East Monroe opponents speak out during public hearing on environmental study

Monroe Community Development Director Dave Osaki held a public hearing last week to take testimony regarding the latest environmental study completed in conjunction with the east Monroe rezone proposal.

The hearing included a brief introduction by Osaki, a presentation of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) findings by PACE Engineers vice president Susan Boyd and public testimony. The DSEIS has been available for review since Aug. 28, following State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) guidelines mandating a 30-day public comment period. The hearing took place 7 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 23 at Monroe City Hall, 801 W. Main St.

"This hearing tonight isn't required; it's optional. But if you're like me, sometimes you don't have a lot of time to write a lot of long letters, and it's just easier to come and speak,GÇ¥ Osaki said.

Osaki invited attendees to submit additional comments in writing by the end of the 30-day public comment period, which was 5 p.m. Monday, Sept. 28. The SEPA process stipulates the city must provide a written response to each comment and compile the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) incorporating both the comments and responses.

Another public hearing will be held before the Monroe Planning Commission at 7 p.m. on Monday, Oct. 12 at Monroe City Hall. After hearing testimony, the planning commission will issue its recommendation to the Monroe City Council, which will then hold its public hearing at a time not yet determined.

Osaki gave a brief synopsis of the land-use action known as the east Monroe rezone.

The east Monroe rezone has been in limbo since the ordinances rezoning the 42.8-acre parcel from Limited Open Space (LOS) to General Commercial (GC) passed in a special Monroe City Council session on Dec. 26, 2013. One ordinance was to rezone the property and the other to amend the city's Comprehensive Plan in relation to the rezone.

A group of residents petitioned the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB), alleging that the rezone was noncompliant with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) done by PACE was deficient.

The GMHB sided with the petitioners on several points. The board found the EIS failed to comply with state RCW 43.21C.030 and GMA Planning Goal 10, which directly relates to environmental concerns. They remanded the rezone ordinances back to the city, with a determination of invalidity, on Aug. 26, 2014.

"Basically the hearings board said, "Your environmental analysis of that rezone, and of that comprehensive plan amendment, was inadequate. We're invalidating the city's approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and the rezone; go back and do it again,' GÇ¥ Osaki said.

Boyd said that as they worked through the supplementary environmental study, they zeroed in on hydrology, surface water, topography and habitat. The east Monroe property features streams, wetlands, steep slopes, habitat and floodplain. The critical areas are so prolific that only 11 of the 43 acres are developable.

"I can't imagine anybody in this room doesn't agree with the fact that those are the key issues for this site,GÇ¥ Boyd said.

The SEIS included deeper analysis of landslide risk, Boyd said.

"They found evidence of previous shallow sliding on the site, on the area north of the site,GÇ¥ Boyd said. "They also found that no impact to the steep slopes was associated with development of the site if it was done to code.GÇ¥

In terms of hydrology, Boyd said that they uncovered a key finding in the SEIS. She said it used to be believed that connectivity to the Skykomish River existed through two culverts passing under U.S. 2 and feeding into a slough that snakes through the property. The culverts are located on the west and east ends of the property. According to Boyd, new analysis of the area shows no direct hydraulic continuity to or from the river exists at the east culvert.

She said this means fish habitat in the area is limited, pointing to the area on a map.-á -á

"All that's coming into the slough from here is ditch water along the S.R. 2,GÇ¥ Boyd said. "That was a big finding for us.GÇ¥

She addressed compensatory flood storage ' a key provision in floodplain development ' the concept being flood storage capacity experiences no net loss. If fill is used to raise an area out of the floodplain, an equal amount must be excavated elsewhere, to compensate for what is lost.

Opponents have long argued that, due to the use of LIDAR technology in the original EIS, the amount of available compensatory flood storage was miscalculated. LIDAR, a technology that uses a laser to measure distances remotely, misread areas filled with blackberry brambles as solid ground, opponents say.-á -á

"I think the important thing here is the provision on compensatory flood storage will determine how much development is allowed, at the time a development proposal is made,GÇ¥ Boyd said. "That's kind of the bottom line to the whole thing. Maybe it's 10 acres that can be developed, maybe it's 11 acres, maybe it's more ' dependent on compensatory flood storage.GÇ¥

The east Monroe rezone environmental study is a non-project action, meaning that no one is waiting to develop the property. Councilmembers have occasionally referred to the rezone as simply "changing the color on the map.GÇ¥

"The point is, is that we've had the best experts in the region look at it and say that we can develop this property without any impact to upstream or downstream properties,GÇ¥ Boyd said. "I think that's a critical point that needs to be made.GÇ¥

During public testimony, Monroe resident Doug Hamar refuted PACE's assertion that the east end of the property lacks connectivity to the river, saying he views the finding as a strategy to convince people that the 100-year floodplain is lower and there is less critical habitat.

"It doesn't take an expert in watershed hydrology to understand, particularly in the drought we have been experiencing, that none of that water is coming from the drainage ditches along the highway,GÇ¥ Hamar said. "And it certainly isn't backing up from the west end of the slough a half a mile downstream.GÇ¥

Lowell Anderson, a 65-year Monroe resident, lives on the ridge above the east Monroe property. He has long been opposed to the idea of a rezone based on environmental concerns, landslide risks, concerns about compensatory flood storage and other issues. Anderson has repeatedly argued commercial development at the site is not feasible.

The cost of extending the utilities alone would be prohibitive, Anderson said, and access into the property would have to be at U.S. 2, one of the most notoriously dangerous stretches of roadway in the state. -á -á

"This is absolutely the worst site that you can possibly have for commercial development that I have ever seen,GÇ¥ Anderson said.

Resident Ashley Sellers expressed concern about the recent landslide activity near the site. In February, the hillside just below her residence moved significantly, and evidence of the landslide is visible from U.S. 2.

Misty Blair, an environmental specialist, authored the GMHB appeal petition. She said the SEIS is "a lot of information without conclusions and without proposed mitigation.GÇ¥ She faulted the alternatives presented in the SEIS, which was another sticking point with the GMHB. Last August, the board agreed the original EIS failed to consider the required alternatives stipulated in the Washington Administrative Code related to SEPA rules.-á

"The main thing here is just that you guys are supplementing an inadequate FEIS, and the supplement does not cure those inadequacies,GÇ¥ Blair said.

Vicki Furrer owns a farm located about two miles east of the property, where she and her husband raise cattle. She's lived there for 57 years, purchasing the property from her parents in 1992. Furrer said commercial development doesn't make sense along the U.S. 2 corridor in between Monroe and Sultan because it doesn't match existing conditions.

The stretch of highway is peppered with small farms, including Rivers End Ranch, Groeneveld's Dairy Farm and Johannsson's Farm.

"The average farm here in Snohomish County is only 46 acres,GÇ¥ Furrer said. "Keeping this agricultural land to preserve for generations to come is very important. There's been an increase in farms in the county in the last few years.GÇ¥

Furrer acknowledged that the landowner has property rights, but so do she and her husband. Commercial development at that location would have an adverse effect on local farmers, she said. She argued the property owner, Heritage Baptist Church, knew the property was Limited Open SGÇôGÇôpace when they purchased it.

"It's frustrating for us old-timers, that someone comes in and wants to change everything,GÇ¥ Furrer said. "They knew what it was zoned, so why are they trying to change it?GÇ¥

Council chambers were packed at the hearing, and a total of eight residents spoke out against the rezone. To review the 66-page DSEIS, visit http://monroewa.gov/documentcenter/view/3308.