It's test time for state's growth management effort

By STEVE DENNIS
Quadrant

In 1990, the state Growth Management Act (GMA) was passed with much fanfare. The act was spawned during a decade when regional growth was being blamed for regional sprawl. The GMA promised to end sprawl as we know it and provide a framework for more orderly growth in the future.

Now it is "test time" for GMA. Growth is again an issue in the region. Is the GMA meeting expectations? Has it stopped sprawl? Is road and utility infrastructure keeping pace with demand? With strong population and job growth in the region is the GMA able to direct it in an acceptable fashion?

Among GMA's many features, two stand out. First, the act called for the establishment of Urban Growth Boundaries around urban areas. Essentially, a line would be drawn around areas designated for growth. Growth for the next 20 years would be concentrated on the "urban" side of the line and growth would be limited on the "rural" or low density side of the line. The line would be placed in a manner that allowed sufficient room for growth so the line would not need to be moved anytime soon. Thus sprawl would be stemmed, according to the GMA proponents.

Has the GMA contained sprawl?

Yes. The establishment of urban growth boundaries has created a clear line of demarcation between more intense urban levels of development and low density "rural" type uses. While growth is viewed by some as rampant in some parts of the region, it is rampant on the urban side of the line, where it is supposed to go.

Developer Jim Jaughlin squeezed 21 detached single-family houses onto 1.25 acres located a short walk from the Bainbridge ferry terminal. The Madison Cottages sold well at prices ranging from $148,000 to $192,000.

There is one element of the growth that comes as an unpleasant surprise to some. To accommodate growth within the designated urban areas in a "land efficient" way, planners anticipated that growth would take place at higher densities; i.e., more homes per acre on smaller lots. So the growth taking place this cycle looks much different than the growth that took place in past cycles.

This comes as a shock to many who believed the GMA was intended to stop growth, not just contain it in certain areas. The debate will continue as to whether these are the correct areas and the development is occurring at the right density, but the development is occurring as intended by the GMA, in the urban areas.

Another key element of GMA was "concurrency." Concurrency required that steps be taken to ensure that needed roads, utilities and other public services were provided "concurrent" with the growth that was occurring. In response to this requirement, most areas have imposed "mitigation" fees to provide funds for needed infrastructure. School, road, and park fees are just a few examples of the moneys that are being collected throughout the region.

Yet despite the collection of fees, the media is awash with reports of traffic congestion, water shortages and other signs of infrastructure inadequacy.

Infrastructure still lags development

Why is infrastructure not keeping up? The list of reasons is long and subject to debate.

• Timing. Growth is taking place so rapidly that even where funds are available, infrastructure projects are not keeping pace with growth.

• Backlog. In many cases, the infrastructure was deficient before the current boom began. Even if all the collected development fees were poured into new improvements they still would not make up for the past deficiencies.

• Government funding. It was never anticipated that all the infrastructure funding would come from new development. Local governments also have a responsibility to fund certain improvements. Some have been doing a better job of allocating funds than others.

• Poor planning. Some would argue that poor planning contributed to the delays in matching infrastructure needs with growth. The growth could have been better anticipated and dealt with.

• Environmental concerns. Needed road and utility infrastructure is often delayed due to environmental concerns, the need for re-design or more study. Some studies suggest that over 20 percent of each dollar allocated for road improvements is spent on environmental mitigation and study. However meritorious that may be, it does account for some of the deficiencies in the regional road system.

Could concurrency issues derail the GMA?

Consider the regional "water crisis." For years, water planners have expressed concerns about a "pending water shortage" impacting the region. That the region might face a water shortage at some point may come as a shock to anyone weathering a rainy Northwest winter. We have plenty of water. The issue is how to capture it, allocate it to competing interests and transport it to users. The debate pits environmentalists, fishing interests, recreational users, water purveyors and a raft of other interests.

While the need for new water sources and new water storage capacities have been anticipated for many years, an aqua gridlock seems to prevent any reasonable alternatives from moving forward.

Government's role

So how are local governments reacting to the challenges presented by the GMA and vigorous regional growth? Results vary by jurisdiction.

King County stepped up to the line early and revised its entire zoning code. Recognizing the need for higher density housing on the "urban" side of the line, the County revised zoning categories to allow such density.

Additionally, the County introduced the concept of density ranges which set not just a maximum density as in the past, but a minimum density as well. This ensures that land is not "underdeveloped." By maintaining some minimum densities on the urban side of the line, the county does, in fact, take its share of growth.

One feature of the GMA has created some potential for intercity problems. Each city is to accept a full range of housing, from expensive to affordable. The assumption is that if one city limited affordable housing in some manner, it would raise the pressure for such housing in neighboring cities. For example, Renton recently challenged policies in the new city of Newcastle. Renton believed that Newcastle was not doing enough to deal with the need for affordable housing, thus putting more pressure on Renton.

Kirkland recently reacted to citizen concerns about downtown housing density and established a moratorium on certain types of high density housing to allow time to reexamine its policies. The city faces this challenge: Under GMA, it has an obligation to accommodate a certain number of housing units. If the city reduces the density in one area, it needs to replace the "lost" housing units in another.

Redmond is facing a different kind of challenge. Home to Microsoft and many other fast growing companies, the city has seen its 20-year supply of commercial land nearly consumed in five years. While some cities would rejoice at facing this kind of "problem," Redmond has imposed a commercial development moratorium to give the city staff and infrastructure development some breathing room. The city found it couldn't provide infrastructure fast enough to meet the demands placed on it by the rapid growth.

So how is GMA working? The urban growth boundaries are working by directing growth to designated areas. It may not be the kind of growth some people anticipated and it's coming a bit sooner than planned, but it's going where the planners said to put it.

Concurrency is another issue. With or without GMA, local governments continue to struggle with their infrastructure base. Lack of concurrency could prove to be the biggest stumbling block to future growth.

GMA has focused attention on the issue but it is not the cause of the problem. The bottom line is that the GMA is making an impact on the way the region grows and promises to do so for years to come.

Copyright © 1998 Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.