Open Letter to County Council (Birch Bay Rezone)

Fm: Wendy Harris
To: council@co.whatcom.wa.us
CC: pds@co.whatcom.wa.us
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:11 AM
Subject: Opposition to Birch Bay Rezone

October 25, 2010

In re: Agenda Bill 2010-352

Public Comment on Proposal to rezone Birch Bay rural land from R10 to R5

Dear Members of County Council:

I have reviewed Agenda Bill 2010-352 which is set for Planning Committee discussion on Tuesday, 10/26/10. I oppose the efforts by County Council Member Sam Crawford to rezone approximately 800 acres in Birch Bay from R10 to R5. This proposal does not have the support of the Planning Department, nor that of the Planning Commission, whose review resulted in a split vote. Therefore, any action taken by the County Council requires a public hearing.

I recommend that the Council distance itself from this proposal if for no other reason than to avoid the taint that surrounds Mr. Crawford’s actions. Public trust has been eroded through the growing awareness of Mr. Crawford’s cozy relationship with the development industry, which includes a willingness to introduce land use amendments drafted by and for members of the development community, such as Belcher & Swanson.

In November, 2009, the Council removed land from the Birch Bay UGA, rezoning this land as R10. The Council’s intention was to reduce an oversized UGA, restricting inappropriate growth and making the County compliant with the GMA. In contradiction of the actions of the elected body of which he was member, and the interests of the general public who this elected body represents, Mr. Crawford tried to undermine Council's action. “Citizen” Crawford submitted a “suggestion form”, pursuant to WCC 20.90.030.4, to increase the zoning density of 800 acres of rural land within Birch Bay. The Planning Staff chose not to act upon Citizen Crawford’s suggestion.

Undeterred, Mr. Crawford used his position as a Council Member to initiate the Birch Bay rezone through a resolution approved by majority vote of the Council, pursuant to WCC 2.160.050. (Resolution No. 2010-008.) Mr. Crawford asserted that the Council unnecessarily downzoned Birch Bay in November, 2009, ignoring the fact that this was Council’s actual intent. It is troubling that someone elected to office believes it is appropriate to countermand the actions of a democratically elected body in order to forward a private agenda.

Nor is this an isolated incident. On the same date that Mr. Crawford attempted to rezone Birch Bay, December 31, 2009, he also filed a 200 page application to restore portions of the Yew Street Urban Reserve that had been removed from the UGA. A related Yew Street ordinance was recently introduced by County Council and it is indisputable that this ordinance was drafted and submitted to Council by Belcher & Swanson, who represent property owners suing the County over this re-designation.

A clear conflict of interest was created earlier this year when Mr. Crawford, as the County Council Chairperson, met in private with the UGA litigants for purposes of settlement. As someone who had taken action to override the actions of the County that were the subject of a lawsuit, it was inappropriate for Mr. Crawford to negotiate with the developer/litigators on behalf of the County. Therefore, it is not surprising that the results of Mr. Crawford’s efforts have been the filing of new lawsuits, despite his assertions that revisions to the November UGA amendments would reduce the time and cost of on-going litigation. It is clear that Mr. Crawford’ actions disregard the public will as well as the public purse, and reflect an egregious lack of concern for the ethical obligations of his office.

Based on these facts, I urge the County Council to reconsider its support of Mr. Crawford’s proposal to rezone 800 acres in Birch Bay from R10 to R5. Mr. Crawford’s proposal benefits only the development community and is not in the public’s best interest. Public belief in the integrity of government will be harmed if the Council condones Mr. Crawford's actions and approves piece-meal proposals drafted by the same people who will financially benefit.

Further basis for my opposition to this proposal is reflected in the Staff Report and the comments below:

1. The rezoning request is premature and inappropriate because the County is currently in the process of updating and revising the rural element of the County Comprehensive Plan. The County should engage in a comprehensive review of its rural areas to ensure GMA compliance. Piece-meal zoning, as reflected in this proposal, is less likely to successfully meet the policy goals of the County Comp. Plan or the GMA.
2. The County’s rural element must comply with RCW 36.70A.070(5), which requires the County to contain rural development, reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development in the rural area, and protect critical areas as well as surface water and groundwater resources. Mr. Crawford’s proposal fails to analyze or address this state statute. However, the Land Capacity Analysis, upon which Council’s November amendments were based, established that existing GC, UR(4) and URM(6) zoning resulted in sprawl. (I am aware that Belcher &Swanson has drafted an alleged “corrected” version of the LCA in support of this proposal.) Therefore, this proposal fails to establish that R5 zoning contains and controls sprawl as required under the GMA.
3. Birch Bay is an impaired shoreline of statewide significance, and contains a Shellfish Protection District. The proposed rezone intensifies development and increases harmful human impacts on land adjacent to Birch Bay. Until water quality issues are addressed, increased rural development is not appropriate, and may violate provisions of state and federal law, such as the GMA, the SMA and the Clean Water Act.
4. The Birch Bay Watershed Characterization and Watershed Planning Pilot Study (‘the Pilot Study”) and subsequent Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan (“the Action Plan”) created a blueprint for an innovative, comprehensive watershed-based plan for land use, stormwater management and natural resource protection/restoration. It is premature to rezone 800 acres of Birch Bay without incorporating the Birch Bay Watershed Plan, which is not mentioned in the proposal. The Planning Commission is reviewing the status of the Birch Bay Watershed Plan later this month, subsequent to the Committee Meeting. Mr. Crawford’s proposal does not allow for the type of coordination and planning necessary for the Birch Bay’s long term interests.

Accordingly, the proposal to rezone approximately 800 acres of rural land in Birch Bay should be denied.

Sincerely,

Wendy Harris