1020 N BROADWAY EVCC STUDENT HOUSING - WHOLE SITE 2022-05-23

arrangement would impede their ability to obtain financing, the Applicant declined to agree to this scheme. Cathy Reines Testimony; Exhibit K-1. Issues on Appeal A. Is private student housing permitted on -site within the Institutional Overlay Zone 18. The Appellant argued that the proposed private student housing (as opposed to student housing owned or operated by the College) is not an "institutional" use nor "closely related" or "ancillary" to the College, and thus it is not among the uses permitted in the Overlay pursuant to EMC 19.3313.020. According to the Appellant, approval of private student housing within the Overlay would undermine the College's ability to provide essential health, supervisory, and security support that is necessary for safe undergraduate housing. Mountain View and Cedar Halls each have five resident assistants and one full- time live-in College staff member who connect the students with needed services. Resident assistants also monitor compliance with the College's prohibition against. alcohol, marijuana, illegal drug use, and loud activities disruptive to the neighborhood and other student residents. The College asserted that in order to qualify as a student housing project among higher education professionals, any development would be required to provide such amenities as resident assistants, extra -curricular activities, and campus security. Appellant witnesses submitted that the project is "student housing" in name only and thus is not supportive of the College and is not permitted within the Institutional Overlay Zone. Vice President for College Services Pat Sisneros put it this way: "There's got to be some benefit to the college, or what's the point of the overlay?" Testimony of Charles Macklin, Mike Bowers, and Anthony Williams; Appellant Briefing. 19. Among the harms posited by the Appellant as a result of the proposed dense population of unsupervised young adults so near the College campus was an increase in crime in the area. This increase was projected by ECC's Director of Security Charles Macklin both as a result of the fact that the unsupervised dorm would serve as a "target rich environment" for non -student criminals, with car prowling and drug sales given as primary examples, and also an increase in crime at the College's student housing dorms, because students in the new facility would be to have drugs, alcohol, guns, or other weapons, and the residents of the two buildings would mix. Students residing in private student housing would not be subject to the College's code of conduct, according to Dean of Student Development Anthony Williams, who projected impacts to the neighborhood could be similar to those associated with fraternity houses. College witnesses testified that they believed ECC would need to hire additional staff members and devote more resources to current security programs in order to address the increased call volume resulting from the project. Mr. Macklin asserted that the increased crime projected to occur in the project would add to his workload in that it must be included in his mandatory reporting under the Clery Act.6 Dean Williams testified that the neighborhood would view the project as 6 The undersigned takes judicial notice of the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or Clery Act, signed in 1990, a federal statute codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1092, with implementing regulations in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations at 34 C.F.R. 668.46. Institutions participating in federal Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions in the Everett Comm. College Appeals of Koz Student Housing Administrative Decisions REV II # 17-016, PDI # 15-02, PDI # 18-02, and SEPA # 17-013 Everett Hearing Examiner page 14 of 32