CRISTA News 9/1/13
CRISTA Ministries has revised their Master Development Plan to remove the proposed athletic field from their 20-year master plan and removed proposed parking areas adjacent to Mike Martin Gym as well as proposed roadways between the practice field and Mike Martin Gym. Notice of Decision (Administrative Order) for revision to CRISTA Ministries Master Development Plan at 19303 Fremont Avenue North has been approved. AO approved the removal of the practice athletic field from CRISTA's MDP.
Find the permit applications here: http://shorelinewa.gov/index.aspx?page=273
CRISTA Ministries has revised their Master Development Plan to remove the proposed athletic field from their 20-year master plan and removed proposed parking areas adjacent to Mike Martin Gym as well as proposed roadways between the practice field and Mike Martin Gym. Notice of Decision (Administrative Order) for revision to CRISTA Ministries Master Development Plan at 19303 Fremont Avenue North has been approved. AO approved the removal of the practice athletic field from CRISTA's MDP.
Find the permit applications here: http://shorelinewa.gov/index.aspx?page=273
CRISTA News 8/12/13
Filed 8/8: Notice of Revised Master Development Plan Permit Application including SEPA MDNS and Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents, Permit # 201713
19303 Fremont Avenue N. The proposed action is the revision of the CRISTA Master Development Plan Permit (MDP). CRISTA Ministries has revised their MDP to remove the proposed athletic field from their 20-year master plan. CRISTA has also removed proposed parking areas adjacent to Mike Martin Gym as well as proposed roadways between the practice field and Mike Martin Gym in the southwest portion of the Campus.
Filed 8/8: Notice of Revised Master Development Plan Permit Application including SEPA MDNS and Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents, Permit # 201713
19303 Fremont Avenue N. The proposed action is the revision of the CRISTA Master Development Plan Permit (MDP). CRISTA Ministries has revised their MDP to remove the proposed athletic field from their 20-year master plan. CRISTA has also removed proposed parking areas adjacent to Mike Martin Gym as well as proposed roadways between the practice field and Mike Martin Gym in the southwest portion of the Campus.
CRISTA News 3/10/13
See below for details on the March 15 hearing. Read the following Memorandum for an overview of this suit. This is a 50 page document; here are the first few pages (email me if you'd like the whole thing):
Petitioner, Deborah Buck challenges the failure of the City of Shoreline ("City") to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") in connection with a large project in the middle of a residential neighborhood. On December 22, 2009, the City iseued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (“MDNS”), a determination that an EIS would not be prepared.
The overwhelming evidence in the record produced by the City'to this Court shows that the proposal would produce numerous, probable environmental impacts, the legal circumstance that calls for an EIS. The decision record in this case fails to demonstrate that the City carried its legal burden of giving “actual consideration to environmental factors” in deciding not to require an EIS. Consequently, the City's MDNS is in error. The MDNS is also in error because the mitigations are insufficient and the proposal would create the likelihood of significant adverse impacts upon the environment.
A. Crista Proposes Expansion of a Mega Complex in the Middle of a Single-Family Residential Neighborhood.
Respondent Crista applied for a Master Development Plan Permit ("Master Permit") under Shoreline Municipal Code (SMC) Section 20.30.353 to substantiall expand its Campus. Permit Application, Administrative Record at 1.1 Crista operatesa mixed use complex. Although it has a religious orientation, it is not a church. lnstead it has educational and senior living facilities and administrative offices. City Staff Report, AR 226. The campus is located Within a single-family residential area and is surrounded by low-density single-family homes. ld.
In its Master Permit application, Crista has proposed a substantial expansion. Staff Report, AR 228-230. The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifìcance and thus did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. AR 224-225. Crista proposed, and the City eventually approved, all of the following major changes to this low-density single-family residentiel neighborhood without an EIS:
B. Many of the Project’s Probable Significant Environmental Impacts Were Left Unmitigated by the MDNS Decision.
Numerous Citizen Comments (over 100) identified many environmental impacts, including: removal of many, tall, mature trees (over 400) and replacement with saplings; destruction of wildlife habitat; removal of historic buildings; increased traffic Congestion; spiilover parking onto residential streets; oars blocking driveways on Fremont Avenue and along other streets; congested access to Early Childhood Center;noise from outdoor events; threats to the safety of children, from traffic congestion and high school drivers; trespass and vandalism to adjacent residents by Crista students.
Citizen Comments, Document 35, AR 1320 1648 and Staff Notes of project impacts, AR 0994-1002, copies of which are set forth at Appendices 2 and 3, respectively. But the MDNS itself addresses very few of these impacts.
C. The City Misled Its Citizens into Believing There Would Be a Hearing on the Threshold Determination.
The City has made a mockery of SEPA’s full-disclosure requirements by outwardly representing to the public that the Threshold Determination (to require an EIS or not) would result from an open, transparent process when in reality the decision was made through direct, closed-door exchanges with Crista and the mitigations were largely dictated by Crista. Even though the MDNS was not issued until December 22, 2009, as early as seven months beforehand the City assured Crista that it wouldnot require an EIS for the project.2 But the City only informed Crista of this advance determination, not members of the public. As a consequence, for seven months citizens participated in what they thought was a good faith inquiry into Whether an EIS would be prepared when in reality the decision had been made long before.
To further diminish the importance of submitting written comments, the City repeatedly iedA its Citizens to believe there would be a public: hearing in which Citizens Could present their evidence and state their Concerns that an EIS should be prepareds As can be seen above, even this misleading assurance did not avoid an abundance of comments about potential environmental impacts. See public comments at AR 1320 -1648.
Four business days after the close of the written comment period on the threshold decision issue, the City issued a surprise announcement cancelling the right to the administrative appeal hearing provided for in the Shorelines Municipal Code. Thus citizens who thought they could raise potential impacts at a public hearing were precluded from presenting that evidence.
The following chronology underscores the “bait and switch” over the opportunity to present evidence of the proposals environmental impacts at a public heanng:
1. On May 28, 2009, as noted above, the City staff predetermines that it would not require an EIS, Rooney Deo., (email from Steve Szafran to Kyle Roquet), but the City informs Crista’s representative, not members of the public.
2. On November 19, 2009, the City staff invites written comment on the Threshold Determination and creates the guise that it is legitimately considering an EIS, despite predetermining, six months earlier, that it would not.
3. On December 1, 2009, City staff advises the public that in addition tosubmitting Written Comments, they will have the right to a SEPA appeal hearing. ld., p. 4 (email from Steve Cohn to Wendy Zieve).
4. On December 4, 2009, the Comment period Closes.
5. On December 8, 2009, City staff issues a decision revoking the right to public hearing, statine that review ofthe Citv’s decision should be souqht in the Courts: “the MDPP may be appealed to Superior Court after the City Council takes action.” ld., p_1, (emphasis added.)
6. On December 22, 2009, the SEPA Threshold Determination lVlitigated Determination of NonSignifiCance (MDNS) is issued, indicating no administrative appeal is available and that no appeal may be brought until a final decision on the Master Permit application. ld., p. 2-3; The lVlDNS is also set forth at AR 224.
The l\/lDNS imposed a number of conditions which purport to address the following categories of impacts: traffic; Wildlife; historical buildings; noise; aesthetics; air; and soil quality. AR 224. Among other areas of impact, the MDNS did not include conditions to sufficiently mitigate traffic congestion, the loss of over 400 mature trees, the loss of a number of historic buildings and impacts from the construction activity that would extend over a 20 year period. A copy of the MDNS is set forth within Appendix 4 to this memorandum.
(this goes on from here...)
Petitioner, Deborah Buck challenges the failure of the City of Shoreline ("City") to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") in connection with a large project in the middle of a residential neighborhood. On December 22, 2009, the City iseued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (“MDNS”), a determination that an EIS would not be prepared.
The overwhelming evidence in the record produced by the City'to this Court shows that the proposal would produce numerous, probable environmental impacts, the legal circumstance that calls for an EIS. The decision record in this case fails to demonstrate that the City carried its legal burden of giving “actual consideration to environmental factors” in deciding not to require an EIS. Consequently, the City's MDNS is in error. The MDNS is also in error because the mitigations are insufficient and the proposal would create the likelihood of significant adverse impacts upon the environment.
A. Crista Proposes Expansion of a Mega Complex in the Middle of a Single-Family Residential Neighborhood.
Respondent Crista applied for a Master Development Plan Permit ("Master Permit") under Shoreline Municipal Code (SMC) Section 20.30.353 to substantiall expand its Campus. Permit Application, Administrative Record at 1.1 Crista operatesa mixed use complex. Although it has a religious orientation, it is not a church. lnstead it has educational and senior living facilities and administrative offices. City Staff Report, AR 226. The campus is located Within a single-family residential area and is surrounded by low-density single-family homes. ld.
In its Master Permit application, Crista has proposed a substantial expansion. Staff Report, AR 228-230. The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifìcance and thus did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. AR 224-225. Crista proposed, and the City eventually approved, all of the following major changes to this low-density single-family residentiel neighborhood without an EIS:
- A new football field;
- A new independent senior housing;
- A new 3,500 square foot office building;
- A new addition to the existing Kings Garden Gym;
- A new math/science building;
- A new early Childhood education center;
- A new elementary school;
- A new performing arts building;
- A new skilled nursing facility;
- A new greenhouse;
- The destruction of portions of the historic Firlands Sanatorium.
B. Many of the Project’s Probable Significant Environmental Impacts Were Left Unmitigated by the MDNS Decision.
Numerous Citizen Comments (over 100) identified many environmental impacts, including: removal of many, tall, mature trees (over 400) and replacement with saplings; destruction of wildlife habitat; removal of historic buildings; increased traffic Congestion; spiilover parking onto residential streets; oars blocking driveways on Fremont Avenue and along other streets; congested access to Early Childhood Center;noise from outdoor events; threats to the safety of children, from traffic congestion and high school drivers; trespass and vandalism to adjacent residents by Crista students.
Citizen Comments, Document 35, AR 1320 1648 and Staff Notes of project impacts, AR 0994-1002, copies of which are set forth at Appendices 2 and 3, respectively. But the MDNS itself addresses very few of these impacts.
C. The City Misled Its Citizens into Believing There Would Be a Hearing on the Threshold Determination.
The City has made a mockery of SEPA’s full-disclosure requirements by outwardly representing to the public that the Threshold Determination (to require an EIS or not) would result from an open, transparent process when in reality the decision was made through direct, closed-door exchanges with Crista and the mitigations were largely dictated by Crista. Even though the MDNS was not issued until December 22, 2009, as early as seven months beforehand the City assured Crista that it wouldnot require an EIS for the project.2 But the City only informed Crista of this advance determination, not members of the public. As a consequence, for seven months citizens participated in what they thought was a good faith inquiry into Whether an EIS would be prepared when in reality the decision had been made long before.
To further diminish the importance of submitting written comments, the City repeatedly iedA its Citizens to believe there would be a public: hearing in which Citizens Could present their evidence and state their Concerns that an EIS should be prepareds As can be seen above, even this misleading assurance did not avoid an abundance of comments about potential environmental impacts. See public comments at AR 1320 -1648.
Four business days after the close of the written comment period on the threshold decision issue, the City issued a surprise announcement cancelling the right to the administrative appeal hearing provided for in the Shorelines Municipal Code. Thus citizens who thought they could raise potential impacts at a public hearing were precluded from presenting that evidence.
The following chronology underscores the “bait and switch” over the opportunity to present evidence of the proposals environmental impacts at a public heanng:
1. On May 28, 2009, as noted above, the City staff predetermines that it would not require an EIS, Rooney Deo., (email from Steve Szafran to Kyle Roquet), but the City informs Crista’s representative, not members of the public.
2. On November 19, 2009, the City staff invites written comment on the Threshold Determination and creates the guise that it is legitimately considering an EIS, despite predetermining, six months earlier, that it would not.
3. On December 1, 2009, City staff advises the public that in addition tosubmitting Written Comments, they will have the right to a SEPA appeal hearing. ld., p. 4 (email from Steve Cohn to Wendy Zieve).
4. On December 4, 2009, the Comment period Closes.
5. On December 8, 2009, City staff issues a decision revoking the right to public hearing, statine that review ofthe Citv’s decision should be souqht in the Courts: “the MDPP may be appealed to Superior Court after the City Council takes action.” ld., p_1, (emphasis added.)
6. On December 22, 2009, the SEPA Threshold Determination lVlitigated Determination of NonSignifiCance (MDNS) is issued, indicating no administrative appeal is available and that no appeal may be brought until a final decision on the Master Permit application. ld., p. 2-3; The lVlDNS is also set forth at AR 224.
The l\/lDNS imposed a number of conditions which purport to address the following categories of impacts: traffic; Wildlife; historical buildings; noise; aesthetics; air; and soil quality. AR 224. Among other areas of impact, the MDNS did not include conditions to sufficiently mitigate traffic congestion, the loss of over 400 mature trees, the loss of a number of historic buildings and impacts from the construction activity that would extend over a 20 year period. A copy of the MDNS is set forth within Appendix 4 to this memorandum.
(this goes on from here...)
Hearing Details from Deborah Buck 3/10/13
March 15
Deborah Buck wrote: Today we had a hearing at Superior Court, and will have the second and last (before that judge) next Friday. My attorney, Jeff Eustis, suggested it would be helpful if some interested neighbors came to that hearing.
Our hearing is 3:00 to 4:30 PM Friday, March 15, before Judge Prochnau in courtroom E-201. Jeff said it's ideal to be there about 15 minutes ahead, but it's also OK to enter after the hearing is underway.
The courthouse itself is south of James Street, between 3rd & 4th Avenues. Enter the building from the 3rd Ave. entrance (because the 4th Ave. entrance closes at 2:00.)
Attached is digital copy of our first brief for Judge Prochnau. I need to do some more digging to locate my digital copy of CRISTA & City's response. But I will locate and send to you, along w/ our response to their response.
At this hearing the judge will hear oral arguments in our case. We are challenging the failure of Shoreline to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in connection with the CRISTA Master Development Plan Permit. Our position is that the mitigations are insufficient, and the proposal will have significant adverse impacts on the environment.
This is the third time our case has come before a judge. We had trials at the Superior Court in 2010, then at the Court of Appeals (2012,) now at Superior Court again. We would very much appreciate neighbors coming to this hearing.
Deborah Buck wrote: Today we had a hearing at Superior Court, and will have the second and last (before that judge) next Friday. My attorney, Jeff Eustis, suggested it would be helpful if some interested neighbors came to that hearing.
Our hearing is 3:00 to 4:30 PM Friday, March 15, before Judge Prochnau in courtroom E-201. Jeff said it's ideal to be there about 15 minutes ahead, but it's also OK to enter after the hearing is underway.
The courthouse itself is south of James Street, between 3rd & 4th Avenues. Enter the building from the 3rd Ave. entrance (because the 4th Ave. entrance closes at 2:00.)
Attached is digital copy of our first brief for Judge Prochnau. I need to do some more digging to locate my digital copy of CRISTA & City's response. But I will locate and send to you, along w/ our response to their response.
At this hearing the judge will hear oral arguments in our case. We are challenging the failure of Shoreline to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in connection with the CRISTA Master Development Plan Permit. Our position is that the mitigations are insufficient, and the proposal will have significant adverse impacts on the environment.
This is the third time our case has come before a judge. We had trials at the Superior Court in 2010, then at the Court of Appeals (2012,) now at Superior Court again. We would very much appreciate neighbors coming to this hearing.
