Ruby Apartments Project Update 20141231

Attached is a note I sent to Oakbrook Townhouses Board members and others on December 31, 2014, summarizing meetings on December 20 and 26, 2014.

Greetings, OT Board Members & OT Issue Followers,

 

On December 20 I sent you my summary of the December 20 meeting of several representatives of the HOAs interested in the Ruby Apartments project.

 

Since then, Don Macsparran has added additional materials discussed at that meeting, and provided the attached summary. 

 

In addition, Don and Nancy met December 26 with the City staff (Don's summary of that meeting is also attached), and the City has revoked the Tree Removal Permit as not complying with the mitigation requirements of the City. 

 

An appeal of the Community Design Review decision (the subject of the December 20 HOA meeting) by the City is also being considered.  That appeal will cost $450, and should address the issues raised in my and Don's attached meeting notes.  Members who wish to pledge or make contributions to the legal costs are encouraged to contact me or Nancy Dilworth.

 

Ken Karch, PE

***** 

Ruby Apartments Community Design Review Meeting Results (Final)

Location: Scott Drysdale's Home

Date: December 20, 2014

Time: 3:00 - 5:00 PM

Attendees: Eric Greeson, Nicole Greeson, Scott Drysdale, Stan Sherwood, Scott Shields, Don MacSparran, Nancy Dilworth, Ken Karch

This meeting was held to review the completed Ruby Drive Apartments' Community Design provided by the City of Lakewood Community Development Department. The purpose of this review was to determine if there is a basis for an appeal of the Community Design as approved by the City.

The following items were identified as possibly NOT meeting City of Lakewood code requirements, and/or NOT complying with the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) required mitigation measures, and/or having an adverse impact on the surrounding community.

1. The Tree Retention Plan (TRP) does not sufficiently address the survival of the 74 trees identified to be retained, of which 71 were identified as 'significant'. Specifically, it does not appear that either the root structure or the existing canopies of the trees were fully considered. There is not a tree canopy, critical root zone, or drip line analysis included in the Community Design. Item E(3) of the MDNS required mitigation measures requires that an arborist report include "an analysis of existing trees close to the proposed pavement and buildings, with recommendations for removal or retention based on the ability of the trees to survive the proposed construction (page 15)". Construction plans should have been provided with the TRP, allowing proper analysis for tree survival planning.

2. The Community Design cannot be analyzed for potential geotechnic hazards related to the nearby landslide hazard area as there is no evidence that a supplemental geotechnical report was completed as required by item J of the MDNS required mitigation measures (page 16). Receipt and analysis of this report by the City is critical given recent slide activity and the potential for construction activity to impact town homes along Zircon DR SW on the north side of the apartments along Chambers Creek.

3. The Community Design DOES NOT indicate if site soils have been tested for contaminants in the required open space areas. Item K of the MDNS required mitigation measures requires "a report of the tested soils shall be submitted to the City of Lakewood and DOE prior to the commencement of any building construction (page 16)". As the developer must comply with DOE requirements resulting from such testing, the Community Design should include required design measures.

4. Storm water discharge during and after construction is not addressed as required by item L of the MDNS required mitigation measures. Of particular concern to adjacent (Zircon DR SW) property owners is the slope of the property from East to West; 244 feet elevation on the East side, gradually decreasing to 240 feet elevation on the West side. This slope leads directly to the previous slide area less than 300 feet from the property on the North side of Zircon DR SW. With an increase in the impervious coverage from 39,885 SF to 75,742 SF (62.1% of the total lot), thorough analysis and design is appropriate. The required mitigation measures require the developer to apply for a construction storm water permit (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction with the Department of Ecology as more than one acre of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities.

5. The Design Review Site Plan shows a "solid cedar fence on the East boundary" of the property. Erecting such a fence is not consistent with the existing Oakbrook community design. Although some individual single-family homes may have some fencing, the predominant design is NO perimeter fencing. Such fencing also acts as a barrier to the free ranging of wildlife along the Chambers Creek watershed.

6. The three-story design of the Ruby Apartments is inconsistent with the community design for the Oakbrook 4th Addition. The Ruby Apartments' property falls entirely within the Oakbrook 4th Addition, which was designed and built starting in the mid-1960's as single-family homes with a maximum height of two stories. No residential structures within the Oakbrook 4th Addition exceed two stories. Sixty-five townhomes adjacent to the Ruby Apartments' property are two story homes. Also adjacent (but outside the Oakbrook 4th Addition) to the East side of the Ruby Apartments are the Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums. Several of the buildings within this condominium complex are three stories, yet the Eastward downward slope of the property is used to mask the added height. The revised Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Heath and Associates, Inc., received by the City of Lakewood on August 26, 2014, does not address the impact of the additional traffic on the surrounding roadway system which will result from the project design emptying all traffic onto Ruby DR SW.

7. The two parking lot exits empty directly on to Ruby DR SW, with one exit just several car lengths from one of two exits from the RMG Golf Course and Oakhouse Restaurant. Directing all traffic onto Ruby DR SW overlooks the impact of the additional traffic onto a secondary residential street. Zircon DR SW is a primary residential road in Oakbrook with a 25 mph speed limit, double yellow center-line striping, and traffic calming islands at Turquoise DR SW and Phillips Road SW. Ruby DR SW and the two feeder roads (Turquoise DR SW and Citrine Lane SW) have sharp turns that make through traffic problematic and dangerous. Both Ruby DR SW and Turquoise DR SW have posted 15 mph speed limits. Turquoise DR SW has two golf course player crossings.

8. The proposed parking of 105 stalls does exceed the City of Lakewood minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit (62 units X 1.5 = 93), but that is less than the established standard for the entire Oakbrook community of over 2,000 homes. Every home in Oakbrook has parking for at least two vehicles. Even with a standard of two or more spaces per residential unit, illegal on-street parking or on public right-away is a problem in the immediate vicinity of this project BEFORE construction. Up to 50 vehicles each day are parked on the public right-away on both sides of Zircon DR SW just 300 to 500 feet from the proposed apartments. Up to ten cars are parked daily along the North side of Ruby DR SW just East of the proposed apartments, creating not only hazardous driving (and parking) but at times making large emergency vehicle through access challenging. The proposed apartments includes a club house, which will naturally attract events (parties, etc.) without any additional on-site parking.

Don volunteered to follow-up with the City of Lakewood on Monday, December 22nd, to clarify the appeal process and gather any additional available information on the eight items above. A decision on filing an appeal will be made once the City's notification letter is received and additional information reviewed.

/s/ Don Macsparran

***** 


Ruby Apartments Community Design Review Meeting with Lakewood City Staff

December 26, 2014

Nancy Dilworth and I met with Lakewood staff (Beth Jorgenson/Economic Development and Kent/Public Works) Friday morning to review/research those areas of the Ruby Apartments' Design Review which may support a formal appeal to change. We discussed each of the items identified during the joint meeting held at Scott Drysdale's home on December 20. Our findings follow in the same sequence as the report from the December 20 meeting.

1. The Tree Retention Plan (TRP) does not sufficiently address the survival of the 74 trees identified to be retained: We confirmed our earlier concerns that the project design does not adequately plan for the survival of the 74 trees to be retained. The City agrees and is revoking the developer's tree removal permit until he complies with item E of the MDNS (page 15). This should be the first item appealed, with both tree survival and the potential for trees on the site to become hazardous to surrounding structures on and off the site.

2. The Community Design cannot be analyzed for potential geotechnic hazards related to the nearby landslide hazard area as there is no evidence that a supplemental geotechnical report was completed as required by item J of the MDNS required mitigation measures (page 16): A supplemental geotechnical report was completed, received by the City, and reviewed. Recommend this item not be appealed. To do so would require an independent engineering analysis which would be costly and time consuming; while there is no available evidence that a hazardous condition exists.

3. The Community Design DOES NOT indicate if site soils have been tested for contaminants in the required open space areas: Recommend this item not be appealed at this time, but we should be prepared to appeal the Site Development Permit when it is issued. No testing has been completed/reported to the City. The law requires the contractor to protect his workers, prevent storm water runoff, dispose properly of contaminated soils (including the asphalt from the tennis courts), and control dust and soils from leaving the site.

4. Storm water discharge during and after construction is not addressed as required by item L of the MDNS required mitigation measures: Recommend this item not be appealed at this time, but we should be prepared to appeal the Site Development Permit when it is issued. Although included in initial site planning documents, the City does not require the State issued construction storm water permit (NPDES) until the Site Development application process. At that time we should review this closely. To appeal this successfully may require an independent engineering review.

5. The Design Review Site Plan shows a "solid cedar fence on the East boundary" of the property: Recommend this item not be appealed. Nothing within the current City code
will prevent the cedar fence from installation on the East side of the development. Suggest this item be appealed directly to the developer by the Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums if appropriate.

6. The three-story design of the Ruby Apartments is inconsistent with the community design for the Oakbrook 4th Addition: Given the complexity of this issue, and the current three-story buildings in the adjacent Oakbrook Country Club Condominiums and the Bluffs, recommend this item not be appealed.

7. The two parking lot exits empty directly on to Ruby DR SW: Recommend this item not be appealed. The current design/plan is consistent with best practices and City recommendations for traffic flow and development access to street systems.

8. The proposed parking of 105 stalls does exceed the City of Lakewood minimum parking of 1.5 stalls per unit (62 units X 1.5 = 93), but that is less than the established standard for the entire Oakbrook community of over 2,000 homes: Recommend this item not be appealed. Although less than the community standard for parking, the planned parking is greater than the City requirement.

Additional items discussed:

1. On-site collection capacity for recycles may be insufficient. Recommend this item be appealed. The City will discuss this with Lemay Refuse and provide more information to us within the next few days. The trash and recycle designated collection area on the West side of the property does not appear to be sufficiently accessible to the disposal trucks.

2. Erosion of the 45 degree sloped berm does not appear to be addressed in the landscaping plan. Recommend this item not be appealed. The City will require appropriate materials to control/prevent erosion.

We are waiting for additional information and follow-up from the City on:

1. Trash/recycle capacity and disposal vehicle accessibility.

2. Compliance with requirements for storm water runoff design, planning, and permits.

3. A complete arborist report with planning for retained tree survival.


/s/ Don Macsparran

Ruby Apartments Project Update 20141220

Attached is a note I sent to Oakbrook Townhouses Board members and others on December 20, 2014, summarizing a meeting earlier that day

Greetings,

Several representatives from the Oakbrook 4^th Addition, Oakbrook Condominium Owners Association, and Oakbrook Townhouses (Nancy Dilworth and I) met today to review the revised Ruby Apartments project proposal now before the City of Lakewood. Don Macsparran, who has been following this issue most closely, reported recently that:

“…The City has completed the Community Design Review for the Ruby Apartments. Notification should be received by all interested parties within the next few days. There is a 14-day appeal period which will begin from the date of the official notification--which should be today or tomorrow. If an appeal of the Community Design Review is received by the City, the appeal must/will go to a hearing examiner. That process would most likely extend into February or March.

“I believe an appeal of the Community Design Review is critical, even considering the legal action the HOA has engaged in to stop the Ruby Apartments. If no appeal is made, the Community Design Review will be final, and the City will proceed to issue both a Site Development permit and a Building permit. We can then most likely expect construction on the site to begin within days after the first of the new year. And--if the HOA's legal course is not successful, what is contained in the Community Design is what this community will have to live with--period…”

The discussions today centered on the tree retention plan, several issues which the group felt needed to be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit, and strategies for managing the technical and legal issues in the future.  The technical issues included:

Stormwater Runoff

The City’s required mitigation measures include a provision that “…Prior to any clearing, grading, or construction, a Site Development Permit and Drainage Review are required (LMC 12A.04.040). The applications shall include street frontage improvements and stormwater management in compliance with the 2008 Pierce County Storrnwater Management and 2005 Site Development Manual or the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as noted in the September 19, 2014 comment letter from the Lakewood Public Works Department…”

It is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit may precede the Site Development permit and Drainage Review.  There are no references to such stormwater management plans or facilities in the documents we reviewed.

Tree Management

The City’s required mitigation measures include a provision that: “…The applicant shall apply for a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to and consistent with LMC 18A.50.320.0 and 18A.50.320.D. In order for staff to accurately calculate tree replacement pursuant to LMC Chapter 18A.50.300, application materials must include a report from a Washington State certified arborist that provides the following information:

1)        The existing condition of each significant tree on the site.

2)        An analysis of existing trees located close to the proposed pavement and buildings, with recommendations for removal or retention based on the ability of the trees to survive the proposed construction.

3)        A recommendation for the location of the west driveway between the clusters of trees numbered 69 through 78 and 79 through 81 as shown on the December 27, 2013 tree plan for the purpose of saving as many of the trees as possible.

4)        Identification of trees that can be saved from significant root damage with relocation of the City sidewalk into the streetscape.

5)        Identification of trees that will be threatened by the three-foot high berm required between the south sidewalk and the parking lot.

6)        Recommendations for protecting impervious surfaces as the roots of existing and new landscape trees grow out…”

Examination of the materials at our meeting revealed no report from a Washington State certified arborist which addressed these 6 items.  A one page arborist note listing about six trees, and a listing and mapping of trees considered to be significant or non-significant, and to be removed or not removed, are the only provisions we were able to discern in our review of the plans.

It is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit may precede the report of the arborist and the Tree Removal Permit.  The materials in the plans we were able to review clearly fail to meet the 6 above requirements.

Geotechnical Report/Landslide Risk

The City’s required mitigation measures include a provision that: “…The project design shall incorporate all recommendations provided in the conclusion of the project's Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoResources, LLC on December 12, 2013, as well as any recommendations provided in a supplemental report that was requested to re­analyze impacts the development might have to the nearby landslide hazard area…”

The materials our group was able to review did not contain any information relative to the geotechnical report or its supplemental report, so we were unable to review either. 

It is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit may precede the completion of the geotechnical report and it’s supplement. 

Toxics Cleanup

The City’s required mitigation measures include a provision that: “…Construction activities shall be conducted in a manner consistent with requirements provided in the Department of Ecology letter dated February 27, 2014, attached as Exhibit A. Construction notes consistent with this letter shall be included on the civil and building permit plans. With respect to the Toxics Cleanup discussion in the letter, the site soils shall be tested for contaminants in the required open space area. A report of the tested soils shall be submitted to the City of Lakewood and DOE prior to the commencement of any building construction. If lead or arsenic concentrations exceed Model Toxics Control Act cleanup levels, the applicant shall comply with requirements specified by DOE to clean up the site…”

This provision clearly states that soils shall be tested and reported prior to the commencement of any building construction, along with compliance with applicable regulations.  The documents we reviewed did not contain any information on this topic.

It is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit may precede the completion of the testing, reporting to the agencies, and commitment to compliance. 

NPDES & Wastewater Discharge Permits

The City’s required mitigation measures include a provision that: “…Prior to any clearing, grading, or construction, the applicant shall apply for a construction stormwater permit (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction with the Department of Ecology if one or more acres of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities, and the site already has offsite discharge to waters of the state or storm drains or will have offsite discharge during construction…”

This provision clearly states that listed permits must be secured prior to any cleaning, grading, or construction.  The documents we reviewed did not contain any information on this topic.

It is unclear whether the issuance of a building permit may precede the issuance of the required permits. 

Ken Karch, PE

TNT Article on Ruby Drive Apartment Proposal 20140930

This morning's Tacoma News Tribune carried an article about the lawsuit filed by 4th Addition homeowners on the Ruby Apartments proposal at 7701 Ruby Drive SW.  It can be reached at:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/09/27/3400825/lakewood-neighbors-file-lawsuit.html

Today's article follows up on an article from the TNT on February 24, 2014, which can be accessed at:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/02/24/3064589_neighbors-worry-about-apartment.html?rh=1

Update on Ruby Apartments 20140929

The following information regarding the Ruby Apartments Contractor, J. R. Sampson & Company, was received September 29, 2014 from Don MacSparran, who has been watching the issue closely:

"...I just checked the Labor and Industries website (https://secure.lni.wa.gov/verify/Detail.aspx?UBI=603077596&LIC=JRSAMSC890C4&SAW=). It shows his license was suspended on September 27, 2014 as he does not meet current L & I licensing requirements (his bond expired). I'm waiting for Dave Bugher to respond to determine if there are any repercussions which may possibly delay or nullify SEPA, building permits, vesting etc. The HOA attorney should review probably be made aware of this information.

 

I did speak with Dave Bugher at 2:00 pm today. He provided an update on the SEPA and design plan review progress. He expects the City's review and determination on both around October 10th.

 

There is no City Council meeting this week, but there is a City Planning Advisory Council meeting on Wednesday at 6:30 pm. This is the meeting the PAB should vote on the rezoning of the Ruby property. I will attend this meeting.

 

There is also hearing in Superior Court, Dept 12, Room 217A, Judge Arend on Oct 3 @ 9:00 AM (14-2-12055-4) Cedar Grove Organics Recycling vs JR Sampson Co for a $4,962.26 claim. I'm planning on attending if they'll let me in--it should be public.

Cheers,

Don..."

Oakbrook Townhouses Testimony on Ruby Drive Rezone

Statement of Kenneth M. Karch, PE

President, Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc.

at the Public Hearing on September 3, 2014

Before the City of Lakewood Planning Advisory Board

in the Matter of CPA-2014-01 7701 Ruby Drive SW

Proposal to Redesignate the Subject Property

 on the Future Land Use Map From Multifamily to Single Family, and

Rezone It from Multifamily 1 (MF1) to Residential 3 (R3)

My name is Kenneth M. Karch.  I am a licensed professional engineer residing at 7419 Zircon Drive SW, in Lakewood, and am President of Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc., a homeowners association formed April 11, 1968 prior to the enactment of certain laws of the State of Washington relating to condominiums or townhouse associations, and commonly referred to as the 65 properties with odd-numbered addresses from 7407 through 7813 Zircon Drive SW.  I am testifying in my capacity as President, on actions of the Board of Trustees of Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc.

Following notice of a comment period on the City’s determination of non-significance on the proposed redesignation and rezoning of the subject property, the Oakbrook Townhouses Board of Trustees, at its August 11, 2014 meeting, determined to support the City's determination of non-significance (DNS) for the rezoning of tax parcel 6430403850 from multifamily to single family (MF1 to R3).  A copy of the email submitted to David Bugher, Community Development Director, on August 14, 2014 in attached, and I request that it be made a part of the record of this hearing.

The Board’s support is based on the following:

1.     7701 Ruby Drive SW is fully included within the Oakbrook 4th Addition, and is therefore subject to the covenants and restrictions of the 4th Addition. Rezoning this property to R3 will follow the community vision that has been in place since 1966.

2.    Oakbrook Townhouses, a townhouse community of 65 individually-owned units in 12 buildings, commonly known as addresses from 7407 to 7813 Zircon Drive SW, lies, in part, immediately adjacent to the 7701 Ruby Drive SW site. Rezoning to R3 would be consistent with the community vision of Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc. 

3.    A rezone to R3 is consistent with City policy to encourage development of single family residential homes; reduce the ratio of multifamily to single family residences; and to protect the quality and value of existing single family residential neighborhoods.

4.    We understand that the developer was provided written legal notification of the Protective Covenants of the 4th Addition on March 27, 2014, and that, notwithstanding, on June 2, 2014 the developer purchased the property through his LLC, Ruby 62 Holdings, LLC.

5.    On February 24, 2014, the three Homeowners' Associations, including Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc., representing over 500 homeowners surrounding the 7701 Ruby Drive parcel, expressed their strong concerns regarding a proposed multifamily development on the parcel.

6.    We also understand that, on March 3, 2014, the Oakbrook 4th Addition HOA, representing over 320 homeowners, formally requested the rezoning of this parcel from MF1 to R3.  The Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc. Board of Trustees, at its August 11, 2014 meeting, also supported that request.

Also attached is a copy of the letter signed by the three Homeowners’ Association Presidents, dated February 24, 2014, and hand-delivered that day to the City, on the matter of the possible multifamily development of the subject parcel.  I request that that letter also be made a part of this hearing.

Although Oakbrook Townhouses lies within an area designated Multifamily, based on zoning by the City of Lakewood on or around 2001, there are a number of differences between Oakbrook Townhouses (OT) properties and rental units which would otherwise be allowed without a zoning change at 7701 Ruby Drive SW:

1.     OT properties are owned by individual property owners; rental units would not be owned, but rented or leased

2.    OT property owners are either owned outright or largely encumbered by long-term mortgages, not by short-term rental agreements or leases; average length of residence of current OT owners is more than 11 years

3.    OT properties are (for the most part) owner-occupied; latest information (2014) shows that only 9 of 65 OT units are rented

4.    OT owners are responsible in full, for the internal condition of their respective premises (the HOA is responsible for most external maintenance (roofs, gutters, painting, driveways, sidewalks, etc.)); owners must pay individually for any internal updates, remodels, kitchen and bathroom updates, room reconfigurations, painting, carpeting, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, etc.)

5.    OT owners have been granted the ability to make certain external modifications to decks, windows, sliders, room additions, landscaping, etc., but all such changes from original construction become the owner’s responsibility for repair and maintenance

6.    OT owners are rewarded for any increase, and responsible for any decrease, in value when their unit is sold

7.    OT properties back up (on the north, and down a steep slope) to Chambers Creek (to the Creek centerline), and are thus not susceptible to additional development to the north

8.    At least 27 OT property owners have had, and enjoy today,  unobstructed views to the south since the late 1960s of the open space which constitutes the 7701 Ruby Drive SW property, which is the subject of this rezoning proposal, due to its past use as a recreational site featuring three tennis courts, a swimming pool, and a small, one story pool equipment and changing room building

9.    All of Oakbrook Townhouses is intended for single family residences, as is explicitly stated in our Declarations and Bylaws, adopted in 1968 and which read, in part, as follows:

“…The site plan consists of twelve Townhouses encompassing a total of 65 Dwelling Units. A “Townhouse” means a building containing two or more Dwelling Units which share one or more common walls with other Dwelling Units and with each Dwelling Unit individually occupying an individually owned Lot. A "Dwelling Unit" means any portion of a Townhouse designed and intended for use and occupancy as a residence by a single family…”  (emphasis added)

10. The declaration of covenants and the bylaws of OT predate State of Washington laws governing homeowners associations (now RCW64.38); the Growth Management Act; the incorporation of the City of Lakewood; and the adoption of current zoning by the City for the parcel at 7701 Ruby Drive SW.

11. Finally, the Washington State Supreme Court found in 2005 in Viking Properties v. Holm, that density limitations in subdivision covenants are enforceable and take precedence over local zoning.

All of these differences make Oakbrook Townhouses, while currently zoned Multifamily, much more akin to the single family dwellings of the 4^th Addition along Ruby Drive, than to any conceivable multifamily development at 7701 Ruby Drive SW.

Lastly, the lengthy City report on the proposed changes to the land use plan contains mailed and emailed comments from 6 OT homeowners, plus two individual Board members, all in favor of the proposed rezone at 7701 Ruby Drive SW.  Combined with the unanimous vote of seven Board members on August 11, 2014 supporting the rezone, the expressed views of the OT membership are clear.

I urge the City to move ahead with the proposed rezone.  Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Kenneth M. Karch, PE

President, Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc.

c/o Northwest Properties, Inc.

9527 Bridgeport Way SW

Lakewood, WA 98499

3 HOA's Position on Ruby Drive SEPA Review

February 24, 2014

Lakewood Community Development Department

600 Main Street, S.W.

Lakewood Washington, 98499

Attention: Beth Jorgenson

Re: Ruby Apartments SEPA Review

Dear Ms. Jorgenson,

We write to you to express our strong concerns regarding the Ruby Street SEPA Review. As the elected presidents of the three nearest Homeowners' Associations to the proposed project, we represent over 500 homeowners.

To paraphrase the mission statement of Lakewood's Community Development Department, our constituents are vitally concerned to support our community values, protect the environment, promote the wise use of resources, and protect public health and safety. We further wish to ensure that our neighborhood is a healthy, safe, attractive, and enjoyable place to live, and that property values are maintained and enhanced.

We have conducted an initial assessment of the Ruby Apartment Complex Environmental Checklist submitted for this project and believe that it falls short of adequately describing and addressing the environmental issues attendant to the project, does not support community values our residents expect, and does not provide adequate information demonstrating that it will protect the environment, or the public health and safety of nearby residents and their guests. Although we are not addressing specific details in the SEPA application at this point, we want the city to know we expect and trust that a thorough review will validate our view that the proposed application should be determined by the city to be inadequate, and that it needs to address additional issues as raised by numerous commenters. Our concerns also include those beyond those addressed in the Environmental Checklist, including resident expectations as exemplified in zoning, planning, and recreation/open space actions taken in the past by the City.

Please understand that in place of a mass letter writing campaign, this letter stands for the

thinking and sentiment of the vast majority of our constituents, who vigilantly await your

feedback to this initial "comment" period.

Sincerely yours,

/s/

Kent McCulloch, President, Oakbrook 4^th Addition Homeowner’s Association

/s/

Ken Karch, President, Oakbrook Townhouse Homeowner’s Association

/s/

Dave Platter, President, Oakbrook Country Club Condominium Homeowner’s Association

Oakbrook Townhouses Meeting Guidelines

MEETING GUIDELINES

Adopted by Oakbrook Townhouses Board

on 11/4/2013

1. Begin and end meeting on time.

2. Clearly state the purpose and expected outcome of the meeting.

3. Provide an agenda with timelines and follow it.

4. Listen actively and do not interrupt.

5. Complete attention/active participation.

6. Do not allow outside interruptions.

7. No one-on-one side conversations.

8. Respect all others and their opinions.

9. Manage time constructively.

10. Each member responsible for team's progress.

11. Check meeting process/rules periodically.

12. Be willing to reach consensus.

13. Evaluate the meeting.

14. Leave the meeting with a clear sense of the next step; who will do what by when.

Oakbrook Townhouses Board Goals for 2014

OT Goals for 2014

(As approved by Board June 9, 2014)

1. Limit expenditures to Member-Approved budget; no assessment
2. Conduct Customer Survey of members on priorities and satisfaction
3. Adopt criteria for setting work priorities
4. Add Member-Approved Contribution to the Reserve Account
5. Implement projects to meet and anticipate identified reserve study needs (list)
     a. Complete 2 driveways
     b. Clean, Repair, Stain 12 rear decks
     c. Replace 2 rear decks
     d. Replace post lights as needed
     e. Maintain irrigation system to meet landscaping requirements
     f. Repair/replace of gutters/downspouts on 3 buildings as needed
6. Conduct normal maintenance & repairs on garage roofs, mailbox structures, metal railings, building exterior, composition shingle and low-slope roofs, roofing leaks, gutter cleaning, chimney caps and covers, and brick work
7. Enforce CC&R provisions
8. Review all contracts for services and re-negotiate as necessary
9. Complete 2011-2013 painting job (including remedial repair as needed)
10. Develop & begin implementing improved landscaping and tree trimming plans
11. Secure full complement of Board members (9)
12. Develop improved processes for meeting management, planning & decision-making, and communications
13. Complete annual audit report, resulting in “clean” audit
14. Conduct performance review and develop 2015 goals

Board Position on Rezoning of 7701 Ruby Drive SW

The following email was sent on August 14, 2014 to the City of Lakewood in support of the City's determination of non-significance for the rezoning of tax parcel 6430403850 (7701 Ruby Drive SW)

"...This email is in response to the July 31, 2014 public posting of the Notice of Application #CPA-2014-01 involving the 7701 Ruby Drive SW location. The Oakbrook Townhouses Board of Directors, at its August 11, 2014 meeting, determined to strongly support the City's determination of non-significance (DNS) for the rezoning of tax parcel 6430403850 from multifamily to single family (MF1 to R3).
The Board’s support is based on the following:

1. 7701 Ruby Dr SW is fully included within the Oakbrook 4th Addition, and is therefore subject to the covenants and restrictions of the 4th Addition. Rezoning this property to R3 will follow the community vision that has been in place since 1966.

2. Oakbrook Townhouses, a townhouse community of 65 individually-owned units in 12 buildings, commonly known as addresses from 7407 to 7813 Zircon Drive SW, lies, in part, immediately adjacent to the 7701 Ruby Drive SW site. Rezoning to R3 would be consistent with the community vision of Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc.

3. A rezone to R3 is consistent with City policy to encourage development of single family residential homes; reduce the ratio of multifamily to single family residences; and to protect the quality and value of existing single family residential neighborhoods.

4. We understand that the developer was provided written legal notification of the Protective Covenants of the 4th Addition on March 27, 2014, and that, notwithstanding, on June 2, 2014 the developer purchased the property through his LLC, Ruby 62 Holdings, LLC.

5. On February 24, 2014, the three Homeowners' Associations, including Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc., representing over 500 homeowners surrounding the 7701 Ruby Drive parcel, expressed their strong concerns regarding a multifamily development.

6. We also understand that, on March 3, 2014, the Oakbrook 4th Addition HOA, representing over 320 homeowners, formally requested the rezoning of this parcel from MF1 to R3. The Oakbrook Townhouses, Inc. Board also supports that request.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Kenneth M. Karch, President..."

Board Policy on Owner Information Requests

Board Policy on

Owner Information Requests

Any owner may request information regarding the Association

Requirements for Obtaining Information

The owner must present the request in writing with details of the actual documents or information with dates and the name of the document or information requested.

Notice must be presented a minimum of five business days prior to information being

accumulated for preview.

Northwest Properties Agency, Inc. will notify the Board of the request.

Northwest Properties will provide the documents in a timely manner, subject to work

schedules, if they are available.

Northwest Properties will notify the owner when the request is complete for preview.  If it is a simple request, and easily prepared in a few minutes, there will be no charge.

If it is a lengthy request, then there may be a charge for labor to be paid by the Owner or the Association.

Owner may preview the documents at the offices of Northwest Properties Agency, Inc. but any questions are to be directed to the Board of Directors.

Office staff will not be involved in any explanations or creating any documents that are not part of the document available.

Any copies will be paid for by the Owner or the Association, depending on the policy

of the Board. If a staff member has to make the copies, the labor charge is $25.00 an hour to be paid either by the Owner or the Association, depending on the policy of the Board.

- Adopted 7/13/09 by vote of the Board of Trustees of Oakbrook Townhouses

RCW 64.38 Governing Homeowners Associations

Chapter 64.38 RCW: Homeowners' associations

RCW Sections

64.38.005 Intent.

64.38.010 Definitions.

64.38.015 Association membership.

64.38.020 Association powers.

64.38.025 Board of directors --Standard of care --Restrictions --Budget --Removal from board.

64.38.028 Removal of discriminatory provisions in governing documents --Procedure.

64.38.030 Association bylaws.

64.38.033 Flag of the United States --Outdoor display --Governing documents.

64.38.034 Political yard signs--Governing documents.

64.38.035 Association meetings --Notice --Board of directors.

64.38.040 Quorum for meeting.

64.38.045 Financial and other records --Property of association --Copies --Examination --Annual financial statement --Accounts.

64.38.050 Violation --Remedy --Attorneys' fees.

64.38.055 Governing documents --Solar panels.

64.38.060 Adult family homes.

64.38.065 Reserve account and study.

64.38.070 Reserve study --Requirements.

64.38.075 Reserve account --Withdrawals.

64.38.080 Reserve study --Demand for preparation and inclusion in budget.

64.38.085 Reserve account and study --Liability.

64.38.090 Reserve study --Exemptions.

Notes:

Speed enforcement: RCW 46.61.419.

64.38.005 Intent.

The intent of this chapter is to provide consistent laws regarding the formation and legal administration of homeowners'

associations. [1995 c 283 § 1.]

64.38.010 Definitions. (Effective until January 1, 2012.)

For purposes of this chapter:

(1) "Homeowners' association" or "association" means a corporation, unincorporated association, or other legal entity, each member of which is an owner of residential real property located within the association's jurisdiction, as described in the governing documents, and by virtue of membership or ownership of property is obligated to pay real property taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance costs, or for improvement of real property other than that which is owned by the member. "Homeowners' association" does not mean an association created under chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW.

(2) "Governing documents" means the articles of incorporation, bylaws, plat, declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, rules and regulations of the association, or other written instrument by which the association has the authority to exercise any of the powers provided for in this chapter or to manage, maintain, or otherwise affect the property under its jurisdiction.

(3) "Board of directors" or "board" means the body, regardless of name, with primary authority to manage the affairs of the association.

(4) "Common areas" means property owned, or otherwise maintained, repaired or administered by the association.

(5) "Common expense" means the costs incurred by the association to exercise any of the powers provided for in this chapter.

(6) "Residential real property" means any real property, the use of which is limited by law, covenant or otherwise to primarily residential or recreational purposes. [1995 c 283 § 2.]

64.38.010 Definitions. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

For purposes of this chapter:

(1) "Assessment" means all sums chargeable to an owner by an association in accordance with RCW 64.38.020.

(2) "Baseline funding plan" means establishing a reserve funding goal of maintaining a reserve account balance above zero dollars throughout the thirty-year study period described under RCW 64.38.065.

(3) "Board of directors" or "board" means the body, regardless of name, with primary authority to manage the affairs of the association.

(4) "Common areas" means property owned, or otherwise maintained, repaired or administered by the association.

(5) "Common expense" means the costs incurred by the association to exercise any of the powers provided for in this chapter.

(6) "Contribution rate" means, in a reserve study as described in RCW 64.34.380, the amount contributed to the reserve account so that the association will have cash reserves to pay major maintenance, repair, or replacement costs without the need of a special assessment.

(7) "Effective age" means the difference between the estimated useful life and remaining useful life.

(8) "Full funding plan" means setting a reserve funding goal of achieving one hundred percent fully funded reserves by the end of the thirty-year study period described under RCW 64.38.065, in which the reserve account balance equals the sum of the deteriorated portion of all reserve components.

(9) "Fully funded balance" means the current value of the deteriorated portion, not the total replacement value, of all the reserve components. The fully funded balance for each reserve component is calculated by multiplying the current replacement cost of the reserve component by its effective age, then dividing the result by the reserve component's useful life. The sum total of all reserve components' fully funded balances is the association's fully funded balance.

(10) "Governing documents" means the articles of incorporation, bylaws, plat, declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, rules and regulations of the association, or other written instrument by which the association has the authority to exercise any of the powers provided for in this chapter or to manage, maintain, or otherwise affect the property under its jurisdiction.

(11) "Homeowners' association" or "association" means a corporation, unincorporated association, or other legal entity, each member of which is an owner of residential real property located within the association's jurisdiction, as described in the governing documents, and by virtue of membership or ownership of property is obligated to pay real property taxes, insurance premiums, maintenance costs, or for improvement of real property other than that which is owned by the member. "Homeowners' association" does not mean an association created under chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW.

(12) "Lot" means a physical portion of the real property located within an association's jurisdiction designated for separate ownership.

(13) "Owner" means the owner of a lot, but does not include a person who has an interest in a lot solely as security for an obligation. "Owner" also means the vendee, not the vendor, of a lot under a real estate contract.

(14) "Remaining useful life" means the estimated time, in years, before a reserve component will require major maintenance, repair, or replacement to perform its intended function.

(15) "Replacement cost" means the current cost of replacing, repairing, or restoring a reserve component to its original functional condition.

(16) "Reserve component" means a common element whose cost of maintenance, repair, or replacement is infrequent, significant, and impractical to include in an annual budget.

(17) "Reserve study professional" means an independent person who is suitably qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to prepare a reserve study in accordance with RCW 64.34.380 and 64.34.382.

(18) "Residential real property" means any real property, the use of which is limited by law, covenant or otherwise to primarily residential or recreational purposes.

(19) "Significant assets" means that the current replacement value of the major reserve components is seventy-five percent or more of the gross budget of the association, excluding the association's reserve account funds.

(20) "Useful life" means the estimated time, between years, that major maintenance, repair, or replacement is estimated to occur. [2011 c 189 § 7; 1995 c 283 § 2.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: The definitions in this section have been alphabetized pursuant to RCW 1.08.015(2)(k).

Effective date --2011 c 189: See note following RCW 64.38.065.

64.38.015 Association membership.

The membership of an association at all times shall consist exclusively of the owners of all real property over which the association has jurisdiction, both developed and undeveloped. [1995 c 283 § 3.]

64.38.020 Association powers.

Unless otherwise provided in the governing documents, an association may:

(1) Adopt and amend bylaws, rules, and regulations;

(2) Adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves, and impose and collect assessments for common expenses from owners;

(3) Hire and discharge or contract with managing agents and other employees, agents, and independent contractors;

(4) Institute, defend, or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings in its own name on behalf of itself or two or more owners on matters affecting the homeowners' association, but not on behalf of owners involved in disputes that are not the responsibility of the association;

(5) Make contracts and incur liabilities;

(6) Regulate the use, maintenance, repair, replacement, and modification of common areas;

(7) Cause additional improvements to be made as a part of the common areas;

(8) Acquire, hold, encumber, and convey in its own name any right, title, or interest to real or personal property;

(9) Grant easements, leases, licenses, and concessions through or over the common areas and petition for or consent to the vacation of streets and alleys;

(10) Impose and collect any payments, fees, or charges for the use, rental, or operation of the common areas;

(11) Impose and collect charges for late payments of assessments and, after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the board of directors or by the representative designated by the board of directors and in accordance with the procedures as provided in the bylaws or rules and regulations adopted by the board of directors, levy reasonable fines in accordance with a previously established schedule adopted by the board of directors and furnished to the owners for violation of the bylaws, rules, and regulations of the association;

(12) Exercise any other powers conferred by the bylaws;

(13) Exercise all other powers that may be exercised in this state by the same type of corporation as the association; and

(14) Exercise any other powers necessary and proper for the governance and operation of the association. [1995 c 283 § 4.]

Notes:

Speed enforcement: RCW 46.61.419.

64.38.025 Board of directors — Standard of care — Restrictions — Budget — Removal from board. (Effective until January 1, 2012.)

(1) Except as provided in the association's governing documents or this chapter, the board of directors shall act in all instances on behalf of the association. In the performance of their duties, the officers and members of the board of directors shall exercise the degree of care and loyalty required of an officer or director of a corporation organized under chapter 24.03 RCW.

(2) The board of directors shall not act on behalf of the association to amend the articles of incorporation, to take any action that requires the vote or approval of the owners, to terminate the association, to elect members of the board of directors, or to determine the qualifications, powers, and duties, or terms of office of members of the board of directors; but the board of directors may fill vacancies in its membership of the unexpired portion of any term.

(3) Within thirty days after adoption by the board of directors of any proposed regular or special budget of the association, the board shall set a date for a meeting of the owners to consider ratification of the budget not less than fourteen nor more than sixty days after mailing of the summary. Unless at that meeting the owners of a majority of the votes in the association are allocated or any larger percentage specified in the governing documents reject the budget, in person or by proxy, the

budget is ratified, whether or not a quorum is present. In the event the proposed budget is rejected or the required notice is not given, the periodic budget last ratified by the owners shall be continued until such time as the owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the board of directors.

(4) The owners by a majority vote of the voting power in the association present, in person or by proxy, and entitled to vote at any meeting of the owners at which a quorum is present, may remove any member of the board of directors with or without cause. [1995 c 283 § 5.]

64.38.025 Board of directors — Standard of care — Restrictions — Budget — Removal from board. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

(1) Except as provided in the association's governing documents or this chapter, the board of directors shall act in all instances on behalf of the association. In the performance of their duties, the officers and members of the board of directors shall exercise the degree of care and loyalty required of an officer or director of a corporation organized under chapter 24.03 RCW.

(2) The board of directors shall not act on behalf of the association to amend the articles of incorporation, to take any action that requires the vote or approval of the owners, to terminate the association, to elect members of the board of directors, or to determine the qualifications, powers, and duties, or terms of office of members of the board of directors; but the board of directors may fill vacancies in its membership of the unexpired portion of any term.

(3) Within thirty days after adoption by the board of directors of any proposed regular or special budget of the association, the board shall set a date for a meeting of the owners to consider ratification of the budget not less than fourteen nor more than sixty days after mailing of the summary. Unless at that meeting the owners of a majority of the votes in the association are allocated or any larger percentage specified in the governing documents reject the budget, in person or by proxy, the

budget is ratified, whether or not a quorum is present. In the event the proposed budget is rejected or the required notice is not given, the periodic budget last ratified by the owners shall be continued until such time as the owners ratify a subsequent budget proposed by the board of directors.

(4) As part of the summary of the budget provided to all owners, the board of directors shall disclose to the owners:

(a) The current amount of regular assessments budgeted for contribution to the reserve account, the recommended contribution rate from the reserve study, and the funding plan upon which the recommended contribution rate is based;

(b) If additional regular or special assessments are scheduled to be imposed, the date the assessments are due, the amount of the assessments per each owner per month or year, and the purpose of the assessments;

(c) Based upon the most recent reserve study and other information, whether currently projected reserve account balances will be sufficient at the end of each year to meet the association's obligation for major maintenance, repair, or replacement of reserve components during the next thirty years;

(d) If reserve account balances are not projected to be sufficient, what additional assessments may be necessary to ensure that sufficient reserve account funds will be available each year during the next thirty years, the approximate dates assessments may be due, and the amount of the assessments per owner per month or year;

(e) The estimated amount recommended in the reserve account at the end of the current fiscal year based on the most recent reserve study, the projected reserve account cash balance at the end of the current fiscal year, and the percent funded at the date of the latest reserve study;

(f) The estimated amount recommended in the reserve account based upon the most recent reserve study at the end of each of the next five budget years, the projected reserve account cash balance in each of those years, and the projected percent funded for each of those years; and

(g) If the funding plan approved by the association is implemented, the projected reserve account cash balance in each of the next five budget years and the percent funded for each of those years.

(5) The owners by a majority vote of the voting power in the association present, in person or by proxy, and entitled to vote at any meeting of the owners at which a quorum is present, may remove any member of the board of directors with or without cause. [2011 c 189 § 8; 1995 c 283 § 5.]

Notes:

Effective date --2011 c 189: See note following RCW 64.38.065.

64.38.028 Removal of discriminatory provisions in governing documents — Procedure.

(1) The association, acting through a simple majority vote of its board, may amend the association's governing documents for the purpose of removing:

(a) Every covenant, condition, or restriction that purports to forbid or restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, occupancy, or lease thereof to individuals of a specified race, creed, color, sex, or national origin; families with children status; individuals with any sensory, mental, or physical disability; or individuals who use a trained dog guide or service animal because they are blind or deaf or have a physical disability; and (b) Every covenant, condition, restriction, or prohibition, including a right of entry or possibility of reverter, that directly or indirectly limits the use or occupancy of real property on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, national origin; families with children status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability; or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a physical disability or who is blind or deaf.

(2) Upon the board's receipt of a written request by a member of the association that the board exercise its amending authority granted under subsection (1) of this section, the board must, within a reasonable time, amend the governing documents, as provided under this section.

(3) Amendments under subsection (1) of this section may be executed by any board officer.

(4) Amendments made under subsection (1) of this section must be recorded in the public records and state the following:

"This amendment strikes from these covenants, conditions, and restrictions those provisions that are void under RCW 49.60.224. Specifically, this amendment strikes:

(a) Those provisions that forbid or restrict use, occupancy, conveyance, encumbrance, or lease of real property to individuals of a specified race, creed, color, sex, or national origin; families with children status; individuals with any sensory, mental, or physical disability; or individuals who use a trained dog guide or service animal because they are blind

or deaf or have a physical disability; and

(b) Every covenant, condition, restriction, or prohibition, including a right of entry or possibility of reverter, that directly or indirectly limits the use or occupancy of real property on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, national origin; families with children status; the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability; or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a physical disability or who is blind or deaf."

(5) Board action under this section does not require the vote or approval of the owners.

(6) As provided in RCW 49.60.227, any owner, occupant, or tenant in the association or board may bring an action in superior court to have any provision of a written instrument that is void pursuant to RCW 49.60.224 stricken from the public records.

(7) Nothing in this section prohibiting discrimination based on families with children status applies to housing for older persons as defined by the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3607(b)(1) through (3), as amended by the housing for older persons act of 1995, P.L. 104-76, as enacted on December 28, 1995. Nothing in this section authorizes requirements for housing for older persons different than the requirements in the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3607(b)(1) through (3), as amended by the housing for older persons act of 1995, P.L. 104-76, as enacted on December 28, 1995.

(8) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, (a) nothing in this section creates a duty on the part of owners, occupants, tenants, associations, or boards to amend the governing documents as provided in this section, or to bring an action as authorized under this section and RCW 49.60.227; and (b) an owner, occupant, tenant, association, or board is not liable for failing to amend the governing documents or to pursue an action in court as authorized under this section and RCW 49.60.227. [2006 c 58 § 2.]

Notes:

Finding --Intent --2006 c 58: "The legislature finds that some homeowners' associations have governing documents that contain discriminatory covenants, conditions, or restrictions that are void and unenforceable under both the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 and RCW 49.60.224. The continued existence of these discriminatory covenants, conditions, or restrictions is contrary to public policy and repugnant to many property owners. It is the intent of chapter 58, Laws of 2006 to allow homeowners' associations to remove all remnants of discrimination from their governing documents." [2006 c 58 § 1.]

64.38.030 Association bylaws.

Unless provided for in the governing documents, the bylaws of the association shall provide for:

(1) The number, qualifications, powers and duties, terms of office, and manner of electing and removing the board of directors and officers and filling vacancies;

(2) Election by the board of directors of the officers of the association as the bylaws specify;

(3) Which, if any, of its powers the board of directors or officers may delegate to other persons or to a managing agent;

(4) Which of its officers may prepare, execute, certify, and record amendments to the governing documents on behalf of the association;

(5) The method of amending the bylaws; and

(6) Subject to the provisions of the governing documents, any other matters the association deems necessary and appropriate. [1995 c 283 § 6.]

64.38.033 Flag of the United States — Outdoor display — Governing documents.

(1) The governing documents may not prohibit the outdoor display of the flag of the United States by an owner or resident on the owner's or resident's property if the flag is displayed in a manner consistent with federal flag display law, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq. The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations, consistent with 4 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., regarding the placement and manner of display of the flag of the United States.

(2) The governing documents may not prohibit the installation of a flagpole for the display of the flag of the United States. The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the location and the size of the flagpole.

(3) For purposes of this section, "flag of the United States" means the flag of the United States as defined in federal flag display law, 4 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., that is made of fabric, cloth, or paper and that is displayed from a staff or flagpole or in a window. For purposes of this section, "flag of the United States" does not mean a flag depiction or emblem made of lights, paint, roofing, siding, paving materials, flora, or balloons, or of any similar building, landscaping, or decorative component.

(4) The provisions of this section shall be construed to apply retroactively to any governing documents in effect on June 10, 2004. Any provision in a governing document in effect on June 10, 2004, that is inconsistent with this section shall be void and unenforceable. [2004 c 169 § 1.]

64.38.034 Political yard signs — Governing documents.

(1) The governing documents may not prohibit the outdoor display of political yard signs by an owner or resident on the owner's or resident's property before any primary or general election. The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs.

(2) This section applies retroactively to any governing documents in effect on July 24, 2005. Any provision in a governing document in effect on July 24, 2005, that is inconsistent with this section is void and unenforceable. [2005 c 179 § 1.]

64.38.035 Association meetings — Notice — Board of directors.

(1) A meeting of the association must be held at least once each year. Special meetings of the association may be called by the president, a majority of the board of directors, or by owners having ten percent of the votes in the association. Not less than fourteen nor more than sixty days in advance of any meeting, the secretary or other officers specified in the bylaws shall cause notice to be hand-delivered or sent prepaid by first-class United States mail to the mailing address of each owner or to

any other mailing address designated in writing by the owner. The notice of any meeting shall state the time and place of the meeting and the business to be placed on the agenda by the board of directors for a vote by the owners, including the general nature of any proposed amendment to the articles of incorporation, bylaws, any budget or changes in the previously approved budget that result in a change in assessment obligation, and any proposal to remove a director.

(2) Except as provided in this subsection, all meetings of the board of directors shall be open for observation by all owners of record and their authorized agents. The board of directors shall keep minutes of all actions taken by the board, which shall be available to all owners. Upon the affirmative vote in open meeting to assemble in closed session, the board of directors may convene in closed executive session to consider personnel matters; consult with legal counsel or consider communications with legal counsel; and discuss likely or pending litigation, matters involving possible violations of the governing documents of the association, and matters involving the possible liability of an owner to the association. The motion shall state specifically the purpose for the closed session. Reference to the motion and the stated purpose for the closed session shall be included in the minutes. The board of directors shall restrict the consideration of matters during the closed portions of meetings only to those purposes specifically exempted and stated in the motion. No motion, or other action adopted, passed, or agreed to in closed session may become effective unless the board of directors, following the closed session, reconvenes in open meeting and votes in the open meeting on such motion, or other action which is reasonably

identified. The requirements of this subsection shall not require the disclosure of information in violation of law or which is otherwise exempt from disclosure. [1995 c 283 § 7.]

64.38.040 Quorum for meeting.

Unless the governing documents specify a different percentage, a quorum is present throughout any meeting of the association if the owners to which thirty-four percent of the votes of the association are allocated are present in person or by proxy at the beginning of the meeting. [1995 c 283 § 8.]

64.38.045 Financial and other records — Property of association — Copies — Examination — Annual financial statement — Accounts.

(1) The association or its managing agent shall keep financial and other records sufficiently detailed to enable the association to fully declare to each owner the true statement of its financial status. All financial and other records of the association, including but not limited to checks, bank records, and invoices, in whatever form they are kept, are the property of the association. Each association managing agent shall turn over all original books and records to the association immediately

upon termination of the management relationship with the association, or upon such other demand as is made by the board of directors. An association managing agent is entitled to keep copies of association records. All records which the managing agent has turned over to the association shall be made reasonably available for the examination and copying by the managing agent.

(2) All records of the association, including the names and addresses of owners and other occupants of the lots, shall be available for examination by all owners, holders of mortgages on the lots, and their respective authorized agents on reasonable advance notice during normal working hours at the offices of the association or its managing agent. The association shall not release the unlisted telephone number of any owner. The association may impose and collect a reasonable charge for copies and any reasonable costs incurred by the association in providing access to records.

(3) At least annually, the association shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a financial statement of the association. The financial statements of associations with annual assessments of fifty thousand dollars or more shall be audited at least annually by an independent certified public accountant, but the audit may be waived if sixty-seven percent of the votes cast by owners, in person or by proxy, at a meeting of the association at which a quorum is present, vote each year to waive the audit.

(4) The funds of the association shall be kept in accounts in the name of the association and shall not be commingled with the funds of any other association, nor with the funds of any manager of the association or any other person responsible for the custody of such funds. [1995 c 283 § 9.]

64.38.050 Violation — Remedy — Attorneys' fees.

Any violation of the provisions of this chapter entitles an aggrieved party to any remedy provided by law or in equity. The court, in an appropriate case, may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party. [1995 c 283 § 10.]

64.38.055 Governing documents — Solar panels.

(1) The governing documents may not prohibit the installation of a solar energy panel by an owner or resident on the owner's or resident's property as long as the solar energy panel:

(a) Meets applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local permitting authorities;

(b) If used to heat water, is certified by the solar rating certification corporation or another nationally recognized certification agency. Certification must be for the solar energy panel and for installation; and

(c) If used to produce electricity, meets all applicable safety and performance standards established by the national electric code, the institute of electrical and electronics engineers, accredited testing laboratories, such as underwriters laboratories, and, where applicable, rules of the utilities and transportation commission regarding safety and reliability.

(2) The governing documents may:

(a) Prohibit the visibility of any part of a roof-mounted solar energy panel above the roof line;

(b) Permit the attachment of a solar energy panel to the slope of a roof facing a street only if:

(i) The solar energy panel conforms to the slope of the roof; and

(ii) The top edge of the solar energy panel is parallel to the roof ridge; or

(c) Require:

(i) A solar energy panel frame, a support bracket, or any visible piping or wiring to be painted to coordinate with the roofing material;

(ii) An owner or resident to shield a ground-mounted solar energy panel if shielding the panel does not prohibit economic installation of the solar energy panel or degrade the operational performance quality of the solar energy panel by more than ten percent; or

(iii) Owners or residents who install solar energy panels to indemnify or reimburse the association or its members for loss or damage caused by the installation, maintenance, or use of a solar energy panel.

(3) The governing documents may include other reasonable rules regarding the placement and manner of a solar energy panel.

(4) For purposes of this section, "solar energy panel" means a panel device or system or combination of panel devices or systems that relies on direct sunlight as an energy source, including a panel device or system or combination of panel devices or systems that collects sunlight for use in:

(a) The heating or cooling of a structure or building;

(b) The heating or pumping of water;

(c) Industrial, commercial, or agricultural processes; or

(d) The generation of electricity.

(5) This section does not apply to common areas as defined in RCW

64.38.010.

(6) This section applies retroactively to a governing document in effect on July 26, 2009. A provision in a governing document in effect on July 26, 2009, that is inconsistent with this section is void and unenforceable. [2009 c 51 § 1.]

64.38.060 Adult family homes.

(1) To effectuate the public policy of chapter 70.128 RCW, the governing documents may not limit, directly or indirectly:

(a) Persons with disabilities from living in an adult family home licensed under chapter 70.128 RCW; or

(b) Persons and legal entities from operating adult family homes licensed under chapter 70.128 RCW, whether for-profit or nonprofit, to provide services covered under chapter 70.128 RCW. However, this subsection does not prohibit application of reasonable nondiscriminatory regulation, including but not limited to landscaping standards or regulation of sign location or size, that applies to all residential property subject to the governing documents.

(2) This section applies retroactively to any governing documents in effect on July 26, 2009. Any provision in a governing document in effect on or after July 26, 2009, that is inconsistent with subsection (1) of this section is unenforceable to the extent of the conflict. [2009 c 530 § 4.]

64.38.065 Reserve account and study. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

(1) An association is encouraged to establish a reserve account with a financial institution to fund major maintenance, repair, and replacement of common elements, including limited common elements that will require major maintenance, repair, or replacement within thirty years. If the association establishes a reserve account, the account must be in the name of the association. The board of directors is responsible for administering the reserve account.

(2) Unless doing so would impose an unreasonable hardship, an association with significant assets shall prepare and update a reserve study, in accordance with the association's governing documents and this chapter. The initial reserve study must be based upon a visual site inspection conducted by a reserve study professional.

(3) Unless doing so would impose an unreasonable hardship, the association shall update the reserve study annually. At least every three years, an updated reserve study must be prepared and based upon a visual site inspection conducted by a reserve study professional.

(4) The decisions relating to the preparation and updating of a reserve study must be made by the board of directors in the exercise of the reasonable discretion of the board. The decisions must include whether a reserve study will be prepared or updated, and whether the assistance of a reserve study professional will be utilized. [2011 c 189 § 9.]

Notes:

Effective date --2011 c 189: "This act takes effect January 1, 2012." [2011 c 189 § 15.]

64.38.070 Reserve study — Requirements. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

(1) A reserve study as described in RCW 64.38.065 is supplemental to the association's operating and maintenance budget. In preparing a reserve study, the association shall estimate the anticipated major maintenance, repair, and replacement costs, whose infrequent and significant nature make them impractical to be included in an annual budget.

(2) A reserve study must include:

(a) A reserve component list, including any reserve component that would cost more than one percent of the annual budget of the association, not including the reserve account, for major maintenance, repair, or replacement. If one of these reserve components is not included in the reserve study, the study should provide commentary explaining the basis for its exclusion. The study must also include quantities and estimates for the useful life of each reserve component, remaining useful life of

each reserve component, and current major maintenance, repair, or replacement cost for each reserve component;

(b) The date of the study, and a statement that the study meets the requirements of this section;

(c) The following level of reserve study performed:

(i) Level I: Full reserve study funding analysis and plan;

(ii) Level II: Update with visual site inspection; or

(iii) Level III: Update with no visual site inspection;

(d) The association's reserve account balance;

(e) The percentage of the fully funded balance that the reserve account is funded;

(f) Special assessments already implemented or planned;

(g) Interest and inflation assumptions;

(h) Current reserve account contribution rates for a full funding plan and baseline funding plan;

(i) A recommended reserve account contribution rate, a contribution rate for a full funding plan to achieve one hundred percent fully funded reserves by the end of the thirty-year study period, a baseline funding plan to maintain the reserve balance above zero throughout the thirty-year study period without special assessments, and a contribution rate

recommended by the reserve study professional;

(j) A projected reserve account balance for thirty years and a funding plan to pay for projected costs from that reserve account balance without reliance on future unplanned special assessments; and

(k) A statement on whether the reserve study was prepared with the assistance of a reserve study professional.

(3) A reserve study must also include the following disclosure: "This reserve study should be reviewed carefully. It may not include all common and limited common element components that will require major maintenance, repair, or replacement in future years, and may not include regular contributions to a reserve account for the cost of such maintenance, repair, or replacement. The failure to include a component in a reserve study, or to provide contributions to a reserve account for a component, may, under some circumstances, require you to pay on demand as a special assessment your share of common expenses for the cost of major maintenance, repair, or replacement of a reserve component."

[2011 c 189 § 10.]

Notes:

Effective date --2011 c 189: See note following RCW 64.38.065.

64.38.075 Reserve account — Withdrawals. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

An association may withdraw funds from its reserve account to pay for unforeseen or unbudgeted costs that are unrelated to maintenance, repair, or replacement of the reserve components. The board of directors shall record any such withdrawal in the minute books of the association, cause notice of any such withdrawal to be hand delivered or sent prepaid by first-class United States mail to the mailing address of each owner or to any other mailing address designated in writing by the owner, and adopt

a repayment schedule not to exceed twenty-four months unless it determines that repayment within twenty-four months would impose an unreasonable burden on the owners. Payment for major maintenance, repair, or replacement of the reserve components out of cycle with the reserve study projections or not included in the reserve study may be made from the reserve account without meeting the notification or repayment requirements under this section. [2011 c 189 § 11.]

Notes:

Effective date --2011 c 189: See note following RCW 64.38.065.

64.38.080 Reserve study — Demand for preparation and inclusion in budget. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

(1) When more than three years have passed since the date of the last reserve study prepared by a reserve study professional, the owners to which at least thirty-five percent of the votes are allocated may demand, in writing, to the association that the cost of a reserve study be included in the next budget and that the study be prepared by the end of that budget year. The written demand must refer to this section. The board of directors shall, upon receipt of the written demand, provide the owners who make the demand reasonable assurance that the board will include a reserve study in the next budget and, if the budget is not rejected by a majority of the owners, will arrange for the completion of a reserve study.

(2) If a written demand under this section is made and a reserve study is not timely prepared, a court may order specific performance and award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in any legal action brought to enforce this section. An association may assert unreasonable hardship as an affirmative defense in any action brought against it under this section. Without limiting this affirmative defense, an unreasonable hardship exists where the cost of preparing a reserve study would exceed five percent of the association's annual budget.

(3) An owner's duty to pay for common expenses is not excused because of the association's failure to comply with this section or this chapter. A budget ratified by the owners is not invalidated because of the association's failure to comply with this section or this chapter. [2011 c 189 § 12.]

Notes:

Effective date --2011 c 189: See note following RCW 64.38.065.

64.38.085 Reserve account and study — Liability. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

Monetary damages or any other liability may not be awarded against or imposed upon the association, the officers or board of directors of the association, or those persons who may have provided advice or assistance to the association or its officers or directors, for failure to: Establish a reserve account; have a current reserve study prepared or updated in accordance with the requirements of this chapter; or make the reserve disclosures in accordance with this chapter. [2011 c 189 § 13.]

Notes:

Effective date --2011 c 189: See note following RCW 64.38.065.

64.38.090 Reserve study — Exemptions. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

An association is not required to follow the reserve study requirements under RCW 64.38.025 and RCW 64.38.065 through 64.38.085 if the cost of the reserve study exceeds five percent of the association's annual budget, the association does not have significant assets, or there are ten or fewer homes in the association. [2011 c 189 § 14.]

Notes:

Effective date --2011 c 189: See note following RCW 64.38.065.