FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE In the Matter of the Appeals of Hearing Examiner Files: YORK WONG, et al., SAVE OUR SQUARE and R-15-005 and JESSICO LUCIO From decisions by the Director of the Department References: Seattle Department of Construction and - Inspections and the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods Introduction The Director of the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) issued a master use permit decision, and the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods issued a certi?cate of approval, for a project located at 316 Alaskan Way. The Appellants timely appealed the decisions. The matters were consolidated for hearing. The appeal hearing on the above?referenced matter was held on January 20-22, 2016, before the undersigned Deputy Hearing Examiner. Parties represented at the proceeding were: the Appellants, York Wong et al., and Save Our Square, by David Bricklin, attorney at law; Appellant Jessica Lucio, pro se; the Directors of SDCI and Neighborhoods, by Patrick Downs, Assistant City Attorney; and the Applicant, by John McCullough and Ian Morrison, attorneys at law. The record was held open after the hearing to allow for the submittal of post-hearing statements by Februaryr 10, the Examiner?s viewing of the site, and to add the following exhibits to the record on stipulation of the parties: Exhibit 63, the master use permit decision for 3017008, dated June 11, 2015; and Exhibit 64, the October 7, 2015 Recommendation of the Pioneer Square Preservation Board concerning PSB 324K 15. The record was closed after receipt of those exhibits, on February 12, 2016. The respondents and Appellant York Wong, et al., submitted letters after that date regarding arguments raised in each other?s closing statements but were not conSidered or added to the record, as the Examiner did not call for additional brie?ng after the submittal of the closing statements. For purposes of this decision, all section numbers refer to the Seattle Municipal or Code) unless otherwise indicated. After due consideration of the evidence elicited during the hearing and the Examiner?s inspection of the site, the following shall constitute the ?ndings of fact, conclusions and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this appeal. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner R-15-005 and R-15-006 Page 2 of 12 Findings of Fact 1. The proposal site is addressed as 316 Alaskan Way South. The site is approximately 20,773 square feet, and is bounded by South Jackson Street to the south, a commercial warehouse building to the north, an alley to the east, and the Alaskan Way Soutthlaskan Way Viaduct to the west. 2. The site is within the Pioneer Square Preservation District and the Pioneer Square Urban Center Village. The zoning is Pioneer Square Mixed with a height limit (PSM- 100f100-120). 3. The property to the north and south of the site is zoned PSM 100/ 100-120. To the east, the zoning is PSM-100. To the west, the zoning is Downtown Harborfront and General Industrial 1 (1G1 U85). 4. The site is occupied by a three-story concrete structure, known as the Terminal Garage or Old Seattle Parking Garage. The building is currently used as a commercial parking garage. 5. The Terminal Garage is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a 1909 building, and is ranked as ?Historic, Non contributing.? Ex. 19. The building was constructed during Pioneer Square's period of signi?cance between 1889 to 1931, although it was most likely constructed in 1919 rather than 1909; Ex. 50, testimony of Johnson. The garage was designed by Ernest Haley, an architect from Minneapolis. 6. The garage building has undergone changes through the years. The windows on the southern and western facades were replaced with aluminum sash windows in 1975 and the building has lost its entire parapet. The loss of ?architectural integrity? would make it a ?lift? or challenge to change its current designation as a ?non-contributing? in the Register, in the opinion- of Dr. Brooks, the Washington State Historic Preservation Of?cer; testimony of Brooks. 7. The Alaskan Way Viaduct is directly west of the site. Development in the vicinity of the site includes the four-story building to the north; the three-story Theater building to the south; and the four-story L.C. Smith building to the east across the alley. Other buildings further east along S. Jackson Street include the three-story Jackson Building, the three-story Crescent Manufacturing Company, and the four-story Burke Building; Ex. 25. Other buildings in the vicinity of the site are depicted in the record, see, Ex. 6, 15. 8. The Pioneer Square Historic District was created in 1970, the nation?s ?rst historic district; Testimony of Sullivan. The ordinance creating the District, now codi?ed in Ch. 23.66 SMC, declares Pioneer Square ?an area of great historical and cultural signi?cance.? SMC 23.66.100.A. 9. The District?s status as a national historic resource is subject to federal, state and local programs that are in place to administer the laws and regulations related to historic preservation. The Secretary of the Interior administers the state programs through the State Historic Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner and and R-15-006 Page 3 of 12 Government (CLG), a status that requires approval by the National Park Service and application to the SHPO. The CLG status requires the City to have historic preservation ordinances and a commission to review changes to districts. 10. Dr. Brooks described the balance that must be maintained between old and new in a listed historic district, such that observers can still feel as if they are in the original district. Although she noted the potential for de?listing if that balance is lost, Dr. Brooks did not think that the approval of this project would place the District at risk of becoming de-listed; testimony of Brooks. 11. The Pioneer Square Preservation Board (Board) is the special review board for the Pioneer Square Historic District. The Rules for the Pioneer Square Preservation District include ?General Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction.? Ex. 9. The guidelines reference the Code and the Board?s Rules, and also incorporate the Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards for Rehabilitation with Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, and the Historic Buildings Preservation Briefs developed by the National Park Service. 12. In 2011, the City Council enacted Ordinance 123589 (aka ?Livable South Downtown Ordinance?) that included a new zoning designation, the PSM 100/100-120 zone, in which the subject site is located. In this zone, the maximum height for structures containing residential uses increased to 120 feet if certain ?bonus? conditions were met. The ordinance also did away with the requirement that no structure could exceed the tallest structure?on the block or adjacent block fronts by more than 15 feet, subject to certain exceptions. 13. The proposed project at 316 Alaskan Way South is for an L-shaped, ll-story structure, with 200 residential units above ground ?oor retail, with 79 parking spaces. The structure would be 120 feet tall plus an additional 15 feet for rooftop amenity space. The Terminal Garage would be demolished. 14. The project would include a two-foot dedication of the alley with restored concrete and asphalt patches, with historic brick on the new alley surface. At 11 stories plus the 15-foot amenity roof, it would achieve the full allowable height of 135 feet above grade. In addition to the Code-required setbacks, the project proposal includes a one-foot-setback' at the lOO-foot level, with the upper-most amenity ?oor to be set back 4 feet from the eastern facade of the ?oor below. The building materials are brick, aluminum, wood and glass, as shown in the record. A number of other details are proposed, as described in the record. 15. The record includes renderings and other information that depict various relationships between the proposal and buildings near the site. The project would be taller and larger than the neighboring buildings. 16. The project concept was initially brought to the Pioneer Square Preservation Board (Board) and its Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in April 2014. The Board considered the proposal during several meetings over the next year and half, and heard public comments on Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner and Page 4 of 12 the proposal. The applicant continued to revise aspects of its design, as shown in brie?ng packets in the record. Throughout their review of the project, Board members expressed concern about the building?s scale and mass at this location, and offered other critiques concerning treatments such as the window patterns, materials and colors; Ex. 10. The applicant made changes to the proposal after hearing the Board?s comments. These included lowering of canopies to provide a better pedestrian environment; changes to the window patterns to reference the window patterns of the ?warehouse district;? a ?cornice line? (or ?belt course?) at the lOO-foot datum line to' reference the context along Alaskan Way; and the use of glass ?penthouse? at the upper levels to try to reduce their visual impacts. Board members acknowledged the changes and indicated some support for them, but continued to express their objections to the project?s scale, bulk and mass as these related to the site and the District. 18. The Board also considered whether the Terminal Garage structure was a ?contributing? or ?noncontributing? structure. It ultimately determined that the existing garage structure was appropriate for demolition as a "noncontributing" structure. 19. On July 15, 2015, the Board voted 7-1 to deny the application for a Certi?cate of Approval. The Board determined that the facade?s large scale was not compatible with surrounding buildings, the street elevations did not relate to the scale of the buildings in the immediate area, and - the proposed building was not visually compatible with the District?s historic character. 20. On July 30, 2015, the Director of the Department of Neighborhoods (DON) granted the Certi?cate of Approval with two additional conditions, the addition of the four-foot setback at the amenity level, and a change to the detailing of the belt coursefcornice line at the IOU-foot .level. 21. The applicant submitted its MUP application for the proposal to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) in July 2014. As part of its SEPA review, DCI requested the Kobe Terrace Park view study and ?any related diagrams that further demonstrate your proposal adequately addresses the SEPA policies for Public View Protection from this viewpoint/park;? Ex. 54. The view study is shown at EX. 54. 22. DCI issued its MUP decision on June 11, 2015; Ex.63. The MUP decision included a SEPA determination of nonsigni?cance (DNS) for the project. As part of its review of impacts to historic buildings, the MUP decision stated that ?Given the review by the City?s designated special review Board, no further mitigation historic preservation is warranted.? Ex. 63, p. 8. 23. decision and Seattle decision were appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The Examiner issued an Order on September 9, 2015, reversing and remanding decision because the Board had not issued a ?nal recommendation to the Director prior to issuance of her decision, as required by SMC 23.66. 030. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner and and R-15-006 Page 5 of 12 24. On October 7, 2015, the Board issued its recommendation that the Certi?cate of Approval be denied. On October 22, 2015, the Director issued her decision to approve the Certi?cate of Approval; EX. 7. Among other things, the decision concluded in ?nding 15 that scale "is addressed" by the upper-level setback, window proportions, use of glass, awnings, cornice line, and other elements. The decision also concluded that the project was "generally consisten with other new development along the waterfront and in the district's central core (?nding 16) and that it would be "compatible in massing, size, and scale? to the typical historic architectural development" (?nding 17). 25. The DON Director?s decision referenced "other new developments in Pioneer Square" and referred to buildings at 200 Occidental, 450 Alaskan Way South, 589 Occidental, and 520 Occidental as being "located along the waterfront and in the district?s central core.? Ex. 7, page 8. Drawings and information submitted to the Board as part of the Certi?cate of Approval processes for the above buildings are in the record. Exhibit 55 shows estimated volumes of the 316 Alaskan Way proposal and the new projects. 26. Several witnesses at hearing, including Board members involved with the review of those projects, described the relationship between those projects and their sites and the factors that were of consequence to the witnesses. 27. Witnesses at hearing with experience in architecture andlor historic preservation described how they applied the concepts of "scale," "compatibility," and ?character,? all of which are terms used in the Code, the SOI Standards and Guidelines, and the District rules. The concept of scale is a relational one, according to several of the expert witnesses. In its general application, scale may be considered from different perspectives, ranging ??orn afar to adjacent; testimony of Anderson. For example, scale may be applied from a District perspective seen from different vantage points in the City, from Puget Sound on a ferry approaching the City), from the street-level perspective in the immediate neighborhood, and from a pedestrian level; testimony of McConachie, W00. 28. SMC 23.66.0253 states: .3. The use and development standards shall identi?v the unique characteristics of the district, shall include a statement of purpose and intent, and shall be consistent with the purposes for creating the special review district. The . standards shall identify uses, structures and design features that have positive or negative e?ects upon the character of the district, and may modi?/ use and development standards and other provisions of the Land Use Code to allow and encourage or to limit or exclude structures, designs, and uses. All provisions of the Land Use Code shall apply in special review districts. Use and development standards shall specify the criteria by which uses, structures and designs will be evaluated In the event of irreconcilable di?erences between the use and development standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, and the provisions regulating the underlying zone, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner R-15-005 and Page 6 of 12 29. SMC 23.66.140 prevides in part: A. Maximum Height. Maximum structure height is regulated by Section 23. 49. 78 Pioneer Square Mixed structure height. B. Minimum Height. No structure shall be erected or permanent addition added to an existing structure that would result in the height of the new structure of less than 50 feet, except as allowed in the PSM 85-120 zone under the provisions of Section 23. 49.180 for the area shown on Map A for 23. 49.180. Height of the structure is to be measured ?om mean street level fronting on the property to the mean roofline of the structure. 30. SMC 23.66.140.D provides: ?New Structures. When new structures are proposed in the District, the Preservation Board shall review the proposed height of the structure and make recommendations to the Department of Neighborhoods Director who may require design changes to assure reasonable protection of views ?om Kobe Terrace Park. 31. SMC 23,66,180 states: To complement and enhance the historic character of the District and to retain the quality and continuity of existing buildings, the following requirements shall apply to exterior building design: A. Materials. Unless an alternative material is approved by the Department of Neighborhoods Director following Board review and recommendation, exterior building facades shall be brick, concrete tinted a subdued 0r earthen color, sandstone or similar stone facing material commonly used in the District. Aluminum, painted metal, wood and other materials may be used for signs, window and door sashes and trim, and for similar purposes when approved by the Department of Neighborhoods Director as compatible with aah'acent or original uses, following Board review and recommendation. B. Scale. Exterior building facades shall be of a scale compatible with surrounding structures. Window proportions, floor height, cornice line, street elevations and other elements of the building facades shall relate to the scale of the buildings in the immediate area. C. Awnings. Awnings shall be functional, serving as weather protection for pedestrians at street level, and shall overhang the sidewalk a minimum of five feet (59. Awnings may be permitted on upper ?oors for the purpose of climate control. All awnings shall be of a design compatible with the architecture of buildings in the area. 32. SMC 23.84A.036 de?nes "scale" as "the spatial relationship among structures along a street or block front, including height, bulk and yard relationships. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner and and Page 7 of 12 33. SMC 23.84A.036 de?nes "contributing structure" as "a structure that the Director of Neighborhoods has determined contributes and will contribute to the architectural and/or historic character of the Pioneer Square Preservation District or the International Special Review District pursuant to Section 23.66.032, and for which any conditions to a final determination to that effect have been satisfied. 34. Section of the Rules for the Pioneer Square District includes the following: ?In addition to the Pioneer Square Preservation District Ordinance and Rules, the Secretary of the Interior ?s Standards for Rehabilitation with Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, and the complete series of Historic Buildings Preservation Briefs developed by the National Park Service shall serve as guidelines for proposed exterior alterations and treatments, rehabilitation projects, and new construction. New construction must be visually compatible with the predominant architectural styles, building materials and inherent historic character of the District. Although new projects need not attempt to duplicate original facades, the design process ought to involve serious consideration of the typical historic building character and detail within the District. 35. The Rules for the Pioneer Square Preservation District, as noted above, incorporate the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for Rehabilitation withGuidelines for Rehabilitating Historic buildings. 801 Standard 9 provides that: 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be di?erentiated?om the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. I 36. "Surround" is de?ned in Merriam Webster as: to enclose on all sides; to extend around the margin or edge of; encircle? Merriam Webster Online. Conclusions 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over the appeal of SEPA decision pursuant to SMC 23.76.022, and over the appeal of Certi?cate of Approval decision -. pursuant to SMC The Examiner is to give substantial weight to the Director's SEPA decision, and the party appealing the Director's decision bears the burden of preving that the decision is clearly erroneous; Brown v. Tacoma, 30 Wn.App. 762, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981). Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner and Page 8 of 12 2. The Hearing Examiner may reverse or modify Certi?cate of Approval decision only if that decision was arbitrary and capricious. An agency?s action is arbitrary and capricious if it is ?willful and unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending facts and circumstances,? Washington Independent Telephone Ass ?14. v. Washington and ransp. Comm 148 Wn.2d 887, 905, 64 P.2d 606 (2003) (citations omitted). 3. Several issues in the appeals were dismissed by order of the Examiner or withdrawn by the Appellants prior to hearing. SEPA Appeal 4. The issues remaining in the SEPA appeal claimed that the SEPA decision was in error because of the project?s impacts related to earth, air, water, noise, aesthetics, historic and cultural preservation, transportation and utilities. The record discloses no clear error in the decision on account of impacts related to earth, air, water, noise, aesthetics, historic and cultural preservation, transportation and utilities. As noted below the Certi?cate of Approval decision will be reversed; but the SEPA decision, which relied on the Board?s review and the issuance of the Certi?cate of Approval, and made those a condition of approval, was not shown to be in error for relying on the Special District Review process to identify and address impacts to historic buildings. 5. The appeal claimed that the project?s impacts on views and its shadows were not suf?ciently identi?ed, and that these impacts required the issuance of an EIS, and were not adequately mitigated. 6. Views. The evidence shows that there was reasonably suf?cient information to support the Director?s determination concerning the project?s impacts on public views. No error was shown as to the Director?s determination that mitigation was not required on account of impacts to protected public views. 7. Shadows. The evidence shOws that the the Director?s SEPA decision was supported by I reasonably suf?cient information. The evidence also shows that the project would not have shadow impacts on any of the ?ve parks identi?ed in SMC 25 .05.675.Q.2.b; thus, the Director . wou1d not have authority to condition the project on account of its shadow impacts. 8. No clear error was shown with regard to SEPA decision. Certi?cate of Approval 9. Save Our Square and Lucio appealed the DON Director?s grant of the Certi?cate of Approval. The appeals generally challenge the Director?s determination that the existing structure is a noncontributing structure. The appeals also assert that DON wrongly approved the Certi?cate of Approval, even though the project would not meet the Code requirements or other applicable standards concerning scale and character. Save Our Square also alleges that the proposals impacts on views from Kobe Terrace Park were not adequately mitigated. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner and R-15-005 and - Page 9 of 12 . 10. The evidence shows that decision was not arbitrary and capricious in its treatment of the proj ect?s impacts on views from Kobe Terrace Park. The evidence in this record, including that presented to the Board, disclosed relatively minor impacts on the views from Kobe Terrace Park. The Board did not recommend mitigation for these impacts on views, and the evidence does not show that the Director?s decision was in error on account of the treatment of views from Kobe Terrace Park. 11. The demolition decision cannot be appealed to the Hearing Examiner (see January 5, 2016 Order). However, the Appellants argue that the Certi?cate of Approval decision wrongly concluded that the garage structure was noncontributing and had no architectural or historic signi?cance. The evidence here shows that the Terminal Garage building is "noncontributing" and the Director's decision is not arbitrary and capricious on account of that determination. Whether the demolition approval satis?es the other criteria in SMC 23.66.115.A is not within the Examiner?s jurisdiction. 12. Save our Square contends that the decision failed to apply Code requirements regarding scale. The Director did not apply the ?rst sentence to the proposal, and took the position at hearing that the ?rst sentence was merely subsumed within the second sentence concerning ?other elements? of the facades. The Appellants argue that SMC 23.66.1803 requires that building facades ?shall be of a scale compatible with surrounding structures? and that this requirement cannot be satis?ed by the presence of architectural elements listed in the second sentence. - l3. SMC 23.66.1803 is not ambiguous but needs only a plain reading. The ?rst sentence states that ?Exterior building facades Shall be of a scale compatibie with surrounding structures. This language is different from the next sentence, which refers to ?other etemertts of the budding facades, not the facades themselves, and goes on to state that those elements must ?relate to the scale of the buiidin?gs in the immediate area.? The ?rst sentence speci?es that the building facades shall be of a scale compatible with surrounding structures. The second sentence, by contrast, requires elements of the facades to "relate to the scale? of buildings in the immediate area. The sentences identify separate criteria. 14. The Respondents' closing statement argues that the language of the ?rst sentence is too vague to stand on its own, and that it is not clear what is meant by ?compatibility with surrounding structures.? The Code de?nes ?scale.? The Code does not de?ne "compatibility" but it is used in the Code, the guidelines, and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. For many years, federal, state and local entities, including the Board and the Department, have determined the compatibility of rehabilitation and new construction projects with their surroundings in historic districts. The phrase "surrounding structures? is not de?ned in the Code, but relying on the dictionary de?nition of "surroun would reasonably include at least the nearest buildings on all sides, and the term ?scale? references spatial relationships along a street or blockfront. The ?rst sentence of SMC 23.66.1803 is not vague or unclear, and it stands on its own as a separate requirement. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner R-15-005 and Page 10 of 12 15. The testimony of the Appellants' witnesses, including Mr. Ochsner, Mr. Skolnik, Ms. Thompson, Dr. Brooks, Ms. Woo, and Board members Kralios, Hester and Astor, was credible and convincing to show that the building facade?s scale would be incompatible with the surrounding structures. The Board?s minutes and recommendation also support this conclusion; the Board dutifully studied the proposal for a year and a half, and consistently concluded that the - building's scale was incompatible with its surroundings and could not be approved as proposed. 16. In addition to the above testimony, theevidence in this record shows that the scale of the proposed building's facades would not be compatible with surrounding structures, including the Smith, Theater, and buildings, and other structures near the site, including those along the adjoining streets. The scale of the structure?s facade relative to these structures would appear so large as to be monumental at this location, dominating attention and drawing the focus away from surrounding and nearby historic buildings. The Director's decision cites the upper level setbacks, the cornice linez?belt course, window proportions, and other architectural elements, but these elements do not change the incompatibility of the building facade?s scale with its surroundings. 17. The Director's decision (at ?nding 16) concluded that the proposal was "generally consistent wit the scale, mass and size of other new developments in Pioneer Square, which were approved by the Board. But the Code does not say that only new development projects are to be compared with a new proposal in a review under the Ch. 23.66. In any event, the evidence at hearing, including the testimony of Mr. McConachie, Ms. Woo, Mr. Kralios, and Mr. Hester, showed that each of those projects was evaluated according to the highly contextual perspective that the Code, Rules and 801 Standards and Guidelines require. That the projects at those sites were approved by the Board is not persuasive to show that this project at this site meets the applicable Codes and requirements, including SMC 23.66180. 18. The Appellants contend that the Department allowed the zoned height to take precedence over the other requirements applicable to the project, in order to increase housing in the District; certainly, public cements to the Board included support for more housing in the District. However, as all parties have argued in their closing statements, there is no con?ict between the development standards for the underlying zone and the requirements of Ch. 23.66 SMC. if there were, the latter would prevail. 19. When the height limit in the zone was changed in 2011, it did not change the language regarding scale in SMC 23 66.180. What Mr. McConachie aptly described as the tension between the allowable height and the District?s requirements continues to exist; the amendment did not direct that future projects be permitted at the new zoned height regardless of other Code criteria. In this case, the applicant did not respond to the Board's comments about scale with alternative proposals that might have made the scale of the structure?s facades compatible with the surrounding structures, so it is still not known what could be achieved at this site within the limits of the applicable development standards. 20. DON chose not to apply the Code?s requirement that a building facade?s scale be compatible with surrounding structures. This was done even though the Board consistently Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner and and Page 11 ole stated to the applicant and DON that the facade scale did not meet the requirements in SMC 23.66.180, and even though the evidence presented to DON supported the Board's conclusions, as does the evidence in this record. Under these circumstances, the decision was arbitrary and capricious, and must be reversed.l Decision The SEPA decision of SDCI is af?rmed. The Certi?cate of Approval decision of the Director of DON is reversed. Entered this 24th day of February, 2016. 62K Anne Watanabe Deputy Hearing Examiner 1 Save Our Square argued that if the Hearing Examiner reversed the decision for the Certi?cate of Approval, she should instruct DON to vacate the demolition approval for failure to meet SMC 23.66.115.A.2. But the Examiner lacks jurisdiction to direct DON on its demolition decision, even if the reversal of the decision here affects whether the demolition decision still meets SMC . 23.66.] Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner and R-15-006 Page 12 of 12 Concerning Further Review NOTE: It is the responsibility of the person seeking to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to consult Code sections and other appropriate sources, to determine applicable rights and responsibilities. The decision of the Hearing Examiner in this case is the ?nal decision for the City of Seattle. In. accordance with RCW 36.700040, a request for judicial review of the decision must be commenced within twenty-one (21) days of the date the decision is issued unless a motion for reconsideration is ?led, in which case a request for judicial review of the decision must be commenced within'twenty-one (21) days of the date the order on the motion for reconsideration is issued. The person seeking review must arrange for and initially bear the cost of preparing a verbatim transcript of the hearing. Instructions for preparation of the transcript are available from the Of?ce of Hearing Examiner. Please direct all mail to: PO Box 94729, Seattle, Washington 93124-4729. Of?ce address: 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000. Telephone: (206) 684-0521. cio John McCullough and Ian Morrison - McCullough Hill Leary PS 701 Fifth Avenue Suite 6600 Seattle, WA 98104 APPELLANTS York Wong, et a1., and Save Our Square cx?o David Bricklin Bricklin Newman, LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303 Seattle, WA 98154 DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS Nathan Torgelson, Seattle DCI Suite 2000 700 Fifth Avenue Seattle,.WA 98104 Kathy Nyland, DON City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY or SEATTLE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on this date I sent true and correct copies of the attached Findings and Decision to each person listed below, or on the attached mailing list, in the matter of York Wong et al., Save Our Square et al., and Jessica and Manuel Lucio, Hearing'Examiner Files: (W), in the manner indicated. Party Method of Service Save Our Square - El U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid CEO David A. Bricklin - Inter-of?ce Mail Bricklin Newman, LP E-mail 1001 0111111 Ave, Suite 3303 El Fax Seattle, WA 98154 El Hand Delivery Legal Messenger Peggy Cahill Jessica and Manuel Lucio US. First Class Mail, postage prepaid 80 Jackson St Inter-of?ce Mail Seattle, WA 98104 E-mail jluci02320@gmail.corn Fax Hand Delivery Legal Messenger Myer Harrell and CI U.S. 'First Class Mail, postage prepaid cfo ack McCullough Inter-of?ce Mail McCullough Hill Leary, Email 701 Fifth Ave, Suite 6600 Fax Seattle, WA 98104 El Hand Delivery jack@mhseattle.com Legal Messenger Ian Morrison irnorrison@rnhseattle.com Laura Counle'y 1counley@mhseattle.com Patrick Downs City Attorney?s Of?ce Patrick.Downs@seattle.gov Alicia Reise Alicia.Reise@seattle.gov El U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid Inter-of?ce Mail E-mail Fax Hand Delivery El Legal Messenger Genna Nashem Pioneer Square Preservation Board Genna.Nashem@seattle. gov U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid Inter-of?ce Mail IXI E-mail El Fax El Hand Delivery Legal Messenger Tami Garrett - DPD Tami.Garrett@seattle.gov U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid El Inter-of?ce Mail E-mail Fax Hand Delivery El Legal Messenger DPD Routing Coordinator Sue Putnam Sue.Putnam@seattle.gov El U.S. First Class Mail, postage prepaid CI Inter-of?ce Mail IXI E?mail Fax Hand Delivery El Legal Messenger Dated: February 24. 2016 Tiffany Ku Legal Assistant