More information can be found in the Pilchuck Audubon Society Profile monthly newsletter under SMART GROWTH REPORT at http://www.pilchuckaudubon.org

Island Crossing Appeal to Supreme Court

Futurewise appeals Island Crossing to Supreme Court Futurewise, along with state agency CTED, Stillaguamish Flood Control District, Pilchuck Audubon Society and Agriculture for Tomorrow, have filed their appeals to Supreme Court on the Island Crossing Urban Growth Areas Expansion of Arlington, and rezone of prime agriculture land into carlots and big box stores.  The appeal was heard on June 24 and we are awaiting a decision.

Urban Residential Design Standards

With the recent news of a
housing glut, due to overbuilding
and a nationwide mortgage
loan problem, development
of new homes in Snohomish
County has slowed, and the
inventory of new homes is
large. This is a great time for the
County to revamp design standards.
Cities like Mill Creek,
Bothell and Lake Stevens are
tired of having their urban
growth areas inundated with
ugly homes that do not fit the
design standards of their cities.
And citizens living in the urban
growth areas are sick and tired of
losing every tree to high-density
developments. The County not
only needs to work closely with
the cities to ensure good home
design, setbacks and landscaping,
they also need to adopt
a long-awaited tree ordinance
that would protect large stands
of big trees and understory.
Rural Cluster Subdivisions
have been a development tool
here in Snohomish County since
1995, as a way to try to protect
our open spaces, critical areas
and rural beauty. However, the
county in its quest to appease
developers and encourage them
to use the rural cluster subdivision
process, offered density
bonuses, where by if a bit more
percentage of land was protected,
they could build more
houses.
The outcome has been that
we are seeing a net of 1 home
per 2.3 acres, which is absolutely
not RURAL development
and has not protected rural
character. With global warming
at the top of problems we need
to help solve, allowing for more
rural cluster subdivisions just
will not get us there. Rural residents
are tired of these clustered
developments and are speaking
out with a focus on eliminating
the density bonus.
While the county is focusing
on other tweaks that can
be made to the code, the citizens
want the density bonus
at the very least to disappear.
This needs to happen now in
2008, before more applications
become vested. The County
Council in 2008 needs to enact
an emergency ordinance and
fix this now, as they are out of
compliance with their comprehensive
plan and the Growth
Management Act, allowing for
too much urban-style development
and too much growth in
our rural areas.

Transfer of Development Rights Program

I have been in many conversations
on how to get this program
actually working and saving
farmlands, rural lands, and
forest lands. But the time for
planning and discussion needs
to end and work needs to happen.
We have spent ten years
on planning and talking on a
TDR program to protect the
Stillaguamish River Valley, and
frankly it isn’t working.
There are numerous tools
out there and incentives to get
developers to buy the rights
of the lands we want to save
and protect, and to build in
our existing urban growth areas
and cities. City leaders, county
leaders, farmers, developers and
conservation groups, all need to
come to the table and agree to
make it work!
If we don’t do this with all earnestness
and commitment, we
will never protect Snohomish
County from unnecessary urban
sprawl, and we will lose our
ability to sustain farming and
forestry in this county for the
future, the uncertain future we
face with global warming and
peak oil looming over us.
2008 needs to be the year that
marks a swing of the pendulum
away from developer greed and
toward environmental stewardship
and healthy, sustainable
cities.

City of Everett Marshland development

In the Feb. 10 issue of The Herald, I read that the City of Everett will start working with stakeholders on a plan to restore and develop the 1000 acres of marshland along Snohomish River Road. The land is farmland, although the railroad runs through it, as well as PUD utility lines. While the City would like to transform this soggy farmland into ballfields, trails, and picnic areas – and restore some of it for salmon habitat – there might be some opposition to such an idea.

Again, this is floodplain. Don Bailey, owner of Bailand Farms
(and husband of Barb Bailey), is a commissioner for the
Marshland flood control district, which manages more than
6400 acres of floodplains between Everett and Snohomish.
He brings up the same issues of flooding up river at the
Harvey Airfield as down river at the Marshland site. The
Marshland’s drainage system – which cuts through the city’s
land before spilling into the river – is critical to both agriculture
and to keeping SR 9 and Marsh Road from flooding.
From Bailey’s perspective, as a long-time farmer in the area, it
should remain farmland because that is the highest and best
use for it, as the Marshland area gets deep during flooding.

Rural Cluster Subdivisions

The arson fires at the Street of Dreams mega-mansion rural
cluster subdivision near Echo Lake (Quinn's Crossing) were disturbing, to say the
least. No matter what, destruction of homes – or any property – is not the answer. Crimes like these can paint a bad picture of environmental groups that are actually working within our governmental system to make positive change.

Since the fires, I have taken several calls from members of
the media, asking where the organizations I represent stand
on this issue and to learn more about the problems with rural
cluster subdivisions. I was even interviewed by a reporter
from The Washington Post!
As I told the reporters, this action is nothing we condone.
Ever. However, the fact remains that big problems with rural
development exist in this county; and, I, along with other
citizens, are using legal means in an effort to bring about
changes.

Rural development has a lot to do with how we go about
urban development, as well.  Especially when it comes to developing our land, which impacts the way
we live our lives, the taxes required to protect the common
good, and how we can still protect what most of us hold dear:  water quality, air quality, healthy food, homes to live in, and the wonder of wildlife diversity. We need all of this to keep the world – as we know it – sustainable.

Another important problem is housing affordability and homelessness
in a county that purports to have low unemployment
rates and which hasn’t been affected by the mortgage lending
crisis to the degree others have. The mantra from both the
Master Builders Association and the Realtors Association is
that regulations add to the cost of housing, making it
unaffordable. Interestingly enough, both industries take great pride in the fact that housing prices have not fallen here while they have in many other parts of the country.
So why are homes no one can afford still being built?
Where are the homes people can afford? Statistics presented at the Housing Consortium breakfast earlier this month showed a 20% decrease in the affordability of homes between 1995 and 2006. What that means, really,is home prices have risen much faster than incomes. In 1995, the median household income was $42,000 a year, which would buy a $128,000 home. And the median cost of a home was $141,950.
In 2006, the median household income of $60,000 would
only qualify for a $195,000 loan. But the median price for a
home in Snohomish County is $322,950!

What’s really fueling the cost of homes is determined by a
complex set of factors, the least of which deal with regulations
to protect the growth of our communities. I certainly
don’t have all the answers to these very complex problems,
but I will say regulations to protect the environment, wildlife
habitat, water quality, air quality – and our attempts to deal
with global warming – are not the cause of problems with
housing affordability or foreclosures.

While some may try to pin it on regulations aimed to protect
these things, it’s more complex than that. And we must find
ways to deal with issues without sacrificing the environmental
quality that sustains all life.
As we continue to build high-end homes, those who make
less are pushed out of the market. But, more people who can afford these homes move into the area because they still are
priced lower than in King County. The additional population
creates an increase in the cost of growth for needed infrastructure,
or leads to a decline in quality of life when that infrastructure is not provided.

Some of the reasons rural cluster subdivisions were adopted
by this county include to protect more open space, allow for
moderate growth in rural areas and to provide affordable
homes. The fact is we are not seeing affordable homes in our
rural areas. And, while the Street of Dreams rural cluster was
the highest of the high-end homes, homes in the $300,000-
$400,000 range are predominant.
An update to the code governing rural cluster subdivisions
is currently underway at the county. Planning commission
hearings are complete and the commission will make its recommendations
to the county council soon. However, in this
update, housing affordability wasn’t part of the mix. Nor was
the problem of allowing 100% bonus densities for a modest
increase in protected open space.
While some of the code changes would help with buffering,
setbacks and the number of homes in one cluster, the clusters
can occur right next door to each other, further exacerbating
the problem of maintaining rural character.

Rural cluster subdivisions are just a part of the mix. Our urban
areas must be planned and developed more wisely, with a
focus on where our highest density should go. Many neighborhoods once considered single-family residential are seeing more multi-family construction. There are some styles of multi-family that fit well into single-family neighborhoods.
But, there are some that do not.
I will be lobbying hard, along with our urban friends, for better regulations on the design of homes, as well as on the
zoning issues. It’s time to urge cities along the Sounder rail
line to start planning for and creating codes that will encourage mixed use and transit oriented development.

Fully Contained Communities

Our rural areas are at great risk today from urban growth area expansions, ill-planned growth, rural cluster subdivisions, and Fully Contained Communities (FCCs).  Three Snohomish County Council members tried to take a stand recently for better managed growth.  They were shot down.

An FCC, a new city of 15,000 people, is on the drawing board for the Seven Lakes area just west of Marysville.  A second of these monstrosities may be closer to reality on the west bank of Lake Roesiger. The threat is real.  It is an emergency.

In a grand attempt to deal with FCC policy and codes that were adopted under a pro-development council several years ago, County Council Chair Dave Somers recently introduced an emergency ordinance to adopt a moratorium on FCC applications.

Unfortunately, my council member, John Koster, was the lone vote against the moratorium, causing it to fail.  I suppose Koster’s vote should be of no surprise since he has been a proponent of FCCs all along.  His defense is that there is no emergency because the council can deny the permit application at any time, that he knew nothing about the emergency ordinance until the day before the vote, and that his fellow council members were just politically grandstanding, falls on deaf ears. 

I had asked Koster weeks before to support the measure and appears to be grandstanding himself while leaving his rural constituency at risk.  More importantly, the FCC codes are confusing as to when an FCC would vest, confusing not only to the public, but even to Koster and the county’s own planning director, as they each have a different interpretation.

Time is of the essence, both for us as a community, and for the forces that want to level the trees that shade our homes and put up a brand new, self-glorifying city.  The County planning department is already having pre-application meetings with the developers of Falcon Ridge, the FCC proposed for Lake Roesiger and vesting is possible in four months.

It’s a confusing topic, to be sure.  So I’ve done my research and poked into the details.  So let’s just deal with the facts.

Fact One.  The County Council during the 10-year comprehensive plan update tacked on extra 15,000 people to the planning to allow for a FCC.  They did this after they had already set their target population goal from within a range of choices.  In other words, those 15,000 people run with the FCC.  If we don’t build an FCC, we don’t plan for those people.  When the first 300,000 more people move here, then can talk about creating an arbitrary number to justify an FCC.

Fact Two.  The code is broad and confusing and obviously open to interpretation as to when vesting of the application occurs.  First I was told it vests early in the process before the Hearing Examiner recommendation and county council vote.  Then I was told it vests later in the process after the county council approves it.  Further, if the developer meets the code, and the Hearing Examiner recommends approval, the council would run the risk of a Superior Court appeal and would lose that appeal if they don’t approve the FCC.  As anyone knows who has dealt with a development application at the Hearing Examiner level, this is not the time to try to prevent a development from happening. 

Fact Three.  While there was public participation in a stakeholder committee to develop the policies for an FCC, they were not asked to help develop the codes.  In fact, the FCC process described by Koster as “exhaustive” and inclusive of the public, stopped at the door.  That’s where the developers walked in.  The attorney for the proponent for the Lake Roesiger FCC actually wrote up code for consideration, which was then adopted by the previous developer-friendly majority council of Gary Nelson, Jeff Sax and John Koster, and the current FCC code looks frighteningly similar to that written by the developer attorney.  Forgive me if I don’t bother to feign surprise.

But make no mistake, while the public has to sit and wait to see what the County Council will do about this emergency, the proponents of two possible FCCs will be working hard to get their applications ready for vesting.  Once again the developers have all the advantage. 

So it’s time to blast the sirens.  An emergency exists and will continue to exist until all the council members to the right thing and protect the rural areas of Snohomish County.