Members of the Langley City Council had clashing opinions this week about where to relocate the city’s Potential Growth Area.

As part of the ongoing comprehensive plan update, the council has been tasked with making changes to the Joint Planning Area Potential Growth Area overlay. The PGA’s current location south of Sixth Street includes land in the forestry and agriculture tax programs, which does not meet the criteria for potential growth. In addition, the Whidbey Camano Land Trust has been pursuing a conservation easement for the Fossek Forest within the current PGA.

Last October, the city council proposed a new location for the PGA that includes a portion of Maxwelton Road, going against the staff’s recommendation to place it east of the city. The council cited environmental concerns about wetlands and bluffs, despite the recommended location’s proximity to utility infrastructure.

The city’s request was presented to the Island County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, who responded with questions and concerns about the new proposed PGA, including its lack of developable land due to steep slopes and its removal from city limits given the county’s investment in sewer infrastructure expansion in Langley, among other things.

The county also wondered why areas of the current PGA that are not enrolled in the Agriculture or Forestry Current Use Tax programs were not retained and requested that the city provide a like-for-like replacement of the current PGA lands.

Councilmember Rhonda Salerno said Island County Commissioner Melanie Bacon shared her environmental concerns after seeing the area where city staff are recommending the PGA should go. The two elected officials drove through the land, which is south of Sandy Point Road, and Salerno said Bacon was surprised by the situation and agreed with her that it was not a viable location for the PGA since there are wetlands on both sides of the road.

“I want you to take responsibility for your actions, because this is really a big deal in the future,” Salerno told her fellow council members.

Perry Lovelace, a former member of the city’s citizen-led Public Works Advisory Commission, commented about the “ancient” wetlands in the recommended PGA and its designation as a critical aquifer recharge area, according to the county resource management plan.

Though Salerno said it would be just as easy to expand infrastructure to Langley Road, this was not something that Public Works Director Randi Perry agreed with. Currently, Perry said, there’s a 3-inch, low-pressure line that runs along the front edge of the Whidbey Island Fairgrounds about to where the campground is located, meaning it doesn’t run to the end of the parcel line.

As part of city staff’s recommendation, areas that are enrolled in the agriculture or forestry current use tax exemption programs should instead be designated as Lands of Long-Term Rural Significance, rather than PGA. This means that the Urban Growth Area expanding there would be the last option to be considered, Director of Community Planning Meredith Penny explained.

Councilmember Chris Carlson suggested moving ahead and adopting the original PGA recommendation from city staff. Trying to “strong arm” the county into a particular option isn’t going to build the goodwill and collaboration needed in the long term, he said.

Salerno said developing an area above a bluff will bring all kinds of disaster. If the city moves ahead with this, she said, there will be no chance to get the county to help conduct a hydrogeological study.

The atmosphere in council chambers grew increasingly tense, with Councilmember Craig Cyr leaving the room to clear his head.

“There just really aren’t very many good options here, are there?” he asked.

Mayor Kennedy Horstman reminded the council that the city is pushing the limits of the county’s comprehensive plan schedule. Penny vetted several options for the PGA with the city’s Planning Advisory Board, the Public Works Advisory Commission, the Climate Crisis Action Commission and Parks and Open Space Commission.

“Council rejected the recommendations of Director Penny and those commissions and instead decided on a fourth option,” Horstman said. “It is noteworthy that the commissions had already discussed and rejected option four for the same reasons raised by the county.”

With an eye towards population growth, Councilmember Harolynne Bobis said she would like council members to give some consideration to who they expect to live in Langley, help run the stores and take care of the old people.

“I am a serious environmentalist,” she said. “I mean, this is our only planet. We got to take care of it, but we have all of these humans living on it. We gotta find a place for them, because nobody likes them in tents along the road.”

Salerno advocated for a joint meeting with the council and Bacon, amending Carlson’s motion. Her amendment received no support. She expressed some irritation that the mayor made a statement on the issue and said that was a council member’s job.

“I’m really embarrassed for all of you, and I’m very sad about this, because you’re not looking at logic at all,” she said, “and it’s really going to cause us more trouble in the future, even if you’re not going to be here when it happens.”

In the end, Cyr decided to support Carlson’s motion, which passed in a 4-1 vote with Salerno as the sole “nay” vote.

“This is not the end of the line in terms of whatever development would ever happen on this property,” Cyr said.