HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole November 3 20091
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
November 3, 2009
Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Barbara Brenner, Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Sam Crawford, Seth
Fleetwood, Bob Kelly, L. Ward Nelson and Carl Weimer.
Absent: None.
1. DISCUSSION AND WORK SESSION ON 10 YEAR UGA REVIEW (AB2009-
0521F)
Doug Campbell, 1401 Astor Street, Bellingham submitted and read from a handout
(on file) to include the Garrett property and Whisper Lake into the Birch Bay urban growth
area (UGA).
Lincoln Rutter, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, Blaine, stated he is against including the
West Blaine UGA. He read from and submitted handouts from the State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). He asked what is designated forest land zoning and what is a
conversion. A conversion would have discontinued the tax exempt status. He asked how a
tree farm, which takes 60 years to mature, could be included in an urban growth area. The
Growth Management Act (GMA) says only land scheduled to be urbanized in 20 years should
be included in the UGA. Have a moratorium to not let planned unit developments (PUDs)
make the Growth Management Act downsizing a moot point. Consider the developer's right
to a PUD versus the State's right to not pay for a tree farm that it didn't ever get.
Keith Dearborn, 2183 Sunset Avenue SW, Seattle, stated he represents the
Wilson /Kilkelly Family. He described the history and location of the property. They don't fit
the rural classification. They have urban services. The City of Blaine asked the Council to
designate this area as an interurban conservancy, an open space corridor to separate the
Blaine and Birch Bay UGA's. He asks that the Council establish the Drayton Harbor
watershed as a sending area for transfers of development rights (TDR's). The Planning
Commission recommends it. Create or modify a policy to identify both sending and
receiving areas. Designate the property as open space and create a TDR program that
works. Create findings to establish a schedule for developing a TDR program.
Brenner asked if Mr. Dearborn wants TDR's for the number of rights if left urban or if
downzoned. Dearborn stated a TDR program won't work if they have eight units to transfer.
The Lake Whatcom watershed TDR allows a bonus. The Lake Whatcom system allows three
transfer units for every developed unit. They have 80 acres with a density of four units per
acre.
Crawford asked if they want to be in the urban growth area. Dearborn stated he
does, ideally. However staff and Planning Commission recommends they be out. If they
are going out of the urban growth area, they want TDR compensation.
Crawford stated current zoning allows 320 developable acres. He asked if they want
compensation for something less than that. Dearborn stated he is asking for compensation
at the rate the Lake Whatcom watershed program allows.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Ali Taysi, 900 Dupont Street, Bellingham, stated he thanks the Committee for
allowing people to speak. He will speak on the Yew Street UGA. The public, City, school
district, and Planning Staff support UGA status for this area. Tim Stewart stated the City
can plan for capital facilities in this area within the 20 -year window. The area has
infrastructure and build out. The City and County acknowledge the land capacity shortfall
for the City. If they are going to grow at the rate proposed, people should go where there
are existing urban services, not in agricultural lands to the north. Keep the Yew Street
Road in the UGA. Do not include it in a reserve.
Darci Jones, 4164 Meridian Street, Suite 200, Bellingham, stated the Yew Street
Road area should remain as a UGA. PCB's are the only reason for the Lake Padden
watershed to be on the federal list. That has nothing to do with urban development. Of
course they must protect the watershed, but development standards do that. Lake Padden
is entirely within the City's jurisdiction, so the City must ensure the health of this public
resource. Over 1,500 acres, or 85 percent, of the watershed is in the city or UGA. Of that
are in the UGA, 170 acres are currently built out to urban levels. Three hundred and ten
acres are left undeveloped. Of the 310 undeveloped acres, approximately half would be
subject to current critical areas ordinances right now. Less than 10 percent of the overall
watershed is at issue. The City low impact development manual allows effective stormwater
management. Ongoing water quality monitoring is mandated. New development must
comply. Existing regional stormwater issues can be remedied. Development fees for
stormwater improvement should be directed to community projects within the immediate
watershed. This would provide an opportunity for 100 percent pollution reduction, which
would otherwise be lost if the lands were put in a rural land use designation.
Eric Weden, 2636 Nubgaard Road, Ferndale, stated he is an engineering consultant.
He supports the City of Ferndale's current contraction submittal to the county staff. That is
a little bit greater than what the County staff submitted to the Council. The areas outside
the contraction boundary that Ferndale has proposed should be inside the UGA and not
designated urban reserve. The City has the capacity to serve these areas. This includes the
Vista Malloy block. The annexation phasing plan is an appropriate methodology for the
areas designated outside the current contraction and within the city's UGA proposal. He
also supports including the northeast quadrant of Interstate 5 at Slater Road. It's a natural
area for commercial growth. The City can service these areas. It would add jobs and tax
revenue.
Ted Mischakov, 99 Harris Avenue, stated the selection of a low population number is
a disservice to the analytics of good planning. There is better data they could use. The five
percent growth rule should not be changed to 15 percent. It's a gross inconsistency in
terms of goals and policies from yesteryear to today, given also the fact of how much
growth actually ended up in the county to today. They are creating a quota system for rule
growth. The Kremen proposal directs growth into the county. Because they are reducing
UGA's, they are saying they don't want growth in and about these cities. They are directing
growth to rural areas. That's inconsistent with the goals and policies of the greater
communities.
There is a gross misrepresentation about agricultural land. Good agricultural land is
consumed in this plan, not protected. Between 10,000 and 15,000 impacted acres are
actually impacted through the workings of this plan as it's put into practice. Staff should
reconcile that issue. Concentrate population where the jobs and services are to protect
against sprawl.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Jack Petree, submitted and read from a handout (on file). The 2011 process has to
start in a few months. Do today what they plan to do anyway in six months.
Bob Tull, submitted a handout (on file) and stated the Council should make sure that
Bellingham absorbs an appropriate share of growth over the next 20 years. Adopt the five
year review area that Bellingham requested in 2006. It would accommodate a population
equivalent to many thousands of acres of pure farmland or farm, rural, and resource land.
The best way to protect agricultural and resource lands is to not allocate population to it.
Assign 4,500 to Bellingham. They will still have to deal with the 700 to 900 acres of prime
agricultural land in the UGA eventually. Reduce the rural population allocation and assign it
to Bellingham. His handout includes a list of technical tasks to accomplish that. He
represents Caitac, and they would rather the Council delay this issue if necessary and make
the right decisions.
Crawford asked if the appellants agree with that delay. Tull stated he represents
Caitac, and probably could get Mr. Wiesen and Mr. Petree to agree. They would rather they
take this issue on and resolve it, but not for months. This fits into the decision matrix.
Lisa Guthrie, 7369 Nautical Court, stated consider the unique characteristics of Birch
Bay. Leave the Birch Bay UGA as it is currently planned in the Birch Bay community plan.
They have concerns about the population. They agree with Director Stalheim about
reconsidering whether reductions are warranted and reconsidering removing the remainder
areas from the Birch Bay UGA. If they do remove them, the reserve program may be a
good method. Birch Bay is considering incorporation. If those areas are cut, they have no
UGA at all. The amount of critical areas and buffers planned with existing projects is
patchwork. It seems backwards to jump around where services already exists. Allow the
community to continue to plan.
Michael Jones, City of Blaine, submitted and read from a handout (on file) about
retaining West Blaine UGA in the UGA.
Crawford asked if the City of Blaine approves the south area. Jones stated it does.
Crawford asked about the City's recommendation on the Kilkelly property in terms of
TDR's. Jones stated that when they talk about the Drayton Harbor or Dakota Creek
watershed, be careful of how they develop that program and keep in mind that a large
portion or all of the City of Blaine is in one or more of those watersheds. They wouldn't
want a program where the UGA area at the top of the map is in area to transfer
development rights out of, and keep it in the City's UGA. The City may agree to it being a
receiving area, depending on the details of the program. The question is whether
neighborhoods want more zoning that their density allows.
Crawford stated a TDR program would have to apply to the south Blaine area. Jones
stated that if TDR is a proposal for one property owner only, it would probably be
inappropriate.
Crawford stated it sounds good on paper. The details of creating TDR's with Blaine is
a long way away. Jones stated it is. It is a case -by -case process that includes the
neighborhoods.
Dennis Rhodes, City of Ferndale, stated remove 988 acres of residential land as the
City recommends, plus 76 acres of industrial property. The remainder of the UGA as it is
now should remain and not be in an urban reserve category. The City offers an annexation
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
blueprint concept. The City proposal would substitute for the existing long -term and short -
term plan. The City and County would work together on the blueprint, for adoption during
the 2011 process. When developing the interlocal agreement, remove the long- and short -
term designation agreements, and make the City of Ferndale the lead planning agency for
the UGA through the annexation blueprint, the interlocal agreement, and by adopting the
City of Ferndale's development regulations for the UGA. The County should adopt the
development regulations and annexation blueprint. They should work together. The City of
Ferndale believes it's important that the Slater Road and Enterprise Road area be included
in the UGA. The NE corner of Slater is critically important.
Dominique Zervas, 709 Dupont Street, stated she supports the Birch Bay UGA
boundary be established as adopted in the 2004 community plan, or as proposed in the map
B from Doug Campbell. She referenced and continued to read from a memo in Mr.
Campbell's handouts (on file) regarding the proposed Town Center.
Crawford asked about a hole in the boundary on the map. Zervas stated they
support including that resource land. It is very wet. It's not a logical boundary to leave it
out. Birch Bay can protect the land if it is left in. It won't be subject to a lot of
development because it is wetland with stream corridors. It won't impact residential
capacity or population allocation in general.
Crawford asked if that area would be in or out of population projections, since it is a
critical area.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the land
capacity analysis deducts critical areas. Only the portion not considered a critical area
would be in the inventory. A large portion of that property would be deducted from the
inventory. Something would be left in, but not much.
Zervas stated the point of including the Double R property is because it is fully
developed.
Rollin Harper, City of Sumas, Everson, and Nooksack, submitted a map of each city
(on file). For Everson, approve the proposed expansion area. There will be no net loss.
Include the expansion area in the UGA. If not, include it as urban reserve. To the south
and southwest, there are small areas that they can include as UGA or urban reserve. An
area to the southeast should only be included if the County doesn't approve the swap. It is
a future industrial area.
For Nooksack, retain the existing UGA. Don't remove their only future industrial
area. For the area adjacent to the Sumas area, the City has a planned cluster that keeps
people away from the river. The City can deal with swift creek sediment.
For Sumas, they ask that the northwest industrial area be included in the urban
reserve. The area south of the city should be included in the UGA. Also include in the UGA
the property along Hovel Road.
Crawford asked about the swap. Harper stated it is the City's initial proposal. Area
one, in the northwest quadrant, they should add to the UGA. In exchange, remove areas
two through four from the UGA. Areas south and west of the city are not part of the swap.
Those areas are already in the existing UGA. The Executive recommends they be put in the
reserve. The Planning Commission wants to remove them entirely. Keep them in the UGA.
They are non - agricultural lands and non - floodplain areas.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford asked what the City wants. He asked if the City wants all of the UGA's.
Harper stated the City wants the swap it proposed.
Cal Leenstra, citizen, stated he owns property that should be retained in the UGA.
The City can serve the area with services. The property has been in the UGA from the
beginning. It's always been designated urban residential. It is served by two major
arterials. Ferndale has already downsized its UGA by nearly 1,000 acres. The population
projection is conservative and under -sizes the UGA. The property is close to schools. He
asked why they would consider removing the Vista Malloy area from the UGA. It's in the
path of progress. At the very least, make Aldergrove Road the boundary.
Regarding the Governor Road area in the Bellingham UGA, a goal is to encourage
development in urban areas where services exist. That property is bordered by city limits
and other residential developments with urban services. It is adjacent to a new elementary
school designed for 500 students. It is designated as an area of future growth. It has open
space and a nearby fire station. They worked closely with the City and County in master
planning this area.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the location. Leenstra stated the property is 80 or 90 acres
west of Wade King Elementary. Palmer Road is the north boundary of his property. The
Growth Management Hearings Board stated the cities must provide infrastructure to the
UGA, and designation of traditional UGA establishes certainty for urban development,
including services. They have spent a lot of money and planned in good faith with
everyone.
Chandra Dunn, 8418 Harborview Road, stated reconsider proposed UGA changes for
the Birch Bay area that goes against the 2004 community plan. Leave the UGA as it is,
consistent with the community plan.
Jack Swanson, 900 Dupont Street, stated the Planning Commission recommended
general commercial and a zone of urban residential mixed use, 24 units per acre (URM -24)
at the town center node in Birch Bay and Blaine Road and Alderson Road. The Executive
recommended the same. That's what the Birch Bay 2004 plan contemplated. The Birch Bay
Steering Committee supports what he's asking.
The Planning Commission also recommended repealing provisions it adopted in 2004.
There are two elements of that. The URM24 zoning provides for workable TDR's. The rents
in Birch Bay will dictate how multi - family building is developed.
Site specific rezones are cumbersome and expensive. Delete the provisional zoning
so they don't have to go through that process. They want to create affordable housing in
Birch Bay. Developers will have to build the infrastructure in Birch Bay. The project
advocated by Doug Campbell and Dominique Zervas has a $36,000 bill that will pay toward
the improvement of a traffic circle on his client's property at the corner of Birch Bay Lynden
Road and Valley View Road. That's what they will need elsewhere. Help the developers be
in a position to make the infrastructure happen.
Wendy Harris, Bellingham resident, stated she is disheartened by the UGA review
process, which was dominated by financial self- interest of property owners and cities. Few
have spoken for the land, which should be the first consideration. Keep all of the UGA's as
small as possible. Only the County has the wide range perspective to make growth
decisions in the best interest of the entire county. The County Council should enact a
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
moratorium on the acceptance of building and subdivision applications. There will be a rush
on development applications at the end of this process. Taking action today will prevent the
Trillium application from vesting. The moratorium is necessary to prevent similar
applications. The West Blaine UGA should be removed pursuant to the recommendations of
the Planning Department and Executive, regardless of the vesting status of the Trillium
proposal. The County Council should determine appropriate mitigation, not the city of
Blaine. Regarding Birch Bay, no one is considering the Birch Bay Watershed
Characterization Pilot Study done in 2007. The town center node is being discussed for a
high priority restoration area. Give special consideration to all of the watersheds, especially
the ones recommended for removal. Be sensitive to the needs of the environment,
resources, and fish and wildlife species.
Crawford stated the characterization plan conflicts with the 2004 community plan.
Harris stated it does. She explained the characterization plan. One impact of moving
certain areas of the Birch Bay UGA is based on an analysis of the Birch Bay watershed
characterization plan. It's a staff memo that indicated that was a restoration area.
Planning Director Stalheim indicated that when questions were raised about why they would
want to put commercial development in a restoration area, he responded that they don't
have money for roads, and development is a way to pay for roads. She questions whether
that's really the reason to justify development.
Fred Bovencamp, Birch Bay, stated he represents his family, the Jake Bovenkamp
Family Partnership, which owns 80 acres in the Lynden area, south of Badger Road,
between Benson Road and Double Ditch Road. The Planning Commission shrunk the City of
Lynden proposal for the UGA, not using the most reliable data. Rely on the analysis done
by Lynden staff. They understand what is going on. Don't rely on ludicrous analysis of the
Planning Commission. His property and other properties in that area are not viable
agricultural lands. It's substandard agricultural land. Look at the City's population
projection analysis. Base planning on logical, natural boundaries, not ideological concepts.
Crawford asked about the land characteristics and soil characteristics of his land.
Bovenkamp stated they've attempted to grow and farm that land for 60 years. It's very
wet, with clay and bog iron.
Crawford asked if the soil maps are wrong or if the category 62 soils are
misrepresented as prime agricultural soils. Bovenkamp stated they are not prime
agricultural soils.
Blair Murray, citizen, stated he gave erroneous testimony before the joint Council
and Planning Commission meeting regarding 40 acres in the Columbia Valley. He said that
piece was not within the Water District 13 boundaries. He was mistaken. It is within Water
District 13. It is being recommended for inclusion of the UGA.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he wonders when they will get
real about the planning process. The GMA says plan for growth, not to stop growth. Some
of the 13 GMA goals seem to be ignored, such as affordable housing and economic
development. Also, the market need is ignored. The Bellingham UGA is too small. It
doesn't fill the need for affordable single family homes. It does not provide affordable land
for businesses to locate in or stay in Bellingham. Many businesses are moving to Ferndale.
The County isn't working with the small cities to provide for the needs of the county
citizens. Many citizens have worked on city and subarea plan. This process discounts all
that hard work. TDR's is a good concept, but it won't work without an economic value for
the TDR's. None of the Futurewise members live in the downtown area.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Richard Grout, DNR Bellingham Field Office Manager, stated there was question
about the comments they submitted. Currently, the City of Lynden is exceeding the
legitimate water right. The DNR has had many discussions with the City. The City has not
opted to challenge the determination with the Hearings Board. Currently, Lynden is
exceeding its water right according to the State Department of Ecology.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are consequences. Grout stated Ecology entered
into an agreement with Lynden in 2004 about exceeding their water rights. They agreed to
not take any enforcement action while the City is actively pursuing solutions to the problem.
They are still operating under that agreement. The State has expressed it's concern to
Lynden repeatedly about any actions that would increase the amount by which the City is
exceeding its water right. Right now, it's very close. The City is only 100 acre -feet over its
water right, last time he looked.
Bob Carmichael, citizen, stated the memorandum of agreement (MOA) was a product
of a disagreement between Lynden and the Department of Ecology about Lynden's water
rights. The agreement has been in place for many years so Lynden and Ecology can work
together cooperatively, put disagreements behind them, and move forward. The agreement
remains in place. A provision of the agreement is that mitigation will not be allowed unless
it's considered friendly litigation, and both parties agree. They have raised points with
Ecology in meetings about certain things that could go to adjudication. At least once, they
were told that would not be considered friendly litigation. Going forward with that litigation
would have jeopardized the agreement.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a 15- minute break at 10:58 a.m.)
Fleetwood referenced the decisions list from Council Policy Analyst Rebecca Craven
(on file).
Urban Reserve — Decision 1
Fleetwood stated the urban reserve concept is worthwhile. It identifies an area for
urban growth in the future, with a condition of inclusion after cities make a stronger case.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's a tool if they have remaining questions about capital
facilities planning. Keep it on the table on a case -by -case basis.
Fleetwood asked if four members of the committee wanted to take the concept off
the table.
(Clerk's Note: No committee member responded.)
Countywide Growth Forecasts and Allocation — Decisions 2a -c
Fleetwood asked if the Planning Committee made a formal recommendation.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it did not. Councilmembers wanted it to go to the
Committee of the Whole due to timing issues.
Brenner stated the number from the Office of Financial Management (OFM) is a
range. She doesn't like picking one single number. Allow leeway of numbers that will work
with whatever they come up with. If she makes changes, she won't provide number
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
changes. Until she's done, she's not sure where things should be added or taken away.
She has to go through everything first, and then would change the numbers after that.
Crawford stated they won't come up with numbers today for every one of these
areas. He asked if it would be part of the direction for analysis and rationale for the staff to
provide next week.
There was discussion about addressing the geographic areas before addressing the
population allocations.
Weimer stated he is fine with the allocations. The 15 percent allocation to rural
growth is difficult, but with all vested lots, it's probably a realistic allocation. As they work
through each geographic area, they can make tweaks, but they are within the range.
Cherry Point
Crawford moved to accept the Executive Kremen and Planning Commission
recommendation for the Cherry Point UGA, which are the same. He asked if it is the same
as the current urban growth area.
Stalheim stated it is the same.
Weimer asked if Cherry Point has excess capacity. If so, the logical boundary should
be Grandview Road. He asked why they've included area beyond. Stalheim stated part of
that area is the BP restoration area. The capacity is only at one corner of that area. It is
included because it is under Cherry Point, given the consideration of the impact of Cherry
Point industrial, and tying it all together as one area for consideration. Also, open space
corridors are required within and between UGA's. It would be an open space corridor.
Weimer asked if it is guaranteed to remain open space. Stalheim stated he recalls
that it is the BP restoration plan. He can look into it.
Crawford stated east of Blaine Road, the refineries have issues with going against
R5A zones. Housing would be in close proximity to the refinery.
Fleetwood stated there is a Planning Commission finding that moving the boundary
would create conflict.
Sumas
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson, and Weimer
(7)
Nays: None (0)
Crawford moved to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation for Sumas.
Brenner asked about a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain
map. Stalheim stated several creeks contribute to the flood plain. He indicated the
locations. The Mayor indicated he's never seen the area flood.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of the Planning Commission
recommendation. She referenced page 31 of 36. Staff findings say there is enough
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
residential growth capacity within the City limits, with a surplus of employment land supply.
The Planning Commission erred on the side of reality. Sumas is fine as it is.
Crawford moved to amend the recommendation. On the west side, add the 80-
acre future industrial area as urban reserve. Industrial job growth in Sumas has far
exceeded that identified by the County. It has exceeded current county employment
allocation for next 20 years. Industrial expansion is necessary at some point in the future.
This is the most logical location for such an expansion.
Fleetwood asked the reasoning for the Executive and Planning Commission
recommendation regarding this area. Stalheim stated it was not included in the City's
original proposal in the map, only the text proposal. It has evolved. The numbers
regarding this area are low for population employment, as Councilmember Crawford
indicated.
Weimer asked if they consider just Sumas or the surrounding area when considering
the employment allocation. He asked if they include Columbia Valley jobs for the Sumas
area. Stalheim stated they can consider it. Each of the areas are trying to make an
argument for jobs and housing together and in balance within their areas. Both Sumas and
Columbia Valley did not have that balance. That is an argument to have a little more
employment in both those areas.
Brenner offered a friendly amendment to add the area as a UGA rather than a
reserve. The County numbers seem to be low according to the Mayor and others. Sumas
has experienced a boom because it is on the border. She doesn't expect the boom to
lessen.
Crawford did not accept the friendly amendment. The City requested the area as
a reserve, not a full UGA.
Nelson stated a concern about the City's last expansion many years ago had to do
with a wellhead protection area. Harper stated it is farther to the west.
Nelson asked if wellhead protection and water quality concerns have been addressed.
Harper stated the Sumas City Council unanimously directed him to bring this forward as an
urban reserve. They can study the concern before coming forward for UGA status.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. They have a surplus capacity for
employment. The Council will look at this issue in 2011. Err on the side of caution to
preserve agricultural lands.
Fleetwood stated he agreed with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber.
Nelson stated preserve this area because this industrial site makes sense for their
future development. He can support this as a reserve because they dealt with that issue
while they tried to bring in jobs. It takes time to site these facilities and to accommodate
facilities.
Brenner asked about concerns inside of and outside of wellhead protection areas.
Stalheim stated wellhead protection areas are for municipal, public water systems, not
private systems. No matter what, there are concerns about groundwater impacts.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Crawford restated the motion to add the 80 -acre future industrial area west of
Sumas industrial district, bounded on the north by Garfield Avenue, as urban growth area
reserve.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Crawford moved to amend to:
• Restore all parts of the Sumas UGA that currently exist between Highway 9
and Hovel Road, and
• Designate the existing UGA east of Hovel Road as a UGA reserve
His motion would recognize the small size of the Sumas UGA and the substantial
investments infrastructure, including park areas in the Parks Plan, that the City has made in
recent years to serve the existing UGA.
Weimer stated he is against the motion based on the land capacity analysis that
shows a Sumas surplus in residential and land capacity.
Brenner stated the City of Sumas has said they don't have a surplus, and are in fact
at capacity.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Crawford moved to amend to approve the Executive recommendation for the
Sumas UGA as shown on map 1. This is based on this central area's proximity to the recent
park expansion and the fact that the County population allocation to Sumas is below
expected growth through 2031, based on average linear population growth from 2000 to
2009. It is necessary to accommodate projected linear growth.
Nelson stated they received a map for changes in the FEMA flood areas for the
county. He asked for an explanation about where they can actually go. Flood areas are a
big problem for Sumas. He asked if the reasoning to include this area is because of
flooding, and if current areas in the UGA are really able to be developed. He asked if there
has been an analysis about where in Sumas they can effectively, and cost - effectively,
develop. Harper stated the City did a study a few years ago and found there is a large flood
corridor through the main part of the city, which created a no -build zone that follows
Johnson Creek to the Sumas River. In those areas, the City worked with FEMA to buy out
properties in the corridor. They designated a secondary area a no —fill zone, where
structures had to be on stilts. The existing city area on the eastern boundary has been
mapped and cannot be built on. The area to the south is the logical place to build. The
Mayor has never seen flooding in that main area. The Public Works director said the base
flood elevations in the central area are lower than the topographic elevations. They are
contesting the FEMA maps. Water won't run uphill. That's why the City chose this area.
Nelson stated Sumas is trying to rectify poor planning that put the City in a river
bed. They can't change what exists. They can accommodate what is necessary for Sumas's
future, while protecting the taxpayers from a burden.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Brenner stated she believes the Mayor's statement that the area has never flooded.
The FEMA map shows that more than half of it is outside the flood plain. It's a way to direct
development away from flood areas.
Fleetwood asked for the difference of opinion among the Planning Commission,
Executive, and staff. Stalheim stated the Planning Commission questioned the extended
flood plain areas, and part of the area is used for agriculture. He's not convinced their
concern is the case, as Councilmember Nelson said.
Crawford stated Mayor Bromley indicated that the proposed area has never flooded,
and that area is not accurately indicated on the FEMA map. These maps are developed
through aerial photography. He asked if a development proposal in this area, as a UGA,
would need a letter of map amendment from FEMA before developing.
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, stated a developer
would not need a map amendment. They could propose a development with mitigation and
conditions.
Crawford stated a developer can't do anything either way, unless the structural
design mitigates the flood issue.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the issue is less about flooding, and more about whether
the city limits can handle the projected residential and employment growth. Stalheim
stated appendix B, table 8 in the land capacity analysis shows all the allocations. Most
UGA's had a 50 percent increase in historic growth rates, except Sumas. The 50 percent
can be met if the reserve areas were included. They only allocated population to the UGA's
themselves.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's not needed, and they are going to review in two years.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Crawford moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation to put all
areas discussed before into urban review.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Fleetwood restated the motion to accept the Planning Commission
recommendation
Crawford stated he is against the motion. It's not realistic or fair to Sumas. He
doesn't understand the rationale. He asked why they are eliminating the potential for future
growth for Sumas in this way.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
(Clerk's Note: The Committee recessed for a lunch break from 12:20 p.m. to 1:40
P.M.)
Nooksack
Crawford moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation to reinstate
all the Nooksack UGA south of Breckenridge Creek, including the future industrial area and
cluster residential area so the Nooksack UGA is retained in full, and increase the Nooksack
employment allocation in table 5, page 1 -10 of the Comprehensive Plan from 130 to 256,
and increase the total employment from 336 to 462. Removal of the portion south would
remove the cities only future industrial site and unreasonably limit job growth and limit
capacity for the Swift Creek sediment area.
Brenner stated she doesn't know about the numbers.
Crawford stated the City of Nooksack presented the numbers. An employment
allocation of 256 new jobs is consistent, according to the County land capacity analysis.
Weimer stated findings say there is a surplus of employment capacity. He asked the
difference of opinion. Stalheim stated the recommendation when that area was removed
was only allocated to that area. Given the environmental impact statement (EIS) range of
employment numbers, they would need to include the area in the motion to be in the UGA
to get to that employment number.
Crawford stated page 8 of Stalheim's memo from Friday makes that
recommendation.
Nelson stated a finding for population capacity says they only have a certain storage
capacity to supply for water for a population of 1,881. He asked where that number came
from. He asked if there is a current water plan. Stalheim stated Nooksack gets its water
from Sumas.
Nelson stated the facilities haven't been put in place to accommodate the growth.
Harper stated he disagrees with that finding. They have a lot of storage capacity. They are
processing a water system amendment with the Department of Health.
Nelson suggested a friendly amendment to amend the Planning Commission
recommendation to amend that finding on page 2 -49 of the Executive's proposed
Comprehensive Plan changes, to remove the second half of the sentence, starting with
"however."
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
Stalheim stated the reference to 1,881 is the water system plan for Nooksack is to
2022. It's a reference to the 2022 population. It's not a storage or physical capacity issue.
They will have to update their water system plan to be consistent with the County plan.
Nelson stated the sentence is still inaccurate. It's not a storage issue.
Crawford restated his motion to amend the Planning Commission
recommendation:
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Reinstate all the Nooksack UGA south of Breckenridge Creek, including the
future industrial area and cluster residential area so the Nooksack UGA is
retained in full, and
Increase the Nooksack employment allocation in table 5, page 1 -10 of the
Comprehensive Plan accordingly, and
Amend page 2 -49 of the Comprehensive Plan, the second -to -last paragraph,
to delete everything after "however," " Sumas has water rights... growth.
Heweve
Kelly asked how they know Sumas has agreed to meet the future growth projections
of Nooksack. Harper stated Nooksack has a signed agreement with the City of Sumas that
allocates a 199 acre feed of water, to supply over 800 residential units. It is a water supply
agreement. There is more than enough capacity to support the population and employment
allocations.
Nelson asked if public services are available in the UGA, such as cemeteries and
schools. Stalheim stated there are, north of Breckenridge Creek.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if employment and population projections can be met
without this area. Stalheim stated they can, but they did not take out capacity of lands not
available due to Swift Creek sediment. In reality, it may not be available for residential
purposes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it can be accommodated within the City limits. Stalheim
stated that if they include capacity on the Swift Creek sediment, it could be. Without that,
they couldn't. There are concerns that the area south of Breckenridge Creek may be
subject to contamination, except a higher elevation on the eastern part of that property.
Weimer stated there are airborne contamination issues. It may be better to put the
growth in Everson than here.
Nelson stated there was no airborne concerns unless people were active at the
sediment site, according to the report the Council received.
Brenner asked if people would have to develop with a lot of mitigation in that area
anyway. Stalheim stated it would be up to City development regulations and perhaps
federal law.
Brenner stated they need to include smaller acreage farms in the agricultural
calculation. She wants those numbers before deciding how much agricultural land exists.
They have more farm acres than the numbers indicated.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's not okay to give up large swaths of agricultural land it
favor of smaller acres. Every expansion they allow for every community is relevant to the
100,000 acre goal they all approved as the farmland base. Saying it can be done smaller
passes the buck.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Crawford moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation:
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Designate all the existing Nooksack UGA south of Breckenridge Creek,
including the future industrial area and cluster residential, into the urban, and
Increase the Nooksack employment allocation in table 5, page 1 -10 of the
Comprehensive Plan accordingly, and
Amend page 2 -49 of the Comprehensive Plan, the second -to -last paragraph,
to delete everything after "however," "Sumas has water rights... growth.
u
Weimer asked for a contingency to define when it might come out of the urban
reserve. Stalheim stated the Executive's proposal on page 2 -72 can include a description
that includes the asbestos issue.
Take into consideration the unknown factor regarding asbestos. Put it into reserve
until they find out where the Swift Creek sediment is deposited.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to add language, "...during which time
the analysis of the potential problems with asbestos will be clarified."
Crawford did not accept the friendly amendment. He generally agrees, but the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) blew into town and expressed its problem, and then
left. He's not sure they can get the EPA to say it's not a problem. He would like the City of
Nooksack to have tools to definitively deal with the issue.
Craven stated they can wordsmith the language later.
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood and Nelson (5)
Nays: Kelly and Weimer (2)
Everson
Crawford referenced Everson map 2 and moved to add the 27 -acre expansion area
to the UGA as recommended by the Executive.
Fleetwood stated that motion would achieve the swap, and there would be no net
loss of agriculture.
Kelly stated comments from Farm Friends questioned whether it was a straight swap.
That area is prime farmland. He can't support that motion.
Crawford stated the area to the east of Highway 9 and the area to the northeast will
be removed. He agrees the area in the motion has prime soils, but the net effect is to
remove farm areas from the UGA.
Fleetwood stated the swap constitutes a net improvement.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the UGA can handle the current forecasted job and
employment growth. She is against the motion. The area in the motion is prime
agricultural lands.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Weimer asked if there is agricultural land mitigation for that area. Stalheim stated
this would be the end of any urban growth area expansion in that direction because it's
surrounded by flood plain.
Fleetwood asked the need for this area if the capacity can be met. Stalheim stated
there is not a land capacity need. Other arguments from the City and Executive are that
this area has proximity to the downtown area. It is adjacent to a park, can be served by
sewer, and other things like that. Those were the reasons some felt this may be a better
area for residential development than other areas in the UGA.
Weimer asked if there is a way to add mitigation requirements for this area, such as
TDR's. Stalheim stated it is an option. Another option is to put the area into reserve, and
discuss it in the next two years. They haven't drafting anything else like that.
Brenner asked if it they could increase the density instead of adding TDR's. Stalheim
stated he heard that to expand the UGA, the County Code has a requirement to acquire TDR
before UGA expansion.
Weimer stated he is against the motion to include into the UGA, but may vote to put
it into reserve until they decide the appropriate mitigation for losing the agricultural land.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Crawford referenced Everson map 2 and moved to add the 27 -acre expansion area
to reserve, and adjust the Executive proposal, chapter 2, regarding urban reserves, to add
language regarding the analysis of potential for TDR's and PDR's.
Weimer suggested a friendly amendment to include a deadline for that to
happen, by 2012.
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Nelson and Weimer (4)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood and Kelly (3)
Crawford moved to amend to take the southern and western areas, restore to
urban reserve status as proposed by the Executive. His rationale is that if these non-
agricultural, non -flood plain areas are likely to be reinstated as UGA in the future, there is
no good reason to remove the areas now, and further complicate and confuse the interests
of property owners.
Fleetwood asked the reason for the Executive recommendation for a reserve area.
Stalheim stated it is the interest of the City to plan for those areas. It's an area for joint
planning with the City. There is not a lot of capacity. The area to the south is characterized
by large lot development. At some point, they may want City services. The reserve
concept allows them to work with the community and look at that issue.
Fleetwood asked if the land capacity analysis and population allocation indicates a
demand for it. Stalheim stated there is not a demand. The UGA reserve does not allocate
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
any population or employment to those areas. It would still be considered rural for this
purpose. The Planning Commission did not endorse the UGA reserve concept.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Columbia Valley
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the area can establish a job base without the northern
area in the UGA. Stalheim stated part of the Planning Commission recommendation
included a rezone within the cluster where the East County Resource Center is located, so
they have a general commercial zoning there that includes an employment base. Also in
this proposal includes the area just to the west that is also designated for industrial, and
has better capacity.
Caskey - Schreiber moved to remove the 40 -acre area to the east from the UGA.
She would rather foster job growth versus residential growth beyond what is already
planned for at this time.
Kelly asked how much of the area to the east is in the alluvial fan. Stalheim
indicated the areas on the map. This is a general map, not a detailed map.
Kelly asked if unstable slopes have been identified in addition to just steep slopes.
Stalheim stated there has been identification of alluvial fan hazard areas. There are
different studies and different information available. Keep in mind that this is a general, not
site - specific, ground -truth map.
Brenner stated she is against the motion. The area included to the west is intended
for things such as parks, not intensive residential. The area to the east has no critical
areas, so there would be a balance.
Caskey- Schreiber stated remove the area because it increases the residential
capacity beyond the target.
Crawford asked the reason that area is included. Stalheim stated it was
recommended by the Columbia Valley neighborhood, the Executive, and the Planning
Commission.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. He's predisposed to doing what the
community wants.
Weimer asked for information on both the east side and west side. He asked if there
is a different use for the two different properties. Stalheim referenced map three and
stated the idea was to allow some residential surrounding the town center to help support
the town center.
Weimer asked if including the area increases the density that can be built on the
northern half. He asked if they can only include the buildable portion, and not increase the
density. Stalheim stated it's a possibility, but he cautions against dividing it based on the
more general alluvial fan hazard area. It's not specific.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion and moved to put the 40 -acres in
reserve status until they balance the jobs. She didn't realize it was part of the Executive
proposal. She asked how much population would both 40 -acre parcels to the east and west
serve. Stalheim stated it could accommodate 1,600 people without the 80 acres. They are
only allocating 1,076, so there's a surplus without adding the 80 acres.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that makes her nervous. She would like to see some jobs
and the commercial center before they add more residential. Put it in reserve status, and
revisit including it in the 2011 update.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. It puts the area in limbo. This went
through a community planning process. The community needs this area and is planning for
this area.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer and Fleetwood (2)
Nays: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Kelly, and Nelson (5)
Crawford stated Birch Bay and Columbia Valley really need Council support on their
planning processes. The cities get to hire advocates, but these areas don't.
Weimer moved to put the 80 acres on the west side in to reserve status, until the
alluvial fan can be better - defined and capita facility issues can be adjusted in the next two
years.
Fleetwood stated that without conditions, it will still be subject to the critical areas
ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion because the town center has less
of a chance of happening if they don't have another option to create the desired number of
homes, according to the developer. A portion of the area is not developable, but allows
them to create a better town design.
Kelly stated he supports the motion. Don't forget the testimony regarding the
January flooding event. Given the information they have now, it's impossible to know
whether or not the area is subject to that type of event. A reserve status will allow
geologists to get into the area and look at the likelihood of debris flow and landslides, but
still allows the area to move forward as planned.
Brenner asked if they still have to do studies before development, if they don't put
the area in reserve. Stalheim stated a development application will still have to comply with
the critical areas ordinance.
Weimer stated that if they include the entire 80 acres at this point, the developer can
do a planned unit development with capacity based on 80 acres. They are allowing more
houses to go into that area than if they just included only the buildable area. They are
already over capacity residentially. His original idea was to pull out half of it, but Mr.
Stalheim said it's hard to figure out where to draw the line because they don't know where
the alluvial fan is situated.
Crawford stated this was mentioned many times by former Councilmember McShane,
who did the geologic work in this area. He had reviewed this and found no problem in this
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
area, and strongly advocated on behalf of his client to make sure this area was considered
because the hazards aren't there.
Kelly stated County Planning Department can't identify where the area is at this
point. At the very least, they need more information.
Brenner stated the center is going to be right there. They can't build on the
hazardous part of an alluvial fan. They aren't talking about a huge difference in terms of
density. Without it, she's not sure it will have that central feeling.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Kelly and Weimer (2)
Nays: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood and Nelson (5)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to divide the 80 -arcre parcel into two, and put the lower,
south half into urban reserve.
Stalheim asked to allow staff to present a proposal after looking at geologic studies,
so they can draw a boundary.
Caskey- Schreiber amended her motion and moved to ask staff to prepare a
map to split the property on the geologic hazard area, and put the hazardous area in
reserve, until designate geologic hazard areas.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
(Clerk's Note: The committee took at ten - minute break at 3:04 p.m.)
Blaine
Crawford moved to amend to retain the entire west Blaine UGA, including the area
proposed by the city for removal. Given the recent submittal of the planned unit
development and preliminary plat for this area, the current UGA should be retained so the
City can annex that area in the future, as originally planned. The Growth Management Act
stipulates that large urban areas should be located in incorporated cities. This area has
been planned for a residential density of four units per acre for at least 30 years. The
rationale for eliminating the UGA based on population calculations is flawed. The County's
population ignores that West Blaine is anticipated to provide vacation or recreational
housing, supported by population drawn from outside the county. There are other allocation
flaws regarding how to account for housing for part -time residents. Virtually none of the
West Blaine area drains into Drayton Harbor. There is ample ability to protect sensitive
areas, tree drainage, and provide sewer service instead of septic systems if in the UGA.
Additional development will address all those issues comprehensively for the entire area.
Birch Point folks will gain by that. A vested application makes inclusion in the UGA
consistent with the Growth Management Act. Trillium's four unit per acre residential density
is a density that is required to be in the UGA. To exclude it would create a dense residential
area that could burden County resources, yet not be able to annex into the City of Blaine.
Finally, the County recently approved keeping this area in the Birch Bay Sewer and Water
District service area. The district issued a letter of availability to Trillium for development
at urban density.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Weimer asked for staff comment on whether the Trillium application is vested and
what that means if they take it out of the UGA in terms of water and sewer service.
Stalheim stated Trillium's planned unit development application and preliminary plat
application seem to be complete as of today, but they haven't determined it for sure. If this
is out of the urban growth area, he doesn't know at this time how that will affect water and
sewer extensions.
Brenner stated she is against the motion. It's possible to provide water and sewer
services for public health reasons. There is a lot of erosion on the feeder bluffs in the area.
She's surprised they've kept this in the UGA as long as they did.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford and Nelson (2)
Nays: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (5)
Crawford asked if the other area is currently in the Planning Commission
recommendation for inclusion. Stalheim stated it is.
Crawford asked if this is the process to be concerned with the transfer of
development rights (TDR) issue. The landowner may be concerned because once the area
is downzone, the landowner doesn't have a big stick to have the value replaced. Stalheim
stated the Planning Commission recommends a policy to include all the Drayton Harbor area
as a sending area, in response to that property owner. They propose to address that
mechanism over the next two years. Mr. Dearborn is fine with the sending area, but also
wants to make sure there are receiving areas as well. The Council adopted an ordinance in
2005 that had some receiving areas, but they need to bring back that conversation in the
next step in the process. They have a policy to say that they are headed in the direction to
solve that issue.
Nelson stated quite a bit of urban growth area extends east of the Blaine city limits.
Years ago, a particular area was included because of a water resource protection area and
concerns about rural development in the area. He asked their comprehensive plan for this
area. Stalheim stated the comprehensive plan for the city shows that area as residential, at
a density of four units per acre. There are two planned developments vested in that area.
Birch Bay
Brenner moved to amend to retain the existing Birch Bay UGA. The community
has done a remarkable job in their planning efforts. Let them continue to work on their
community.
Crawford disclosed that he has a boundary line adjustment client on Arne Road,
based on the R10A zoning.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated that if it affects his employment he should
recuse himself from the conversation and the vote.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Nelson (2)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Abstain: Crawford (1)
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add the Whisper Lake development, the Double R
development, and the Garrett property to the UGA. They are all in the short -term planning
area. They all have vested applications. They should be kept in the UGA.
UGA.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to include the Larson property in the
Caskey did not accept the friendly amendment.
Crawford suggested a friendly amendment to include the areas proposed for an
urban reserve, south of the Double R Ranch. There would be a hole that goes almost all the
way to the shore of Birch Bay if they add all those areas and ignore the middle. Most of
that area is critical area that won't develop, but create some connectivity for the entire city.
If Birch Bay incorporates, the city will be equipped to deal with the environmental issues in
that area.
Caskey - Schreiber did not accept the friendly amendment. She's nervous about
the characterization study.
Weimer asked why the Double R Ranch wasn't included to begin with. Stalheim
stated it has a low density. They're avoiding anything (inaudible).
Kelly asked if any of these proposed areas are in characterization study restoration
areas.
Crawford stated there are areas south of the Garrett property and all of Whisper
Lake.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's including them because they are vested. She's
honoring the process they set forth six or seven years ago. It wouldn't be fair to change the
rules now.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Nelson and Weimer (6)
Nays: Kelly (1)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to include in the reserve area the area to the west and
south of the Garrett property, no further south than Arne Road.
Kelly stated the watershed characterization study is a pilot that is part of a statewide
project geared at trying to prevent local governments from proposing development in
sensitive areas. The State of Washington, through the Puget Sound Partnership and other
State agencies, has put money into this study through the County. He understands the
fairness questions. Given his relationship to the process, he's inclined to vote against the
motion for those reasons. He doesn't know what the implications will be for the area and
the State's interest in using Birch Bay a pilot area, that it will then overlay into other areas
in Puget Sound. This is something the State is proud of, and it probably won't be proud of
this action.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this was in a short -term UGA. The State targeted this area
for a pilot knowing that the area is in a UGA. She hopes they won't pull out, because
they're trying to make logical boundaries for the UGA.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford stated these areas are in the UGA currently. The results of this watershed
characterization won't change because of this status. The future city of Birch Bay should
have this area. It will be under the same restrictions and guidelines the County is under,
and will address all those issues. If the County doesn't include the area, the County will be
responsible in perpetuity.
Kelly stated that given previous discussions today, they are setting themselves up
for a situation where the characterization becomes official. At that point, the County will
have to adhere to that map. This is kind of a big deal, and may be a lot bigger deal.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Nelson and Weimer (6)
Nays: Kelly (1)
Crawford moved to include into the reserve the area south of Arne Road, except
Whisper Lake, which they've already addressed.
Stalheim described the reason for the Planning Commission recommendation for that
area.
Weimer stated he is against this motion. It doesn't answer the question of reserves.
This is an area where the watershed characterization needs to take effect, whether or not it
is in reserve. The community can come to the Council in 2011 to make an argument for
including it in the reserve. Being in a reserve doesn't make it any easier to include than not
being in a reserve. He will vote against any more expansion.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Crawford (2)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (5)
Crawford moved to include the orange- bordered area on map one to the north,
bordered by Blaine Road to the east and Lincoln Road to the north as urban reserve, per the
Executive's recommendation.
Nelson stated the UGA boundaries have a mix of development. He would like a
discussion of the proposed development for this area. Stalheim stated there is a
preliminary plat that has been approved in the area. The Birch Bay Plan designates this
area for residential density. Currently, it's a long -term planning area.
Nelson asked if this can be included in the TDR proposal, since this has more open
space and is not yet proposed for development. Stalheim stated that's something to
consider.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Crawford moved to include the Pacific Survey & Engineering request into the UGA.
He asked if there is a vested plat. Stalheim stated there is an application for a site - specific
rezone, which has not been acted upon. This application is about four years old. It was in
the long -term planning area. To change to the short -term planning area, they had to go
through a site - specific rezone, but they didn't do that yet.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Fleetwood asked if this is in the Executive's proposal. Stalheim stated it is not in the
Executive's proposal or the Planning Commission's recommendation. They weren't aware of
this application until the public hearing.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Caskey- Schreiber referenced a memo from Planning and Policy Analyst Rebecca
Craven to the Council regarding the Birch Bay Provisional Rezone background dated October
30, 2009 and moved to approve the proposed amendments and conditions one and four on
memo page three to make that happen for the town center. Craven stated that unless they
are sure they can fix the concerns with all four conditions, don't approve a partial fix at this
point. They can take it up at any time.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they should address this at the next meeting. Craven
stated there were a lot of questions about how to deal with TDR's with respect to general
commercial areas and the entire affordable housing thing, and whether the Council wanted
to try and import that or deal with affordable housing more comprehensively. A question is
whether they want to change the conditions of this provisional rezone, assuming they are
leaving the area in. If they want to change the conditions, they don't need to do that today.
They may not get through a complete resolution of fixing all four conditions. The Planning
Commission recommendation is to repeal the provisional rezone. If they want to keep it in
place, they will have to make a motion to reinstate the provisional rezone in that area, and
fix it later or fix it now.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion. She hoped to fix it in the 2011 update.
Weimer moved to reinstate the provisional rezone portions until they are done with
this UGA review. A number of issues such as design standards, affordable housing, TDR's,
low- impact development, and other things need to be worked through. They don't need it
as a separate ordinance or to change it today. They can get through the UGA and come
back to it at a date certain.
Crawford stated it's time to get rid of provisional requirements and allow this
community plan, which the community has worked on for ten years, to go forward. Give
certainty to the owners and the entire community.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the community plan also called for the establishment of a
sending and receiving area for the TDR program. That has not been done. This was the
area to do that. There are issues, but they can create solutions. Keep it provisional. They
get one shot to get what they need out of an upzone, and this is it.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Crawford moved to include the Carney Collins request into the Birch Bay reserve,
subject to TDR provisions in the future, including moving the east and west boundaries to
Lincoln Road.
Brenner stated this hasn't gone through the Birch Bay community plan process, so
she's not comfortable doing this.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford stated the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District is currently servicing the
Loomis Trail development further to the northeast, so this area has water and sewer.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford (1)
Nays: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly, Nelson and Weimer (6)
Lynden
Crawford moved to include in the UGA the areas recommended by the Executive,
which include the area directly east of Double Ditch Road and the 12 acres to the southeast
of the city.
Jean Melious, Planning Commission Chair, described the Planning Commission
rationale for its recommendation.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the existing UGA can accommodate the population
projections. Stalheim stated the projections have been adjusted down when the Planning
Commission reduced Lynden's UGA. It only has an allocation to what can be accommodated
in the UGA. In his estimation, those numbers are far below the normal for Lynden's growth.
In his October 30, 2009 memo, there is a recommendation for a higher number that goes
back to Councilmember Crawford and gets to the historic growth share in Lynden, without
the 50 percent bump. From his perspective, that number is appropriate for historic growth
for Lynden over time.
Crawford amended his motion and moved to include in the UGA the areas
recommended by the Executive, which include the area directly east of Double Ditch Road
and the 12 acres to the southeast of the city, and also to adjust the population allocation
per Mr. Stalheim's memo of October 30, 2009.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if that is appropriate, knowing there is an issue with capital
facilities planning. She asked if the County has the jurisdiction to weight that as a
consideration. Stalheim stated the capital facilities for Lynden is better than many other
UGA's, except for the dispute about water rights. The Executive's recommendation is the
historic share of growth, without any additional bump. He is comfortable with that being a
percentage of the overall share. If they don't allocate population there, he's concerned the
population will spill into lots in the rural and resource lands surrounding Lynden.
Brenner asked if numbers are changing due to the recession. Stalheim stated that is
a valid concern. Several Planning Commissioners think the numbers might be high in the
first place.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Lynden would be in balance if they put those areas in
reserve. Stalheim stated he doesn't know that they will be able to better determine the
future growth projections. The details of the Census won't be available until the end of
2011. The plan is due then. Don't rely on Census data to help inform decisions in 2011.
Crawford stated the land capacity analysis clearly indicates that growth within the
limits of all the alternative within the environmental impact statement will require additional
land. The City has shown capital facilities planning and capacity to serve the population.
The City has policies in place to limit expansion into agricultural areas.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Weimer asked if the County has any agreements with the City for agricultural
mitigation in this area. Stalheim stated the City has agreed to the UGA reserve as a
receiving area. The City also addressed the issue of buffers with agricultural mitigation.
The City will respond by developing minimum density in the UGA to make sure they achieve
their density target. The area on the other side of Double Ditch Road will be proposed for a
receiving area. Regarding growth allocations, the Planning Commission allocation is lower
than the EIS bookends by 1,000 people.
Brenner stated there are many competing interests. There are two environmental
interests. She was impressed with the proposal from the State agency that wants to
convert the two ditches into Pepin Creek and restore the creek. The growth will be in a
smaller area, but they will achieve restoration of a salmon spawning creek. That's a good
idea. Include that idea as a requirement of the development. It's not just about flooding.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against putting this in the UGA outright, but she
applauds Lynden for trying to make growth work for them. This area is right for a receiving
area. She supports putting it in a reserve, with the caveat that they develop it as a
receiving area. Once that happens, they can come up with agricultural mitigation and put it
in the UGA.
Weimer referenced a small area to the east side, on the corner. He asked why the
Planning Commission took that area out. Craven stated the proposed use is for a
stormwater facility for a development that is within the city. It is agricultural land.
Nelson stated this was not agricultural land a year ago when they dealt with it.
Crawford stated it also has a sewer line.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Crawford moved to include the 12 acres to the southeast of the city into the UGA.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Nelson and Weimer (4)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood and Kelly (3)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to put the area in red in a reserve area until a TDR
program is developed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Nelson and Weimer (6)
Nays: Kelly (1)
Brenner moved to put the other side, which is the orange area, into the urban
reserve. Restoration of Pepin Creek won't happen without both sides.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
Fleetwood moved to continue this meeting until 5 p.m.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
The motion carried
Ayes: Brenner,
Nays: Kelly and
Ferndale
by the following vote:
Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood and Weimer (5)
Nelson (2)
Nelson moved to approve the Executive recommendation for inclusion in the
Ferndale UGA.
UGA.
Crawford stated he would first like to try his motion to include multiple areas in the
Nelson withdrew his motion.
Crawford submitted a map of the Ferndale area with areas numbered, and moved
to include areas 1, 3, and 4 in the urban growth area.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the current UGA or proposed UGA can handle the
forecasted population and job growth. Stalheim stated the proposed UGA can handle the
growth.
Brenner stated she applauds the work the City of Ferndale has done. It cut it's UGA
in half, from what it was. The City has a different view of what's happening on the ground
than the County's view. Give deference to the City knowing the city better than the County.
Approve the City's proposal.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Kelly and Weimer (4)
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Kelly left the meeting at 4:30 p.m.)
Crawford moved to add area 16 on his map to the UGA. The Enterprise Road area
provides a logical utility and commercial corridor between Portal Way and Grandview Road.
Enterprise Road is a primary service road between Lynden and Ferndale. The area is well -
suited for commercial uses. The rural lands study overstates the agricultural suitability of
this location. Existing subdivisions to the north and east are more realistic buffers.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood and Weimer (3)
Absent: Kelly (1)
Crawford moved to include area 17, by Slater Road and Sunset Avenue on the east
side of the freeway, into the UGA. The Slater Road interchange is directly between the two
most populous urban areas in Whatcom County. It is an undeveloped freeway exit that can
best be served by the City of Ferndale. The City of Ferndale has not yet extended services
there.
Nelson stated the City of Bellingham has extended services to the south portion of
that area, on the south side of Slater Road. He's reluctant to do this. They will have to
address urban abutment in the future. This will be a serious issue in the future.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees with Councilmember Nelson. They have a duty
to minimize UGA's from touching each other. The existing UGA and city can accommodate
the population growth and jobs, so there is no need to expand. She understands the City's
wish to create new areas to develop, but that comes at an expense.
Brenner stated commercial people are locating in Ferndale because they are being
treated well. Ferndale's eagle design plan is an incredible plan that ensures that
environmental favors are done before anything gets built. Bellingham has talked in the past
about going up to that area. They've never been interested in it before.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Crawford (2)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Nelson and Weimer (4)
Absent: Kelly (1)
Crawford moved to accept the Executive's recommendation for those three areas in
orange on map one as UGA reserves.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Crawford (2)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood, Nelson and Weimer (4)
Absent: Kelly (1)
Bellingham
Caskey- Schreiber moved to include in the UGA a portion of Yew Street Road,
north of Donovan Road and east of the Governor /Rusty Road line. They are investing in a
lot of infrastructure at the Wade King School area. It makes sense to bring the UGA south.
Create walkable community options for students going to that school.
Crawford stated he would like to make a motion that involves a larger area.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion.
Crawford moved to include the entire Yew Street Road area in the UGA. The City
wants this area in the UGA. People have been planning in and around this area for years.
The City will provide utilities. All the infrastructure is there. The proposed built
environment won't affect Lake Padden.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agrees with much of Councilmember Crawford's view,
but because of the great amount of needed infrastructure improvements, proceed with
caution because the City recently voted to not annex the South Hills neighborhood, which
has sewer and water and City standards.
Crawford stated the City Council hesitated to annex that area immediately, but it
came up with an annexation plan to annex this area within the next 20 years.
Weimer stated he is against the motion. Given his discussions with City Council
Members, it doesn't seem like there is much interest in annexing this area. He is willing to
put the entire area in a reserve while the City works through its annexation plans. At this
point, it doesn't seem like they want it.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Nelson stated the GMA was created to create expectations and an ability to plan for
the future. They are doing the opposite of what the GMA intended. They are giving and
taking. They are ruining the ability of communities to prepare for the future. This is an
urban growth area.
Fleetwood stated he struggled with this. He does not support the Planning
Commission's proposal to remove this completely. For now, he will support this area in an
urban reserve. The woeful, dire suggestion that they are harming the City of Bellingham by
keeping it in reserve status is profoundly overstated. The City of Bellingham planners have
said clearly they would be satisfied with a reserve as well. Everyone knows that there will
be considerable concentration on what should precisely happen to this area. If the City is
strongly not in favor of annexing within a reasonable time period, it will say so. Therefore,
this is an area that will be a city some day. This gives the County some control over that
process to ensure good things happen in that regard.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood and Weimer (3)
Absent: Kelly (1)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to include into the UGA south to Donavon Road, or a
property line north of Donovan Road to avoid bisecting a property.
Darci Jones, citizen, stated that if they extend the east -west line through the existing
UGA from Donovan Road headed to the west, it will bisect the school site. Further west, it
will bisect a privately owned parcel generally known as Dunham's Ridge. It would also
bisect other private property. However, if they drop the line to the south one more block,
to south of the school, it looks like a straight east -west line. It's not a street. It's a quarter
section line.
Caskey- Schreiber withdrew her motion and moved to put the area in reserve.
They will deal with this in two years.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Nelson and Weimer (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Kelly (1)
Brenner moved to go by lot line, not streets, and to put into the UGA lot line
everything on the south of Donovan, that is all one lot.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's leery of doing this on the fly. If the City wants the
area, it will say that soon.
Nelson stated he would support the motion. He can understand where the lines are
and who is involved.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford and Nelson (3)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood and Weimer (3)
Absent: Kelly (1)
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford moved to include in the UGA the Caitac holding north to Smith Road,
then reallocate the rural growth population projections throughout the County back down to
7 percent, and reallocate that population projection to the City of Bellingham, including the
Caitac property.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford and Nelson (2)
Nays: Brenner, Caskey- Schreiber, Fleetwood and Weimer (4)
Absent: Kelly (1)
Brenner moved that Hillsdale and Geneva be removed from the UGA. When you
put something in a UGA, people have expectations that the density will be like a city. It's
not going to happen. She's concerned about that. The County can take as good care of
these areas as the City can. It's about people's expectations.
Crawford stated it would require a concomitant rezone to one house to five acres.
The expectation of lot owners in Geneva and Hillsdale will not be met.
Brenner stated she doesn't want to see any more subdivision at all.
Craven stated the Planning Commission recommendation is to leave it in the UGA,
but zone it to no more dense than one house per five acres. The zoning would be the same,
in or out of the UGA.
Brenner stated the only property that would allow for a subdivision is The Firs, and
that's is not an option for them.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Caskey- Schreiber, Crawford, Fleetwood, Nelson and Weimer (5)
Absent: Kelly (1)
Weimer stated he is interested in putting timelines on Hillsdale and Geneva. He's
not clear how to do that. He asked if they can leave it in the UGA, but take it out of the
UGA if Bellingham doesn't move on it by 2012. He asked if the County has to define what
that movement would be. Craven stated they have to define it.
Brenner stated she's interested in defining it. The County will do things to urban
standards. The County taxpayers who don't live there will pay for all the road work and
other things, to urban standards. If the City wants it, it needs to annex it.
Fleetwood asked staff to think about what the appropriate conditions might be.
Craven stated she can consider it. She can bring something to the Council next week.
Weimer stated he wants to have a clear idea of what areas the City wants to annex
by 2012, and the County will remove anything from the UGA that the City isn't clear in
saying it wants. He moved to condition the retention of the Lake Whatcom watershed UGA
areas and the UGA upon the City showing an interest in annexation by the end of 2012, and
staff will define and propose what the interest will be next week.
Crawford stated he is against the motion, mainly due to their experience with putting
a drop -dead date on Sudden Valley's incorporation. It was not a good experience for the
people who live there. They lost their urban growth area status. Just last week, Mr.
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Stewart indicated that he couldn't commit to anything at this point. It's not good planning
policy.
into it.
Fleetwood stated they are not committing to any timeline now. They are just looking
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Caskey- Schreiber, Brenner, Fleetwood, Nelson and Weimer (5)
Nays: Crawford (1)
Absent: Kelly (1)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on February 9 , 2010.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�omhatcomma.us
Special Committee of the Whole - UGA Review, 11/3/2009, Page 29