Padden Trails. It Is Not About Infill; It Is About Profits
Padden Trails. It Is Not About Infill; It Is About Profits
On April 1st, Linda Twitchell, government affairs director for the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, published an editorial in the Herald [1] in support of the rezone of the 113-acre parcel in the Samish Neighborhood known as Padden Trails. The developers are asking for a rezone from single family residential to multi-family residential and an increase in density that would more than double the number of units. Unfortunately, most of the editorial spoke to irrelevant issues or misrepresented others.
Ms Twitchell seems to have a problem separating overall county growth management requirements and goals from Bellingham’s own internal density and planning criteria. She states up front, “There's a proposal before Bellingham City Council that you should know about if you're concerned about sprawl or you're concerned about how you, your family and friends can find housing in Bellingham. The question has arisen: Is City Council serious about encouraging ’infill’ to keep growth inside the city? The council has adamantly opposed sprawl, saying it favors high-density infill. The city even adopted an ‘infill toolkit’ three years ago to allow higher-density housing mixes, but it has never been used in a major project.”
There has been no attempt to prevent development on these 113 acres. The current zoning allows it. It is within the city boundaries and, therefore, it is infill. The issues involve the density and use (single family vs. multi-family) and whether the application meets the rezone criteria under BMC 20.19.030 [2]. for a Type VI rezone and for a change to the Comprehensive Plan under BMC 20.20.040 [3]. If the application fails on any of these criteria, it fails – period. Christopher Grannis and I have previously written about this issue on the Northwest Citizen site [4] [5]. Additionally, Council Member Michael Lilliquist has written a memorandum on the rezone [see page 2 of reference 6] that describes some of the “failure” elements of the application.
Ms Twitchell’s editorial continues, “Bellingham now has a proposal for using the ‘toolkit.’ Developers of a 113-acre property west of Lake Padden and north of Interstate 5 want a change from low-density, single-family to low-density, multi-family zoning, allowing a mix of housing types and protecting critical areas. Density would go from 246 housing units (two per acre) to 492 (four per acre). Dwelling sizes would vary, and prices would range accordingly. Trails and open space are planned. The developer would build all needed infrastructure, including a $900,000 traffic light off-site, to help out the neighborhood.”
The developers have no choice regarding the protection of critical areas, so the contention that they will abide by the rules is simply gratuitous. As for the Tool Kit, its use also carries some baggage, such as the following city land use guidelines for the “kit”: (1) respect the existing character of the neighborhood; (2) be located in designated urban areas and corridors; (3) be sited in urban centers and on designated transit corridors if multifamily housing is to be included; (4) be arranged in connecting streets and blocks to facilitate travel by foot, bike, bus, or car; (5) use existing infrastructure and services; and (6) support transit and create new housing in closer proximity to jobs, retail, and services. Use of the Tool Kit in this particular area fails on all six counts, so touting its use seems self-defeating. As for the traffic light “donation”, the developer had the gall to ask that the cost of its placement come from the required impact fees it would already be paying. It is not difficult for the developers to ”help out” by offering something from that which is already required. Moreover, there are other serious traffic issues involving the intersection at 34th and Connelly, the amount of traffic flow, the impact of more cars on 34th and 36th Streets, the single entry to the development, and the additional stress on the poorly designed “stair step” egress to Samish Way. Mitigation of these problems is not guaranteed by any means and may be unlikely given the comment by the city’s public works development manager about making improvements that “the budget does not allow for …at this time.” [7]
Continuing with Ms Twitchell’s editorial: “Bellingham's Planning Commission and planning staff have recommended approval, saying the project conforms to the comprehensive plan and city goals, and doesn't present environmental problems City Council members, however, made it clear at a work session March 26 that none of them supports the project as proposed. They suggest building at the original lower density - despite the fact that planning staff say that's not economically feasible.”
While the Planning Commission serves as a valuable advisory body, City Council is the decision-making body and is not bound by the PC’s recommendation. Twitchell fails to mention that the Planning Commission itself had plenty of problems with this proposal [8]. As for economic feasibility, this issue is not part of either the Type VI rezone criteria or the requirements for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Unfortunately for the developers, they have overpaid for land that will likely not generate an adequate profit. It is not for the city to ensure returns on investment. Do I see free-marketeers nodding in agreement?
Continuing, Twitchill provides us with straw-man financial information. “Infrastructure costs remain the same, regardless of how many homes are built. At the original density only 152 traditional, single-family houses could be built - selling for $700,000 or more. With 492 units built in clustered "‘infill toolkit’" housing forms - small single-family homes, garden courtyards, townhouses, etc. - the average price would be $285,000 or less.” She fails to mention that a rezone to multi-family guarantees nothing with regard to housing affordability. A simple rezone will serve only to improve the marketability of the 113 acres to yet other developers/purchasers who may or may not give a jot about affordable housing. Luxury condos anyone?
With this comment, Twitchell offers a false choice. “One councilman suggested the higher density isn't compatible with ‘existing neighborhood character.’ Zoning in most of the neighborhood is two-to-four-units per acre, city planners report; one area is multi-family. Additionally, this project is on relatively isolated land, not visible from surrounding areas. Traffic would exit at the neighborhood's edge. If we can't have infill here, at densities that justify the cost of development, then where?”
The issue before council is the rezone of this particular property according to specific criteria and not the placement of more increased-density development. It is too late, but perhaps a dense development using the Infill Tool Kit might have been a better choice than the auto-centric multiplex cinema and grand parking lot now under construction at Barkley, the faux urban village. Where was the BIA when this monstrosity was being proffered to the city? Where were the cries for infill? Ms Twitchell also forgets that the Lettered Streets and Sehome neighborhoods have both been working with the city to bring infill to certain areas within their respective neighborhoods.
Twitchell persists, “Let's be realistic - no neighborhood wants higher density. But if we're going to avoid sprawl outside town, we have to make room for people in town. The Growth Management Act requires cities to predict population growth, then accommodate it; ‘no growth’ is not a legal option.”
But what if the population growth is not taking place? For what are we preparing? I invite readers to look at the April 2nd NWCitizen column by Larry Horowitz entitled “Questions about Population Growth” [9] in which Larry asks, “How do we plan for population growth (or loss) locally given the substantial downward adjustment - minus 72% for 2011-12 and minus 59% for 2012-2013 - to our state’s Net Migration assumptions in the Office of Financial Management’s November 2011 Forecast?” And I remind Ms Twitchell of the previous paragraph in which I mention the Lettered Streets and Sehome. I might also refer her to the Samish Neighborhood plan that calls for increased density within its area.
According to Twitchell: “Bellingham is running out of ‘easy’ places to build. Other than Cordata, at the north edge of town, buildable tracts in Bellingham tend to be steep and wooded.”
True, however Padden Trails is not exactly flat ground either. So, if most of the buildable area in Bellingham is steep and wooded, then pursuit of infill and affordable housing in these areas is then a fool’s errand. Nevertheless, we must abide by our infill criteria and zoning laws. All the more reason to look to increased density in the urban core and potential urban villages before they get paved over with parking lots “à la Barkley.” Other areas in Bellingham should become available if the city adjusts its land supply figures. In 2008 the city revised its Park Plan to reduce the anticipated 2022 parkland inventory by 1,132 acres. [9] This means that a similar number of acres should be added to the land supply analysis, as it is now available for development (Note: A portion of the 1,132 acres may not all be developable due to various restrictions.) Additionally, the Samish Neighborhood has large amounts of land available but the lack of funds to complete San Juan Boulevard and Governor Road has stalled any build-out for reasons of access. Is the BIA about to kick in funds to assist in the road building project?
Ms Twitchell has a hard time keeping on topic (the rezone of Padden Trails). She goes on, “Expense is an issue. Bellingham's building permits and fees are among the highest in the state. And as regulations make it harder and more expensive to build in town, people are finding homes elsewhere. Last year, only 20 percent of the new residential building permits issued in Whatcom County were in Bellingham, which issued fewer permits than Ferndale, Lynden, or unincorporated Whatcom County. Building in Bellingham during the past five years has dropped for single-family homes (194 units in 2007 to 71 units last year) and multifamily units (291 units to 104). The Realtors Association confirms this trend.”
Here’s the problem: Permit fees are not the issue in this rezone. If anything, permit fees and impact fees from developers never equal the real cost of the effects of development on the city. What source has the BIA suggested to deal with these additional financial requirements?
After telling us the city is not doing enough for infill, Ms Twitchell then castigates the City Council by saying, “City Council repeatedly promotes high-density, multi-level "‘urban villages’" to meet Bellingham's housing needs. But not everyone wants to live in a highrise. And not everyone wants downtown Bellingham built to the density of Bellevue, which is what the council has planned for. “
I guess it is better to have all the density (like that of Bellevue) on the edges of the city where automobile use becomes mandatory.
Twitchell continues: “Which do you prefer, sprawl or infill? Now is the time to speak up. Please give this serious consideration, and let the City Council know your preference. The public record is open until April 16 on this proposal, known as Padden Trails. Information is posted on the city's website.”
Again, the issue is not sprawl or infill but the kind of infill and its placement the citizens of Bellingham want within the city limits.
Then comes the BIA disclaimer followed again by a false choice statement regarding infill vs. sprawl. “The Building Industry Association of Whatcom County is a nonprofit with 350 members - homebuilders and related businesses (engineers to telecommunications firms). The association has no financial interest in this project and does not back it specifically. But we are interested in finding workable solutions for our community to make this a place where we all can afford to live. We think it's time to get serious about infill, or to stop complaining about sprawl.”
Lest we forget, this is from the association’s website: “The BIAWC is continually working for responsible legislation and fighting against rules and laws that unreasonably increase the price of building products for our community and make it more difficult to survive and prosper in business.”
It’s all about money.
(Dick Conoboy member of the Samish Neighborhood Board, however, his opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the board)
2. BMC 20.19.030 Rezone Criteria
3. BMC 20.20.040 Comprehensive Plan Change Criteria
4. Padden Trails is Chuckanut Ridge Lite by Christopher Grannis
5. Padden Trails Rezone – You Should Be Worried by Dick Conoboy
6. Lilliquist Memorandum in Agenda Bill 19483
8. Minutes of the Planning Commission Workshop on 15 December 2012
9. Land and Facility Demand – 2008 Pro Plan Update Chart (last page of pdf).
7 Comments