Rural Cluster Subdivisions

Futurewise’s Position on Rural Conservation Villages:

The McNaughton Group who owns almost 2,000 acres of rural land in the 7-Lakes area of North Snohomish County has vested for rural cluster developments for 600 homes.  The area lacks sufficient water and has transportation issues for new development in this area.  They have put forward a bill in the 2011 state legislative session, sponsored by Senator Steve Hobbs, for a Rural Village Pilot Project, that would allow for 1600 homes.  Councilmember Dave Somers is a supporter of this legislation.  Futurewise is opposed to this legislation, and believes there needs to be a lot more discussion and work on the issue before anything goes forward.

Here are the pros according to Councilmember Somers and the cons according to Futurewise.

PROS

• Despite the fact that the number of housing units allowed would be significantly higher than allowed under the vested rural clusters, the development footprint would be significantly smaller( ~50%) and the amount of protected public open space significantly higher. Actually there is no public open space created through rural clusters, the open space is owned by the homeowners;
  
• The proposal results to no net increase in rural population since it requires the use of Transfer of Development Rights on a 1:1 basis to increase the unit number over that allowed in the vested rural clusters;
  
• The project would be allowed to utilize advanced waste treatment technology for wastewater disposal, avoiding the 650 septic units that would be used in the rural clusters;
  
• The entire project would be subject to a new SEPA review which would provide additional public involvement, address the cumulative impacts of the entire project, and allow the project to be conditioned as a whole to deal with offsite impacts such as traffic;
  
• The TDR transfer of development from other rural areas would result in the avoidance of equivalent future rural development that would depend on wells and septic systems.
  
• Stormwater runoff for the proposed project would utilize LID to a far greater extent than with the rural clusters;
  
• The demonstration project would complete the 212th St. NW east-west corridor between Happy Hollow Road to I-5;
  
• Unlike the former “Fully Contained Community” provisions which I successfully defeated and repealed, a Conservation Village would not be allowed on resource lands and do not carve a new urban area out of our dwindling rural areas;
  
• Would provide a legitimate and strong demand for TDR credits within the County.
  

CONS

•  This bill will allow a new city in northwest Snohomish County with up to 1,600 housing units.  This is larger than Granite Falls, with 1,258 housing units, and almost as large as Sultan with 1,754 housing units.
• Given its out of the way location, few jobs will locate in the new city, so people will have to drive long distances to work and for goods, services, schools, and recreational facilities.
• This new city will generate large amounts of traffic as its 3,400 to 3,500 people go about their daily lives.  The area where this new city will locate lacks the transportation facilities to accommodate this traffic and much of the burden will fall on state facilities, such as I-5, increasing demands for state transportation funding.
• The new city is inconsistent with Vision 2040, the regional growth plan for the four county region.  Because Vision 2040 did not plan on that much growth in this rural part of Snohomish County, Transportation 2040 does not include transportation facilities to serve the new city.
• Snohomish Transit has significantly cut back is service.  It will be hard pressed to effectively and efficiently serve the new city so far from its existing cities and routes.
• All of this driving will increase air pollution and greenhouse emissions.
• The area where this new city will locate lacks the water system, sewer system, schools, fire facilities, and park, and recreation facilities to serve it.  Water will have to be piped long distances from the Everett system, assuming Everett is willing to serve it.  Sewers and a treatment plant or an alternative system will have to be built.  All of the other facilities will have to be built from scratch.
• Snohomish County, which is already cutting back on its staff, will be hard pressed to serve the new city with public facilities and services, including law enforcement services.  Residences do not generate enough tax revenue to pay for the public facilities and services they need.
• This new city will transform a rural area into a city, adversely affecting its neighbors who will suffer urban style traffic jams with none of the benefits of being in a city.  A big developer will benefit, the small neighboring property owners will suffer.  The bill is opposed by many area residents.
• The loss of forest cover and native vegetation will adversely affect the water quality of area streams and harm Puget Sound.
• The new city will compete with the existing cities in Snohomish County for residents, jobs, businesses, county tax revenues, and state grants and loans.
• The bill exempts the new city from standard protections for rural character in the Growth Management Act.
• This bill would take tools developed for urban areas, planned actions under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Community Facilities Districts, and permit them in a remote rural area without any protections.
• TDR program should ensure more rural land is protected than a 1:1 ratio.
• The county has other, better tools, to manage the vested developments in this area.  Taking a problem and making it bigger by allowing more people in the area will not solve the problem.