Loading...
Spence response to early notice 03222010.pdfRECEIVED, , HARRISON M 22 2010 BENIS & PLANNING DEP.... PENCE, LLP A,'70kNEY; A'. LA -11 2101 FJ'irth Avenue, Juite :80u Seattle, WA �48121-..315 FAX 206.448.7143 2;E.440.w402 Christopher T. Benis James C. Harrison - Michael A. Spence Katherine A. George Of C.-,w;s@: Kernen Lien City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: SUNSET LANDING CONTRACT REZONE PLN2009051 Dear Mr. Lien: Thank you for your December 8, 2009 letter, responding to our request for early notice of whether or not a Determination of Significance is likely. Please consider this letter our formal response. To provide the proper context, I will briefly summarize the proposal. Sunset Landing is a Mixed -Use Transit -Oriented Development located at the intersection of Sunset and Dayton Aves., directly adjacent to the Edmonds Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station, and just steps away from the Washington State Ferry Terminal. The proposal is for between 300 - 360 residential units above a 2 -story commercial "podium" of approximately 30,000 square feet. The project is designed to allow construction in two phases, and a pedestrian walkway known as a "woonerf" separates the two podiums and potentially provides direct pedestrian access to the Sound Transit Station. We are requesting a rezone from BC to CG and CG2, however we are also proposing to limit the uses to those allowed under the current zoning in order to minimize the impacts of the project. As pointed out in the cover letter describing the project, the proposal contains "working envelopes" that describe the overall limits in size of any future development, rather than specific building dimensions and architectural details. These envelopes will define the potential size of the buildings from grade to 25 feet in height, and above 25 feet to the top of the structures. The envelopes fix the dimensions of the setbacks, view corridors and plazas being proposed as part of the contract rezone. They are slightly larger than the buildings shown on the plans in order to allow room for flexibility in the final design of the buildings. The buildings shown on the plans are used to denote the square footage and baseline number of units, which would be conditions of the contract rezone. The envelopes are designed to avoid, minimize or mitigate any potential view blockage by establishing east -west view corridors through the site, and by setting back the residential buildings from the podiums above the 25 -foot level. As stated previously, the proposal is based on language contained in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan that invites this type of development. That language appears on page 36, in the description of the subject property under "Downtown Waterfront Districts". It states: Page 1 "Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR -104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site) and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design - driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the bottom of "the Bowl", could enable a desl nq that provides for higher buildingg outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this are should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian -friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad site of the properties, since this is an area that provides a "first impression" of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Artwork, landscaping and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project." It is anticipated that once the envelope has been reviewed and approved, the project will proceed to the architectural design phase, and presumably another round of public participation. The owners of Sunset Landing may choose to do the design phase themselves, or they may sell the property to a third party upon the approval of the rezone and let that party go through this part of the process. That decision has not yet been made. Either way, the practical effect is that there will be more public participation than the typical "turnkey" project, because first, the envelope and maximum density will be reviewed for "barebones" land use impacts, followed by a second (and presumably more detailed) review of the architectural design during the Administrative Design Review process. Stated another way, phased SEPA review of Sunset Landing allows more, not less public participation, a goal of both SEPA and the Growth Management Act. It is for this reason that we believe that a phased SERA review limited in scope to the land use -related impacts of the proposal is appropriate at this time. As you know, WAC 197-11- 060(5) allows for phased review under SEPA when it is logical to do so, such as when a project starts with a broad focus and then narrows, as this one does. WAG 197-11-060(5) reads in full as follows: (5) Phased review. (a) Lead agencies shall determine the appropriate scope and level of detail of environmental review to coincide with meaningful points in their planning and decision-making processes. (See WAG 197-11-055 on timing of environmental review.) (b) Environmental review may be phased. If used, phased review assists agencies and the public to focus on issues that are ready for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready. Broader environmental documents may be followed by narrower documents, for example, that incorporate prior general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on the issues specific to that phase of the proposal. (c) Phased review is appropriate when: (i) The sequence is from a nonproject document to a document of narrower scope such as a site specific analysis (see, for example, WAC 197-11-443); or (ii) The sequence is from an environmental document on a specific proposal at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a subsequent environmental document at a later stage (such as sensitive design impacts). Page 2 (d) Phased review is not appropriate when: (i) The sequence is from a narrow project document to a broad policy document; (ii) It would merely divide a larger system into exempted fragments or avoid discussion of cumulative impacts; or (iii) It would segment and avoid present consideration of proposals and their impacts that are required to be evaluated in a single environmental document under WAC 197-11-060 (3)(b) or 197-11-305(1); however, the level of detail and type of environmental review may vary with the nature and timing of proposals and their component parts. (e) When a lead agency knows it is using phased review, it shall so state in its environmental document. Courts in Washington have repeatedly and consistently upheld SEPA phased review at the early stage of a project. For example, in Cathcart-Maltby-Clearview Community Council v. Snohomish County, 96 Wash.2d 201, 208-11, 634 P.2d 853 (1981), the Washington Supreme Court upheld an early "bare bones" phased SEPA review for a rezone of agricultural lands for a large development, on the condition that it identified potential impacts to be addressed and provided a framework for further EIS preparation. The Court reasoned that: "This project is an appropriate candidate for a piecemeal EIS presentation, for at this time it is extremely difficult to assess its full impact. Given the magnitude of the project, the length of time over which it will evolve, and the multiplicity of variables, staged EIS review appears to be an unavoidable necessity". The principles of Cathcart were upheld and expanded In Organization to Preserve Agr. Lands (OPAL) v. Adams County,128 Wash.2d 869, 913 P.2d 793 Wash., 1996. The OPAL case involved phased SEPA review of an "unclassified use permit" granted to a landfill in Adams County. The Court again upheld phasing, noting that, "Washington courts have approved phased review of environmental impacts in certain situations. For example, this court has approved a "bare bones" EIS that identified the potential impacts of an application for a rezone to allow for construction of residential units. Id. at 210, 634 P.2d 853. An early-stage EIS is particularly appropriate when decisionmakers will have an opportunity to demand greater detail at a later project stage. Thus, in Cathcart, this court noted that "when the developers seek sector, division of development, and plat approvals, a more detailed EIS can be required." 96 Wash.2d at 209, 634 P.2d 853; see also Ullock v. City of Bremerton, 17 Wash.App. 573, 583, 565 P.2d 1179 (1977) (noting that the city would have to require a more detailed EIS at a later permit stage)." Here, the Sunset Landing project is only a set of "working envelopes" at this point, with only the general outline of the proposed buildings, and the general layout of the site plan. There are no proposed building materials or architectural designs at this time. The number of residential units ranges from 300 - 360 and the commercial space configuration is not known at this time, other than the total square footage of approximately 30,000. That information will come later, after the rezone is approved. Because of this, only the general environmental impacts of a development within the "working envelopes" can be analyzed at this time. As time progresses and more details are made available, the EIS can easily be Page 3 supplemented, in full compliance with WAC 197-11-060(5) and the case law referenced above, Because of this, it is well within the City's comfort zone to consider early phased SEPA review at this point in time for Sunset Landing. I would like to address each of the areas you have suggested are appropriate for SEPA review at this time: Aesthetics: Since there is no architectural design or proposed materials, the only aesthetic impacts that we believe can be assessed in Phase 1 involve the aesthetic impacts of constructing a mixed-use transit -oriented development that is dimensionally equivalent to the working envelopes. We also believe that any assessment of the aesthetic impacts of this project should discuss the positive aesthetic impacts of a high-quality mixed-use transit oriented development adjacent to a commuter rail station, a state ferry terminal and regional and local bus stops. Transportation: We believe that it would make sense to review the transportation impacts of the maximum number of residential units (360) and the maximum amount of commercial space (30,000 square feet) in Phase 1 SEPA review. We also believe that any review of the transportation impacts should assess the positive impacts of a high quality mixed-use transit oriented development adjacent to a commuter rail station, a state ferry terminal, regional and local bus stops, and a State highway. Contamination: As we discussed in the environmental checklist, we envision that any contamination on the property would be rernediated during site preparation for development of the project, We therefore believe that contamination is more appropriate for review in Phase 2. Floodina: As we also discussed in the environmental checklist, any flooding on the property would be mitigated as part of the development on the site. We therefore believe that flooding is more appropriately reviewed in Phase 2. Seismic Hazards: For the same reasons as stated above, we believe that assessing seismic issues is more appropriate for Phase 2. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your letter. To summarize, we believe that phased SEPA review of Sunset Landing is appropriate and desirable for this project at this point in time, as long as it is limited to the issues described above. At present, the proposal is little more than a set of working envelopes and a range of proposed densities. After Phase 1 review is finished and public input is received, the owners or their successors can begin the design process and fine-tune the proposal in response, which supports, if not exceeds, the public participation goals of SEPA and the GMA. Please consider these comments constructive in nature, and any semblance otherwise is unintentional. We look forward to working with you and the rest of the City on this project, and would be happy to discuss any details with you at any mutually convenient time. Very truly yours, HARRISON, BENIS & SPENCE, LLP q_24Z� Pi hael A. Spence DOCUMENTI3 Cc: ESC Associates Page 4