Development debate centers on 164th

Published 12:53 pm Friday, December 7, 2007

Julie Howell bowed her head for a moment and took a deep breath.

“I feel like I’m getting screwed and I’m still wearing my clothes,” she said of county leaders’ plans to erect — among other things — a high-density, mixed residential and commercial development in the middle of her neighborhood. “I’ve lived here since 1970. I grew up in this neighborhood. What the hell is the county thinking putting this kind of development in the middle of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ land?”

In 2003, the Snohomish County Council rezoned 138 acres in unincorporated Lynnwood between I-5, 22nd Avenue West and 164th Street Southwest for the area’s first transit pedestrian village, a mixed-use development that offers retail services, high density housing and access to public transportation and interurban trails.

“If the county really cared about traffic problems around here, they would have planned this type of development 20 years ago,” Howell said. “They’ve built and built and now they are looking at public transportation and infrastructure almost like they’re after thoughts. It’s always the cart before the horse with these guys.”

In September, officials from the county public works department asked the County Council to declare a stretch of 164th Street between Lynnwood and Mill Creek at ultimate capacity. The council issued a moratorium on development along the corridor asking for a plan to reduce traffic.

Howell considered this good news.

“It’s the first time I heard the term,” Howell said. “It sounded great. If someone tells me a roadway is at ultimate capacity, my first thought is you must not be able to build there anymore.”

As she soon found out, the ultimate capacity designation will not stop development.

It simply means there are no realistic opportunities for capital improvements on the roadway. If developers want to continue building in the area, they’ll have to pay impact fees for a program encouraging new residents to utilize public transportation and other alternative commuting methods.

“Ultimate capacity is a cop-out by the county,” Mill Creek Mayor Pro-tem Terry Ryan said. “I led an effort for all the cities, requesting a moratorium on development so the county could get ahead of its infrastructure issues. The County Council chose to not even vote on it.”

“Sadly, the overdevelopment Snohomish County has allowed in the urban growth areas around our cities without upgrading any infrastructure will have a cumulative devastating effect on our quality of life and will strangle economic development,” Ryan said. “The county created the problem, and now they don’t want to fix it. It is like taking a class of kids that isn’t passing and saying we’ll just make an ‘F’ a passing grade. That’s ultimate capacity.”

For other local leaders, the issue isn’t so black and white.

County Councilman Dave Gossett said he feels for residents who’ve been adversely affected by explosive growth across the region. He promises, however, the affects of a moratorium on development would be much more painful.

“You can’t stop growth,” he said. “We have stopped issuing building permits to allow for the implementation of an aggressive program to get people out of their cars and off the streets. And, I think it’s worth noting that before we’ve even begun marketing, we’ve heard from over 90 people who are interested in utilizing the program.”

Howell wants to know what county leaders will do if their program fails.

Ultimate capacity requires higher density development.

“What if the people moving into these places don’t want to ride the bus?” she asked. “The county needs to fix its infrastructure problems now instead of compounding the problem by dealing with it later.”

While county and city officials bicker about who’s to blame for growth-related problems, Howell and her neighbors say the future of their neighborhood is in limbo.

Real estate agents are knocking on doors, asking if homeowners are interested in selling their properties to make way for new development.

“Yet no one in the county planning and development services office can tell us how many projects are proposed in our area or even how many building permits have been issued,” said Howell’s childhood friend and neighbor, Denise Varriano, who’s lived in the neighborhood since 1968. “The county even admits the roads are about seven years behind the development, yet they keep going like the problem is somehow going to solve itself.”

Varriano and Howell, along with another childhood friend and neighbor, Diane Kiser, have spent months gathering information, testifying at public hearings and e-mailing their concerns and questions to various county offices.

“When we raised our concerns at a council meeting, they told us, ‘You complain now, but you love it when your property values go up,’” Kiser said. “Well, no we don’t love it. This is my home and I plan to live here for the rest of my life. All it means when my property value goes up is that I’ll have to pay more taxes.”

Three months ago, Howell and her friends were ready to crack open a bottle of champagne and toast to ‘ultimate capacity.’ They thought county leaders were finally responding to widespread concerns about development and the toll it’s taking on people’s quality of life.

“We realized ultimate capacity wasn’t probably in our best interest, when we attended a meeting and all the builders were in favor of it,” Howell said. “This is a quiet, low-key neighborhood. We just want to continue living here and enjoying our families, but the county appears to have other, more important interests at heart.”