Bill Geyer, AICP, contributes this as our guest writer.  Bill has 33 years in professional planning practice.  He served as Bellingham's Planning Director from 1985 to 1991 and has been a residential builder and private land/development consultant since.

-------

I take no position on the feelings expressed by opponents of the Padden Trails rezone; everyone is entitled to oppose more development if they wish.  As a proponent of the rezone, my intent here is to correct the factual record only.
I commend Mr. Grannis for summarizing most of the objections voiced about this rezone proposal.  Therefore, I have taken the time to address most of them at length.

The headline of Mr. Grannis’ article references Chuckanut Ridge, or Fairhaven Highlands, so let’s recall what actually happened to that site.  The developer changed the plat, largely in response to neighborhood input, reducing density from some 1,400 to 739 lots, but the process dragged on so long that eventually market conditions put the project in trouble, the bank foreclosed, and now it’s a city park.  Number of housing units built: zero.

Lessons: zoning, rezoning, and plat vesting doesn’t guarantee a landowner anything, especially in this economic climate.  Any project proponent is subject to both regulatory and market risk, and may lose everything despite best efforts and due diligence.  There are no “gifts” in this business.

The first line of Mr. Grannis’ article contains a faulty premise.  The city is NOT considering a development project, only a rezone.  The development permit application process will provide opportunity for all concerned to comment on the suitability of the actual site plan submitted for approval.  All potential adverse impacts, from environmental to transportation, will have to be addressed before any development application will be approved.  Only after the application process is complete would opinions about actual environmental impacts become germane.

While the rezone request is based upon an estimate of the maximum number of units that could be built if the rezone request is granted, critical areas and other factors could substantially reduce the actual number of lots permitted – perhaps to a level that would render the project unprofitable.

Isolation:  the description of the site as “isolated” makes little sense.  There are nearby houses and streets, and the site is only minutes away from downtown.

Single point access:  that indeed is the case and is an issue the project has addressed during the rezone by committing to transportation upgrades in the vicinity. They will have to address this issue further during the development permit application process.  The safety issues surrounding the single point access were addressed by the fire marshal, who testified the transportation improvements would ensure the site plan met all applicable codes. Most important, all residential units in Padden Trails shall have sprinklers per the Uniform Fire Code, providing the highest fire suppression level in all of Bellingham.

With respect to vehicle dependency, the project is estimated to pay nearly a million dollars in traffic impact fees.  Bus service to the area is currently limited because of its low density; the project would increase the likelihood of WTA routes to the area because transit follows density.

Mr. Grannis makes an inappropriate reference to the use of “best available science.”  The Growth Management Act requires the use of best available science for the identification, delineation, evaluation of critical areas, and the formulation of regulations for their protection.  The site does have extensive wetlands and other critical areas, and they will have to be addressed adequately during the development permit application process, or a project will never be approved.  Thus, there is no basis in fact for claiming the developer’s vested rights trump science of any kind. In fact, we submitted documentation that more than 50% of the site will be placed into some protective covenant for the critical areas.  This is good land stewardship. 

Mr. Grannis correctly states several important policies in the city’s Comprehensive Plan:
-  “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.”
-  “Shorelines, wetlands and steep hillsides should be protected or impacts mitigated…”
-   “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.”

Mr. Grannis goes on to erroneously claim the Planning Department has ignored those policies when recommending the rezone.  As Mr. Grannis suggests, go to the Planning Commmission’s web page and review the staff report and the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings which reveals that both the staff and the commission members considered these policies at considerable length (9 hours of hearings) before each recommended approval of the rezone.

Further still, the discharge of stormwater runoff into Padden Creek meets the standards set by the Department of Ecology, and has been approved by that agency’s local office.  It is not a problem, it is a solution; one that the property owners have already committed to, as the sutra weir is now in place and functioning properly. The citizens also benefit here, as the increased capacity in Padden Creek is only partially used by the Padden Trails site (about 35%); the remainder is for the city to use as it sees fit to protect Happy Valley from future flooding.

The last planning policy on Mr. Grannis lists deserves repeating: “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.”  That’s not just a policy, that’s the law.  The rezone sets the maximum number of lots that might be permitted, but only after thorough review of all the considerations listed above will the actual number of lots be determined. This proposal will implement the city’s Infill Toolkit championed by many citizens and city council members, more specifically defined in BMC 20.28.  In short, townhouses, carriage houses, duplexes, smaller houses, garden courtyards, all the infill housing forms needed for the 21st Century.

With respect to changing circumstances and changing community values, the conditions cited have in fact changed considerably since the city’s first plan was adopted some thirty years ago.  Urban facilities are either present or can be brought to the site, largely at the project principals’ expense.  It is true the area will be expensive to develop due to environmentally sensitive areas, a matter fully taken into account by both staff and Commission in making their recommendation.

Mr. Grannis asserts: “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.”  He claims: “Sprawl is the extension of utilities and housing into undeveloped areas.”  Not quite correct.  While there is no formal definition of sprawl within the GMA, the GMA’s planning goal number (2), at RCW 36.70A.020, offers what has become the de facto definition: “(2) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.”  The Padden Trails proposal seeks an increase in density to make more efficient use of the buildable areas of that site. Most obvious is the obvious:  Padden is inside the existing city limits.  

Whether the conversion of this undeveloped land into affordable housing is appropriate requires an exercise in careful and thorough land use analysis.  The facts determined so far support the conclusion that the conversion could be appropriate, if all relevant challenges are properly mitigated.  As noted above, we won’t know if they can be so mitigated until a development permit is submitted and put through the detailed review process.

Mr. Grannis takes an incomplete view when he asserts, “Increasing the number of units is a valuable gift to the Padden Trails developer.”  As noted above, this “gift” carries considerable risk, both regulatory and market.  That a project will in fact be built at all is no sure thing.  That it will prove profitable, if built, is also uncertain.  So the projects’ principals are asking to be given an opportunity to take a huge risk.  They may make money, or they may not.

Mr. Grannis claims, “Infill is the building of more housing where housing and infrastructure already exists.”  It’s not that simple.  To appreciate the logic of infill one must step back and look at the bigger picture.  The GMA requires cities and their county to develop countywide planning policies that coordinate the growth policies of each jurisdiction.  Directing growth away from rural areas and farmland is a key element of those policies.  A rezone to higher density makes sense because lower density makes less efficient use of the same land, forcing still more development into other sensitive areas or out into the county.

Rezoning the Padden Trails site keeps more housing inside city limits, a goal of the GMA and our local countywide planning policies.  Farm Friends, representing Whatcom County’s agriculture community, has sent a letter to the City Council in support of the rezone.  Among their reasons they cite, “Farm Friends is concerned when Bellingham limits their potential residential growth which in turns causes substantially increased residential pressure on the rural areas of the county – including our precious resource lands.”

The correct conclusion is that the rezone is in the public interest and the proposal does not adversely affect the public safety and general welfare. Increased density should be approved.