The Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board has granted the City of Monroe an extension for compliance in the matter of the east Monroe rezone. In an eight-page decision delivered on Jan. 2, the board announced a new compliance schedule, which begins with an initial due date of Aug. 21, 2015.
The matter of the east Monroe rezone has been in a state of flux since the ordinances rezoning the 43-acre east Monroe property from Limited Open Space (LOS) to General Commercial (GC) passed in a special Monroe City Council session on Thursday, Dec. 26, 2013. A group of citizens petitioned the board, alleging that the rezone was noncompliant with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) done by PACE Engineers of Kirkland was deficient.
Issues in regards to flooding, the risk of landslides and the amount of compensatory flood storage material available at the site were all brought up by the petitioners. Additionally, they faulted the EIS, stating that it did not provide a reasonable range of development alternatives.
On Aug. 26, 2014, 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.
Since then, the Monroe City Council has wavered back and forth about pursuing the rezone, which thus far has cost the city more than $195,000 in legal fees and staff hours, according to a public records request.
The public has largely been opposed -áto the rezone. Citizens have commented publicly during numerous council meetings about their opposition to spending any more city funds on the proposal.
In October 2014, after the council voted to cease pursuit of the rezone, the property owner, Heritage Baptist Church, said it would pay for the further environmental study needed to potentially achieve compliance. Members of the public still opposed the rezone, however, because even with the environmental study costs covered, additional legal expenses and staff time will be incurred.
On Dec. 9, the majority of the council decided to reverse its October decision, rescinding the vote to cease pursuit and directing city staff to request a compliance extension from the board. Per the board's Aug. 26 decision, compliance was due by Feb. 23, 2015, which was not sufficient enough for the property owner to have the supplementary environmental study prepared. It was determined that an extension was necessary for the rezone to move forward.
The board received the city's motion for extension of compliance on Dec. 17, 2014.
In a separate motion made on Dec. 9, Heritage Baptist Church filed a request to intervene, which would have given it an increased legal standing in the case. Intervention status can be requested by people who have interest in a particular action, and are concerned about their interests being adequately represented by the existing parties. Heritage's intervention request came late, but they argued that they had good cause for the late request.
The board denied Heritage's motion to intervene in the case, but granted them compliance participant status, which allows them to participate during the compliance hearing.
With the city's request for a six-month compliance extension granted, Heritage will move forward on the scope-of-work plan, which was submitted to the board with the motion for extension. According to the order, the scope of work plan includes a hydraulic and flood rise analysis, a hydrologic and hydrogeological assessment, as well as additional geotechnical analysis of landslide risks. The order also states that the city is anticipating an additional public participation process.
Once the supplementary environmental work is completed, there is no guarantee that the property will be rezoned to General Commercial. The board's Aug. 26 decision did not specify what action is needed to bring the ordinances into compliance. This means that a tangible path regarding which supplementary environmental study is needed has not been clearly defined.
The board reiterated this uncertainty in the Jan. 2 order which states; "the board has no authority to direct what action the city shall take to achieve compliance. The board's remedy is to remand the matter back to the city to take legislative action to comply with the GMA. The board cannot dictate what specific action the city must take, nor can Heritage.GÇ¥
Concerns over this uncertainty have been expressed by councilmembers, but despite the concerns, decisive votes to cease pursuit of the rezone have been rescinded twice since October 2014.
The new order requests clarification regarding whether or not Heritage and the City of Monroe are in agreement about the preferred outcome. "The Board is unclear as to whether the City and Heritage are supporting the same outcome,GÇ¥ they wrote. "At the time compliance briefs are due, the parties are requested to notify the Board as to whether Heritage supports or opposes the city's actions.GÇ¥
After compliance materials are received on Aug. 21, 2015, a compliance report, including a statement of actions taken to achieve compliance, is due by Sept. 8. Objections to the finding of compliance will be due on Sept. 21, with objection responses due by Oct. 1. A subsequent compliance hearing has been set for 10 a.m. on Oct. 8.
The location of the hearing has not yet been determined.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment