Remember that fight over 6-story apartment site in Proctor? Here’s what a judge decided
A planned six-story apartment building close to residential homes in Tacoma’s Proctor District will move forward after a Pierce County Superior Court judge upheld the city’s approval of the project.
Neighbors’ challenge against Rush Development’s Proctor III moved to court after the city in October approved the project with a final determination of nonsignificance in its State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) decision in October 2020.
The developer also filed a challenge seeking clarification on site cleanup. Both filings were later combined by the court into one case.
Judge Stanley Rumbaugh, in a decision issued May 18, ordered revised language in the city’s October decision to address the Department of Ecology’s Voluntary Cleanup Program, but denied the neighbors’ land-use petition “in its entirety.”
Proctor III is spread over two parcels and would replace Cooper’s Collision Corner as well as a house now used as a parts storage building, and a separate, single-family home.
The project, at the corner of North 27th and North Adams streets, was granted an eight-year multifamily tax exemption in October 2019 and had been working its way through the development process, which included the SEPA decision that was challenged by both sides.
KVPP PROCTOR 3, an LLC representing the developers, along with Rhine Demolition and Proctor Investors, had sought clarification in their petition that the city could approve site cleanup “versus being tied to an Ecology response whose timing is not predictable,” Rush told The News Tribune in a statement March 1.
Friends of Proctor, including Proctor residents Mike Lonergan and Nicholas Bond, filed a petition against the SEPA decision and demolition permit, arguing that “numerous project impacts” had not been evaluated or mitigated under the SEPA requirements. The issues they cited included “traffic, pedestrian safety, noise, aesthetics, light, energy and natural resources, plants, surface water, parking, public health, and the built environment to inform (the city’s) decision-making process.”
The neighbors sought a determination of significance and an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Lonergan, the Pierce County assessor-treasurer, lives next to the project site, where he has resided for 37 years.
In the order, Rumbaugh wrote, “Except for the revision to environmental health modified condition ... the court upholds the city’s MDNS and demolition permits.”
Under the order, the city and developers are to negotiate for an alternate process and solution if “Ecology eliminates or discontinues the Voluntary Cleanup Program.”
Also, if “the applicant believes that it has cleaned up the site to (Model Toxic Control Act) levels but does not receive a response from Ecology in a reasonable time or the process is otherwise delayed due to an action or impediment on the part of Ecology, the applicant and the city will engage in good faith negotiations, irrespective of any objections from Ecology, to resolve the issue and proceed forward with a city review and sign-off process,” according to the order.
No attorneys fees were awarded to either side.
Rush Development, responding to a request for comment Tuesday, said in a statement: “We are glad that the court has validated the efforts of our designers and consultants as having designed a building that complies with all of the standards established by the City for the neighborhood centers such as the Proctor District. We are looking forward to moving ahead with the project, and are confident that the community will see this new building as an asset to the neighborhood when it is completed.”
Bond, who had organized online fundraising to help pay for legal costs, warned neighbors of a potential loss in an online post on the fundraising website last month.
The GoFundMe site showed $13,690 raised toward a $30,000 goal.
In an update on the site from Bond on April 21, he wrote: “While we don’t yet have a written decision, the judge made his intentions clear at the end of yesterday’s hearing .... ultimately we did not prevail.”
He added: “While we didn’t win this case, we have certainly raised many important issues that the City will be more conscious of on future projects and as they work on updating their zoning regulations and comprehensive plans.”
No further comment was offered from Bond or Lonergan when contacted by The News Tribune on Tuesday.
The city is currently considering revisions to zoning citywide to include more types of housing in more areas of the metro through its Home in Tacoma project, replacing the current single-family and multifamily low-density land-use designations with two new designations that would allow for more different types of housing. Single-family homes would continue to be in the mix.
The recommendations were moved forward by the Planning Commission on May 19 for council consideration next month.
This story was originally published May 25, 2021 at 2:39 PM.
