistent with the new densities created by

the guest house and expanded family provisions.

l. In the Shoreline Master Program, Section 5.5.7, commercial developments are regulated within the shoreline. Both the general regulations and the regulations by environment are inconsistent with the new provisions which allow the commercial use of guest houses without either a conditional use permit or a substantial development permit. In the Rural designation on the shoreline, for example, a commercial development is allowed only by CUP. However, a rented guest house, which is defined in UDC Section 3, Tables 3.1-3.1 and Section 4.19.3 as a commercial use, could apparently be established on the shoreline without a CUP.

m. An even greater inconsistency is created by 5.5.7.b.(3) and (5), which prohibit commercial development in Rural Residential, Rural Farm Forest, and Natural. Similarly 5.5.18.b.(11), Residential Development, specifically states that although construction of a single-family residence for the use of the owner is exempt from substantial development permit requirements, any other single-family residential construction is subject to shoreline permit requirements. This directly contradicts the new guest house provisions which permit a second single-family residence to be constructed without a shoreline permit. However, since permit exemptions are to be construed narrowly in the shoreline, WAC 173-27-040(1)(a), the new guest house provisions should not survive close scrutiny.

Petition For Review - 13

n. The Plan and the Official Maps are also inconsistent in

terms of densities assigned to particular designations. The GMA requires that each comprehensive plan be internally consistent and that all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. See WAC 365-195-500. The Plan states, in Section 2.2.A.7, that "Residential densities specified on the Official Maps indicate maximum allowable density for each parcel based on acres per residential unit for rural and Resource Lands." However, as the Analysis of Official Maps prepared by the San Juan County Prosecuting Attorney shows, there are numerous inconsistencies between the Plan and the Official Maps. For example, the Plan requires that Forest Resource lands be 20 acres or more, while the Official Maps retain as designated Forest Resource lands parcels of only two acres, five acres, and ten acres. See Exhibit B, excerpt from Memorandum of Prosecuting Attorney to BOCC, March 27, l998.

10. ISSUE FIVE: THE NATURE OF THE INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WILL MAKE THE CONCURRENCY PROVISIONS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

a. One of GMA's planning goals is to ensure that public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be available and adequate to serve the development without decreasing current service levels. RCW 36.70A.020(12). Concurrency is specifically required under WAC 365-195-010(6), which states that development and the provision of public facilities and services

Petition For Review - 14

needed to support development should occur concurrently.

Concurrency is also a component of the internal consistency required of each GMA plan. WAC 365-195-500.

b. The piecemeal, lot-by-lot nature of the residential development permitted by the county's new plan will make it difficult if not impossible to provide adequate public facilities and services concurrently with development. The incremental doubling of residential densities by the individual construction or use of second residences on single-family lots will not trigger any corresponding provisions in the UDC requiring additional open space, drainage, streets or roads, potable water, sewage disposal, parks and recreation, schools, ferry service, power service capacity (e.g., both overland and submarine cabling), and telecommunication service. However, the residential occupancy of a second living space on residential parcels will have a large-scale and cumulative effect on neighborhoods, especially through increased traffic and parking conflicts and unanticipated pressures on utilities, water supplies, and sewage disposal systems resulting from two separately-functioning households. Unlike the regulations governing subdivisions, which do address these issues, the regulations governing the construction or use of a second residence do not provide for concurrency. Like non-point pollution, it will all add up.

c. Consideration of the public facilities and services that will be required for the type of growth permitted by the new

Petition For Review - 15

plan is required under WAC 365-195-825(4) concerning subdivisions and (5) concerning potable water. For example, WAC 365-195-070(3) requires that domestic water systems be added for lands outside of UGA's, but no such requirement appears for guest houses in the performance standards in the UDC Section 4.18 and Section 4.19. WAC 365-195-850, concerning impact fees, provides a method of addressing impacts on development activity as part of financing public facilities, but nothing in the new plan addresses this or any other remedy for the inevitable increase in the cost of county infrastructure.

11. ISSUE SIX: THE COUNTY DID NOT PERFORM THE REQUIRED SEPA REVIEW OF THE GUEST HOUSE AND EXPANDED "FAMILY" PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PLAN.

a. Although the regulations more than double residential density, through doubling the number of single-family residences allowed and through increasing the number of unrelated occupants by 60%, there was no review of the environmental impacts of these changes under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), RCW 43.21C and its regulations, WAC 197-11-560. SEPA requires that a jurisdiction such as San Juan County evaluate the environmental impacts that may result from a government action before taking that action. The adoption of a comprehensive plan is an action with significant impacts, thus the county was required to provide a complete environmental study of the final plan and its implementing Petition For Review - 16

regulations. See SJCC 16.24 (SEPA implementation).

b. The county used a phased SEPA review process for non-project actions, as provided under the GMA. The Draft EIS was published during the summer of 1997, and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("FSEIS") for the SJC Revised Final Comprehensive Plan, Official Maps, and Shoreline Master Program was published on November 12, l997. Public hearings were held on November 17-19, l997, during which the Petitioners offered testimony on the environmental impacts identified in the FSEIS. In the county's FSEIS, the public was assured that "if additional changes are proposed by the Board of County Commissioners with adverse environmental impacts not previously reviewed, additional SEPA evaluations will occur prior to action being taken by the Board of County Commissioners." See Exhibit C, FSEIS, Fact Sheet-1. c. Despite this assurance, however, no further EIS has been produced pursuant to SEPA since that date even though the San Juan County Planning Department alerted the Board of County Commissioners concerning the significant environmental impacts of allowing full-time occupancy and commercial use of guest houses and of enlarging the concept of "family." The BOCC did not authorize a supplemental EIS following SEPA procedures to study these impacts and to provide the public with an opportunity for review and comment, as required by WAC 197-11-560-620. Instead, the Plan and UDC as now adopted contain major changes made between October of l998 and December of l998, long after the last public hearing.

Petition For Review - 17

These changes will severely impact the environment and all aspects of life in San Juan County.

12. ISSUE SEVEN: THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS IN THE PLAN AND UDC ARE ILLUSORY.

a. The primary if not the only provision for affordable housing in the Plan are the policies allowing rental of guest houses and enlarging the concept of family. Since the new Plan permits short term rental, that is for periods of less than 30 days, and makes no provision for rent control or to otherwise protect tenants from expensive vacation rental rates, the result of guest house rentals is likely to be more high-end property available for vacation rental without actually addressing affordable housing. The GMA specifically warns against such an approach, stating that an "effort should be made to avoid escalation of costs which will defeat the achievement of the act's housing aims." WAC 365-195-070(6).

b. The GMHB in the Peninsula v. Pierce County case distinguished between accessory dwelling units ("ADU's") that would be permitted in rural environments and those that would not be. The basis for the distinction is whether or not a new detached structure is permitted. "Regardless of the size of the rural lot, ADU's attached to the main residence or a conversion of a detached existing structure (e.g., a garage) in close association with the primary residence would not constitute new urban growth." Final

Petition For Review - 18

Decision and Order page 22. Thus, detached ADU's in rural areas are not permitted unless they result from the conversion of an existing detached structure that is actually in "close association" with the primary residence. The county's new Plan and UDC permit new construction of a second detached structure of up to 2,000 square feet in size (if a garage is included). Custom construction of single-family residences in San Juan County is not, by any reasonable measure, "affordable housing" for low-income people. As the SJC Planning Department observed in its Staff Report of May 11, l998: "There is no authority in the Plan or UDC to ensure that "affordable" units are produced, or to ensure that rentals are offered at affordable rates; in fact, existing experience is that short-term rentals in the summer season can be quite pricey. Summer season rentals also present difficulties for people who need to find year-round affordable housing."

c. The new guest house and expanded family policies are going to provide an economic incentive for people to build a second home on their property as a speculative commercial enterprise. As the Plan and UDC are currently written, the increase in number of renters permitted (to eight unrelated persons) will encourage property owners to invest in new construction of up to 2,000 square feet by renting during the summer season, which is extremely lucrative, especially on the shoreline.

d. The Citizens Technical Advisory Committee drafted an alternative set of regulations that would have permitted attached

Petition For Review - 19

ADU's in the county, with careful controls to prevent actual or apparent sprawl and to mitigate environmental impacts. These regulations satisfy the requirements of the GMHB in the Peninsula v. Pierce County case, and would provide the county with housing that could realistically be "affordable" for low-income families as well as for caretakers and elderly relatives of the owners of the primary residence.

13. ISSUE EIGHT: RURAL SHORELINE DESIGNATIONS NOW CARRY URBAN LEVELS OF DENSITY, WHICH SHOULD BE REDUCED TO PREVENT SPRAWL.

a. As discussed above, one of the primary planning goals of GMA is to prevent sprawl in the rural environment. This goal is particularly important where shorelines of state-wide significance occur outside of urban growth areas. The SMA mandates preservation of such shorelines in their natural condition wherever possible. RCW 90.58.020(2).

b. Four rural shoreline designations now carry excessive densities appropriate only for urban development. These densities should be reduced. In the Conservancy designation, which is the largest shoreline designation, representing 42% of the county's shorelines, the density allowed is one residential unit per acre. See Exhibit D, Shoreline Density Analysis. This would amount to two units per acre under the current Plan and UDC. This is not consistent with an environmentally sensitive designation, nor in fact with a rural environment. In the Rural Environment and

Petition For Review - 20

in the Rural Residential Environments on the shoreline, two residential units are allowed per acre. With the new provisions permitting a second residence to be constructed in these designations, the densities could be four units per acre. In the Rural Farm Forest Environment, the density of one unit per two acres is also excessive. Again, under the current Plan and UDC, it could be increased to two units per two acres, or one unit per acre.

c. The new Plan and UDC include one provision intended to mitigate the visual impact of additional single-family residences on the shorelines. This is UDC Section 5.5.18(e)(6), which states that the second single-family residence on a single parcel must be located so that it "maintains the single family appearance." This purely subjective notion is not supported by any performance standards in the UDC. No other attempt has been made in the Plan or the UDC to deal with the multitude of other environmental impacts that inevitably result from increased residential development.

d. The allowed densities of each of these four shoreline designations should be reduced to conform to the goals of the GMA to prevent sprawl and protect the environmental values of rural lands.

14. The Petitioners have standing to appear before the Growth Hearings Board because they served on the Citizens' Advisory Committees (see Exhibit E); Lynn Bahrych served on the Steering

Petition For Review - 21

Committee and Technical Advisory Committee; each of the Petitioners testified at public hearings on the Plan and the UDC and on the draft and supplemental EIS's for the Plan and the UDC. See, e.g., Exhibit F. The testimony of the Petitioners was both oral and written and addressed the issues discussed above within the context of the plan, the regulations, or the environmental impacts proposed at that time. The Petitioners are residents or property owners in each of the three legislative districts in San Juan County. The Plan and UDC provisions that they are appealing would adversely and directly affect the quality of their lives and would diminish the environmental and economic values of the areas in which they reside.

15. The Petitioners estimate that the hearing of this matter will take one day.

16. The relief requested is that certain sections of the Plan and UDC relating to residential density be invalidated, remanded, and amended to reinstate the goals and policies of the Citizens' Advisory Committees and the Citizens' Steering Committee and to conform to the goals of the GMA. In particular, the Petitioners request an order invalidating all portions of the Plan and UDC that permit a second single-family residence where the underlying density limit is one residence; the portions of the Plan and UDC that raise the occupancy limit of unrelated persons in a single-family residence from five to eight; and the portions of the Plan and UDC that permit urban densities in shoreline environments.

Petition For Review - 22

More specifically, the Petitioners request:

I. That Section 5.2.7 of the UDC be invalidated and remanded to delete the reference to "one guest house" as a "normal appurtenance" to a single-family residence and to exclude a guest house as a normal appurtenance in all other respects and that all related goals, policies, and regulations be modified accordingly;

II. That the definition of "family" and "dwelling unit" in Section 2 of the UDC be invalidated and remanded to amend them to include five unrelated persons instead of eight and that all related goals, policies, and regulations be modified accordingly; and

III. That the densities established in Sections 3.3.C, 3.3.D, 3.3.E, and 3.3.F of the Shoreline Master Program in the Plan be invalidated, along with the implementing regulations in the UDC in Section 5, and remanded for amendment to reflect the GMA goal of preventing sprawl and the SMA goal of preserving the natural shorelines of state-wide significance.

IV. That the provisions for guest house rental in the Housing Element of the Plan be invalidated and remanded for consideration of new policies and regulations providing for attached ADU's in specific designations in order to direct growth appropriately as well as to provide affordable housing and that all aspect of ADU's, guest house use, and any proposed changes to the definition of "family" be reviewed as required under SEPA.

Petition For Review - 23

The Petitioners have read this Petition for Review and believe

the contents to be true.

DATED this _____ day of February, l999.

PETITIONERS:

____________________________

Lynn Bahrych

Shaw Island

____________________________

John Goekler

Lopez Island

____________________________

Miki Brostrom

Waldron Island

___________________________

Tom Schroeder

San Juan Island

Petition for Review - 24