County government is, to many, a bit of a mystery. Everyone knows it is there but few could tell you much about it or what it does. While most political folks are focused on the activities of the state legislature, congress, and our president, local government just sort of chugs along with little attention. This is despite the fact that it is local government that determines how our local communities work and grow - for better or for worse. One of the key functions of county and city government is regulating land use.
One of my top priorities as a County Council member is to ensure the preservation and enhancement of agriculture in the County. I have consistently opposed attempts to whittle away at farm land for such ill conceived projects as car dealerships and shopping centers. It is absolutely essential that we reserve our existing prime agricultural lands for farming, natural resource protection, and other rural uses. I would, in fact, like to bring upland lands suitable for agriculture back in to ag designation. Thousands of acres of prime farm land were rezoned residential back in 1995. This was a mistake and I hope to correct it in the future.
Unfortunately on Wednesday Councilmen Nelson, Koster and Sievers voted to ignore the Growth Management Hearings Board and state law. This was despite requests from the land owner, the City of Arlington, Cascade Land Conservancy, and Futurewise (formerly 1000 Friends of Washington) to consider an amicable settlement proposal.
A bit of history...
In 2005, the County Council voted to expand the Arlington urban growth area (UGA) to include 5 acres of the Foster dairy. This was just one of a long string of attempts by the Council over the years to turn farm land into commercial enterprises - the most notorious of these is the ongoing push to turn farm land into a new car lot for auto dealer Dwayne Lane. Time and time again, the County has been told by the Hearings Board and the courts that this is illegal. The Growth Management Act requires farm land to be designated and then protected. Paving over farm land for a car dealership is not protecting it. Futurewise challenged the 2005 action to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board.
The Hearings Board found in September that the County was out of compliance with the Growth Management Act and ordered it to return the farm land to rural status. The County was given until January 18th, 2007 to comply with this order. The Council's action on Wednesday (1/10/07) was in direct violation of this order - a virtual one finger salute to the Hearings Board and the law.
The race is on. Futurewise has vowed to fight the action, however the State Boundary Review Board for Snohomish County is reportedly on a fast track to OK the annexation, rendering the conversion of the farm land to urban designation permanent.
Once more, Snohomish County is arrogantly headed in the wrong direction.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Unfortunately on Wednesday Councilmen Nelson, Koster and Sievers voted to ignore the Growth Management Hearings Board and state law. This was despite requests from the land owner, the City of Arlington, Cascade Land Conservancy, and Futurewise (formerly 1000 Friends of Washington) to consider an amicable settlement proposal."
Let's step back and examine this vote: Councilmen Nelson (R), Koster (R) and Sievers (d)....hmmmmm, as I recall Nelson and Sievers are term limited this year and, therefore, their seats will be open on the council. Already Brian Sullivan (D-WA 21) and Mark Olson (Everett City Council) have announced for Siever's seat and Mike Cooper, formerly a Democratic State Rep. from the 21st LD and recent candidate for Washington State Lands Commissioner has announced for Nelson's seat.
While it is still worth the fight to attempt to reverse this misguided vote, we must be very careful about who will work along side the two Daves beginning in 2008 to safeguard our critical agricultural lands in Snohomish County.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
A Message from Kristin Kelly, Snohomish County Program Director, Futurewise:
"Dear Friends of Futurewise and Pilchuck Audubon Society,
The county council in a 3-2 vote (Somers and Gossett voting against the
motion) adopted an ordinance at Wednesday's hearing on Foster Farms to
once again allow for the UGA expansion and urban commercial development
of the upland portion of the farm. This is in direct opposition to the
Growth management Hearings Board remand to the council. In the spirit
of compromise and finding solution to this problem, the City of
Arlington, Cascade Land Conservancy, Futurewise, and apparently the
property owners of Foster Farms were working out a compromise to allow
for a partial UGA expansion but to keep a portion of the upland in
farming with full legal assurance the lowland would remain in farmland
in perpertuity. Councilmembers Nelson, Koster and Sievers voted against
this compromise, and we will now be back in court over this matter.
In the meantime, the City of Arlington has asked for an annexation of
the 6 acres so they can begin commercial development. Annexation would
moot the Growth Board appeal and authority. The Boundary Review Board
has the option of waiving a public hearing on this annexation.
Please contact Boundary Review Board Chair Mark Wolken at Mark Wolken
and Associates, 2903 Hewitt Avenue, Everett, WA 98201, phone #
425-252-0320 today and request he hold a hearing as this annexation is
counter to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board
Notice and Order.
Also, please contact the three county council members who voted for the
UGA expansion and commercial developmen, Gary Nelson
(gary.nelson@co.snohomish.wa.us), John Koster
(john.koster@co.snohomish.wa.us), and Kirke Sievers
(kirke.sievers@co.snohomish.wa.us), phone number 425-388-3494, and let
them know that you are disappointed in their decision and that you want
our farmland protected, and that they should reconsider this decision.
If you live in their District, please let them know this as well.
Thanks for your help in this important matter."
Kristin Kelly
Smart Growth Director, Pilchuck Audubon Society
Snohomish County Program Director, Futurewise
1429 Avenue D, PMB 532
Snohomish, WA 98290
(425) 923-8625
kristin@futurewise.org
UPDATE
Kristin Kelly has asked that people contact Mark Wolken via the Boundary Review Board at their contact number: 425-388-3445 rather than at his private business.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
It is very distressing that this lawbreaking is perpetrated by lawmakers. And they're not even trying to hide it... It seems to me a sure sign that people aren't paying enough attention -- or maybe we're just overloaded and overwhelmed.
Thank you, Councilman Somers, for caring and for trying to get Snohomish to do the right thing. I'll plan to make the calls tomorrow. And, even though I live in King County, I'll pay attention to the Snohomish races and try to do my little part to help people get elected there who'll work with you on the side of following the law and upholding the public good instead of further enriching special interests. How can these people sleep at night?
I spoke with Marsha Carlsen, Chief Clerk of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for Snohomish County (BRB) today. I include my notes from that conversation, immediately below. My overall impression from the conversation is that she feels people are calling the wrong person -- that Mr. Wolken's decision (which he's probably making today) has little overall impact on the case.
I emailed my notes on our conversation to her before publishing so she could correct them. She replied with an email, whic I will reproduce in my next comment.
My notes from 1/16/07 conversation with Marsha Carlsen
Ms. Carlsen said that the recent vote of the Snohomish County Council is a separate legal matter from the matter under consideration by Mr. Wolken right now.
What Mr. Wolken is now considering is a request by the city of Arlington that the BRB waive its review of Arlington’s annexation of the Foster farmland.
Arlington is asking for the waiver under RCW 36.93.110, which states such a waiver can be granted if a proposal involves an area less than 10 acres and less than $2 million in assessed valuation.
If the waiver is granted – and today is probably the day Mr. Wolken will make his decision – then the annexation will go through and the Foster farmland, which has “technically” (she said) been within the urban growth boundary since 2005, will probably permanently remain zoned as being urban.
I believe that Ms. Carlsen's reference to the "technical" status of the farmland as urban is an acknowledgment of the fact, as Mr. Somers noted, that the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Act Hearings Board (CPSGMAHB) earlier advised the Snohomish County Council that their decision to place this land within the urban boundaries was not legal and that this entity remanded the matter back to them to fix it.
In other words, and this is my interpretation, not Ms. Carlsen's characterization, the technical status of this land as urban is illegal.
But it is this illegal status that guides current legal actions, because we are “technically” within the window of time that the CPSGMAHB gave the Snohomish County Council to reverse its illegal act.
I asked if Mr. Wolken can consider this larger context in the decision whether to waive the BRB review of Arlington's annexation request. Can he consider the fact that the inclusion of this agricultural area within the urban boundary was adjudged not legal in the first place? She answered she cannot speak for Mr. Wolken, but that he is not legally precluded from considering that.
However, even if the waiver is not granted, she said, there is still an additional legal matter to resolve. By February 5 (45 days from December 20, when the City of Arlington first filed the annexation request), a jurisdiction – in this case that would be the Snohomish County Council – must request that the BRB have jurisdiction over the foster farm area in the matter of its zoning. If it does not, then the window of time for the BRB to review the zoning itself will be passed.
Clearly, the Snohomish County Council majority is determined to erase the agricultural use of this land so it can be developed. So that body will not be asking the BRB to take jurisdiction over this matter.
This understanding I ended up with after speaking with Ms. Carlsen makes it appear that Mr. Wolken’s decision on the waiver is not all that important. My reading of Mr. Somer’s account, leads me to believe the situation is more complex, that the decision on the waiver actually is important. Perhaps this is where the legal suits that are being contemplated will come in.
Noemie Maxwell
Here are the two email messages I received from Ms. Carlsen in response to my message to her, summarizing how I understood our conversation.
From my reading of the first, it looks to me as if a suggestion is being made that, practically speaking, the only thing that can keep this land from being annexed to Arlington (and thus, in my understanding, permanently locked into the urban growth area) would have to begin with a petition to the BRB, completed by February 5, and signed by 5% of the registered voters living within 1/4 mile of the annexation area AND not residing in Arlington. Interesting.
"Noemie:
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to review your posting.
The annexation proposal is for 7.39 acres. Individuals cannot invoke the Board’s jurisdiction. Please refer to RCW 36.93.100 for who can invoke. The Board cannot invoke their own jurisdiction, so it won’t do any good to have folks contacting the BRB or Mark Wolken. Additionally, if the Board’s jurisdiction is invoked, it would be hearing matters pertinent to the annexation proposal, not necessarily the “violation of the Growth Management Board’s order.”
If the BRB’s jurisdiction is invoked, they would primarily be considering the statutes in RCW 36.93.170 and 36.93.180. Below you will find a statement prepared by Mr. Wolken that I have been sending to individuals who e-mail the BRB on this issue.
"Under State Law, the Chair has the discretion to determine review is not necessary, BUT, that does not mean the Chair has the authority to invoke jurisdiction or otherwise call a hearing. The provisions for invoking jurisdiction are found in RCW 36.93.100. The options would be a government unit that allowed under the law (which would appear to be the County, City, and the Fire District-although it seems unlikely any of those would do so); or a petition by 5% of the registered voters living within 1/4 mile of the annexation area AND not residing in the jurisdiction proposing the annexation (Arlington). If such a petition is received it would still require a majority of the Board to agree to then invoke jurisdiction."
Marsha Carlsen
Chief Clerk of the Board
Washington State Boundary Review Board for Snohomish County"
----------------------------
"Noemie:
Just a few more thoughts - I don’t believe I said that Mr. Wolken “can” consider the GMHB decision, but rather that he “may” take this into consideration. I am unable to state with any certainty what is in Mr. Wolken’s mind as he reviews the waiver request. The BRB does not review zoning issues. They are precluded from making land use decisions."
The reason the BRB is important is that it will be much more difficult for the decision to be reversed if the property is annexed. The Central Puget Sound Hearings Board could make a finding of "invalidity" - thereby blocking the annexation.
If the BRB speeds up the process, there is less time for the Hearings Board to act.
The suggestion that the BRB process is not that important is far from the truth.
Post a Comment