Let's Do the Time Warp Again

Happy belated birthday to us!

I was thinking that somebody (preferably David) ought to write a year-end retrospective about all of the de-planning that's gone on in Whatcom County in 2011.

And I thought to myself, when did David start this blog?

The answer is:  October  16, 2011.  So we missed our own birthday.  And I would point out that nobody threw us a party.

What really caught my eye, though, was the very first comment on this very first blog entry.

What has changed in the year-plus since then?

• The County still has an "emergency" windpower moratorium.

• The County Council keeps approving development that chips away at our agricultural base.

• Wetlands and trees destroyed, with nobody there to stop it and just a little fine and stop-work order. . . .hmmm. . . .did SSA use this comment as a how-to manual for its illegal clearing at Cherry Point?  

• Caitac -- well, Caitac got its upzone at the last County Council meeting, but anyone who thinks it's all over now, please raise your hand.  Don't see any hands. 

Since Whatcom County appears to be caught in a time warp,  maybe this will do the job as our year-end retrospective: an excerpt from the comment that "Whatcom Rural Citizen for 30 Years" wrote on October 16, 2010.

I have lived/farmed in rural Whatcom County for 30 years. It is so heartbreaking to watch everyone talk about avoiding sprawl; we have meetings and meetings to come up with zoning laws and long term land-use plans in order to protect the AG lands and our rural character; but then exception after exception is made by the Council and we watch the continued sprawl creep over our rural lands. Some developers know that enforcement is non-existent so they roar in and knowingly break the laws. A fine and a little stop-work order won't put the trees and wetlands back after they destroy them. So a few neighbors complain, the developer gets a little fine and maybe a delay but those wetlands and trees are already gone now and noone at the zoning department saw what was there before. So it works out way better for the developer to trash it first and deal with the problems later.

I remember attending the first public rezone meetings for the Caitac property a long time ago. David Syre of the Trillium Corp. was very involved in it then. So many people turned out and look at Cordata now. City! . . .

Then to top it off, the Council puts an EMERGENCY moratorium on Wind Generators to stop community owned wind energy projects! My goodness, it's a true emergency! A windmill might ruin our County! But rezoning and clustering our County to death with more unneeded houses and shopping areas with a tourist hotel is exactly what we need!

We live in such a special place and I watch this insanity while the sprawl continues. The County government announces it is cutting over 100 jobs because we are low on funds. But remember- Growth is good for our economy! Yeah! Right!

I don't really have an uplifting conclusion for this blog.  So I'll just end it.  Happy New Year!

Rural hush

Despite the fact that the Whatcom County Planning Commission wants to hear from the public, they are advised that their hearing Monday evening isn't about any zoning amendments for rural areas.  So, if you want to talk about:

• Setbacks from agricultural lands,
• Commercial or industrial zoning uses in rural areas,
• New subdivisions less than 5 acres in size in Lake Whatcom,
• The new rural residential density overlay zone,
• Lots less than 5 acres in size being "rural in character",
• No limits on size of commercial or tourist buildings in new rural business or tourist areas,
• Removal of any limits on how much of a property can be covered in buildings and structures in rural commercial or industrial areas,
• New commercial rezones in Hinotes Corner and Wiser Lake, or
• Caitac,

You can talk about it, and maybe the Planning Commission will listen -- but they can't make a recommendation on it.  None of these topics are subject to the public hearing before the Planning Commission.  Sorry. 

Maybe we'll have to talk about what we can't talk about.

Aurora North?

I'm reminded of a quote I read in a travel magazine about a place where I once lived that said something like:  "Once you get past the mind numbing clutter and sprawl, there is a nice community."

More than fifteen years ago, I recall driving through Bellingham as I was headed north for a river rafting trip.  I drove up the Guide and thought:  "UGH!"  What happened here?  I never thought I'd really want to live here based on that first impression.  And wasn't the Growth Management Act meant to control this sprawl and encourage smart development in our urban areas?

Much as Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, most people would be hard pressed to define urban sprawl, but they know it when they see it.  When it comes to the Guide -- I've seen it.  Textbook sprawl.

Here we are twenty years after Growth Management passed, and the county is proposing to abolish any limits on the extent of building size you can put into commercial and industrial areas up the Guide.  While they say there are limits of 30,000 square feet in the ordinance, all it takes is a separation of a foot to build yet another 30,000 square foot building.

Is this what Jack and Clayton Petree meant when they write about "Preserving Traditional Rural Character in Whatcom County?"  Click here for their letter.

I still recall the conversation that the Planning Commission had regarding the Guide.  The Planning Commission, after great debate, chose to limit development to nodes along the Guide:  Smith, Axton, Laurel, Pole, and Wiser Lake.  These are all areas that had development back in 1990 when the Growth Management Act passed.  There still were open spaces left between these nodes -- which functioned to serve the rural community.

Yet still, the Planning Commission debated whether the Guide was a lost cause.  I think the County Council proposal definitely gives up on the Guide. The commercial and industrial corridor has basically been extended all the way from the Bellingham UGA through Laurel.  Then, there is a small break in the Ten Mile Creek area for some agricultural lands, and then you have more intensive development all the way to the Nooksack floodplain and Lynden. 

Caitac:  I'm not going to detail this issue much, but the public needs to recognize that the County Council proposal doesn't show the Caitac proposal yet.  There is an active application and settlement agreement with Caitac that will go to hearing soon.  Caitac application link here  Meanwhile, the agents for Caitac have been busy with amending the plan and code to smooth the way for their proposal.  You can review their letters on the PDS website from their attorney.  (Comment Tracker)  Some of Caitac's input that the Council has accepted includes eliminating language that requires "isolation" from urban areas for "rural tourist" facilities, stripping the size of cluster development in order to "urbanize" -- oops, that is "protect the rural character" of their intensive housing development planned around their "rural tourist" facility. 

Caitac adds to sprawl up the Guide.  Will it happen some day?  Yea.  But, should it be coordinated with Bellingham and the sprawl up the Guide?  Yea. 

Is it too late for the Guide?  Probably.  But, we certainly shouldn't be encouraging development there before we develop our urban areas.  And, we can certainly work to preserve our open spaces along this corridor through building size limits, design and sign controls, buffers, and other measures to protect our Rural Character.  I'm not willing to give up on it and see this turn into Aurora North.  Are you?

If you are, then please let the Council know that they missed a spot in their designation.  I'm sure he'll be in next year asking for a free upzone.

The hearing is on the 29th.  7 p.m.  Council email.  Executive Kremen email.  PDS email

Here is what my map of the Guide is under the County Council proposal. 

Are We Nimby's?

The lawyer that represents Governor's Point was quite incredible tonight.  One of her comments that struck out is that "nimbyism" is not a LAMIRD criteria.  She also said:  neither is politics.

Several speakers that live, work and have been raised in the rural areas of our county decried the input that the Council was receiving from "them city folk" in Bellingham.  "Maybe we should put a toll road on the Guide so that all the people from the city can come look at us," said one (or something to that effect).

So, why should people in urban areas care what is happening in the rural areas?  For me, there are three principle reasons: 

(1)  We Pay for Sprawl.  It is hard to argue with the folks that say that those that live in the city really have no reason to have input on what they consider rural character.  I can think of a few reasons, such as  making sure that the development doesn't interfere with our resource based industry.  But, the most compelling issue for me is that us "city folks" pay for that rural sprawl. 

            A farmer spoke tonight about how he remembered how all the roads were dirt when he was growing up. The State just spent $172 million on widening the Guide in order to address safety and congestion issues that was largely caused by sprawl.  As the State says on their web site: when the Guide Meridian was first built, the two-lane road adequately served the needs of drivers.  The 20,000 drivers that now use the road on a daily basis south of Lynden exceeded the limits of the highway. 

            Let's speculate for a minute on what $172 million could have bought us.  We need to recognize that at least some investment was needed for safety improvements.  Let's just say $50 million for safety.  That leaves $122 million after safety.  Let's say we decided to invest $50 million on improving the safety of all our railroad crossings so that freight could safely get to Cherry Point.  Now we have $72 million left. 

            Now, remind me.  What was the price of that new jail you want to build?  Just think what sprawl costs you in real economic development.

(2)  Logical Outer Boundaries.  The county has significantly weakened the policies that designate rural business or limited areas of more intensive rural development.  Please review the comprehensive plan policies for Rural Community.  These are Type I LAMIRDs that are supposed to be based on the built environment when Growth Management passed in 1990. 

            Where the county was allowed to expand boundaries to a "logical outer boundary", such as roads and other natural features, the County Council -- much like a wildfire, leapt across the road and added additional areas into their boundary.  Changes to the logical outer boundary from the Planning Commission recommendation were made in Custer, Glacier, Hinotes Corner, Maple Falls, Nugents Corner, Pole and Guide, Sudden Valley (outside the development), Van Wyck  and last but not least:  the Guide Meridian from Smith up through Laurel. 

            View County Council maps:  click here

            View Planning Commission maps:  click here 

(3)  Rural Businesses.  The Growth Management Act allows nonresidential uses (layman terms:  commercial or industrial development) to intensify if they are "isolated" and allows new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale business.  By my count, there are seven areas proposed for this designation.  Almost all of them make sense, such as the store at Van Zandt or Welcome.  The one that stands out is Birch Bay-Lynden and I-5. 

            And here come the lawyers.  Property owners are well represented in this area by attorneys Swanson and Wolfe in defending decisions to allow commercial and industrial development in this area since 1990.  The aerial photos clearly show there was no development in this area, and development in this area has to meet these three key terms:  1)  isolated; 2) cottage industry; and 3) small -scale business.

            Now, look at the proposed zoning map for this area (click here).  Do you think that the extent of these zoning designations meet a definition of isolated?  There are two zoning districts proposed in this area:  RIM and RGC.  Now look at the proposed zoning code for these two zones (click here).  The RGC zone starts on page 19 of the proposed zoning amendments.  The RIM zone starts on page 37 of the proposed zoning amendments.

            Now tell me how any of those uses are small scale business or cottage industries?

            Attorneys representing developers have succeeded in even further weakening the provisions of this zoning code by increasing the size of buildings allowed in this zone from 12,000 square foot buildings to 30,000 square foot buildings.  In other words, a place the size of Hardware Sales is to be considered a small scale business in rural areas.  And they have increased the amount of impervious surfaces that are allowed, increasing runoff to the Drayton Harbor watershed, a designated Shellfish Protection District.

            But, what makes this even worse is that this pattern of rural business can be repeated time and time again throughout the county.  This designation isn't limited by the Growth Management Act to the areas that existed since 1990.  This is new development.  

            Policy 2HH-3 (page 14 of Comprehensive Plan policies), indicates that this proposal for this intense rural business can spread every half mile throughout Whatcom County.  And, the half mile can be done away with when separated by a "major road" or "other physical feature." 

If this is the County Council's idea of discouraging low-density sprawl, I would hate to see a proposal that encourages it! 

So, in answer to the question about whether we are Nimby's or if this is politics:  my interest in this issue is not about nimby's and isn't about politics.  Unfortunately, the lawyer is trying to make it about that in trying to defend 1 acre lots on pristine marine shorelines as rural. 

Get real.  Get Whatcom Planning!

Caitac Application

For years, Caitac USA has been fighting to have their property at the intersection of Smith and Guide Meridian added to the Urban Growth Area.  Time and time again, the County Council rejected those requests.  Caitac, plus their allies in Jack Petree and Bob Wiesen, challenged those decisions to the Growth Management Hearings Board -- and lost.  For a copy of the Board decision, click here. 

Caitac is now wanting to stop the fighting, and move forward with their development plans.  Nice trick, but time to raise the shades on this maneuver. 

Caitac has agreed to settle their latest challenge to the UGA decision last fall (Ord. 2009-071) if the County would do just three things:

• Tell the County Planning Commission to have a hearing on a rezone request that doubles the density of their property from one home per ten acres to one home per five acres.  Click here for a copy of that application.
• Tell the County Planning Commission to have a hearing on a rezone request that puts a Tourist Commercial designation on their property.  Click here for a copy of that application. 
• Agree to docket their UGA amendment for consideration in 2011.

One of my biggest concerns with the Caitac proposal is the question about urban growth:  when will it end, and when will rural areas and resource lands begin?  Why can't there be a line drawn that says "no more."  Maybe Caitac should be within the UGA, using Smith and Guide as the northerly entrance to Bellingham.

Look at the land use map for the Guide when you formulate that answer in your own mind.  If Caitac comes in, why not the other three corners of the Smith and Guide?  There already is development on two of those corners (gas station and tavern).  Then, look north, and see that the commercial and industrial zoning is almost continous all the way to Wiser Lake.

For those that think Growth Management is just about aesthetics, think again.  If not for all the rural development that Whatcom County allowed in the past twenty years, the taxpayers would not have had to put up $175 million for widening of the Guide.  Sure, some improvements were needed for safety purposes.  But, widening to five lanes was only needed because of the sprawl that the County allowed during this time.

Caitac's current proposal to do Tourist Commercial is suspect.  The Growth Management Act (36.70A.070(5)(d)) requires the following regarding tourist commercial designations:

The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl.

Exactly how does the Caitac proposal intend to fulfill this requirement when they have a) simultaneously submitted a proposal for a residential rezone in order to cluster homes into dense urban pattern and b) have proposed an agreement that will consider their proposal for a UGA amendment? 

Whatcom County has not completed the process of adopting criteria for designation of these rural areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) as ordered by the Supreme Court.  Until they do so, Caitac is basing an application on a comprehensive plan found out of compliance by the Supreme Court. 

WCC 20.90.064(2) requires that these rezone requests include a way to transfer desnity from a sending area to this proposal.  There is no proposal as part of the development application. 

(2) Rezone requests to increase residential density that have been submitted pursuant to this chapter shall be required to transfer development from a designated TDR sending area to obtain the requested density as a condition of approval.

(a) In order to obtain the requested density, one development right shall be transferred for every three additional dwelling units obtained through rezones within a designated urban growth area. The county council may modify this requirement if a development agreement has been entered into that specifies the elements of development within the rezone area. The development agreement should include, but not be limited to, affordable housing, density, allowed uses, bulk and setback standards, open space, parks, landscaping, buffers, critical areas, transportation and circulation, streetscapes, design standards and mitigation measures.

Exactly how is this proposal considered "small scale", and how does it rely on a rural location, and how will public facilities and services for this development not permit low-density sprawl.  I think that Caitac, even with their new path, will have a long and bumpy road ahead of them.

It is time that they work through a public process to address these issues.  Then, Caitac USA might have a development plan that the community will accept.

UPDATE:  The County posted a development agreement proposal on the web site today (10-19).  View it here.  My favorite line:  "Caitac shall not be required to pay any mitigation fees or impact fees beyond what Whatcom County requires upon the effective date of this Agreement."  Guess what?  Whatcom County has no fees.  No promise for transfer of development rights for the rezone. No agreement that they pay mitigation fees -- fire, schools, parks, transportation.  What do you think of that proposal?  Contact the County Council, County Executive and PDS with your comments.