A proclamation limiting the number of units for a proposed housing development in Langley was met with varied reactions during Monday night’s city council meeting.
Although the lively discussion continued for over an hour, the proclamation written by Councilmember Gail Fleming was tabled until the council’s next meeting in August.
For months, a number of South Whidbey residents have expressed concerns about the size of a housing project on Coles Road, which could potentially consist of up to 131 units. The development is intended to be affordable, at least in part, with a variety of different types of housing available.
Developers have not yet submitted a Planned Unit Development, or PUD, application for the project.
Fleming presented a proclamation at the council’s July 18 meeting that would limit the development’s size to 67 units, a number she calculated from the property’s 23 “buildable” acres divided by the underlying zoning of 15,000 square feet.
Fleming said that she had been assured that the council had the authority to make this decision.
“I was under the impression that this would be our only time to speak about this, and that after the application was in and after negotiations began for the development agreement, we’d have no other opportunity to weigh in,” she said.
While Councilmember Rhonda Salerno threw her support behind the proclamation, Councilmembers Craig Cyr and Harolynne Bobis were more cautious and suggested that it should be reviewed by the city attorney before being adopted.
“I just feel that the city council is spending a boatload of money on lawyers and lawsuits,” Bobis said.
Councilmember Thomas Gill spoke passionately in opposition to the proclamation, claiming that it “smells quite like a quasi-judicial decision.”
“Trying to limit development within the city is not only illogical, it’s almost criminal,” he said.
He pointed to the property’s proximity to city utility connections as being an asset and said he would love to see as many as 400 units in the development.
“I see this community as something that needs growth in order to survive,” he said. “I cannot in good conscience try to bring down this number of people given the duties that have been drilled into me by the city, by the state law and by the needs of our community.”
Although Meredith Penny, Langley’s director of Community Planning, confirmed that the council had the authority to request a lower number of units for the development, she advised council members not to make a decision before seeing any reports or the full application from the developers.
“I think it really kind of needs more context before council can say whether 70 units is more appropriate than 130 units,” she said.
Ali Taysi, a consultant for the project, echoed this sentiment and said that the proclamation felt premature.
“The council is the final deciding body on this. To make a unilateral decision about a project density without reviewing the application and going through the formal process does not feel appropriate to us for a decision-making body,” he said.
However, the other nine members of the public who spoke during the meeting viewed Fleming’s proclamation as a reasonable compromise and wholeheartedly voiced their support.
Marianne Edain said she had concerns about the city’s sewage capacity being exceeded.
“We’re already dealing with failing sewer lines, failing water lines, failing stormwater systems,” she said. “All of those failures will be exacerbated and speeded up by this scale of development.”
In addition, she cited studies from different countries that illustrate the adverse health effects of living within one-half kilometer of a sewage treatment plant.
At the end of the discussion, Fleming said she’d be willing to table the proclamation for the time being and have the city attorney view it. She plans to announce her intentions for it at the next council meeting Aug. 1.
