Christopher Grannis writes this guest article.  He is President of the South Neighborhood Association.  

- - - - 

Bellingham's Planning Department is attempting to push through another environmentally destructive development on sensitive, undeveloped land between Lake Padden and the freeway.  Department staff are recommending doubling the allowed density to 492 units, which is two thirds of the 739 units they advocated for the similarly inappropriate Fairhaven Highlands proposal on Chuckanut Ridge. Padden Trails is even less appropriate for increased density because of its isolation and single point access. The planning staff erroneously claims the Padden Trails rezone proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They don’t even address many concerns not named in the Comprehensive Plan. Although the Planning Department claims to use best available science to regulate development, they apparently don't question whether increased density is compatible with best available science.

A couple of years ago, neighborhood leaders asked Planning Department representatives why they didn't consider best available science when they were trying to push through the 739-unit Fairhaven Highlands development and another project near 30th and Wilkin. Staff said they would not talk about those projects, but they did say the Planning Department did what was legally necessary and they do apply best available science. We were led to believe that because developers had the right to build 739 units, they could sue the city for "taking value" if the Planning Department tried to limit the number of units in order to protect the environment. Best available science was trumped by the developer's right to the number of units. There is no legal requirement to grant the Padden Trails developer increased density, but that is what planning staff is recommending. If the Padden Trails developer is granted the increase, they will have the right to build 492 units, and then it will be a legal necessity for the Planning Department staff to facilitate full build out.
 
Planning Department staff ignore Comprehensive Plan policies such as: “The quality of the natural environment should be protected by taking into account the land’s suitability for development and directing development away from important natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas.” And “Shorelines, wetlands and steep hillsides should be protected or impacts mitigated…” And “The buildable area and actual built density is determined only after all zoning considerations, environmental regulations/critical areas, and infrastructure needs are taken into consideration.” The staff recommends giving a legal right to building 492 units before the above items are determined.
 
Planning Department staff erroneously claim the proposed rezone amendment addresses changing circumstances, changing community values, and is consistent with and will help achieve the comprehensive plan goals. Here are a couple of the circumstances they claim have changed: 1.) “The area lacks urban facilities and services that are necessary to support higher densities. These include arterial streets, water, sewer and storm water facilities, schools, pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities.” 2.) “The areas were often difficult and costly to develop due to the presence of environmentally sensitive areas, and there were very few if any regulatory tools in place to protect such areas.” There are still no urban facilities, and Padden Trails is still difficult and costly to develop due to environmentally sensite areas. There are more regulatory tools in place now, but we know from the Fairhaven Highlands experience that those tools are not used to limit the number of units in order to protect the environment.
 
The reasons staff give for recommending doubling the density are: 1.) infill, and 2.) making a financially viable development possible, which will increase the value of the property. But Padden Trails development is a proposal for sprawl. Infill is the building of more housing where housing and infrastructure already exists. Sprawl is the extension of utilities and housing into undeveloped areas. Increasing the number of units is a valuable gift to the Padden Trails developer.
 
To be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the rezone should be in the community’s best interest. Staff asserts the installation of a traffic light by the developer will improve the level of service at the intersection of Connelly and the northbound I-5 on and off ramps. While the signal will prevent backups on the freeway, it will only be more of an impediment to east/west travel. To exacerbate already severe traffic at that intersection is not in the community’s best interest. The near neighbors correctly believe the project would have massive negative impact based on increased danger and inconvenience at the intersection of 34th and Connelly, the constant traffic, and a decrease of their property values. All Neighborhood Associations in south Bellingham, as well as the Mayor’s Advisory Council, are on record opposing increased density for Padden Trails. Staff disingenuously uses policy statements added to the Samish Neighborhood Plan that were meant to apply to the areas near San Juan Boulevard and Governor Road to justify Padden Trails. The Samish Neighborhood Association emphatically denies those statements were intended to apply to the isolated, one access area between Lake Padden and the freeway.
 
Finally, it is in the City’s best interest to promote development conducive to effective transit. Padden Trails would be a car-dependent development that would make efficient transit even more difficult. Staff incorrectly claims the rezone is in the community’s best interest.
 
I recommend everyone take the time to read the comments submitted to the record and staff report regarding Padden Trails. Those comments can be found in the Planning Commission meetings sections of the COB.org web site, link here - see Dec 1. Please make a point to find the comments submitted by Susan Kaun, which outline a very long history of broken promises, studies commissioned and ignored, and skullduggery and mismanagement by the Planning Department and Public Works Department relating to Padden Creek and development in Fairhaven. The studies conclude, among other things, that required storm water management does not prevent development run off from degrading downstream creeks and the Puget Sound. That we want to preserve the salmon runs in Padden and Chuckanut creeks is ignored by the Planning Department.
 
The Comprehensive Plan requires rezones not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare.  Please see the comments of Dr. Gibb, link here, which point out the danger of living in a huge, single-access cul de sac; and the comments of Steven Abell, link here, about the dangerous intersection at 34th and Connelly. Residents of a nearly 500 unit cul de sac would not be able to get out, and first responders would not be able to get in, if a forest fire or the predicted high impact earthquake were to block the one access road. The already dangerous intersection at 34th and Connelly would become even more dangerous with the inevitable line of cars waiting at that intersection to exit from Padden Trails.
 
The correct conclusion is that the Padden Trails upzone is not in the Bellingham community’s best interest and the proposal does adversely affect the public safety and general welfare. Increased density should be denied.