It was almost a year ago that the East Monroe rezone ordinances were passed by the Monroe City Council. The controversial rezone ordinances, which rezoned the east Monroe property from Limited Open Space (LOS) to General Commercial (GC), were passed in a special session that took place on Thursday, Dec. 26, 2013.
Now, two council rescissions later, the city will again attempt to rezone the 43-acre parcel of property located east of Woods Creek and north of U.S. 2.
After last year's ordinances passed, a group of citizens appealed that decision to the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board, and in August, the board returned a determination of invalidity. They found the final Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by the Kirkland firm PACE Engineers, to be inadequate.
The property owner, Heritage Baptist Church, has continued to push for the rezone. The opposition has continued to fight it.
After a long silence, Pastor Thomas Minnick addressed council during two recent council meetings, requesting that the city respond to the hearings board by affirming that they will be providing a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) as would be required for the board to establish the rezone's validity.
When the city balked at the expense, which in addition to the cost of the SEIS would include additional legal fees and staff time, Minnick let them know that Heritage Baptist would cover the costs for the environmental portion of the expense.
Councilmembers Jason Gamble, Patsy Cudaback and Jeff Rasmussen felt strongly that, even with the SEIS costs covered, the city should not pay any more money to push through a non-project rezone that offers no immediate benefit to the city.
Thus far, the city has spent over $195,000 in pursuit of the East Monroe rezone.
Councilmember Kurt Goering has often stated, "The more red on the map the better,GÇ¥ referring to the color used to depict GC zoning on the city's zoning maps. Being as the rezone proposal is considered a non-project action, meaning that there is no developer waiting in the wings to develop the property, the rezone has often been referred to as simply "changing the color on the map.GÇ¥
On Tuesday, Nov. 18, Councilmember Kevin Hanford gave notice that he would move to rescind Cudaback's motion from Tuesday, Oct. 14, which would have put an end to the rezone. Cudaback's original motion to cease the rezone efforts, which was made in September, was rescinded by Goering.
Public comment was heard prior to council action. Several citizens spoke in opposition, including Dave Demarest, Lowell Anderson, Doug Hamar and others.
Hamar brought up several concerns that the opposition team has voiced over the EIS done by PACE, including what they consider to be inadequate consideration given to the impact that GC development would have on traffic in the area. He also addressed the issue of whether or not the property is in the flood plain.
"PACE, having designed their 2013 EIS around the property being in the flood plain, is now insisting that it isn't,GÇ¥ said Hamar. "By doing so, are they not essentially admitting that their original EIS was a farce?GÇ¥
Hamar was referring to the Tuesday, Nov. 4 council meeting when PACE Vice President Susan Boyd stated that the East Monroe property is not in the flood plain. While the FEMA maps differ depending on whether you look at the 1999 maps or the 2007 maps, both maps do seem to indicate that the property is in the flood plain.
During the Nov. 18 council meeting, legal counsel for Heritage Baptist Church informed the council that, in actuality, they had largely won when it came to the hearings board's decision.
"If that were true, the rezone would not have been invalidated,GÇ¥ said Hamar. GÇ¥And I'm confident it will remain invalidated because the reality of the property itself does not support the idea of commercial development there.GÇ¥
After public comment was completed, council discussion began with Hanford making the motion to rescind Cudaback's motion from Oct. 14. Councilmember Goering seconded the motion.
"In my mind it's a property rights issue. The applicant will have to jump through all sorts of hoops, and he'll have to comply, to develop that land down the road,GÇ¥ said Hanford. "That's not what we're doing right now. We're, as has been talked about before, changing the color on the map, increasing our commercial land. It's the right thing to do for the applicant. If I were in the applicant's shoes, I would want the same thing done for me.GÇ¥
Hanford said that he's been spending a lot of time speaking with people opposed to the rezone, and has also taken the time to meet with Pastor Minnick.
"I feel like I've heard both sides, from everyone that needs to share, and I'm ready to make the decision and move on with a clear conscience, knowing that I'm doing what's in the best interest of the city,GÇ¥ said Hanford.
Councilmember Gamble zeroed in on the financial aspects of the rezone, reminding everyone that, despite the fact that Heritage will pay for the SEIS, the city still does not have any extra money in the budget to dedicate to the other expenses related to the non-project rezone.
"We've been very fiscally conservative as a council. We've done a good job of getting us back on our feet,GÇ¥ said Gamble. "I just don't know how this is in concert with that effort, and that's why I was so supportive of our vote on October 14.GÇ¥
Councilmember Rasmussen concurred with Gamble. He brought up MusicFest, an event that, earlier in the year, council declined to host because of its potential $65,000 price tag.
"Now, granted they are two different animals, don't get me wrong here, but the reality is, this whole council eventually balked at spending $65,000 for a concert at the park that would have had some shred of benefit to our community,GÇ¥ said Rasmussen. "Yet, what appears to be, is that we're okay spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a non-project land rezone that, again, I don't feel has benefit. That truly bothers me.GÇ¥
He also said that, in light of their recent back-and-forth decision making process, he didn't feel that an extension from the Growth Management Hearings Board would be very likely. At this point, the ability of the rezone to actually move forward is contingent upon an extension, due to the looming compliance date of February 23, 2015.
An extension will be required in order for PACE to have time to prepare the SEIS, which the city will then need to examine and approve.
The motion to rescind was passed, 4-3, with Cudaback, Rasmussen and Gamble dissenting.
Hanford then moved to comply with the hearings board's decision by authorizing the mayor to take "all appropriate and necessary action to revise the final Environmental Impact Statement and process the proposed East Monroe Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone.GÇ¥
Conversation was then sparked because the motion did not specify that Heritage Baptist would be paying for the SEIS. A sub-motion was made to make sure that language stipulating that provision was formally added. The sub-motion passed, 6-1, with Goering dissenting.
The original parent motion passed 4-3 in identical fashion as the initial rescission motion.
Finally, Hanford moved to "authorize and direct the city attorney to request an extension of the Growth Management Hearings Board's compliance deadline in case no. 14-3-0006c by an additional period of up to six months, and to take all necessary and appropriate measures related to this action.GÇ¥
That motion passed 4-3 in identical fashion as the other two.
The city is hoping to hear back from the hearings board in two to three weeks about whether or not they will be granting them an extension.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment