No Loss for Words

A guest editorial in the November 29, 2008 Everett Herald by Kristin Kelly addressed the issue of Fully Contained Communities (FCC).  Ms. Kelly presented a compelling argument for at least a review of the development regulations that enable FCCs.  The fact is that existing regulations for FCCs fill ten or twelve pages in the County Development Code and are very restrictive.  The question is not “How do we regulate them?” but rather “Do we want to allow them under any circumstances?”  I don’t think council members are talking straight with us.  The decision to address FCCs could have been made a year ago or more, why now?

The part of the editorial that troubles me is the part that suggests that Snohomish County Council members were looking out for the rest of us when they voted for the moratorium.  My experience has been that moratoriums are used to address emergencies.  Is there an emergency here?

I doubt that county elected officials have much concern for our quality of life when you look at the types of development allowed by Snohomish County Zoning both inside Urban Growth Boundaries and outside.

Urban Zoning regulations adopted by Snohomish County facilitate the pillaging of undeveloped land inside Urban Growth Areas.  Cities at the center of the UGAs will ultimately be responsible for providing services but will not have been a part of the planning process that created the development.  The needs of the ultimate urban community will not have been factored into the plan because Snohomish County will have already filled the land with development. 

We originally drew Urban Growth Boundaries to focus where cities could expand as population growth came to the county.  Cities expected to plan for how the land would be used in ways that address a full range of land uses.  The overall needs of the cities would be considered in the process. 

In places where sewers exist inside an Urban Growth Boundary but outside city limits, Snohomish County has implemented the county plan and preferences rather than the city preferences.  Take a look at Cavalero’s Hill along East Hewitt. 

In places where sewers exist outside Urban Growth Boundaries, the county zoned the land for urban development and moved ahead with construction to capture the permit fees and sales tax revenue from construction in spite of the fact that no urban growth should be allowed.  Period!

The Seattle Hill development area is not included in any city’s UGB.  Silver Firs and all the other developments that have been popping up in that area are at a minimum in violation of the intent of growth management and possibly the letter of the law as outlined in the Growth Management Act.  Urban development should have stopped in this area when the land was not included in any Urban Growth Area.

Currently the city of Everett is considering expanding its UGA further east to include fully developed neighborhoods allowed by county regulations.  They aren’t doing it to be good guys, they are doing it to get a tax break from the state.  The cost of providing services to the Hilton Lake/Eastmont will be greater than the revenue they collect.  Maybe a different Comp Plan for the area might have provided a better result.  What’s there now make little sense.

Mill Creek is the city closest to Silver Firs, but they have no desire to take on the responsibility for providing services to the area since there is little reward and a lot of liability.  Where is the tax base that will pay for the services needed by those neighborhoods?  How do the miles of subdivisions fit into an overall plan for the area?  Where is the “comprehensive” part of the planning or do you call it something else?

In rural areas things are no better. The Cluster Subdivision regulations represent most of the bad characteristics of rural development.  Except for the one part where open space is preserved, clusters do nothing to preserve rural character.  Consider that the net density in areas where density bonuses are allowed is down to almost one dwelling unit per two acres rather than the one DU per five acres we normally associate with rural lands.  The Growth Management Act suggests that rural development standards should include a variety of densities, but I doubt they meant less than five acre minimum site sizes.

If our goal is to reduce sprawl and excessive land consumption in rural areas, the current plan does not deliver.  Add to that the urban character of the development and we find ourselves back where we began with growth management trying to rein in one and two acre building sites.

For the environmental community, securing large tracts of dedicated open space satisfies their needs.  For the development community, getting enhanced lot yield satisfies their needs.  How do the rest of us get what we need from our county representatives?

For the community of county residents left with the aftermath of development, we have increased the usage of the infrastructure through density bonus to exceed the level of service standards for rural roads and water systems but not added enough homes to spread the cost of improving the infrastructure over an economic number of payers?  Who will pick up the tab for those improvements?  Two acres per dwelling unit is the least efficient density for urban infrastructure maintenance and the property owners in the clusters are thinking they need maintenance on their arterial roadways.

I cannot think of one area where Snohomish County Council members have given us encouragement that they are looking out for the general population.  They certainly have pushed a strong environmental agenda, but there aren’t too many wins for the average taxpayer.  That troubles me.