Monroe City Council held discussion on Tuesday, Sept. 16, to determine how to proceed with the East Monroe rezone ordinances based on the Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board's recent determination of invalidity.
The East Monroe rezone ordinances were passed in December of 2013. The ordinances rezoned the 43-acre parcel of property located north of U.S. 2 and east of Woods Creek from Limited Open Space (LOS) to General Commercial (GC). On August 26, the Growth Management Hearings Board issued their final decision and order in which they deemed the ordinances to be invalid due to deficiencies found in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Both the draft and the final Environmental Impact Statements were completed by PACE Engineers, Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Heritage Baptist Church.
Four alternatives were provided to council to facilitate discussion.
In the first alternative, option A, the city would appeal the Growth Management Hearings Board's final decision and order, and take the matter up in Superior Court. Costs associated with option A would include staff time and legal expenses.
In option B, the city would comply with the final decision and order, and would work to address and rectify the noted deficiencies in the EIS. This would necessitate creation of a draft supplementary EIS, followed by a review-and-comment period for citizens, followed by a final supplementary EIS.
The city has until February 23, 2015 to comply. Public Works Director Brad Feilberg advised that a request for an extension from the hearings board might be necessary if the city decided to pursue option B.
Expenses related to option B would include staff time and costs for PACE to complete the supplementary EIS.
In option C, the city would comply with the final decision of the Growth Management Hearings Board by conveying to the board that they do not intend to pursue the East Monroe rezone proposal or associated Comprehensive Plan amendment. This course of action would have the same compliance due date as option B; February 23, 2015.
In option D, the city would take no action at the present time.
Councilmember Ed Davis, who was not present at the meeting, submitted an email to Mayor Geoffrey Thomas and City Administrator Gene Brazel to be read into the record in regards to rezone discussion.
Mayor Thomas read the email into the record.
"I wanted to make sure my input was received,GÇ¥ wrote Davis. "I want to voice my support for option B, as listed on the agenda bill cover sheet. I am not in favor of option C.GÇ¥
Councilmember Patsy Cudaback began discussion on the matter by asking Feilberg what the total expense has been to the city so far. She asked for specifics on how much money has been spent in legal fees, and also an estimate on how much staff time has been invested.
"To date, our estimated legal fees, so far, are about $121,000,GÇ¥ said Feilberg.
Feilberg went on to explain that, while it was difficult to track staff time, more recently the amount of hours had gone up because of the time necessary to review the final EIS, prepare council packets, and work on submission items as required by the Growth Management Hearings Board. He said that, due to the time constraints of the compliance schedule, if the city wished to effectively pursue option B, a notification authorizing PACE to proceed would need to be given almost immediately, and the city would have to dedicate one full time staff person to work the project exclusively.
Feilberg and Monroe Senior Planner Melissa Sartorius explained that this would cause other projects to get pushed back.
Councilmember Cudaback made a motion that the city take action as outlined in option C and take no further action in pursuit of the rezone. Councilmember Jeff Rasmussen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Kurt Goering added to the discussion. He gave accolades to both PACE Engineers and Sartorius for their extensive work during the environmental review process. He shared that he strongly felt that the city should take action to defend the decision council made in December when the rezone ordinances were passed. He stated that he was in favor of pursuing option B, and that, although it would cost the city money, it was worth it due to potential long-term ramifications.
"It's a little bit unfair that the city gets burdened with so much simply to defend its own actions,GÇ¥ said Goering. "I believe it's worth it because I believe the right thing to do is to defend our actions.GÇ¥
PACE Engineers stated in last week's council meeting that the EIS they conducted went well beyond what it typically required for a non-project action. East Monroe is considered non-project because there is no interested party waiting to begin development. Goering agreed with PACE, saying that setting the bar unusually high in such a manner could affect cities across the state of Washington in a negative way.
"I believe it would be a mistake not to defend our own actions,GÇ¥ said Goering. "There's a cost of doing business in the city.GÇ¥
Councilmember Gamble sought clarification.
He expressed that, as he understood the options, only option A seemed to actually entail "defendingGÇ¥ their action against the hearings board. Options B and C both amounted to complying with the board's decision by February 23, but both provided different methodologies for achieving the compliance.
City attorney Zach Lell concurred.
"Option A is the option of formally disagreeing with the growth board's ruling, filing an appeal and challenging the growth board's order in Superior Court and testing that through the judicial process,GÇ¥ said Lell.
Gamble read from a letter received by the property owner which stated, "It is in the city's best interest to vigorously fight to have this decision struck down.GÇ¥
"The only option that I see that would meet that would be the first option,GÇ¥ said Gamble.
He stated that he didn't see the benefit to the city of spending any additional funds on the rezone.
Cudaback pointed out that the city has other commercial endeavors that she feels are far more relevant; in particular, North Kelsey. She reiterated what had been reported by staff; that resources would need to be diverted from other projects to focus on East Monroe.
"We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, probably, by the time that we tabulate all the money that we've spent, on this one piece of property. With no development waiting to happen,GÇ¥ said Cudaback. "That blows me away.GÇ¥
Councilmember Kevin Hanford stated that he felt it would be inappropriate to pursue option C.
"I cannot see us, after working on this for years and years, and coming almost to the finish line, I cannot see us just stopping and throwing our hands up and walking away,GÇ¥ said Hanford. "I was first inclined for option B. Now I'm leaning more towards option A.GÇ¥
Mayor Thomas called for a vote, the result of which was a tie; Councilmembers Cudaback, Gamble and Rasmussen voted in favor of Cudaback's motion authorizing the city to pursue option C. Councilmembers Goering, Hanford and Kamp voted against it.
Per Washington State RCW 35A.12.100, a mayor can cast a tie-breaking vote under certain circumstances. It is his prerogative whether to do so or not.
"I have the ability to cast a vote, or to not cast a vote; to break a tie. I've had the opportunity over the last couple weeks to understand more about what this application has meant to our city in terms of staff time and cost, and I'm not supportive of continuing down that path,GÇ¥ said Thomas. "Therefore I will be voting in favor of C.GÇ¥
The motion officially passed, 4 to 3.
The meeting proceeded with further action on unrelated matters. Just before the final executive session of the night, Councilmember Goering asked for the floor. He stated that, per the Robert's Rules of Order, the established set of guidelines by which governing bodies adhere, any vote can be rescinded via a separate motion, provided notice is given during the previous meeting.
"I want to give notice tonight that next week I will be making a motion to rescind the action that we took on AB 14/118,GÇ¥ said Goering.
According to the Robert's Rules of Order; "to rescind is identical with the motion to amend something previously adopted, by striking out the entire by-law, rule, resolution, section, or paragraph, and is subject to all the limitations as to notice and vote that may be placed by the rules on similar amendments. It is a main motion without any privilege, and therefore can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the assembly.GÇ¥
"I feel compelled to do that based on the action we took this evening,GÇ¥ said Goering.
For more information on Robert's Rules of Order, please visit: http://www.robertsrules.org/.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment