Editor's Note: To read more on the controversy surrounding the city council's Resolution 414, supporting annextion of rural land in the Sammamish Valley . To read the Mayor's refusal to sign Resolution 414, . Also, when Woodinville Patch received the letter, Mr. Knapinski had his remarks about the resolution in red-colored font. Our system cannot accommodate colored font so we have altered his letter to refelct the red font as italics.
Resolution NO. 414 needs to be reworked:
By Dale Knapinski
RESOLUTION NO. 414
A RESOLUTION OF THE WOODINVILLE CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING EXPANSION OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES AND IN SUPPORT OF KING COUNTY POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS AS IDENTIFIED IN RESOLUTION NO. 399.
WHEREAS, King County’s 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process is underway and should include expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in the Woodinville area to ensure coordinated, proper, and sustainable land use development to accommodate future growth, including designating Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs); and
***** Woodinville does not need to annex any property to coordinate future growth, especially with respect to residential growth. Woodinville has a plan in place for residential GMA mandated growth to be located downtown where infrastructure is already in place. The citizens of Woodinville approved this approach to accommodate residential growth to protect the R-1 areas and open space. Expansion of the UGB is unnecessary with respect to commercial growth. There is plenty of undeveloped Woodinville property in close proximity to the Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) for a hotel and for the promotion of agritourism.
WHEREAS, two Potential Annexation Areas (PAA), immediately adjacent to City of Woodinville boundaries, are already characterized by urban development and have necessary infrastructure available to sustain these urban uses; and
*****It is only an opinion that the two areas are already characterized by urban development. No evidence has been provided that supports this position, and it could just as easily be argued that the properties are more similar to rural than urban.
WHEREAS, the property owners of these PAAs approached the City of Woodinville to request annexation to Woodinville; and On
*****Only some of the owners of the PAAs approached the city to request annexation to Woodinville. This should be noted in the resolution and forwarded to King County. To state that the property owners approached the city would lead a person to believe all property owners approached the city, and this is false. The push to annex the two PAA’s was actually led by developers.
WHEREAS, these PAAs are currently outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and must be included within the UGB to be annexed by Woodinville;
*****The UGB was created for a reason. If Woodinville wants to convince King County to include the properties in the UGB, the need should be substantiated with FACTUAL evidence. Resolution #414 offers no factual reference, no supporting documents, and no formal studies or statistics that support the NEED for Woodinville to annex these properties.
WHEREAS, including these properties within the Urban Growth Boundary will meet the goals of the Growth Management Act by: limiting sprawling development; reducing costs by encouraging concentrated development; improving the efficiency of human services, utilities and transportation; protecting the rural area and resource lands; and enhancing open space; and
*****It was never explained how moving the PAA properties into the UGB will limit sprawling development. Sprawling development was prevented by excluding these properties, and now Woodinville is trying to present a case for just the opposite conclusion that King County reached. Woodinville has not made a case for protecting one rural area by destroying another rural area. Resolution #414 makes no sense at all in that respect.
WHEREAS, inclusion of these areas within the Urban Growth Boundary will benefit the affected properties and surrounding Sammamish Valley; King County, and the City of Woodinville by protecting the natural environment; promoting agritourism, establishing appropriate oversight regarding the use of the affected properties; and ensuring a sustainable way to develop and maintain the affected properties;
*****The previous paragraph is the silliest thing I’ve seen in a resolution since the Woodinville Water District’s resolution that began by saying the Water District does not intend to force sewer connections, and in the same document (Resolution 3725, if I recall) they give the District the power to force connections at will. How will annexing agricultural land and properties outside the UGB protect the natural environment? Building a hotel is more environmentally friendly than agricultural land? How will Woodinville promote “Agritourism” by destroying agricultural land in favor of commercial development?
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODINVILLE, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Woodinville City Council respectfully requests that the King County Council amend the King County Comprehensive Plan to expand the Urban Growth Boundary in the Woodinville area to include those properties, as shown in Exhibit 1, immediately adjacent to existing City boundaries; and that these areas be designated as Potential Annexation Areas for the City of Woodinville.
***** Now, therefore the taxpaying citizens of the City of Woodinville, hereby resolves as follows:
The good and honest citizens of Woodinville, respectfully request that BEFORE King County considers expanding the UGB for the sake of financial interest of a handful of select property owners, they investigate the claims made in Resolution #414, and REJECT the desecration of pristine rural and agricultural land in the Sammamish Valley. Vote NO on changing the UGB. Amended this 28th day of March, 2012
RESOLVED this 6th day of March 2012.
Mayor Talmas didn’t just decline to sign Resolution #414, he refused to sign it because he felt the document was fact challenged.______________________________
Bernard W. Talmas, MAYOR
****(The Mayor declined to sign)