Ravenna-Bryant Community Association &
Laurelhurst Community Club

August 9, 2001

Office of Hearing Examiner
1320 Alaska Building
618 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104-2222

RE: Notice of Appeal of DNS and Design Review for MUP No. 2002354

Dear Hearing Examiner:

This notice of appeal of the Department of Design, Construction and Land Use's (DCLU's) Declaration of Non-Significance and Design Review issues regarding proposed expansion at University Village, Project No. 2002354 is filed by the Ravenna-Bryant Community Association and the Laurelhurst Community Club.

APPELLANT INFORMATION

  1. Appellants: The names, addresses and phone numbers for the appellants and the appellants' contact persons are:

    Ravenna-Bryant Community Association
    Mary Whitfield, Acting Chair
    2911 NE 53rd Street
    Seattle, Washington 98105
    206-524-4653
    Laurelhurst Community Club
    Jeannie Hale, President
    3425 W Laurelhurst Drive NE
    206-525-5135
    Seattle, Washington 98105
  2. Authorized Representative: The authorized representative is Jeannie Hale, listed above.

DECISION BEING APPEALED

  1. Decision appealed: Project No. 2002354

  2. Property address of decision being appealed: 4500-25th Avenue NE

  3. Elements of decision being appealed:
    • Adequacy of conditions
    • EIS not required
    • Master plan requirement
    • Other: Design Review, DNS, traffic impact analysis, cumulative effects of development, mitigation for significant impacts

APPEAL INFORMATION

  1. What is your interest in this decision? How are you affected by it? The Ravenna-Bryant Community Association and the Laurelhurst Community Club are both nonprofit community organizations whose purposes include identifying and acting upon and resolving community wide problems. The Laurelhurst Community Club represents 2800 households in one of Seattle's northeast neighborhoods in the vicinity of University Village. The Ravenna-Bryant Community Association represents approximately 7,000 residents north and northeasterly of University Village. Portions of the Ravenna-Bryant neighborhood are located adjacent to University Village. Both groups have a long history of working on land use and transportation issues. Members of both organizations are affected by traffic and transportation issues related to University Village; pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety issues and parking problems. Members of both groups are affected by construction impacts of the project and loss of views from public places. Appellants will be significantly and adversely affected by the proposal.

  2. What are your objections to the decision? List and describe what you believe to be the errors, omissions, or other problems with the decision. The Director's decision fails to adequately identify, analyze and mitigate the significant adverse impacts of the project, including, but not limited to the following:

    • Traffic safety and circulation: The Burke-Gilman crossing on Blakeley, the east entrance to University Village from 25th by Office Depot and the center turn lane on 25th are only three examples of hazardous conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. These issues have not been adequately addressed.
    • Traffic volume: The increase in traffic volume has not been adequately addressed.
    • Employee parking including overflow parking into the neighborhoods: Due to inadequacy of employee parking on site, employees currently park on small residential streets adjacent to University Village. The decision does not adequately address this issue and the failure to provide adequate parking on site for employees.
    • View blockage: The view impact from the Burke-Gilman Trail behind the proposed parking structure has not been addressed.
    • Air quality: Air quality issues relating to increased traffic volume and concentration of vehicles in the proposed garage have not adequately been addressed.
    • Cumulative impacts: The cumulative impacts of the proposed development have not been addressed considering past and future development in the area.
    • Height, bulk and scale issues: DCLU has made little effort to address height, bulk and scale issues. The proposed garage will be massive, a size equivalent to two and two-thirds football fields. No realistic effort was made to break the project into two components at different locations. DCLU rejected conditions recommended by the Design Review Board relating to height, bulk and scale.
    • Siting of the garage: DCLU made no effort to realistically examine alternative locations of the proposed garage.
    • General construction schedule: A general construction schedule should be spelled out. Appellants need to know what streets will be used for hauling, where staging will take place, where workers will park during construction and the like. If this information is not provided at this time, there will be no opportunity for citizen review.

  3. What relief to you want? Appellants seek the following relief:

    • Remand for additional study;
    • An Environmental Impact Statement to examine the project and cumulative impacts;
    • Modification of the proposed parking garage relating to height, bulk and scale and siting;
    • Street improvements and other mitigation related to pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety; and
    • Other relief more specifically identified at the hearing.

Sincerely,

Mary Whitfield, Acting Chair
Ravenna-Bryant Community Association
2911 NE 53rd Street
Seattle, Washington
206-524-4653
Jeannie Hale, President
Laurelhurst Community Club
3425 W Laurelhurst Drive NE
Seattle, Washington 98105
206-525-5135


Return to Laurelhurst home page