Neighbors urge city to deny Thirtieth Street rezone as developer pushes light‑industrial designation

Mayor Kathy Hayden opened the public hearing on Ordinance 2943, a proposal to amend the comprehensive plan map and rezone Parcel A on Thirtieth Street Court East. Associate Planner Krishanda Walker told council the site is about 3.3 acres, sits next to existing light‑industrial land and that staff reviewed three alternatives under the required comprehensive‑plan criteria and SEPA (state environmental) review. Walker said staff concluded a map amendment could resolve inconsistency between zoning and use but noted neighborhood‑compatibility, traffic and environmental concerns and reported the Planning Commission recommended denial pending more transportation analysis.

Residents who live adjacent to Parcel A gave extended testimony opposing the rezone. Chet Bates, whose family has lived on the property since 1942, said he submitted photos showing the parcel “holding water” and warned that a warehouse 50 feet from his property line would lower home values and raise the local water table. Linda Wright Ridley said Lot A is surrounded largely by residential and commercial uses and questioned the applicant’s characterization that the lot is bordered by industrial land, arguing a 50‑foot buffer and slow‑maturing landscaping will not protect neighborhood character. Multiple other neighbors described nighttime generator noise from nearby industrial operations, raised traffic and safety concerns for children, and described elevated site grades, new fences and other construction that residents say has already affected adjacent yards.

Josh Kumar, an owner of the Thirtieth Street parcel, spoke for the applicants and said the site sits in an area that is “already largely industrial in character yet is still zoned residential.” He said rezoning to light industrial would align the map with existing uses, create local jobs and allow the owners to design shared access to 30 Second Street to “remove all truck traffic from their residential street.” Kumar said two alternative outcomes are possible if rezoning is denied: (1) development of townhomes under state housing code—he estimated about 64 townhomes and roughly 120 or more vehicle trips per day down the cul‑de‑sac—or (2) sale to a national industrial developer, which he said could remove local accountability.

Speakers for the neighborhood repeatedly asked council to honor the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the rezone and to require a transportation study before reconsideration. Residents emphasized multigenerational ties to the neighborhood and said their concern is not opposition to growth but to placing new industrial uses immediately adjacent to long‑standing homes.

The hearing closed at 6:47 p.m. Mayor Hayden and several council members thanked residents for their time; council did not take a vote at the meeting. The matter remains before council for deliberation and any future action will be noticed separately.