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

modified weather protection results in inferior design. The evidence shows that the modification requires trees along the N. Broadway frontage that would conflict with weather protection. In all of the BMU design standard modifications approved, the City's decision took the site's location and physical characteristics into consideration. Mitigation was imposed through the modification approval process to ensure that the project satisfies the intent of the design standards and results in a superior design. The approved modifications are consistent with those approved for Mountain View and Cedar Halls. To the extent that the determination of "superior design" is subjective, the Director's determination merits deference. Findings 7, 12, 13,15, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51. 5. The record submitted failed to demonstrate probable, significant adverse environmental impacts or improper SEPA procedures. Although the Appellant alleged significant impacts from noise and increased emergency services demand, they did not submit evidence to show such impacts are probable other than arguably speculative witness opinions. The Appellant offered no traffic engineering evidence to refute the traffic safety and parking demand information presented by the Applicant in two traffic memos and from the City's traffic engineer, which together form a factual basis for the SEPA Responsible Official's environmental threshold determination that is effectively . unrefuted. The only possible "harm" to existing housing stock or schools that is asserted in the appeal is competition for rental tenants, an economic concern that falls outside the zone of interests addressed by SEPA. Finally, the Appellant argument that relaxing the definition of student housing to encompass private developers of student housing will thwart expansion of the Overlay zone and should be required to undergo a legislative process is not persuasive. In addition to the explicit authority granted to the Director referenced in Conclusions 1 and 2 above, this argument fails because it ignores the process employed in the instant project review, which: 1) required site and use -specific traffic data (so specific that it distinguishes between domestic and international students) to support parking calculations; 2) imposed a minimum number of parking stalls based on the most conservative student mix projections; and 3) permanently prohibited conversion of the student housing use to any other kind of housing without affirmative demonstration of parking availability. This last prohibition is greater protection than was provided in the approvals of the previous two student housing projects that the College operates. Based on the evidence provided by the parties, the Responsible Official's issuance of the MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impacts. The Appellant has not shown clear error in issuance of the environmental threshold determination. Findings 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65. Findings, Conclusions, and Decisions in the Everett Comm. College Appeals of Koz Student Housing Administrative Decisions REV II # 17-016, PDI # I5-02, PDI # 18-02, and SEPA # 17-013 Everett Hearing Examiner page 31 of 32