Monroe City Council addressed the topic of the East Monroe rezone on Tuesday, Nov. 4, during the regular business meeting of the Monroe City Council.
Once again, council chambers were filled with concerned citizens.
After the 43-acre parcel of property was rezoned from Limited Open Space (LOS) to General Commercial (GC) by Monroe City Council in December 2013, a group of citizens who disagreed with the decision petitioned the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board. The board issued a determination of invalidity in August.
In September, it seemed as though the rezone pursuit might come to an end. Concerned over how much money the proposal was costing the city, Councilmember Patsy Cudaback made a motion to cease pursuit of the rezone. The resulting vote ended in a tie, with Mayor Geoffrey Thomas serving as the tie-breaker. The mayor's vote allowed Cudaback's motion to pass.
The action was rescinded the following week by Councilmember Kurt Goering, who stated that any decision made about east Monroe should be solely made by the councilmembers. Further discussion ensued, and subsequently, in October, council voted on the issue once again. This time, the vote was 5-2 in favor of ceasing pursuit of the rezone.
The city has already spent at least $195,541.91 on the rezone effort in the last four years; a number which only includes a portion of the staff hours dedicated to the project. Councilmembers changed their votes based on the high costs associated with the supplemental environmental work that would be required to satisfy the hearings board.
And then, later in October, the property owner, Heritage Baptist Church, communicated a willingness to pay for the supplemental environmental work. The item was placed back on the agenda for additional discussion.
Several citizens testified during the public comment portion of the meeting.
Sam Wirsching, owner of Sam's Cats and Dogs, Naturally, expressed confusion over about why the issue was being discussed again. He said that, after so many citizens had approached council with an oppositional position on the matter, it seemed to him as through their voices didn't matter; that the councilmembers weren't listening to what the seeming-majority of their constituency wanted.
"I don't feel like I'm dumb,GÇ¥ said Wirsching. "But I really feel like I'm the one who ate stupid pills because I don't understand why, if we voted to let it go, it's back on the agenda.GÇ¥
"I'd love to be part of the community with you guys,GÇ¥ he continued. "Instead of at your mercy.GÇ¥
Several members of the group responsible for petitioning the Growth Management Hearings Board spoke, including Brandi Blair, Douglas Hamar, Chad McCammon and Lowell Anderson.
Anderson, who has fought the rezone for many years, lives on the ridge directly north of the property, which is situated just east of Woods Creek on the north side of U.S. 2. He reiterated the fact that the parcel, due to various environmental concerns, is not fully developable. Based on the current Environmental Impact Statement, completed by Kirkland firm PACE Engineers, approximately 11 acres out of the 43 would be developable.
"Our study indicates an accurate topographical survey will prove substantially less acres are available for development than the 11 acres being discussed,GÇ¥ said Anderson. "It is unrealistic to believe a developer will spend millions of dollars on mitigation and wait several years for permits to develop a few acres in a flood plain.GÇ¥
Monroe resident Bill Davisson spoke after Anderson. Davisson shared that he moved to Monroe in 1963, and raised his family in his home on Main Street.
"In that time, I've heard three great speeches. I've heard one by John Kennedy, where he asked not what he could do for us, I've heard one by Martin Luther King about having a dream, and I've heard one from one of our councilmembers about it's a sad day in Monroe,GÇ¥ said Davisson. "To me it is a sad day in Monroe. This issue is like a snake with its head cut off, and the head keeps looking for somebody else to bite.GÇ¥
Davisson expressed frustration. To him, the rezone doesn't appear to offer any benefit to the citizens of Monroe.
"I don't know what else to say, I'm tired of coming here,GÇ¥ said Davisson. "I can't count the times I've been here to talk on this issue. I'm not coming back; this is the end of it.GÇ¥
Once public comment was exhausted, council approved the consent agenda, after which Mayor Thomas deferred to Councilmember Kurt Goering to lead the East Monroe discussion. It was Goering who initiated the request to have the item added to the agenda after council received a letter from the property owner which expressed a willingness to pay for further environmental study.
Heritage Baptist Church Lead Pastor Thomas Minnick addressed council. He expressed that the church is willing to cover the costs for the supplemental environmental work required to satisfy the Growth Management Hearings Board. He addressed concerns brought up during public comment that the rezone proposal was causing dissention in the community.
"I think it's worth noting that the animus and the vitriol in this whole issue has been one sided entirely. I think it's, in fact, incredibly disingenuous to come up here and complain about dissension when that complaint is being lodged by the very people who have created the dissension,GÇ¥ said Minnick.
He stated that despite being lied about in the media, and despite confrontational behavior from individuals opposed to the rezone, the church has maintained a peaceful stance.
"We've never responded in anger,GÇ¥ said Minnick. "And I don't tonight. But nobody from Heritage has accosted anybody; nobody from Heritage has beaten on their vehicles as they tried to leave the parking lot; all of that anger has been on one side.GÇ¥
Minnick was referring to an altercation that occurred outside city hall on Tuesday, Sept. 23. The conflict arose after Councilmember Kurt Goering moved to rescind Cudaback's motion to stop pursuing the rezone.
After Minnick spoke, PACE Engineers Vice President Susan Boyd offered council detail on the additional environmental study that would be required to potentially satisfy the Growth Management Hearings Board's concerns. PACE Engineers developed both the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the final EIS, of which Boyd was the primary author.
The board's determination of invalidity on the rezone ordinances was given after the board found the city in violation of two Washington State RCWs. First, they were found to be in violation of RCW 36.70a.020, which dictates the state's Growth Management Act Planning Goals. Specifically, the board found that the rezone was not in harmony with GMA Planning Goal 10, which states that the environment must be protected above all else.
Additionally, they were found to be in violation of RCW 43.21C.030(c), which stipulates that, in an EIS, alternatives to the proposed action must be comprehensive. Issues were raised about the fact that PACE's no-action alternative included development, which wasn't reflective of what is currently occurring on the property.
"The EIS, as it stands, addresses a no-action alternative that includes development under the existing zoning that's on the property; that's typically what's done in these cases,GÇ¥ said Boyd. "They ask for another alternative. We have the information for that alternative and it's easy for us to clarify and document it.GÇ¥
She explained that the board also asked for additional clarification on flood hazard and hydrology.
"I do want to be really clear; this property is not in the flood plain. It's not in the flood plain,GÇ¥ said Boyd. "We keep hearing that, but according to FEMA and according to city code it's excluded from the flood plain. Could it be susceptible to flooding? Yes. Would there be some fill required on the property? Yes.GÇ¥
Construction in areas that are prone to flooding require that building structures be elevated by the use of fill material.
Citizens opposed to the rezone disagree, and have expressed on numerous occasions that the property is in the flood plain. One of the factors that influenced the board's decision to side with the petitioners in regard to the environmental concerns was the fact that, when an earlier EIS was deemed inadequate by Monroe's hearing examiner, specific concerns over flooding were given.
The board cited the hearing examiner's decision from 2012 which stated; "The best available evidence is that the majority of the developable portion of the project area is subject to up to about eight feet of flood inundation during the 100-year flood event; the best available science is that SR 2 does not function as a levee to protect the project area from flood inundation.GÇ¥
Complicating the official diagnosis regarding the degree of the property's flood hazard are differing FEMA designations. FEMA maps from 2007, which have not been formally adopted by the city, place the property in the 100-year flood plain. The city, however, uses the FEMA maps from 1999, which designate the area as "Zone X,GÇ¥ or as being in the 500-year floodplain. This designation is of lower severity than the 100-year flood plain.
FEMA defines the 100-year Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as "the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.GÇ¥ The 500-year flood plane is based on a 0.2 percent chance of a flood occurring in any given year.
This change in the FEMA map designation was addressed by the board who acknowledged the different designations in their decision. "The board agrees with the 2012 hearing examiner that "in the context of an EIS, the reality of flooding is more important than which regulatory requirements may apply.' In the present case, the property is undeniably subject to frequent flood inundation.GÇ¥
Boyd explained that, regardless of what flood hazards exist, mitigation techniques which specifically address flooding concerns are available. "There are a lot of mitigation and avoidance measures that are available to use,GÇ¥ she said. "Those weren't brought out in the original FEIS and the draft EIS because it's a non-project action.GÇ¥
The rezone proposal is considered non-project because there is no developer waiting to develop the property.
Additionally, the board stated that further study was needed to look at potential landslide hazards.
When discussion turned to further costs that the city would incur, Public Works Director Brad Feilberg explained that staff received the information from PACE immediately prior to the meeting and had not had the opportunity yet to review it in a comprehensive manner. City Attorney Zach Lell concurred when asked to provide an estimate as to what kind of legal fees might be incurred should the rezone pursuit be continued.
Lell stated that the variables outside the city's control, such as future legal challenges, make it difficult to estimate.
The group of citizens opposed to the rezone has steadfastly declared that they will continue to fight.
Councilmembers Jim Kamp, Goering and Kevin Hanford directed city staff to collaborate with PACE and attempt to obtain further cost data. The subject will return to the agenda once this data has been compiled, possibly on Tuesday, November 18.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment