• At this point there is little information available  (as  of
    yet) but the word on the street is  that  three  individuals
    are protesting the Fitzgerald subarea  LID  decision  before
    the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Board. 
    Update: 05.26.2008
    The petition was received by the city of Bothell on May 2nd
    2008.  The three petitioners are named and the object of the
    petition is to reverse the LID, reverting the entire subarea
    to a required 65% forestation and a restricted 10% allowance
    for impervious surfaces.  Below is a letter drafted that was
    sent to the growth management board.
    (close this window when finished)
    I apologize for not being able to recover a case number per
    this petition. (No hearing date scheduled yet as of 5.26.08
    per C.P.S.G.M.B. web site)
    The petitioners Aagaard, Perry and Fisher vs. The City of
    Bothell -- was received by the city May 2nd 2008.
    Thank you.
    Gleaning Thoughts In The Aftermath
    This references Bothell's new LID (low  impact  development)
    ordinance,  created  on  March  4th  2008,  which  is  being
    challenged/protested to the Growth Management Board by three
    individuals. This piece, below,  results  as  conceptual,  a
    synopsis of events. I've moved my focus to that of  concepts
    in light of my sheer frustration from what has developed,  a
    long protracted debacle -- a train wreck if you  will,  that
    is completely out of my control,  that  deeply  affects  our
    lives and our future.  Someone  suggested that our situation
    might make a candidate for a TV reality show.
    The concept is a little piece of a city,  a subarea  that is
    estimated by some to be  approximately  150+  acres  and  by
    others as much as 400+ acres. The area has not been 
    essentially land-developed since its  annexation  into  the
    city   some  15+  years  previous.  It  was  at   that  time
    designated a "growth reserve" so  that,  as  explained,  the
    city planners would have time to -- and could  --  work  out
    the best land use policy.
    From within what is now the  "Critical  Species  Habitat"
    11 years ago a farmer and his neighbor applied for a  rezone
    hearing simply to inquire about the  possibilities  in  land
    use. This effort begins with a string of excuses, delays and
    document loss by  the  city  staff  that  brings  no  zoning
    resolution for the owners. It drags on and on and takes  the
    land owners from one economy to  the  next  until  the  city
    decides to put  the  area  into  an  experimental  land  use
    designation called the "Critical  Species  Habitat"  and  to
    also build a highway through their land.
    The habitat idea is to force 65% of the  land  into  an  old
    growth forest and to essentially disallow land  development.
    The premise is based on water flow from two tiny creeks  and
    the impact on a .9 mile shore of one side of a larger valley
    long creek where salmon spawning  is  observed.  Water  flow
    data that is promoted and agenda reliant by  the  influences
    of  an  "environmental"  group  encompasses  far  too   many
    streams input, upstream -- from along the valley  floor  --
    and  this  discovery  by  city  council  members  makes  the
    "Critical Species Habitat" agenda tantamount to fraud.
    At this point  it  is  noted  that  the  city  declares  the
    "Critical Species Habitat" an experiment that  will  not  be
    tried anywhere else in the city. It is said to be completely
    unique in the region, the state, a uniqueness that  probably
    extends further nationwide. The  hope  that  an  old  growth
    forest can be initiated, which will take "100 to 200  years"
    to establish, is based on many assumptions and  science that
    is borrowed.
    There are many players in this drama including all the  land
    owners within the subarea who  have  not  been  offered  any
    direct monetary compensation what-so-ever for their land use
    losses plus influences from without, influences  that  drive
    the habitat agenda. A little history shows that for  many  -
    many years  the  "environmental"  agenda's  influences  have
    driven and controlled efforts to drive away land  developers
    causing the city to acquire a well  known  reputation  as  a
    city that is very difficult to negotiate with  in  terms  of
    land use -- albeit the fact that the city is  one  of  eight
    "core" growth cities in the region.
    For the environmentalists part the age old reputation of the
    greedy land developer is played hard upon,  once  deserving,
    and a new generation of environmental "green" developers  is
    driven to be ignored and expelled  by  the  old  established
    environmental powers that be.
    As  human  nature   prevails   the   now   old   established
    environmental causes have become less than relevant in their
    unwillingness to change with the times. Those who  are  left
    to suffer are the citizens who have become "Critical Species
    Habitat" indentured to the "City". It's a new experiment  --
    with a new kind of slavery.
    Additional Relevant Facts:
    * The city spent 17 months of hearings and work to establish
    the current  LID  (low  impact  development)  code  for  the
    habitat that was ordinance established in March  2008.  This
    long effort culminated with detailed input from city  staff,
    citizens and professionals, principally from one individual,
    long  experienced  planner-consultant,   who   claimed   the
    finished LID to be "robust" and the best he has ever seen to
    * The city council voted to  enact  into  the  comprehensive
    plan the right-of-way for a "Connector"  arterial,  a  joint
    county and city project that will help alleviate  the  large
    and growing traffic burden that is now supported in the area
    by old unimproved country roads.  The  Connector  will  pass
    through the Critical Species Habitat, through properties and
    homes that are now regulated by the LID. That Connector land
    required is not develop-able by the land owners  and  within
    reason -- given circumstances -- not sell-able either.
    I am the  "farmer"  land  owner  in  "The  Critical  Species
    Habitat". We have been held in a  non-ending  limbo  waiting
    for the Connector project and now the economy to allow us to
    move on with our retirement age  lives.  We  have  been  the
    responsible stewards on this land for nearly 40  years.  Our
    level of frustration with the city's  actions  and  inaction
    has literally left us without dreams and hopes.  We  are  in
    danger of losing our entire life's investment  to  increased
    taxes. There is only one individual protesting the  LID  who
    actually lives in the subarea. They have voiced  their  mind
    in wanting to maintain "their" lifestyle. It is  their  hope
    that the entire body of subarea land owners will  be  forced
    to support their lifestyle even in lieu of the  flawed  data
    that was promoted by their agenda.
    Current efforts by the "environmental" agenda -  to  reverse
    all the LID compromise work is - simply shameful.
    (As provided by city staff)

    The appeal was received by the Board on May 2, 2008. The City and petitioners had a pre-hearing conference with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) on June 2 where the Board established time-lines and dates. 1. The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) set the schedule as follows: Mid-July the petitioners provide their 'brief' to the board. The brief is a written document containing the petitioner's specific details and analysis detailing how and to what degree the City was non-compliant with the GMA when the Fitzgerald/LID regulations were adopted on March 4. Early- August, the City provides its response brief to the Board. Late August additional briefs or clarifications are provided to the Board. Early September, the Board conducts its hearing on the merits. Members of the public may attend these hearings. 2. The Consultant will not be included in the appeal responses. The appeal is based upon the record as established during the process. 3. The Board will issue its decision in late October 4. The decision should be issued in late October. 5. The Board will likely hear this petition.