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

design modifications in the approvals for Mountain View and Cedar Halls and has never disputed the language in all three PDIs requiring that "[s]tudent housing shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural scale, character and quality of buildings constructed on the ECC campus." The Applicant argued that the approved modifications to the BMU development standards make the project compatible with the architectural scale, character, and quality of the two neighboring student housing projects that the College supported. Joshua Scott Testimony; Applicant Briefing. E. Was SEPA review proms 52. The Appellant challenged the City's determination that the project would not have significant impacts on schools or housing. Witnesses for the College asserted that concentrated unsupervised students would result in adverse noise and emergency services impacts. Charles Macklin testified that adding another 160 residents in same area would likely increase calls for emergency services and that the proposed private student housing was likely to result in higher call volumes than the existing College dorms because [in his words] he "guessed" that the [project] won't have limited access, won't have security cameras, and will allow visits from people without screening. Charles Macklin Testimony.8 53. The appeal alleged that the extending the student parking standards to private developers "threatens to thwart any future expansion of the Overlay by the Collegeitself, as well as effective implementation of the Master Plan as adopted by the City Council with input from the College, its neighbors and the broader community." Exhibit E-27, page 24. The Appellant argued that the project's multiple driveways would create significant new pedestrian and motorist safety impacts and contended that the school would be "fiscally jeopardized by a potential outflow of students" (Exhibit C-27, page 25), presumably meaning the College expects it would lose student residents in its own dorms to the project. Additionally, the Appellant alleged that the College informed the City of these concerns prior to issuance of the MDNS but that its comments went unheeded, in violation of the City's SEPA procedures. Exhibits E-S, E-7, and E-8. Broadly speaking, the Appellant argued that the City failed to adequately study any element required to be reviewed in the SEPA checklist. Exhibit E-27, pages 26-27; Appellant Briefing. 8 Of note, when asked to describe the issue of noise complaints, Mr. Macklin testified as follows: "Sometimes it's residents of the dorms that are bothered by noise that's created outside the dorms. We have a freedom of speech area on our campus where people are encouraged to come and exercise their right to free speech, but we limit amplified sound. And some of the people that want to come and express their views on campus are upset with that, so they oftentimes will go down by the fitness center on the public sidewalk or outside the dorms on the public sidewalk because they've got kind of captured attention of a couple hundred students. And so we've had complaints from the residents there about the noise being generated by people with amplified sound outside expressing their views. And then we've had complaints from inside. Most of those complaints are not handled by the security department." Transcript, page 21. 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 24 of 32