By Katie Nelson
HIGHLINE TIMES

After two days of testimony from both sides of a hearing over whether a new apartment complex should be built on the border of Seahurst Park, the apartment building company’s last witness pulled a rare move-- putting a new deal on the table that would remove two apartment buildings from the original plan.

The decision to build the Emerald Pointe apartments has been controversial from the start. Neighbors of Seahurst Park, a group comprised of community members, filed an administrative appeal against Westmark, the building company. The appeal was on the grounds that a wetland was partially on the proposed building site and that the construction could lead to slope instability and increased storm water runoff, according to Burien city attorney Craig Knutson.

“The city’s role was defending the adequacy of the environmental impact statement for the project, which the city commissioned, and also defending the clearing permit that the city issued for the project,” he said.

Both sides presented witnesses and testimony, but it was on the second day, when the applicant’s witnesses spoke, that things took a turn, Knutson said.

“Basically what [Westmark was] proposing was to eliminate two apartment buildings that would be closest to the wetland that was mentioned earlier,” he said. “But when they proposed the voluntary changes to the project, the hearing examiner talked to the three attorneys and there was a decision to have the applicant, Westmark, put their proposal in writing by this coming Monday.”

After the proposal is submitted, Neighbors of Seahurst Park has another week to decide if the concession is sufficient and withdraw their appeal.

David Bricklin, an environmental lawyer representing Neighbors of Seahurst Park, says he thinks the community group has a strong chance of winning.

“Frankly, if we don’t settle the case, the question about whether to appeal or not would be presented to the other side, because I think we had an excellent hearing,” he said. “I think it’s more likely that they’re going to be on the short end of the stick, which is why they made this proposal at the eleventh hour: I think they saw the writing on the wall and acted accordingly.”

The applicant’s defense rested heavily on their interpretation of the King County environmental manual, Bricklin said. During the hearing, the applicant claimed that because Westmark designed the storm water system to meet the manual’s requirements, there was no reason the park should be impacted.

However, Bricklin argued that the argument was invalid, and pointed out a clause in the manual which states that the manual is not inclusive in terms of avoiding wetland impact and a case-by-case analysis is required.

It was after these points were made that Westmark proposed its “voluntary mitigation measures,” a stunning move to everyone present, according to Bricklin.

“The hearing had been going on for two full days, they were on their last witness, and the in the last part of the last witness’ testimony, they unveiled this new proposal,” Bricklin said. “I think it was a surprise to everybody. I’ve done these kinds of hearings for 30 years and I’ve never seen that happen before.”

Knutson said that the earliest he expects the examiner to make a final ruling is the week of July 22, but added that the examiner himself said the absolute final date would be no later than Aug. 15.