Here is one expert’s opinion about the need to retool land use regulations and how they are applied in Snohomish County. In our democracy we are all supposed to have a say. What’s yours? 

I learned today that Superior Court Mille Judge denied Regatta Estates HOA’s LUPA appeal and affirmed PDS’s decision to delete 200 trees that were supposed to have been planted on the 60-foot-high, 10-foot-wide terraced retaining per the Hearing Examiner’s decision; and to materially change the retaining wall design to a type that cannot be vegetated, simply to improve developer Lennar’s profit margin.

The decision is 27-pages long, but at its core, the judge simply dismissed my declaration as being “summary” and “conclusive,” and from there rules on pretty much all counts that we did not submit evidence substantiating our claims of increased stormwater runoff. In other words, she wanted the appellant to do the design work for defendant Lennar and PDS even though PDS never considered stormwater runoff when they approved this “minor revision”.

Obviously, this view of my declaration is galling. I don’t know how one can rationally think that a rock-faced wall will not have more stormwater runoff than a forested, terraced wall. I think she got there by imposing an unreasonably high standard—that because I did not provide actual calculations of runoff rates etc., the case should just be dismissed out of hand. Notably, she doesn’t mention the runoff rates that we cited and showed during our oral argument in December when she first brought this issue up.

What this ruling means is that under Snohomish County Code, PDS can set aside any Hearing Examiner ruling or any EIS requirement as a minor revision, so long as the revision does not add more than 10-lots to the development, with no notification to parties or record or the public.  And it is up the public and appellants to do the design work that PDS does not require the developers to do.

What constitutes a minor revision?  Well it is just about anything that PDS Director Mike McCrary says is a minor revision under SCC 30.70.210, so long as it does not add 10-lots or so to the development.

Please take a moment and contact the County Council contact.council@co.snohomish.wa.us and urge them to reign in PDS and change the SCC 30.70.210 to require PDS to enforce the Hearing Examiner’s conditions of approval or at least notify the public and parties of record when the Hearing Examiner’s conditions are changed after permit issuance.  Otherwise the SEPA process will continue to be a bad joke where Snohomish County can simply set aside any Hearing Examiner’s condition at a developer’s whim to cut their costs so they can make windfall profits at the expense of the environment and residents of the County.

William (Bill) Lider, PE, CESCL