3.4.2008 FINAL:
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED THE LID ORDINANCE
creating zoning within the critical species habitat.
 


Archived ------------------------------------------------------------ I was alerted to the fact that proponents of no growth had written to a local paper citing flooding in the North Creek valley during the last major rain/storm event that took place late in the Fall - 2007. I was unable to respond because the paper which was once delivered to our dead end (Critical Species Habitat locale) 39th Ave S.E. no longer arrives and I have to get a copy from friends (which is a good thing in that it saves paper)(And no, the online presence of the paper at that time was not helpful). ------------------------------------------------------------ My Thoughts And Experience I've lived in the North Creek Valley since 1970. I was born and raised in north Seattle. I've been watching/observing the region for a long time. Opposition once stated that we, the land owners in the Critical Species Habitat, wanted "to have our cake and eat it too". Over the years our proposals and hard work to help create a responsible LID (low impact development standards) for the subarea apparently represent greed to some individuals. The LID (low impact development standards) as proposed and professionally guided with the consulting expertise of David Sharrard, Parametrix, is proving to be a very responsible solution to the perplexing condition of existing development and planned development that surrounds the proposed LID of the subarea, an area that is diverse in land types. As Mr. Sharrard stated to the council in 2007, the council must create "standards" for implementing the LID that will allow planners, engineers and development to "succeed". Because of the vast development around the subarea that is outside the jurisdiction of Bothell it is paramount that water entering the LID be environmentally engineered responsibly. Efforts by proponents of no growth have been hampering the progress of the LID's completion. Case In Point Years ago when the lower North Creek valley contained the Monte Villa dairy, the Vitulli "Crisp V" farm and the Truly cattle ranch movement of creek water was expedited to avoid flooding. That was a common farming practice which is not a sound environmental practice but was done for economic reasons. Years later when development of the existing business parks had just begun ground work a flood event proved quite serious in exstenively flooding the valley floor because work had begun to slow down the movement of creek water through the region. We didn't immediately understand the goals of this environmental work as we do now. The work has proved to succeed. The flooding that I've cited here, before the business park buildings were built, was far more extensive than the flooding - recent. Because of what I witnessed as testimony at the last council hearing, for the year 2007, it seems to me that proponents of no growth are trying to prove that the recent flooding seen in the valley is caused by development. The vast amounts of work done to slow the descent of the creek, to create natural wet-land environments, is working but at the same time is expected to flood in the event of major storm events. If it didn't flood somewhat expansively the waters passing through would simply be rushing in a straight line to the Sammamish slough and the sea beyond with less incidence impact and acting less environmentally favorable, exactly what farmers were trying to achieve years ago. When there are breeches in the current system, when bridges wash out, it is the result of vast amounts of rain reaching earth in short periods of time. You can see that flooding is to be expected and for environmental reasons is not all bad. Incidently, the .9 mile east shore of North Creek adjacent to the Critical Species Habitat is not to be altered extensively, ever, and will not contribute rushing water in the same manner that impervious surfaces will. And obviously the impervious surfaces created by surrounding county development and by Bothell development through 19 miles upstream need to be dealt with responsibly, and again, even more responsibly. To target, solely, the land owners of the Critical Species Habitat as the end-all -- save-all for the region is ludicrous and nonsense. The subarea is not expansive enough or even strategically placed to stop flooding in the region and my hope, for clarity, is that this is not the hopeful dream that proponents of no-growth are betting our future lives on.