Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-05-159~ 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 fonn annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement fonn) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on March 10,2007. 'o~tlarton (regal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter \\"II ft'lll Subscribed and sworn to me this Ith day of March, 200Z,""O .?!:.fY.,.t'", ~ ~ •• ;l-\SSfOI'''';'~. (0 ..... ~ ./o~ '-t"~ ••• ~ ~ ....·0 ~. '*' /'? /\ C222. 2iz;; t...1)/i-:-(J) f NOTARY \'i,': :; {1 ~.-LJ L0J ~ = -1 : PUBLIC i : D Cantelon ~ ~ ... I <" - Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing iitf~1~~~8g~,/~O g P 0 N b ' v" ......... ~\.0 " . . urn er: ";';, ,.. IAI Sd\'\"'O " I, vvA P ,\' 1111",,1\'\\ CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF ORDINANCES ADOPTED BY RENTON CITY COUNCIL Following is a summary of ordinances adopted hy the Renton City Council on March 5, 2007: ORDINANCE NO. 5261 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, annexing approximately 15.4 7 acres generally located along and south of SE 95th PI., if extended, and mostly west of Union Ave. NE (132nd Ave. SE) (Perkins Annexation: A-OIl-006J. The legal description i" on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Effective: 3/1512007 ORDINANCE NO. 5262 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, establishing the zoning classifkation of approximately 15.04 acres generally located along and south of SE 95th PI., if extended, and mostly west of Union Ave. NE U32nd Ave. SE) as R-4 (Residential 4 DUlAC; Four Dwelling Units per Acre) (Perkins Annexation; A-05-(06). The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request.. Effective: 3/1512007 ORDINANCE [;263 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the impact fee collection on behalf of the school districts within the City of Renton from $5,115 per new single family home to $6,136 per new single family home in the Issaquah School District and implementing an impact fee of $4,928 per new single family home in the Kent School District. Effective: 3/1512007 ORDINANCE 5264 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, amending the 2007 Budget by transferring funds in the amount of $259,000 from the 2007 Designated Capital Reserve Fund for Park Maintenance Facility, to the Parks Maintenance Facility account, in order to provide for a temporary parks maintenance facility. Effective: 4/91'2007 ORDINANCE 5265 An ordinance of the City of Renton, Washington, changing the zoning classification of certain properties with the City of Renton (Kennydale Blueberrv Farm) from Resource Conservation (RC) zoning to Residential 4 DUlAC; Four Dwelling Units per Acre zoning (R-4J. File No. LUA-05-159 (CPA 2006-M-2l. The legal description is on file at the City Clerk's office, and is available upon request. Etlective: 3/1512007 Complete text of these ordinances is availahle at Renton City Hall, \055 South Grady Way; and posted at the Renton Public Libraries, 100 Mill Avenue South and 2902 NE 12th Street. Upon reque::;t to the City Clerk's office, (425J 430-6510, copies will also be mailed for a fCc. Bonnie 1. Walton City Clerk Published in the Renton Reporter March 10,2007. #863033 CITY OF RENTON, W ASIllNGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5265 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON (KENNYDALE BLUEBERRY FARM) FROM RESOURCE CONSERVATION (RC) ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL 4 DUlAC (R-4), FILE NO. LUA-05-159 (CPA 2006-M-2). 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 Resource Conservation; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton initiated a proceeding for change of zone classification of the property. This matter was referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and public hearing, and a public hearing was held on or about September 20, 2006, and the matter was considered by the Planning Commission, 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, WASIllNGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTIONl The following described property in the City of Renton is hereby rezoned to Residential 4 dulac as hereinbelow specified. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Administrator is hereby authorized and 1 ORDINANCE NO. 5265 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 hereofas if fully set forth herein. (Kennydale Blueberry Farm). SECTION illI. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 5th day of __ M:.;:.a:::.;r=-c=h--=--__ --', 2007. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 5th day Of ___ M_a_r.....;c_h _____ , 2007. ~ KathYK~,~ ;r~?w~ Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney ~\ 0 1(:.9, .( 0 .,.......... dI' " .'. .-'0 ~.' ,-:;.-;;.fl'\,',.r' ". .... ' ~". <> ·u.-t·.!" '~~~.\\":\'~' \j.\' . '<i'<!"'" 'C . • .... , • C1 C!, ' ... O'A.f··~:< ":" \ . '-1 ... 1 .: " Date of Publication: 3/10/2007 (summary) en o ORD.1330:2/2/07:ma 2 v ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE 5265 BLUEBERRY FARM REZONE 2006-M-02 REZONE FROM RC TO R-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract 285 ofC. D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to Seattle Division No.4, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 82, records of King County. All situate in the SE quarter of Section 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. ORDINANCE 5265 ~ o 400 800 ~;::::c d:c::t;;;;;;JdddO:::d::::~::C::::d::!3 1 : 4800 ... PARTIES OF RECORD , KENNYDALE BLUEBERRY FARM REZON LUA05-159, R, ECF Bill Grover PO Box 2701 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Maggie Liming 2109 Kennewick Place NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 988-3030 (party of record) William E. O'Connor 10402 151~Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 10/18/06 Inez Somerville Petersen 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #3 Renton, WA 98056-1978 (party of record) S.E. Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 445-0658 eml: brad827@hotmail.com (party of record) Barbara P. Hickes 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) Kathy Keolker, Mayor Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, W A 98056 CITY ,;)F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance for the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, LUA-05-159 Dear Ms. Rider: We are in receipt of your letter dated January 5, 2007 in which you withdrew you appeal in the above matter. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Rearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Ann Nielsen, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Bill Grover Inez Somerville Petersen Brad Nicholson Maggie Liming Patrick M. Ranis Barbara P. Hickes William E. O'Connor Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer ----I-OS-S-s-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-W-aO:-y---R-en-to-n-, -W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-g-0-SS---(-42-S-) -43-0--6-S-1S----~ ~ This oaoer contains 50% recvcled material. 30% oost consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE January 5, 2007 Mr. Kaufman: Concerning SEPA appeal on Kennydale Blueberry Farm, scheduled for January 11,2007 CITY OF RENTON JAN® 5 2007 CITY 6t1:~'R~EgFFICE Although I still believe that the environmental issues were not adequately addressed in the City's SEPA process, I am withdrawing my appeal. I do not want this narrow procedural issue to be used as a referendum on the rezone itself. I am sure this has been a lot of work for you already, and I appreciate your effort even though I am not going forward at this time. Thank you very much. Susan Rider 1835 NE 20 ST Renton, WA 98056 Kathy Keolker. Mayor Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, W A 98056 CITY JF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of the Detennination of Non-Significance for the Kennydale Blueberry Fann, LUA-05-159 Dear Ms. Rider: The appeal hearing in the above matter has been continued to Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 1:00 p.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, , 7~~~fi</--- Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Ann Nielsen, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Bill Grover Inez Somerville Petersen Brad Nicholson Maggie Liming Patrick M. Hanis Barbara P. Hickes William E. O'Connor Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer --------------~---------~REN··TO·N 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 -(425) 430-6515 ~ This paper contains 50% recvcled material. 30% oost consumer A HEAD OF THE CURVE January 5, 2007 Mr. Kaufman: Concerning SEP A appeal on Kennydale Blueberry Farm, scheduled for January 11, 2007 CITY OF RENTON JAN 0 5 2007 CITY ttEf:~E~~E8FF/CE Although I still believe that the environmental issues were not adequately addressed in the City'S SEPA process, I am withdrawing my appeal. I do not want this narrow procedural issue to be used as a referendum on the rezone itself. I am sure this has been a lot of work for you alre'ady, and I appreciate your effort even though I am not going forward at this time. Thank you very much. Susan Rider 1835 NE 20 ST Renton, WA 98056 Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, W A 98056 o Hearing Examiner lFred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance for the Kennydale Blueberry Fann, LUA-05-159 Dear Ms. Rider: The appeal hearing in the above matter has been continued to TRiunlrsday, January 11, 2007 at 1:00 ]p.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is lOSS S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, ?~4-I/J</- Fred Kaufinan Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Ann Nielsen, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic 1;>eve1.opinent BiB Grover . fuez Somerville Petersen Brad Nicholson Maggie Liming Patrick M. Hanis Barbara P. Hickes William E. O'Connor Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer ---'--1~0-55-S-o--'ut-h-G-ra-dy-W-aY---R-e-nt-on";". -W-as-h-in-gt-on-· -98-0-55--:--(-42-5-) 4-3~0--65-1-5----~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE Kathy Keolker, Mayor Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, W A 98056 CITY JF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance for the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, LUA-05-159 Dear Ms. Rider: The appeal hearing in the above matter has been continued to Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor ofthe 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, , ~?~4ur-l~ Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Ann Nielsen, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Bill Grover Inez Somerville Petersen Brad Nicholson Maggie Liming Patrick M. Hanis Barbara P. Hickes William E. O'Connor Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer ----10-5-5-S-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, '-W-a-sh-in-gt-o-n-9-g-05-5---(4-2-5-) 4-3-0--6-5-15----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AH EA D OF THE CURVE Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, W A 98056 CITY ->F RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal ofthe Detennination of Non-Significance for the Kennydale Blueberry Fann, LUA~05-159 Dear Ms. Rider: Due to schedule conflicts, the appeal hearing in the above matter has been rescheduled for Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 10:00 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, Fred Kaufman Hearin-g Examiner City of Renton FKJnt cc: Larry Warren; City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Bill Grover Inez Somerville Petersen Brad Nicholson Maggie Liming Patrick M. Hanis Barbara P.Hickes William E. O'Connor Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer ----1-05-5-.S-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, -'-W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-g-05-5---(4-2-5-) 4-3-0--6-5-15----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE 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 King County Journal 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 King County, Washington. The King County Journal 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 King County Journal (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 December 2, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $90.2~ -";'" '-;'. o~tlarton gal Advertising Representative, King County Journal. , . j ", '. ' !: ; ; :;' ' ... th "~.'''' , Subscribed and sworn to me this 4 day of December, 200.6, .': "'"0 Dec," f', A .J-" ': .... c:J" .. .,oi).l '6'/,,> c2 ~ )' .. :. ,·,ornrr.i,>.', O,'.' , ... J'"' • '-' c·o .. ;' ,r? b b (dQ1d:t /cD? if ,~::, .':'~.-\ -17 ,)~}:::) .• ~: .-," "' --,. , .. B D Cantelon ~J ,-;':. 1'0"0) ~j. "~ Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in;Ke!it, W!lshirig~onl I ~;-: :lI._ '. ',U 7 Co _ PO Number: \ :: -,.",.) ( 0 :., :::: .,' ...... ,. .. '. "" ",.~ ......... \ ".:. "'.J",·,.r-~"I C'0,,~" ~ :t .. --:. ,.rr""l. .. Jj J -'-"'''''',,!\\C"'\ .... ~ .)~ ... < ...... '-r/., ,.. .. ;-; .. ~' .. "a-.. '" ...... ~ :." . /: .v 0 h \ \ c ' \. . -\'" '//'r,~ U...J t ,~~.\\ .. +;;~~ ; -' ~ " ; II ; 1 i ~t \ ~ \ " .;~ ... r.~. ~~ .. " t ~!!, # NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public 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 December 12, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Kennydale Blueberry Farm AJlI2f'.a1 ffiUA05d59,.R,.ECEJ Location: 1733 NE 20th Street. Description: Appeal to the Hearing Examiner regan.ling the rezone of 3.4 acre property located at 1733 NE 20th Street from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS, Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Com- prehensive Plan Amendment. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Published in the King County ,Journal December 2, 2006. #862323 From: To: Date: Subject: Nancy, Jennifer Henning Thompson, Nancy 12/5/2006 2:21 :07 PM Sue Larson-Kinzer Here is the address: Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer 1733 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 Thanks! Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 (425) 430-7286 ph (425) 430-7300 fax jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, W A 98056 CIT"\:, >JF RENTON ·Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance for the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, LUA-05-159 Dear Ms. Rider: JOJV'--' rv 1) The appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, D~06 at <7f-'~' The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor ofthe o!" 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, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Bill Grover Inez Somerville Petersen Brad Nicholson Maggie Liming Patrick M. Ranis Barbara P. Hickes William E. O'Connor r ~(V!>~ ~ dr../ ~ ----1-05-5-S-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, -W-a-sh-in-gt-o-n-9-g-05-5---(4-2-5-) 4-3-0--6-5-15----~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE Susan Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, W A 98056 CITY JF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance for the Kennydale Blueberry Farm, LUA-05-159 Dear Ms. Rider: The appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at 1:30 p.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, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Rebecca Lind, Economic Development Bill Grover Inez Somerville Petersen Brad Nicholson Maggie Liming Patrick M. Hanis Barbara P. Hickes William E. O'Connor ----1-0S-S-S-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, -W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-8-0S-S---(4-2-S-) 4-3-0--6-S-1S----~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE ,-" ","",,,", ,--, _. -,' ,.~"",,",,,,,,>,,,,,,,,--,,,""",,"<,-,, ----¥ -,'--1 """,,".'p"'''"'''''''''''''''''''' "" ",""",,, 'w"",,,' '" ",,' ' '"',J~,~g.e,, ~ Parties of Record KENNYDALE BLUEBERRY FARM REZON Bill Grover PO Box 2701 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Maggie Liming 2109 Kennewick Place NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 988-3030 (party of record) William E. O'Connor 10402 152nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 10/18/06 LUA05-159, R, ECF Inez Somerville Petersen 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #3 Renton, WA 98056-1978 (party of record) Patrick M. Hanis Hanis Greaney, PLLC Attorneys at Law 6703 S 234th Street ste: #300 Kent, WA 98032-2900 tel: (253) 520-5000 (party of record) S.E. Rider 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 445-0658 eml: brad827@hotmail.com (party of record) Barbara P. Hickes 1835 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) .. r City of Renton Hearing Examiner Judge Fred Kaufman CITY OF REI\lTON NOV 1 32006 RECEIVED G.\TY CLERK'S OFFICE 'f ~sS-PM .Jt15 November 13,2006 I am requesting a hearing with you in order to appeal the Determination of Non-Significance issued by the City of Renton for LUA~05-159 concerning the rezone of the Kennydale Blueberry Farm. I wish to incorporate by reference all letters, documents, maps, reports, comments or other information pertaining to the decision making process by the Planning and Development Department, the Environmental Review Committee, and the Renton Planning Commission on 9/20106 and 10/4/06, including notes, audio recordings, testimony from expert witnesses, and any other environmental evidence considered in this matter. [ do not believe that the information on the environmental checklist was sufficiently detailed enough to allow the City to make a finding of fact. The conclusions of experts from the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife were not adequately addressed, and the decision was based on hearsay, assumptions, and conjecture, without even a minimal degree of scientific evidence. The environmental implications ofthis rezone have been consistently downplayed in order to provide possible economic benefit to the property owners, violating the intent ofSEPA to make the protection of critical areas the paramount consideration. There is no evidence that probable negative impacts were ever considered fully as required according to King County v Boundary Review Board. The probable effects of development on this unique wetland ~. de:as,a'ing, wha'evee cdtioal .. eas ordinances are invoked. S. Rider 1835 NE 20 ST Renton, W A 98056 CITY OF REI\1TON NOV 1 32006 The attached correspondence relative to LUA05-159, blueberry bog, relates to 9Jrf~~~~D finding. ']fine Cnty lIulls NO sdeHlltUfnc dlIahll as Ireqo.nnIredll lOy Hne GM:A to jo.nstnlfyVnfs Z~~iHll~ S OFFICE Reference "Environmental & Development Application Review Sheet" Citizens do not agree with City's rezone proposal, rezoning the blueberry bog has significant impacts, and scientific data provided by Citizens during the planning process was left out of the LUA file. This Appeal takes exception to the following: Land Use Master Application and Waivers Rezone Justification and Project Narrative Plot map of property, including the one showing wetland No scneHlltUfnc dlIata e:xists to jo.nstuify HllO umlPads to: EARTH AIR WATER PLANTS ANIMALS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAND AND SHORELINE USE HOUSING AESTETHICS HISTORIC AND CULTRUAL PRESERVATION CONSTRUCTION TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC SERVICES UTILITIES NON PROJECT ACTIONS TheIre us HllO scneHlltllfic data as Ireqo.niIredJ lOy Law to jo.nstilfy thus Irezqme. This rezone was done on "hearsay" from the property owner and from every City of Renton employee involved in LUA05-159, rezoning the CRITICAL AREA known as the KENNYDALE BLUEBERRY BOG. The City of Renton publishes guidelines on how to obtain exemptions from maintaining CRITICAL AREAS, but it does not have a lawful procedure to ensure that CRITICAL AREAS are not zoned incorrectly. TheIre is HllO scnell1tllfic data as IrequniIredll lOy ]Law to junstulfy thus IreZOHlle. I .. . . '. '. '. :.-,. j,"'!. -. . , -.,.... .... ",. ~ .~ ~ -.' CITY OF RENTON . -. . . City ClerkDi~~sion 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425·430·6510 ~k No. __ ~_1_g_lv_7 __ Description: Funds Received From: Name S,\./S-:3n, 42\der- o Copy Pee o Appeal,Pee A'cidress \ '6 .35 .. (vf±, 20 '1, .··.::it '. . City/Zip )Qc~vrht\:' ,Vvr~q~Oj(o Receipt N~, O:6'~9 Date!:' \ 1/13/ 2 Cdo ~:';' , , o Notary Service .'-::"" .'{': .. -' o ___ ~~~~ .. :-';'....,.. -:-';-:--c-:- -•• \:" :,. ~.: ", ~:, > • , ...... I I'.,~. , ( r5\ ') CtJer r I...! ; ," -"'(i '.:. '. \f~IIt';:~ ,'i~1 From: To: Date: Subject: Jennifer Henning Kaufman, Fred 11/14/20065:11 :16 PM SEPA Appeals The appeals of the SEPA determinations for the Blueberry Farm zoning and the Mobile Home Park amendments are being staffed by ED/N/SP. I conveyed your message to Rebecca Lind. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 (425) 430-7286 ph (425) 430-7300 fax jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us From: To: Subject: Fred Kaufman Jennifer Henning Re: SEPA Appeals All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. Please refrain from replying to this email as that would generate another series of printouts and replies. »> Jennifer Henning 11/14/065:11 PM >>> The appeals of the SEPA determinations for the Blueberry Farm zoning and the Mobile Home Park amendments are being staffed by ED/N/SP. I conveyed your message to Rebecca Lind. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (425) 430-7286 ph (425) 430-7300 fax jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us 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 King County Journal 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 King County, Washington. The King County Journal 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 King County Journal (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 October 30, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum Of~ B 0 Cantelon Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Washington PO Number: NOTICE OF El\\TIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRON MENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environment.al Review Com- mittee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authori ty of the Renton Municipal Code. Kennydale Blueberry l<'arm LUA05-159, R, EeF Locat.ion: 1733 NE 20th Street. 'fhe property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amend- ment. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 13, 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 l<:J.aminer are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Published in the King County Journal October 30, 2006. #861988 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Blueberry Farm PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-159, R, ECF LOCATION: 1733 NE 20lh Slr •• 1 DESCRIPTION: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R.B or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R·B would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff Is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 13, 2006. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the requlrod $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. CERTIFICATION I, ~TH G£IS£.k ,hereby certify that 3 copies of~he above docum!.~~~~'~!~a", were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places or nearby the descnbed property o_~u:. ;:>-W)~\w.,' .~t!,~" --~~ = i~." A '4A'/'I-~~ ~= j![ 0' 1Yj..'~ .... ~ DATE-(O'30 .. o C::J SIGNED: __ -Jl.::-¢;;Cl.::~~;L-~ soq:;.; .,,'" ,n~ ~ ._..!..:=--...:t.::::.---.::....:=-----~ ~ ::u _. -~ ~ , -: :~~ . . d' ." ~ /:) (J :: .... -ATfEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington resl mg ill ~ ($)\ UB\.\ <::) :A.,.0E ;/l ~ 11III .?~19-\""''''~0':-• -::A ~ 'I 1111\, I \ , .. ,« ~S-~= on the ~\ day of u).ob:L-\ . NOTARYPU L~NA _,,\\\\""""~ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DET'ERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (tiNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: KennydaJe.BlueberryFarm PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-159, R, ECF LOCATION: 1733 NE 20th Street DESCRIPTION: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amenciment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 13, 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.B. 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 WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. Blueberry Farm F'roposed Rezone o 400 800 1 ______ : 1 ~--""-.. --~~"i:--1: 4800 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION October 26, 2006 Sue Larson-Kinzer Kennydale Blueberry Farm 1733 NE 20th Street Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Kennydale Blueberry Farm LUA-05-159, R, ECF . Dear Ms. Larson-Kinzer: . CIT" 'OF RENTON Planning/B uildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Adritinistrator 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 bf the above~referenced project. The Committee,on October 23, 2006, decided that your project will be issued 'a Determiriationof Non- Significance . . ' ,"' . The' City of Renton ERC has determined,that it does not have a probable significant adverse. impact on the environment. An Environmentallmpact'Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW43:21C.030(2)(~}. This deCision was made by theERC under the authority bISection 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code,'after review of a, completed environmental checklist andOfher;inforniation; on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on reguest. ' . . .' . Appeals of the environmental, determination mLisl:be filed in, writing on or, before 5:00 PM on November 13, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing,t()gether with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Rentpn,1055SouthGrady Way, Renton, WA 98055,Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City, of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8"110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal processrpaybe obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination isappealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of theabove, please call me at (425) 43Q':'6578 .. ' For theEnvi~onmet'1tal Review Committee, Erika Conkling· Associate Planner cc: Bill Grover, 'Inez Somerville Petersen, Brad Nicholson, Maggie Liming, Patrick Hl:uli!i,' Barbara Hickes, William O"Connor,S.E. Rider/Parties of Record '. , . ..... . '.' . ~--~--'-'---1O-'-5-5-:-S-0u-th-'-G-ra-d-Y-W-a;;"'Y-:'-""R-:-~n-t-on-,--w":"'a-sh":"'i-ngt-:'· 0"'" n----:.98-0-5:-5.-----~· ~ ~,.. ,·AHEAD· 0.F THE CURVE ~ Thispaperconiains50%recydecfmaterial,,30%posicansumer '. " October 26,2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review'Section , ,PO Bbx47703 , , Olympia, WA 9850~·7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations CIT1-_OF RENTON ~ , , PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E:. Administrator Transmitted herewith are copies of the Environmental Determinations for the foliowing projects revieWed Dy~heEnvironmental Review Committee (ERC) on October 23, 2006: ' DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, , PROJECTNAME:Chee CPA and Rezone (CPA 2006-M~01) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-151', R, ECF' PROJECT NAME: Sprinbrook Offic~,(CPA 2006-M-04) PROJECT NUMBER: ' ,LUA05-158,'R, ECF' PROJECT NAME: ' Kennydale Blueberry Farm (CPA 20()~-M~02) ,PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-159,R, ECF ' ' PROJECT NAME: 'R,ivera and,Citylniti,ated ZoningMapAmen~:lment (CPA 2006~M-03) ',' PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-163, R, ECF:; , ' ' PROJECT NAME: Puget Colony Rezone (CPA 2006-M-O~) , PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-120, R, ECF, " PROJECT NAME: ' Highlands R-10Zoning Text Amendmeots PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-121, ECF " " , , PROJECT NAME: Upper Kennydale Rezone (CPA 2006;.;M~08) PROJECT NUMBER:, "LUA06-122~ R,ECF' ' PROJECT ~AME:, Transportation CIP CPA (CPA 2006-T-4), ~ROJECT·:NUMBER·: j~ LUA06-123~· E'CF . . ~, ." PROJECT NAME: ' PROJECT ~UMBER: , ' , ,Land Use and Community Design-Element CPA (CPA 2006~T-3) LUA06-124, ECF" ' , . PROJECT .NAME: ' 'Mobile Horne Park Text Amendments (CPA2,006-T-5) PROJECf.NUMBER:' 'L.UA06~125, ECF ' App.eals of the, environmellt~I,detertnination must be filed in', vi.:riting "'On,: 9r' 'before 5:0'0, PM 9n :'Nov.ember 13, 2006. AppeCils:m,ustbefiledin writing together with.the, required,$75,OO'applicatiqn fee ,;with:HeCiring Examiner',City'q( Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,R~,ritcin;W,l(98()55, Appeals to the '", "" " Examirierare governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section4·8~110~~,' Additional information regarding the appeal ,process',may be obtained from the Renfol!City,Clerk:s Office, (425)' 430·6510, '. , : .' . .' . . -." '. " . , ," ( ---:----,------:--,-1-'-~5-5-S-0U~th-' '-Gr':"a"":'d-"'y-W"a-y-. R~e-n-to-:-'n':"'; W-as-h-'in-gt-on-9-S0-5-'-S-'----'--,...;-'-'--~ •. AHEA'D OF TH'E CURVE', ; ! " ~ This paper contains ~% recycled material, '30% ~ co';sumer ,-- ", ~ .. ~ . !.' '" ,r .:: .. " ··0 Environmentar Determinatiom" . Page 2 '., If yoU-havEl any questions, please call me (l't(425)430-6578 .. 'For the Envii"ohmental Review Committee, . . ,'. ," '. ' . . ·~I;~{f Erikci"Conkling Associate Planner cC:Kirig County Wastewater Treatment Division " VVDF.W;StewartReinbold . David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT,'Nortliwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office .' " Kare,nWaltei: Fisheries, Muckleshoqt Indian ·.Tribe (.Ordinance) Melissa Cahiert,.Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program' . US. Anny Corp.'·of Engin'eers . . ". . . ;.' t Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology,& Historic Pres~rvation .' ,'. -'. ': -, . - , EnClosure'. . -~. . .f, ",; . ,', .," ( ~' '. :. " ., ". ',' ".' ..... :. J '.' ", - '1 :':' I" ',,' . .! .~. " ! . ~. :c.: {. • .' I "". • .l~_ .: -"., .. . 'I ... . f..' •• '," , , " . '. . t, , ". ~ , ~,' '.~ ~'. " . '-, , ,'.. . . ... " CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA05-159, R, ECF APPLICANT: Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Blueberry Farm (CPA 2006-M-02) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 1733 NE 20th Street City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 13, 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 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Higashiyama, Administr Community Services October 30, 2006 October 23,2006 10/t?/O{ DatE! I . David Daniels, Fire Chief Fire Department ~n~ EDNSP STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DA TE Project Name Applicant File Number Project Manager Project Description Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Site Area SITE MAP See below. Project Location Map October 23, 2006 Kennydale Blueberry Farm (CPA 2006-M-02) Darrell Kinzer and Susan Larson-Kinzer LUA05-159, R, ECF Erika Conkling The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 1733 NE 20th Street N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf N/A 3.4 acres Total Building Area gsf N/A ERe Report.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department . Kennyddle Blueberry Farm Rezone REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 23, 2006 I .... ........... -. , ......... . -' .• -.. -J I .... .. Blueberry Farm Proposed Rezone ~ tio;:onumi~lloM!lapma'll,Nei~.~PllWlniq O~~~ ERe Report.doc ironmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-156, R, ECF . I ~-.-~. 'l-I-;r~~'--r·lr·Jr'---I 1 ""'1' ~"-' t ..... i' i II ' . c::::J R-4 D R-8 0 I 400 I 1 : 4800 Page2of3 :c:cc: f City of Renton EDNSP Department . Kennyddle Blueberry Farm Rezone REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 23. 2006 B. RECOMMENDA TlON 'ironmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-156, R, ECF Page 3 of3 Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: x DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGA TlON MEASURES None required for this non-project action. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following non-project environmental review addresses only those impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. CRITICAL AREAS Impacts: According to RMC 4-8-120C, there is no requirement for the submittal of a wetland delineation or wetland assessment for an application for rezone or for the environmental review for a non project action. Wetland studies are invoked only for project specific actions. RMC 4-3-050M(b)i authorizes the City to use its Wetland Inventory maps to determine the approximate location and extent of wetlands in the City. There are potential wetland areas on the property proposed for rezone. The extent of the potential wetland boundary is not known, but it is estimated at approximately two acres of this 3.4 acre property based on the City's Wetland Inventory maps. State officials and neighbors have speculated that this property contains the necessary components of a rare peat wetland, but no formal determination has been made by a qualified professional. Critical Areas regulations are applicable to all wetlands in the City limits. Regardless of formal delineation and classification, Critical Areas regulations are designed to protect wetland areas. This is a non-project proposal and no building or development is proposed. The proposed change in the zoning could allow the owner of this property to apply for a permit to build additional dwelling units on this property, or to subdivide the property. A wetland study would be required at the time of application for any project specific proposal. Future development would only be allowed on the developable portion of the property and not on critical areas or critical areas buffers. Mitigation Measures: None for this non-project action, but wetland studies would be required at the time of any project specific proposal. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ...lL-Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 13,2006. 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. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ERC Report.doc AMENDMENT 2006-M-2 -BLUEBERRY FARM DESCRIPTION: The owners of the Kennydale Blueberry Fann have requested a rezone from the current Resource Conservation (RC) zoning to either Residential-four units per net acre (R-4) or Residential-eight units per net acre (R-8). A rezone to R-8 would require an amendment to the Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan from a designation of Residential Low Density (RLD) to Single Family Residential (SFR). ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. What is the appropriate zoning for the Blueberry Fann? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: The Kennydale Blueberry Fann should be rezoned from RC to R-4. ANALYSIS: The Kennydale Blueberry Fann was originally planted in the 1940s and has been in service as au-pick fann ever since. Sue Larson-Kinzer and Darrell Kinzer, the current owners of the fann, have owned and operated the fann for the last two decades. They approached the City in Fall 2005 about rezoning their property. Since the Blueberry Fann was already part of a larger City-initiated review of lands designated as RLD, staff notified neighbors and began a preliminary analysis of the proposed rezone. Several interested parties submitted comments both for and against the potential rezone of the property. It was not possible to complete a thorough analysis prior to end of the year, so the issue was held for formal application and consideration during the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. The Blueberry Fann owners submitted a formal application. Their request for rezone is based upon the argument that the fann is currently spot zoned, and the current RC zoning has failed to protect it from incompatible land use changes in the surrounding area. Also, the applicants argue, the Comprehensive Plan Vision directs development at higher density than is allowed in the RC zone. There has been a fair amount of land use change in the area surrounding the Blueberry Fann in the last two decades. Development around the fann has been allowed at the R-8 zoning standard. Increased impervious surface has increased storm water runoff. Development ofthe Heritage Glen plat, immediately northeast of the Blueberry Fann, required a major dewatering in order to construct basic infrastructure. The City eliminated the Higate lift-station and installed new sewer infrastructure. In total, piecemeal development has altered the hydrology of the area. At the Blueberry Fann, these changes have affected the viability of the blueberry bushes and made it difficult to continue the operation of the fann as a business. RC zoning was created in 1992 as a way to protect and preserve lands for semi-rural agricultural use. Protection of critical areas and public open spaces was mentioned, but the primary purpose of the zone was to protect agricultural lands from adjacent uses which may interfere with the continued use of land for the production of food. The Blueberry Fann was appropriately zoned RC at this time, based upon its agricultural use for the production of food. However, the purpose of the RC zone has changed over time. Protection of critical areas and open spaces is the primary purpose of the zone today. The continuation of small-scale fanning operations is mentioned, but the language requiring the protection of agricultural H:\EONSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2006\2006 Map Amendments\2006-M-02 Blueberry Farm\Issue Paper (9-06).doc lands from adjacent uses was repealed in 1995. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan now directs the City to minimize the effects of agriculture on adjacent residential uses in Policy LU-139. At present time, the RC zone is only appropriate for the property if it continues to operate as a small scale agricultural operation, a public open space, or to protect a critical area. Property owners have concluded that their small u-pick business is no longer feasible in this location. Public open space may be a viable option if the City, or other community group, purchased the property and devoted the time and funds necessary to continue the use of the property as a public amenity. Absent the continuation of the use as a farming operation or a public amenity, however, the only purpose for which the property can remain zoned RC is for the protection of critical areas. Critical areas are likely to exist on the property. The headwaters of Kennydale Creek, although not shown on any map, are attributed to this area of upper Kennydale. A class four stream runs through a hand dug ditch along the east and north sides of the property. According to critical areas regulations, a class four stream requires a 35 ft. buffer. In the City's mapping inventory, a potential wetland area is shown, covering a little more than one third of the property. The mapped wetland encompasses nearly all of the stream area on the Blueberry Farm property. However, the map also shows the potential wetland covering a much wider area, including several parcels in both the Higate and Heritage Glen plats, as well as covering about 350 ft. of NE 20th Street. Clearly, the presence and extent of a wetland in this area is in question. A fair amount of work has been done to classify and delineate that portion of the wetland that lies north of the Blueberry Farm and NE 20th Street. In 1987, the Pohl short plat across the street from the Blueberry Farm noted the presence of a wetland and the generally poor drainage conditions. Regulations at that time did not require delineation of the wetland. In 1990, the environmental checklist from a City initiated culvert replacement did not characterize the area of the culvert, which takes the stream under NE 20th Street, as environmentally sensitive. A 1994 application for a long plat across the street from the Blueberry Farm by W A Developers, Inc. references a wetland report which found a Category ill wetland on that property. Work done in 1999 and 2000 for the elimination of the Higate Lift Station, found some Category IT wetlands on the north side of NE 20th Street as well. No wetland was found in the area of the Heritage Glen plat, but a native growth protection easement was set aside for the buffer of the wetlands previously delineated on adjacent property. There has never been a wetland report or delineation done south of NE 20th Street in the area of the Higate plat or the Blueberry Farm. The Higate plat was fully developed before wetland protection was required. A sizable utilities and open space easement, about an acre in size, was created as part of the Higate plat. It shares almost the entire eastern property line of the Blueberry Farm. There doesn't appear to have been any regular maintenance or upkeep of this easement and a wintertime visit revealed that the easement appears to take up some of the area's storm water. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) did a preliminary evaluation of the Blueberry Farm property for use as off-site wetland mitigation as part of the Interstate 405 widening project. Based on aerial photos and observation from NE 20th Street, an experienced biologist with WSDOT indicated that the Blueberry Farm may H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2006\2006 Map Amendments\2006-M-02 Blueberry Fann\Issue Paper (9-06).doc contain a rare peat wetland habitat, or at the very least, had preserved some of the original peat and had conditions favorable to restoration. A geotechnical report on the property, done in 1983 for Schneider Homes, Inc. did find the presence of peat soils and a high water table, and the WSDOT analysis is consistent with this. The Blueberry Farm does contain a pond near the back of the property, located out of the mapped wetland area. However, it is important to note that the WSDOT biologist did not visit the site, take soil samples, or do any formal classification or delineation of the property. Given this information, the following conclusions can be drawn. This area of Kennydale probably had many wetland features prior to residential development. Those features and functions have been lost over time as the land has been put to use for housing, roads, and agriculture. Small areas of wetlands do exist on some properties, but they have been classified as Category II and III, meaning that they have been disturbed and have reduced function. There may be a wetland on the Blueberry Farm, but without a formal delineation it is difficult to determine how much of the property could be a wetland and what type of wetland it may be. Wetland determinations are not required for rezones or Comprehensive Plan amendments. However, calculating the developable area of a parcel using the mapped data is standard review procedure. The mapped wetland area is highly problematic and clearly does not accurately represent the wetlands in that area. It likely over estimates the size of any wetland area on the Blueberry Farm. On the map the wetland area is shown as consolidated on the property-taking up most of the eastern half of the parcel. Since the property has been in use for agriculture for more than 60 years, any wetland on the property is likely to be disturbed and have limited functionality. If the entire mapped wetland area was considered a Category III wetland, it would be required to have a 25 ft. buffer, leaving a developable area of 1.5 acres. If the entire mapped wetland area was considered a Category II wetland, it would be required to have a 50 ft. buffer, leaving a developable area of 1.15 acres. Based on the available information on critical areas, the Comprehensive Plan Residential Single Family (RSF) designation is not appropriate for this property. It is the purpose of the RSF designation to build larger subdivisions, rehabilitate existing housing, and provide infill development. None of these purposes would be served by rezoning the Blueberry Farm. Alternatively, the purpose of the RLD designation, the development of lower intensity residential uses where land is constrained by sensitive areas, suits the property perfectly. Thus, since the property is already in the RLD designation, a Comprehensive Plan change for the Blueberry Farm property is not warranted. There are three zones that implement the RLD Comprehensive Plan designation: the RC zone, the Residential-one unit per net acre (R-1) zone, and the Residential-four units per net acre (R-4) zone. Policy LU-135 in the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance for the mapping of these three zones. For the purpose of mapping/our dwelling units per net acre (4-dulac) zone areas as contrasted with lower density Residential 1 (R-I) and Resource Conservation (RC_ areas, the prevalence of significant environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean: H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2006\2006 Map Amendments\2006-M-02 Blueberry Fann\Issue Paper (9-06).doc 1) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area; 2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist; 3) The location of the sensitive area results in a non-contiguous development pattern; 4) The area is a designated urban separator; or 5) Application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setback/buffers and/or net density definition would create a situation where the allowed density could not be accommodated on the remaining net developable area without modifications or variances to other standards. The Blueberry Fann has not been designated as an urban separator in the Countywide Planning Policies, so criterion four does not apply. Mapped critical areas cover about 35 percent of gross area of the property. However, even accounting for possible buffers, the mapped developable area is a consolidated chunk of land including the entire west half of the parcel. There is potential access to over an acre of contiguous, developable land. Under an R-4 standard, between one and four dwelling units per acre would be allowed the potentially developable portion of the property. Given the consolidated nature of the mapped wetland, buffering and shielding of the critical area as required by the Renton Critical Areas Ordinance, should adequately protect it. Based on a review of the criteria in policy LU-135, R-4 is the most appropriate zone for the Blueberry Fann property. In the purpose statement of the RLD land use designation, it notes that lands that can be adequately protected by critical areas regulations should be zoned R-4. R-4 zoning of the Blueberry Fann also meets the purpose of the zone as established in RMC 4-2-020 D. This section notes that the R-4 zone is established to promote single-family residences in urban neighborhoods with amenity open spaces. It is appropriate, then, to consider rezoning the Blueberry Fann property to R-4. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: The Blueberry Fann property currently contains a single dwelling unit. Given a likely critical area constraint that would leave approximately 1.50 net acres, under R-4 zoning, the property would have capacity for approximately four dwelling units under standard buildable lands analysis. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The proposed rezone supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan. Objective LU-DD calls for the Low Density Residential designation to support a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to lands constrained by critical areas at urban levels of development when possible. ZONING CONCURRENCY: This request complies with the decision criteria for rezones in RMC 4-9-180. It is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning is consistent with the adopted policies for the RLD land use designation. Although the Blueberry Fann property was reviewed during the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle, the issue of its rezone was specifically held over until this year. Zoning of the property and the surrounding neighborhood has not been considered since 1992, when the Blueberry Fann was zoned RC. H:\EONSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2006\2006 Map Amendments\2006-M-02 Blueberry Fann\Issue Paper (9-06).doc CONCLUSION: Unless the Blueberry Fann property was to continue to be used for agriculture, or to be used as an open space, it does not fit with the RC zone. The property best meets the policies and purposes of the R-4 zone. H:\EDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments\2006\2006 Map Amendments\2006-M-02 Blueberry Fann\Issue Paper (9-06).doc r1~ 7 \ '-.l....../ / > l < t:L ~ I..---- / -en ,; .;' h f---- (]1 , '-L/ 1:·1',:, "\ U ,/ c ~ " f----~. < 1\ r-- U K . : ; , -! ; I{ ~ ~ ) \ ~ ; ~ I- 1. .. , 0 I I---~ v ~ r-'\ / i )' "~"-rll ... .1 ,. \' ~ .. ,~ If. ! ~ " ~ f,; " ' . -, , , II ',' .. , ..•. ' Ii ....... '. /f/ 0~ -,/ - ~ ( \ ( o -~ - < I--- -I-- ( 0) ~ -\ \r-~ -~ , ~ l "-( ~ \ I 1 I \ Blueberry Farms e Eoon~lc Deve1~mmt, Nelghbcnboodl & strategic: Pluming • tR ~D:::.!~cbllU'lrat« 211,,2006 u ./ ./ \. I I \ 25' Buffer - 1 .50 acres of developable land 50' Buffer -1.15 acres of developable land ,----f--1\ \ r-f-- '----- '--- I I I o 400 t I""" "'''''t"""",,,;F'''''''''''''''''''''''''l ~ 200 1 : 2400 i " i I· I I ) STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office. 3190 16{/" Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 October 16, 2006 Ms. Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Dear Ms Conkling: RE: Comments on SEPA DNS for Kennydale Blueberry Farm Rezone, LUA05-159 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed DNS dated October 2, 2006, for a rezone of the Kennydale Blueberry Fann property from Resource Conservation (RC) to R-4. The Department of Ecology believes that the proposed rezone will pose a significant risk of adverse impacts to wetlands on this property, and to the beneficial functions that the wetlands provide to the watershed. The DNS does not adequately evaluate this risk. The SEPA checklist attached to the DNS notes that the lower two-thirds of the parcel is covered by 1 to 5 feet of "soft peat." The Soil Survey of King County Area (Snyder et al. 1973) maps this soil as Shalcar muck, a hydric (wetland) soil. Evidence indicates that the site holds a large remnant of an important wetland system maintained by shallow groundwater and by a spring that flows out of the adjoining greenbelt on the east. As the SEPA checklist notes, the surface water from this spring flows north via a ditch just inside the parcel's eastern border and ultimately through Kennydale to Lake Washington. A "Special Focus Issue Paper on the Kennydale Blueberry Fann" (Issue Paper) was included in the infonnation packet for the Renton Planning Commission meeting of November 2,2005. This Issue Paper noted that the "soft soils" covering about two-thirds of the parcel would have to be "removed and replaced with suitable fill" in order to build homes on the site. The Issue Paper states that "a wetland area mapped over a portion of the Blueberry farm" is the basis for requesting a wetland evaluation. After discussing the site's potential for residential development, the issue paper cautions: "Depending upon the results of a wetland analysis, this type of activity may not be allowed under current regulations." The paper concludes that existing infonnation on drainage or wetland conditions is outdated and that updated infonnation is needed before a zoning decision can be made. We agree. Ms. Erika Conkling September 16, 2006 Page 2 Unfortunately, the proposed DNS says nothing about the updated information that the issue paper said was needed. The proposed action could very well lead to the destruction of wetlands, including replacement of organic soils by fill. Muck and peat soils are extraordinarily effective at improving water quality by removing toxins and other pollutants. They also retain disproportionate volumes of stonnwater and release it slowly. Such functions are vital to the health ofthe watershed, the municipal infrastructure, and Lake Washington. A delineation, rating, and function assessment of wetlands on the parcel should be a prerequisite to any land-use decision that could affect their fate. The wetland study should also evaluate the effect of "improvements in drainage of the property," including "a major dewatering in 2004," which the issue paper said the property owner reported. What was the nature of the dewatering? Could it have resulted in adverse impacts to aquatic resources or other sensitive areas? Did it involve work below the ordinary high water mark or divert or change the natural flow? Thank you for taking these concerns into account. Please call or e-mail me with any questions or for further discussion. I can be reached at (425) 649-4447. Sincerely, Richard K. Robohm Wetland Specialist RKR:rc cc: Anne Fritzel, Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Pam Erstad, Washington Department ofFish & Wildlife IeffDavis, Washington Department ofFish & Wildlife Donna Bunten, Ecology CAO Review Coordinator Erik Stockdale, Wetlands Specialist, Ecology Northwest Regional Office ) State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 4 Office: 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard -Mill Creek,Washlngton 98012 -(425) 775-1311 October 12, 2006 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CI1Y OF RENTON OCT 1 6 2006 RECEIVED Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Ms. Conkling: SUBJECT: Proposed Determination or Non-significance; KennydaJe Blueberry Farm Rezone, File Number CPA 2006-M-02, KennY,dale Creek and Its Associated Wetlands, Tributary to Lake Washington - The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced Proposed Determination of Non-significance, and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered if the project progresses. A Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A; RCW 77.55.0211W AC 220:-110; to be issued by WDFW) would be required for activity affecting the natural bed or flow of the stream or its associated wetlands. The stream on the property is the upper end of Kennydale Creek and should be classified at least as a class 2 perennial stream. It supports crayfish and other unidentified fish species. The wetlands are a rare peat soil based system of very 'high value, especially if restored and given adequate buffering. WDFW believes it is imperative to preserve and protect these wetlands, as directed by the Growth Management Act (GMA), and it would be contradictory to the GMA to rezone this property and allow dense residential development, particularly without a carefully planned and implemented mitigation plan. Development of the property without such a plan would result in disruption of the natural drainage and the degradation of the quality of the stream and wetland system. WDFW also notes the buffers widths being considered are inadequate to protect this very sensitive system. Furthermore, WDFW believes it would be premature to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed rezone withollta proper wetland delineation and a full biological evaluation. The SEP A checklist is lacking key information concerning fish and Wildlife use of the site and the· area near the site. A variety of wildlife species (including great blue herons, osprey, pileated woodpeckers, deer, ducks, and shorebirds) have been observed using this area for habitat, but . Ms. Conkling . October 12, 2006 Page 2 \ that is not mentioned in the SEP A checklist. Nor does the checklist even mention the existence of the wetland. As it is, there is no scientific basis by which to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed rezone ~n the wetland or stream system or the fishlife and wildlife which use it for habitat. This proposal should not proceed without further study and a plan to restore the wetland and its buffers. WDFW appreciates the cooperation of the City of Renton in our efforts to preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state of Washington. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 649-7042 or fisheldf@dfw.wa.gov. Sincerely, Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist LF:lf:CORBlueberryFarm.s.doc cc: WDFW SEP A Coordinator Ecology comments on propose~t rezone of Kennydale Blueberry Farm Page 1 of2 Erika Conkling -State agency comments on proposed rezone of Kennydale Blueberry Farm , bdf 8&#$ %ZW co :'& II t!iiill!M§\!WSiWbHW .. i$'@ aP ; F" iN M*'MP'f'¥h )\ & c ". 9 W¥W$§i#@#\i§WQ%'" +, " ,.,.! ,.,.&& MOOg' # fbi· '*? $?# 4&%%&#9*; ¥tlJ j 61 It ,( wfd From: To: Date: Subject: cc: Erika Conkling fisheldf@drw.wa.gov; Robohm, Richard 10/18/2006 11:29 AM State agency comments on proposed rezone of Kennydale Blueberry Farm Bunten, Donna; Davis, Jeff; erstapke@dfw.wa.gov; Fritzel, Anne (CTED); Lind, Rebecca; Stockdale, Erik (ECY) Thank you for your comment letter received on the Notice of Application and Proposed DNS for the rezone of the Kennydale Blueberry Farm. Attached are additional materials for your review. Although the comment period for this proposal has formally expired, our reviewing authority is meeting on Monday (October 23) and would be highly interested in any further comments that you make. After reading through your comments, there is a clear assumption that the City is planning to allow full development on the site of the Blueberry farm. This is simply not true. The proposed rezone would allow the owner of the parcel some use of the portion of the property that is developable, while protecting the majority of the acreage through our critical areas ordinance. At present time, the owner of the property has extremely limited use of the property, even that portion that is "high and dry". It has come to my attention that your office was alerted to this application by a private citizen, a neighbor of the proposed rezone. This neighbor appears to have provided supplemental materials for your review. Such materials likely did not represent the full research and work done by the City on this proposal. The City was never contacted by you or your agency for supplemental file materials that would have provided the full complement of background information necessary for comment. We feel this was an error. I am providing additional information for your review. Included is a series of issue papers on this proposal and a related proposal to rezone a portion of the surrounding. In these issue papers, I wish to draw your attention to two file:/ /e: \Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp \GW} 0000 I.HTM 1011812006 Ecology comments on propose~,rezone of Kennydale Blueberry Fann ~ Page 2 of2 ) areas. First is the fact that even if the least restrictive of our critical areas regulations were applied to this site (in the form of a class three wetland buffer), approximately two acres of potential wetland area would be preserved. Second, the City proposed to down zone approximately 50 acres surrounding the Blueberry Farm parcel from R-8 (eight units per acre residential zoning) to R -4 (four units per acre residential zoning) in attempt to reduce the intensity of development around this resource to provide additional protection. Unfortunately, we received no comments in support of this proposal at all, which has significant implications for the long term survival of the potential wetland resources on the Blueberry Farm site and in the neighborhood as a whole. It is not often that the City receives comment letters from state agencies. We understand that you receive many notices and it is not possible to respond to each. However, when you take interest in a proposal or land use action in our jurisdiction, it would be nice to use that opportunity to establish a working relationship. There are times where it would be nice to consult with you on these types of complex issues. I would like to extend an invitation to you to please feel free to contact us for information and additional materials in the future. It is much easier to come up with appropriate, context specific solutions to such complex issues if we can bridge the gap between our agenCIes. Thank you for you time. Erika Erika L. Conkling Senior Planner voice: (425) 430-6578 fax: (425) 430-7300 City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 file:1 Ie: \Documents and Settings\econkling\Local Settings\ Temp \GW} 0000 I.HTM 10/18/2006 City .. enton Department of Planning / Building / PL _ ' Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (( 1..l "'_ .£J!!!Y ..(...-COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-159, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCT()B£Q.2 ?~ APPLICANT: Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer PROJECT MANAGER: bka ConklinQ 7'\ PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Blueberry Farm CPA & Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Kayrenkr,u; ... " --::::r-::-vJ SITE AREA: 3.4 acres BUILDING AREA (Qross): N/A \ V <11" LOCATION: 1733 NE 20th Street I WORK ORDER NO: 77526 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impact~, Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water LiqhVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment tO,OOO Feet 14,000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Norfhwest Regiol1al Ot/ice 0 3/90 160ft, A vel/ue Sf:" 0 Bellevue, Washington 98(){)8-5452 0 (425) 649-7000 October 16, 2006 Ms. Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Dear Ms Conkling: RE: Comments on SEPA DNS for Kennydale Blueberry Farm Rezone, LUA05-159 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed DNS dated October 2, 2006, for a rezone of the Kennydale Blueberry Farm property from Resource Conservation (RC) to R-4. The Department of Ecology believes that the proposed rezone will pose a significant risk of adverse impacts to wetlands on this property, and to the beneficial functions that the wetlands provide to the watershed. The DNS does not adequately evaluate this risk. The SEP A checklist attached to the DNS notes that the lower two-thirds of the parcel is covered by 1 to 5 feet of "soft peat." The Soil Survey of King County Area (Snyder et al. 1973) maps this soil as Shalcar muck, a hydric (wetland) soil. Evidence indicates that the site holds a large remnant of an important wetland system maintained by shallow groundwater and by a spring that flows out of the adjoining greenbelt on the east. As the SEPA checklist notes, the surface water from this spring flows north via a ditch just inside the parcel's eastern border and ultimately through Kennydale to Lake Washington. A "Special Focus Issue Paper on the Kennydale Blueberry Farm" (Issue Paper) was included in the information packet for the Renton Planning Commission meeting of November 2,2005. This Issue Paper noted that the "soft soils" covering about two-thirds of the parcel would have to be "removed and replaced with suitable fill" in order to build homes on the site. The Issue Paper states that "a wetland area mapped over a portion of the Blueberry farm" is the basis for requesting a wetland evaluation. After discussing the site's potential for residential development, the issue paper cautions: "Depending upon the results of a wetland analysis, this type of activity may not be allowed under current regulations." The paper concludes that existing informatio.n on drainage or wetland conditions is outdated and that updated information is needed before azoning decision can be made. We agree. Ms. Erika Conkling September 16, 2006 Page 2 Unfortunately, the proposed DNS says nothing about the updated information that the issue paper said was needed. The proposed action could very well lead to the destruction of wetlands, including replacement of organic soils by fill. Muck and peat soils are extraordinarily effective at improving water quality by removing toxins and other pollutants. They also retain disproportionate volumes of stormwater and release it slowly. Such functions are vital to the health of the watershed, the municipal infrastructure, and Lake Washington. A delineation, rating, and function assessment of wetlands on the parcel should be a prerequisite to any land-use decision that could affect their fate. The wetland study should also evaluate the effect of "improvements in drainage of the property," including "a major dewatering in 2004," which the issue paper said the property owner reported. What was the nature of the dewatering? Could it have resulted in adverse impacts to aquatic resources or other sensitive areas? Did it involve work below the ordinary high water mark or divert or change the natural flow? Thank you for taking these concerns into account. Please call or e-mail me with any questions or for further discussion. I can be reached at (425) 649-4447. Sincerely, Richard K. Robohm Wetland Special ist RKR:rc cc: Anne Fritzel, Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Pam Erstad, Washington Department ofFish & Wildlife Jeff Davis, Washington Department ofFish & Wildlife Donna Buqten, Ecology CAO Review Coordinator Erik Stock~ale, Wetlands Specialist, Ecology Northwest Regional Office Erika Conkling, Senior Planner ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBORJ.J()()!1S Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning lli&lil· !if1t.TEC: •. ~'~::::;,_._ 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 October 14, 2006 Subject: Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Kennydale Blueberry Farm Reference/CPA 2006-M..:02 Dear Ms. Conkling: I have previously submitted statements to the Planning Commission and Planning Committee about the rezone involving the Kennydale Blueberry Farm. I request that the City not issue the Optional Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) for the following reasons: It appears that the City of Renton is on a fast track to make a decision on the rezone for the Kennydale Blueberry Farm purely for economic reasons that would solely benefit the owners of the Blueberry Farm. In Mrs. Kinzer's application she states "if the land remains RC it will have considerable less value than it is it has a higher zoning. And even if it stays RC the chances are some developer will still purchase it and go thorough the zoning change process." Mrs. Kinzer also states that she" has no intention of developing this property ourselves. We do plan to sell it .. " A DNS would facilitate this rush to judgment and would eliminate the obvious need for an environmental impact statement on this property. The environmental impact of developing a rare and environmentally valuable peat bog such as the one that is on this property should be considered with care and is not to be taken lightly. Once development occurs in this rare setting it is irreversible to the environment. This is an opportunity for the city to show that they value protection of the environment as much as development .. It is not in the public interest to foist the responsibility for determining the feasibility of development of this property on some future owner, but rather it is in the interest of the City to find out once and for all what is out there. A thorough environmental impact study would set the proper stage for any future development in the areas involving wetlands. I urge you to ignore Mrs. Kinzer's purely economic appeal and require a full and through evaluation of this property prior to any change from the established zonmg. Sincerely, :tbe-/V;-ct/'k:J -f2?-#C~h7 Barbara P. Hicks 1835 NE 20th St Renton, WA 98056 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 October 16,2006 CE ,:;:.;--, . L,I,.-. . ! R E.J \; ~,.". D~ OCT 1 6 2006 ECONOMIC DEVElOPMEr,JT. NEIGHBORHOODS. AND STRATEGIS.: :i!~'JG Subject: Proposed Determination of Non-Significance, Kennydale Blueberry Farm Reference/CPA 2006-M-02 Dear Ms. Conkling: These comments also include by reference the letters, affidavits, and other documents submitted regarding this subject to the City Planning Commission by me, Mr. Knoll D. Lowney, and Ms Susan Rider. I request that the City not issue the Optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the following reasons: Inadequate application Part D of the applicant's checklist does not contain an adequate discussion of the potential environmental effects of the proposed rezone. An adequate discussion would be impossible without both a wetlands study and a stream study of the site. Pending such a study the development of the site could include as many as 27 units and as few as one unit. Pending such a study it would be impossible for the City to determine that there would be no significant environmental effects of the proposed rezone. The property is already properly zoned The following is from the Renton Municipal Canoed which describes the current zoning. "RMC 4-2-020 ... B. RESOURCE CONSERVATION ZONE (RC): The Resource Conservation Zone (RC) is established to provide a very low-density residential zone that endeavors to provide some residential use of lands characterized by extensive critical areas or lands with agricultural uses. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. This zone promotes uses that are compatible with the functions and values of designated critical areas and allowsfor continued production offood and agricultural products. No minimum density is required. The Resource Conservation Zone is also intended to provide separation between areas of more intense urban uses; encourage or preserve very low-density residential uses; reduce the intensity of uses in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains, wetlands and streams, aquifers, wildlife habitat, steep slopes, and other geologically hazardous areas; allow for sinall-scale farming to commence or continue; and provide viable uses within urban separators." (emphasis added). Thank you for allowing me to comment on this issue. I believe that any activity and change in this extremely sensitive area should be evaluated with a full and complete Environmental Impact Statement. Sincerely, Lu~£.()~ William E. 0' Connor 10402 152nd Ave SE Renton, W A 98059 • RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2006 Erika Conkling Senior Planner ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, , NEIGHBORHOODS Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strateg.cSTRATEGIC':'~'\N~JlNG Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Proposed DNS; Kennydale Blueberry Farm CPA 2006-M-02 Including by reference all documents, photos, letters, and affidavits submitted to City of Renton Planning Commission regarding this issue. October 16, 2006 Ms. Conkling: On behalf of myself and other members of the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance, I would respectfully request that the City not issue a Determination of Non-Significance on this rezone application. Due to the configuration of this parcel,(l) the probability of unacceptable risk to this unique spring-fed peat bog is extremely high if the Resource Conservation protection is removed. If the City had required the further studies which they said they needed in December 2005, (2) perhaps they would not have to be making these unsupported assumptions as to the non-significance of this action. • Since SEPA requires the identification and evaluation of probable impacts to all elements of the environment, we find your admission that the City has no idea what is on this parcel very troubling in light of your assumption that there will be no significant environmental impacts. The City has the power, and in this case the obligation, to require further documentation of conditions present on this fragile site before recommending either the rezone or the DNS. As noted by WSDOT wetland biologist Richard Gersib, the downplaying of the rarity and significance of this wetland is inexplicable. (3) As he is the only environmental scientist whose opinion the City has solicited, his views should have been given considerably more weight than was accorded. There is overwhelming evidence that this bog is already correctly classified as Resource Conservation, according to Renton's own zoning criteria. (4) There are numerous court cases in the State of Washington ruling that an EIS should be required if the future development is probable following the action, and that development could have a significant adverse effect on the environment. (5) Due to the City's lack of any studies-hydrogeologic, agricultural, or economic-or any other proof of the claims as stated by the applicants, there can be no meaningful analysis of the significance of the proposed action. The inadequacy of the environmental checklist is stunning in tight of the high stakes at issue here. .J ' .. • The entire associated wetland system in this valley is under siege. Inattention to long-term effects of seemingly innocuous planning decisions has resulted in hydrologic impairment and outright destruction of protected areas. (6) The cumulative effects of development pressure leading to irreversible loss of acreage, function, and value is of paramount concern to all of us. The inadequacy of current critical areas ordinances to prevent this scenario is the rationale for a higher level of protection, as provided by the current Resource Conservation zoning. Providing an economic advantage to the present owners of this bog is not a compelling reason for this rezone and accompanying DNS. This bog was here for thousands of years before there was a City of Renton Planning Department. The historic Blueberry Farm was here before it was even a part of the City. Development had already been denied to Darrell Kinzer's company before he and his wife bought the property. They knew what it was then, and it is the City's responsibility to determine what it is now. No guessing. No assumptions. Use the Best Available Science as required, and do not condemn this amazing survivor to inevitable destruction with the stroke of a pen. It deserves better, as do all the citizens of this community-both human and wild. -' . ,. , -• Thank you for your thoughtful re-consideration of these important issues. S.E. Rider 1835 NE 20 ST Renton, WA 98056 Map ,Output (xL.br'f--http://www5.metrokc.gov/iMAP/MapFrame.htm 1 of 1 ® King County o 139ft --------_ .. _--. " ----._--- The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 8-9-2006 Source: King County iMAP -Property Information (hItp:/~.metro.kc:gov/GIS~MAP). 8/9/20063:44 PM . " , " ',> : ...... ';'~~~'~~t~ ~ ~ > " , .' .. ~ .l/ ;~' ... >~. '\'~, ::~ ,:.,~. "I ~,~~::' . ~ .. . -:.. '-<r''''': ... :':'o ~ " • ··'r . ,,.,..,' , .~? .' .,1 I . ' .1 r: o~'':'' " I I 20 ". • ' . . ..... AMENDMENT lOOS-M-l LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MAP REVISIONS SPECIAL FOCUS ISSUE PAPER ON THE KENNYDALE BLUEBERRY FARM DESCRIPTION: In the inventory of Residential Low Density land. completed as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 200S-M-l, the Kennydale Blueberry Farm was analyzed as inventory area C. The paroellies south ofNE 2rJb Street, and east of Jones Avenue NE. Staff recommended that as long as this 3.4-acre property was used fur agriculture, it should remain zoned for Resource Conservation (RC) and designated for Residential Low Density (RID) land use. On October 5,2005, the Planning Commission entered a letter into public record from. Ms. Larson-Kinzer, one of the property owners of the ICennydale Blueberry Farm. This letter explained 1hat she intended to cease blueberry farming at this location. Ms. Larson-Kinzer intends to sell the property to a housing developer and submitted an application for a property rezone that will be considered in 2006. ISSUE SUMMARY: Should the Blueberry Fann Property be rezoned to match the surrounding R-8 zoning designation? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: This issue should be further analyzed with the processing ofMs. Larson-Kinzer's rezone application in 2006. ANALYSIS: The Blueberry farm is physically located in the low spot of the SUlTOunding area. The 2005 topographical map from the City's stonn water system inventory shows the bulk of the property is relatively flat, lying in a depression ranging from tWo to five feet (2' -s ') below that of surrounding properties. Aanan~~~~ ~~.pr::9~.!iAe ~loopsaroqn4the north portion of Ute PJ:Qperty. The stann water invent<>tyshows few storm water features inthe area. Last year, Ms. Larson-Kinzer reported that the Blueberry Farm gets inundated with stonn water. Topographical map of the area from the March 2005 Stonn Water System Inventory Ms. Larson-Kinzer provided us with a copy of a geotechnical report done on the property in 1983 for Schneider Homes. The geotechnical report noted that there was ground water seepage in each of the test holes for the study. This indicated that the ground water level was close to the surface soil and likely correlated with the level of water in the p~ draiwt.ge,di~ Approximately two-thirds (2/3) of the site is covered in soft soils, which would need to be completely removed and repl~ed with suitable fill to street elevation level in order to build homes on this site. Since the time of this report, Ms. Larson-Kinzer reports that there have been improvements ,in drainag~ of the PJ'Qperty ,~tJgb ,fJl~ r:eplacen;tent of an undersized culvert with a larger one, the installation of a gravity flow sewer lme, and a major dewatering in 2004. Sensitive area maps show a wetland area mapped over a portion of the Blueberry farm. Wefland maps are often based upon aerial photo analysis and may not reflect the actual size or location of a wetland. Clearly. the aerial photo below shows that development has taken place in the area of the mapped wetland. Nevertheless, the map does provide a reliable indicator that more infonnation is needed and is the basis for requesting a wetland evaluation. 2 Schneider Homes had the property analyzed by a geotechnical consulting fum to see ifit could support the oonstIucti.on of 15 single-family homes. Ifwe assume that the analysis was done when the property was in the wettest condition, as Ms. Larson-Kinzer believes, then it provides a baseline number of units that could be supported. IS homes would result in a gross density of 4.4 units per acre. and a net density of 5.48 units per acre, which assumes a 20% loss of property to infrastructure but nol()s".~.~~l~. This density is above the minimum requirement of the R-8 iOn~which is four lmitsper acre. Zoning at R-S would match the surrounding area. Of course, achieving this density is predicated upon the removal of the site's soft soils and filling the property. Depending upon the results of a wetland analysis. this type of activity may not be allowed under current regulations. CONCLUSION: Without additional. updated information on this parcel, it is not possible to make a zoning decision at this time. Existing infonnation on drainage or wetland conditions is outdated. 4 .- Watershed Program Manager Environmental Services Office Washington State Department of Transportation Mail Address: PO Box 47331 Olympia, WA 98504-7331 Office Location: 310 Maple Park Ave SE Olympia, WA Phone: 360.705.7477 Fax: 360.705.6833 Email: gersibd@wsdot.wa.gov ---Qrjginal Message--- From: Erika Conkling [mailto:EConkling@d.renton.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:38 AM To: Gersib, Dick Subject: Information on Wetland/Bog Kennydale area Renton Mr. Gersib- I am a land use planner for the City of Renton. I have been assigned ro staff a rezoning proposal for the area known as the Kennydale Blueberry Farm on NE 20th and near Jones Avenue in Renton. There are a variety of contentious issues regarding this proposal. I am emaiJing you in pursuit of documentation and information on one of them. The area in question was thought to be a wetland at some point, and wetland characteristics have been documented in some areas, but decades of development have eliminated or degraded what may have been present in the early 19005. One of the neighbors of the farm. Ms. Rider, gave me your name and email address. She communicated with you sometime last year regarding this area. In the communications you discussed the historical presence of a peat bog in this area and the potential for restoration. You also mentioned that you had done a brief field assessment. I am writing to see if you would share any documents, assessments, field reports, or other information about the existence of a wetland in this area. It would also be helpful to have an indication of the professional qualifications of the people invovled in produdng the information. Often, this information is induded in formal reports, but not field notes or other less formal documents. It is important that I carefully document the information that I receive, because regardless of the recommendation that I send forward, the final decision on the rezone is likely to be appealed by some party. Thank you for your time and for sharing any information that you might have on this subject. Erika L. Conkling AsSOCiate Planner voice: (425) 430-6578 fax: (425) 430-7300 City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods and StrategiC Planning 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 \ . From: Gerslb, Oick [Gerslb~_dsdot.wa.govl Sent: Thursday I Aprtl 27, 2006 4:32· PM to: Erika Conkling Subject: RE: Infonnation on WetlandlBog Kennydale area Renton Attachments: blueberry fann.pdf; RESUME 2_06.doc HI Erika, Thanks for the email and your quest for infonnation. The wetland restoration site you reference Is called W75 in our watershed characterization report that we oompleted for the North Renton segment of 1-405. The report and appendices can be accessed at our WSOOT website that follows: . ' http://www.wsdot.wa.govfenvironment/watershedfwatershe9charcter.htm I originally identified W75 through photo Interpretation of color stereo-paired 1:12,000 aerial photos. The site was later field verified by me through a site visit via the adjacent public road. lam the senior author of this watershed characterization work and have attached my resume for your reference. The only on-the-ground field work on this site was conducted by Senior Wetland Biologist, Dr.William Null, PhD. Bill retired about a year ago so I do not have a resume for him. However, the following infonnation was provided by his supervisor, Bob Thomas, (360) 705-7405. Bitlis a Professional Wetland Scientist and served as a Senior Wetland Biologist for Washington State Department of Transportation. He has extensive experience in the delineation and function assessment of wetlands throughout the State of Washington and has authored WSDOTs Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects, June, 2000. Please contact Bob Thomas if you need addition background infonnation. I have attached a scanned copy of Dr. Null's original field notes for W7S. I asked Dr. Null to complete a potential wetland mitigation site evaluation for this site and a selected number of other potential wetland restoration sites within our study area. There is no date on the fonn, but my recollection is that Dr. Null's fteld work was completed in the fall of 2003. His notes indicate that the site was, in 2003, a jurisdictional wetland. He also notes that the site has potential for restoration, enhancement, and preservation. I recall a conversation with Bill where he told me that he had gotten pennissionfrom the landowner (Darrell and Sue Kinzer) to walk the site and dig some soil pits but that they were not interested in doing any wetland restoration work and would sue if WSOOT tried, thus the references to "stay out of court" in his notes. While I must defer to Dr. Null regarding whether all or part of the site is currently a jurisdictional wetland, I have 30 years of experience in the restoration of wetland systems, and I consider this site to have high restoration potential. Peat systems are rare, even in western Washingtont and having a peat wetland in an urban area provides unique opportunities for natural resource education, recreation, and community pride. Peat wetland systems require very special conditions to develop, are difficult to restore, and are considered virtually impossible to create beCause they require special conditions and long periods of time to develop. One publication by GB Rigg, 1958, in Peat Resoun::esof Washington notes that peat soils develop at a rate of about one inch per 40 years in western Washington. In this case, site W75 appears to have maintained it's wetland hydrology, albeit altered by drains and ditches. It is my professional . judgment that this combination of soils and hydrology indicate that this site retains much of it's potential for restoration. However, restoring a wetland is much easier than waiting the 30 to 50+ years that will be required to begin to see the true restoration of a peat bog wetland. I will stop at this point and allow you to revieW the information provided. I apologize for the quickly written email but I will be out of the offICe nearly all of next week and wanted to get you something as soon as possible. If you have questions or need additional informatioA, please reel free to contact me anytime. Richard A. Gerslb 1 • \ . Richard A. Gersib Technical Expertise Ecologist Certified Wildlife Biologist ProCessional Wetland Scientist 8525 -37th CT SE Olympia, W A 98503 rgersib@comcast.net (H) gersibd@wsdot.wa.gov(W) 360.923.0332 (H) 360.705-7477 (W) Richard Gersib is the Watershed Program Manager for the Washington State Department of Transportation with over 30 years of professional experience in the restoration, preservation, and management of aquatic resources important to fish and wildlife species, water quality, and water quantity. His background encompasses a life- long interest in wetlands, aquatic resources, and landscape analysis and successful experience in past and present positions that demand high levels of expertise and professionalism. Richard has demonstrated the ability to gather, compile, and evaluate a wide range of information from varied sources; organize and coordinate a wide range of activities within a program area; and develop and implement long-range planning. Since his move to Washington State 12 years ago, Ric\!ard has developed new perspectives and procedures for analyzing and managing aquatic resources at a river basin scale. In 1998, Richard led Ecology's interdisciplinary watershed characterization team tasked with developing and testing river basin-scale methods that support local efforts to address water quality, stream baseflow, flooding, and anadromous fis\! problems. In the past four years at the Department of Transportation, he has established an interdisciplinary technical team that builds on this work by developing and implementing watershed-based methods that better mitigate stormwater, wetland, and habitat impacts of transportation projects. Managerial Experience Richard Gersib has a diverse background in the leadership of interdisciplinary teams and the management of budgets, professional staff, and facilities. Through these experiences, he has developed an ability to communicate both information and knowledge to a diverse group of stakeholders including state and federal senators and representatives, technical and managerial staff, local jurisdictions, and private landowners. Through his work at the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Transportation and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Richard has demonstrated a commitment and passion for the preservation and restoration of natural resources, his specific work duties, and the people he works with. Further, Richard has proven leadership skills in managing complex programs and the handling of diverse and difficult situations in a confident and relaxed manner. Credentials ~ Graduate work at Kearney State College and the University of Nebraska (1973-74) ~ B.S., Wildlife Management Option, Kearney State College, 1973 Graduate work KSC and UN ~ Certified Wildlife Biologist (The Wildlife Society), 1979 ~ Professional Wetland Scientist (The Society of Wetland Scientists), 1995 ~ Developed and tested new watershed-scale tools for identifying wetland restoration sites ~ Over nineteen years professional experience as Wildlife Habitat BiologistlDistrict Manager and Wetland Specialist with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. (1973-1993) ~ Over eight years professional experience as Senior Ecologist responsible for the development of the Puget Sound Wetland Restoration Program at the Washington State Department of Ecology (1993-2001). ~ Team leader of Ecology's River Basin Characterization team (1998-1999) ~ Washington State Department of Transportation Watershed Program Manager (2001 -Present) ~ TPEAC \yatershed Sub-Committee co-chair and technical team leader (2001 -Present) References ~ Peter Birch, Peer, Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife -36u.902.2641 ~ Tim Hilliard, Subordinate, Washington State Department of Transportation, (360) 705-7488 ~ Neil Aaland, Past Supervisor at Ecology, Office ofInteragency Committee -360.902.3084 ~ Ken Stone, Supervisor, Washington State Department of Transportation -(360) 570-6642 Employment History ~ 10/2001 to Present -Watershed Program Manager, Washington State Department of Transportation, $6148/month ~ 5/1998 to 10/2001 -Senior Ecologist, Washington State Department of Ecology }o> 2/1993 to 5/1998 -Wetland Restoration Ecologist, Washington State Department of Ecology }o> 211989 to 211993 -WetUuul Specialist, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission }o> 611984 to 211989 -Wetland, Furbearer, and Disease Specialist, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission }o> 6/1979 to 611984 -Wildlife Habitat Area Manager II, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission }o> 611975 to 6/1 979 -Wildlife Habitat Area Manager I, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission }o> 2/1974 to 6/1975 -Conservation Aide m, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Education Backgronnd ~ Platte Junior College, Columbus, Nebraska, 9/69 -5171,65 Semester credits, Associate Degree ~ Kearney State College, Kearney, Nebraska, 9171 -9173,60 Semester credits, BS Degree ~ Kearney State College, Kearney, Nebraska, 9173 -1174, 10 Graduate semester hours ~ University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 9/75 -1176, 3 Graduate semester hours ExistingHGM Class: ,'-..Rive.rin~fl. ow ... :-.~~thr. '.'" ' ... ~.,or im ... pounding ;>DepresslOnal~rclosed Slope -Lacllslrine-Flat Existing Cowardin Class: PFol'fsI~y{rtM)PAB " /"'-'--'~ . '," .. ,,," ~'" Does.the site have potential to Restore? Does thesitehave potential to Create? boesthe site have potential to Enhance? ®NO Does t1le site have potential to Preserve? (lV NO -Acres for :3," -- Methods for Mitigaiion work (Describe earthwork, drain disabling;pianting, etc include rough quantities)-\0"'~.fA(:1;YI)J .rJt(;~.f -,{Uljf"~-!,,f' ·.'/-(£jl//)J{;~t1f j?-1/..ktMJ.( ,,/,ji,f1:{!J (I'P ,.0 ,t!l.pJ.4.':J;)~,(.f."'("/::I<,:,J1i.iJ-d' w/ Jt./lJ;;;-f' ti'"'-!.tJ, ''';~:<~.Jt;,~ c",-l-.-.! t()~rr,;~ ,:.\1orl(.,;t',:::::y.,,~j, ~:,/../j'/;!Y,1-;"'rf;'-II.'1/~·'1, a:t.£i.!1itfN',(y ."frth4AA' Does the site have potential to prOvide additional live storage-how? t·i~1. jJ.fj ,:1i.(!-tJ,,!l4t';j: ,/:1') /,/:. • '/ j (J' . ' , ,/ .. "'. (/,,' (.(I,)A _,;,., What functions will the site provide ifrestored? ,; Provide a ball-park estimate forthe cost of Mitigation at this site. =$ ........... , t' (furrt-Q)/.Il, (J)1. I) ,,'lI'ye I I 'I .. SI.,1) i;";n ZI? r .~. /~to1 .. Thanks for faxing information on the Kennydale rezone paper. Planning Commission staff have put an interesting spin on this. My thoughts follow: 1) While they note that the City does not need a wetland delineation to rezone, It appears that the City really doesn't want to know how much of the site is jurisdictional wetland. This would seem important for potentially keeping it in it's current zoning deSignation, ifthat's what they wanted to do. 2} The good news is that regardless of how the site is zoned, the landowner is required to delineate all wetlands on the parcel prior to development. This means that sooner or later, the site will need to be delineated and if the wetland area is greater than currently mappeQ, then the City will need to deal with it accordingly. 3) I was surptlsed that there was less focus placed on the fact that the site contains peat soils and a high water'table. These are two attributes that spell potential problems if developed for homes. It's hard for me to believe that the City didn't heed these "red flags". Just ask Thurston County if they regret allowing residential development in high water table areas. I thought good planning was intended to avoid problems, not create them. 4) The City is focused on protecting existing critical areas and yet has minimized the importance of the wetland. They conSistently . talked about the site as being degraded and providing reduced functions. In their efforts to "hold the line" on eXisting wetland area, as required by their critical area ordinance, the City is missing an opportunity to restore this wetland (or facilitate the restoration of the site) and actually improve the natural resources in the area. Unfortunately, it's just not the City who has missed opportunities . .it's happening throughout the Puget Sound area. . 5) Here's the good news ... you and the rest of the neighborhood are on the City's "radar screen" and they know that you are . wetland and open space advocates. That's a good thing. I continue to th.ink about how we can be proactive, rather than reactive. The current property owners are likely only looking to get the most value from their land, so whethefthey sell to a developer or a neighborhood association or conservation group is likely not a big issue, as long as the price is right. I won't be able to do this on WSDOT work time, but I'll explore water quality grant funds that might be available for acquisition and restoration. It's a very long shot, but its worth me looking again. If we find potential options, I might be able to do some simple modeling of how flows and pollutant loading have changed over time in Kennydale Creek. I can't use work resources for this, but I'll see if I can access public domain flow and pollutant loading models from my home computer. If we can document the benefits of a restored wetland to the stream and Lake Washington, we might have the foundation of a grant proposa\. OUf daughter is getting married in early August so my next three weeks are going to be pretty crazy, but after that I might have some time to work on this more. Don't get worried .. .1 see my role as providing you with options ~nd it's your call and that of your neighborhood to make any decisions on how to proceed. Thanks again for the status report, Dick Richard A. Gersib Watershed Program Manager . Environmental Services Office Washington State Department of Transportation Mall Address: PO Box 47331 -----Original Message----- From: Gersib, Dick [mailto:GersibD@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Tllesday, August 09, 2005 9:52 AM To: _ Subject: RE: wetlands restoration Hi Attached is a screen shot of the wetland site that I think you reference in your email. This was a peat wetland and has been drained and converted to a blueberry growing area. This is an exceptional wetland restoration site in my view. I photo interpreted the site and have done an initial site visit from the road a couple years ago. Additional detailed field work is needed to determine true wetland restoration potential. But based on what I've seen so far, this isa great site, and considering that is is a peat wetland, it increases it's ecological significance even more. I hope this helps, Dick / · . Thanks for the note. I share your frustration. Most people don't under$tand that the choices they make with natural resources are often irreversible. Some are, but many aren't. This peat wetland has likely been developing over the past 10,000 years (1 inch of peat every 40 years or more). I'm sure this system has been und~r some level of attack for at least 50 or 60 years, so it's amazing there's anything left. Placing fill in a wetland, whether dirt from excavation or concrete for walls is a violation of the Clean Water Act. Also, the Growth Management Act requires Renton to inventory and protect wetlands under their Critical Areas Ordinance. 'Now landowners can still ,get a permit to place fill in a wetland, but they need regulatory approval to do that. If the landowner is placing fill in the wetland without a permit, then it is possible to have that at least temporarily stopped. The City of Renton, the Department of Ecology, and the US Army Corps 6f Engineers have regulatory authority over the placement of fill in wetlands. But this does not address the past wetland degradation that has already'been done. I identified this as a high priority wetland restoration site to help mitigate unavoidable wetland impacts associated with improvements to 1-405., Unfortunately the project office chose other wetland mitigation options. Because of the peat and the stream, I believe that as long as they only grow blueberries on the site, there will be opportunities to restore the wetland in the future. However, it the landowner attempts to develop the site further with buildings, etc. than it will likely be an irreversible situation. Please don't worry about my discretion, I'm on your side!!! Good luck with this all to familiar scenario, Dick Richard A. Gersib Watershed Program Manager Environmental Services Office Washington State Department of Transportation Mail Address: PO Box 47331 Olympia, WA 98504-7331 Office Location: 310 Maple Park Ave SE Olympia, WA Phone: 360,705. 7477 Fax: 360.705.6833 Email: gersibd@wsdot.wa.gov -----Original Message----- 1117/2005 4-2-010E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION IMPLEMENTING ZONES Employment Area Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (1M) Industrial (EAI) Heavy Industrial (IH) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) Employment Area Valley Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (1M) (EAV) Heavy Industrial (IH) Resource Conservation (RC) Commercial Commercial Neighborhood Neighborhood (CN) (CN) E. ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE: TYPE OF LAND USE ZONING MAP RESTRICTION SYMBOL Automall Restrictions Dot Pattem Public Use Designation up' TYPE OF LAND USE REFERENCE OR RESTRICTION CODESECnON NO. Airport-Compatible Land Use RMC4-3-020 Restrictions Aquifer Protection Area RMC 4-3-050 Automall Improvement District RMC 4-3-040 Downtown Core Area RMC 4-2-070L and 4-2-080C Downtown Pedestrian District RMC 4-2-070L and 4-2-0800 Northeast Fourth Street RMC 4-3-040 Business District "P" Suffix Procedures RMC4-3-080 Planned Unit Development RMC 4-9-150 Rainier Avenue Business RMC 4-3-040 District Restrictive Covenants See Property litle Report Center Village Residential RMC 4-3-095 Bonus District Sunset Blvd; Business District RMC4-3-040 Urban Center Design Overlay RMC 4-3-100 (Areas "A," "BJ a and "Ca) (Ord. 1472, 12-i8-1953; Ord. 3101, 1-19-19n; Ord.4302, 12-17-1990; Ord. 4519, 5-15-1995; Ord. 4851,8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 5100,11-1-2004) (Revised 1105) 2-2 4-2-020 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS: A. GENERAL: Reviewing Official approval of projects in the zones is contingent upon the determination that the proposed developments are consistent with the purpose of the zone and the purpose and in- tent of the land use designations and guiding pol- icies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element pol- icies for each corresponding zone classification and the Community Design Element, Housing El- ement, Environmental Element, and Utilities Ele- ment shall be used together with the purpose statements for each zone and map designation set forth in the following sections to guide inter- pretation and application of land use regulations within the zones and designations and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to the code; B. RESOURCE CONSERVATION ZONE (RC): The Resource Conservation Zone (RC) is estab- lished to provide a very low-density residential zone that endeavors to provide some residential j use of lands characterized by extensive critical ,j. areas or lands·with·agricuHuraluses. It is in- tended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. This zone pro- motes uses that are compatible with the functions' . and values of designated critical areas and allows for continued production of food and agricultural products. No minimum density is required. The Resource Conservation Zone is also in- tended to provide separation between areas of more intense urban uses; encourage or preserve very low-density residential uses; reduce the in- tensity of·uses in accordance with the extent of environmentally sensitive areas such as flood- plains, wetlands and streams, aquifers, wildlife habitat, steep slopes, and other geologically haz- ardous areas; allow for small-seale farming to commence or continue; and provide viable uses within urban separators. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statement, objectives and policy direction in the Residential Low Density land use designation, Objectives LU-DD, Policies LU-133 through LU-142, and the ~EPA~-{andbook -Appendix B Page 4 of14 . , Northwest Steel head v. Department of Fisheries, 78 Wn. App. 778, 896 P.2d 1292 (1995) State Department of Fisheries was not required to assume lead agency status after city issued DNS despite the department's statutory mandate to preserve and protect fish life in state waters. Spokane County Fire Protection Dlst. No.8 v. Spokane County Boundary Review Bd., 27 Wn. App. 491, 618 P.2d 1326 (1980) A boundary review board may rely on the threshold determination by the lead agency to comply with SEPA. Upholds the lead agency rules in the SEPA Guidelines. D.E.B.T., Ltd. v. Clallam County Comm'rs, 24 Wn. App. 136,600 P.2d 628 (1979) The County Commissioners could retain "responsible official" duties with themselves, and reject a planning commission recommendation not to require an EIS for a preliminary plat. Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290,936 P.2d 432 (1997) The decision to use the mitigated DNS process under the SEPA rules to address significant impacts rather than an EIS is within the discretion of the governmental agency and is entitled to substantial weight. A mitigated DNS will be upheld under the clearly erroneous standard if (1) environmental factors were adequately considered in a manner suffiCient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA, (2) it Is based on information sufficient to evaluate the development's probable environmental Impacts, and (3) the mitigation measures are reasonable and capable of being accomplished. Concerned Citizens of Hosp. Dlst. No. 304 v. Board of Comm'rs of Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 304, 78 Wn. App 333, 897 P.2d 1267 (1995) Remote impacts and impacts on property values need not be considered under SEPA. Indian Trail Property Owner's Ass'n v. City of Spokane, 76 Wn. App 430, 886 P.2d 209 (1994) A proposal to expand a shopping center and proposals to Install underground fuel tanks and a car wash in the center were, In effect, a single course of action. They should have been evaluated In the same environmental document and their cumulative impacts considered. Error held to be harmless. For purposes of review under SEPA, economic competition, in and of itself, is not an element of the environment. King County v. Boundary Review Bd., 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993) A proposed land use related action is not insulated from EIS requirements simply because there are no existing specific proposals to develop the land or because no Immediate land use changes will result from the proposal. Instead, an EIS is required if, based on the totality of the circumstances, future development is probable following the action and if that development will have a Significant adverse effect upon the environment. Pease Hill Community Group v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 816 P.2d 37 (1991) The agency issued a mitigated DNS with addendum rather than requiring the preparation of an EIS prior to the Issuance of a permit. When a governmental body determines that an environmental Impact statement is not mandated, the record must demonstrate that environmental factors were considered In a manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the proced4ral requirements of SEPA. The determination must be based on information reasonably sufficient to determine the environmental impact of the proposed project. West 514,. Inc. v. Spokane County, 53 Wn. App. 838, 770 P.2d 1065 (1989) The entity responsible for determining the environmental significance of a new project may, in a mitigated DNS, specify environmental studies on which the ultimate approval of the project will depend. Murden Cove Preservation Ass'n v. Kltsap County, 41 Wn. App. 515, 704 P.2d 1242 (1985) A determination of nonslgnificance is given substantial weight and Is reviewed under the clearly erroneous http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sealsepalhandbk/hbappb.html 10/1412006 SEP A Qandbook * Appendix B , , Page 5 of14 standard. The imposition of mitigative conditions is not by Itself sufficient to require an EIS In the absence of more than a moderate effect on the environment. In the absence of specific plans for future development, SEPA does not require consideration of every remote and speculative consequence of an action. Brown v. City of Tacoma, 30 Wn. App. 762, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981) A negative threshold determination (ONS) for a 34-unlt condominium in an urban area is affirmed. The Court approved, under the old SEPA Guidelines, a process somewhat similar to the "mitigated ONS" in the new SEPA Rules. Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870, 613 P.2d 1164 (1980), overruled on other grounds, Save a Neighborhood Env't v. Seattle, 101 Wn.2d 280, 676 P.2d 1006 (1984). A written threshold determination is not required. The SEPA Guidelines are not discussed. Strong dicta to the effect that SEPA compliance Is not required for nonproject rezones. The contrary holding In Byers is not discussed. ASARCQ. Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 601 P.2d 501 (1979) The environmental impact of a proposed air emission standards variance Includes pollutants which would be emitted under the variance (even though they are existing emissions). The federal doctrine of functional equivalence (excusing an EI5 for regulatory activities under certain environmental laws) is rejected. A short statutory time period for processing an application can be reconciled with the requirements of SEPA. Strong language on fundamental and Inalienable rights. Short v. Clallam County, 22 Wn. App. 825, 593 P.2d 821 (1979) Affirmative threshold determinations (OSs) are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious, rather than the clearly erroneous, standard. Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 569 P.2d 712 (1977) Record of a negative threshold determination (ONS) by local government must demonstrate that environmental factors were considered. Letters of federal and state agencies were used as evidence to reverse local negative threshold determination. Swift v. Island County, 87 Wn.2d 348, 552 P.2d 175 (1976) A negative threshold determination is reversed under the "clearly erroneous" standard primarily because of impacts on wildlife and a state park. Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Ass'n v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 674 (1976) Negative threshold determinations (ONSs) under SEPA (including those of local government) will be reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard in the state administrative procedure act --a standard of review broader than would otherwise apply. An EIS is required whenever more than a moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. Narrowsvlew Preservation Ass'n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 526 P.2d 897 (1974) The decision not to prepare an EIS on a rezone is affirmed because development under the new zoning would not have a substantially greater impact than development under the old zoning. Consideration of the impacts of the particular development in question could be postponed until the preliminary plat or building permit stage "when details of the specific structure and use of the property are more clearly defined." Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59,510 P.2d 1140 (1973) The first appellate case addressing threshold determinations. Before deciding not to prepare an EIS, an agency must actually consider environmental factors (and later be able to demonstrate this consideration to a court on appeal). SEPA introduces an element of discretion Into decisions that were formerly considered ministerial. King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., 91 Wn. App. 1,951 P.2d 1151 (1998) http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sealsepa/handbk/hbappb.html 10/1412006 ~E~ A Handbook -Appendix B Page 7 of14 • alternative. Government is required, however, to act to mitigate adverse Impacts in entire affected area. (The source of this requirement is not clear.) Toandos Peninsula Ass'n v. Jefferson County, 32 Wn. App. 473, 648 P.2d 448 (1982) Alternatives in an EIS are limited by a rule of reason. Cathcart -Maltby -Clearview Community Council v. Snohomish County, 96 Wn.2d 201, 634 P.2d 853 (1981) Approved phased or "piecemeal" EIS. A "bare bones" EIS on a rezone for a large residential development is okay so long as more complete compliance is done for the later, more detailed approval stages. Follows Narrowsvlew. Barrie v. Kitsap County, 93 Wn.2d 843, 613 P.2d 1148 (1980) This is "Barrie II." Holds that an EIS must discuss socio-economic issues. (Holding is affected by subsequent legislative amendments.) The adequacy of an EIS Is a question of law. Extensive discussion of alternatives in an EIS Is related to the objective of the proposal. Save a Valuable Env't v. City of Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 576 P.2d 401 (1978) During a rezone for a shopping center, a city may not act in disregard of impacts outside of its boundaries; rather the "zoning body must serve the welfare of the entire affected community." This rule is derived at least in part from the fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment which SEPA grants all citizens, including those in adjoining areas. Mentor v. Kltsap County, 22 Wn. App. 285, 588 P.2d 1226 (1978) An agency need not follow its procedural rules when justice requires that the rules be relaxed. EIS adequacy is reviewed using a "rule of reason." Minor errors in an EIS description of a comprehensive plan are not fatal. Ullock v. City of Bremerton, 17 Wn. App. 573, 565 P.2d 1179 (1977) An EIS for a nonproject rezone is adequate if Impacts of the maximum potential development of the property are discussed. It is very difficult for a rezone to violate the substantive policies of SEPA because, without further governmental action, a rezone has no immediate environmental consequences. Cheney v. City of Mountlake Terrace, 87 Wn.2d 338, 552 P.2d 184 (1976) SEPA does not require that every remote and speculative consequence be included in an EIS. An EIS for a highway need not consider later specific development proposals for adjoining private property. Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844, 509 P.2d 390 (1973) Upland work on a project should not be commenced before a shoreline substantial development permit is secured for the shoreline portion. SEPA's provisions help lead to this result. http://www.ecy .wa.gpv/programs/sealsepalhandbk/hbappb.html 10/14/2006 BRAD NICHOLSON October 14, 2006 2811 Dayton Avenue N.£. Renton, Washington 98056 brad827@,hotmail.com (425) 445-0658 OCT 1 62006 REceIVED City of Renton Highlands Task Force Chairman Kirk Moore City of Renton Mayor OITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1-/-0 nd bel" uer el by Tert.ry Per..;stJl" Renton city Council Renton Planning Commission City of Renton ERC 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: 2006 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan RE: Highlands redevelopment and "Task Force" RE: Public Hearing comments RE: LUA-06-121, LUA-06-128, LUA-05-159, LUA -06-123 To the above identified persons, Not having really known all of the details of the City Administration's or Staff's land use strategy, confronted with a constantly changing zoning proposal, and not having been presented with necessary informative data and stable or lawful zoning proposals, most of the residents and citizens that are potential participants under the GMA in Renton are unaware of the proceedings and were therefore unable to participate. They were unaware of unlawful procedures being used, they didn't hear what were the true issues needing to be deliberated were, and were unaware of what was unlawfully happening around the City of Renton's planning. For purpose of the acts (GMA & SEPA) they were unable to participate in a meaningful way at a meaningful time. I recommend that there be a change of course in the management philosophy that the City uses to take and gather public input, and a change in how that our leaders act upon recommendations based upon that input. It is in the best interest of the City and our Citizens. I urge the City to make this change of course, because without that change, further deterioration of areas and processes probably will result. For the most part, doing otherwise would be just like failure to give notice. It continues actions for longer than necessary. There has been failure to give notice of proceedings. It is failure to comply with Laws, only the first of many grounds that may vitiate 'legislation emerging from these processes. Many appeals and legal actions caused by such lack of respect for laws damage the City. brad nicholson Pagel 1011512006 Neither was I officially notified of the present proceedings whilst I should have been. I am a party of record. Evidently One Council member, Terri Briere decided not to answer my email around a week ago requesting information as to how I could participate in or join the "Task Force". The Citizens that searched the City's website or word of mouth e-mail, having found the hearing dates and times for scheduled meetings, but the issues were not clear and changed significantly, and participation is limited to only nine people, are all very disappointed. All of them will now be "observers" only supposedly because the "Task Force" will review and rule only on the record that has been previously created. That record has deficiencies like I previously articulated. Most if none of the potential participants wanted to pay the rather large and unlawful City fee to suggest a comprehensive plan or development regulation amendment for the processes, neither were they given a real opportunity to comment. Even though I am a party of record for the above actions received notice of the proceedings and least officially, haven't. A few private citizens informed me of the "Task Force" I met the so called chairman at the task force meeting, but he me that I couldn't comment in public. I never I still meeting. informed Those amendments to our comprehensive plan must have been recommended for approval by someone unqualified to make that decision. I really don't know how to figure that out because nobody informed me of what was decided or recommended by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Some Citizens attended meetings that were public, testified, and wanted to improve the City and be heard, and others were accorded nothing more than exclusion from the processes via certain unlawful administrative decisions and acts, declarations, and tactics. Not the least of which is the newly formed "Task Force" that will supposedly be providing the sole community input from now on. Nine people cannot be considered the "public" according to my interpretation of the code. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no public response, findings or recommendation made by the Planning Commission that I am aware of, instead the City "switched" reviewing bodies after public comment was taken on the issues. It is now evidently believed that quasi-judicial review of the proceedings rests with the "Task Force" I received a notice communication .. _._.. an email communication stating that the "Task Force" would be meeting at the Highlands Starbucks. There was a person there to meet, one Kirk Moore, who claimed to be the chairman of the "Task Force" and would allow me to give my comments to him for presentation during what is to be the "review" Here they are. He assured me such "review" would result in findings of fact and conclusions of law prior to a council hearing on these issues. . I request that commitment be honored in the future. I request that he and the "Task Force" be asked to review these comments, find facts, and conclusions of Law, and inform me of their legal decisions with regard to them. brad nicholson Page 2 1011512006 Disappointment is evident in "Huffy City Council meetings" probably for one reason because the Planning Commission recommendation that was supposedly made as a result of the prior hearings can not be found in public. That has happened on numerous occasions in the past. Perhaps I am wrong and the "Task Force" will be different. If the "Task Force" can respond to my issues, then there will be a great improvement. I have been informed that the newly formed "Task Force" will exact the "Role of Review" from the Planning Commission. One Terri Briere as chairman of the City's Planning and Development Committee as well as the task force chairman have told me so. I can provide proof in the form of evidentiary exhibits for that if it is requested. Otherwise, it is incontrovertible. If I had known that the role of review would rest with the newly formed "Task Force" I would have been able to save the efforts I made for the City's benefit by saving my comments for the task force. The new forum however will not be taking any comments or allowing public participation but will be reviewing the record because the community continues to have concerns with the administrative proposals. I am presuming the record of proceedings will be forwarded to the "Task Force" (exhibit) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are required of quasi-judicial reviewing bodies. I am looking forward to reviewing the decision by Mr. Moore's group as a result of the task force as it becomes a part of the public record, however I will be doing so under protest because of the numerous deliberative and substantive participatory deficiencies I have placed into the record that are subject to review. It seemed quite clear to me Mr. Moore has no experience in law or land use action whatsoever. To be honest, I have no confidence in his ability to work on land use whatsoever. I hope I am wrong, but I think he is now in somewhat of a "pickle". I think he is still working on eminent domain in the highlands even though I understand that the issue is tabled through an ordinance. I would like to say that I am offended not only by the moratoriums and wasted time and money, but by the lack of apparent competency and transparency. Many people genuinely concerned with the City's future are now thoroughly disgusted. Some citizens are frustrated because it is known that pending appeals will require a programmatic EIS document to place new rezoning in the so-called Highlands area Center Village designation, but the proposal has been withdrawn at the last minute and now an EIS should be required because of different arguments. It is still needed to be capable to implement the "vision" of the highlands. It is still being avoided with what appears to be just like an end run, and is unavailable because it was removed from consideration by the City's ERC. They have a new DNS. They should not have done that, because there are accumulations of adverse effects from acting the wrong way, which includes doing nothing, like I have previously contended. brad nicholson Page 3 1011512006 Even though I was a party of record, they did not notify me of that until after the hearing and after I raised the issues. I just found out that the previous DNS was withdrawn. There has been no discussion as to what adverse effects the "Highlands Vision" will have upon transportation issues. Or how not implementing the vision through zoning measures would affect people. It seems clear that if the Staff is intent with little or no development regulation, then maybe the vision should be withdrawn as well. That has not happened, but instead the footprint of the vision is proposed to be expanded. It seems clear that the zoning that is currently proposed will not implement the present vision. I would call the consistency of the City's actions into question under the GMA. It is not known how the Landing issues will interact with the Hi lands , both of which are major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. I am wondering why there has not been an inclusion of discussion regarding the need for possible changes to the zoning and plans if the "Landing" is required to implement the comprehensive plan through required changes. How the highlands vision will be implemented depending on how the Landing materializes. No information has been disclosed to me other than the fact that there is proposed to be a Target store. Because of the appeals that are before the council, there are many unknowns, thus the Citizens have never been able to comment anyway. If I was a gambler, I would wager that each and member of the "Task Force" is lacking that information as well. According to the Mayor's State of the City Address, the transportation system around Sunset (between cedar river and 1-90) will need around 1 to 1.3 billion dollars in improvements for all of the projects. That is significant. In order to implement the vision, an EIS should and must be performed and with analysis as to impact accumulations, something that has never been done. The new 11th hour zoning proposal is now before the "Task Force" after Public Hearings have already been held, accompanied by a new EDNSM; I don't get it. The new proposal does not appear to implement the Comprehensive Plan "Highlands vision", or discuss probable significant adverse impacts. I would find that action inconsistent with the GMA as well as the CPP and City Comprehensive Plan on numerous fronts, and I think reviewing jurisdictions would as well. I wish I could understand the proposals, its probable significant impacts, and be able to comment but I have not been able to obtain full information. All of the above should and must be done bearing in mind the deliberative and substantive and participatory processes of GMA and SEPA. There seems to be no other explanation for the change in the zoning proposal for the Highlands vision than to subvert disclosure of impacts for the Landing, a project which does not implement the comprehensive plan. brad nicholson Page 4 1011512006 Similarly, the financial information and description of the tenants regarding the "Landing" (Renton Mayor called it, "One of the Largest Big Box destination retail shopping centers in the Puget sound region", "seemingly overnight") was either non-existent or is being unlawfully withheld by the City because it is being called "proprietary" information. There is no way to conunent about the Highlands vision possibly containing some revitalized shopping, because it has not been disclosed as to information regarding the "Landing" My conunents of one would change depending on implementation of the other creating various consistency issues along with my conunents. That is not my idea of a Hearing, and I don't think it is what the GMA intends either. We shall see. A big concern of mine is the money, under just about any standards, was taken from the "cookie jar" because any experienced person would have known the landing improvements should have been imposed upon the developer through nexus and proportionality requirements so basic to any kind of action with regard to the use of land by the United States Constitution. There has never been a legal explanation as to the legal justification for the Police powers being waived in the first place. Perhaps "Public Participation" will be possible when those facts are known to the participants. That money belongs to the people, and not to Harvest Partners; I did not give it to them and neither did a legitimate governmental process. Thus in order to comply with laws, the procedure I identified should be used. The Planning Conunission held their hearing while appearing to do nothing more than flout specific directives of the Renton Municipal Code. A number of very powerful appeals that are consistent with the Renton code, GMA, SEPA, CPP, and other "General Laws" cast a pall and aura of uncertainty over most of the City's proceedings and is good reason to rethink and evaluate alternative and options available. Certain Administrators must have been directed to ignore them and "fast track" the planning process but the "fast track" process excluded notice and participation of citizens as well the fact that it violated quite a few general laws applicable to the City in the exercise of the Police Power under article 11, section 11, of the State Constitution. Unfortunately, that will not be so fast a process now because it is a ground for invalidation of amendments according to "Washington Laws" that have been already been identified in Planning Conunission and Council proceedings. In my opinion, the way to cure the "pickle", is address this letter, the appeals, become transparent, and give real consideration, thought, and legal determinations to them. It means disclosure of probable significant adverse impacts and mitigation measures necessary for the Highlands and the Landing, and then having a strategy to deal with it. The issues are not going to go away. Appeals are presently pending for actions. I am one of those Citizens trying to participate in these actions. In one instance of the above processes, the Chairman of the Planning conunission (conducting the public hearing on the issues) got up and walked out of the public hearing at the moment I began to comment. brad nicholson Page 5 1011512006 My concerns were never addressed. I have no public answer or public findings as to what happened in my possession. I was already having difficulty to comment because I was without the material and factual information required by the laws. In these other new instances, the public and I were excluded from participating in what was left of the GMA processes altogether. In proceedings before the City's Hearing Examiner I was called a "straw man" and denied standing to appeal and participate because I have been associated with others that share my views. I have been referred to as a "jackboot" "red herring" "cloaked in sheep's wool" and "spurious" by the Mayor and various media. City Attorney says I am "disgruntled". I accept that because I have in my possession a "confidential letter" stating that he would see to it that actions would be performed that never were. I am "disgruntled" because the City Attorney is being much less than truthful leaving out some rather important details. (exhibit) So you see that I am quite comfortable with being "disgruntled" as I believe I well should be. Recent appeals I have made have never even been considered even though I base my issues on the Laws and codes as I see them. I feel quite angry and offended by the disrespect and ignorance, lying, and refusal to observe requirements of the Laws. I have been nothing but sincere, open, and genuine in my comments from my heart and from the start. The other public participants that also made an attempt to participate were also very frustrated by the lack of honest disclosure, lack of proper procedures, and unlawful decision making in the processes. The City "Task Force" was proposed at the last minute, and was quickly and illegally put together by the City Planning/Development Committee to exact away the role of review from the Planning Commission and excluded all citizens except for nine people chosen by that City Council Committee. They were not a part of the Planning Commission. (The City's development committee stating that it was because of identified time constraints and other reasons including agreement with the purpose of "containment" of opposition ideas identified by the administrator of Economic Development and Strategic Planning as those of adverse to the proposal) It seems clear to me that none of the members of the "Task Force" have any experience whatsoever in quasi-judicial administrative proceedings. That is in all likelihood a "Task Farce" brad nicholson Page 6 1011512006 ", , Taken together, these substantial errors and illegal actions deprived me and other Citizens to their GMA participatory rights, in addition to violating certain other substantive and procedural mandates of the GMA, SEPA, General and Constitutional laws, and is good reason for invalidation and remand as I have outlined in this letter. The act of "Suspending the Laws", that is assuming and dispensing with the power to enforce the laws without permission from the State, or an attempt to divest the City of the right to make reasonable Laws / are all actions that shall need to be corrected because they shall also be capable of being reversed in superior jurisdictions. I recommend that being a reason to carefully consider the next move and "findings of fact and conclusions of Law" in your dirty game, because some more incorrect moves will put the City into a "Checkmate". It appears to me like it should be axiomatic that it is time for the City to make some changes, for benefit of present and future generations of Renton. I look forward to a reply indicating your concurrence. Most Sincerely, Brad Nicholson, a citizen of Renton brad nicholson Page 7 1011512006 1) Has the City engaged in activities that are prohibited by specific sections of the GMA and Washington Laws? 2) Did the City fail to give proper notice of proceedings as required by 36.70A RCW? 3) What are the specific causes of problematic areas of the City that are experiencing insufficient growth that· would implement the comprehensive plan? 4) Which impacts have not been disclosed that should be? 5) Is the City violating Washington Laws that require a broad program of early and continuous public participation? 6) Did the City violate provisions of the GMA that require that the comprehensive plan and development regulations be subject to consistency, continuing review, and evaluation? 7) Is it appropriate to issue a proposed DNS when there are so many probable adverse consequences of doing so according to the Mayor's "State of the City" and it is inconsistent with the vision for the Highlands? 8) Is it not true that there exist numerous unanalyzed environment concerns and that the City is hiding information that is needed to determine whether and which areas there are significant impacts that should be mitigated? 9) How can so many planning issues be proposed when nobody really knows what will result from the outcomes of other major actions because they are pending? What was the cause of that? Is that appropriate? 10) How will the city fullfill the objectives of the GMA when there has been no findings indicating the proposals indicating are intended to effectuate those goals? 11) Is it not true that the City should lawfully complete the planning for proposed projects and construction before attempting to plan for new ones without public participation without posing a threat to the quality of the environment? 12) Have the above proceedings taken place for the benefit of Citizens? '. I I , From: "Terri Briere" <tbriere@Cljenton.wa.us> To: <brad827@hotmail.com> CC: "Alexander Pietsch" <Apietsch@cUenton.wa.us> Subject: Re: Council Date: Fri, 06 Oct 200610:28:14 -0700 >Mr. Nicholson, > > Thank you for correspondence regarding the role of the Planning Commission and the Highlands Task Force. You are correct that the Planning Commission is the body that takes public input and makes recommendations to the council on planning and zoning issues. The Planning Commission has previously heard public testimony and made a reccommendation to the Council on the Highlands Zoning and Comp Plan Changes. It be came apparent to council that the community continued to have concerns with the Planning Commission and Administration recommendation. A result of citizen concerns is the Highlands Task Force. Because of the compressed time schedule to make changes to the Comp Plan Council agreed to allow the Task Force to take the role of review rather than the Planning Commission. The Task Force will not take any new testimony, they will be working with the existing record. > >Again, thank you for contacting me. > Terri Briere > > »> "'Brad Nicholson'" <brad827@hotmail.com> 10/06/068:42 AM »> > I was wondering the reason why the Planning Commission is not the primary or exclusive way of taking public input and making recommendations to the Council for the "Hilands Vision" but rather it appears that a "task force" will be used for that above purpose? Could you answer that? Or am I wrong is it the Planning Commission that will be given substantial weight? Could you answer that too? the question is ......... which citizen body will be accorded substantial weight? I am going to want to participate. Your response is appreciated. > > This email request originated from the following link: http:// rentonwa .gov / government! default. aspx?id = 1080 > 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of Alliance for South End CASE) re: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LUA-05-136. SA-A. SM The Director's Administrative Decision Designating The Landing Master Plan Application a Planned Action; And The Director's Master Site Plan Approval NOTKCE OF APPEAIL OF lHIEARlING EXAMKNER DECKSKON ------------------------------) [. KNTRODUCTKON The Alliance for South End (ASE) hereby files this Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated September 5, 2006, which dismissed ASE's above-captioned appeals for lack of standing ("Examiner's Decision," Exhibit A). The grounds for appeal are that the Hearing Examiner's decision is contrary to Washington law, without support in state or federal law, and in violation of the constitutional rights of ASE's members. H. TKMEILKNESS This appeal is filed pursuant to RMC 4-8-11 0.E(8) and RMC 4-8-11 O.F( I), which specify a 14-day appeal period for Hearing Examiner decisions. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 1 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETIINGS\BEN6534\LOCAL SElTINGS\TEMI'ORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.IE5\ODQRSLQF\NOTICEOFAPPEAL TOCOUNCIL090606[ II.DOC Buck® Gordon LLP ~?~:~-i.ctJ:c::. ~~1: .... ::H12l {~:~)r: 1 :~8:! · .. ?~:·.jO " 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... .-/ III. FACTS The facts are set forth in the record below. ASE's pleadings are incorporated herein by reference. IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Council reviews Hearing Examiner decisions to determine whether "substantial error offact or law exists in the record." RMC 4-8-11O(F)(7). If the Council tinds such an error, "it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly." ld. V. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The Hearing Examiner's decision reflects several errors of fact or law. His decision to dismiss ASE's appeals for lack of standing was entirely dependent upon the proposition that, in order for an organization to have standing, it must not only have a member or members with standing, but it also must have members with certain "indicia of membership," such as particular voting rights. This proposition is directly contrary to the well established law in Washington, and does not appear to have support in any state or federal law. The Hearing Examiner's decision also violated the rights of ASE's members to freedom of association. The Hearing Examiner's decision should therefore be reversed. A. In Washington, An Association Has Standing When One Member Has Standing. Washington courts have consistently held that a citizens' group or other organization has standing to challenge land use decisions "as long as one member has standing to do so." East Gig Harbor Imp. Ass'n v. Pierce County, 106 Wn.2d 707, 701, 724 P.2d 1009 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 2 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\BEN6534\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FI LES\CONTENT IE5\ODQRSLQF\NOTICEOF APPEAL TOCOUNCI L09060611 lDOC Buck(;'Gordon LLP 2025 First Av~nue, ~:uita 500 '::':~·!att: 16. t:t·. :JHI2.1 {O,::OC·) 3~!~;·"~"~'lJn 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (1986) (emphasis added), citing Save a Valuable Environment (SA VEJ v. Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862. 867, 576 P.2d 401 (1978); see also Suquamish indian Tribe, 92 Wn.App. at 830 (citing East Gig Harbor Imp. Ass'n and SAVE for proposition that "an organization has standing only when at least one of its members has standing as an individual"). None of these cases hold or even suggest that a member must have particular rights in the organization, or that any other inquiry should be made once it has been established that at least one member of the organization has standing. Nor do any of these cases hold or suggest that the organization's funding sources are relevant to standing. There is No Precedent for the Hearing Examiner's Denial of Standing iHll this Case. To our knowledge, no state or federal court has ever held that members of an organization must possess "indicia of membership" in order for the organization to have standing. The cases cited by the Applicant in briefing before the Hearing Examiner do not support this proposition. The question presented and answered in the three cases cited by the Applicant was not whether members of an organization must have voting rights in order to assert associational standing, but whether "an organization that has no members in the traditional sense may nonetheless assert associational standing." See Fund Democracy. LLC v. s.E.c., 278 F.3d 21, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Those cases hold that, if an association does not have any members, but asserts that its has standing to sue on behalf of non-member "supporters," then a court may inquire into whether its supporters possess "indicia of membership." Id. at 26. The Applicant's argument that ;;a non-voting member. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 3 C:\DOClJMENTS AND SETrINGS\BEN6534\LOCAL SErrINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET 1'1 LES\CONTENT.lES\ODQRSLQF\NOTICEOFAPPEAL TOCOUNCIL090606[ I ].Doe Buck ~,~' Gordon LLP ;';02~j FiI't.t, Avenu~ I Suit~ 500 :::.;,at.tL" '{Ir, 91l1.21 (201)) 3H:-9~3·:\O , 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "----/' .. cannot establish standing for the association" (Applicant's Reply to ASE Lack of Standing, p. 7) is simply false. In fact, one of the cases cited by the Applicant directly contradicts the Applicant's position. In Friends of Tilden Park, Inc. v. District of Columbia. 806 A.2d 1201, (D.C. 2002). the court explicitly stated that the nonprofit would have standing if it had any members: Friends initially asserted in Superior Court that it had standing to sue on behalf of its members, whom it described as persons residing in the vicinity of 3883 Connecticut Avenue who recreate in and enjoy the benefits of nearby Rock Creek Park. We do not doubt that if Friends had such members, it would have standing as their representative to maintain an action challenging the District's failure to require Clark to prepare an EIS ... The persons whom Friends claims to represent are not its members, however. By the terms of its articles of incorporation, Friends has no members. Confronted with this inconvenient fact, Friends argues in this court that it nonetheless has standing to sue as the representative of its "supporters" among the neighborhood residents whose environmental interests are at stake. These supporters, Friends suggests, are its de facto if not its de jure members. The record, though, does not bear out this claim. Friends, 806 A.2d at 1208 (emphasis added). See also Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Com'n, 432 U.S. 333,97 S.Ct. 2434 (1977) (holding that the Commission had associational standing even though "the apple growers and dealers are not 'members' of the Commission in the traditional trade association sense"); Fund Democracy, 278 F.3d at 25 (stating that, "[i]n determining whether an organization that has no members in the traditional sense may nonetheless assert associational standing, the question is whether the NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 4 C:\DOClJMENTS AND SETTlNGS\BEN6534\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET 1'1 LES\CONTENT.I ES\ODQRSLQF\NOTICEOFAPPEAL TOCOUNCI L090606[ I lDOC Buck Gordon LLP ~0:~j F1.rst: Av~nus, Suite 500 [;.'7.a~·.t:l.~;;. ~/U ... 98121 {:~O~;) :?~!:~ -~f~~·10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 organization is the functional equivalent of a traditional membership organization") (emphasis added). Unlike the "supporters" of the organizations in Friends o.l Tilden Park, Hunt, and Fund Democracy, Brad Nicholson is a member of ASE "in the traditional sense." Moreover, even if these cases could be interpreted to require "indicia of membership" in cases where an organization actually has members, those cases are not relevant in this proceeding because Washington courts have not adopted or even discussed such a requirement. I c. The lHlearing Examiner's Decision Violated the Constitutionai Rights of ASE's Members. The Hearing Examiner's dismissal of ASE's appeals violated the First Amendment rights of Renton citizens to freely associate as members of ASE in order to protect their rights. Ironically, the Hearing Examiner previously found that Brad Nicholson, a member of ASE, had standing to sue on his own behalf in a similar matter, but then deprived Mr. Nicholson standing in this matter simply because he chose to associate with other Renton citizens who share his concerns about The Landing.2 I The Applicant did not cite any Washington cases to SUppOl1 its arguments about associational standing. The Applicant's reliance on SAVE for the proposition that "Washington courts have adopted the federal approach to standing requirements in environmental and land use cases" is misplaced. See Applicant'S Reply to ASE Lack of Standing, p. 8, n. 16, citing SA VE, 89 Wn.2d 862. The SA V£ court's approval of "the federal approach" refers to the holdings, discussed earlier in the SA VE opinion, which state that "a non- profit corporation or association which shows that one or more of its members are specifically injured by a government action may represent those members in proceedings for judicial review." Id. at 867. When read in context, the SAVE coul1'S discussion of association standing actually flies in the face of the Applicant's suggestions that ASE lacks standing as an association. . 2 Unfol1unately, the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to rule on the constitutional rights of developers who apply for permits, but the Examiner may not consider the constitutional rights of Renton citizens appealing a City decision. See RMC 4-8-11 O.E(7)(b). NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISJON -5 C;\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\BEN6534\LQCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FI LES\CONTENT.I E5\ODQRSLQF\NOTICEOF APPEAL TOCOUNCIL09060611j.DOC Buck':,:~ Gordon LLP 2025 F 1. r·~:;;t·. J\\"(-?I1LH=-I f.'eat.t:le. W·. 9;3121 (20(}} 3H:~-9540 1\ 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ·16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized "a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment -speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion .. " Roberts v. Us. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609,618,104 S.Ct. 3244 (1984). By dismissing ASE's appeals based on the form of the association, the Hearing Examiner violated the rights of ASE members to associate for the purpose of petitioning the government. "The Constitution guarantees freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties." Jd. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, ASE respectfully requests that the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to dismiss ASE's appeals for lack of standing. Dated this __ day of September, 2006. BUCK & GORDON LLP By:_--=--=--,--~=-~=--=-~,-----__ Peter L. Buck, WSBA #05060 Attorneys for Alliance for the South End NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 6 C\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\BEN6534\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT.IES\ODQRSLQF\NOTICEOFAPPEAI.TOCOLJNCII.090606[IJ.DOC Buck(" Gordon LLP S8attl.&. WA ~B131 (2':)(:) ~q!:~···:-t5·10 ) Citizen Comments -LUA05-159 from Inez Somerville Petersen Page 1 of 3 CITIZEN COMMENT regarding NOTICES OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: Friday, October 13, 2006 LUA05-159, ECF Kennydale Blueberry Farm Rezone / CPA 2006-M-02 OCT 1 3 2006 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC:>',NNING I wish to submit the following comments which apply to the above named Land Use Action. Comments are due by 5 p.m., on Monday, Oct 16, 2006. Rules of Evidence Rules of Evidence, as adopted by Washington Courts, apply to Hearing Examiner proceedings; and I believe they also apply to preceding and succeeding legal processes in support of Land Use Actions. EDNSP employees do not understand Rules of Evidence. The Planning Commissioners do not understand the Washington Courts' Rules of Evidence, except for possibly Attorney/Commissioner Jerrilynn Hadley. Koelker's "direct reports" who comprise the Environmental Review Committee do not understand the Washington Courts' Rules of Evidence. The City Council members, who are part of the Appeal process, do not understand the Washington Courts' Rules of Evidence, except for possibly Attorney/Councilmember Dan Clawson. The whole process is flawed on that basis alone. How can these city officials pass judgment on any Land Use Action when they can't even determine what is admissible evidence upon which to base a judgment? Growth Management and Environmental Protection State Laws applicable to growth management and environmental protection apply to Land Use Actions. And the strictest of laws must apply to protecting "critical areas," such as the Kennydale Blueberry Bog. I do not see objective, solid evidence to properly justify a "Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)" in this Land Use Action file. The file contains no objective studies for rezoning, nor does it contain proof that the land isn't a "critical area." There is proof that it is a "critical area," but it is conspicuously J - Citizen Comments -LUA05-159 from Inez Somerville Petersen Page 2 of 3 missing from the Land Use Action file? Subjective statements from the owners, which have been "blessed" by the EDNSP Department, do not justify the zoning that the City seeks to approve. Objective evidence which was provided during the Planning Commission process, such as the information from the Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance and the testimony of the Wash State wetlands expert Dick Gersif, were not forwarded by the Planning Commission for inclusion in the Land Use Action file. Is this purposeful incompetence intended to influence the result in favor of the developers? It sure looks that way to me. Dick Gersif's testimony is on the web (Google), and I have forwarded this URL to you previously. It is a travesty to go to the 6th floor of City Hall and find instructions entitled "Submittal Requirements CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION." But there is no handout to instruct developers how to protect Renton's "Critical Areas." I believe the City of Renton has constructed drainage vaults and lines near this bog which have compromised its special purpose--this is Mother Nature's most effective water purification system in Renton, and yet Renton has diverted natural springs, let developers haul in fill dirt, and in essence "raped" this critical area. And now the City wants to develop what is left of this "little Eden" into homes ... I do believe this involves criminal acts. Public officials in conjunction with developers must not be allowed to destroy this "critical area" with impunity. The Kennydale Critical Areas Alliance I hope can provide more detail on this Land Use Action. LUA06-159 has got to be one of the infamous actions undertaken by Alex Pietsch's EDNSP (Economic Disaster, Neighborhoods, and Sick Policies) Department. Public Hearing Process The Planning Commission public hearing on this Land Use Actions failed to provide citizens a proper opportunity to comment. The subject of the bog, its history as a "critical area", its attempted destruction, and attempted upzoning take much more than three minutes to explain. And why are the citizens having to fight ''tooth and nail" to protect this "critical area" blueberry bog? Bogs can't be rebuilt once destroyed, it takes thousands of years to build even a foot of bog, and the underground springs in this area must be protected in order to protect the bog. Three minutes? You can't even go to the bathroom in three minutes. There were so many people in the Council Chambers that it was standing room only, and citizens overflowed into the hallway where they could not hear or see the proceedings. I saw many citizens leave, assuming they would have no opportunity to J - Citizen Comments -LUA05-159 from Inez Somerville Petersen Page 3 of 3 speak. And those who stayed were allowed only three (3) minutes total for comments on all items on the agenda that night. This was not a public hearing--it was a farce. What did the EDNSP Department expect when it stacked so many Comp Plan Amendments together into one public hearing? Maybe this was their strategy. Overwhelm us and then walk all over us. Obviously, many people wanted to comment and comment on multiple items. Three minutes total per person can not be deemed an adequate amount of time for public comment at a public hearing where the Agenda was overly full. The City should not proceed to the any "Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)" on this Land Use Action, because the Planning Commission failed to properly hold a public hearing. This is part of the City's process prior to beginning the "Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)," so it must follow its own policies and not "short cut" them for expediency's sake. I have a video to document how that public hearing was conducted, if it is necessary. EDNSP staff members were present and can confirm my comments about the Planning Commission public hearing. GMA 13 goals There exists no proof in this Land Use Action file to prove that the City of Renton met the thirteen (13) goals of Growth Management in any of its proceedings or documentation regarding LUA05-159. It appears to me that the routine issuance of DNS's shows an irresponsible regard for the citizens and the environment. And this case, there can be no doubt. Submitted by: Inez Somerville Petersen 3306 Lake Wash Blvd North Apt 3 Renton, W A 98056-1978 Date: Friday, Oct 13, 2006 City of nenton Department of Planning / Building / Publlt-""orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-159, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2,2006 APPLICANT: Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin Farm CPA & Rezone SITE AREA: 3.4 acres BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: 1733 NE 20th Street I WORK ORDER NO: 77526 ISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ~~ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. -ut\ \c>L1 1 ~ Date I I City of kenton Department of Planning / Building / Publll-dorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:' "Fire-COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-159, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2,2006 APPLICANT: Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conkling PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Blueberry Farm CPA & Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Kayre 1<'; -" SITE AREA: 3.4 acres BUILDING AREA (Qros JfNt1 L~ lG If: U \ij ~ ""'\\ LOCATION: 1733 NE 20th Street I L.,..' I i WORK ORDER NO: 7752p,,~ I SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre pro~bhll om ~telto elt~r ~QQ,r R .liJJ,g. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS, Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. . ('IT'll (W p~p.JTnfJ A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS FIRE DEf'iJn f·.;::fH Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impact~ Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LiahtiGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet A)A B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS No: We have reviewed his application" with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and ha e identified areas of probable impact or areas where additi nal information needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature 0 tative Date City of Kenton Department of Planning / Building / PUbllv Narks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: V(lK"t:S COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-159, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2,2006 APPLICANT: Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklinq PROJECT TITLE: Kennydale Blueberry Farm CPA & Rezone PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 3.4 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 1733 NE 20th Street I WORK ORDER NO: 77526 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor: Major Information Impact~ Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water LiahVG/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals : Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoridCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ~~ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: October 2, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA05-159, R, ECF APPLICATION NAME: Kennydale Blueberry Farm Rezone I CPA 2006-M-02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property owners applied for a rezor,e of thIs 34 acre property from RC to either R-B or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-B would require a Comprehensive Ptan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS, Siaff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment PROJECT LOCATION: 1733 NE 201h Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (ONS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed zoning. Therefore, as permllted under the RCW 43.21C.110. the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give nolice that a DNS is likely 10 be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A, 4-day appeal period Will follow the issuance of the DNS PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: December 14, 2005 Environmental (SEPA) Review, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezone NIA N/A Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 A public hearmg on this issue was held before the Planning Commission on September 20. 2006 The subjecl slle is located within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. The proposed and staff recommended R-4 zoning IS COllslstent with this land use designation, as well a!. relevant land use poliCies adopted in November 2004 Environmental Checklist prepared December 13, 2005 This non-project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Prop~ed M.itigatlon Measures: T~e analysis of the ~roposal does net r~veal any adverse environmental irnpacts requiring mitigation above and be.yond eXisting code proviSions. However, mitigation may b€' necessary and may be irr'posed at the time of a site specifIC development proposal on the subject site. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing 10 Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, EconomiC Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning DIVision, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton, WA 98055, by 5·00 PM on Oc~obe~ 16, 2006. If you have queslIOns about this proposal, or w·lsh to be made a party of record and receive additional nollficatlon by mail, ~ontact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written commellis will automatically become a party of record and Will be notified of any decision on this project. NOAO>159 CONTACT PERSON: ERIKA CONKLING (425) 430-6578 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like 10 receive further informalion on the environmental review of this proposed project, complete this form and relurn to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. You must return this form to receive future Information regarding the environmental determination for this project. File No.lName: LUA05-159, R, ECF KENNY DALE BLUEBERRY FARM REZONE 2006-M-02 NAME: __________________________________________________ __ ADDRESS, __________________________________________________ ___ TELEPHONE NO,: ________________ ___ NOA 05-159 CERTIFICATION ---'A-""--__ copies of the above document the desc 'bed property on '''''''\\\\\'111 ............ ' --(~N ~IJ, ~kt\.. -.",\\\\\1\"1 ~~'I~ -... ,,, ,ON 2' " SIGNED:4!\,.!:~~_PJ~:::=::~===..:.::~~~' ... ~c~';' 1 A q:.t-~,,~ : :J! 0' It).. ~1c. -::0 ~ ~ ~ , "d"" ... -(It", ., ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington rest mg ~ ~o • -i E ., '" CJ -Jr- ,onthedV\c\ day of P:.! \0 ~ ~ \ ..ova\." .fo: 19 '\,'\j,$ ":: u!.a<l4!~=<1.r,;;;..a..e~?i:~+:':::''1f~~~~: '~'I~III\\"~!",,~~ "1 Of: w~':S';.. .... ~ 1,\\\\\\",,'" CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2nd day of October, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance document, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies Sue Larson Kinzer Surrounding Property Owners (Signature of Senderli-~~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) Representing See Attached Owner See Attached Notary (Print):---I-"""""'""'"YV'\....:....:..;b=-::e.-=r_..:;...L~ .......................... --'-.:>...L...l'-+-'~::>o...L---"-<j~~~~~~ My appointment expires: d ~ \ q - \ V Project Name:'· Kennydale Blueberry Farm CPA & Rezone 'Project Number: LUA05-159, R, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 i Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 , Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing BECK DANIELLE+OVERSTREET JASON PO BOX 3081 RENTON WA 98056 FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON WA 98055 SUNSET HILLS HOA C/O HENDRICKS K 1802 NE 25TH PL RENTON WA 98056 ALFARONE J V 504 LAKESIDE WY N DESERT AIRE WA 99349 ARNOLD ADINA M+CHRISTOPHER 1809 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98056 BELVIN D TERRY+VELVET P 2505 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 BODE LUCAS W+DUNNING DREW 2018 NE 24TH PL RENTON WA 98056 BREWSTER SHANNA L 2610 MEADOW AV N RENTON WA 98056 BUCK GARY R+M STACY 2412 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 CAMWEST WESTCHESTER LLC 9720 NE 120TH PL STE 100 KIRKLAND WA 98034 BRE PROPERTIES ATTN: PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT 525 MARKET ST #4TH FL SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 LIU KWOK-LEUNG+ASSUNTA NG PO BOX 3468 SEATTLE WA 98114 WIEHOFF ALVERNA C/O SANDRA NEELSEN 1740 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98056 ANDERSON JASON S 2304 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 BASI SARBJIT +GURJIT K 2230 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 BENNETT NANCY B 2612 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 BRADLEY NIELSEN 1740 NE 16TH RRENTON WA 98055 BROOKS CARL E 2414 KENNIWICK PL NE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 BUEHLER THOMAS M+ERIN 2023 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 CANNON ALLEN 2729 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 CHOW KIN+CHOW HO DENNIS+CHOW PIK-HA 1521 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RING AARON SUSAN+AARON JOSEPH 1721 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 ADAMS MARSHALL T +MEERDINK LAURIE 2500 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 ANDERSON TAMARA 1929 NE 23RD ST RENTON WA 98056 BASQUETTE RICHARD 1512 N 24TH RENTON WA 98056 BLATT TATIANA U+JAMES K 2501 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 BRAY JULIE 1901 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 BROWN KIMBERLY 1508 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 BUNDY SHYLO R 1709 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 CARR MARK S+CARR,MICHAEL L 2309 ABERDEEN AV NE RENTON WA 98056 CHAN CHRISTINA Y 1825 NE 26TH PL RENTON WA 98056 CHOI JAE HO+BONG HEE 2011 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 COPPESS MICHAEL D+LAURA L 12119 SE 13TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98005 DAHLMAN JOHN A+RACHEL K 1627 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98056 DAY SHIRLENE R 1932 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 DENALI PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1845 BELLEVUE WA 98008 DOMINICK SCOTT F 2808 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 DY MICHAEL 14519 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 FAKHARZADEH HADI PO BOX 78404 SEATTLE WA 98178 FUJITA STEVEN+LAM GORDON+U 1725 NE 28TH ST RENTON WA 98056 CHEN GUO HUI 1700 NE 27TH PL RENTON WA 98056 CHRISTENSON CHARLES D 1700 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 CORWIN ROBERT C+JOYCE 1717 MONTEREY CT NE RENTON WA 98056 DANKO ILDIKO 1819 NE 26TH PL RENTON WA 98056 DAY TERRI L 2704 MEADOW AV N RENTON WA 98056 DESCHNER MICHAEL A 1516 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98055 DOUGLAS GERALDINE H 1509 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 DYSON JAY W 1806 NE 27TH ST RENTON WA 98056 FOSTER DANIEL E+KRISTY A 1813 NE 26TH PL RENTON WA 98056 GABRIELSON KAROL A 2001 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 CHI DINH 2028 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 COLASURDO CARL A+MARY A 1507 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 CREEGAN MICHAEL P 1236 S DIRECTOR ST SEATTLE WA 98108 DARNELL GREGORY W 2733 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 DEBARTOLO DAVID C & SUSAN E 1611 NE 28TH ST RENTON WA 98056 DINKINS VERONICA B+STEVEN J 2413 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 DUNCAN WILLIAM L 1619 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 ENG LISA C 2001 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 FREY JAMES 0 JR 2425 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 GAHAN LAWRENCE J & ROXANA S 1808 NE 25TH PL RENTON WA 98056 GAM BINI ELSIE 1525 KENWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 GILLEY WILLIAM D & PAULA L PO BOX 566 KIRKLAND WA 98083 GOEBEL RUTH E 2409 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 GRITTMAN RANDY L+CLARK SHER 1909 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HANKE RICHARD A+KIMBERLY A 1917 NE 21ST ST RENTON WA 98056 HENDRICKS JAY L 1802 NE 25TH PL RENTON WA 98056 HERMAN ERIC+ERICA W 2120 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 HUFF JOEL T +ESSLEY DEANNE L 2421 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HUI WINA K 1800 NE 26TH PL RENTON WA 98056 HUYNH TOAN B+CHINH K 1921 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 GERKING LYNN+JEREMY 2213 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 GIMMESTAD GARY L+DARCY H 1935 NE 23RD ST RENTON WA 98056 GOlKAR FARIDEH 2406 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 GUlLEY DANIEL l+BRIDGET A V 2517 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HAUTALA JEFF A 1904 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HENG BUNLAY 1915 MONEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HOFF TERRI A 1902 NE 19TH PL RENTON WA 98056 HUGHES KYLE+MELINDA 1706 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HUMPHREY MARK J 1725 MONTEREY CT NE RENTON WA 98056 INGEBRIGTSON MARLA J 1821 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98056 GILBERTSON TODD L 2436 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98055 GIST GEORGE W 1626 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98056 GONG KENNETH HUNG 2224 KENNEWICK Pl NE RENTON WA 98056 HANADA RONALD D & MARIE S 14409 148TH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 HAVERINEN J R 1533 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HENLEY SUSAN C+CODY J 1513 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HOlZ ROBERT N & ALLISON l 1533 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 HUI FERNANDO & NANCY 2105 96TH AV NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 HUYNH KIEN QUOC 1714 NE 26TH Pl RENTON WA 98056 JACKSON EUGENE A JR 2421 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 JACKSON HAROLD G 1815 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98055 JAN ES RICHARD W 1906 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 JENKINS MARK A+DIANN J 1504 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 KHOUNSOMBATH KHAM 2435 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 KNIRK ERIN L+CHRISTOPHER C KNIRK 2219 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 KUBOTA HISAKO 1702 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98055 LAMBERT DAVID H 1908 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98055 LE PHOUNG 1718 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 LOPEZ JUAN JOSE+YESENIA P V 2725 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 LOWRY MICHAEL & MARY 3326 PARK AV N RENTON WA 98056 JAEGER JOSEPH W 2511 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 JASLOWSKI-BERGHOFF MARY C+M 1801 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 JOHNSEN PARKER L & JANET H 2430 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 KING PAUL H PO BOX 3444 SEATTLE WA 98114 KOENDERSJASON+REBECCA 2016 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 LAFOND KATHARINE LENORE 1810 NE 27TH ST RENTON WA 98056 LARSON CARL L 1733 NE 28TH ST RENTON WA 98056 LE VU A 1715 NE 26TH PL RENTON WA 98056 LOTTOSKYY VLADIMIR+KHOMLYAK MARIYA 1922 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MACKENZIE BONNIE HESTHER M 1817 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 JAMES BRIAN T +STEPHANIE L 1816 NE 21ST ST RENTON WA 98056 JELLEY ISAAC N 2009 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98055 JORDAN DILLARD+JUDITH I 1615 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 KLEINER HEATHER L+EDWARD G 1822 NE 21ST ST RENTON WA 98056 KOZLOV IGOR 2022 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 LAlLEY PATRICK HSHARON F 2206 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 LARSON JERRY 0 2418 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98055 LIMING EDWARD+MAGGIE 2109 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 LOUIS-JEUNE ALTEON+KAREN 1825 NE 25TH PL RENTON WA 98056 MALETTA DON 1509 N 24TH RENTON WA 98056 MARK MATTHEW S+PATRICIAR 2420 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 MCBRIDE DAVID P+MICHELLE M 1706 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 MEARS AART R 2243 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 MERCADO JOSE JUAN 1624 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98056 MILONAS ALIX 1625 MONTEREY CT N E RENTON WA 98055 MORRIS JONATHON L+JENNIFER TRIEU 2207 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 NELSON JAMES A 1905 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 NGUYEN LAM T+LAN T LE 1817 NE 21ST ST RENTON WA 98056 NGUYEN TUAN ANH+ TRANG QUYNH PHAN 1914 NE 23RD ST RENTON WA 98056 OAKES SCOTT + DIANE 1803 NE 27TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MARTIN LARRY E+CHERIE L 1802 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 MCKENZIE DONALD R 2424 MONTEREY NE RENTON WA 98056 MEARS GERALD+MARGARET 1826 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 MEYER JODI P 2616 MEADOWS AV N RENTON WA 98056 MINKLER ROBERT J 1701 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98055 MULLER GERHARD K 2502 MEADOW AV N RENTON WA 98056 NG TRACY S+VICENTE CIRILO J 1912 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 NGUYEN QUY T 1908 NE 19TH PL RENTON WA 98056 NIELSEN DAVID B+RONI M 1824 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98056 PARK BYOUNG SOO+EUN MEE 1807 NE 25TH PL RENTON WA 98056 MAURER THOMAS A 2418 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 MCKILLOP STEPHEN V 1820 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 MENGES KEITH 1615 NE 28TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MILLER BRADLEY SINCLAIR 1807 NE 26TH PL RENTON WA 98056 MOE RICHARD A+CHHUOR MUY L 1913 NE 21ST ST RENTON WA 98056 MUNOZ MARLON R+ TSUNEHARA RA 2029 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 NGUYEN HUNG+MYANH DOAN 1465 EVERGREEN POINT RD MEDINA WA 98039 NGUYEN THUAN L+XUAN HONG THI BUI 1927 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 NOVAK J J 11421 SE 66TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 PETERSON R A POBOX 2073 RENTON WA 98056 PLATT CURTIS+NGUYEN QUYNH 1529 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 PROKOPCHUK NAZAR 1701 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RANKIN LORENZ N 2710 MEADOW AV N RENTON WA 98055 RIALI MIKE 2126 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 ROJAS CONRADO M+JENNY REYNA 1717 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98056 ROSS SIMON R 1808 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 SBAAJALELJOEL+CHERYL 2504 MEADOW AV N RENTON WA 98056 SCHOVILLE KURT W+DEBRA A 2200 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 SEPSTRUP JAMES L 1606 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 SIAN SON DON C 1926 NE 23RD ST RENTON WA 98056 POHL WILLIAM C+MIRIAM R 2310 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98056 QUACH CHAU V+MARIA P 2406 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RAVENSCRAFT JAY O+JILL M 16812 NE 11TH PL BELLEVUE WA 98008 ROBERTS BRENT T D 1715 MONTEREY AV NE RENTON WA 98058 ROLLINS EMILY R+BENJAMIN A 7617 111TH PL SE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 RUSTAD TIGE R+ST ICHLING MO 1909 NE 19TH PL RENTON WA 98056 SCHELL RONALD L 1621 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98055 SCHRIVER MICHAEL D 1814 NE 25TH PL RENTON WA 98056 SHAN TONY Y K+SHU-JEN 2127 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 SIMMONS MARTIN+ANDREA 2502 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 POWELL DAVID B 1517 LINCOLN AV NE RENTON WA 98056 RALLISON STEPHEN F+PATRICIA 2016 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 REDFERN RICHARD CRAIG+BROWN 2000 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RODGER SHIRLEY A 1711 NE 16TH RENTON WA 98055 ROS FRANK+DELBECCARO BARBARA 2218 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 SALAVEA MALU PO BOX 2694 RENTON WA 98056 SCHMIDT CHARLESB 1615 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98056 SELSET ELIZABETH A+GUILBEAU 2019 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 SHAPIRO ROBERT +SHAPIRO MIRIAM E 2419 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 SIMONTOV JOSIF 1707 NE 27TH PL RENTON WA 98055 SINLAPAXAY BOUAPHAN 1527 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 SMITH LEA D 2007 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 STORK MICHAEL R+BARBARA J 2219 MEADOW AV N RENTON WA 98056 TAKASHIMA KIYOKO 1709 MONTEREY CT N E RENTON WA 98056 THORNHILL DOUGLAS+PATRICIA 1823 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 TSO TREVOR+LAM HOI IAN 1923 NE 23RD ST RENTON WA 98056 VALENZUELA ALAN J 2717 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 VILLEGAS PHILLIP R+ANGELITA 2010 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WALSH JAMES+ELIZABETH 2121 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WICKS GARY W 1801 NE 26TH PL RENTON WA 98056 SMALL CAROLYN JO GUY 11983 AVELLA CIR NW SILVERDALE WA 98383 SMITH MICHAEL A+SEBERO JER 2115 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 SUMMERS DARRELL+GRACE 1625 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 TAT RAEANNE 2114 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 TORKELSON KENNETH A 1820 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 TUUPO JAMES M 1901 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 VANCE CHRISTINE, TRUST 2129 ABERDEEN AV NE RENTON WA 98056 WAGNER DANIEL+AGOSTINO NICH 1706 NE 27TH PL RENTON WA 98056 WENSAUER MARC S+AMANDA L 2212 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WICKS MARK N+JULIE M 1903 NE 19TH PL RENTON WA 98056 SMITH DAVID A 1630 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98055 SOTO EFRAIN M 2422 MEADOW AV N RENTON WA 98056 SYLVAIN SUSAN 1701 NE 27TH PL RENTON WA 98056 THOMAS ANTHONY D 1915 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 TRAN THO V 1712 MONTEREY AV NE RECTON WA 98056 UNG HELEN N+ENG KIM LORN 1701 MONTEREY CT NE RENTON WA 98056 VARMA KUSHAL+RAM KAJAL 2103 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WALKER RALPH E 2732 JONES AV NE RENTON WA 98056 WESKE DYLAN+JENNIFER 2013 LINCOLN PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WICKS RODGER B+DEBBIE A 2508 KENNWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WIEHOFF ALVERNA J 1612 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 WILMOT KENTON JOHN 2017 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WOLFE JUSTIN F+PAMELA S ANSMAN 2231 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WOOTON EDGAR V & MARILYN E 1525 LINCOLN AV NE RENTON WA 98056 YU MIAO P 1826 NE 25TH PL RENTON WA 98056 BANES DENNIS R 1909 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BISBEE JOSEPH D 1725 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BRENDEMIHL FRITZ W 2116 HIGH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BUTCHER ROBERT JIM+MORGAN M 2422 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 CLARE D F 1818 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 WIEHOFF CHARLES A & MARY E 1708 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 WILSON PATRICK A 2236 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 WONG THOMAS HANN G 2225 KENNEWICK PL NE RENTON WA 98056 YANG MING 1941 NE 23RD ST RENTON WA 98056 ZENG JIA MING+XIAO NA GONG 1920 NE 23RD ST RENTON WA 98056 BARMOR EREZ A+AVITAL N 2004 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BLUNDRED JAMES C JR 1800 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 BROWN JAMES A 2523 JONES AVE N RENTON WA 98056 CAVE ROBERT N 12518 E 17TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98005 COWAN JOHN L 1830 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 WILGUS MICHAEL R 16220 NE 6TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98008 WOLF DELORIS J 2415 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 WOODWORTH J M 1624 KENNEWICK AV NE RENTON WA 98056 YOUNT SCOTT A+DEBORAH E 2604 MEADOW AV N RENTON WA 98056 AMES ALBERT A+FRANCES E 101 MONTEREY DR NE RENTON WA 98056 BENNETT NANCY 2612 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BREINIG CHRISTOPHER L+JEANE 9715 TRAPPERS LN JUNEAU ALASKA 99801 BUNGE KAYLEE 2517 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 CHAM MAO POTH 2709 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 CROOKS BRIAN R 1916 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 DANIELS JAMES+JEAN 1707 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 DIER ROBERT EDWARD 1732 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 DONOFRIO FRANK E 2508 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 FANNING GEORGE A 2021 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 GORDLEY RICHARD+LAURALEE 2010 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 GUILLEN GREG+NADINE 18922 NE 194TH ST WOODINVILLE WA 98072 HANSON JAMES R+MARGARET L 2225 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 HO JOHN 1725 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 HUYNH TU PHUONG 2300 HIGH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 JOHNSON BARBARA JOY 1824 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 DE SALVATORE OLGA 2100 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 DOBAK ROBERT M 1700 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 DUTRO TERRY+SIRI C 10711 SE 30TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98004 FRANCIS TRUST 2524 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 GORDON GLEN G & WILMA JEAN 2623 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 HA CELINA 2607 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 HAY LAVY 1803 NE 27TH CT RENTON WA 98055 HOLT ESTH ER L 2124 HIGH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 JANE RUTH D 2100 HIGH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 JORGENSEN J J 1901 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 DENZLER CHRISTIAN R 1800 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 DOBSON WYMAN 821 N 1ST ST RENTON WA 98055 ESPEY CAROL 1624 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 FRANK CATHERINE L 2611 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 GRAY THOMAS H & R A 1702 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98055 HA CELINA+HO CYNTHIA 2033 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 HILL JAY 15651 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98059 HUEBNER ROBERT F 1700 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 JO BITNEY HOLDINGS LLC 2727 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 KINDLE DONNA 41924 236TH AVE SE ENUMCLAW WA 98022 KINZER DARRELL E LARSON-KINZER SUSAN C 1733 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 LUNSFORD LARRY M+SUSAN 1716 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 MARLEY ARLEY C & WENDY L . 7215 VIA BELLA SAN JOSE CA 95139 MCNEILL DAVID D 2518 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 MORELLI F JOHN+MORELLI JOAN 1726 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 NELSON JESSE 1725 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 NGUYEN TINH V+PHAN AN THI 1824 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 POWERS PEGGY S 1616 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RIDER SUSAN E 1835 NE 20TH RENTON WA 98056 SANDJAY LLC 4957 LAKEMONT BLVD SE #C4-28 BELLEVUE WA 98006 KODIS HARRY A 2619 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 LUTA IOSIF+LUTA MARIA 1806 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 MARSHALL LELAND 1734 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MERRY TODD R+MOLLY A 2432 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 MORGAN JOHN P+KELLY L 2414 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 NEWBOLD TOM MORRIS+MARLENE 2622 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 PAULUS GERALD HEUNICE B 1617 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 PRESTON VIRGINIA C 2217 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 ROBERSON WILLIAM R 16834 31ST PL S SEATTLE WA 98188 SCHUMSKY DONALD 2019 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 KOHLMEIER RONALD &ANNETTE M 2420 NE 25TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MAHARRY SCOTT HNORA J 2702 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 MCLEOD CHRIS TINA 2224 HIGH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 MILLER ANTONIO+CARMEN 2132 HIGH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 MR PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 2566 RENTON WA 98056 NGUY TONY 1023 ARCTIC CIR JUNEAU AK 99801 PORCELLO ANTHONY J 1817 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RATRAY R N 2301 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 ROWE CHARLES J 1909 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98055 SIDEBOTHAM ERMA 1633 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 SMITH DARRYL J 1733 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 STEARNS BRIAN & JEAN 2216 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 TASSI BADREDDINE 2209 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 TOMCHICK JOHN A+LAUREL S 1900 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 VOROBYEV SERGEY+IRINA 1925 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 WILLIAMS RODNEY N & DIANE A 2402 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 ZETTERBERG KEVIN+BARBARA 2400 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98058 PETERSEN INEZ 3306 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD #3 RENTON WA 98056 O'CONNOR WILLIAM 10402 151ST AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 HICS BARB 1835 NE 20TH RENTON WA 98056 SPARROW WILLIAM M 2115 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 SWEEN JAMES F 2514 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 TAYLOR LORRAINE 2208 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 TRAN NGHIA T 2628 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 WALZ MYTIEN 1703 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 WOLFE ERIC & ZIBA 1801 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 ZEVART F L 2509 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 BRAY JULIE 1901 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MAXWELL MARCIE P. O. BOX 2048 RENTON WA 98056 DEMASTUS SANDEL P. O. BOX 2041 RENTON WA 98056 SPENCER GENEVIEVE 1809 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 SYRBU VYACHESLAV G+NATALYA 1917 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 TING HARRISON 2425 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 VANGALDER JIMMY 1801 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 WATT P R 2433 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 YOUNG STEVEN D+VELDA M 1625 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 ZIRK LEOMA J 1833 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98056 TORKELSON KEN 1820 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 BROWNE KAREN 2000 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 GERSIB RICHARD 8525 37TH CT E LACEY WA 98503 , ' REDFERN RICHARD + KAREN 2000 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MCBRIDE DAVID 1706 KENNEWICK AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 DAVIS MICHAEL + JOAN 2020 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 ZORBIN ARMANDO 2400 NE 10TH PL RENTON WA 98056 GROVER BILL P.O. BOX 2701 RENTON WA 98056 JAHES CONNIE 1835 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 NELSON JAMES 1905 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 GIBSON DEBORAH, CHARLES, + LENORA 2008 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 POHL BILL 2310 MONTEREY AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 GRITTMAN RANDY + SHERI 1909 MONTEREY AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 ODREN MICHELE 2030 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 FINNICUM KAREN 1302 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 GABRIELSON KAROL & ERIC 2001 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: October 2, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA05-159, R, ECF APPLICATION NAME: Kennydale Blueberry Farm Rezone / CPA 2006-M-02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. PROJECT LOCATION: 1733 NE 20th Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed zoning. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: December 14, 2005 Environmental (SEPA) Review, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezone N/A N/A Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing on this issue was held before the Planning Commission on September 20, 2006. The subject site is located within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. The proposed and staff recommended R-4 zoning is consistent with this land use designation, as well as relevant land use policies adopted in November 2004. Environmental Checklist prepared December 13, 2005 This non-project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject site. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Erika Conkling, Senior Planner, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 16, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. NOA 05-159 CONTACT PERSON: .IKA CONKLING (425) 430-6578 n II PLEAiE INCLUDE T~EP~O.iECT NUIIIIBER ~H~N: CA~L1NG FOR PROPE,R FILE IDENTIFICATION II 11'" -\--..!...". .-':.:;~ ... . \, .. , .... " .. ". ; '-'T" ... " """1 j Blueberry Farm Proposed Rezone ~ F.-irlle¥flllflNl'l,.hIciJhhnrtonnda' kup-PlMni,. Of,~Z~A"". CJ R-4 D R-B o I 400 ; 1 : 4800 ! ) ~ I! " Ii I' ' I : '.-,.,~ ~.-. NE :24lH'~~ 800 I "'t' :-_. ···_··l·_·,· If you would like to receive further information on the environmental review of this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. You must return this form to receive future information regarding the environmental determination for this project. File No./Name: LUA05-159, R, ECF KENNYDALE BLUEBERRY FARIIII REZONE 2006-l1li-02 NAME: ____________________________________________________ __ ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: ________________ __ NOA 05-159 City Of "en ton Department of Planning / Building / Pub"" Narks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-159, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2,2006 CII Y Ut Ht:N'U" APPLICANT: Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin o 2 2006 SITE AREA: 3.4 acres BUILDING AREA LOCATION: 1733 NE 20th Street WORK ORDER NO: 77526 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-8 or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-8 woiJld require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4, which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impact~ Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transporlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLlCY·RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whe additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date ~ , City 01 "en ton Department of Planning / Building / PUbl.v Norks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-159. R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2,2006 APPLICANT: Darrell Kinzer & Susan Larson-Kinzer PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin Farm CPA & Rezone SITE AREA: 3.4 acres BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: 1733 NE 20th Street I WORK ORDER NO: 77526 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The property owners applied for a rezone of this 3.4 acre property from RC to either R-B or R-4 zoning. Rezone from RC to R-B would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from RLD land use designation to RS. Staff is recommending rezone to R-4. which would not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water LiahtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals ) Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/CuI/ural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS N~ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information.is needed to properly assess this proposal. CIT~ OF RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator September 29, 2006 Sue Larson-Kinzer Kennydale Blueberry Farm 1733 NE20th Street Renton, WA 98056 Subject: . Kennydale Blueberry Farm CPA & Rezone . LUA05~159,R,ECF . .. Dear Ms. Larson;..Kinzer:· The Development Planning . ~~ction.·of the City of Remton . has. determined that the subject application . .is complete. according tosubmittalreq'uirements and, theref9re; is . accepted for· review. ,. . .' .' . It is tentatively scheduled for considerationbyth~'Environmental Review Committee on ·O<;tober23,.2006. Priortc)'thatreview, 'you will· be notified ifa'ny additional information is required to continue processingy()u~applicatfon~:\ . '., . Please contact me at(425)430~657~';if you have;'any questions.,: . Sincere,ly, .~~6niLJ<. Erika Conkling '. .. ·.i Associate Planner -------lO-5-5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-dy-w-ay---R-e-n-to-n~-W~a-s-hi-ngt-o-n-9S-0-55-------~ 1fXItt._ AHEAD OF THE CURVE City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: DArrell ~P. 1<'", z C"'i<, . -~~14n J:!. krMJ n-lAZ~ PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: ..... .r(~n~c~.)e. ~lt1e-beT"'t ~rrY\f\ ADDRESS: S-/-· rr31> N~f. ;'>'0 '"' CITY:~~~ ZIP: q~()~ (, PROJECT/)ujDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND'z\P CODE: /733 p'-~, .;J{)~ ~f- f?enH-n/ (..A/,r . 1J?CJc~ TELEPHONE NUMBER: -s/;l ~ a...). 7-o3?'7 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) 331'" 3~() -3..<.yo -() ~ NAME: " EXISTING LAND USE(S): ~~~ ~ COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): ~ 10 .to .JJ '',7 T~ ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHE~E PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ~ pi..L~_ )vt.A I}.// e~ _~, ... L CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE P~'GNAT'ON (if applicable): S t.-nA }.."I..L>. TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: RC, CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): ~ -J tI'-\.. ~ Lj NAME: ~f krSon-+<', n"Z8r SITE AREA (in square feet): /~~pt)~ ~ ,/,;" i,t,. .. "~.,, ~'\ ("',h'"-GO~~N'b~lt ap,~il' ~ 1 bet Si;W\ .~:~\~O\ '.'!-~ ~{':;, L(e f'1 ," . ".' ,,~ ....., ADDRESS:;'; . N"e';, io'h--11'?>~ &+ . ,~ . SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET , . CITY: ZIP: ACRE (if applicable): ~~~ 'lStJ S' ~ NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: . ~ ~ .,:2;J, '1 ~ 3 z~ S/~r.sDn kJh~e;-(j) (Yl$n. ~ NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planninglrnasterapp.doc 07/28/05 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: . I SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE ~:{ : ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AR~A, PLEASE INCLuDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON·RESIDENTIAL a AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE a AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): a FLOOD HAZARD AREA ___ sq.ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): a GEOLOGIC HAZARD NET FLOOR AREA OF NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if . a HABITAT CONSERVATION ___ sq.ft. ___ sq. ft. ___ sq. ft. ___ sq. ft. applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE a SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES >¥ WETLANDS NEW PROJECT (if applicable): [UEGAlIQ)ES<CRIP'f~(oN (OF ~[R10[P>lEfRltnf' (Attaclhl ~egal~ dlescrop~Boll'il Oll'il SS[palU'al'te slhlee~ "Wu'tlhl 'the fo~~ownB1lQJ oll'BffCl>U'lI111laJ~noB1l oll'BcilUldiedl) SITUATE IN THE cF~ QUARTER OF SECTION S-, TOWNSHIP-z'3 , RANGE -S-,IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. tnf'f'rE (OF ArP>!PlJ<CA u~(oN £ FrErES list all land use applications being applied for: -. 1. ~ ~tl.arg. 3. 2. 4. r::::i Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage:· $ AflF~IQ)AVnr OfF (Q)WNlERlS~~[P> nAntZ.1I .E. Klfv~el" . I, (Print Name/s) .stYS4n c.. l.c...t'%Q()-iii i)~er , declare that I am (please check one) X the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof ofduthorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planningfmasterapp,doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that fur-rel/ 9 StJ S@M Ef1n zgr- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. &.,,'\\\\\~~~~~ ~/--;:l s§j:"""iO CiUn OOOg ( --'J /'//7 ~ ~ PPR. "---~~ $®~A ): Notary Public In and for the State of Washington ".~ ~ \.o.ro>~QH.\~' ~ s-.. ;. " ..&\,,~tv. '(/s 001 $ ~ .. ,/ \".. '",'" co ~~,~"" 0: ~ I". O~ 111\\1\\\""" (~ _ ," /·f. WAS~''t\ . Notary(Print) ~~4:q,dL /J1, &~~',.,.",,, ..... '. My appointment expires:----"S;"",/"--/..:::'6....,,~~~c......::."'_. (3:::......,(",,1 __ 2 07/28/05 re2~ Cf If-.. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIC ~ S@!Jfl WAIV1:R OF SUBMITTAL REQUltiEMENTS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\Pw\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls PROJECT NAME: DATE: DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC 1 ~ 2005 . h9l1E(C~~V~11) 10/2412005 /"DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIV!SION (' WA~VEh Of 5)\lJJBM~rr A[L ~EQlUJ~RH~~~[E[i\flu5) fO~ [LAN[D) l1J5)[E A~[P[L~CAu~(Q)N5) Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning'Section" \ . PROJECT NAME: iAltf,I'M-)~' rtJle V C fA aDO G DATE: Dtum!£r(P, 2-005 .:i Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 10124/2005 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON December 13, 2005 DEC 1 42005 ~~C~~~!E[Q) Rezone Justification and Project Narrative The property requesting rezone is located at 1733 N.B. 20th Street. This property is commonly known as The Kennydale Blueberry Farm. The property is 3.44 acres in size. It is currently zoned RC and has been so since 1993. All adjacent properties are zoned R-8. The current use of the site is a blueberry farm. There is one residence, one accessory building and two small sheds. To the east is located a green belt with utility easements, where to the best of our knowledge is a spring that is the headwaters to l(ennydale Creek. The area in the greenbelt is so overgrown it is difficult to see anything. It is also the location of the storm water outlet for the Highgate development that was built in 1978. A manmade ditch runs along the east property line of our property, cuts across the north east comer of our land and then enters a ditch along N.E 20th flowing west. It then crosses the street in a culyert and runs north. The area in which the blueberries are planted is a peaty area. Please reference previously submitted soil study. We have no intention of developing this property ourselves. We do plan to sell it. What happens in the future is unknown. We are requesting a rezone to either R-8 or R-4. Please reference my original enclosed letter and the original draft of RC zoning. It is our opinion that having RC zoning did nothing to protect us from the development taking place around us. The changes in this area have made it very unlikely that we can continue to viably farm. We believe an historical timeline will be a clear way to present a picture. 1937: House is moved from Newcastle coalmine housing to parcel 285, the current location. Area is in unincorporated King County. Area is comprised of homes on large parcels. 1947: Blueberry farm is created and bushes are planted. Drainage system is put in and ditch is created. 1957-mid-60's: Houses ate built to the west along Jones Avenue N.E. Sometime is this same timeframe the flow of the ditch is changed from where it exits the farm as evidenced by an old culvert that still exists under NE 20th• It once went due north across the street but is changed to run west in open ditch and culvert to the northwest comer of the farm and then crosses 20th• 1967: 1-405 is built resulting in the culvert that runs under 405 and is the point at which fish cannot get further upstream. 1968: Area is annexed to Renton. 1978: Highgate development to the east is built and sewers go in. This is the beginning of major drainage problems. All storm water is directed into greenbelt/utility easement area. A sewer lift station is constructed in the middle of the creek/ditch directly to the north of the blueberry field on NE 20th. Large amount of silt and debris are forced down stream clogging the channel. Property owner downstream quit maintaining the channel. 1984 to present: We move to the farm. We have made every effort to be good stewards of the land. We have a farm plan from the King conservation district. We have replanted areas with native plants. We have always farmed using organic methods. We have never used any nitrogen fertilizer because of concerns about it entering the water course. Sadly during this time we have watched neighbors haul in truck load after truck load of fill. The greenbelt are has been encroached upon, Trees have been cut down. The detention/retention pond in the greenbelt was filled by neighbors with their yard waste etc. Trees die and faU on our property creating a liability issue for us. The cottonwoods in the greenbelt have grown so tall that they shade our field half of the day. You need sun to grow berries. 2002.; The Higate sewer lift station is removed and a gravity flow sewer line goes in directly to the north of the field. (see enclosed documents.) Back yard infill development begin to the west of us. We appeal but loose. (See enclosed document and please note the hearing examiners comments that are highlighted.) 2004: Camwest development begins. De watering is done for weeks on end. Six or more wells are put in on north side of 20th• They pump for weeks. Ponds in the area drop till some are just mud. The creek/ditch water level is the lowest anyone has ever seen it. This is occurring in the middle of summer when our berries are producing. The stress is awful on the bushes. At some point we just said "we can't do this anymore". You can't fight city hall. Development is happening. It will continue to happen. We have the GMA and Comp Plans. But what are we left with? We have a dying farm and loss of our income from it. Then there are taxes that get higher every year. We tried, we had a dream. In the end "economic development" prevails. It always has. In thy end you cannot take away from us the pleasure we have experienced from the relationship with our loyal customers, some that are three generations of a family. They enjoyed the beauty and peace of our farm. (Well at least until the last two years when the noise and dust from construction changed all that.) In conclusion we are asking for a rezone so we can sell and move on. We have to start all over. If the land remains RC it will have considerable less value then if it has a higher zoning. And even if it stays RC the chances are some developer will still purchase it and go through the zoning change process. We are asking for fairness and consideration for the position we have found ourselves in. DEVELOPMENT r" CWNING CITY OF Rt. )1'1 Sept. 29, 2005 Attention: EDNSP DEC 142005. ~1E(crE~VIED Regarding the property known as The Kennydale Blueberry Farm, located at 1733 NE 20th st., Renton, W A 98056. I wish to request that the city initiate and consider a rezone to R-8 or R-4 on said property. Briefhistory: The farm was planted in the late 1940's and has continued to operate as a V-Pick farm since that time. We have owned and operated the farm for 21 years. In 1992, at the suggestion of a former city planner, we wrote to the city requesting consideration of our property for the newly created Resource Conservation zoning. My intention was to keep the property taxes lower then they would be at the highest and best use. We also liked the wording in the zoning: "protection of agricultural operations from adjacent property activities". (Words which I can no longer find in the zoning definition.) We never received a response from the city. Much to our surprise we were at city hall months later and saw a zoning map. We had RC zoning! Since that time the RC zoning has had many changes. As of the 2004 changes we no longer qualify for RC zoning. We are too small at, +/-3 112 acres. We are spot zoned. All other parcels in the area are R-8. City council review criteria for comprehensive plan amendments: 1. The vision appears to be to build homes to maximum density, This change of zoning would allow that. 2. Supports business plan goals. N/ A 3. There is conflict with adjacent zoning and land use. 4. Request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the city council. Decision criteria for change of zone classification: 1. The land was previously zoned what is now R-8. 2. a. To my knowledge the land was not looked at during the last area land use analysis. b. A gravity flow sewer line was installed to the north replacing a sewer lift station that had been located in the middle of the creek This lowered our water table .A large development has been built that drains storm water into the existing creek/ditch. Further development next to the farm is about to happen. De-watering in the summer of 2004 had a huge impact on our farm. All of these activities have had an impact on our ability to continue to farm. We seem to be either flooded or drained depending on what the city is currently allowing. In order to grow blueberries you need stable conditions. We are being forced out of business. We would like to sell and move on. We would like a fair price for our property. That price would be substantially less with RC zoning. We understand that we have wetlands on our property. The exact percentage of wetlands has not been determined. To our knowledge the wetlands have never been delineated. In our opinion the city has some real problems in this area. Land owners to the north of us wish to develop. They have the same creek/ditch to content with. The city continues to allow developers to direct their storm water into the ditch which is on private property. It does not have the capacity to handle the flow in its current condition. It is entirely man made in this area. Recently there was a blow-out of the new retention system on this stream at Jones Avenue and NE 24th. It was the first rain of the season. Last September I saw the mouth of the creek at Coulon Park had to be completely redone because of erosion. Please take a look at the bigger picture and realize that the city needs to step up to the plate. The drainage problems in this area need to be addressed. In closing we wish to say that we would like to work with the city to resolve these issues. Thank You, Susan Larson-Kinzer ~~-~ ·" DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF RENT~N/NG DEC 1 ~ 2005. R~.C~OVlED ~·0Jj~~··.:.·· ~ ...... . ..r . . . , ':, Itf~* 250' Blueberry Farm Proposed Rezone e Econumic l:>.!vclnpm<;:f!t, N"'lghhumooJs & Strategic Plannmg • __ • ~~~~ :~~~h. Adm;nlst~". 21 Sq>I 1006 c:::J R-4 c:::J R-8 NE 2 h o 400DEC 1 it. ° ~1I'1II""'''Ii#''1II1i ..J5 1 : 4 EUVED \ I rj ') [J7 -I f--- t> I - < P--/ - ~ -en (l '\ '-....C7 ~ C - ~ ~ ---c U· ) I .: .: :;;=' ;'~ ---/' -I--- ( -~ ~~ ( ~ I I I I Blueberry Farms e Economic Development, Neighborboodi & Strategic Planning . R + ~D:;:.!;~cmim'nt« 2U..,.2006 [) I---- '--- l "-D /' ~ \.. I I 25' Buffer - 1 .50 acres of developable land 50' Buffer -1 .15 acres of developable land 1\ \'--- \ f--- 1 u~VEU1)PA""'. 1 I CITY OF D -.!:.'3NNIt"G f o 200 rtENT~~O ~ F;:;;::;;;;::~;;fT2_. '~fOVeD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLtSr-r City of Renton Development Services DivisiQn 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425~430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your 'proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays .later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as 'zoning, shoreline, and' landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Q:\WEB\PW\OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlsLdoc08/01/05 o A. BACKGROIUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: f?e;uJT\e "f KeA'\l'IjdJe ~/uebe,..r!f-FMM 2. Name of applicant: DArre.11 E. 1(, '" ~t71"" $u~~ L.o..rSOn .... U. nt-e.r 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1733 N.I:-. .;If)~ ~ +- t< e-n tOn '80 ~ ~ Ei.;lS"") Jl.;) a' -q" ~ 3 4. Date checklist prepareci: / :l...-/'3 -lJ ~- 5. Agency requesting checklist: CI~ 0 ~ R~-kh 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): €a:rlj ,;)t) 0 ~ 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Se.PA _ £" c!='-oa'/"'1l) t:>(f) ~~-fecl _ J CDp~ L nn I ca..t 1.:y'1c?S~A·(<i:Y\~/O~ed~ H'j~ 111+ S.f.a...,/fJh C''-/n,/'f)o..J/o,...(~lllse.J) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. flo n e k"Dtd 1"\ 1 o. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Se.t?A 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlst.doc 2 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. /733 AJ.~-· ~oy.,., +--6e.Jwee~ So"es! Aberd~ ~. -;"o.ef .:lab. c,.i),;./,//mC4r-," We t.V(l.sJ,,~kh Ga.rdC/l"o fit EJ~ biV. AlD. Y o..ceordllo\,\ +0 plo...~' rccorJeJ 't\ (Jol II Dt pl<l.+~ e ' B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS l't:l.j az Pl Kill, Q)t.A..t.I~. IP4 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one)'/~rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other . V' 5('JhtJ,\ h\~"'e" 0,", "'e''6-t ~ p-+ Pf'o("ert'1 C!ev. :l....W I b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) /tJ-.;Jo· t%.Ilf'DX_ c. , What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils,specify them and note any prime farmland. v..pper Y3 &JI1de $11-i!1 s~J s LoweY' ~ ~"',es ~l'''tn /-.. '" '6 ~D.t+ p~ d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. none k.. hOW 'r\ e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. fJ IIr f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. H!;. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? "0 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: O:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlst.doc 3 o 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. .. b. I\-one Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. non e c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: r~ 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. S?r;"1 ,n Cjr~beA+ ~ e drQ.''''~ +0 7""I00M .."., .... Je.. 81k.h o...lOh~ $ 6orJel'" -/-he.. W0<,5+ ~/on~ Me .;JD..J? ~ C\'060.£e'tS V\.h~tgr $-huo+ NDdl-, (Hn~'hU4~ d,,,,,,, t"r~ K~/I~eI~'e ~ l.ko. ()J£JhJIl'1~ 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or .adjacent to. (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. o.J/ft 3). Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. &>RIA 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. cJD 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 ~O-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No-t "5>~eC 0" ~lol~ f/Chh l'l\~pp;n'1 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO Q;\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlst.doc 4 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ""0 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Njll c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. S-lorl't\ t-U,,-hr ..r r/l In cJ elle/opmery-f .;... li"H f dro.l""..s on:fo pcAr frOfer~ .. \nt~ d.JcJ... 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. no d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: W/A 4. PLANTS a. b. Check or circle types of veget~ found on the site: __ deciduous tree: ~, ~, aspen, other = :~en tree:~, pine, other =~ __ W>or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, ~, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other ~ other types of vegetation Cj()O 1 &J ~c: betrl''j bu !.ke!o What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? I)~ c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. ~ d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: ~ Q;\WEB\PW\OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlsl.doc 5 o 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be,on or near the site: BirdS:~Aron, eagle, s~other _______ _ Ma~~@bear, elk, beaver, other _________ _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _____ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. ~~ c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain ~..en~ d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: tV/A , ~,: 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (~natural gas~OOd stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, b. c. manufacturing, etc. ~ ~ ~ J..AIt)6/~,j ~ Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. # () What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: f1,.M\.A.. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describ~. MJ, 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. ~ 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: MrM.. / tJ/* Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\envchlsLdoc 6 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? ~ 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. ~ 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ~ 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What.is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? a.. ~~ ~~ - I ~ -~~ ~ ~ ~ tfiAi-a..., ~ vr1-~ ~/4,tf ..fo ~-(,I..d'. - b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. ~ ~ ~ /q lfo' S .d A4,~~~~·~ c. Describe any structures on the site. / ./u-a<.J,.~ d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? /)() e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RC f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? l-D R e g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? lUI,~ fI-'\. !J /,4 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. f>~ ~ c1a.# JZ7 f,t)...J.4J oS I?o ec>d-~ ~~ A~ 6-u..,... ~- i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? JV/A ~ ~ Q:\WEB\PW\OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlsl.doc 7 9. o o j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? ~ k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Nfl I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with eXisting and projected land uses and plans, if any: ~~l'eH"'f CJl..t,{ld b ) -_.J ~ /' <t. rc"C"C\JII~ a...S SIN/Ie... -f-c:\m I , h~ '1 tU e..\.c:\ ~ fh.., Ok! lJ. ~ ~I) LJ -/.0 ~~ 4 ~ I ~ -t Lv f>o...#-err. 1>1 .J h.a. n e 1< 1..&, r 1 DO J . HOUSING CY' f\ CI a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicat€ whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Mj;1 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. ,,~ c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: nnv... 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Al/A . b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? /l~ c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11/; 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? /lo h~ b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A Q:\WEB\PW\OEVSERv\Forms\Planning\envchlst.doc 8 c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? I1.H\.t.... d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: ~ 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? ~on~ CJ<e'ron;:i'kle) ftt.1'k. -AbC\'"'de~ A~ ~ IJE'. .:1'1~h b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. ~e~ -U~le~ ..\0..(1\") c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: tJJA 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. /\'O n ~ k 'n 1>1." r. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: PfI. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. b. c. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. M,co..:J e~ ." N. G . ...;>() t\-t s+rce + Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearesttransitstop? rJo APr'D-I-~ blks Pq..s+ tL,.4 €dY'W)lJnd.s ~ How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlst.doc 9 o o d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? 1Jb-VU.. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. AJ t) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak Volumes would occur. AIM , .. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: iJ /fJ. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. ~O b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. "c~e.. 16. UTILITIES a. .!£U~diI¥.-<:C(ailable at the site: ~, natural gas, ~r~~ , septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the' project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities Qn the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. cJ /p. c. SiGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful 'lack of full 'disclosure on my part: ' Proponent: Name Printed: Dacre..11 Date: Q:\WEB\PW\OEVSERv\Forms\Planning\envchlsl.doc 10 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. 'Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? SJ.I-~ ~, ~ ~ w-uv-+0 £....... J..v.,JLl~ ~ c;V... ~.~ ~~.sA~. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: ~.st.",.J.NUI k 1'W ~ ~ 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plant~, animals, fisl1, or marine life? % ~ IW ~(t: PoL ~,.'-"M ~ ~~ ~. ~-.... ~ AAC- 3. ~~ ~ ~tt1,~ tk. """'~ . Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 111/;1 How would the proposal be likelv to deplete energy or natuljil re~urces? ;-. /J cL(A./J<) zp ~ tAJ..J~ w-.dd k ~ ~ Proposed ~easures to protect or conserye ~ergy a!ld)1atural resources are: ~ ~~~~k~-~t'<.IU~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ddcJ.. - 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species ha~itat, historic or cultural sites,. ,~ wetlands, flood plains, or prime fl!!"mlaQds? OJ) ~ ~ ~ a...""tI.. (~ ~ f~)'~ J,.A-~ ~~ OV\..(. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~,~~. Proposed measures to protect such resolJrces ,or to avoi or reduce impacts ~re.:. ~ } ~~ c.4 cJ.~ P1-l,IJ.J-~s ~~ ~4.A. ' • ~ ~/.' ~ ~~~~:P~7~~ 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow ,/ or encourage land or shoreline ~ses incompatible with existing plans? ~~ ~c;;:: k ~~ I.P~ 4~? ~ ~~ fA'U ovW<--I . L Proposed measure~to a~oid or reducjl shorelin(il and land us~ ~~.pa;~s_ are4 ~ ~ n~~ lZv-c ~ ~ ~ /...t.., ~~ <;. ~~.~. Q:\WEB\PW\OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlst.doc 11 o 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and u::;: ~bb./V;) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -Id z:Lc,. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Wffr 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. ~ (.Vd~ ~ SIGNATIUlRE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. »"'" Proponent: ....!.~~~~~4~~~~~~~~~A.4<S"i1-~ ~1..l..!......:~~....:...l...L.ll...:=--/---s£<~S::!...!I4~"" La. r~o" -f(, n l¥ . Name Printed: Date: ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6/98 . ;;,". Q:\WEB\PW\OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\envchlsl.doc 12 Printed: 12-14-2005 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA05-159 12/14/200509:10 AM Receipt Number: R0506706 Total Payment: 2,700.00 Payee: Susan C Larson Kinzer, Darrell E.Kinzer Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 1024 2,700.00 Account Balances Amount 200.00 2,000.00 500.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00