Proposal to Expand Birch Bay UGA Prioritizes Private Profit

Tonight is the public hearing before the County Council, 7 P.M, Council Chambers, on the proposed ordinance to expand UGA boundaries. Please send County Council an email and/or show up tonight to tell the Council how you feel about their attempt to ignore GMA requirements and the public process to appease the demands of the development community.

Below is a comment I submitted to County Council regarding the Birch Bay UGA expansion.

BIRCH BAY UGA BOUNDARIES SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED

Proposed UGA Repudiates Watershed Based Planning
Whatcom County has failed to act on a unique opportunity to create UGA boundaries that reflect an innovative, comprehensive watershed-based plan for land use, stormwater management and natural resource protection/restoration. The information necessary for watershed-based urban land use planning is currently available as a result of the Birch Bay Watershed Characterization and Watershed Planning Pilot Study (‘the Pilot Study”) and subsequent Birch Bay Watershed Action Plan (“the Action Plan”).

The proposed ordinance to expand the Birch Bay UGA boundaries ignores the County’s ability to adopt a comprehensive watershed management plan. It also understates the purpose of the Action Plan by referencing it, briefly, as a plan “to protect aquatic resources.” (Paragraph 21, Page 7 of 21). It fails to indicate whether this is an area that was designated for restoration, protection or development as either a high, medium or low priority under the Pilot Study, and therefore, the public was not provided relevant information or evidence that County Council considered facts necessary to make a GMA-compliant determination.

The Pilot Study was initiated by the County and funded through state and federal grants. This included an “Estuaries Initiatives” grant from EPA to implement watershed based land use planning in Birch Bay. The intention was to create a watershed management plan that would integrate and address the planning requirements of the GMA and the SMA and the needs of the community. The goal was to use the results of the Study and Action Plan as a role model for the rest of Puget Sound.

The Pilot Study reflected the collaborative efforts of the County, EPA, Ecology, WDFW and Puget Sound Partnership. It reviewed and incorporated prior Birch Bay planning efforts, including the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, the Whatcom County Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, the Birch Bay Community Plan, the Birch Bay Comprehensive Stormwater Plan, the WRIA 1 Salmonid Recovery Plan, the Salmonid Habitat Restoration Strategy, the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, and the Shoreline Restoration Plan.

The Birch Bay watershed was analyzed based on a detailed review of the ecological functions of 32 delineated sub-basins. The results were used to create prioritized areas within the watershed for development, protection or restoration.
Management goals based on sub-basin vulnerability were discussed in the Pilot Study and reflected in Table 7-6 on page 76-79.
http://www.whatcomcounty.us/pds/naturalresources/specialprojects/pdf/birchbay_pilot_study_finalclean.pdf. (Pilot Study)

See also: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/0506027/0506027.pdf
Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems By Understanding Watershed Processes: A Guide for Planners, Ecology Publication #05-06-027, June, 2008, pages 38-43.

While the Pilot Study analyzed and characterized watershed processes, it was understood that the planning component, which recommended specific solutions to protect and restore ecosystem health, would be implemented through the Action Plan adopted by the County:

These are the first of several steps in a multi-step process to manage natural resources in the context of land use planning. The first two steps- analyzing (or characterizing) the landscape and its wetlands, streams, and wildlife, and prescribing solutions- are addressed via this pilot study. The second two steps-taking actions and monitoring results- are dependent upon formal adoption and implementation of a watershed plan by Whatcom County and the residents and stewards of the Birch Bay watershed.
Pilot Study, Page 8, Id.

Unfortunately, the Pilot Study was not used to adequately inform an Action Plan regarding Birch Bay UGA boundaries in November, and the current proposed expansion of the UGA boundaries fails to address this deficiency. Incorporating the Action Plan into the Birch Bay UGA boundary determination would help protect and restore our natural resources, and serve the interests of the development community by streamlining the regulatory process, including review and permitting.

Ignoring the information available through the Pilot Study may have important and negative consequences for Birch Bay, an impaired shoreline of statewide significance, and a Shellfish Protection District. Until water quality issues are addressed, through the type of planning process that was intended to follow the Pilot Study, increased urban growth will only exacerbate water quality issues. This suggests that expanded UGA boundaries in Birch Bay may not be compliant with the GMA or SMA.

Moreover, by ignoring the results of the Pilot Study, which was funded through state and federal grants, the County risks its ability to obtain future grants. The state and federal government may deny further grants because the County failed to follow-through on the planning actions that were the intended result of the Pilot Study.

No Factual Basis Exists to Expand the UGA
The proposed ordinance does not contain information that supports increasing the November UGA boundaries. The 2004 Birch Bay Community Plan, submitted as the current plan in June 2009, did not request expansion of UGA boundaries. The County Executive recommended reducing the Birch Bay UGA boundaries. (Paragraphs 13 and 14, Page 5 of 21.) Thus, the proposed expansion is not at the request of the public or local government staff, but at the request of private property interests.

As pointed out in the Staff report for the ordinance, the UGA adds 17 acres, (although relying on the Assessor’s map rather than GIS information increases this by another 4 acres) which results in a surplus of 10 (or 14) acres. In other words, the County Council is knowingly recommending oversized expansion of the November UGA boundaries, despite having previously been non-compliant with the GMA for exactly this reason. County Council needs to justify how this serves the public interest.

The ordinance further indicates that Birch Bay has not secured a water supply for the 20 year horizon required for UGA planning. RCW 36.70A.110(2). Birch Bay has a contracted water supply only through 2015. Additional water sources for the future have been “identified”, but have not been secured. (Paragraph 20, Page 6 of 21.) Birch Bay’s need for additional water is underscored in the 20-Year  Capital Facilities Plan adopted as part of the November UGA revision process, Appendix E, Page 4 at http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/2031/pdf/9a.AppendixE-CFP_120109.pdf

Under the GMA, creation and expansion of a UGA in an unincorporated area assumes the intention to either incorporate, or to join an existing city. Because Blaine rejected the possibility of annexation, incorporation remains the solution for provision of urban services in Birch Bay. Birch Bay completed a feasibility study that indicated that incorporation was financially feasible. However, the County Capital Facility Plan is premised on the understanding that Birch Bay will not incorporate. Were Birch Bay to incorporate, the County would lose 19 million dollars over a 20 year period, as set out in Appendix E. Because expanding the Birch Bay UGA boundaries appears to be at odds with the County’s Capital Facilities Plan, which has GMA-compliance implications, this issue should be resolved before the proposed ordinance is approved.

Finally, provisions within the ordinance are confusing and contradict the proposal for expansion. Paragraphs 10 and 24 of the ordinance indicate that population growth for Birch Bay has slowed and should be reduced. Yet the proposal results in addition growth figures of 584 without any explanation or substantiation. Paragraph 24 notes that construction has slowed and Paragraph 28 reflects a surplus of employment land supply. However, Paragraph 25 concludes that allocation of additional growth is warranted based on historic growth rates. I can not reconcile these various paragraphs with a proposal to expand the Birch Bay UGA boundaries.

For the reasons set forth above, expansion of the Birch Bay UGA is unwarranted and does not serve the public interest. The proposed ordinance lacks factual and legal support.

Wendy Harris
Bellingham Resident