Tensions building
Turn off busy Highway 2 onto Flint Road near Airway Heights, and the scenery quickly changes. Gone are the gas stations and traffic lights, replaced by a two-lane country road where houses are spaced out every 10 acres or more.
A development planned for 80 acres, however, could transform the area’s rural nature. The project would allow as many as 480 houses on land that until recently was restricted to 10-acre parcels.
Spokane County commissioners approved the request, despite the fact that the land sits outside the “urban growth boundaries” designed through the Growth Management Act to contain sprawl and ensure water, sewer and adequate roads are available as the area grows. It was the third time since Spokane County’s two newest commissioners took office that the board has approved substantial amendments to the urban growth boundaries that would allow hundreds of new houses. The other two additions are on Five Mile Prairie and in southeast Spokane Valley.
Residents of the Palisades Neighborhood appealed the commissioners’ decision on the Flint Road property to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, which found it was “clearly erroneous” for the county to extend the urban growth area without proving a need to do so or showing how services would be provided.
“Enlargement of its (Urban Growth Area) requires more than an attractive proposal from a developer to add urban densities to a certain part of the County,” the board wrote in its decision. “The County has only the proponent’s (developer’s) arguments that an expansion in this area is needed. This is not enough.”
The county has appealed that decision to Superior Court.
All three of the new urban growth boundary amendments were denied by the county’s Planning Commission, and two were shot down by a prior board of county commissioners. Upon appeal, however, all three were approved by the current board. In addition, none was submitted for consideration to the countywide Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials, as county planning policy dictates. The committee is made up of representatives from the county and its cities to address Growth Management issues.
Other municipalities, including the cities of Spokane and Spokane Valley, have taken issue with portions of the county’s urban growth boundary amendments, saying they weren’t consulted and the changes force cities to provide services to areas from which they may not reap property tax revenues.
And many residents of affected neighborhoods are in an uproar, saying the county’s actions are proof of the new commissioners turning their backs on planning to say yes to developers.
“It’s pretty much open season on neighborhoods,” said Bonnie Mager, director of the Spokane Neighborhood Alliance. “There’s no planning, only building.”
Commissioner Mark Richard disagrees, but he said he has a philosophical difference with the Planning Commission and the prior board that denied the development requests. Prices for housing and land are rising fast, in part because of a limited supply of land available for building, he said.
“I’m not comfortable denying property rights and due process for two to five years while we wait for an update (of the urban growth boundaries)” Richard said. “I just philosophically can’t agree to hold folks off.”
Richard also accuses Growth Management Hearings Board member John Roskelley of a conflict of interest because he ruled on an appeal of a case that he previously helped to decide as a county commissioner. Richard was government affairs director for the Spokane Homebuilders Association before being elected commissioner. He replaced Kate McCaslin, who had developers’ support when first elected but lost it when she made decisions the industry opposed. She won re-election in 2000 without the support of the association.
Roskelley said that before hearing the appeal he consulted the attorney general’s office, examined past conflict of interest cases and discussed his participation with other board members.
“Armed with this information, I concluded that I could hear these cases, without prejudice or bias, and base my decision on the law,” Roskelley wrote in an e-mail to The Spokesman-Review.
Developers say the restrictive nature of the urban growth area is forcing them to seek to expand it. During a Wednesday morning hearing to request an additional two amendments to the urban growth boundaries, developers’ attorney Meg Arpin said the requests are driven by the county’s hot real estate market. Home prices are up about 15 percent over the last year, and the cost of land doubled, then tripled, she said. From June 2004 to June 2005, the county experienced a 78 percent increase in permit activity, she said. Growing demand for land that developers can build on, she said, has been exacerbated by restrictions of the urban growth boundaries.
That doesn’t excuse dumping higher density housing into primarily rural neighborhoods without having services available for those new houses, said Kathy Miotke of the Five Mile Prairie Neighborhood Association. Miotke is leading the fight against the addition of 229 acres of new high-density housing to her neighborhood. The land, split among five parcels, was one of the recent amendments to the urban growth boundaries. With a potential density of up to six houses per acre, the developments could add more than 1,400 houses to the neighborhood.
One of the parcels the Five Mile neighborhood is most concerned about is an “island,” meaning it’s not adjacent to any other urban growth boundaries, something prohibited by county planning policies. The city of Spokane appealed the addition of that land and is working outside the courts with the county to resolve the differences, said James Richman, a city attorney.
“The city had problems with all five of the amendments (in Five Mile). We believe all five of the amendments are flawed in a number of respects,” Richman said. Because the “island” area is not contiguous with other urban growth areas, he said, “we’re in the position of almost being forced to provide services to an area that we won’t have the ability to annex,” which denies the city property taxes in that area. Richard said commissioners would not have approved the island of urban growth had they not consulted “at length” with their attorneys and planning staff. “Their advice was we did have the legal ability to do that,” Richard said. “We’re trying to strike a balance between supply and demand, and neighborhood concerns.”
The Five Mile Prairie Neighborhood Association has appealed the five amendments to the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. That case was heard in Spokane on Thursday morning, but no decision was rendered.
Another of the amendments approved by county commissioners created concern for the city of Spokane Valley, said Councilman Richard Munson. More than 400 acres were added to the urban growth area near Barker Road and Eighth Avenue at the city’s southeastern edge. The council asked county commissioners to delay a decision on that land, but the commissioners declined, Munson said. Spokane Valley, however, decided not to take the issue to the Hearings Board, he added.
That negotiation has paid off, as Spokane Valley and Spokane County are talking out their differences, Munson said.
And on Wednesday morning, Munson said something happened that makes him optimistic the cities and the county are on a path to smoother operations.
The Steering Committee, of which Munson is chairman, voted to create “Joint Planning Agreements” in the coming year. The goal of the agreements is to make sure no municipality is left having to provide services to an area without having the opportunity to reap tax revenues.
“With territory comes tax base, and tax base helps pay bills to provide services,” said Al French, a Spokane city councilman who is also on the Steering Committee. “If you have a major residential development outside the city of Spokane Valley, traffic creates demand on the city. But if the city doesn’t get any of the revenue, it bears the burden of that development without any costs.
“One of the failures of the state Legislature when it created the Growth Management Act is it didn’t create an effective way of revenue sharing,” French said. “That’s part of our struggle.”