The Beachcomber editorial (April 20) and Emma Amiad’s letter (April 27) regarding the K2 rezone disregard apparent flaws in the normal rezone process based on the requirements of  King County Code Title 20.18.050, 20.18.055 and 20.24.400. Both The Beachcomber and Ms. Amiad should read those sections and provide an assessment of how the K2 rezone process complied with them.  

This is not about Tom Bangasser. It is about the rezone process. Why was there no Island public hearing regarding the rezone?  Informational meetings by project proponents do not equate to public hearings in the presence of a hearing examiner. When was the VMICC notified as required and by whom?  Was the rezone of the largest Island industrial property considered non-significant under SEPA?  On what basis was this determined and by whom?

It appears this rezone was fast-tracked, and it’s still unclear who requested and who authorized a fast-track and who represented Vashon in these decisions.  It is inaccurate to state that VMICC was fully aware of the timing and implementation of the rezone.  Members at that time were apparently surprised, just as were other concerned Islanders who feel their opportunity for community input was circumvented, which re-emphasizes the importance of VMICC’s UAC status, the only Island voice officially recognized by King County.

— Kevin Freeman

Editor’s note:

According to King County officials at the Department of Development and Environmental Services, there are two ways for a site-specific zoning change to to occur — the one cited in the letter above and another, noted in County Code 20.18.030. That code, which governed in the K2 rezone, allows the county to propose site-specific zoning changes as part of an update to its comprehensive plan. The hearing is held not by a hearing examiner but by the county council. 

In this instance, the county sent out a mailing to property owners within 500 feet of K2 as well as the VMICC board several weeks in advance of a hearing on the comprehensive plan.