The Growth Management Act (GMA) was intended to reduce the consumption of large tracts of land for subdivisions with large lots and in areas where there is substandard infrastructure to accommodate the burdens. There was supposed to be a widening differentiation between conditions inside urban growth boundaries and outside them. Urban standards would provide more dense development on smaller lots while Rural standards would create minimum lot sizes of five acres or greater.
Inside the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) most cities have done a reasonable job of increasing density. At times, they have done so with significant negative impacts to the quality of life in their towns. The county has insisted that they comply with GMA through their Comprehensive Plans and Planning Policies.
In the parts of the county that are not in cities, Unincorporated Snohomish County, the county’s Comprehensive Plan dictates what can happen. Our county’s interpretation of the Growth Management Act indicates there is no difference between urban and rural. The language in the act is not ambiguous, but the allowed interpretations seem to be. It is not clear what counties should be permitting if they are limited to being rural service providers. It appears that in our county there is a full range of permitted uses even those allowed in fully urban areas. That seems to be the root of the problem. Define “Urban Development” and “Rural Development” and compare the two.
That should mean that density be rural at one dwelling unit per five acres and not five dwelling units per acre. That should mean that if a sewer district is providing service in an area, the land is designated for urban development and it should be inside an urban growth area at a minimum and probably within the city limits proper.
If the GMA requires that cities be Urban Service Providers, why is Snohomish County developing hundreds if not thousands of acres under urban development standards? Areas outside UGBs were supposed to be rural, 5 acres or greater. What happened to rural standards?
GMA also requires that Urban Service Providers develop Levels of Service (LOS) standards to guide where resources are allocated to accommodate the expected growth. This requirement forces government to consider impacts to the infrastructure before they actually become real and formulate a funding plan to put the improvements in place in advance of the growth.
Level of Service standards make assumptions about existing capacity and from those assumptions determine where improvements should be made before additional development can occur.
Concurrence is when the infrastructure improvements are in place prior to the developments that will require them. Comprehensive planning enables government to calculate where growth should occur based upon existing infrastructure capacity, what improvements need to be made to improve capacity which would allow for more growth or where growth should not occur based upon other considerations.
In much of unincorporated Snohomish County, development patterns are more consistent with Urban requirements than Rural.
In order to simplify county development regulations, I would advocate for the county to have only rural standards. I would change the rules so that only cities could develop land with Urban Development Standards. The County code would eliminate all language that dealt with urban standards.
The result would be property owners outside urban growth areas would have very clear expectations about what could happen on their land. The current regulations are so convoluted that it’s not clear about anything.
If the county was not approving development plats between cities, the cities would be better able to secure infrastructure improvements from developers that work within an urban area. If land was to develop at urban density, it would have to annex into a city first. Engineering standards would be consistent for all the improvements if they took place within a city from start to finish.
Think about the Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier area. Imagine what that area would look like today were it not for the formation of the Alderwood Sewer District. Think about how each of those cities might have developed differently if the county had not given away the farm. Think about every other city in the county that annexed subdivisions allowed under the county regulations but that would not have been allowed under city regulations. Imaging what our county would look like today if sewers were only allowed within a city’s limits.
If this requirement were in place over the years, we would not have seen the type of sprawl that brought about the Growth Management Act.
In King County, cities like Burien, Covington, Shoreline, Lake City, Kenmore, Woodinville and others would not exist today if their county had not allowed urban development in rural locations. In Snohomish County, Mill Creek is the only “new” city to be formed as a result of county sponsored urban development, but Clearview/Maltby might warrant incorporation.
The whole point of this rambling is the fact that county governments have been given the sole authority and responsibility to manage growth in their respective areas without any tool for accountability to anyone. The Growth Management Act does not provide guidance to replace local application of good judgment. Our county leaders need to bring the run-away-train to a screeching halt.
In Rural/Urban Transition Areas, the county needs to apply the rural zoning to the land and lobby neighboring cities to consider including them within their urban growth areas to fully realize the development potential of the land. If a neighboring city is not inclined to consider the proposal and then justify the inclusion with planning to show how the land would be served by utilities, essential public services and infrastructure improvements, the land would remain outside and undeveloped.
The pressure to accept population growth cannot over-ride all the factors that determine a desirable quality of life we have (had) in Snohomish County.
Some cities in Snohomish County view growth as a good thing while others do not. Brier chose to incorporate in order to protect their rural life style. They knew they could better control their destiny as a city rather than a neighborhood in the county. Woodway incorporated for similar reasons, but rather than rural life style, it was maintaining exclusivity for wealthier Edmonds folks. Both cities remained small to protect their identity, recognizing that the cost of government would have to be borne by the smaller population.
Other cities saw growth as an opportunity to develop a tax base that would pay for enhanced services.
None of the cities in Snohomish County appreciate the burdens created on their margins by development planned and permitted by the county without their consultation.
Imagine how our county would look today if in 1991 when the GMA was passed, the county had put a moratorium in place preventing urban levels of development outside urban growth boundaries. And if they had agreed that, those areas within UGAs but outside city limits would only be developed after they were annexed into a city we would be looking at a vastly different Snohomish County today.
I for one am not impressed with the job done by our elected officials in safeguarding the public trust. In spite of the fact that many of us were not in favor of GMA, it has been the law of the land since 1993. We have the option of following the law or changing the law, but not disregarding the law.
I have been a city person for all my years involved with government. I was the Snohomish representative to Snohomish County Tomorrow when the GMA was passed and was on the committee when the county and the cities developed the first batch of County-wide Planning policies. Cities were forced by the county to agree to policies not necessarily in the best interest of our cities with the understanding that for our pain, there would be a corresponding pain for the county.
The cities did their part to accommodate growth, but the county failed to stop. It is time for the county to stop permitting urban development. It is time for the county to get out of the Urban Services business. It is time for Snohomish County to STOP!
Posted on September 15, 2008 at 12:17 pm in Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Snohomish Washington | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
What is it, Rural or Urban?
by Steve DanaThe Growth Management Act (GMA) was intended to reduce the consumption of large tracts of land for subdivisions with large lots and in areas where there is substandard infrastructure to accommodate the burdens. There was supposed to be a widening differentiation between conditions inside urban growth boundaries and outside them. Urban standards would provide more dense development on smaller lots while Rural standards would create minimum lot sizes of five acres or greater.
Inside the Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) most cities have done a reasonable job of increasing density. At times, they have done so with significant negative impacts to the quality of life in their towns. The county has insisted that they comply with GMA through their Comprehensive Plans and Planning Policies.
In the parts of the county that are not in cities, Unincorporated Snohomish County, the county’s Comprehensive Plan dictates what can happen. Our county’s interpretation of the Growth Management Act indicates there is no difference between urban and rural. The language in the act is not ambiguous, but the allowed interpretations seem to be. It is not clear what counties should be permitting if they are limited to being rural service providers. It appears that in our county there is a full range of permitted uses even those allowed in fully urban areas. That seems to be the root of the problem. Define “Urban Development” and “Rural Development” and compare the two.
That should mean that density be rural at one dwelling unit per five acres and not five dwelling units per acre. That should mean that if a sewer district is providing service in an area, the land is designated for urban development and it should be inside an urban growth area at a minimum and probably within the city limits proper.
If the GMA requires that cities be Urban Service Providers, why is Snohomish County developing hundreds if not thousands of acres under urban development standards? Areas outside UGBs were supposed to be rural, 5 acres or greater. What happened to rural standards?
GMA also requires that Urban Service Providers develop Levels of Service (LOS) standards to guide where resources are allocated to accommodate the expected growth. This requirement forces government to consider impacts to the infrastructure before they actually become real and formulate a funding plan to put the improvements in place in advance of the growth.
Level of Service standards make assumptions about existing capacity and from those assumptions determine where improvements should be made before additional development can occur.
Concurrence is when the infrastructure improvements are in place prior to the developments that will require them. Comprehensive planning enables government to calculate where growth should occur based upon existing infrastructure capacity, what improvements need to be made to improve capacity which would allow for more growth or where growth should not occur based upon other considerations.
In much of unincorporated Snohomish County, development patterns are more consistent with Urban requirements than Rural.
In order to simplify county development regulations, I would advocate for the county to have only rural standards. I would change the rules so that only cities could develop land with Urban Development Standards. The County code would eliminate all language that dealt with urban standards.
The result would be property owners outside urban growth areas would have very clear expectations about what could happen on their land. The current regulations are so convoluted that it’s not clear about anything.
If the county was not approving development plats between cities, the cities would be better able to secure infrastructure improvements from developers that work within an urban area. If land was to develop at urban density, it would have to annex into a city first. Engineering standards would be consistent for all the improvements if they took place within a city from start to finish.
Think about the Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier area. Imagine what that area would look like today were it not for the formation of the Alderwood Sewer District. Think about how each of those cities might have developed differently if the county had not given away the farm. Think about every other city in the county that annexed subdivisions allowed under the county regulations but that would not have been allowed under city regulations. Imaging what our county would look like today if sewers were only allowed within a city’s limits.
If this requirement were in place over the years, we would not have seen the type of sprawl that brought about the Growth Management Act.
In King County, cities like Burien, Covington, Shoreline, Lake City, Kenmore, Woodinville and others would not exist today if their county had not allowed urban development in rural locations. In Snohomish County, Mill Creek is the only “new” city to be formed as a result of county sponsored urban development, but Clearview/Maltby might warrant incorporation.
The whole point of this rambling is the fact that county governments have been given the sole authority and responsibility to manage growth in their respective areas without any tool for accountability to anyone. The Growth Management Act does not provide guidance to replace local application of good judgment. Our county leaders need to bring the run-away-train to a screeching halt.
In Rural/Urban Transition Areas, the county needs to apply the rural zoning to the land and lobby neighboring cities to consider including them within their urban growth areas to fully realize the development potential of the land. If a neighboring city is not inclined to consider the proposal and then justify the inclusion with planning to show how the land would be served by utilities, essential public services and infrastructure improvements, the land would remain outside and undeveloped.
The pressure to accept population growth cannot over-ride all the factors that determine a desirable quality of life we have (had) in Snohomish County.
Some cities in Snohomish County view growth as a good thing while others do not. Brier chose to incorporate in order to protect their rural life style. They knew they could better control their destiny as a city rather than a neighborhood in the county. Woodway incorporated for similar reasons, but rather than rural life style, it was maintaining exclusivity for wealthier Edmonds folks. Both cities remained small to protect their identity, recognizing that the cost of government would have to be borne by the smaller population.
Other cities saw growth as an opportunity to develop a tax base that would pay for enhanced services.
None of the cities in Snohomish County appreciate the burdens created on their margins by development planned and permitted by the county without their consultation.
Imagine how our county would look today if in 1991 when the GMA was passed, the county had put a moratorium in place preventing urban levels of development outside urban growth boundaries. And if they had agreed that, those areas within UGAs but outside city limits would only be developed after they were annexed into a city we would be looking at a vastly different Snohomish County today.
I for one am not impressed with the job done by our elected officials in safeguarding the public trust. In spite of the fact that many of us were not in favor of GMA, it has been the law of the land since 1993. We have the option of following the law or changing the law, but not disregarding the law.
I have been a city person for all my years involved with government. I was the Snohomish representative to Snohomish County Tomorrow when the GMA was passed and was on the committee when the county and the cities developed the first batch of County-wide Planning policies. Cities were forced by the county to agree to policies not necessarily in the best interest of our cities with the understanding that for our pain, there would be a corresponding pain for the county.
The cities did their part to accommodate growth, but the county failed to stop. It is time for the county to stop permitting urban development. It is time for the county to get out of the Urban Services business. It is time for Snohomish County to STOP!
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on September 15, 2008 at 12:17 pm in Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Snohomish Washington | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL
One Comment to “What is it, Rural or Urban?”
September 29, 2008 at 7:40 am
All I have to do is look at the garbage happening on the hill above US2 (in the Lake Stevens UGA, of course) to see the mess they’ve made. Then again, a moratorium on urban levels of growth *outside* of UGAs wouldn’t have stopped it, would it?