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
Showing posts with label Smart Growth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smart Growth. Show all posts
Monday, July 12, 2010
Friday, August 28, 2009
Skagit CO: Build a Home on Ag Land, You Farm It
Skagit County has added some teeth into an old section of code that allows only farmers to apply for home building permits on Ag land (40 acre minimum lots).
8/27 Skagit Valley Herald County says: Build a home on ag land, you farm it by Ralph Schwartz.
"From now on, newcomers who want to build a home on their very own slice of Skagit County farmland must be willing to farm it. In a decision published today, the county’s planning department has put some teeth into an old section of code that only allows farmers to apply for building permits for new homes on 40-acre-minimum lots.
The code isn’t being changed. The new administrative interpretation issued by Planning Director Gary Christensen spells out how his department will enforce a regulation that has been on the books for a decade or more, he said."
More at http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/county_says_build_a_home_on_ag_land_you_farm_it/
8/27 Skagit Valley Herald County says: Build a home on ag land, you farm it by Ralph Schwartz.
"From now on, newcomers who want to build a home on their very own slice of Skagit County farmland must be willing to farm it. In a decision published today, the county’s planning department has put some teeth into an old section of code that only allows farmers to apply for building permits for new homes on 40-acre-minimum lots.
The code isn’t being changed. The new administrative interpretation issued by Planning Director Gary Christensen spells out how his department will enforce a regulation that has been on the books for a decade or more, he said."
More at http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/county_says_build_a_home_on_ag_land_you_farm_it/
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Smart Growth and Housing Affordability: Evidence from Washington State - Policy Note - Washington Policy Center
"The results of this study suggest that some of the goals of smart growth advocates may be inconsistent with the realities of housing development."
The Growth Management Act was passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1990 out of concern for the effects of population and economic growth on the environment. Public support for Growth Management began in the 1980s, as advocates argued that state and local land use planning should actively shape the built environment for local citizens through zoning.
The Growth Management Act was passed by the Washington State Legislature in 1990 out of concern for the effects of population and economic growth on the environment. Public support for Growth Management began in the 1980s, as advocates argued that state and local land use planning should actively shape the built environment for local citizens through zoning.
Newer residents are more Supportive of Growth than Established Residents
On Monday, June 29th, Bellingham City Council members viewed the results of a survey of Whatcom County Resident's values related to growth and Land Use. The majority of funding was provided by Whatcom County.
The telephone survey interviewed 400 county residents and was conducted by the firm Davis, Hibbitts and Midgall. "It is one step in the process developed by WLP to have the people paint a portrait of what they want Whatcom County to look like for their children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren. We hope these results will be useful to citizens and local officials when discussing and deliberating over growth and land use issues."
Interesting tidbits:
The survey reveals that newer residents and younger residents support higher density development and public transportation than established residents.
The telephone survey interviewed 400 county residents and was conducted by the firm Davis, Hibbitts and Midgall. "It is one step in the process developed by WLP to have the people paint a portrait of what they want Whatcom County to look like for their children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren. We hope these results will be useful to citizens and local officials when discussing and deliberating over growth and land use issues."
Interesting tidbits:
The survey reveals that newer residents and younger residents support higher density development and public transportation than established residents.
The survey revealed that residents are willing to accept one more house in their neighborhood over the next 50 years in order to protect farmland.
However, Residents were not asked about new housing forms such as those included in the draft Infill Housing Toolkit.
However, Residents were not asked about new housing forms such as those included in the draft Infill Housing Toolkit.
Summary of Survey Results PDF
Presentation about the Survey PDF
Cross Table of Survey Results DOC
Open Ended Comments from Citizens XLS
Video of Presentation can be found here:
http://www.cob.org/government/council/meeting-materials.aspx
Monday, March 30, 2009
The City should implement Lake Whatcom Watershed Land Use Restrictions throughout the City
Your familiar with the proposed Silver Beach Ordinance -- and the City's Ordinance 16.80.120 restricting land clearing in the Silver Beach neighborhood. Chances are -- you probably supported it. So, why doesn't it apply to the entire city?
After all, the City of Bellingham is built right next to Bellingham Bay, and bays have tremendous economic, recreational, and aesthetic value to the economy.
Residents are attracted to the water and tourists visit the bay to boat, fish, swim, fly a kite or just enjoy a sunset. There was even a time when people dug clams there.
Yes indeed, the economies of many coastal communities depend on the natural beauty and bounty of their bays and estuaries.
In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate and recommend that the proposed Silver Beach Ordinance be re-written and re-introduced so that it provides protection to all of our precious water resources.
After all, Bellingham Bay is a seriously impaired water body due to excessive discharges of chemicals and other contaminants. Never mind that the GMA requires cities and county's to protect public waters, like the bay. And, Whatcom Creek transports phosphorus and other contaminants to the bay from the Lake.
Let's set an example for the rest of the state and clean up the bay and the lake at the same time. After all, we all live, work and play in a watershed!
Like the proposed Silver Beach Ordinance, the new city wide Water Resources Protection Ordinance will place an emphasis on "prevention" rather than "treatment" of the problem - Of course, this may require a revamp of growth projections and development priorities, but I am certain that it will be worth it in the end!
P.S. in 1995, we lost a beautiful 40' Douglas Fir tree after the city cut its roots supplying utilities to the housing development behind us. Do you think its unreasonable to ask to have it replaced? (Ill take a 20 ft tree). After all, it absorbed quite a bit of water before it was killed.
Oh, and what about the entire forest that was bulldozed down behind us? If it was still in place, the city wouldn't be asking me to shell out big bucks to pay for stormwater runoff treatment for the people who live behind me.
In fact, there was a time when development around the lake was actually "in balance" with the lake. For instance, when we built our house, there were four houses across the street on the water, and there were four houses on the hill behind them. That was it!
But the city got greedy - heck, they even sold the street easements that abut the lake to developers as building lots. (A balanced neighborhood could have used the street easements to treat stormwater and provide access to the lake. Today, many of the homes built on those easements have flood problems, thanks to runoff from the streets above them.
Now, remind me, who was it who issued all those building permits without requiring protective stormwater management? (and how long have local government's known that they have an obligation to protect existing development from future development)? The Clean water Act was signed into law back in 1972 folks.
So,how does a community go about determining who owes what in regards to protecting the lake? Does someone have a mathematical model that actually discloses when "we" crossed the line? If so, some of us dumb property owners would like to see it.
Links to existing and proposed code follows:
City of Bellingham Municipal Code
Title 16
ENVIRONMENT Chapter 80
LAKE WHATCOM RESERVOIR REGULATORY CHAPTER
16.80.120 - SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS ON CLEARING AND EARTHWORK
A. No earthwork, including clearing of vegetation, grading, filling, excavating or trenching of soil or earth materials that will result in an exposed soil or earth area that exceeds 500 square feet shall be permitted from October 1st through April 30th within the Silver Beach Neighborhood, except subareas 11 and 15.
B. The 500 square feet threshold in BMC 16.80.120A. shall apply to each individual lot, parcel, uncompleted short plat, preliminary plat, trail, road, utility or maintenance project.
C. The seasonal restriction on clearing and earthwork is intended to prevent the start of any earthwork project that will exceed the 500 square feet limit and reduce open soil/earth surfaces to less than 500 square feet per project during the above listed months.
D. All bare soil and earth areas in excess of 500 square feet shall be required to be covered during the above listed months with any of the following:
1. Well established grass, sod or a vegetated surface sufficient to prevent the erosion or transport of soil, sediment and silt laden water. No soil or earth may be visible.
2. A minimum of 3: cover of shredded wood chip/fiber, vegetative mulch, hay or straw.
3. Crushed rock or gravel, not less than 3/4" in aggregate size and 4" deep.
E. The City may approve emergency exemptions to the seasonal restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment and private or public property. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly and may be granted by the Planning or Public Works Directors.
[Ord. 2001-01-001]
http://www.cob.org/web/bmcode.nsf/668933da072858e1882570f300018518/b613ff98250b284888256aa10061e284?OpenDocument
Proposed Silver Beach Ordinance:
http://www.cob.org/web/commsnl.nsf/0/7DAD79575AC4179888257569006E81DF/$FILE/SBO%20Materials.pdf
After all, the City of Bellingham is built right next to Bellingham Bay, and bays have tremendous economic, recreational, and aesthetic value to the economy.
Residents are attracted to the water and tourists visit the bay to boat, fish, swim, fly a kite or just enjoy a sunset. There was even a time when people dug clams there.
Yes indeed, the economies of many coastal communities depend on the natural beauty and bounty of their bays and estuaries.
In fact, I'm going to play devil's advocate and recommend that the proposed Silver Beach Ordinance be re-written and re-introduced so that it provides protection to all of our precious water resources.
After all, Bellingham Bay is a seriously impaired water body due to excessive discharges of chemicals and other contaminants. Never mind that the GMA requires cities and county's to protect public waters, like the bay. And, Whatcom Creek transports phosphorus and other contaminants to the bay from the Lake.
Let's set an example for the rest of the state and clean up the bay and the lake at the same time. After all, we all live, work and play in a watershed!
Like the proposed Silver Beach Ordinance, the new city wide Water Resources Protection Ordinance will place an emphasis on "prevention" rather than "treatment" of the problem - Of course, this may require a revamp of growth projections and development priorities, but I am certain that it will be worth it in the end!
P.S. in 1995, we lost a beautiful 40' Douglas Fir tree after the city cut its roots supplying utilities to the housing development behind us. Do you think its unreasonable to ask to have it replaced? (Ill take a 20 ft tree). After all, it absorbed quite a bit of water before it was killed.
Oh, and what about the entire forest that was bulldozed down behind us? If it was still in place, the city wouldn't be asking me to shell out big bucks to pay for stormwater runoff treatment for the people who live behind me.
In fact, there was a time when development around the lake was actually "in balance" with the lake. For instance, when we built our house, there were four houses across the street on the water, and there were four houses on the hill behind them. That was it!
But the city got greedy - heck, they even sold the street easements that abut the lake to developers as building lots. (A balanced neighborhood could have used the street easements to treat stormwater and provide access to the lake. Today, many of the homes built on those easements have flood problems, thanks to runoff from the streets above them.
Now, remind me, who was it who issued all those building permits without requiring protective stormwater management? (and how long have local government's known that they have an obligation to protect existing development from future development)? The Clean water Act was signed into law back in 1972 folks.
So,how does a community go about determining who owes what in regards to protecting the lake? Does someone have a mathematical model that actually discloses when "we" crossed the line? If so, some of us dumb property owners would like to see it.
Links to existing and proposed code follows:
City of Bellingham Municipal Code
Title 16
ENVIRONMENT Chapter 80
LAKE WHATCOM RESERVOIR REGULATORY CHAPTER
16.80.120 - SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS ON CLEARING AND EARTHWORK
A. No earthwork, including clearing of vegetation, grading, filling, excavating or trenching of soil or earth materials that will result in an exposed soil or earth area that exceeds 500 square feet shall be permitted from October 1st through April 30th within the Silver Beach Neighborhood, except subareas 11 and 15.
B. The 500 square feet threshold in BMC 16.80.120A. shall apply to each individual lot, parcel, uncompleted short plat, preliminary plat, trail, road, utility or maintenance project.
C. The seasonal restriction on clearing and earthwork is intended to prevent the start of any earthwork project that will exceed the 500 square feet limit and reduce open soil/earth surfaces to less than 500 square feet per project during the above listed months.
D. All bare soil and earth areas in excess of 500 square feet shall be required to be covered during the above listed months with any of the following:
1. Well established grass, sod or a vegetated surface sufficient to prevent the erosion or transport of soil, sediment and silt laden water. No soil or earth may be visible.
2. A minimum of 3: cover of shredded wood chip/fiber, vegetative mulch, hay or straw.
3. Crushed rock or gravel, not less than 3/4" in aggregate size and 4" deep.
E. The City may approve emergency exemptions to the seasonal restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health, safety, welfare, the environment and private or public property. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly and may be granted by the Planning or Public Works Directors.
[Ord. 2001-01-001]
http://www.cob.org/web/bmcode.nsf/668933da072858e1882570f300018518/b613ff98250b284888256aa10061e284?OpenDocument
Proposed Silver Beach Ordinance:
http://www.cob.org/web/commsnl.nsf/0/7DAD79575AC4179888257569006E81DF/$FILE/SBO%20Materials.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)