Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-128 - Report 1 (2)STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING ORDINANCE NO.5328 the City of Renton (Rainier Avenue CITY OF RENTON An ordinance of the City of Renton, from Residential 10 DU/AC (R-10) t. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ORDINANCES ADOPTED Washington, changing the zoning Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning, File N( BY THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL classification of certain properties within LUA-06-161 (PA 2007-M-02). The legs Following is summary of ordinances the City of Renton (Highlands Study Area) description is on file at the City Clerk' adopted by the Renton City Council on from residential — 10 DUTAC (R-10) zoning office, and is available upon request. PUBLIC NOTICE December 10, 2007: to residential multi -family (RM-F), File No. Effective: 12/20/2007 ORDINANCE NO.5324 LUA-06-128 (CPA 2006-M-6).The legal ORDINANCE NO, 5334 Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal An ordinance of the City of Renton, description is on file at the City Clerk's An ordinance of the City of Rentor. Advertising Representative of the Washington, amending Chapter 5, Fire office, and is available upon request, Washington, changing the zonin; Department, of Title 111, "Departments," of Effective: 12/20/2007 classification of certain properties withii Ordinance 4260, entitled "Code of General ORDINANCE NO.5329 the City of Renton (VIRTU property soutl Ordinances of the City of Renton" changing An ordinance of the City of Renton, of Sunset Boulevard) from Residentia the duties of the Fire Chief/Emergency Washington, adopting the 2007 amendments Multi -family (RMF) zoning to Residentia Renton Reporter Services Administrator and to change the to the City's 2004 comprehensive plan, 10 DU/AC (R-10) zoning, File No. LUA responsibilities of the various department maps and data in conjunction therewith. 06-167 (CPA 2007-M-05). The lega divisions. Effective: [2120/2007 description is on file at the City Clerk' Effective: 1/1412008 ORDINANCE NO.5330 Office, and is available upon request. a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of ORDINANCE NO.5325 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Effective: 12/20/2007 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, amending Chapter 4.2, ORDINANCE NO.5335 general circulation and is zloty and has been for more than six months Washington, adopting the annual budget Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, An ordinance of the City of Rentor prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in for the year 2008, in the amount of of Title IV (Development Regulations) Washington, changing the zonin; the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King $234,638.924. of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of classification of certain properties withii Effective: 12/20/2007 General Ordinances of the City of Renton, the City of Renton (QIP property south o County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as ORDINANCE NO.5326 Washington", to amend the regulations Sunset Boulevard) from Industrial-Heav: a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of An ordinance of the City of Renton, regarding the location of required parking (I-H) zoning to Residential 10 DUTAC (R Washington for King County. Washington, amending Chapter 1, in the commercial neighborhood zone. 10) zoning, File No. LUA-06-167 (CPI g g "Administration and Enforcement" of Effective: 12/20/2007 2007-M-05). The legal description is on fil, The notice in the exact form annexed was published In regular issues Title 4 (Development Regulations) of ORDINANCE NO.5331 at the City Clerk's office, and is availabl. of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which Was Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of An ordinance of the City of Renton, upon request. General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington, amending Chapter 4-2, Effective: 1212012007 regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. Washington" to allow for adjustments to Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, ORDINANCE NO.5336 The annexed notice, a: system development charges. of Title 1V (Development Regulations) An ordinance of the City of Rentor Effective: 11IN2008 of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of Washington, changing the zonin; Public Notice ORDINANCE NO.5327 General Ordinances of the City of Renton, classification of certain properties withii An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington" to amend the regulations the City of Renton (Park Avenue North Washington, annexing certain territory of regarding the Rainier Business District from Residential 10 DU/AC (R-to) t� the City of Renton, as of March 1, 2008, overlay and the decision criteria for stand Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning was published on December 15, 2007. consisting of approx. 2,406 acres generally alone residential in NE 4th, Sunset, and File No. LUA-06-160 (CPA 2007-M located south of the current city limits to SE Puget Business Districts. 01). The legal description is on file at th. 192nd St and east of 108th Av SE. (Benson Effective: 12/20/2007 City Clerk's office, and is available upoi Hill Communities Annexation; File No, ORDINANCE NO.5332 request. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is A-06-002). The legal description is on file An ordinance of the City of Renton, Effective: 1212012007 at the City Clerk's office, and is available Washington, amending Chapter 4-2, Complete text of these ordinances i the sum of $331.80. uponrequest. Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, available at Renton City Hall, 1055 Soutl Effective: 12/20007 of Title IV (Development Regulations) Grady Way; and posted at the Renton Publi• 01'of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of r�J � p r ����N�Z��ti1 General. Ordinances of the Cityof Renton, NE 12es' Street. Mill Avenue South and 290: I IIf1 Washington" b allowiti Residential NE 12th Street. Upon request to the Ciij �T/CJ� 11 gt Y g Clerk's office, (425) 430-6510, copies wit Linda M. Mills *»���++„ Manufactured Home (RMH) zoning to also be mailed for a fee - Linda G00018. 101,i� O //� implement the Residential Low Density Bonnie I. Walton Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter _� aY = H0T 0 —37 f (RLD) land use designation. City Clerk Subscribed and sworn t0 me this 20th day of Dece1 �OQ7� 7 „`% Effective: 12/2012007 Published in the Renton Reporter of G • * y s m ORDINANCE NO.5333 December 15, 2007. #29821 i Q a Si An ordinance of the City of Renton, 'n �'ry�� 41C 4_ Washington, changing the zoning i 71 �.�' _ classification of certain properties within Kathy Dals4NOfary Public for A State of Washingt Aidife , in Covington, Washington P. O. Number: L .A a,- 13-? CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO, 5328 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (HIGHLANDS STUDY AREA) FROM RESIDENTIAL- 10 DU/AC (R-10) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RM-F), FILE NO. LUA-06- 128 (CPA 2006-M-6). WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described in Attachments A and B has heretofore been zoned as Residential- 10 duJac; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about September 20, 2006, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5285 on May 14, 2007, which changed the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for these properties from Residential Medium Density(RMD) to Residential Multi -Family (RMF); and WHEREAS, the RM-F zoning designation is consistent with the RMF land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan; ORDINANCE NO. 5328 WHEREAS, the RM-F zoning designation is consistent with the RMF land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential Multi -Family as hereinbelow specified. The Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to -wit: See Attachments "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Highlands Study Area). SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this loth day of December , N07. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 10th-day of December2007. 4-�� 46_�� Kathy Keo , Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/15/2007 (summary) ORD.1404:11/14/07:ch 2 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. 5328 NE 2 Fl Y NE zain 23rd-Kat Ai r ld �hE 23rd St N 22 q w Nr 21st St y HE 20fh t. �. _ ;� LN F �o Vo w /:: O a ' 1 17th c . v 17' ur l� �' z n78tiy- v, - 4. Wh E. I x o t 2 � 1. n C �__�I L St.Aln tit w _ :'� NE 1?kh 5t 1Yth.: loth 1 1 NE, ` w t�j r9 1 v k ( ry 1. 1 . 4S i NEtOth P� INE yt\�.._�� � 1 ^_1 � -r tom. J .• �r ! t 43 1�E... 8tt4 %rt. 1 I[ � . _ ,All O Nf btn ' a �° h 6.th I. DEA � E n .,th Rezone from Residential -I 0 dulac to 0 1000 2000 Residential Multi -Family 1:12ooa ORDINANCE NO. 5328 HIGHLANDS REZONE REZONE FROM R-10 TO RMF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Attachment B The North five acres of the West half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington; EXCEPT roads. L,1/,4 - C&- lz CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5280 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (HIGHLANDS STUDY AREA) FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY (RMF) ZONING TO CENTER VILLAGE (CV) ZONING; FILE NO. LUA-06-128. WHEREAS, under Section 4.2,020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington', and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has previously been zoned as Residential Multi Family (RW); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the City Council for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about November 13, 2006, and the matter was considered by the City Council, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto-, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Center Village (CV) as hereinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: ORDINANCE NO. 5280 See Attachments "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. '(Highlands Study Area). SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, this 14 t h day of _Map , 2007. az-*� Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14 t h day of May , 2007. �_ Kathy KtAker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence I Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 5/19/2007 (summary) ORD. 1311:11 /21/06: ma 2 ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 5280 HIGHLANDS ZONING REZONE FROM RMF TO CV LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 6, Renton Highlands, as recorded in Volume 46 of Plats, Pages 34-41, records of King County. All situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. I � a 01C ORDINANCE NO. 5280 HIGHLANDS ZONING REZONE FROM RMF TO CV LEGAL DESCRIPTION All of the lands contained within the Sir Cedric Condominiums, as recorded in Volume 42 of Condominiums, Pages 16-20, records of King County. All situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. 5280 HIGHLANDS REZONE REZONE FROM RMF TO CV LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots I and 2 of City of Renton Short Plat No, 020-9I, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 9303039001, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M.; EXCEPT that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, - King County, Washington, lying southerly, westerly, northwesterly and westerly of NE 15t' Street and NE 150' Place. Except roads. All situate in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ATTACHMENT D ORDINANCE N0, 5280 HIGHLANDS REZONE 2006-M-06 REZONE FROM RMF TO CV LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the West half of the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying southerly of the southerly right of way margin of NE 12'' Street, easterly of the easterly right of way margin of Edmonds Ave NE, northerly of the northerly right of way margin of NE Sunset Blvd and westerly of the fallowing described line: Beginning said line at the intersection of the southerly right of way margin of NE 12TH Street and the Northeast corner of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. 023- 80, as recorded under King County Rec. No. 8101120505; Thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 1, to the Southeast corner thereof; Thence westerly, southerly and westerly along the south line of said Lot 1, to the Northeast corner of Lot 21, Block 46 of the Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No. 2, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, pages 92-98, records of said county; Thence southerly along the east line of said lot, to the southeast corner thereof; Thence easterly, to the southwest corner of the Harrington Place Condominiums, according to the condominium thereof, recorded in Volume 56 of Plats, pages 52-56, records of said county; Thence southwesterly, along the southwesterly extension of the northwesterly line of said condominium, to the most northerly northwest corner of Tract 46B of said plat; Thence South 30°56' 11" West, a distance of 99.11 feet along the northwesterly line of said Tract 4613; Thence South 58°24' 13" East, a distance of 100.21; Thence South 31 ° 24'45" West, a distance of 186.09 feet; Thence North 86°34'36" West, a distance of 6.03 feet; Thence continuing North 86°34'36 West, to the easterly right of way margin of Harrington Ave NE; ATTACHMENT D ORDINANCE NO. 5280 Thence southerly along said right of way margin and its southerly extension, crossing NE 10th Street, to the most northwest corner of I.ot 35A of said plat; Thence easterly and southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 35A, and the southwesterly right of way margin oi' NE 10"'. Street, to an intersection with the northerly right of way margin of NE Sunset Blvd, and the termination point for the hereinbefore described line. .I alrlall 6012.�lISM rAm : Ar „ ✓r-� • Dig I Z-� CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5281 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (HIGHLANDS STUDY AREA) FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY (RMF) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL-14 DU/AC (R-14) ZONING; FILE NO. LUA-06-128. WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has previously been zoned as Residential Multi Family (RMF); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the City Council for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about November 13, 2006, and the matter was considered by the City Council, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential-14 du/ac (R-14) as hercinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to.change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to wit: M ORDINANCE NO. 5 2 81 See Attachments "A" and "B" and attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Highlands Study Area) SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14th day of May , 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14th day of May , 2007. Appro ed as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication 5/19/2007 (summary) ORD.1312:11/21/06: ma 2 Kathy Keolker, Mayor r ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 5281 HIGHLANDS ZONING REZONE FROM RMF TO R-14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All of Block 41 and Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in Block 42, Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No. 2, as recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, Pages 92-98, records of King County. All situate in the Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. sm •11lrIIis�.-ia-IIiorwItz : .• CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5 2 8 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (HIGHLANDS STUDY AREA) FROM RESIDENTIAL-10 DU/AC (R-10) ZONING TO CENTER VH.LAGE (CV) ZONING; FILE NO. LUA-06-128. WHEREAS, under Section 4.2, 020 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has previously been zoned as Residential-10 du/ac (R-10); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was referred to the City Council for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held thereon on or about November 13, 2006, and the matter has been considered by the City Council, and the zoning request is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council has considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties have been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Center Village (CV) as hereinbelow specified- The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to - wit: I ORDINANCE NO. 5282 See Attachments "A" and `B" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Highlands Study Area) SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14 th day of May , 2007. G(JG2 Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14th day of May 2007. Approved as to form: wrence I Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 5/19/2007 (summary) ORD.1301:1 I/ 16/06: ma 2 -A� A�� , Kathy Ke Iker, Mayor ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 5282 HIGHLANDS REZONE REZONE FROM R-10 TO CV LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, lying southerly, westerly, northwesterly and westerly of NE 15'h Street and NE 151h Place. i L v d r}6 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO_ 5287 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4260, THE "REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON," AND CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (HIGHLANDS STUDY AREA) FROM RESIDENTIAL-10 DU/AC (R-10) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL- 14 DU/AC (R-14) ZONING FILE NO. LUA-06- 128 (CPA 2006-M-06), AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property described below has heretofore been zoned as Residential- 10 du/ac (R-10); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the City Council for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about November 13, 2006, and said matter having been duly considered by the City Council, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council has had a series of development moratoria in place since May 2005, which have been extended from time to time, to allow City Staff time to conduct a study of the Highlands study area and propose land use modifications for that area; and 0 ORDINANCE NO. 5287 WHEREAS, the current development moratorium expires May 13, 2007; and WHEREAS, the city has expended considerable resources to conduct the study of the Highlands Study Area; and WHEREAS, the City might lose the benefit of the studies conducted regarding the Highlands Study Area if the City waits to amend the zoning of the area described below; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires that there be consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning designation for all property in the City's corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the current zoning in the Highlands Study Area needs to be changed to be consistent with the vision articulated in the contemporaneously adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed modifications should be in place as soon as possible after the end of the development moratorium to prevent the vesting of new development that is inconsistent with the modifications; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SE TION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential-14 du/ac (R-I4) as specified in Attachments "A" and "B". The Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to -wit: See Attachments "A" and "B" and attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Highlands Study Area). cpaord zoning.doc 2 M ORDINANCE NO. 5287 SECTION H. An emergency is hereby declared and this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and immediately after its adoption. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14thday of May , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14 t h day of May , 2007. A�� 4&-a� Kathy K lker, Mayor Approved as to form: Prence J. Warren, ity Attorney Date of Publication: 5/19/2007 (summary) ORD.1354:5/3/07:ch cpaord-zoning.doc 3 v f ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 5287 HIGHLANDS REZONE 2006-M-06 REZONE FROM R-10 TO R-14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All of Blocks 1-6, 45, 47, 50 & 51 and all of Block 46 except Tract 46A of the Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No_ 2, as recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, Pages 92-98; All situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North., Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. 0 111 rZ It to k"m 0 11 OT: I ew • CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5 2 8 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4260, THE "REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON,- AND CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (HIGHLANDS STUDY AREA) FROM RESIDENTIAL- 10 DU/AC (R 10) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY (RMF) ZONING FILE NO. LUA-06-128 (CPA 2006-M-06), AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, under Section 4.2.020 of Chapter 2, Land Use Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property described below has heretofore been zoned as Residential-10 du/ac (R-10); and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of said property. This matter was duly referred to the City Council for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing having been held thereon on or about November 13, 2006, and said matter having been duly considered by the City Council, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council has had a series of development moratoria in place since May 2005, which has been extended from time to time, to allow City Staff time to It ORDINANCE NO. 5288 conduct a study of the Highlands study area and propose land use modifications for that area; and WHEREAS, the current development moratorium expires May 13, 2007; and WHEREAS, the city has expended considerable resources to conduct the study of the Highlands area during the moratoria; and WHEREAS, the City might lose the benefit of the studies conducted regarding the Highlands Study Area if the city waits to amend the zoning in the area described below until the next amendment cycle; and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act requires that there be consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning designation for all property in the city's corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the current zoning in the Highlands study area needs to be changed to be consistent with the vision articulated in the contemporaneously adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed modifications should be in place as soon as possible after the end of the development moratorium to prevent the vesting of new development that is inconsistent with the modifications; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS. SCTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential Multi Family (RMF) as specified in Attachments "A", "B", and "C" below. The Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division is hereby authorized cpaord-zoning.doc 2 q 0 ORDINANCE NO. 5 2 8 8 and directed to change the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to -wit: See Attachments "A", `B", and "C" and attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Highlands Study Area). SECTTON II. An emergency is hereby declared and this ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and immediately after its adoption. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14thday of May , 2007. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14th day of May , 2007. Kathy K olker, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication- 5/19/2007 (summary) ORD.1356:5/3/07:ch cpaord-zoning.doc 3 D ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 5288 HIGHLANDS REZONE REZONE FROM R-10 TO RMF LEGAL DESCRIPTION All of Blocks 7, 8, 9 and 14 of the Corrected Plat of Renton Highlands No. 2, as recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, Pages 92-98, records of King County, Washington. All situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. M ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO. 5288 HIGHLANDS REZONE REZONE FROM R-10 TO RMF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Blocks 4 and 5 of Fair View Terrace, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 60 of Plats, pages 65 & 66, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lots 1 and 6 of Block 29, Correction Plat Renton Highlands No. 2, Replat of Blocks 12, 13, 14, 36, 37 and 38, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 57 of Plats, pages 92-98, records of King County. All situate in the Southwest quarter and Northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in Kin! County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has i)eell aplarovcd as a Lr rl Ncwv.,p il�er by order of dw Superior Cruu-1 of the State 0f' 11 a� h inWton inr hind _'nu 11� The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and ❑ot in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers durim, the below stated p<,riod. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on May 19, 2007- The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $306.60- on Le Advertising Representative, Covington/Maple Valley Rep041 ! l l r 11 fF scribed and sworn to me this 21�` day of May, 2007- r,`�1 d CAN 7Zt i��� NorARy B D Cantelon y PU$tJC t Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in K6�t,, ton,,, �0 PO Number: 0 .120 rVVASk 1' CITY OF REtiTON Of SE l-316C11 5t. Oil the nUrLh- 1iY'.-9t Of of til, �'iLV Of Rentolr. 4Nashnletan' by NOTICE OF ORDINANC K' i tlii nriiidle of 140t11 Ave_ SE, if changing„' the zoning r(,gulatiuru, ADOPTED BY REN"rON CITY extended. and the east side of 140th imtrlenicmting the Center Village COUNCIL Ave. SE trr 113rd Ave. SE on the eat cumpi cherrsive plan designation. Holton'ingisaaumntar±n•ofordinances (Leik�ll Annexation: File No. A-05- induding the Residential-14 (R-14) udoptod by the Renton City Council on 004). The legal description i; on file nt 7.on,a and Center Village (CV) zone, play 14, 2007: the City Clerk's office and is available enacting design regulations, and ORDINANCE NO. 528() upon request. declaring an energency. An ordinance of the City of Renton, Effuct:ivc: fi/18/2007 F.ffcc-rive: 5l14 2007 Washington, changing the zoning ORDINANCE NO. 5284 ORDINANCE NO.5287 ela,.ifie4ition of certain propenty An ordinance of the City of Hcnton. An ordinance of the City of Benton, within tho City of Renton (Highlands Wabhinpton, establishing the zoning Washington, changing the zoning Study Area) from Residential Itluki classification of approxirnawly i'l classification of certain property Family (RMF) zoning to Center acres, generally located immediately within the City of Renton (Highlands Village (CV) zoning; File No. LLrA-06- south of the south side of SE 136th St. Study Area) from Residential-10 (R- 128. The legal description i; on file at on the north, vest of the; middle of 10i zor)inb to Residential-Ll {R-14) the City Clerk`s office and is avail.ihle 140t-h Avs. SE, if extended. and the yvning; File No. I.t)A-06-t'2,5 (CPA_Ni_ t'J tl l2irl Il;:..lit tr ll lii Ili harr'if�t 21 i10 jtc �� iH' Li, �.:,tii i. list i1 M:/:V Ir ,� i r I lt;; iirn I� nn f ,II 11u ! Its: Cltil)ltttli��E \Cl-.y28i 1''ulA: ll;,nl'�n [irnLS prsr n t Airrl_ (1�rk., uf)ice� and is <n'.lii�khlt: upol An ordinance of the City of Renton, The legal description is ore h1e at tyre rortue, t. ti1'a41in ion, changing the zonin<= City C1rrk' nffire ,find i �nail�lbl<' b.fl<-<tive: 511111'Zf)ll7 ciassification of certain property upon regrie.,t- ORDINANCE NO -5288 within tlto Cif-}y oi' P.enur€r (Highlands Effcc-i'ive: 6/18/'2007 An ardinance of r.he Cityof Renton, Study Area) from Residential Multi ORDINANCE NU. 5285 Washington, changing the zoning Family (RMF) zoning to Residential- An ordinance of the City of Renton, classifieation of certain property- 14 Dil/AC fR-14) zoning; tale No Washington. adopting, on an within tho City of Rontorl (1-ligh.lands LUA-06-128. The legal deacTiptian is emergency basis, the Highlands Study Study Area) from Residential-10 tR- on file at the City Clerk's office and is Area Amendments to the City's 2004 10) zoning to Residential lalulti family available upon request. Comprelreasive Plan, Afalzs and Data (R:'_11�) zoning; File Nu. LtiA Oti-128 Effective: 5/24/2007 in conjunction therewith, and (CPA-h1-061, and declaring an ORDINANCE ISO- 5282 declaring an emergency effktive date. emergency. The legal description is on An ordinance of the City of Renton, Effective: 5/14J2007 file at the City Clerk': office and is Washington, changing the zoning ORDINANCE NO. 52S6 availahleupon request. classification of certain property An ordinance of the City of Rcnton: Eflective:5/14/2007 within the City of Renton (Highland, Washingtm, Amending Chapter 4-2, Complete text of these ordinances is Study Areal front Residential-10 DU/ Zoning Districts — Uses And available at Renton City Hall, 1055 AC (R-10) zoning to Center Village Standards, Chapter 4-3, South Grady Way; and posted at the (CV) zoning; File No. LUA-06-128. Environmental Regulations And Renton Public Lihranies, 100 Mill The legal description is on file at the Overlay Districts, Chapter 4-4, City- Avenue South and 2902 NE 12th City Clerk's office and is available wide Property Development Street. Upon request to the City upon request. Standards, Chapter 4-7, Subdivision Clerk's office, (425) 430-6510, copies Effective: W24/2007 Regulations, Chapter 4-8, Permits- will aLso be mailed for a fee. ORDINANCE NO.5283 General and Appeals, Chapter 4-9, Bonnie I. Walton An ordinance of the City of Benton, Permits- Specific, and Chapter 4-11, City Clerk Washington, annexing approximately Definitions, of Title IV (Development Published in the Renton Reporter 14 acres, generally located Regulations) of Ordinance No, 4260 May 19, 2007. #863433 immediately south of the south side of Entitled "Code of General Ordinanms ' May 14, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes w Page 173 Ordinance #5284 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification for approximately Annexation: Leitch, R-4 14 acres, generally located south of the south side of SE 136th St. on the north, Zoning west of the middle of 140th Ave. SE, if extended, and on the east side of 140th Ave. SE to 143rd Ave. SE on the east, annexed within the City of Renton from R-4 (Urban Residential -four dwelling units per acre, King County zoning) to R- 4 (Residential -four dwelling units per acre, Renton zoning); Leitch Annexation. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES, CARRIED. Ordinance #5285 An ordinance was read adopting, on an emergency basis, the Highlands Study Comprehensive Plan: 2006 Area amendments to the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan, maps, and data in Amendments, Highlands Study conjunction therewith, and declaring an emergency effective date of 5/14/2007. Ar .� MOVED BY RRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT u _ V THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5286 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Planning: CV Comp Plan Standards, Chapter 4-3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, Designation, R-14 & CV Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 4-7, Zones, Design Regulations Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 4-8, Permits - General and Appeals, Chapter 4-9, Permits - Specific, and Chapter 4-11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by changing the zoning regulations implementing the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation, including the Residential-14 (R-14) zone and Center Village (CV) zone, enacting design regulations, and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5287 An ordinance was read amending City Code and changing the zoning Rezone: Highlands Study classification of certain property within the City of Renton (Highlands Study Area, R-10 to R-14, CPA Area) from R-10 (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre) to R-14 (Residential- 14 dwelling units per acre) zoning, and declaring an emergency (LUA-06-128; CPA 2006-M-06). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5288 An ordinance was read amending City Code and changing the zoning Rezone: Highlands Study classification of certain property within the City of Renton (Highlands Study Area, R-10 to RM-F, CPA Area) from R-10 (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre) to RM-F (Residential Multi -Family) zoning, and declaring an emergency (LUA-06-128; CPA 2006- M-06). MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Pro Teni Nelson noted that with the adoption of the ordinances related to Planning: Highlands Area the Highlands area concerned parties may now move ahead. Redevelopment, Study Area In response to Councilmember Corman's inquiries, Councilmember Briere Zoning & Land Use Changes confirmed that the Highlands -area moratorium has expired, the new zoning is now in place, and a duplex can be rebuilt as it is a conforming use. Councilmember Persson thanked the Planning and Development Committee for their efforts on this matter. Councilmember Briere announced that phase 2 of the Highlands Task Force is being formed, and a letter was sent to interested citizens that includes an application, which is due by May 23. She stated that if anyone is interested in serving, information can be obtained from the City's May 14, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 174 website or the Council Liaison. Ms. Briere explained that the task force's charter includes reviewing issues within the Highlands area itself, identifying and prioritizing needs, and receiving education regarding what the City can and cannot do. AUDIENCE COMMENT In response to the inquiry of Howard McOmber, 475 Olympia Ave. NE, Citizen Comment: McOmber - Renton, 98056, Councilmembers confirmed that the moratorium in the Highlands Area Moratorium Highlands area has ended. Citizen Comment: Pham - Shelley Pham, 13633 6th Pl. S., Burien, 98168, spoke on behalf of The Seattle Official Newspaper Times on the topic concerning designation of The Seattle Times as the City's official newspaper_ Ms. Pham pointed out that readers do not have to subscribe to The Seattle Times to be able to read the public notices on the newspaper's website. She noted the flexibility of the publication deadlines as the newspaper prints seven days a week. Regarding the publication rates, Ms. Pham indicated that The Seattle Times reaches a larger audience. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL RECESS INTO AND ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 40 MINUTES TO DISCUSS TWO ITEMS OF LITIGATION WITH NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING BE ADJOURNED WHEN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS ADJOURNED. CARRIED. Time: 8.14 p.m. Executive session was conducted. There was no action taken. The executive session and the Council meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC. City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann May 14, 2007 May 14, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 172 floor commercial development at a minimum of 75% of the frontage of the building is required for all residential projects on parcels abutting NE Sunset Blvd. cast of Harrington Ave. NE." The Committee further recommended that the ordinances implementing these proposed changes be presented for adoption. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED, (See later this page and page 173 for ordinances.) Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 259338 - 259841 and two wire transfers totaling $4,218,498.29, and approval of Payroll Voucher 142, one wire transfer, and 675 direct deposits totaling $2,128,589.72. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and advanced for ORDINANCES second and final reading: Rezone: Highlands Study An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain property Area, RM-F to CV, CPA within the City of Renton (Highlands Study Area) from RM-F (Residential Multi -Family) to CV (Center Village) zoning; LUA-06-128. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #5280 Following second and final reading of the above -referenced ordinance, it was Rezone: Highlands Study MOVED BY BRIERF, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Area, RM-F to CV, CPA THE ORDINANCE AS READ, ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Rezone: Highlands Study An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain property Area, RM-F to R-14, CPA within the City of Renton (Highlands Study Area) from RM-F (Residential Multi -Family) to R-14 (Residential-14 dwelling units per acre) zoning; LUA- 06-128. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #5281 Following second and final reading of the above -referenced ordinance, it was Rezone: Highlands Study MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Area, RM-F to R-14, CPA THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Rezone: Highlands Study An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain property Area, R-10 to CV, CPA within the City of Renton (Highlands Study Area) from R-10 (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre) to CV (Center Village) zoning; LUA-06-128. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #5282 Following second and final reading of the above -referenced ordinance, it was Rezone: Highlands Study MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Area, R-10 to CV, CPA THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5283 An ordinance was read annexing approximately 14 acres of property generally Annexation: Leitch, SE 136ih located immediately south of the south side of SE 136th St. on the north, west St & 140th Ave SE of the middle of 140th Ave. SE, if extended, and on the east side of 140th Ave. SE to 143rd Ave_ SE on the east; Leitch Annexation. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, � g3 NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ♦, * PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 10, 2007 TO: FROM: 7Rilb"Lind,anning Manager SUBJECT: Changed Language- Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package In September 2006, the City of Renton issued a package of proposed Land Use and Zoning Changes for the Highlands. This package of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments was submitted with an Environmental Checklist dated September 26, 2006. After this package was reviewed by the Highlands Area Citizen's Zoning Task Force, the proposal was amended and a revised Environmental Checklist issued, dated November 3, 2006. Based on this revised checklist, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance on November 13, 2006. Staff is recommending three technical revisions to the Task Force proposal, none of which are substantial enough to trigger additional Environmental Review: • Office and conference uses are limited for parcels taking primary access from, or abutting Edmonds Avenue NE. This proposed staff change was incorporated into proposal covered by the revised Environmental Checklist of November 3, 2006. This proposed change limits some of the larger commercial uses on these properties, which abut a proposed R-14 area, and could add a significant amount of traffic at the Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street intersection, which is already considered to be at a failing level of service. • Keep the property in the Harrington "tail" between NE 9rh Street and NE 7`h Street in the proposed Residential Multi -Family zoning, but change the underlying land use designation from Residential Multi --Family to Center Village. This change ensures consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, which prohibits Residential Multi -Family land use designation if it bi-sects a lower intensity zone. Since the zoning remains the same as in the Task Force proposal, there is no change to the impacts calculated in the Impacts Spreadsheet. Center Village land use designation would allow this property to be rezoned to a higher intensity land use with Hearing Examiner approval, but any such proposal for rezone would undergo its own Environmental Review at the time of application. • Alter the proposed language requiring retail use in the Center Village zone along NE Sunset Boulevard, so that residential only uses are allowed west of Harrington. This proposed change primarily affects the Sunset Terrace property hacdnsp\comp planlsub area plans\highlands\environmental\taskforce sepa\file memo (lua06-128).doc LUA 06-128 Page 2 of 2 May 10, 2007 owned by the Renton Housing Authority. Sunset Terrace has been in Residential only use since the 1940's and there is a very steep grade change along Sunset Boulevard between Harrington Avenue NE and Edmonds Avenue NE. It is highly unlikely that commercial development on this site would be able to utilize the Sunset frontage. Commercial development would still be allowed, but would not be required. In calculating the impacts of the proposed land use and zoning changes a set of development assumptions were made for each proposed zoning change based on a standard methodology, utilizing buildable lands data whenever possible. There was never any parcel by parcel analysis. For the proposed Center Village zone, the net acreage of all property proposed as Center Village was split between residential uses and commercial uses. This assumed that some land would develop as wholly residential, some would develop as wholly commercial, and some would develop as mixed residential and commercial uses. The mixed use assumption, it is heavily weighted toward residential development. Even with the proposed language change, the same assumptions would be used to calculate likely impacts of the Center Village zone. Since none of the proposed changes would alter the assumptions used to calculate future environmental impacts, it is unnecessary to submit this information to the Environmental Review Committee for reconsideration. h:\ednsp\comp plan\sub area plans\highlands\en vi ron men ta Rtaskforce sepalfile memo (lua06-128).doe May 7, 2007 Renton City Council Minutes Page 160 REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/14/2007. CARRIED. Comprehensive Plan: 2006 An ordinance was read adopting, on an emergency basis, the Highlands Study Amendments, Highlands Study Area amendments to the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan, maps, and data in Area conjunction therewith, and declaring an emergency effective date. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/14/2007. CARRIED. Planning: CV Comp Plan An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Designation, R-14 & CV Standards, Chapter 4-3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, Zones, Design Regulations Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 4-8, Permits - General and Appeals, and Chapter 4-I 1, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by changing the zoning regulations implementing the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation, including the Residential-14 (R-14) zone and Center Village (CV) zone, enacting design regulations, and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/14/2007. CARRIED. Rezone: Highlands Study Area, R-10 to R-14, CPA L,ur - 0� -1 �,o Rezone: Highlands Study Area, R-10 to RM-F, CPA An ordinance was read amending City Code and changing the zoning classification of certain property within the City of Renton (Highlands Study Area) from R-10 (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre) to R-14 (Residential- 14 dwelling units per acre) zoning, and declaring an emergency (LUA-06-128; CPA-2006-M-06). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/14/2007. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending City Code and changing the zoning classification of certain property within the City of Renton (Highlands Study Area) from R-10 (Residential -ten dwelling units per acre) to RM-F (Residential Multi -Family) zoning, and declaring an emergency (LUA-06-128; CPA-2006- M-06). MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/14/2007. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and advanced for second and final reading: Vacation: Field Ave NE, ESM An ordinance was read vacating a portion of Field Ave. NE, north of NE 2nd St. Consulting Engineers, VAC- (Petitioner: ESM Consulting Engineers). MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED 06-004 BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #5278 Following second and final reading of the above -referenced ordinance, it was Vacation: Field Ave NE, ESM MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Consulting Engineers, VAC- ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. 06-004 The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5279 An ordinance was read amending Section 4-1-180 of Chapter 1, Administration Development Services: Fee and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) and 9-14-8 of Chapter Revisions (Franchise Permit, 14, Vacations, of Title IX (Public Ways and Property) of City Code by Plan Review & Inspection, adjusting fee schedules. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, Vacation) COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) County of King ) ss. Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 2"' day of April 2007, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: �� r SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _/day of Her' { r , 2007. Application, Petition or Case No. Nota ublic in and for the State of Washington Res'ding at J� fir, ,•�. , therein. Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA 06-128, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. April 2, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Linda Perrine 1157 Glennwood Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-128, ECF PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 27, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Examiner's Yellow file containing the original appeal letter and site information. Exhibit No. 2: By Reference, the City's Yellow File Exhibit No. 3: Aerial Photograph of the Highlands Exhibit No. 4: Photograph of Park & Ride (135 arkin stalls — full) Exhibit No. 5: Seattle Times Article dated 2/l/2001 Exhibit No. 6: Infrastructure Development, Extract Page. Exhibit No. 7: 12/28/2006 Photograph of Linda's view dated Exhibit No. S: Document from Appeal with incorrect zoning designations__ Exhibit No. 9: Zoning Ma current Exhibit No. 10. Page 6 of the Appeal Exhibit No. 11: Final Impact Spreadsheet Highlands Taskforce Pro osal Exhibit No. 12: Task Force Proposed Land Use Map Parties Present: Mark Barber Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Linda Perrin 1157 Glennwood Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Land Use & Zoni__o - ackage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 2 Linda Perrine began by showing a map of the area and approximately where she lives. She owns and lives in her duplex for 13 years. She was here to express her stem objection to the issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance to the Highlands Sub -Area Rezone proposal. This Determination was issued in error on several different levels. The determination cannot be non -significant when it imposes significant adverse and probably changes in character and impervious surfaces, this proposal will result in significant adverse changes to the character and intensity of buildings including width and height of buildings in the Highlands. Currently the areas consist mostly of duplexes with sizeable yards and neighborhood restaurants and small shopping stores. This zoning proposal would change this area to a probably increase of 60-80 unit apartment buildings up to 50-feet high right next to one story duplexes. The 5-story building directly behind her, which is more than probable to be built, it is owned by the Renton Housing Authority, will completely block her view of the horizon and the City of Renton. It will block the sun to her yard and home, interrupt the airflow and make her feel like she is living in a canyon between tall buildings. It is stated that the impervious surface of 75% will not change and therefore needs no EIS review. This is grossly inaccurate. She currently lives in a vegetation rich neighborhood with impervious surface ratio more like 40% rather than 75%. At 40% the EIS needs to consider what they are at currently, the change from 40% to 75% is significant. Environmental issues need to be considered, what will happen to the aquifer beneath them, will the quality of water be damaged, will the ground water temperature be changed, what about the discharges of water into Lake Washington. Another significant and adverse impact is the increase in traffic congestion and the increase in time to transverse the area in the Highlands. It appears that the only change required would be a turning lane on 12'' and Edmonds. The planned increase in residents is said to be 4,000 people. She takes the bus every day from the Park and Ride next to McKnight Middle School into Seattle. (Showed a picture of the Park and Ride — almost every parking space of the 135 slots is full) There are no other Park and Ride's in the area. A full and proper EIS to investigate the needs and changes required for additional Park and Ride areas. Issuing a Determination of Non -Significance is unacceptable in the face of these facts and the added traffic congestion must be weighed carefully. The environmental checklist submitted, not only minimizes every impact that the rezoning could effect, but skips some of the required checklist points. The checklist needs to include noise, types, traffic congestion, construction, short and long-term noises. Nothing about noise was submitted in the paperwork. The checklist must include ground, surface water runoff and discharge, where does it go, where and how will it be collected and the domestic and commercial sewer status. An EIS would address these issues. The check list must include aesthetics, what views will be altered or obstructed, almost every house on this hill has some sort of view which will no longer exist with a 5-story building. Light and glare should be included, these tall complexes will block light and give glare to smaller less imposing duplex dwellers. Will the project displace existing recreation areas, this was left off the plan completely. Transportation was not addressed. The claim submitted by the City of Renton does not contain any reasonable alternatives. There is a conflict of interest in the issuance of non -significance, the SEPA regulations say in WAC 197-11-926, when possible, agency people when carrying out SEPA procedures should be different from agency people making the proposal. Segregation of these duties is not being adhered to, the same agency that prepared the proposal is signing off on the non -significance of it. S Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 3 Not only are the reports flawed and incomplete they did not take up the full responsibility of the lead agency to bear every evidence of consideration and full disclosure, they simply had one of their own signing off to it with a determination of non -significance. Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager, upon questioning by Mr. Barber stated that the analysis done by the City was adequate for the contemplated proposed zoning change and proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. The proposal is what is called a non -project action, it does not involve a land use permit for construction or creation of any entitlement to land use under the various processes of the City. It is an action that is limited to a change in the zoning, it does set the stage for certain development and that is why it is considered a project under SEPA but it is a non -project action. There are two categories of review, the environmental checklist has a separate section for non -project actions. The level of review is different from a project action that is processed as part of a land use entitlement, such as a site plan review or a preliminary plat. If a property were rezoned under a proposal, a person would be able to build something with more density. It can set the stage for the ability of someone to come in, build a 5-story view blocking building. The analysis compares the existing zoning to a proposed future zoning, it does not compare the existing development on the land, currently this area is zoned quite differently, some are in the CV zone, it already has a 50-foot height limit, and the ability, in certain areas to go to 60 dwelling units per acre. The higher density zoning is already in place and the property owners are already entitled to those dimensions and configurations. The SEPA review occurs in two stages when development actually occurs, there is an additional SEPA review and that review is site specific and looks at the issues listed on the environmental checklist in greater detail pertinent to that particular site and it does look at the change on the Iand that occurs from current condition to proposed development under the zoning that is in place at that time. Ms. Lind further stated that in the appeal documents there is a parcel map (Exhibit 8) one section indicates that the zoning is CV and it actually is R-14. The analysis was started with an assumption of significantly more units, traffic, height, and coverage than exists at the present time on the land. The zoning in place currently would allow any property owner to come in and make a proposal for a development of the type that is allowed under the current zoning, that development would have its own SEPA review, they would be able to come in and file application for those greater heights, coverage, density and traffic in all cases. CV allows up to 60 dwelling unit per acre at the current time, R-10 allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre, RMF allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. There are various criteria within different zones. As part of the Environmental Review and attached to the checklist, the City prepared a matrix that looked at the proposed zoning, the existing zoning and the task force zoning. The matrix looks at the acreage in each area of each zone, the net acreage that could be developed based on the methodology that is used for buildable land's analysis, a density factor is applies to the net acreage and then evaluate the number of dwelling units or commercial retailloffice space that could be gencratcd by that zoning. All the zones were evaluated. Three separate analyses were completed as part of the environmental review. The existing zoning was allocated as Zoning 1, the proposed staff recommendation would have been Zoning 2, and the City Council convened a task force of residents and property owners in the area, which modified the staff zoning proposal, Zoning 3. The environmental checklist was revised (see strike out version of the checklist) showing the changes that were made. The Environmental Review Committee took their action on the task force zoning proposal. There was a different distribution of the gross acreage between the various zones, a different net acreage calculation, which x Highlands Land Use & Zonin,, _ ackage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 4 resulted in comparable numbers for the number of units being created, amount of retail space being created, estimated population, estimated school students generated, and the required acreage for neighborhood parks and the estimated trip ends. The conclusions are listed at the bottom of the chart. The new zoning would create some additional entitlement, in this case in several of the zones they are evaluating what they are and what those zones would allow to be built compared with the old zones and what they would allow to be built. In the column "Gross Acreage" under existing zoning the area is calculated for each zone as adopted by the City Council. One hundred percent build out is never achieved in any situation, that is standard methodology that is used for all growth projections, including the entire comprehensive plan growth target analysis. A separate traffic analysis was submitted to the review committee and considered by them, Erika Conkling will present the conclusions of that analysis. The task force was formed by the City Council prior to completion of the public review process on the comprehensive plan amendments and the zoning proposal. The Council has not acted on the zoning, that is still pending before the planning and development committee waiting for the results of this SEPA appeal. The task force met about eleven times. The taskforce was given a blank map or the area and they drew the zones that they supported onto the map, they worked together to consolidate those maps down to a couple different alternatives. The final recommendation allowed slightly more growth than the original staff proposal. The final recommendations were used to revise the checklist to reanalyze significant changes that had occurred. The appellant's property is proposed for a small down zone, currently she has Residential multi -family zoning that would allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre. Under the proposed zoning, that property would be classified in the R-14 zone, which allows a bonus up to 18 dwelling units per acre. It also allows the existing duplex to be retained as a conforming use. There is no zoning change as yet, it is only proposed. Erika Conkling, Sr. Planner, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, upon questioning by Mr. Barber, Ms. Conkling stated that she would be referring to the Matrix (Exhibit 11) she would be talking about the last couple categories at the end, specifically to trip generation. Taking the assumptions that Ms. Lind spoke about and applying the trip generation standards from the Standard Manual for Trip Generation, and came up with numbers for trip generation. All numbers on the matrix are applied from the net acreage standard. There is a gross number for trip generation and vehicle trip ends, which is the unit of analysis that is used to compare proposals in traffic studies. Under the existing zoning traffic generation is not calculated on what is currently happening in a neighborhood, but what would happen if the traffic were built out to its maximum potential. It would be expected, if this neighborhood were built out to its maximum there would be 28,644 generated trip vehicle ends. R-10 zoning would generate approximately 4900 trips, RMF approximately 2800 trips, CV housing would generate approximately 9200 trips, CV commercial approximately 11,600 trips which generates a total of 28,644 trips. Once the base number is established, it is compared to a build out scenario in both the City proposed zoning and the task force proposed zoning. Applying the zoning assumptions of the City proposed zoning there is a total of 38,980 vehicle trip ends in this study area. At the very bottom of the matrix there is a total number of trips at 39,211 just slightly above what the City initially proposed, which breaks down to 1500 trips generated by R-10, 5400 for R-14, 1100 for RUT, 8300 for housing uses of mixed -use portion of CV zone, 2600 from commercial portion of mixed use CV and just under 14,000 for the retail portion of mixed use CV. When those two numbers are compared, the task force proposal is what was presented to the ERC and the determination was issued on that specific number. Comparing those two sets of numbers, the difference between the 28,644 trips and the 39,211 trips is 10,567. At this time the staff has endorsed the task force recommendation. The vehicle ends has to do with the number of trips in a single day, 24-hours, not talking about peak hours. Highlands Land Use & Zoning Pa., -cage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 5 The checklist discloses that there would be a probable increase in traffic of 10,567 trips. Transportation Engineering Northwest did a traffic analysis dated April 16, 2006 and they presented a higher increase in density in the area and their report showed a much worse case scenario. They proposed an increase in vehicle trip ends of 28,772 and then analyzed what the traffic impacts would be to the Highlands area. The traffic analysis does analyze the existing levels of service in the area, which is how it was discovered that the intersection at 12'h and Edmonds is currently at a failing level of service. Using Exhibit 8, she further explained how the lot coverage and zoning would be changed. The brown areas show current zoning of Residential -Multi -Family with a lot coverage of 65%, that is proposed to be changed to CV zoning which would allow 75% tot coverage, however, if a parking structure is built, the lot coverage could remain at 65%. The areas that are not shown in color are areas that show no proposed changes in the existing zoning. There are urban design guidelines that are used in other parts of the City mostly in the downtown and central downtown neighborhoods, in this proposal those guidelines have been slightly modified, there are two design districts, one for the CV areas and the residential districts with multi -family and R-14 zoning. The purpose of those design districts is to create regulations and guidelines is to regulate the scale and intensity of buildings that may represent an increase over what is currently on the ground. The design regulations are specifically intended to provide ease and comfort, a standard by which development occurs so that it has a more minimal impact on the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors. Design guidelines would be put in place upon the approval of the regulations, they would come into play when new development is proposed. Existing development would not have to comply with the new design guidelines, but when a building or land use permit was requested, they would be expected to comply with all design regulations at that time. There are specific design districts, which are included in the file materials. The design guidelines apply to all development in the Center Village Land Use designation. Looking at the Task Force Proposed Land Use Map, the area along Harrington is outlined in orange, the task force proposed Residential Multi -Family zoning for this section, staff concurs, however, staff will be asking City Council to extend that area into the Center Village. This would not necessitate a zone change because Center Village includes Residential Multi -Family zoning. The traffic analysis that we use is at the level of full build out. Would the increase in traffic lead to failure in service? At the time when projects are actually proposed there is a project specific SEPA analysis, which includes filling out the same checklist and having to account for the actual number of trips that will be generated from a specific project. That analysis would be applied to the same standards of looking at whether or not it would create failing intersections, traffic flow problems and then mitigation would be proposed on a site specific basis at the project level of review. The surface water and regulations do not change dependent upon the zone. The environmental checklist did disclose that there would be a temporary increase in construction noises. It is a changing neighborhood, there is likely to be construction noises with or without the proposal. When people come in to make a proposal, they are required to fill out a checklist and disclose specific accounting of the construction noises transportation impacts, increase of light in the area, recreation and many other variables that could occur during construction. They have made a good faith effort to disclose any anticipated future impacts, future changes and some of the ways they have prepared for those future changes by mitigation fees and design guidelines that would provide some relief from future impacts. Ms. Lind stated that several discussions took place as to how they could attain higher density without increasing the lost coverage which is important for surface water and other environmental concerns is that the existing zoning is underutilized. Right now, even though the density is lower, the height in the CV zone is the same. It Highlands Land Use & Zonintl - ackage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 6 would be possible to build a 50-foot high building at the lower density and have larger units. The building footprints do not change, the units get smaller. Bob Gevers, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton 98056 stated that he would like to have some clarification regarding traffic, whether or not Harrington Square which is presently being planned to be built, was this project included in the studies done for this project today? The Examiner stated that we are not dealing with specific projects at this hearing, but with a global change to large area of the City. Ms. Lind stated that the Harrington Square project which is located at the southeast bottom of the land use area that is before the Examiner today. That project is currently zoned Center Village and the project is vested under the current Center Village zoning, permits would be issued under that zoning. Nothing being reviewed today would change anything with the Harrington Square project. Ms. Perrine stated that she has case law showing projects versus not project actions and what they require, she would like to send that information which shows the type of information that still needs to be fully disclosed on non -project actions. The Examiner stated that he would keep the record open for one week in order to receive the information from Ms. Perrine and an additional week for Mr. Barber to respond to any of that information. Ms. Perrin continued that at McKnight School they indicated that they had portables and they were at full capacity. Regarding the task force, she knows one person that came to her stating that they owned two duplex's in the area, he is wanting to build out, that was his intention on the task force to build out, he does not live in the area, but does own property there. It seems that the task force was not totally made up of people living in the area. The arguments talked about today are not based on current infrastructure, it's if they were fully built out, not the case, they are not fully built out, and it is false logic to gauge everything on that fact. They are a neighborhood of green bushes, trees, there is no way a one-story duplex is going to look good next to a 5-story building no matter how pretty they try to make it. Mr. Barber gave a closing statement asking that the City be upheld. The required disclosures have been made in this case along with analysis on traffic, light, noise and other issues. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:20 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS; 1. The appellant, Linda C. Perrin, filed an appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The appeal was filed in a timely manner. Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 7 2. The Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package deals with an approximately 132-acre area of the City of Renton familiarly called the Highlands Subarea. It is an irregularly shaped parcel roughly defined by NE 20th on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. There are irregular projections of these boundaries in some locations beyond these main street demarcations. 3. City staff originally reviewed the Highlands Subarea and made certain recommendations for the area including changes to zoning, changes to zoning boundaries and text amendments that would implement changes to standards such as number of dwelling units per acre, height, bulk and lot area coverage and design guidelines that would implement architectural features of new development. 4. A Task Force was convened by the City Council to work on alternatives to the recommendations of city staff on the potential zoning and text amendments. It suggested modifications to the staff proposal. Staff concurred with the Highlands Task Force recommendations. The information and comparative analysis for both the Task Force recommendations and staffs recommendations were available and reviewed by the ERC according to the City. The ERC had the information on the comparison and used that information. It issued a Determination of Non -Significance after reviewing the comparative information. 5. Both of the recommendations, staff s and the task forte's, would increase the permitted density in some locations and reduce it in other locations. The land area covered by the recommendations were the same but there were different acreage distributions into the various zones. The analysis was based on R-14 (Multiple Family; 14 dwelling units/acre), R-8 (Detached Single Family; 8 dwelling units/acre), RMF (Residential Multiple Family) and CV (Center Village; permits mixed use, retail and residential uses). 6. For its analyses, the City compared the existing zoning (not the existing uses) with proposed zoning. The existing zoning reflects what types of housing, what types of housing density and what types of retail and/or commercial uses are potentially able to be developed within the subarea. The City determined that the existing uses, housing, density and retail/commercial that currently exist, do not provide a basis for comparison to proposed new zoning for the area. 7. The City provided a matrix that compared the existing zoning, the staff s proposed zoning and the zoning proposed by the Task Force. There were two approaches, one based on density factor the other floor area ratio. The reviews estimated population, number of dwelling units, number of students, retail space, park (recreational) requirements and trip ends (traffic). Again, the reviews analyzed current zoning districts built -out to their potential (not existing development patterns) and the two recommendations for changing those zoning districts. 8. The current CV Zone has a height limit of 50 feet. It allows a density to 60 dwelling units per acre. R- 10 Zoning is generally 10 dwelling units per acre but additional density can be permitted. The RMF Zone permits a density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The current zoning does not permit new R-8 single-family detached housing. The staff proposal would allow approximately 108 such housing units. No new single family detached would occur under the Task Force proposal. There is a mix of other housing types under existing, staff and task force proposals. Under the staff proposal there would be approximately 717 new units and the task force proposal would generate approximately 745 new units. 10. Population estimates were also made for the three scenarios: Current, a population of approximately 4,109, staff approximately 5,401 and the task force approximately 5,450. Highlands Land Use & Zoni ackage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 8 11. The square footage available for retail use is currently approximately 285,718 square feet. Under the staff proposal there would be approximately 412,426 square feet of retail and under the Task Force proposal approximately 406,751 square feet. 12. The student population that the current zoning could generate is approximately 970 students overall. The staff proposal would generate approximately 1,275 students while the Task Force recommendation would generate approximately 1,283 students. 13. The City estimated daily trips (traffic counts) and used Vehicle Trip Ends as the unit of analysis. This is the number of trips over 24 hours. The current zoning was estimated to have 28,644 "Vehicle Trip Ends". The staff proposal would generate approximately 38,980 trip ends while the Task Force proposal would generate approximately 39,211 trip ends. The difference would be an additional, approximately 10,000 trip ends for full build out under both new recommendations. 14. Intersection functions were analyzed using standard transportation factors. With the exception of the intersection of Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street, there were no failing intersections (they function adequately) and none of those intersections would violate standards. The Levels of Service (LOS) would remain acceptable. Edmonds and NE 12th currently fail and would continue to do so under either of the changes proposed. 15. The Task Force did not consider changes to the Comprehensive Plan but only the Zoning permitted under the plan. They met eleven times and made recommendations on Zoning and what are termed "text amendments." Text amendments would set zoning uses, density standards, bulk standards, design regulations and factors like that. It was noted that there are currently no "Design Guidelines." The new proposals would contain design guidelines such as modulation and articulation intended to break up the apparent bulk of buildings. The current R-14 Zone does not have any lot coverage standards while the text amendments propose a 65% lot coverage. The Task Force drew the zones themselves, then grouped and consolidated them to craft the final recommendation. The SEPA checklist was then revised to reflect these recommendations. 16. The ERC had information on height, lot coverage and acreage and staff notes it was all discussed and disclosed. 17. Specifically in regards to the appellant's property, the zoning could be changed to R-14 from RMF. Staff noted that this would be a downzone dropping density from 20 dwelling units per acre to 14 units per acre with a potential bonus density up to 18 units per acre. The proposal would allow the current duplex units (two attached units) to be retained as legal conforming uses. Current uses could be remodeled, renovated and altered and remain legal conforming uses. 18. It was noted that projects proposed under the new zoning would go through project specific analysis environmental analysis as well as permit specific analysis as they are submitted and that the current non - project action status of this subarea proposal would not change that. 19. The proposals are still before the City Council. Which awaits this environmental review before taking up the recommendations. They could alter the recommendations or reject them. 20. The City emphasized that the proposed amendments did not significantly alter the overall density or traffic projections of the current zoning for the area. The City intended to differentiate existing or current uses from the underlying or current zoning for the areas. In other words, according to the City Highlands Land Use & Zoning Pacxage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 9 the proposed amendments would not significantly change the uses that are currently permitted in the subarea. So while the area may not currently reflect higher densities permitted (and incumbent traffic, people, hustle and bustle and larger bulk of buildings), many of the properties covered by the proposed changes already could be developed larger, taller and denser. In that light, the City argues, the changes are modest and do not represent a significant change and, therefore, do not have a significant impact on the quality of the environment. 21. A second appeal that was also filed in a timely manner by Brad Nicholson was withdrawn prior to the hearing. CONCLUSIONS: The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non -Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this sccond test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly Dies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Highlands Land Use & Zoni..a - ackage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 10 Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. It is clear that the appellant has sincere concerns about potential changes to her neighborhood and community and not only the impacts on her property. But sincere beliefs or concerns do not necessarily meet the standard of proof necessary to overcome the decision of the responsible official. The issue is that the proposed changes must be compared to what is currently permitted and not what currently exists. The differences between PROPOSED and PERMITTED become the basis for the determination of whether the proposed changes will have more than a significant impact on the quality of the environment. This office understands that the appellant is looking at the current community and the changes, if they occur, appear substantial. But the current zoning permits a similar substantial change in the community but current property owners have not utilized the current zoning. In the current matter, the scope of the proposed changes is wide. The changes cover approximately 130 acres of property. But the analysis appears to show that the changes over what is now permitted would be modest. While staff makes the case that map changes themselves do not significantly affect the quality of the environment and that subsequent development proposals would receive environmental review that does not quite reach the issue. It is true that mere neap changes do not have significant impacts on the quality of the environment. But map changes are the beginning of change, the framework or basis for development that can have profound changes and segregating the map changes from the potential development that could occur under the vested zoning could lead to piecemealing. So the reviewing official must decide if the map changes might themselves have or lead to significant environmental impacts. 9. Map changes do not immediately approve a specific project or proposal. The immediate implementation of map change does not increase population, traffic or introduce larger or taller buildings. They are considered NON -PROJECT ACTIONS. It is easy to argue that they create no immediate significant environmental impacts. But, of course, they generally set the stage or are a preliminary to more significant change and could be considered a precursor to increased (or in down - zoning, decreased) population and traffic. In the instant case, it is not so much the zoning map and text changes which almost always have modest impacts since they do not approve any physical changes but that there is no significant impact from the existing map's permitted uses to the proposed uses. 10. As with any development or redevelopment, there is no question that there will be changes in the neighborhood. The subarea will eventually be redeveloped. But the map changes and ultimate build out reflecting those changes do not necessarily rise to the level mandated by SEPA for the preparation of an EIS. The proposed changes will not significantly alter the character of the community that could be developed under existing regulations. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning already slated the area for urban densities. The increase in population between 1,292 and 1,341 residents, the increase in students, between 305 and 312 students, the increase in housing units, between 717 and 745 units will be spread out over 131 acres. Even the increase in traffic by between 10,336 and 10,567 trip ends (over 24 hours) or approximately one-third more trips will not impair the functioning of streets or intersections other than possibly to exacerbate the existing problems at Edmonds and 12th. Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page i 1 11. So while the appellant has legitimate concerns the evidence does not provide a basis for altering the ERC's decision. The proposed zoning and zoning text amendments will not have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The changes will permanently add more people. It will add more traffic but traffic that the analysis shows can be handled without appreciably increasing commute times, overloading roads or increasing conflicts. It will not have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. It will have impacts similar to what could exist under current zoning. 12. While there will be a series of impacts they do not add up in a quantifiable manner to the type of impacts or long term precedents that result in more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. 13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. There was a review of proposed changes weighed against current zoning. On balance it appears that the decision was reasonable. For those reasons it would be inappropriate to overturn the decision of the ERC. The Determination of Non - Significance will be affirmed. 14. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 2"d day of April 2007, FRED J. KA AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMMED THIS 2"d day of April 2007 to the parties of record: Marls Barber Linda Perrine Assistant City Attorney 1157 Glennwood Avenue NE City of Renton Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick Rebecca Lind Development Services Long Range Planning Manager City of Renton City of Renton Subhashni Kumar George Rusk 2102 NE 23`d Street 1401 Edmonds Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Marie Engeland Elena Koleva 2914 NE 6th Street 2901 NE 16"' Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Erica Conkling Sr. Planner, Economic Dev City of Renton Bob Gevers 900 Kirkland Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Patrick Powers 1523 Index Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Howard Baldridge 1526 Jefferson Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Land Use & Zoni__o _ ackage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 12 John Visser 19404 102"d Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Glenda Johnson 1216 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Bill Grover PO Box 2701 Renton, WA 98056 Pamela Curley 1225 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Inez Somerville Petersen 3306 Lake Washington Blvd, Ste. 3 Renton, WA 98056-1978 TRANSMITTED THIS 2"d day of April 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Terry Persson PO Box 2041 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. and Mrs. E Rasmussen 1300 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.. Agri] 16,2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 .m. April 16 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by Qjj Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. Highlands Land Use & Zoning Pac,cage Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 13 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Kathy Keolker, Mayor March 20, 2007 Bob Jeevers 900 Kirkland Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 CIITI )F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred I Kaufman Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance for the Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package, LUA-06-128, ECF Dear Mr. Jeevers: Following you call this afternoon, I proceeded to check our files and have discovered that, in fact, the Hearing Examiner is still working on this project and has not issued a decision as yet. I have put your name and address in the file and when the decision is mailed I will be sure to include a copy to you. Sincerely, A. J Nancy Thompson Secretary to the Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 0) This papercontalns W io recycled material, 30%post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVY March 15, 2007 City Of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Request to be a party of record I would like to be a party of record on any project in the "Highlands Subarea." I identify the area in several ways in case it is not clear what area I'm talking about. This Highlands subarea was recently reviewed upon by the Highland's Task force. The area is also outlined in the attached map and is also been referred to in the past as the area connected with the Highland Land Use & Zoning Package, LUA-06-128, ECF. Please let me know if I need to clarify this request in order to be a party of record on these proj ects. Than}k you Linda Perrine 1157 Glennwood Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 (2006) 628-5990 day phone i Kathy Keolker, Mayor 14, 2006 Larry Warren City Attorney PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057 Brent Carson Buck & Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue, Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98121 CITY IF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of Issuance of a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) for the Highlands Subarea Rezone, LUA-06-030 Dear Mr. Warren and Mr. Carson: This office has received email from the City Attorney Larry Warren as well as Mr. Carson, the attorney representing Highlands Community Association. Those emails indicate agreement that the City's action in withdrawing both its Highlands Rezone proposal and its SEPA determination moots the appeal. This office will cancel the appeal hearing that had been scheduled for September 19, 2006. If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, CAO Alex Pietsch, Econ Dev Administrator Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Highlands Community Association, Appellant 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 Q RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON kti MAR 05 2007 RECEIVED Fred Kaufman CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance for the Highland Land Use & Zoning Package, LUA-06-128, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman I thank you for allowing me to submit further information which I hope will convince you that the issuance of a determination of non -significance was erroneous. I wanted to itemize why the determination was wrongly issued. 1) The rezoning will cause probable significant adverse impacts. A) The character and intensity of buildings will change dramatically, B) The scenic views of those who currently live in this area will be severely impacted. In some cases they view will be completely victimized. C) The air movement and light from the sun will decrease for those people living in the current structures, duplexes and lower apartment buildings. D) The ratio of impervious surface ratio will increase dramatically from its current condition. The city is using false logic by not comparing the current state of that to which they are rezoning to. I'd say it is capricious even. After all, didn't they study the traffic as it is now? Why not use that logic here too? E) Considerations and full disclosure should be made regarding our Aquifer, which will be impacted. F) Surface Water Management, of which most Highland's residents are not currently served, by the City's own admission, must be evaluated. G) Transportation needs will change. Now is the time to evaluate this. What about the park and rides? They are running out of room already. H) Pollution due to added traffic congestion and decreased air flow. It is already considered to be too high. a C` ,/ ky Page 1 of 5 2) The submitted EIS checklist was not filled out fully, completely and in good faith. Even the Frequently Asked Question's sheet of the State Environmental Policy Act proves that an EIS is necessary in this case. I have included that FAQ for your review. A) Since this non -project action is not categorically exempt, and EIS must be completed. WAC- 197-11-305 B) On page 9 of the FAQ about SEPA (Attachment 1). Question: Is an environmental review necessary for a jurisdiction that is updating an existing comprehensive plan to satisfy GMA? Answer: Yes, updating an existing comprehensive plan is an action that requires environmental review under SEPA. The type of review required will vary depending on whether an EIS was prepared for the existing plan, how recently the EIS was prepared and how extensive the revision will be. As a general rule, the environmental review should address any probable significant adverse impacts that will result form the revised plan that were not analyzed when the existing plan was adopted" My point is: Nothing was analyzed when the existing zoning plan was adopted and this rezoning proposal definitely qualifies for a full EIS evaluation. These are rules straight from the book! C) Critical items of the checklist were not completed 1) Noise 2) Social -economic issues 3) Transportation 4) Light and Glare 5) Ground 6) Aesthetics to the current infrastructure (yes the buildings they are planning may be pretty but do they fit in to the current area. We are residential houses and duplexes with some apartment buildings here and there. Not an area that has high density, five story buildings) Page 2 of 5 3) Cumulative impacts must be considered now not on a project by project basis. Please also note that the City has other proposals submitted that may impact each other making cumulative impacts. i.e.: Harrington Square project which is in this same area, the Landing project is going to affect our area. The traffic will clog up my area more than in currently is. The rules of SEPA clearing dictate that these must be considered in the big picture which is now. A) On page 9 of the FAQ about SEPA (Attachment 1). Question: How and when are cumulative impacts evaluated? Answer: SEPA requires agencies to address cumulative impacts. This can be difficult if each project is evaluated individually in isolation from other related proposals. With comprehensive planning under GMA, cities and counties are able to look at the "big picture," evaluate cumulative impacts of development, and determine appropriate mitigation measures to apply to individual, future proposals. Agencies also have a responsibility to look at cumulative impacts within project EISs. The EIS should look at how the impacts of the proposal will contribute towards the total impact of development in the region over time. I found the following case law that also supports cumulative impacts: Impacts may be "significant" on either a relative or absolute basis. Settle, Washington State Environmental Policy Act at 94 (ed. 1996). Actions may relatively affect the environment because of the production of adverse environmental impacts which were not produced by existing activities in the area. An action may absolutely significantly affect the environment because of the cumulative effects of the action together with other existing activities. Id. Generally, an EIS is necessary wherever a more than moderate effect on the environment is a reasonable probability. Norway Hill Preserve. and Protec. Assn v. King Cy. Coun., 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). And: In determining an impact's significance, the responsible official must take into account the fact the same proposal may have a significant adverse impact in one location but not in another; that several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact. WAC 197-11-330(3) B) The non -project action requires a fully detailed EIS. On page 9 of the FAQ about SEPA (Attachment 1). Page 3 of 5 Question: How much review is required at the planning stage for project impacts? Answer: Lead agencies are responsible for considering the probable significant adverse impacts of planning actions such as the adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. If the plans or regulations proposed would allow activities to occur that are likely to have significant adverse impacts, those impacts must be address in the environmental review of the planning action. The more detailed the review at the planning phase, the less review that is needed at the project stage. My point here is: The adoption of a comprehensive plan is what we are doing with the rezoning and this FAQ can't be any clearer that an EIS must be done whether it is a project or a non -project action. 4) Conflict of interest: I am concerned about the apparent conflict of interest resulting from the dual roles of the lead agency. I'd like to refer to case law here as well as a snippet of the WAC code: The SEPA regulations say in WAC 197-11-926 "when possible, agency people carrying out SEPA procedures should be different from agency people making the proposal." In the Case of Trapanier v. Everett, 64 Wn.App. 380 (1992). Because Kenneth Stone both authored the SEPA Checklist and issued the DNS, WSDOT failed to meet even the most minimum separation of functions. WSDOT's SEPA determination should be withdrawn, the lead agency status should be assumed by another jurisdiction. 5) The Highland's Task force that was put together for a broad spectrum of public opinion. You might have wondered why I did not get involved. Well, I was all ready to put my application in to be on the task force when I was told I would have to be available on weekday mornings from 9 to 11 am. This means that only those who are retired or work for themselves could attend. The criteria required to be on the task force excluded people who work week day jobs for an honest living. As a result the Task force proposal is not a broad spectrum of public opinion 6) The checklist asks on line item number 8. "Will any structures be demolished?" and line item 9 asks: "Prososed mitigation of controlling housing impacts?" It is the RHA's stand to demolosh the exisiting RHA units on Harrinton and Sunset and rebuild. Why isent the EIS addmitting that? I recevied an email from a task member who also holds a prominent position on the RHA (Attachment #2 email from Mark Gropper) where he is telling me that grading will need to be done to build undergound parking (the EIS submitted says no grading will be done) also, a park will likely be built right next to me. But we have a park one block away so why would we have two parks within two blocks? Here is the answer. Because one of the parks will be re -zoned to commercial and demolished. Then a park will Page 4 of 5 be built right next to me. The EIS submitted does not declare any recreation will be moved and they must declare that. In summary, I ask that you see through the smoke and mirrors presentation that the lead agency would like you to buy into. The arguments that the planning commission has raised where they say they don't need a full EIS are false but they must be popular misconceptions because the Department of Ecology created a sheet specifically to answer those issues. I hope that you will direct them to act in good faith, just as the Department of Ecology wants them to. Please know that there are real people living in the Highland's who deserve a full EIS before a total revitalization is enacted with the rezoning package. Thank you for the obvious attention that you are giving this matter. It matters a great deal to me, my family and especially my father who also owns and lives on my same block. Linda Perrine 1157 Glennwood Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Page 5 of 5 _SEPA FAQ Page 1 of 11 Access 16�I°CtTI I ;.... e� 4 0 Stye ��iro� � Polite �� I aw and Rules Workshops Handbook Register FrequentlyAsked* + • General Questions • Categorical Exemptions. • Lead Agency. • Threshold Determination Process • Use of Existing Documents • Determination of Nansignificance (ONS) • Environmental_ ImpaCt_5tatement EIS • Substantive Authority • Appeals • Nonproject Review Note: These frequently asked questions are also found as Appendix A of the SEPA Handbook. You may wish to check the SEPA Handbook for more detail related to your question. General Questions Q: What is SERA? A: SEPA is the abbreviation or acronym for the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Enacted in 1971, it provides the framework for agencies to consider the environmental consequences of a proposal before taking action. It also gives agencies the ability to condition or deny a proposal due to identified likely significant adverse impacts. The Act is implemented through the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC. Q: When is SERA environmental review required? A: Environmental review is required for any proposal which involves a government "action," as defined in the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-704), and is not categorically exempt (WAC 197-11-800 through 890). Project actions involve an agency decision on a specific project, such as a construction project or timber harvest. Nonproject actions involve decisions on policies, plans, or programs, such as the adoption of a comprehensive plan or development regulations, or a six -year road plan. Q: Who is responsible for doing SEPA environmental review? A: One agency is identified as the "lead agency" under the SEPA Rules WAC 197-11-924 to 938, and is responsible for conducting the environmental review for a proposal and documenting that review in the appropriate SEPA documents (DNS, DS/EIS, adoption, addendum). Two or more agencies may share lead agency status by agreement, but a single environmental analysis would be conducted and all SEPA documentation is issued jointly. Q: When is phased review appropriate? A: Phased review is appropriate when the sequence is from a broad review to narrower, more specific review. For example, review of site selection and general development issues, and subsequent review on specific design impacts when more information is available on the specific development. A planned unit development might be phased with the first phase evaluating the entire development in general terms and later phases evaluating specific construction. tittp://www.ecy,wa,gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.litin 3/5/2007 ,.SEPA FAQ Page 2 of 11 Q: What are "elements of the environment"? A: The elements of the environment, as used in SEPA, are listed in WAC 197-11-444, and include both the natural environment (earth, air, water, plants and animals, energy and natural resources) and the built environment (environmental health, land and shoreline use, transportation, public services and utilities). return to tQp_of page Categorical Exemptions Q: What is a "categorical exemption"? A: A categorical exemption is a type of government action that is specifically designated as being exempt from SEPA compliance because it is unlikely to have a significant adverse environmental Impact. The categorical exemptions are found in Part Nine of the SEPA Rules, and In RCW 43.21C.035, .037, and .0384. Q., What types of proposals are categorically exempt? A: Certain proposals are exempt because they are of the size or type to be unlikely to cause a significant adverse environmental Impact. Examples include minor new construction, such as, four dwelling units or less, commercial buildings with 4,000 square feet or less, and minor road and street Improvements. Other exemptions include enforcement and Inspection activities, issuing business licenses, storm/water/sewer lines eight Inches or less, etc. Some proposals are exempt by statute, regardless of environmental impact. Q: What are "flexible thresholds"? A: The SEPA Rules allow the counties and cities to raise the exemption levels to the maximum specified in the SEPA Rules. These flexible threshold levels allow the counties and cities to determine what level of exemption is appropriate for their jurisdiction. For example, 20 dwelling units in a large city would not have the same impact as they would in a rural community. So the large city may set the exemption at the maximum level of 20 units, and the rural community may set it at the minimum level at 4 units. Q: When do categorical exemptions not apply? A. Some exemptions contain conditions under which they do not apply, such as projects undertaken wholly or partly on lands covered by water; projects requiring a license to discharge to the air or water; or projects requiring a rezone. A city or county may also eliminate some exemptions if the project is located within a designated critical area. WAC 197-11-305 outlines further instances where an exempt action must be reviewed under SEPA. Q: If a county or city has raised the categorical exemption level for minor new construction activities, or eliminated some of the categorical exemptions in critical areas, do these decisions apply when a state agency or special district is lead agency (for example, the state Department of Transportation, a port district, or school district)? A: Yes, before deciding if a proposal is categorically exempt, state agencies and special districts should consult with the city or county with jurisdiction to determine the exemption level for that area, or whether an exemption has been eliminated within a particular critical area. Q: When are annexations exempt? Are annexations to a district exempt? A: The 1994 Legislature specifically exempted annexations to titles or towns [RCW 43.21C.222], although the adoption of zoning pursuant to the annexation Is not exempt. Annexations to districts are specifically identified as agency actions [WAC 197-11-704(2) (b)(iv)] and are not exempt. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 „SEPA FAQ Page 3 of 11 Q: When would it be appropriate to use the emergency exemption? A: Emergency exemptions apply to actions that must be undertaken immediately or within a time too short to allow full compliance with SEPA to: (1) Avoid an imminent threat to public health or safety, (2) Prevent an imminent danger to public or private property, or (3) Prevent an imminent threat of serious environmental degradation. Q: Can an emergency exemption be used for part of a project and SEPA review be required for other parts of the project? A: If portions of the project meet the definition of emergency, those portions can be done immediately without SEPA environmental review. Other portions may require SEPA review. For example, if a marina collapses in a storm, cleanup may need to occur immediately to prevent a threat to the public or the environment. This would probably be considered an emergency exemption. However, the additional reconstruction/repair that can be done over a longer period of time would require SEPA review. ._return to to© ofage Lead Agency Q: What is the difference between lead agency, responsible official, and decision - maker? A: The lead agency is the agency responsible for all procedural aspects of SEPA compliance. The responsible official represents the lead agency and is responsible for the documentation and the content of the environmental analysis. Decision -makers may be either staff members or elected officials who are responsible for taking an agency action, such as issuing a license, or adopting a plan or ordinance. Q: Can a special district, such as a school district or port district, be SEPA lead agency? A: The SEPA Rules define a local agency as "...any political subdivision, regional governmental unit, district, municipal or public corporation...” (WAC 197-11-792). If an agency is proposing a project or nonproject action, that agency Is lead agency under SEPA. Therefore, a school district would be lead agency for school construction; a port would be lead agency for a port comprehensive plan; State Parks and Recreation would be lead agency for development or remodeling of a state park. A special district or state agency may also be lead agency if a proposal requires a license from the district or state agency, but does not require a license from the county or city. For example, if the only permit required for an asphalt batch plant is a notice of construction from the local air authority, then the local air authority is SEPA lead agency. Q: Which agency is SEPA lead agency when an agency is proposing a project that is located within the jurisdiction of another agency? For example, if the city is proposing a project on a site within the county, or State Parks and Recreation is proposing a project within an incorporated city. A: The agency proposing the project is lead agency under the SEPA Rules, although lead agency status may be transferred by agency agreement. Q: Which agency is lead agency for a private proposal? A: when a license is required from a city or county, the city or county will usually be lead agency for the project. There are some exceptions for larger proposals where a state agency is designated as lead agency (see WAC 197-11-938 for criteria). If the city or county does not have a license to issue for the proposal, another agency with a permit to issue will be lead agency, such as a health district, local air authority, or a state agency. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 4 of 11 Q: Can two or more agencies share lead agency status? A: Yes, any number of agencies may agree to share lead agency status, with one agency designated as "nominal lead agency." The agencies should develop an agreement that defines the duties and responsibilities of each agency, how to deal with differing opinions, etc. Q: Who resolves lead agency disputes? A: The Department of Ecology may be petitioned by the proponent or any agency with jurisdiction to resolve disputes over who is lead agency for a proposal [WAC 197-11-946]. return to too"fie Threshold Determination Process Q: What is the "threshold determination" process? A. The threshold determination process is the process used to evaluate the environmental consequences of a proposal and determine whether the proposal is likely to have any "significant adverse environmental impact." This determination is made by the lead agency and is documented in either a determination of nonsignificance (DNS), or a determination of significance (DS) and subsequent preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), Q: What is a "significant" adverse environmental impact? A: WAC 197-11-794 defines "significant" as "a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality." What is considered significant will vary from one site to another, and from one jurisdiction to another, both because of the conditions surrounding the proposal at a particular location, and because of the judgement of the responsible official. Q: Is an environmental impact statement required if the local development regulations or other local, state, or federal regulations mitigate all significant impacts? A: No, if all significant impacts have been or will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level through the requirements in local, state, or federal regulations, or with the use of SEPA substantive authority, an EIS is not required. Q: If mitigation is required by the local development regulations or other local, state, or federal regulations, do these mitigation measures need to be included in the DNS? A: No, but the lead agency may choose to include Information on mitigation required by local, state, or federal regulations with the DNS or In the checklist so that reviewers are aware of the conditions that will be placed on the final proposal, Q: Can studies be required as a mitigating condition on a DNS? A: Court cases have allowed the use of future studies as a mitigating condition. However, agencies are encouraged to obtain the necessary studies to identify probable impacts before a threshold determination is issued. This allows appropriate mitigation to be added to the permit before any construction activities occur. return to top of gage Use of Existing Documents Q: Can information in existing environmental documents be used for a new or amended proposal? http://www.cey.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ 0 Page 5 of 11 A: Yes, there are several ways that information in existing documents can be used: 1) adoption, 2) incorporation by reference, 3) addendum, or 4) supplemental EIS. Using existing information reduces duplication and delays caused by conducting duplicate studies and analysis. A new threshold determination is required for a new proposal, except those qualifying as planned actions. Agencies may adopt all or part of existing documents to support a new threshold determination, or the information may be "incorporated by reference." A revised proposal generally does not require a new threshold determination, so adoption of the original document would not be required for the revised proposal. An addendum may be used for either a new or revised proposal, if the analysis in the existing document (DNS or EIS) addresses ail likely significant adverse impacts. The addendum would explain the differences between the original and the current proposal, and other minor new information. For a new proposal, the addendum would be issued with the adoption notice and new threshold determination. For the revised proposal, the addendum can be issued alone. A supplemental environmental impact statement is prepared if the new or amended proposal has likely significant adverse impacts that have not been analyzed in an existing EIS. The supplemental EIS ajds to the analysis in an existing EIS without needing to duplicate it, (See Section 2.7 of the handbook for additional information on using existing documents,) Q: Can an agency prepare an addendum to a DNS? If so, what is the format? Are public notice and distribution required? A: Yes, an addendum to a DNS can be prepared. There is no set format for an addendum to a DNS, and public notice and distribution are encouraged but are not required. Q: If a project has been reviewed under SEPA but new information indicates supplemental review is needed for a portion of the project, can construction of the unaffected portion of the project proceed? For example, an EIS was done on site selection and building construction, but it is discovered that the utility line extensions will impact a wetland area. The lead agency determines a supplemental EIS is needed for the utility line extensions, but no further review of the building construction is needed. A. The SEPA Rules state that no action that would foreclose options shall be taken until SEPA has been completed. In the example, the project should not be allowed to move forward until the supplemental EIS is complete, since denial of the utility extension would stop the project. Y return to tof?_ofpag Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) Q. What is a "DNS"? A: A DNS or "determination of nonsignificance" documents the responsible officials decision that a proposal is not likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts. Q: Does a DNS always have a public comment period? A: No, there are five criteria to determine whether a comment period is required: (1) another agency with jurisdiction; (2) non-exempt demolition activities; (3) non-exempt grade and fill permits; (4) a mitigated DNS issued under WAC 197-11-350(2) or 350(3), or a DNS issued after a determination of significance is withdrawn [WAC 197-11-360(4)]; and (5) an action under the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW [WAC 197-11-340 (2)(a)]. If a comment period is required, the lead agency must give public notice and circulate the DNS and checklist as specified in WAC 197-11-340(2). If a comment period is not required, no public notice or distribution is required. Q: What is the difference between a DNS and mitigated DNS? http://www.cey.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq,htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 6 of I I A: A mitigated DNS is a DNS that contains mitigation or conditions that reduce likely significant adverse environmental impact(s) to a nonsignificant level. A mitigated DNS requires a comment period (unless the optional DNS process has been used). Q: What is the "optional DNS" process? A: The optional DNS process allows a GMA city or county, when they are also the SEPA lead agency for a proposal, to use the comment period on the notice of application (NOA) to obtain comments on environmental issues. The NOA must state that the optional DNS process is being used and that this may be the public's only opportunity to comment. All mitigation conditions being considered must also be identified. After the end of the NOA comment period, the lead agency may issue the DNS without a second comment period. Q. What is the issue date of a DNS? A. The issue date is the day the DNS is sent to the Department of Ecology and is made publicly available. The 14-day comment period starts from the date of issuance. Q: How does the responsible official handle comments on a DNS? A. The responsible official must consider all timely comments received on a DNS and may retain (no documentation needed), modify (reissue with changes), or withdraw a DNS. Formal response to commentors is not required, but may be done at the discretion of the lead agency. Q: Is the lead agency required to distribute comments received during the comment period on a DNS? If not, how will another agency with jurisdiction consider the comments prior to making a decision? A: The lead agency is not required to distribute comments received on a DNS. Since the comments are part of the public record, agencies with jurisdiction (or anyone else) may request a copy. .,.return to t 0 D Of pane Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Q. What is an EIS? A: An environmental impact statement must be prepared when the lead agency determines a proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental Impacts. The EIS provides an impartial discussion of significant environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The lead agency will issue a draft EIS is issued with a 30-day comment period to allow other agencies, tribes, and the public to comment on the environmental analysis and conclusions. The lead agency will use these comments to finalize the environmental analysis and issue a final EIS. Q. When is an environmental impact statement required? A: An EIS Is required for any proposal that is likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact that mitigation has not been for that would reduce the impact to a nonsignificant level. The applicant and lead agency may work together to revise the proposal's impacts or Identify mitigation measures that would allow the lead agency to issue a determination of nonsignificance. Q: What is "scoping" A: If the lead agency issues a determination of significance, the first step in the process is to determine the "scope" of the EIS —those issues and alternatives that need to be evaluated. The scoping process allows the public and other agencies to comment on the scope of the EIS and assist the lead agency in identifying issues and concerns. The lead agency can either use a standard scoping notice with a written comment period, or they can use expanded scoping that might include public meetings, surveys, and other methods to involve the public in the scoping process. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 - SEPA FAQ Page 7 of 11 Q: What documentation is needed after the close of the comment period on a scoping notice? A: A determination of the scope of the EIS may be requested by the proponent after the close of the comment period. No other documentation is required by SEPA, although agencies may choose to issue a scoping document to agencies, commentors, or concerned citizens giving information on the comments received and the issues or alternatives that will be addressed In the EIS. Q: Are there page limits for an EIS? A: Yes, the text of an EIS shall not exceed 75 pages, except for proposals of unusual scope or complexity, which shall not exceed 150 pages [WAC 197-11-425(4)]. If appendices and background material exceed 25 pages and together the entire EIS would exceed 100 pages, they must be bound in a separate volume. Q: Must the EIS include an alternative besides the proposed action and no -action alternative? A: The EIS must evaluate reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain the proposal's objective, and are within a jurisdictional agency's authority to control. The lead agency may determine that there are no reasonable alternatives, and may then evaluate only the proposed action and the no -action alternative. Q: Does the final EIS include all of the information in the draft EIS? A: Yes, in most cases. The draft EIS is exactly that —a draft. The final EIS may be significantly different from the draft because the lead agency revises the EIS based on comments and new information learned. The final EIS also includes all comments received on the draft EIS, and the lead agency's responses. If no significant comments are received, the lead agency may choose to simply issue a new fact sheet (which may also include an addendum) to be attached to the draft document. (See section 3.5 Final EIS, or WAC 197- 11-560 for specific requirements.) Q: Does the EIS have to include the addresses of commentors and the agencies and citizens on the distribution list? A: The SEPA Rules require the inclusion of a "distribution list" and that the commentors' names shall be included, but does not mention the need for addresses. Q: Does Ecology maintain a list of consultants that prepare environmental impact statements? I,;R►0 r.raUrn.to top of page Substantive Authority Q: What is SEPA substantive authority? A: It is the regulatory authority granted to all state and local agencies under SEPA to condition or deny a proposal to mitigate environmental impacts identified in a SEPA document. To use SEPA substantive authority, the agency must have adopted agency SEPA policies. Q: Are the mitigation measures identified in the SEPA document (DNS or EIS) mandatory? A: Not necessarily. Mitigation conditions required with use of SEPA substantive authority must be included as conditions on a permit, license, or approval, before becoming mandatory or enforceable. Mandatory mitigation required under other local, state, or federal laws may also be included on the DNS by the lead agency for the information of reviewers. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 8 of 11 . return to top of page Appeals Q: Are there any opportunities to appeal SEPA documents or the use of SEPA substantive authority? A: The lead agency has the option of allowing an administrative appeal and may allow an appeal of either procedural issues or substantive decisions, or both. If the administrative appeal process has been exhausted or is not available, a judicial appeal that is heard by the court can be pursued. (See Appeals Chapter in the SEPA Handbook ) Q: What is an "underlying governmental action"? A: The underlying governmental action [WAC 197-11-704 and 799] is the action that must be taken by an agency to authorize a proposal, Actions include the issuing of a permit or license, the approval of funding, the adoption of a plan, ordinance, or rule, or other actions defined In WAC 197-11-704. Q: Is an agency required to have a SEPA administrative appeal process? A: No, each agency must decide whether or not to offer an administrative appeal. If an administrative appeal process is offered, the agency must identify the type of appeal that will be allowed (procedural issues, substantive decisions, or both; including appeal of a non -elected official's substantive decision). (See RCW 43.21C.060, .075 and WAC 197-11- 680) Q: Can an applicant appeal an agency's decision to require mitigation measures? A: Yes, if the agency does not offer an administrative appeal on the substantive use of SEPA, the applicant may file a judicial appeal of the mitigation. Q: What is the appeal process when a state agency is SEPA lead agency and the county or city has a permit to issue? A: Procedural issues (process and content of the environmental review) would be appealable to the state agency if the agency offers a procedural administrative appeal. Appeals of the local agency's use or non-use of SEPA substantive authority to condition or deny the proposal may be filed with the local agency if they offer an appeal of substantive issues. (When administrative appeals are exhausted or not available, judicial appeals may be filed.) Q: What is a "notice of action"? A: A notice of action is the document used to limit the time a SEPA appeal can be filed when the underlying government action has no set appeal limitations. The form Is located in WAC 197-11-990. Procedures for using a notice of action are found in RCW 43.21C.080. Q: What is the "action" referred to in part 2 of the notice of action (WAC 197-11- 990)? A: It is the underlying government action for the proposal, such as the adoption of a comprehensive plan, ordinance, or rezone; or the issuing of a permit or approval. It is not, the issuance of a SEPA document, Q: If a notice of action (RCW 43.21C.080) is filed for the first permit decision, can future permit decisions be challenged? If so, are there any limits on what can be challenged (for example, compliance with SEPA procedural steps, or use of SEPA substantive authority, or both)? A: Future procedural appeals will not be allowed, but future appeals of the use of SEPA substantive authority in respect to future permit decisions may be permitted. _return to tap of vage littp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 9 of 11 Nonplroject Review Q: What is a nonproject action? A: A nonproject action is defined as a decision on policies, plans, or programs. This includes adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, regulations that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment, highway plans, etc. (see WAC 197-11-704). Q: How does SEPA review fit into the planning process? A: Environmental review of a proposal should be incorporated into the entire planning process. Documentation of this review should be issued with the draft planning document; either as a combined document or as separate documents issued together. Q: When should a county or city begin environmental review in the GMA planning process? A: Adopting Interim regulations, county -wide planning policies, comprehensive plans, and development regulations are all government actions that require environmental review under SEPA. The lead agency must determine what type of environmental review is appropriate at each stage of GMA planning. An EIS should be prepared when a planning action will have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Q: Is environmental review necessary for a jurisdiction that is updating an existing comprehensive plan to satisfy GMA? A: Yes, updating an existing comprehensive plan is an action that requires environmental review under SEPA. The type of environmental review required will vary depending on whether an EIS was prepared for the existing plan, how recently the EIS was prepared, and how extensive the revisions will be. As a general rule, the environmental review should address any probable significant adverse impacts that will result from the revised plan that were not analyzed when the existing plan was adopted. Q: Is environmental review required for a public participation plan developed under GMA? A: No, the adoption of resolutions or ordinances relating solely to governmental procedures are exempt from SEPA review. A public participation plan, in most cases, will be solely procedural and should be exempt from environmental review. Q: How and when are cumulative impacts evaluated? A: SEPA requires agencies to address cumulative impacts. This can be difficult if each project is evaluated individually in isolation from other related proposals. with comprehensive planning under GMA, cities and counties are able to look at the "big picture," evaluate cumulative impacts of development, and determine appropriate mitigation measures to apply to individual, future proposals. Agencies also have a responsibility to look at cumulative impacts within project EISs. The EIS should look at how the impacts of the proposal will contribute towards the total impact of development in the region over time. (Proponents are only responsible for mitigation of the portion attributable to their own proposal, though voluntary mitigation beyond that level is allowed [WAC 197- 11-660(1)(d)].) Q: How much review is required at the planning stage for project impacts? A: Lead agencies are responsible for considering the probable significant adverse impacts of planning actions such as the adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. If the plans or regulations proposed would allow activities to occur that are likely to have significant adverse impacts, those impacts must be addressed in the environmental review of the planning action. The more detailed the review at the planning phase, the less review that is needed at the project stage. Q: Is integration of SEPA and GMA just combining documents? http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 10 of 11 A: No, the intent of SEPA/GMA integration is to ensure that environmental considerations inform decision -making at every GMA step from early policy development through project permit review. Combining processes and procedures like SEPA scoping and GMA visioning, documenting existing conditions under SEPA and conducting inventories of land use, housing, transportation and other capital facilities under GMA, or coordinating SEPA and GMA requirements for notice and comment periods, facilitate this substantive Integration. Combining documents Is optional. Q: How are GMA and SEPA documents combined? A: Comprehensive or subarea plans and EISs are the documents most often combined. A community's unique planning circumstances and timing requirements will influence how this is accomplished. There are a number of options to integrating the GMA and SEPA documents, Including preparing the draft plan prior to preparing the draft EIS, and issuing them together with a combined comment period. The most seamless option is to document how environmental values were considered at the time each plan choice (goal, policy, program, strategy, designation, etc.) was formulated and decided. The draft plan and draft EIS are written together and are indistinguishable. Perhaps the simplest and most efficient method of presentation is to weave brief discussions about environmental impacts and alternatives into the plan narrative wherever choices are declared in the plan. Other methods include summarizing environmental issues In each plan element or In a stand-alone environmental chapter, When the GMA document is integrated with the draft EIS, the final plan can be adopted when the final EIS Is issued without waiting the standard 7 days. The final EIS must be issued at least 7 days prior to adopting the final plan if the SEPA and GMA documents are issued separately. Q: Must a nonproject EIS on a GMA plan or subarea plan follow a specific format? A: The only requirements are that the document begin with a fact sheet and contain an environmental summary [WAC 197-11-235(4) and (5)]. An agency may choose whatever format they feel would best present the alternatives and environmental analysis [WAC 197- 11-430(2) and 442]. Separate sections on affected environment, significant impacts, and mitigation measures are not required in integrated documents as long as this information is summarized and supported in the record [WAC 197-11-235(2)(b)]. The rules for integrated documents stress that format should be dictated by attention to the quality, scope, and level of detail of the information and analysis [WAC 197-11-235(1)]. Q: What is an "alternative" when preparing an EIS for a comprehensive plan? How is the no action alternative defined? A: A range of alternatives should be evaluated, exploring the different land use options, including different urban growth area boundaries, characteristics and densities of development, etc. The no -action alternative for a comprehensive plan is generally defined as no change In existing regulation --zoning, development regulations, critical area ordinances, etc. (or the lack thereof) would be unchanged. The environmental impacts of predicted growth under this "no -action" scenario is then compared to that of the other alternatives. Q. What is the timing of a final EIS when integrated with a comprehensive plan? A: When the integrated document contains the final EIS and the plan, the issuance of the final EIS and the adoption of the GMA document may occur together (no 7- day waiting period) [WAC 197-11-230(5)]. Q: Is additional environmental: review required when the final action is different from the alternatives analyzed in an EIS? A. If the final approved proposal falls within the range of alternatives analyzed in the EIS and all likely significant adverse impacts have been evaluated, additional review would not be required. For example, one of the EIS alternatives evaluates the impacts of four urban centers and another alternative evaluates the Impacts of six urban centers. If the agency selects five urban centers as the preferred alternative, It Is possible that the Impacts would http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page I I of I 1 have been covered by the range of alternatives in the EIS. retu.rn__to,_top of pages wGo the SEPA Handbook for more detailed information For questions or comments concerning SEPA, please e-mail the SEPA Unit or call (360) 407-6922. Return to the SEPA homepa_ae. This page was last updated on January 28, 2005 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 Page I of 8 • A letter from a concern Renton ' ' en regarding Zoning �7Cr! L Thank you for your thoughtful input Ms. Perrine. The Glenwood access idea for the 2.02 — acre "Edmonds" site is linked to a single family detached housing concept commissioned by RHA and drawn by Mithun in 2004. With the potential change in zoning, it will be important for RHA to consider a building design with underground parking entering/exiting from the street level of Edmonds Avenue Northeast. The .Glenwood parcel could then be available for an open space "park" in accordance with applicable design guidelines. Many of our families live in and enjoy the neighborhood. RHA remains committed to sustaining and improving the housing and amenities here. Thank you for your insight. Mark Gropper Deputy Executive Director Renton Housing Authority PO Box 2316, 2900 NE 10th St. Renton WA 98056-0316 Phone 425-226-1850 x. 223 Fax 425-271-8319 From: Perrine, Linda [mailto:lperrine@wkg.com) Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:35 AM To: mouserkm@gmail.com; angelsandel@aol.com; BNFKNLDN@aol.com; Colin@colinwalker.org; howardmcomber@hotmail.com; tenacious—tic@msn.com; SWEISS@remedystaff.com; Mark R. Gropper; steve@starfiresports.com; jdhawton@yahoo.com; City Council President Randy Corman; DLaw@ci.renton.wa.us; Tnelson@ci.renton.wa.us; Dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us; MPalmer@ci.renton.wa.us; kkeolker@ci.renton.wa.us Cc: Perrine, Linda; stevenlstout@hotmail.com Subject: A letter from a concern Renton citizen regarding Zoning To all email addressed City of Renton Council Officials and the Citizen Task Force focused on the Renton Highlands rezoning: I would like to put in writing and on the record my opposition regarding the CV zoning between Glenwood Ave NE and Edmonds Ave NE in Renton Highlands. I want to clearly state and show you why I oppose this CV zoning. Please see below on the parcel map to locate the red type because the big parcel lot is being considered for CV zoning. The smaller parcel had a duplex on it and a house was on the bigger lot (very residential structures) . These were torn down and the 2 parcels purchased by the Renton Housing Authority. I was provided a CAD drawing of the plans that the RHA planned to build on this site and use the Glenwood street as their entrance and exit into the development they plan to build. It is inappropriate to for this building plan to happen and I'd like to explain why. I ask that you take note that Glenwood Ave is very residential in nature. All of the surrounding parcels on Glenwood Ave are duplexes. Many housing families with young children. Below in one picture, you can see how Glenwood Ave is narrow and curved and children tend to play in the street and would be caught unaware of cars traveling fast. The traffic for 100 units (possibly more), would not only change but destroy the current quiet residential street that my father, several families and I live on. 3/5/2007 1L CITY OF RENTON 1 MAR 14 2007 RECEIVED 2 CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE 3 1: LID S�J 4 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON 5 7 8 In the Matter of the Appeal of No. LUA-06-128, ECF g Linda C. Perrine re: CITY OF RENTON'S REPLY TO APPELLANT PERRINE'S 10 Appeal of the Determination of POST -HEARING RESPONSE 11 Non -Significance for the Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package. 12 13 I. BASIS FOR REPLY 14 15 Following the appeal hearing on February 27, 2007, the Hearing Examiner 16 granted to the appellant an opportunity to submit supplemental authorities and 17 arguments by March 7, 2007. The appellant, Linda C. Perrine, submitted her 18 post -hearing authorities and arguments by letter, filing the same with the City 19 Clerk on March 5, 2007. The Examiner also granted the City an opportunity to 20 reply to appellant's submission by March 14, 2007. The City's reply follows. 21 22 II. REPLY TO APPELLANT'S RESPONSE 23 Appellant's post -hearing letter does not add any new arguments to those 24 presented by her at the hearing on February 27, 2007. A review of Ms. Perrine's 25 letter reveals a fundamental misunderstanding between the type of environmental 26 27 City of Renton's Reply to Appellant 28 Perrine's Past -Hearing Response - 1 0 L WARREN BARBER 6 FCiNTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON, WARHIN('TON 4)aO57 PHONE 1425) 255-867B . FAX (4251 255-5474 1 checklist required for a non -project action versus a project action_ The appeal at 2 issue is from a non -project action relating to amendments to the City's 3 4 Comprehensive Plan for the Highlands Subarea. 5 A review of the City's Environmental Checklist reveals that many of the 6 environmental elements are not applicable to a non -project action involving 7 proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. As an example, under 8 "Earth" on page 4 of the checklist, sub -paragraph 1.e., it asks for a description of 9 any filling or grading proposed and the source of fill. The response is "N/A non- 10 project action" because no filling or grading is being proposed for a specific 11 12 project. 13 Appellant is unaware, or has neglected to inform the Hearing Examiner 14 that an EIS was prepared with regard to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 15 The reason for the environmental checklist at issue is to evaluate whether or not 16 there are significant adverse impacts to the proposed amendments to the 17 Comprehensive Plan. The purpose was to look at the probable impacts of the 18 19 proposed changes related to the amendments. 20 As for appellant's concerns, if or when the Renton Housing Authority 21 (RHA) presents a specific development proposal, RHA will have to apply for land 22 development permits and go through the SEPA process that addresses the �3 specifics of that project and the project's impacts. At that time, Ms. Perrine will 24 have the opportunity to comment and participate in the process related to that 25 26 project action and her concerns. 27 City of Renton's Reply to Appellant 28 Perrine's Post -Hearing Response - 2 WARICIEN BARBER 6 FOI® TES, P.S_ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON. WASHINGTON 9W57 PHONE 44251 255,%78 • FAX 14251 255-5474 1 In conclusion, the Hearing Examiner is well aware that EDNSP staff is not 2 the decision -maker for SEPA. That responsibility falls to the Environmental 3 4 Review Committee, a four member panel. 5 Ill. CONCLUSION 6 The appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof and her appeal 7 should be denied. 8 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 141 day of March, 2007. 9 10 11 12 Mark Barber, Attorney for City of Renton 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 City of Renton's Reply to Appellant 28 Perrine's Post -Hearing Response - 3 WARKEN BA"ER & FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW M SOUTH SECOND STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 626 RENTON, WASHINGTON 9M57 PHONE (425) 25S-R679 • FAX (425) 255-5474 BRAD ATCHO � O y February 23, 2007 HAND DELIVERED Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Withdrawal of SEPA Appeal Mr. Hearing Examiner, 2871 Dayton Avenue NE. Renton, Washington 98056 braci827 °hc�trra��il.cc�[xt (425) 445-0658 CITY OF RENTON FEB 2 3 2007 RECEIVED `CITY CLER S OFFICE�/ Ha-,,d Lf ehve!e (� I am informing you that I am withdrawing my appeal of the Highlands SEPA determination that is scheduled for a hearing on February 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. before your office. The scheduled hearing, as you realize, was pertaining to the file LUA-06-126 and its associated DNS. With this letter you will know that I won't be at the hearing because the appeal is hereby withdrawn. sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused but you may note that there might be another appellant, as you indicated there is one. Brad Nicholson i brad nieholson Page 1 212312007 BRAD NICHOLSON February 23, 2007 HAND DELIVERED Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Withdrawal of SEPA Appeal Mr. Hearing Examiner, 2811 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 b: F�cI2? u-°lct�7ail.cc>n (425) 445-0658 CITY OF RENTON FEB 2 3 2007 RECEIVED CITY C ERK S OFFICE end de°livelea 3',M� Pvo A<�-- I am informing you that I am withdrawing my appeal of the Highlands SEPA determination that is scheduled for a hearing on February 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. before your office. The scheduled hearing, as you realize, was pertaining to the file LUA-06-128 and its associated DNS. With this letter you will know that I won`t be at the hearing because the appeal is hereby withdrawn. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused but you may note that there might be another appellant, as you indicated there is one. Brad Nicholson brad nicholson Page 1 212312007 "-""'R r, Kathy Keolker, Mayor anuary 18, 2007 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Linda C. Perrin 1157 Glennwood Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 CIT` 7F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance for the Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package, LUA-06-128, ECF Dear Mr. Nicholson and Ms. Perrin: The appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, 'l ` "' Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKJnt cc: Ann Nielsen, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 Thts paper contains 50 / recycled material, 30%"oonsumer RENTON AHEAD OF THF. C URVF Nancy Thompson - Re: Highlands Rezon _Page 1 From: Judith Subia To: Thompson, Nancy Date: 1 /18/2007 10:36:09 AM Subject: Re: Highlands Rezone Hi Nancy, I'll be up soon with the labels. When you send the notices out, could you also email it to these people? When they requested to be added to the Parties of Record, they only provided email addresses: Andy McDonald, alm0941 @yahoo.com David Lin, worldlink100@yahoo.com Shawn Martin, shawn@martinconsultingllc.com Thank you, Judith >>> Nancy Thompson 01 /18/07 10:02 AM >>> Hi Rebecca, can you get me the entire parties of record list and their address for the above appeal. I just realized in all the mayhem that has gone on, no notices has been mailed from this office giving the parties the actual hearing date. would like to get that out today if at all possible. Thank you, Nancy BRADMCHOLSON November 27, 2006 Fred Kaufinan Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: NOTICE of SEPA APPEAL/ $75.00 CITY OF REWON 2811 Dayton Avenue N.E. NOV Z 7 20M Renton, Washington 98056 brad827- hormail"m RECEIVED (425)445-0658 CLTY CLERICS OFF RE: File number LUA06-128, ECF, and the associated Threshold Determination of "Non - Significance" by the City Environmental Review Committee. Mr. Hearing Examiner, Your Office has the authority to review and reverse Threshold Determinations made by the City's ERC under the Renton code. My Family and I have a definite interest in the above enumerated action and the decision by the City's Environmental Review Committee. We are aggrieved by the decision of "No Significance" because, we drive the roads of the areas as a use for conducting our lives, we shop there for items of necessity and enhancement of our lives, we walk there, go to restaurants there, conduct our recreational activities there or on areas that are adjacent to there and adversely impacted by the project, my lids will go to School there and/or through there, and we use the Parks located there and in Renton and generally, rely on the City to protect the interest we have in a quality community environment and enact regulations that would add to that environment. We would suffer adversely from increased times, elimination of opportunity, losses of amenities and other general harms within the zone of interests applicable to actions of this type. We live right next to the Highlands, as you already know. I am from the Highlands. We will in fact suffer if the wrongful "Deter nination of Non -Significance" is not corrected and the project is permitted to develop the inertia to proceed as is, an obvious mistake or even worse........... a whim. I am concerned that the project may develop unstoppable administrative inertia in the future, without proper consideration of environmental amenities and values according to SEPA; i.e. without full review and disclosure right now and prior to the time official decisions are made. The determination is illegal and wrong that review is "not applicable" and "non -significant" and that is clear. The ERC issued a determination of "Non -Significance" for this proposal to enact new regulations and redevelop the very huge and important area known as the "Highlands Subarea" to Renton citizens and my family, (about 150 acres without including the surrounding community) into totally new uses, with no measures identified to minimize the adverse effects that are probable and significant. Those new uses include replacing the Highlands Shopping Center area with high density 60 foot (from the high point of dirt to the mean average roof c enterline) (probable 8 0-90 foot total) Condominiums and Apartments at a density o f 8 0 d /u acre on or around 6 0 acres of the Sub Area o f the C ity. The Project i s entitled "Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package - with information on the Highlands Taskforce Proposal included" by the City ERC. The spreadsheet that was included with the proposal states that there will most likely be over 3000 new Apartment dwelling units, and 39,000 (thirty nine thousand) additional vehicle trips generated per day in the area, even though just the CV designation would allow around 4000 new dwelling units. The City website directs us to information about the project through the link in bold stating, "Major Projects" where an approximate 65 page document of ordinance revisions can be found. There are numerous concerns of mine that I contend have been ignored or circumvented in the processes, all of which will probably result in significant adverse environmental impacts to me and my family. The proposal is purported to be made under SEPA, which we know is the Law that is applicable to this type of action, and identifies the timeframe for appeal as expiring today. I write this A)e t� L c)r- 1 J� .' S✓c S f l -e G f� • Page 2 November 27, 2006 appeal on time, and am certain that you would agree that I have raised issues about storm water management in the past. Here it is again. They are again trying to erroneously say that Storm water impacts are "not applicable" Presuming that I would accept the fact that there will accurately be an additional 39,000 cars per day driving up and down Sunset according to their figures, is not totally right, but the issue is now again before your office. Why don't they just adopt the Stormwater Mananeement Manual for Western Washington? An action that has not been discussed as an alternative to "not applicable" The Applicant for the Project is Rebecca Lind, a Senior Staff Planner for the City of Renton. It is her incorrect contention that there is no review required at this time because the proposal is "Non -Project" and that environmental review will take place later. The Environmental Checklist submitted by the applicant incorrectly discloses that many of the Environmental elements of concern listed are "Not Applicable" There is also an apparent incorrect presumption in the processes that comprehensive planning is equivalent to zoning regulations. The previous DNS on a project that was for practical purposes identical, (LUA-06-030) was withdrawn while the ERC admitted that there would be a shortage of Parks. I want an analysis done of the Parks experience outlining what could be expected at the North Highlands/Highlands Community Centers with such an enormous increase in the density of the Local area prior to the time decisions are made. That is something that is reasonable and thoughtful_ For that matter, all Parks that are affected should be reviewed. Despite the numerous factual issues that exist in the record of this and the other prior identical action the City seems to be proceeding without these significant environmental concerns having been analyzed or addressed in either an EIS or having had mitigated the adverse effects down to an acceptable level, which is clearly and unacceptably in violation of the State Environmental Policy Act. They are saying that they are "not applicable" on most of the important elements. Given the huge nature of the proposal, its errors, illegal processes, and undisclosed impacts to the elements of the environment, (including the built and natural environments) including earth, air, plants and animals, (including Salmon and Trout) energy, transportation, land use, recreation, utilities, and health of present and future generations, the decision must be reversed and remanded for further work before proceeding. The part that I have difficulty with, which gives me such little pleasure to articulate in this appeal is the fact that it appears to be known that the proposal ignores these obvious requirements, only the first of the criteria that justifies this appeal. These types of decisions are before your office all of the time. Brad Nicholson G-� CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 ❑ Ca h ❑ Copy Fee eck No. ❑ Appeal Fee Description: Funds Received From: Name Address 1 P City/Zip 4V 41d Receipt N 0695 Date ❑ Notary Service Amount $ - 00 I taff ignu ure r, Date CC -1- Nov 27, 2006 Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 ���rn� CITY OF RENTON NOV 2 7 7006 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ✓,s� p44 is Letter only to City Council President Randy Corman Councilmembers Briere; Clawson, Law, Persson, Palmer, Nelson Subject: APPEAL of DNS Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package LUA-06-128, ECF Reference: 2006 Comp Plan Amendments #2006-M-6 and #2006-T-2 Dear Mr. Kaufman: In accordance with City Code 4-8-1 10E, I am submitting a written Appeal to the ERC's DNS of Oct 23, 2006, transmitted to the Citizens via a letter dated Nov 9, 2006, signed by Principal Planner Rebecca Lind. This Appeal applies to LUA-06-128, ECF, Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package. See Exhibit A. I am a member of the Highlands Community Association; and I am a property owner at 1155 GLEN NWOOD AVE NE, Renton Highlands, where I reside. 1 have attended the many public meetings and hearings regarding Highlands Redevelopment which occurred from fall 2005 through fall 2006. 1 have spoken over the course of these meetings and public hearings, always in support of reasonable growth and reasonable government in order to preserve my quality of life and property values_ Those of us who live in the Highlands Subarea realize that many residences need maintenance, but we realize that the City has also failed the neighborhood miserably by not maintaining sidewalks, streets, storm drains, and alleys ... and by not dealing with crime effectively. While it is necessary to have new zoning and land use regulations for the Highlands Subarea, the process should have been handled in a way that afforded "due process" so the City could legally notify the People of hearings, so People could attend if they wanted, and so People could speak if they wished. AND in its proper sequence, the ERC should have been evaluated set of zoning and land use requirements as the People. This did not happen. Couple these events with the ERC's "traditional" cursory Environmental Checklist and DNS, and I believe you have a flawed process which can only result in a flawed DNS. PROPER NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING The last meeting I attended was on Nov 13, 2006, which was a public hearing on the entire package of 2006 Camp Plan Amendments, but who knew? • Exhibit B is a copy of the Public Notice. It states: "2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, concurrent rezonings, zoning text amendments, and development agreement for the former Aqua Barn site." • Exhibit C is a copy of the Agenda for Nov 13, 2006, using the same run-on wording. • Exhibit D is a handout from the Public Hearing listing the 2006 Comp Plan Amendments, and this is the first hint that the meeting covers much more than the Aqua Barn site. • Exhibit E is a copy of the City Council Minutes for Nov 13, 2006. It shows that the hearing covered the entire package of Comp Plan Amendments, not just a hearing on the Aqua Barn, I previously emphasized "but who knew?" because I mean just that: Who knew? • The wording on the Public Notice (Exhibit B) was vague, leading people to believe the public hearing was about the Aqua Barn. • The wording on the Agenda (Exhibit C) was the same and likewise vague. • Not until a Citizen had picked up the handout (Exhibit D) on 2006 Comp Plan Amendments on the table at the City Council meeting on the night of Nov 13th would that Citizen realize that ALL 2006 Comp Plan Amendments were the subject of the public hearing. • The full list of Comp Plan Amendments included in the Nov 13th hearing is further documented by the City Council Minutes of Nov 13, 2006 (Exhibit E). But that came well after the actual hearing. Why does this matter? Firstly, many more people would have been at that Public Hearing on Nov 13, 2006, had they known it was not must about the Aqua Barn. I make this statement based on the large numbers of Citizens who attempted (and I use the word "attempted" on purpose) to attend the Planning Commission public hearing of Sep 20th on the 2006 Comp Plan Amendment package --all of them! The same numbers of Citizens and even more may have attended the Nov 131h hearing had they known about it_ Secondly, the Exhibit B Notice was too vague to inform anyone about proposed changes to be discussed . The same holds true for the Exhibit C Agenda which was also distributed outside City Hall. Thirdly, on Nov 13th, Inez Somerville Petersen brought to the attention of Mayor Koelker, chairman, and city council members that the City must provide notice of public hearings that are "reasonably cal der all circumstances to apprise affected parties of the pending action and q 7 an opportunity to present their objections." - 3 - She also asked that the public hearing be continued to allow for proper notice and public participation. Mayor Koelker, chairman, took no notice of her statements and proceeded with the public hearing. These are important facts which you cannot ignore and still be true to your professional code. Exhibits A-D and the video record of the Nov 13th Council meeting/public hearing document these comments. The video record is available from the Renton City Clerk. "COURTESY" HEARING To compound the legal status of the Nov 13th public hearing, Exhibit D interjects the term "Courtesy Hearing" as applicable to that hearing. Please note that the Exhibit B Public Notice does not indicate Nov 13, 2006, as a courtesy hearing, nor does the Exhibit C Agenda. What is a courtesy hearing under the Law? Putting myself in Mayor Koelker's place, I'd imagine it is a "word play" meant to convince Citizens that a valid public hearing process had occurred, that the Oct 23`° and now on Nov 13'", a courtesy hearing was being held to incorporate "loose ends." But the "word play" does not represent reality. The "loose ends" involved incorporating recommendations of the Highlands Task Force, and this altered the zoning and land use originally recommended by the Staff. This is verified by Exhibit D. Thus, the hearing of Nov 13th is not just about a failure to give proper notice to all affected parties, it also involves t ` ; _; :.3sinq a DNS on a pre -Oct 23 set of zoning and land use specifications, while , ind Council had moved onto a post -Nov__ 13 set of zoning and land use spE How legal is that? These are important facts which you cannot ignore and still be true to your professional code. Certainly you will agree that it is imperative that the City conduct its public hearings using the same zoning and land use criteria as the ERC uses to conduct its environmental review. any resulting DNS have legal force if the Staff and Council envision one se: and land use requirements while the ERC reviews another? PROCESS FLAWED FROM BEGINNING - Sep 20th Hearing Exhibit D makes reference to the Planning Commission Hearing of Sep 20, 2006. This hearing was a "due process" failure of the worst kind. Yet it would appear by Exhibit D that Mayor Koelker attempted to pass the hearing of Sep 20th as "the hearing," and the public hearing of Nov 13th as just a "courtesy hearing." Neither legally qualified as a valid public hearing. - 4 - The Sep 2dh public hearing covered ALL 2006 Comp Plan Amendments and was so well attended that people were crammed in everywhere and spilled out into the hall toward the elevators. The Chairman Pro Tem Jimmy Cho made no arrangements for overflow seating, and many people left before the hearing began because then had no where to sit inside the Council Ch- d no way to hear or sit in the hallway. Chairman Pro Tem Cho then stated that due to the high attendance, Citizens could speak no more than 3 minutes tot.: l 3 Coma Plan Amendments. At that announcement, many more people left, knowing they would not have time to say what they wanted to say, even if they restricted comments to one Comp Plan Amendment. All those who drove to City Hall on Sep 20th for the Planning Commission public hearing on the 2006 Camp Plan Amendments should have a reasonable expectation of being able to sit during the hearing, to hear the comments made during the hearing, and to make whatever reasonable objections they had. This did not occur. This Planning Commission public hearing, as conducted, was a total "denial of due process" and it made the results of that public hearing invalid. These are important points which you cannot ignore and still be true to your professional code. If the public hearing process is flawed, then the results of that process are also flawed. Thus at :.. -'y the ERC based on such flawed data produces more flawed data: and c ons based on flawed data should be invalid. RCW 36.70A.210 requires "orderly development_" RCW 36.70A.020(11) requires Citizen participation and coordination. That is not what I have described on the previous pages of this Appeal. IMPACT OF RHA ON NEIGHBORHOOD After the Nov 13t public hearing where I spoke, I resent my comments on Nov 22"d in an email to Mayor Koelker and city council members, outlining again the impact that CV zoning has on me. The points I make are points that the ERC should have considered. Traffic is a part of the Checklist, feasibility of ingress/egress points is part of the Checklist, location of on and off street parking is part of the Checklist. A smooth transition from one zone to another is part of the Checklist. What happened to the practical application of proposed zoning? To all email addressed City of Renton Council Officials and the Citizen Task Force focused on the Renton Highlands rezoning: I would like to put in writing and on the record my opposition regarding the CV zoning between Glennwood Ave NE and Edmonds Ave NE in Renton Highlands, I want to clearly state and show you why I oppose this CV zoning. STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County - The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on February 17, 200T The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $88.20. A4J arton LegA Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter cr Subscribed and sworn to me this 201h day of February, 307., y r + 3' B D Cantelon �!,-}-•�,,k. ; ',.aol - Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Was�t�?P9Mh* ` P. O. Number: NOTICE OF SEPA APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING; EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on February 27, 2007 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package SEPA Appeal LUA06-128, H, Eff Locaiinn: Highland, Study Area_ The study area is lovated in the vicinity of Sunset Blvd. INE. and F,dnionds Avenue ito the west? and Monroe Avtjnue tto the east). Description: This hearing will review the SEPA appeals to a non -project action that includes changes to the following zoning and land aw plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Tent Amendments 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments a. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments 4. Zoning Map amendments . Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515- Published in the Renton Reporter February 17, 2007. #862927 �Y CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division + i4 + 1055 South Grady Way ,� Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 ❑ h Ppy Fee Check No. peal Fee Description: Funds Received From: Name. b6dc, C - Pcorrir" a Address City/Zip a Receipt N 1 0697 Date / 1/2 -%/ 2- OC t a ❑ Notary Service Amount $ --/ 5, cc Please see below on the parcel map to locate the rest type because the big parcel lot is being considered for CV zoning. The smaller parcel had a duplex on it and a house was on the bigger lot (very residential structures) . These were tom down and the 2 parcels purchased by the Renton Housing Authority. I was provided a CAD drawing of the plans that the RHA planned to build on this site and use the Glennwood street as their entrance and exit into the development they plan to build. It is inappropriate to for this building plan to happen and I'd like to explain why. I ask that you take note that Glenwood Ave is very residential in nature. All of the surrounding parcels on Glennwood Ave are duplexes. Many housing families with young children. Below in one picture, you can see how Glennwood Ave is narrow and curved and children tend to play in the street and would be caught unaware of cars traveling fast. The traffic for 100 units (possibly more), would not only change but destroy the current quiet residential street that my father, several families and I live on. Also, please take in consideration the fact that developments don't allow enough spaces for parking. They put signs in their driveways that say "resident parking only" others will be towed. Well... where do visitors park? What if you have more than 2 cars per household? There is no room on my street for this overflow. Look what happens to the street right next to the apartments where this sign is (see below picture of 12th St)_ Luckily NE 12th St. is large enough to hold some of this overflow. But keep in mind that you have people parking and crossing the street anywhere to get to and from their cars. They are not walking to the corner to use the cross walk to get to their apartment or car. A Renton Housing Authority planning employee (the person I'd rather keep unnamed) told me that the side of the property facing Edmonds is too steep to put the entrance on_ In addition, this would take away from their net acreage to develop on. This was in the CAD drawing, I did not just make this up. Please see picture below to prove the steep incline making the entrance unfeasible from Edmonds Ave. I would like to close my email by asking that you carefully look at what this CV will do to my neighborhood. This is the rezoning issue I have been against from the very beginning when the rezoning initiative began. I bought this duplex in a residential area 13 years ago and have lived there as long. My father has owned his for 15 years and we would like it to stay residential. Please take a look at the very last picture and see what I have done to my duplex to make it a great place to live. ATTACHMENTS follow. ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: This is the plot map showing my property and the land purchased by RHA for a high density subsidized project with the entrance off Glennwood 11 Parcel Map and Data 11 227OWW1O 227W=� 2-270DOWW 2270=70 _=3a%230 472 27MI --- ------- 722?Wl,§*.O T 7227801360 "722 7861JS� =TaO 781 122780785 A13020ww Orh ST 30 0 77h ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: This is how wride Clennwood is. Two cars can barely pass each other. And this is the ingress/egress street for the planned RHA high density apartment? ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: Below is what happens when there is not enough parking in a high density apartment complex like that which the RHA plans. Everyone parks on the street or anywhere they can, ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: This shows how steep Edmonds Ave NE is; it is a poor choice for an entrance to the high density RHA planned apartment complex, and the entrance would be too close to the intersection on Sunset anyway. ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: The lot next to me is planned as the entrance to the RHA new high density apartment complex, but you can see from this picture and one on the previous page that the street is not wide enough to safely accommodate heavy traffic and on -street parking. ATTACH ,w. ��• �,��.� tar, , S ' --END of EMAIL -- itial. As far as I knew prior to Oct 23rd, the RHA was going to build its high density subsidized housing apartments on the iot as shown in the graphic on Page 6 with an unworkable entrance off my street with extreme environmental impacts. Did the ERC weigh in on any resulting environmental impacts? No. And an entrance off Edmonds was likewise overlooked by the ERC in its environmental review. That alternate entrance has just as many environmental impacts due to steep slopes on Edmonds and its proximity to the main intersection on Sunset. Did the ERC weigh in on these impacts? No. Now, through the Highlands task force chairman. I have heard that the lot next to me will not be an entrance to the planned high density RHA subsidized housing project after all. Instead it will be a park. Did the ERC consider impacts of this? No. And through the Highlands task force chairman again, I also heard the City will be installing huge lights to deter drug activity_. Did the ERC consider impacts from this? No. So not only will I have druq activii , just as documented at the park down the street; Viso have bright ligt- with which to contend. A neighbor near me cannot install huge lights with brightness that invades my privacy, it is against Renton City Code. So how can the City do this to me? Did the ERC consider this impact? No, And I stress again that the ERC used pre -Oct 23rd zoning and land use requirements, while the Staff is using a different baseline, one that involves subsidized housing near two streets which cannot accommodate such high traffic usage and/or one that creates a park which will be a magnet for drug activity. These are environmental impacts not considered by the ERC, ag as e+ 7 the _packa_ge of materials mailed by Rebecca Lind with her Nov 9. 20() n behalf of the ERC. NON PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL. REVIEW and HIGH DENSITY ZONING I am not learned in laws governing environmental impacts, I'm just one of many residents of the Highlands Subarea trying to preserve my quality of life. t have the common sense that God gave me, and I can read the first few pages of the package Rebecca Lind sent with her letter of Nov 9th and immediately a BIG question arises; What is a "non-proiect en iI review"? Is that another semantics game like Mayor Koelkeras use of "courtesy hearing" for Nov 13t'' , Rebecca Lind has stated many times that the Highlands Subarea has a density of 4-6 dulac NOW. Yet the ERC has rendered a DNS regarding changing a low density neighborhood which is currently 4 a high density neighborhood with densities as high as 75-80 du/ac c. ,. A the Subarea. And I'm to believe there are no environmental impacts from this? This is ridiculous. Where's the proof? TRANSPORTATION .dust read the ERC's report on TRANSPORTATION on Page 3 of 3, "Environmental Review Committee Staff Report" where impacts are mentioned but then dismissed because there is adequate capaci' .. How absurd! We who live in the neighborhood know how bad the traffic is now. The ERC's DNS is based in part on a traffic study which determines that the current capacity can handle three times the current traffic. That is ridiculous, Again, I cannot comprehend the increased trips as not causing an environmental impact, not when I consider the current traffic situation. This traffic study tells the City what it wants to hear, that 745 additional dwelling units and an additional 10,567 trips over and above what we have now will cause no environmental impact. And I am also to believe that the area could handle an additional 28,772 trips. The current number of trips is not mentioned. The conclusion that such increases in traffic cause no environmental impact is a fiction. We citizens who live in the neighborhood know that such increases in traffic will make Sunset Blvd and surrounding neighborhood streets a nightmare. A traffic study that defies common sense does not meet the burden of proof. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and NIA NON PROJECT ITEM take exception to all ERC determinations which reference "NIA" and "non project item." The ERC provided no valid proof that the following areas had no environmental impact or were truly "not applicable" or a "non project item." The ERC has the burden of proof. • EARTH • AIR • WATER • PLANTS • ANIMALS • ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • LAND AND SHORELINE • HOUSING • AESTHETICS • LIGHT AND GLARE • RECREATION • HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION • TRANSPORTATION • PUBLIC SERVICES • UTILITIES POINTS of DISAGREEMENT The City Council recently adopted a Highlands Moratorium BEFORE a public hearing was held on that Moratorium (hearing scheduled for Dec 2006). This is a manipulation' of the planning process to suit City development plans. And the same has occurred with the ERC's DNS of Oct 23, 2006. As I stated previously, RCW 36.70A.210 requires "orderly development." RCW 36.70A_020(11) requires Citizen participation and coordination. That is not what I have described in this Appeal. do not believe that the City can show that it has complied with the rule and intent of the Law, or with processes that are typical and customary for a proposal of the scope and scale of Highlands Zoning and Land Use, LUA-06-128 and its accompanying 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Essentially the same high densities are proposed under LUA-06-128 as were proposed under LUA-06-030_ Calling environmental elements "not applicable" or "non project" is a play on words and a convenient interpretation of Law to avoid an EIS. A DNS on a proposed upzone of this magnitude requires proof. I do not believe the ERC provided any proof that Highlands Zoning and Land Use are „. _ -_;:r cant in scope and scale. To justify the ERC's DNS on LUA-06-128, a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study should have been undertaken. 1. The City has not held a valid public hearing process leading up to an environmental review by the ERC. 2. The ERC in turn has not adequately identified and addressed Environmental Impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with LUA-06-128. The "transportation impact" was identified but then downplayed by unbelievably asserting that the neighborhood had capacity for three times the current traffic. 3. With regard to Environmental Impacts, the ERC's Documentation and Due Diligence are inadequate to satisfy what is typical and customary for review. 4. The ERC's DNS is being applied to avoid an Environment Impact Study (EIS) and the time and cost associated with both an EIS, as well as the resulting remediation that may be required in order (this would cause a major schedule delay)_ 5. The City has not provided a valid Public Comment process to adequately address Highlands zoning and land use proposals. And I refer to the public hearings of Sep 20th and Nov 13tn 6. The Ordinance on tonight's Agenda (Exhibit F) for first reading covers Highlands zoning and land use requirements which were not part of the zoning and land use requirements reviewed by the ERC. Perhaps this explains the use of the term "courtesy hearing" and "non project." 7. And more specifically, no public hearings were held to specifically address Environmental Impacts and concerns. CLOSING COMMENTS hope that the Council Members reading this Appeal will consider what they have done to their Constituency by not requiring an EIS as a Council Majority and forcing Citizens to do their work for them through the Appeal process. certify that I delivered this APPEAL to the City Clerk of the City of Renton prior to the deadl'n of 5 , on Mon, November 27, 2006. Linda Perrine 1155 GLENNWOOD AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Exhibit A = Rebecca Lind's letter of Nov 9, 2006 Exhibit B = Public Notice Exhibit C = Agenda, City Council, Nov 13, 2006 Exhibit D = Handout from Nov 13, 2006, "courtesy" hearing Exhibit E = Minutes, City Council, Nov 13, 2006 Exhibit F = City Council Agenda for Nov 27, 2006 o CITY F RENTON � t Planning/Building/PublieWorks Department 6�-v,A il L -t A November 9, 2006 City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package LUA-06-128, ECF This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above -referenced project. The Committee, on November 6, 2006, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non - Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 27, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal- Code Section 4-8-110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. if you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-6578. For the Environmental Review Committee, Rebecca Lind Principal Planner cc: Subhashni Kumar, George Rusk, Patrick Powers, Marie Engeland, Elena Koleva, Howard Baldridge, John Visser, Bill Grover, Terry Persson, Brad Nicholson, Pamela Curley, Edwin & Patricia Rasmussen, Glenda Johnson, Inez Somerville Petersen / Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 R L' N T O N AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paperoonta;ns 50°� recycled material. 3096 posteonsumer Exh�b,t i� CITY OF RENTON No'l I( 1-. of PUBLIC 11FA LING PEN'TON CITY COUNCII. NOTICE IS HEREBY (a 11 VN 1 Lai rihc Renton lily Council has fixed the 13111 da; of Nay eenl�er, �QOfi, at 7'(1(; < 'h, , ;fte and tune far a lzublic licaizng to be held in the seventh Elder Council Cl-,.m 7,:; R=.:itton C;ily flttll,,.1 Q55 S. Ghady Way, Renton, ti4A 98055, to consider the foi lia't mL:. 2000 Con 1prohen4 I concur-reni rozonings, ii riIng icxt amendments, anct sic : t i srii, rrI agreernent for (tie former Aqua Ram site. All intewested parties are w itM t , �!i--.rid lbe hearing and premif ritien or oral t.t� nntettts.cgarding t13e 1�e��rnxaii 1 .:r�tOl] City hall is in compliance with the American Disabilitics Act, and me 7r: ti°. c cwC for the hear`itlg itttpairtxl will lie provided ul)(M prioiwtice. For inforni:,;i,iii,c:;rll1- 430-6510, Bonnie i_ Wallon City Clerk Published King County J un al November 3, 2000 jXceoullt. M)..506,40 AGENDA E r RENTON CITY COUNCIL REG U LA R ':MEETING November 13, 2006 Monday, 7 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL- GALL_ rPUBLIC HEARING: �.. 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments, c.oncurres►t'rezonings, zoning text amendments, and development agreement for former ua Earn site 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENT (Speakers must Sign up prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The comment period will be limited to one-half hour. The second audience comment period later on in the agenda is unlimited in duration.) When you are recognized by the Presiding Officer, please walk to the podium and state your name and address for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. 6. CONSENT AGENDA The following items are distributed to Councilinembers in advance for study and review, and the recommended actions will be accepted in a single motion. Any item may be removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilmcmber. a. Approval of Council meeting minutes of l 1/6/2006. Council concur. b. Community Services Department recommends approval of a contract in the amount of $62,778.43 with Sun Lighting for the 2006 Holiday Lights Program. Council concur. c. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submits two pre - applications for the 2007 Comprehensive flan amendment pre -application review process. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. d. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends a public hearing be set on 1 l /27/2006 to consider extending the moratorium on sewer availabilities for new subdivisions in the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. Council concur. (See 9.a. for resolution.) e. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommends a public hearing be set on 12/11/2006 to consider extending the moratorium on new development in the R-10 and RM-F zones within the Highlands Subarea Plan study area. Council concur. (See 9.b. for resolution.) f. Hearing Examiner recommends approval. with conditions, of the Cottages at Honey Creek Preliminary Plat Major Amendment: 4.17 acres located at 4821 NE Sunset Blvd. (PP-04-185). Council concur. g. Police Department recommends approval of a contract with Occupational Health Services (Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County) in the amount of $176,376 for health services for Renton jail inmates for 2007. Council concur. h. Transportation Systems Division recommends approval of a contract in the amount of $146,174 with Parametrix, Inc. for design of the May Creek Bridge Replacement Project. Council concur. i. Utility Systems Division requests approval of an agreement with Aero-Metric, Inc. in the amount of $104,487 for the final phase of the 2006 Photogrammetric Aerial Mapping Project. Council concur. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) j. Utility Systems Division recommends approval of a utility easement granted by Sl VI, LLC, owner of the Belle Vista Apartment complex, for the N. 26th St. and Park Pl. N. Storm System Improvement Project in the amount of $46,500 and $1,000 per damaged or removed tree. Council concur. k. Utility Systems Division submits CAG-03-112, Maplewood Water Treatment Facility and Golf Course Improvements; and requests approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $1,600.55, and release of retainage bond in the amount of $496,353.39 to Mid - Mountain Contractors, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair if further review is necessary. a. Community Services Committee: 2nd Round of Neighborhood Grants; Appointment of Heather Nugent to Library Board 9. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions: a. Moratorium extension in East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area (see 6.d.) b. Moratorium extension in Highlands Subarea Plan study area (see 6.e.) Ordinance for second and final reading: Requirements for pawnbroker's daily record of transactions (1st reading 11/6/2006) 10. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425--430-6512 for recorded information.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENT 12. ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA (Preceding Council Meeting) Council Chambers 6 p.m. Highlands Task Force Update Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21 AND ARE RE-CABLECAST Tugs_ & THLTRs. AT 11 AM & 9 PM, WED. & FRi- AT 9 AM & 7 PM AND SAT. & SUN. AT 1 PM & 9 PM V o� zu06 Comprehensive PIan Amenuments t + Public Hearing November 13, 2006 Group 1: i of Renton Comprehensive Plait Text (Policy) Amendments "' fired-Hearfng. Tanning Commission, September 20, 2006 ` Courtesy Hearing: Cyty Council, November 13, 2006 #2006-T-1:hty of Renton Text Amendment to update the Capital Facilities Element to incorporate adoption of the Issaquah and Kent School Districts Capital Facilities Plans. Planning Commission Recommendation: Adopt two new policies specifically adopting the Issaquah and Kent School Districts Capital Facilities Plans. #2006-T-3: City of Renton Requested text amendment to update the Land Use and Community Design Elements with housekeeping changes. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve corrections and revisions to the Community Design and Land Use Elements with housekeeping changes. #2006-T-4: City of Renton Requested text amendment to update the Transportation Element to reflect changes in the capital projects. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve the update to Table 8.3 to reflect the City of Renton's latest adopted Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan. #2006-T-5: City of Renton Text amendment to allow existing Residential Manufactured Horne Park zoning as an implementing zone in the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve a text amendment to the Residential Low Density designation to allow Residential Manufactured Home Park as an implementing zone. Group 2: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and Concurrent Rezones Required Hearing: Planning Commission, September 20, 2006 Courtesy Hearing: City Council, November 13, 2006 #2006-M-1: Wan Chee Map Amendment to change the designation from a combination of Neighborhood Commercial/Single Family with Neighborhood Commercial and R-8 split zoning to Neighborhood Commercial land use with Neighborhood Commercial zoning at 1315 N 301h St. Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny the rezone request for the property at 1315 N. 300' Street to change the designation from a combination of Neighborhood Commercial/Single Family with Neighborhood Commercial and R-8 split zoning to Neighborhood Commercial land use with Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Page 1 of 6 #2006-M-2: Susan Larson -Kinzer Map Amendment to change the designation from Residential Low Density land use with Resource Conservation zoning to Residential Single Family land use with R-8 zoning or Low Density Residential land use with R-4 zoning for a 3.4-acre parcel currently used as a blueberry farm and residence at 1733 NE 20" St. Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny the request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Residential Single Family with concurrent R-8 zoning and recommend that the Kennydale Blueberry Farm be rezoned from Resource Conservation to R-4 but remain Residential Low Density land use. 42006-M-8: City of Renton Map Amendment to consider changing the designation for a 49-acre area of Upper Kennydale, south of NE 28th St and north of NE 16th St from I-405 to approximately the boundary of the Heritage Glen Subdivision Planning Commission Recommendation: Deny the Staff s recommendation to change the designation from Residential Single Family with R-8 zoning to Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning. #2006-M-3: Manuel Rivera (Patrick Hanis, Hanis Greaney Attorneys) Map Amendment to change the designation from Residential Single Family land use with R-8 zoning to Commercial Corridor land use with Commercial Arterial zoning on a 2.09-acre single family property at 851 Carr Rd. Planning Commission Recommendation:. Deny the request to redesignate and rezone the property to Commercial Corridor with Commercial Arterial zoning. Approve redesignation of this property and the adjoining parcels within the City limits to Residential Medium Density with concurrent R-14 zoning. The R-14 zoning designation allows small commercial uses using the development standard of Neighborhood Commercial zoning. #2006-M-4: Springbrook Associates (Cliff Williams, Vineyards Construction) Map Amendment to change the designation from Residential Medium Density land use with R-10 zoning to Commercial Corridor land use with Commercial Office zoning for a 5.61-acre undeveloped property located just south of S 37th St, and west of the dead-end at S 38th St west of Talbot Rd. Planning, Commission Recommendation: Approve the application changing the land use designation from Residential Medium Density to Commercial Corridor with a concurrent Commercial Office rezone. #2006-M-5: City of Renton Map amendment to change the area within the Puget Colony neighborhood from Residential Single Family to Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning and in the unincorporated Kimberly Lane and Hideaway Homesites Subdivisions from Residential Single Family to Residential Low Density. a) 18.8-acre Puget Colony Homes subdivision consisting of 61 lots located at SE 133rd St, SE 134th St, and SE 135th St, and SE 132" d St on the north and SE 136th St on the south. b) The nine lot Kimberly Lane subdivision to the immediate west on the north side of SE 136th St, 13508 138th Ave SE. Page 2 of 6 c) 1.1-acre parcel, west of Kimberly Lane subdivision. d) 31-lot Hideaway Home Sites subdivision on the south side of SE 136`h St. Planning Commission Recommendation: Change the land use designation from Residential Single Family to Residential Low Density with R-4 zoning. 42006-M-7: City of Renton Map Amendment to change the designation of two + 1.5-acre parcels at the southeast corner of 152"d Ave SE and the Renton — Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169), the former Aqua Barn site, from Residential Low Density to Commercial Corridor with potential Commercial Arterial zoning. Map Amendment to change 27 acres from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density with potential R-14 zoning (upon annexation). Planning Commission Recommendation: Change the land use of the commercial parcels from Residential Low Density to Commercial Corridor and residential parcels from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density. Group 3: Aqua Barn Commercial Development Agreement Required Hearing: City Council, November 13, 2006 #2006-M-7 Development Agreement A development agreement is recommended as a condition of the proposed rezone to Commercial Arterial. The development agreement accomplishes three things: a) It will restrict the range of uses allowed in Renton's Commercial Arterial zone, as the City's zoning is broader than County zoning. b) The agreement also requires design considerations to insure that the site development provides a transition to the residential area. c) The agreement provides for transfer of traffic mitigation fee credit be granted up to $252,799 against traffic mitigation fees due upon development of the property. Group 4: Highlands Land Use and Rezoning Package #2006-M-6 and 42006-T-2: City of Renton Highlands Study Area Comprehensive Plan Map, Concurrent Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Required Hearing: Planning Commission, September 20, 2006 Courtesy Hearing: City Council, November 13, 2006 Zoning Code Text Amendments Council, November 13, 2006 ` 42006-M-6: City -'of Renton Map amend jne6t for changes in the Center Village land use designation in the Highlands Subarea Plan. iew will consider whether to amend the Center Village and Residential Medium Density Land Use Designations. Page 3 of 6 Original Staff Recommendation a) Change from Center Village to Residential Multi -family Land Use • Area south of Sunset Blvd/ SR 900, east of Dayton Ave, north of NE 9th St and NE 9th PI currently zoned Residential Multi -Family. Zoning will remain Residential Multi -Family but the land use designation would be also become Residential Multi -Family. b) Change from Residential Multi -Family to Center Village • Area currently designated Residential Medium Density with R-10 zoning that is north of 160, St between Harrington Ave and Kirkland Ave. • The finger of parcels along Harrington Ave between 9`h St and 7th St with frontage on Harrington Ave, these parcels would extend the Center Village south to 7th St. c) Change from Residential Medium Density to Residential Single Family • Area north of Sunset Blvd and west of Edmonds Ave. This area is currently zoned R-10 and developed with single family housing. • Area near Monroe Ave and Sunset Blvd. The properties on Monroe Ave are protected by covenant at their current level of intensity, which is approximately six units per net acre. The Planning Commission took a limited action on the original staff recommendation. The Commission concurred with the original staff recommendation for the map amendments but did not take action on either the concurrent rezoning or the concurrent zoning text amendments in the R-10, R-14 and CV zones because the Council appointed Highlands Task Force was assigned that review responsibility. This staff concurs with the Highlands Task Force recommendation. The original staff reco tion is superseded by the Highlands Task Force Recommendation. 42006 T-2: Ci of Renton 1) Text Am dments to update the Land Use Element to reflect changes in the Center Village Poli a) Amended Policy LU-31 S to delete R-10 as an implementing zone and add R-14 as an implementing zone in the Center Village and clarify that the RM zone with suffixes can implement the Center Village. b) Amend Strategy 319.2 to call for preparation of a subarea plan rather than a redevelopment plan to implement the Center Village land use concepts and provide that the phasing of the Plan is expected to occur within a two to five year period from the 2004 GMA update. c) Amend Strategy 319.3 to delete a statement that areas east of Edmonds Ave and north of Sunset Blvd currently zoned RMF are to remain in residential use and the area north of 12th St currently zoned R-10 is to remain in residential use. AwN r#�" 0 2P Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve corrections and revisions to the Land Use Element. Task Force Recommendation: The Highlands Task Force concurred with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments Page 4 of 6 2) HighIands Task Force Recommendation: Land Use Map Amendments The proposal is to include the residential area north of NE 16th St in the Center Village (CV) land use designation. The Task Force also recommends include the multi -family areas southeast of NE 12th St and Monroe Ave NE, and east of Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th St and NE 9th St in the Residential Multi -Family (RMF) land use designation. 3) Highlands Task Force Recommendation: Concurrent Rezoning An upzone to Residential -fourteen units per acre (R-14) was recommended for the current Residential - ten units per net acre (R-10) zoning in the study area. R-14 zoning was also recommended for the duplexes north of Sunset Blvd in the vicinity of Glenwood Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE. CV zoning was expanded along Sunset Blvd, in a few parcels adjacent to the existing commercial area and the Houser Terrace and Evergreen Terrace properties owned by the Renton Housing Authority. Rezoning to RMF was recommended for three strips of properties: a strip along Kirkland Ave NE, a strip south of NE 12th St, and a strip along Harrington Ave NE. 4) Highlands Task Force Recommendation: Concurrent Zoning Text Amendments Amendments are proposed to the development regulations in the R-10, R-14 and CV zones. Non -Conforming Uses Past zoning proposals for this area included the possibility of implementing zoning that did not allow existing residential uses, such as duplexes and single family homes. In such situations, the existing use is considered a legal non -conforming use. Legal non -conforming is the technical term for 66grandfathered in". It means that the use is allowed to continue but may not expand or enlarge. Several members of the Task Force wished to ensure that the zoning proposal allow existing residential uses to remain legal and conforming. The recommended zoning proposal eliminates the issue of non- conforming uses. All existing use types (duplexes and single family uses) are allowed uses in the proposed zoning package. Property,Redevelopm en t One of the most debated issues in the package of proposed zoning changes was a requirement that the existing unit had to be removed when properties came in for subdivision. This would only affect those applying for division of their properties and not to other changes like remodels or additions. However, the Task Force felt that property owners should not be required to remove existing units in order to subdivide their property. In lieu of requiring the removal of existing units, the Task Force indicated that property owners should be required to upgrade the existing units. Unfortunately, building and related codes make this impossible to implement without declaring the unit a hazard. The Task Force did not wish to create a situation in which existing units were declared hazardous. However, the Task Force did recommend deleting the provision that required the removal of existing units upon subdivision. The Task Force recommends that this provision be removed from both the R-14 or R-10 zones if either of those zones is used to implement the Center Village Iand use in the Comprehensive Plan. A fi<ordable Housing Keeping the neighborhood an affordable place to live for people in all stages of their lives was important to the members of the Task Force. In the R-14 zone, there is an allowed density bonus of 18 units per net acre. The Task Force recommends keeping the proposed incentive of creating two units of affordable housing as one of the options to achieve the density bonus. The Task Force also recommends implementing an incentive geared toward public agencies and non-profit organizations whose mission is to provide affordable housing. An incentive is recommended that would allow a bonus of 30 units per Page 5 of 6 net acre for any project of at least two acres, in which a minimum of 50 percent of the units developed would be affordable to those with incomes of 50 percent of the Area Median Income. Limits on Commercial Development While the Task Force liked the flexibility of the R-14 zone, there was general concern that it could allow some small commercial uses in a residential area. To prevent this, the Task Force recommendation specifically prohibits on -site services, retail, and eating/drinking establishments in this area unless they are accessory to a community, school, or recreational use. This would allow the possibility for a small business like an espresso stand or bicycle rental to locate in a park or the Community Center. A hearings examiner conditional use permit would be required. The Task Force also recommends that new, indoor recreational uses should be allowed in the R-14 zone to allow for redevelopment of the North. Highlands Community Center property. Commercial Development Amendments in the Center Village Zone The CV zone is primarily oriented toward commercial development. Residential uses are allowed but some limits must be put in place to ensure that as the area begins to redevelop. Residential uses will not dominate this zone. As a result, the Task Force recommends increasing the minimum residential density in this area to 20 dwelling units per net acre. This will prevent lower density residential -only redevelopment from occurring in the commercial area. The Task Force also recommended a standard which requires commercial development in properties fronting on Sunset Blvd. This proposes that commercial development occupy a minimum of 75 percent of the frontage on Sunset Blvd. Another Task Force recommendation is to allow a ten foot height bonus in the CV zone for properties that have first floor commercial development. This allows building of four stories of residential over first floor commercial development, an important incentive for the development of mixed use commercial and residential buildings. R-14 Zone Density The Task Force recommends raising the minimum density in the R-14 zone to ten units per acre to comply with the Comprehensive Plan for the CV land use designation. The Task Force also recommends keeping the current bonus system in the R-14 zone that allows densities up to 18 units per net acre. In order to receive the bonus however, the proposed development would have to offer one of the following desired items: alley access, open space, or affordable housing. Design Regulations The Task Force recommends implementation of Design Regulations for all properties within the CV land use designation. The regulations consist of standards and guidelines that would be applied to new development. Minimum Lot Size for Detached Residential Development The Task Force recommended that the minimum lot size for single family detached residences in the R- 14 zone be set at 5,000 square feet. If the City Council determines to keep the current R-10 zoning, then the Task Force recommends that the proposed minimum lot size for single family residential of 5,000 square feet be required in the R-10 zone. Page 6 of 6 Area to Remain Single Family Chee CPA 2006-M-01 Planning Commission Recommendation Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning + �,® Alex Pietsch. Administ ator =�1 C.E. Feasel s 13 November 2006 0 200 400 Study Area = Commercial Neighborhood Renton City ® Residential Low Density Limits [71 Residential Medium Density = Residential Single Family Rivera UFA LUUb-IVI-W Planning Commission Recommendation Economic Development, Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning t j i y Alex Pietsch, Administrator C.E. Fewl NT 13 November 2006 Commercial Corridor ® Residential Low Density Study Area Residential Medium Density Renton City ® Residential Multi -Family Limits O Residential Single Family Springbrook Associates (2006-M-04) Planning Commission Recommendation Study Area EwDomio Mnlo Ndgbbo+hoade & SV04& FMftW& rl) A a�mt — — — City Limits l3 No�6e 2006 13Nw mb ` Stream Commercial Corridor Residential Low Density o Residential Single Family 0 200 400 1 : 2400 "Ems 0111roIIiol~"Ilts-IIIfro II= =2 1•- No r1111111: •1Mr-wIItoRvS-l9Iell IIt: Rest ley I, T'. Aqua Barn CPA 2006-M-07 Planning Commission Recommendation IN Commercial Corridor w/CA Zoning Eoonamic Development. N«gbbmboo& & strategic Plarming * PieWN AdmkWnW IM Residential Medium Density 3 C. bwzoas w/R-94 Zoning 0 300 600 1 : 3 600 r l• November 13, 2006 Monday, 7 p.m. RFN COUNCIL RL-�:2 U ; i� F 'Yleot in g N1.1 I - T E S 0 0 1 -FC,--- Council Chambers lZenton City I fail CALL TO ORDER Mayor Kathy called the ineeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the o.'Aliegiance to the flag - ROLL CALL OF RANDY C('.)PJ\1,,?N, NELSON; DAN CLAWSON, COUNCILMEMBERS T'ERRI BR'fLkf.,: -VIAPCIF PAUNIER, MOVED BY NFUSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN_ COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT C:OUNCI.LMEMBERS DENIS LAW AND 1";0NITPSSON. CARRIED - CITY STAFFIN, KA,rifY KLOLK1,1R. Mayor- JAY COVINUION, Chief.Administrative ATTENDANCE Officer; ZAN[,'! 1-C.'IFNTES, Assistant City Attorney. BONNIE WAI:I'ON- City Clerk; 6M_-,G(`1 /1�,IME6tMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Adrrtinjstralor: SHRIDHAR. Communication-, Director. ALLX PIETSCII. L,:or•oTo� c, P,voloprncnt Administrator: RUBECCA LIND. Planninv Manager; LR J K:\ CON KLING, Senior Planncr; CHI F 1, DAVID DANIELS and DEPUI ) CI i 11 1 1. -XRRYRUDE, Fire Department; COMMANDER KATIE MC(`1JN( Y, 11olice Departmcnt. PUBIAC HEARING This being 0ic s,,:€ :and proper notice, having been posted and Published ill Coinprchen,,ive Plan: 2006 accordance­,,ith h,c:d --uLd State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing Amendments �Znsj(Vr U,:, -_000 Compreliensive Plan amcndnients, concurrent rezoning, 1_­--_--tr ling text imn,t�_ and die development agreement for the former Aqua Barn Site. Senior Planr,,.,r Vi iLi Conkling explained that the public hearing is divided into four groups she began with Group I - Conaprclicnsive PfanTi,,xt Amendmen i • 2006-T-(o� Menton) - Update the Capital Facilities Element to incorpo,­Malllslpit in of the Issaquah and Kent school district capital facifific;, R,­ )nirnendatiokrl, approve amendment. of Rniwn) - Update the Land U-sc and Community Design elemeu!­,a changes for clarity and to reflect new policy. :Lprove amendment. • 2006-T-4 id Pi,nton) - Update the Transportation Element to reflect Renton',, Six -Year -Transportation Improvement Plan. ;j I 1prove amend ment- • 2006-T-,� k,( 1-tcnion) - Allow existing mobile hoine parks in the Residen0:0 1 wx I_k�i-,,sity (RLD) designation to he zoned Residential Manufaa itin-d I loiit., (RMI 14. Recornniendafion: approve amendment - Ms. Conkliw: that the Planning C)raniission held the required Public fiearis-,,v, or�, ("(,mprehensive Plan text and map amendments On :i3!;itcr was also roferred to the Planning and Development Cornmitlec .soh ih.% :,.,,:vption of the implementing ordinance for item 2006-T- I - which to Finance Committee - Public comm"W "Vj; : I te'd. Scott Xlissa0, ()991 Suite 30(1[), Seattle. 98104, with the law timi Short, CrcNsmn & spoke on 2(06-T-5. He noted that the State Suprerno, Couo'� i in Interlake Sporting Association, or all v. Washington November 13. 2(ft Renton City Council Minutes Page 385 State. Boundary Review Board, City of Redmond, el al, may affect the City s ability to go forward with the Maplewood Addition Annexation. Raymond A. Breeden, Sr., 15279 Maple Dr.. Renton, 98058, noted the importance of retaining mobile home parks especially in light of the recent flooding of the 'White River that destroyed one-half of a mobile home- park in Pacific. .lorry Puckett, 152.60 Oak. Dr-, Renton, 98058, spoke in support of 2006-T-5, which affects the Wonderland Estates Mobile Horne Park where he resides. Continuing with Group 2 - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments and Concurrent Rezones, Ms. Conkling reviewed the following amendments: • 2006-M.-i (Wan Chee) - Change the designation from a combination of Commercial Neighlxirhood (CN) and Residential Single Family (RS) with CN and R-8 split zoning to CN land use with CN zoning for the entire parcel at 1315 N- 30th St. Recommendation: deny amendment. • 2006-M-2 (Susan Larson -Kinzer; Kennydale Blueberry Farm) - Change the designation from RLD land use with Resource Conservation (.RC) zoning to RS land use with R-8 zoning, or RLD land use with R-4 zoning for a 3-4 acre parcel currently used as a blueberry farm and residence at 1733 NE, �[ 20th St. Recommendation: deny amendment to RS with concurrent R-8 zoning and approve change to RLD with R-4 zoning- 0 Ms. Conkling said the owner indicates that land use changes in the surrounding area, which is zoned R-8, have affected the viability of the farm. She note that critical areas exist on Elie site, including a mapped wetland, suspected peat wetland, Class 4 stream, and headwaters of Kennydalc Creek. Ms. Conkling indicated that if a Type 11 wetland is assumed, 1.15 acres of the site are potentially developable, resulting in two building sites if zoned R-4. • 2006-M-8 (City of Renton; Upper Kennydale) - Change the designation for a 49-acre area located south of NE 28th St. and north of NE 16th St., from RS land use with R-8 zoning to RLD land use with R-4 zoning. Staff recommendation- downzone the area to R-4. R-4 zoning would help stem cumulative changes to hydrology and wetland areas, and result in a buildable lands capacity of approximately 110 units (96 units exist now). Planning Commission reconiiriendation: keep the R-8 zoning. R-8 zoning has a buildable lands capacity of approximately 205 units, and property owners have invested in the properties with the expectation of R-8 development potential. • 2006-M-3 (Manuel Rivera) - Change the designation from RS lane] use with .R-8 zoning to Commercial Corridor (CC) land use with Connniercial Office {CO) zoning on a 2.09-acre parcel at 851 Carr Rd. Recommendation: deny request but approve redesignation of this parcel and adjoining parcels within the City limits to Residential Medium Density (RMD) with concurrent R-14 zoning. R-1.4 zoning allows small commercial uses. • 2006-M-4 (Springbrook Associates) - Change the designation frorn RMD land use with R-10 zoning to CC land use with CO zoning for a 5-61-acre parcel located south of S. 37th St- Recommendation: approve amendment. • 2006-M-5 (City of Renton; Puget Colony Homey and vicinity) - Change the area within the Puget Colony neighborhood from RS tand use with R-8 zoning to RLD land use with R-4 zoning; and from RS to RLD land use in November 13, 2000 :c s1! 1 4 Comic' l M'snit tes Page 386 the ICimberly.Lane and hideaway Ilorne Sites subdivisions. Recomw:n(lvii:rr. approve amendment. • 2006-Ili.., (,a ;�I Menton; former Aqua Barn site and part Of the proposed Maplewookl :1ti.iitiorr Annexation expanded area) - Cliange (lie designation of three :wiv, I,iwl<o,,d at the southeast corner of 152ad Ave. SE and Maple Valley i kv,, . li s>;t, kLD to CC, land use with potential Coninie.rcial Arterial (CA) ,omn �,. C.'E :: the 0 abutting southern acres from ltLD to 1tMD tand us>- . ir' Fs; = tt tial R-14 zoning. Recommendation: approve amend!t,cn;t. Correspond ri;. ,2 v, n, r;-:rd from William E. O'Connor, 10=102 151 st Ave. Sly, Renton, 9805). _1 hat the applicant for the blueberry farm amendment has not shown Hl i�,: ,4i� proof that the current zoning is no longer appropriate, that the srtc a,t or;€air preservable critical areas, that long-terni agricultural wo, her:, affected by enviromnental changes, and than the, zoning, revision e� iII r,,sult in increased public benefit. r Corresponc+.o:«t, ws�is lead from egad blichokon, 1811 Dayton Ave. NE, Renton, 98056_ with the C ity's lack of interest in complying with laws, and list r o >. ;iiu :h r of unaddrestied concerns, pertaining tci the, protection of eri€ical oni 3 h:k� hluc;berry fain-]. C'orrerpond,-,n, , ,� ci, rc•<id fiorn Wm Collins, 41-0 Cedar Ave, S., Renton, 98057_ requesting ih; C'it. ;gtpk- the sarne considerations to the blueberry farm wetland as was di:n.: r:sa 31 rHicil areas of the Defoor Short flat. and requesting removal of Oik il�,m tr(if,7 the Comprehensive Plan anendment process. Correspond,.I,�.�, �,,x, F;,�id from KnolI D_ Lowny, Smilh &. Lowncy, PL1C; (attorneys fo+ Bill (?'`'ts€:nor and Kerinydale Critical Areas Alliance), 231.7 1'. John S1,, Se:ilflc, 9, l ". indicating that the notice for this public hearing failul to identity 11,1,, :rr( ,.. ! l)ropetlies, specifically the Kennyda.le Bkwberry Farin. and reguestir.,_; 3.h }t ih, hearing be postponed for 30 days. Public cornn7,(I-o Ir vited. Inez.Petersen. P() 1;o% 1395, Renton, 9805-1. stated that issues relating to due j r process ins ij itset'Inolh rliis public hearing and the Planning Coni rnission�s public heari p of ! p,, °ether 20. Pointing out that the notice for this hearing was in,'iileq �i,:. �t s _ kcd that the public hearing be postponed to allow for proper niltal i, ,, ,,t. V,", Petersen indicated that she wants the blueberry farni as a critical 1n..;. l° r Lauralec [ oiiilc_,`01t3 .Jones Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, objected to the rezone ,n of the upper 1<;:i, s ,al area to R-4_ She stated that this complex area is located 1 r� near Lhe 14i15 Co! r and is densely populated. Ms- Crorclley said she purchased l;cr pr;>,)Lr€,, with the intent of developing sr. at R-8 zoning. She pointed out €l) rt th ;,l,,:al areas ordinance iy based on sc•ience, and should be depended up,)r: its tsi3.?l i:t property. 141s. Conklin.,, •t<iscc` tl?rri four to five lots are possible on Ms_ Gordley's oddly - shaped prop,,rt% rwdil-r hoth the R-4 and R-S zones. She noted that some property o\x n1,1,, LC ill �,xporiencc a reduction in development capacity ifzoned R-4, and so!ia,: soy,'€ s. v, ill be affected by not being able to add one or two additional tw-ire it rhcir halckya.rds. Robert Cave. I :} N 1_: 24th S€., Renton, 98056, opposed (lie ripper Kennydale area rezone. our [hat he owns a 3.5-acre property which is not hindered November 13, :006 ;-Ce /,?`; Renton Citv Council Minutes Palze 387 by wetlands or the Kennydaie Creek. Additionally, Mr. Cave said he objects to the rezone of the blueberry farm, saying that it should remain a farm. Susan Bider, 1835 NE 20th St_, Renton, 98056, asked that the public hearing be rescheduled to allow for proper notice_ In regards to [lie blueberry farm, she indicated that the creek is rnisciassihed and that for permitting purposes, the wetlands have state and federal jurisdiction because thecreek drains into Lake Washington. Ms. Rider stated that the sale of the farm is an opportunity for a unique and popular public open space. As neighborhoods change front semi - rural to inCtll-developed, she stressed that the importance and long -terns consequences of this decision should not he. underestimated_ Mayor Keolker clarified that this public hearing is a courtes Itearing, and the required hearing was with the Planning Commission on September 20. Barbara Hicks, 1835 NE 20th St., Renton, 98056, pointed out that the public hearing notice did not clearly identity the blueberry farm as a topic for the meeting. Ms. Hicks emphasized that non -land owners also have opinions and rights, and decisions of the City affect all residents. She stated that when sorne part of the environment is destroyed, the future is being taken away from the children. William E. O'Connor, 104IO2 .151st Ave_ SE, 98059, spoke in opposition to the blueberry farm rezone, pointing out that the applicant has not provided the r . uirLd burden of oof. le indicated that the applicant needs to prove the property is developeb e, and accurately delineate the wetlands before the site is considered for rezoning. Gary Young, 11624 SE 5th St., Suite 200, Bellevue; 98005, representing Valley Springs apartments_ LLC, spoke in support of the Aqua Barn site amendment. tie thanked staff for bringing the zoning into compliance with the existing use. Bob Johns, 1601 114th Ave. SE, #102, Bellevue., 98004, spoke on behalf of the River Valley Condominium Association concerning the Aqua Barn site amendment. Ile noted that it is important to put zoning on the property that matches the existing development for property financing purposes. Mr. Johns relayed the condominium owners' support of the amendment. Karen Finnicum, 1.302 Aberdeen Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, spoke regarding the blueberry farm and upper Kennydaie area amendments. She indicated that the creek and wetlands area never go dry, and everything in Renton is full of water. Ms. Finnicum stated that property is an investment, and it is the owner's responsibility to watch over and care for it. She expressed concern regarding the .increase in development, and stated that the peat bog on the blueberry farm property .has to he protected. David I falinen, 2115 N. 301h St_, Suite 203, Tacoma, 98403, representing Aqua Barn Ranch, Inc., submitted a letter regarding, the Aqua Barn site's 3.02 acres of commercially zoned property. He requested approval of the amendment and corresponding dcveloptrrent agreement. John Cowan, 1830 NE 24th St_, Renton, 98056, objected to the rezoning of the blueberry farm, saying the farm is a unique geaolo ical a should remain that way_ He expressed concern that the ame rnr c gent process is moving too quickly, and recommended that the City stop the process and conduct a comprehensive review of the wetlands and the needs of the upper Kennydale November 13, 2W6 tZ wi,,i (' Council N- 4inutes Pajgc 388 area. Debbie Nate-,Ivin. Sri; Kcnton Ave. S-; Renton,98057, Said the blueberry farm should not 1, ° ihe indicated that the properly can he sold as a farm - and expresso. ;' i!..iti,ippoirtmeril with the City for helping the owners to potentially wj� C. -I l.ii ..: prol'it- Ms. Natelson explained that peat hogs absorb water and t; , i.l:s .! ats? i5 of years to create.. She noted that flooding is caused by the remo, r;i of and forest cover, and urged protection ofthe headwaters. M, N:iIc1,!1n pointed out that the City could consider takim, over this rek,urlx' Ms. Conklin; :,,€i€i ;iF � I with Group 3 -Develop€Went Agreement for the Former Acl!.€a lip€r;: Pri_ perty (2006-M-7)- Noting that the Planning Comrnissiorn rec.onrmenci e' tl k-, a�,,.�following their public hearing, she explained that it only applie-, to t; c €l ice -acre area fronting Maple Valley Ilwy. prolxy5ed for CA zoning Nl Conld';ng stated that the agreement prohibits a number of ordinarily all= w� .,d !: c , in the CA zone_ including big box retail, so€ire vehicle related actin iw! J .ill industrial uses- The. ,igrecine.ni atso restricts allowed uses such a'. ;.i, i i,€ici,;ac through retail, and car washes. MS. Coil lit;`s'; i< <<i...; that the agreeniew provides that a transfer of a traffic 111ltlgatlon tie: i't't;!I bh' ,";ranted to an amount not to exceed S252,799.50 against traffic Joe upon development of the property. Additionally, the agree.ntent ic<.;1 ire . Ih;�o design standards, including common thematic elements :tnd coinntor l:!n<l ;.,,f';: •�Iomonts, be applied to all commercial development oil the site. Fhere heino € o pul-,li :•ominent on Group :3. Ms. Conkl_ing turned to Group 4 - tlighl.ands L_ w' l t' c ,i€ d Zoning Package, which includes 2006-IM-6 and 2006- 17-2, She introduced Highlands j/ ZA)ning Tasp l: i^.13. c (11::iir .h.irk Moore, who thanked task farce members and City staff fo'- lh'ir E:l loo', on this proposal. lie highlighted the proposed changes to :h1 <: , s!Ic€ ilhige (CV) land use designation, which include Sremoving R- I i � on i;;;1Aementing zone, allowing R-1.4. RMA", and RM-T as inip.lcnlentir_ /0,'' `:. ;iM1 ch.,m.inalinl; the reyuircnient of.residuntial-only I " deve:lopmes-i ; c,,.F, o. N1 121h St, Mr. Moore ,'ilso reviewed the proposed land use map an.cnd 1s ?t.. ;!rd the proposed rezone —,- Ms- CnnklifIL', proposed zoning text amendments, as follows: • Amend €h,l irr.l3.<<: n ntitig zones of the. CV land use. designation. • Remove Ih,., [ V kc-idential Bonus District_ • Adopt dk:,ic3; r ;.i.l;�iions- • Amend !sn ul thh-14 z.cne. • Amend :;: ,.A i.: di-, -.'V zone. • Add cl,,ii +'ire :. ;:ir--iwge to term-, such as pipe stem lots and affordable hous€n f, • Anicnd standards for the. R-14 •trite_ • Allow t•,v'o iypc�- oy affordable housing bonuses in the R-14 zone. Ca • Amend �;� , � I�.�hf�t��r.t standards far the CV zone. In conclusion, Ut: n},ling stated that the Planning and Development Co.nl€nittee. I Ali c:s!4k the matter on November 16. nd first and second reading of tl;e ,tirrJinarlcCa is scheduled for None t7. ?Mayor Ke«lke.r thanked the I.i J1 I': i o-� ine€nhers for all their hard work. r November 13. 20(5 h7L7M4,jd. Renton City Council Minutes Page 389 Public comment was invited. Brett. Kappenman, 1004 SW 4th Pl., Renton, 98057, on behalf of the Highlands Community Association (HCA), thanked the task farce and staff for this conclusive plan. Ile indicated that the plan reflects the concerns of the FICA, particularly the density increases and the affordahle housing issues, Mr. Kappennian noted that the plan also addresses the conforming property issue. Linda Perrine, 1157 Glennwood Ave, NE, Renton, 98056, opposed the change from Residential Multi-Fanuly (RM-F) to CV, particularly on the street facing Edmonds Ave. NE. She explained that the Renton ]-lousing Authority has purchased three acres of property in the area near McKnight Middle School, which is surrounded by single-family homes and duplexes. 'vS.s. Perrine expressed concern that when the 60 to 80 additional units per acre are built, traffic will increase significantly and parking will be problematic. She stressed that this area is not suited for high -density housing. Responding to Council inquiries, Planning Manager Rebecca Lind states{ that current zoning allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, and .V zoning allows Lip to 80 units per acre;. She indicated that the access points to the prop«se deve opment have not vet been determined. Bill Grover, PO Box 2701, Benton, 98056, owner of property at 2807 NE 16th St., stated that due to the current Highlands development morato.num, he: .is unable to obtain building permits so he can develop his property. He explained that his property was subdivided under R-10 zoning prior to the moratorium taking effect, and he was under the impression that his property would be vested. Pointing out that another Highlands moratorium area property owner obtained building permits, he asked that Council allow lihn, or subsequent owners of his property, to obtain building permits in accordance with the R-10 zoning regulations. Howard McOmber, 475 Olympia Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, member of the task. force and the Highlands Community Association, emphasized that the task force's plan was very well thought out. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY NEI-SON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC tit ARING. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORIVIAN, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. 'riine.: 9 p.ni. 17re ir:eeting was reconvened at 9'08 p.m_; roll was called; all Councilmembets present except Cortnan. (Corman arrived at 9:09 p.m.) ADMLNISTItAFIVE Chief Administrative Officer .lay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2006 and beyond. items noted included: City of' Renton employees and Rotary Club of Renton members are volunteering to serve Thanksgiving Dinner at the Senior Activity Center, which will be open from .10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on November 27, for senior citizens to enjoy a day of social and recreational actik4ties. Guests must November 13, 2 W6 Council Minute!" Pa&o 390 pick tip titiJ ci prior to November 21. The H koliday Bazaar will he held on November 17 and IS at the commkw if"2 (I.,k"n;.L�r, where: a wide variety of handcrafted iterns, will be sold by over 1 !.)1,) ; ;, nts'ort . Renton some local flooding events C]LIC to heavy rain fall; howev(-t- ivo.-ii.! City fared well and did not suffer sigtiific,,iiitdamage. AUDIENCE COMMENT Inez Peterse.;:- 110 13 \ i 295, Renton, 98057, voiced her pleasure with the Citizen COTIMIC(It' Petersen - clTorts oflt,.� i Ziming"I'ask Force. She expressed concern regarding Various Comprehensive Plan public hearings, noting that I hc ovl�iw:w,:�-, adopted may be based on an invalid public licaring process. 'Idso questioned why non -Renton residents are allowed on the CityE c;_3� wil comrnission,, Additionally, she indicated that while the Police I'WP!ir1i1',Tif 11:11, addressed SOMC PI'DWInS ECUCCI to PrOstitulion. there are znor prohl,,Tii, that need attention, especially one in an area near a church. Citizen Comment: DeMasLus - Sandel I fi,Lhiands Community Association Vice President, PC . BOX Prostitution Problems 2041, Renion91k05f!- ihanked the police for their work. on addressing sonic prostitution expressed her hope that the work will continue. Citizen Comilient: McOmber - Howard M(:(')wh%,T- -F- Olympia Ave. NE. Renton, 98056, complimented all I lighlands Area tbosc who "a,, �� of ' . :wl- nard to improve the Highlands neighborhood. He noted Redevelopment that everyon,� 1-1 1 L� <i T i s2 1 :1 to express their opinions. IvIr-McOniherstatedthal Renton is a J0,1cu to live, and one of the reasons For that is the City's diverse popkd:�!ii)n. Citizen Comment: Madson - Lori Madsoj) i 16fli St.. Renton, 99056, chair of the Comniil[Cc LO Citizen Initiative, Fireworks Keep Renwill her Measure ffiat Renton will maintain its ban on Ordinance firework" a\ '; w"ull of the, vote on Renton Proposition 1. Additionally, she thanked tho,,�. who :zi!ilpaigned against the proposition. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the J'i-,crida are.adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At fl%, il'Council President Corman, item 6-c- was rernoved for separate Council Meeting Minutes of Approval cii Gou-cil ln,-Iing rainutes of 11/0/2006. Council Concur. 111612006 Community` SCI'ViCCS: I l0liday Coinniunil-, Sci,, D,,partnim recommended approval of a contract in the. Lights Program. Sim Lighting amount of %k ith Sun Lighting for the 2006 Holiday Lights 11rt aram. Council Compreliensive Plan: 2007 Economic Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Amcndrnents, Pro- Submitted t"�o ;'.,,hcations for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan amendment Applications pre-apiplical!on r:,kicw p!occss. Refer to Planning and Developmcnt Committee. Utility: Sewer Moratorium in Economic Dk-,ck 1pmwni, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Last Renton PlatcaH PAA reconimendi.,; ii:=_ :{ public hearing on 11/27/2006 to consider extending €he rnoratoriuin,�ii :k,-Alabilities for new subdivisions in the East Renton Plateau Potcnti# Am�cxdfion Area. Council concur, Plat: Cottap ges at honey Creek, I learing iocownicndcd approval-, with conditions, of the Cottages at NE Sunset Blvd. PP-04-185 I loticy Creel, Pr,11! ni PA; Y Plat Major Amendment, 4.17 acres loewed at 4821 November 13, 210% Renton City Council Minutes Page 391 NE Sunset Blvd. Council concur. Police: Jail Inmate Il.ealth Police Department recommended approval of a contract with Occupational Services, Occupational Health tlealth Services (Public Ilospital District No. l of King County) in the amount Services of $1.76,376 for health services for Renton _jail inmates for 2007. Council concur. Transportation: May Creek Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract in the Bridge Replacement Design, amount of S146,174 with Parametrix, Inc. for design of the May Creek Bridge Parametrix Replacement Project. Council concur. Utility: Photogrammetric Utility Systems Division requested approval of an agreement with Aero-Metric, Aerial Mapping, Aero-Metric Inc. in the amount of $104,487 for Phase Ill. of the ?006 Photogrammetric Aerial Mapping Project (digital terrain model update and orthophotography production). Council concur. Utility: N 26th St/Park P1 N Utility Systems Division recommended approval of a utility easement granted Storm System Project, S1 VI by Sl Vl., LLC. owner of the Belie Vista Apartment complex, for the N. 26th St LLC Utilities Easement and Park P.l. N. Storm System Improvement Project in the amount of $46,500 and S1,000 per damaged or removed tree. Council concur_ CAG. 03-112, Maplewood Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-03-1 12, Maplewood Water Treatment Water Treatment Facility and Facility and Golf Course Improvements- and requested approval of the project, Golf Course Improvements, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $1,600.55, and release of ,Mid -Mountain Contractors retainage bond in the; amount of S496,353.39 to Mid -Mountain Contractors. Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE TI lE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 6.e. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Item 6.e. recommended adoption of a resolution that declares a six-month moratorium on Plannin : I1i hlands new development in the R-10 zone within the frlighlands study area, and sets a tan Study Area Moratoria public hearing date on 12/11/2006. Council President Corman expressed concern regarding the Iength of the moratorium. Assistant City Attorney Zanetia Fontes explained that the existing moratorium expires tomorrow (11/14/2006), and a new moratorium is being requested. She noted that the moratorium can be rescinded prior to the six- month term upon implementation of the new land use and zoning regulations. Mayor Kcolke.r pointed out that the. Highlands Zoning Task Force requested the moratorium to allow time for theimplementation of the regulations. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE ITEM 6.c. AS PRESENTED_ CARRIED. (See page 392 for resolution.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report Community Services recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the Committee appointment of 14eather Nugent to the Library board for a term expiring on Appointment: Library Board 6/1/201.1. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. l DNSP_ 2006 Neighborhood Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report regarding the Program Grants second round of the �'.006 neighborhood grant projects. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the fallowing grant award: Tiffany Park Neighborhood Association - Continue Noveinbcr 13, 2000 I:. wk, r f i;' Council Minutes Pagc 392 deticl3rlrrner:i ,i. �f i?o�!;Or Park on Seattle Pulalie fJtilities-awned rip ht-of-waa in Renton. 'I h.: ;,r,.;3 i , ,ip,zroxirnatcl v a quarter of an acre and is bordered by Puget Ur- S1_.. li .c::-i, Way SE, and SE 16th St. (` 85S). The Corrrrnitl,--,� hurli:er recommended approval of funding liar the following adrnirlist.rati� r: Ictt,rapplicrtions: 1. Earlinelon :N,,kj�hojhood Association - Annual prinlinµ for six newsletters a near C-,,riNw,, hj ncwilelter box at mailbox kiosk (5300)- 2. Kennyc:ii�: ILhorhood Association - Annual printing of quarterly newslcoi ! t.'.i ETjhut-d `oof to dooF through Itlelil 1 +2,000.. 3. Renton l 11 i fj N, is_hiii)rhood Association - Annual printing expense.; for a newslerSk°; twice a vear and diAribuled door-to-door 6427). 4. sunimefu i;.i Ik5wi :owners Association - Annual printing and postal expense': for kliumtc:rly newsletter (,%279). 5. -Tiff, 1'; r h 1 li,;;;,..>wnes's Ascitcrahon -Annual printing for a newsletter printed i%Occ <i ;iro wh and distributed door-to-door ($89)- 6. Tiffany P:ar�, .N,,i--hhorhood Association - Annual printing expenses for a ❑ewslosic:i phnte.'l, i_•,wice a year and distributed door-to-d(Lai)r 65,2). The Second _toolicatif}ns total $4,455 leaving a remaining budget of S32,746. 'MIO Vl t.t BY 'NELSON. SECONDED BY PALMER. CO(fNC1L CONCUR l 1 i ll.: t`..€ NIMIT'l EE REPORT AS AMENDED -fO RL LECT TTIE CORR1A.-" i( ;'(.) ITEM 2- AS FOLLOWS: DELE.'T'E TI11� AFORDS „door to doer'" -V,N0 l�NERT THE WORDS "through mail." CARRIED. RESOLU'TIOIVS AND The followir:. was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3840 A resolution «k t,,,a i ;:1,,clari.ng a moratorium on new development in the R-10 Planning: ilirb.landw Subarea r e i Ic .,�J ljnds study area. establishing a public hearing bate of Plan Studv Area Moratorium 2/1 112006. a termination date of 511312(1(16 for the rioratori.ur IOVFl) '-!Y C.1..A S(. N- SECONDED BY PALMER, C - ,: ° ..11.., ,ol) it .. ! i iF RESOLUTION TION AS READ, CARRIED - The was presented hor second and final rending and adoption: Ordinance #5227 An ordinan,.s. ,v-a�, fc,.td ;unending Section 6-17-3 of Chapter 17, Pawnbrokers, Legal: Pawnbroker Daily of "Title V1 { l',.ii, {. Rc-pdations) of City Corte by clarifying the transmission Transaction Requlremenls requir'ement,d llr,' D7; ,,k !ibroker's daily record of transuctioni. MOVED BY BRILRE:. S1_.C.'UNl) A) BY NELSON, COLINCiL ADOPT" 1 HE ORDINANCE AS READ. k0l-I, t :'\l,Li ALL AYES- C:'ARRILD. NEW BUSINESS MOVED B�' (..01?MAN, SECONDED BY PALMER. COUNCIL REFI-R Tl1E Planning: Kennydale TOPIC OF l l fi:. ;til_:'LNYDALE Kt,'EBERRY FARM TOCOlMiM -ME OF Blueberry Farm THE". W) i0i 1: ' Council (`;ii stated that n7arry pcoplc have suggested that the City Should lrts=perty as a park, aad he pointed out that Council has not dcfiheratcd ll,.i, iCouncilwomar. Nelson noted that Council has discussed the ma€ter isr JMr. Cormmn indicated thaL a significant policy decision smJ—, ,�- tlii� whmjld not just be discussed in executive session. Discussion t'�M-ding the app.ropriaieness of discussing this topic on the. Council flooi _ la,,,, Kuolker suggested that before going forward with the ni,oter, a legiA! hr> obtained. Assistant City Attorney bonzes concurred. rovember t 3. 2006 Renton City Council Minutes Page 393 *MOVED BY CARMAN, SBCONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL TABLE THIS MATTER UNTIL A RULING IS OBTAINED FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY_ CARRIED. AUDIENCE COWMENT In response to Howard McOmber's inquiries, 475 Olympia Ave. NE, Renton, Citizen Comment: McOmber - 98056, mayor Keolker explained that the current Iligltlands moratorium expires Highlands Subarea Plan Study tornorrow, the new highlands moratorium was declared tonight, and the public Area Moratorium hearing on the new moratorium will be held on December 11. Citizen Comment: Moore - Kirk Moore, 1901 Harrington Circle NE, Renton. 98056, explained that the Highlands Subarea Ilan Study Highlands Lotting Task Force requested the highlands moratorium, which only Area Moratorium affects the R-W zone, to allow tine for the .implementation of the land use and zoning regulations. fie noted that when the ordinances take effect, R-10 will be removed as an implementing zone, effectively eliminating the moratoriumL Councilman Clawson clarified that the moratorium only applies to Subdivision of property for new single-family residential development or accessory uses, including plats, lot line adjustments, and site plan review entitlements in the R- 10 zone within the Iighlands study area. Citizen Comment: Petersen - Inez Petersen, PO Box 1295, Renton, 98057, recommended the implementation Council Rules, Character of Council rules pertaining to character attacks during Council nt.cetings. Attacks Citizen Comment: DeMastus - Sandel DeMastus, Ili:;l-ilands Community Association Vice President and Highlands Loning'Fask Force Highland& Zoning Task Force Member, PO Box 2041, Rcnton, 98056, stated that she is very proud of the task forces accomplishments. Additionally, Ms. De;Mastus complimented the. new Renton Afaga7 irae, which is published by Councilman Law. Citizen Comment: Hicks - 2006 Comprehensive flan Amendments, Kennydale Blueberry Farm L Citizen Comment: Rider - 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Kennydale Blueberry berm J�c ADJOURN 4iENT Recorder: Michele Neumann November 13, 2006 Barbara Hicks, 1835 NE 20th St., Renton, 98056. said most of fire information pertaining to the Kennydale Blueberry Farm rezone request was based on the apl2licant's desire to.. , and financial need should not be a reason for granting a rezone. Ms. Hicks commented on the property,,.,environmental features, noting that historically it has been unbuildable. Ms. Hicks indicated that the critical areas ordinance does not always protect properties when people are determined to fill in a wetland or remove a creek flow. Susan Rider, 1835 NE 20th St., Renton, 98056, displayed photographs of properties containing filled -in wetlands, saying the action occurred under critical areas protection. She also showed photographs of the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, noting that it is suited for zoning. Ms. Rider expressed her support far the blueberry farm as a park. On another topic, she suggested that written lyrics be provided for the caroling activity at the City's holiday lighting event. MOVED 13Y NELSON, SECONDED BY CARMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN_ CARRIED. Time: 10_06 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk AGENDA REINTON CITY I Y COUNCIL 1,F(.Ft .i lea MEETING Ni)7'i'-inhk r 27, 2006 lo: ,�i.ia"{. 7:001.).M. I- CA,I_L TO ORDER AND }FLEDGE 0� 'A L` -1 (i i ANCE 2. ROLL, a. PUBLIC HEARING: Extension of moratorium on sewer sereto new subdivisions in the East Renton Plateau Potential. Annexation Area for an adclstioiial :- N months 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 5, AC)DIENCE COMMENT (Speakers prior to the Council meeting. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. Tile comment rxcno'-1 °,,ill 0e.limited to one -hall' hoar. The second audience comment period later on in theagenda in duration.) When you are recognized by the Pres-;d1n,s (ii i�: r, please vvalk to the podium and state your name anti address for the record, SPELLING )'()1. R i .AST NAME_ 6, CONSENT AGENDA 'The following items are distributed tc, Cirunc. iill,i,mbers in advance for study and review. and the recommended actions will be accepted in rn sin2.10 motion_ Any item may be. removed for further discussion if requested by a Councilrner. bt,r. a. Approval of Council meeting miniw.e: ;,t .l ;1 i 1/2006. Council concur. b. Mayor Keolker reappoints .Kristi 1-kiil 3, 517 Stnithers Ave. N., Renton 98057, Marie McPeak, 409 Je11ferson Ave.. NE, Renton, 9SOY' t6: 1= - elvn Reingold, 833 SW Sunset. Blvd., L,-56, Renton, 98057; and Eleanor Simpson, 418 'WeUl, .1 f. N., Renton, 98057, each to the MUnicipal Arts Commission for a three-year terry; t'xpiriis_' 1 `'1311200r). Council Concur. c. Administrative, J udicial and Legal ` L—v ic(: DCparLMent recommends approval of a resolution regarding the Preserve Our Plateau ,tnnemj kon election requesting that King County produce a voter's pamphlet, authorizing election and transmitting the ballot title. Council :;oncur. (See 9.b. Isar resolution.) d. Community Services Department recornmends approval of the prorx)sed 2007 Henry Moses Aquatic Center fee schedule. Rel�,,r w) ('orninittee of the Whole. e. Community Services Department approval of the proposed 2007 facility and recreation fees and rates schedule, R(:i'cr to Committee of the Whole. f. Development Services Division reGk1fW:k Ads adoption of the proposed Planned Action 01'dinazlce for Sub-distrie€ 1-B of the Boeing. Rue i n 1'hnt property; approximately 51 acres generally bounded by Logan Ave_ N._. Gar(h-n, -v e. N'.. N. St.h St.., and N. 6th St. Refer to Comm. it€ee of the Whole; set public hearing on 1211 i g. Development Services Division r� �. c,r;?E � ��°raas approval of the request to remove restrictive covenants imposed on properties icfi< €c'cl on Union Ave. NE berwveen Sunset. Blvd. NE and NE 12th St. (Dalpay Properties). Relyi and Development Committee. h. Development Services Division approval of the Windstone II Short flat as a Final Plat, nine single-:fam ly lots and one #r:wt on ;i.6 acres located north of NE lAh St. at Mt. Baker Ave. NE (FP-04-124). Council concor Sc,c 9.c. 14 resolution.) i. Economic Development, Neighbo'-Fhoodtf :;3 cl Strategic Planning Department recommends adoption of the proposed 2007 L.e'iSl.+ti c'f, Priorities. Refer to Committee of the Whole. j. Economic Development,iVeighhc�rl�rs+a 1< �r;3zi Strategic Planning Department recommends- a public hearing be set on 12/111200h to c# u:sider the proposed Maplewotxl Addition Annexation and associated zoning; 60.5 acres 1 ,<: °:i ;it ; 30th Ave. SE and Maple Valley Hwy. Council collcUr. (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) 7. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Jack Alhadeff, President, JDA C7roup, L.LC, 95 S. Tobin St., Ste. 201, Renton, 98055, requesting reimbursement in the amount of S53,750 for oversizing the water line at NW 6th St. for the Sixth Street Short Plat subdivision at the City's request (UC-06-003). Refer to Utilities Committee, 8, UNFINISHED BUSINESS Topics listed below were discussed in. Council committees during the past week. Those topics marked with an asterisk (*) may include legislation. Committee reports on any topics may be held by the Chair it further review is necessary-. a. Committee of the Whole: 2007 Water, Wastewater, and Surface Water Utility Rates` b. Finance Committee: Vouchers; Pam Curley Reconnection Fee 9. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolutions: a. Establishing facts, extending a moratorium on sewer availability for new subdivisions within the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area, and establishing a termination date (see 3.) b. Authorizing a voter's pamphlet for the 2/6/2007 Preserve Our Plateau annexation election (see. 6.c.) c. Approving the Windstone .1I Final Plat (see 6.h.) Ordinances for first reading and advancement to second and final realiU: a. 2006 amendments to the Comprehensive Platt (Council approved 11/20/2006) b. Changing zoning regulations implementing the Center Village CV Comprehensive Plan designation, including the Residential 14 (R-14) none and CV zone, and enacting design regulations (Council approved 11/20/2006) c. Carr Road properties rezone from R-8 and R-10 to R-14 (Council approved 11/20/2006) d. Springbrook Associates property rezone from R-10 to CO (Council approved 11/20/2006) e. Puget Colony Homes property rezone from R-8 to R-4 (Council approved 11/20/2006) f. Rezone within the Highlands Study Area from RMF to R-14 (Council approved 11/20/2006) g. Rezone within the Highlands Study Area from RMF to CV (Council approved 11/20/2006) h. Rezone within the Highlands Study Area from R-10 to R-14 ( Council approved 11/2012006) i. Rezone within the Highlands Study Area from R-10 to RMF (Council approved 11/2012006) j. Rezone within the Highlands Study Area from R-10 to CV (Council approved 11120/2006) k. Establishing CA zoning classification of former Aqua Barn property within the City's Potential Annexation Area (Council approved 11/20/2006) 1, Establishing R-14 zoning classification of former Aqua Barn property within the City's Potential Annexation Area (Council approved 11/20/2006) m. Upper Kennydale properties rezone from R-8 to R-4 (Council approved 11/20/2006) n. Water, Wastewater and Surface Water rate increases (see 8.a. ) Ordinances for second and final_readinn, : a. Approving the Hudson Annexation (lst reading 1 1/20/2006) K Establishing R.-8 zoning for 5.83 acres of the Hudson annexation (Is[ reading 11/20/2006) c. Establishing R-10 zoning for 6.60 acres of the Hudson Annexation (1st reading 11/20/2006 d. 2006 Budget amendment to offset increased Community Services Department overtime & labor casts (l st reading 11.120/2006) e. Public works construction permit fees increase (1st reacting 11/20/2006) f. Wireless communication facilities in residential zones City Code amendment (1st reacting 11120/2006) 1.0. NEW BUSINESS (Includes Council Committee agenda topics; call 425-430-6512 for recorded information.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENT 12. ADJOURNMENT (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) coNl %,, [.i..a 1J . OFTHE WHOLE A(iFNDA (Prec::.,dW�,- Comi it Meeting) Ctm , :d Chambers 2007 Budget and Deliberations • Hearin g assistance devices for use in the � o!mci! Ch. rn era are mailable upon request to the City Clerk • CITY COI.'N(:lI. �il:t "!'!\(;S Al l:"!'!!!:� TSI:i) (` f ; ;`, ::c zt i;fZ\;�tF;�'P_S(:CF:.95 Cf�Atih` {, 71 AND ARE RF-CAM.FC'AST Tutis. & `[']I[ fists. AT €1:00 AM tip. t ;OO PN V1 0 R; ', 11:00 ANI & TOO Nh1 ANl) SAT. & UN, AT LOO Phr & 9:U€1 pm