It's been an arduous battle.
But for a group of Monroe citizens opposed to the recent East Monroe rezone, it is a battle worth fighting.
The controversial rezone, which was passed by Monroe City Council in December 2013, applies to the 43-acre piece of property located to the north of U.S. 2 just east of Woods Creek. The ordinance rezoned the property from its Limited Open Space zoning to General Commercial. The property owner, Heritage Baptist Fellowship, had been seeking the rezone for many years without success.
The ordinances rezoning the property were approved by city council in a special session on Thursday, Dec. 26, 2013, in unanimous vote. During the first reading of the ordinance, which took place on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2013, Councilmember Patsy Cudaback provided the one dissenting vote. Councilmember Gamble was not present during the first reading.
Both Cudaback and Gamble had voiced their opposition to the rezone during previous council discussions. Both Cudaback and Gamble voted against holding the special session on Dec. 26.
Before the final vote took place, long-time opponents Lowell Anderson and Doug Hamar spoke during the time set aside for public comment. Anderson and Hamar had sought an appeal through the city's hearing examiner, requesting that the final version of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be classified as deficient, but the appeal was denied.
Hamar voiced his concerns.
"With the hearing examiner's decision only a few short hours ago, making a decision on this important and controversial issue at a special, not-regularly-scheduled council meeting, the day after Christmas, would be outrageously irresponsible,GÇ¥ said Hamar. "This kind of fast-tracking and slight-of-hand maneuver clearly frustrates goal number 11 of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.020.GÇ¥
GMA Planning Goal 11 pertains specifically to citizen participation and coordination.
Once the ordinance was passed, the property was officially rezoned from Limited Open Space (LOS) to General Commercial (GC), which would have allowed for numerous land use opportunities otherwise prohibited within the guidelines of the LOS zoning. Convenience stores, grocery stores, coffee shops, restaurants and taverns would have all been permissible under the GC zoning.
In March, the group of residents opposed to the rezone, now joined by the Blair Family and Chad McCammon, appealed to a higher authority, taking their case to the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board. The petitioners asked for reconsideration on a total of 12 separate concerns, most of which were not deemed compelling enough for the board to recognize with validity.
In cases like this, the presumption of validity lies within the municipality in question, not the petitioners. Per court documents, the board explained, "This presumption creates a high threshold for challengers as the burden is on the petitioners to demonstrate that any action taken by the city is not in compliance with the GMA.GÇ¥
The board did, however, agree with the petitioners on two key points, thus refuting some of the claims made by the engineering firm, PACE Engineering, who was responsible for drafting the final EIS.
During their October 2013 presentation to the Monroe City Council, PACE Engineering asserted that the current conditions of the property and the shorelines on the site were in "degradedGÇ¥ and poor condition. They stated that, due to the constraints on the property, like wetlands and other environmentally protected areas, only about 11 acres would be developable, and that, in this case, development could actually be helpful to the environment.
The board did not find this assertion compelling by any means. They directly disputed the claim that a GC rezone would in any way constitute an enhancement of ecological function. Due to the property lying in the 100-year floodplain, tens of thousands of cubic yards of fill would have been required to raise the desired building site above the floodplain.
The board did not find this activity conducive to improving the environment, and stated that they felt the city "did not seriously consider GMA's environmental protection goal.GÇ¥
As was stated in their decision, "the Board finds no basis for the city's claim that the preferred alternative would result in enhanced ecological function over the current LOS zoning.GÇ¥
Subsequently, the board found the city's rezone ordinance to be in direct conflict with GMA Planning Goal 10, which states; "Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water, and the availability of water.GÇ¥
They also sided with the petitioners that the final EIS "failed to consider meaningful alternatives to re-designation of the property from LOS to GC because it failed to properly formulate the "no-action' alternative and assessed the impacts of the chosen alternatives in relation to each other rather than in relation to existing conditions.GÇ¥
During the October presentation of the final EIS, the "no-actionGÇ¥ alternative promoted the maximum allowable development within the current LOS zoning, which was not reflective of what has actually been occurring on the property. The "no actionGÇ¥ alternative contemplated a church, a fitness center, a childcare facility and a parking lot.
The board stated, "The assumption that commercial development is the goal, and therefore alternatives for more intensive development should shape the analysis, is inappropriate for a non-project policy action.GÇ¥
The rezone was considered a non-project policy action due to the fact that there was no commercial developer waiting in the wings to actually begin developing the property once a rezone was accomplished.
The board also took issue with the fact that the city declined to follow recommendations made by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), who raised numerous concerns after reviewing the draft version of the EIS, over the lack of regard for environmental matters.
Even after the final EIS was presented, the DOE still had concerns.
"I am still concerned that the potential rezone and site development impacts have not been adequately addressed,GÇ¥ wrote DOE Wetland Specialist Paul Anderson. "As stated in our September comment letter, I believe that retaining the LOS zoning, and the associated ecological and esthetic services, is best use of the site.GÇ¥
The board clarified their position on page 26 of their 34 page decision, "The FEIS is clearly inadequate because it failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and failed to analyze environmental impacts on the entire 43-acre rezone.GÇ¥
Guidelines for the Washington State Growth Management Act are outlined specifically in Washington State RCW. The board's final declaration found that the city's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review failed to comply with RCW 43.21C.030(c) as well as GMA Planning Goal 10, which is outlined in RCW 36.70A.020.
The decision further stated, "The board entered a determination of invalidity and the ordinances were remanded to the city.GÇ¥
The decision was rendered on August 26.
Rezone opponent Lowell Anderson attributes the hearing board's determination of invalidity to the hard work and dedication of his team; a group of likeminded individuals steadfastly opposed to the rezone proposal. Anderson shared that many of them set aside their lives to fight for what they believe is the right thing.
"Misty and Brandi Blair and Doug Hamar did all the heavy lifting and they did an awesome job,GÇ¥ said Anderson. "My thanks goes out to the Blair Family and to Chad McCammon for all their help.GÇ¥
Thus far, the city has not indicated what action they will take. City Administrator Gene Brazel shared that a determination will be made after they meet with the property owners.
Attempts made by the Monroe Monitor to contact the owners of the property were unsuccessful.
Whatever the city decides, Anderson says that his team is ready.
"We all agree that we're not going away,GÇ¥ said Anderson.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment