HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council February 17 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Joint County Council and Planning. Commission
February 17, 2009
The Planning Commission and County Council held a joint executive session from, 6:00 to 7:00
p.m., to discuss pending litigation with the County's attorneys.
Call To Order: The meeting was called to order, by County Council Chair, Seth Fleetwood, in
the Whatcom County Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call- Planning Commission: Ken Mann, John Steensma, John Belisle, Jean Melious,
Sean Wilson, John Lesow, Rabel Burdge, David Hunter
Absent: Geoff Menzies
Roll Call- County Council: Barbara Brenner, Seth Fleetwood, Carl Weimer, Laurie Caskey-
Schreiber, Bob Kelly, Sam Crawford, Ward Nelson
Staff Present: David Stalheim, Kate Koch, Wain Harrison, Matt Aamot, Dean Martin, Pam
Brown
Public Hearing
Whatcom County has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared
to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the 10 -year review of urban growth areas
throughout the County. The Whatcom County Council and the Whatcom County Planning
Commission will hold a joint public hearing to take comments on the scope of the EIS, including
the- alternatives to be studied, mitigation measures, and probable significant adverse impacts.
Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the
EIS at this hearing.
Stalheim: We are here to gather public comments on the scope of the EIS and to be prepared
for the review and revision of the Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) of Whatcom County. Comments
regarding the alternatives to be studied, mitigation measures and probable adverse impacts are
appropriate at this public hearing. J
For many it seems that Whatcom County just went through the UGA review process. However,
both the Bellingham review and revision, as well as the County review process, that concluded
in early 2008, were based on the current Comprehensive Planning horizon year of 2022, not the
20 year planning period that is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). Whatcom
County entered into a stipulated agreement that the UGA review will be for the 20 year period,
which would be to the year 2029, if completed this year. Whatcom County and the cities are
required to review and revise Comprehensive Plans and development regulations by December
2011. The UGA review is the first step in that 2011 update process. This is why we are
developing one growth forecast that will be used for this UGA review and the 2011 update
process.
There have been comments made that we are doing more than is required by the GMA in this
UGA review process. The GMA requires counties to review and revise UGAs at least every 10
years. Whatcom County was required to complete this review in 2007. We are now under a
Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) order to have this revision
complete by June 30, 2009.
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
The requirements in the GMA include a review of densities permitted and the extent to which
growth is occurring within the incorporated and unincorporated portions of the UGA. It is clear
that we are required to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the densities to accommodate our
growth for the next 20 years.
Since our current Comprehensive Plan is only to the year 2022 we need to forecast and allocate
growth for the next 7 to 9 years, as well as changing plans and densities as necessary to
accommodate that growth. As part of our action revising growth forecasts and densities to
accommodate the growth we must take actions that demonstrate internal and external
consistency. This includes ensuring that other elements of our Comprehensive Plan, such as
capital facilities and transportation elements, implement the UGA decision. We must also act to
insure that the plan is coordinated externally with cities. Whatcom County can not act alone in
the UGA review process. We must consider the desire of the cities for their future growth.
Tonight we are here to hear input about what is to be included within an EIS. An EIS addresses
proposed actions and alternatives. The proposed action is the revision of UGAs for a new 20
year planning horizon and any other amendments necessary to implement that decision. An EIS
describes existing conditions and impacts that might occur if an alternative were implemented.
An EIS addresses mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts as well as identifying
significant, unavoidable and adverse impacts of the proposed action. The period of scoping of
the EIS ends tomorrow, February 18, 2009. The EIS will be drafted based on the final EIS
scope. A draft EIS will be issued and the public will have at least 30 days to comment on the
draft. That draft is scheduled to be released in May of this year. A final EIS is then prepared to
respond to public and agency comments and will be issued prior to an action by the County
Council. The action of the County Council must be within the range of the alternatives
addressed in the EIS or additional review will be required.
The topics that are planned to be covered in the EIS include air quality, cultural resources,
earth, land use, shoreline use, plans, policies, plants, animals, population, employment, public
services, utilities, transportation and water resources.
The EIS will be drafted primarily by our consultant team, lead by ICF Jones and Stokes.
There has been a challenge to develop an alternatives approach that will be compared . in this
EIS. There are 10 very different UGAs with many variations and issues within each of these
areas. We had to come up with three alternatives that could be studied and that would address
the wide range of alternatives. We have proposed an approach that uses the EIS process to
help inform final decisions and provides for a wide range of issues to be addressed in
coordination with cities. The three alternatives include no action, which is required by the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and two action alternatives. The essential issues within these
alternatives revolve around growth patterns rather than a growth forecast. The EIS will study
growth patterns that test compact versus more dispersed growth patterns. Redirecting growth
away from rural -areas rather than a continuation of rural trends. Distributing a greater share of
growth to small urban communities. The growth forecast tests a small band of forecasts. The no
action alternative would use the existing Comprehensive Plan forecast growth of 234,917 as the
low end of the population projection. The high end of our analysis would be the Office of
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 3
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 Financial Management (OFM) forecast of most likely growth or their mid - range, for the year
2 2029, of 258,448 people.
3
4 The alternatives that are derived from public input we received through public surveys last fall.
5 In those surveys more than 50 percent of the respondents stated that the Growth Management
6 Coordinating Council (GMCC) growth forecast, of 251,490, was either too little or about right. 38
7 percent felt that it was too much. When you review the responses the concern expressed was
8 often the type or location of growth more than the rate of growth. The clear concern that was
9 expressed in the survey was about the rate of rural growth in the last 10 years. More than 62
10 percent state that rural growth was too much. The public also expressed some strong interest in
11 exploring moving growth away from Bellingham and into other communities and small cities.
12 While nearly 40 percent thought that Bellingham should continue to be the primary job and
13 population center, one third thought that small cities and small urban areas should become their
14 own economic centers. Another 20 percent felt that each community should take a share of the
15 new growth.
16
17 The no action alternative that we have proposed will be studied in two parts. First, it will study
18 the adopted Comprehensive Plan and present growth forecasts using the lower population
19 range and current UGA boundaries. The no action alternative will also study the historic growth
20 trends as they might continue to the year 2031. There is a clear departure of what our current
21 plan says should happen and what is happening. There is more rural growth that has taken
22 place than what has been allocated. This rural growth is largely taken from the growth that
23 would have otherwise gone to Bellingham, but to a lesser number, other smaller urban areas.
24
25 One of the two action alternatives, that we have labeled Alternative X, has the following key
26 features: Growth is shifted out of the rural areas and into UGAs. Unlike our current plan we
27 would study additional tools to implement this objective, including larger rural lot sizes, rural lot
28 consolidation, transfer of development rights, and rezone of rural study areas to agricultural
29 lands. In this alternative Bellingham would continue to be the primary job and population center.
30 An emphasis on infill, urban densities and compact growth patterns would be studied.
31
32 The second action alternative we are labeling Alternative Y. The key features of this alternative
33 include: Bellingham growth would stay at or below historic trends and growth would be shifted to
34 other areas. We will study achieved densities in the urban areas rather than planned densities.
35 This alternative would be less infill oriented.
36
37 Our EIS study approach is to use a suitability analysis. This approach would have us analyze
38 areas for the appropriate location for urban growth. There would be four basic steps to this
39 process. First, we would develop criteria that could be mapped and /or analyzed. Second, we
40 would use the mapping and analysis to help determine appropriate locations for urban growth.
41 Third, we would evaluate alternatives based on the suitability analysis, develop mitigation
42 measures, publish the draft EIS and obtain public comments. Fourth, we would develop
43 preferred alternatives with formal growth proposals based on the analysis and public input. The
44 suitability analysis criteria that we are proposing includes critical areas, city interest, land
45 capacity, lot patterns, alternative objectives, resource lands, service areas, land use, sensitive
46 watersheds and transportation.
47
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL q
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
We have provided the County Council and Planning Commission with background information
that will help frame the discussion tonight. Included in this background information are growth
forecasts, initial growth allocations and initial land capacity analysis results. Within those
documents you will see that growth forecasts and preliminary allocations show declining growth
rates and allocations to all areas from the current Comprehensive Plan. For example, the total
urban growth rate is reduced from the current Comprehensive Plan forecast of nearly 64,000
down to an urban forecast range between 46,000 and 57,000. Bellingham's current growth
allocation is similarly reduced from 35,000 to a range of 27,000 and 31,000. These numbers are
based on the GMCC forecast for the County of 251,490.
The process for reviewing the UGA first began in August 2008. Our GMHB deadline is June 30,
2009. The County Council has agreed to request a six month extension, but until we are granted
that extension we are proceeding under the assumption that we must have this work completed.
In the next two months, while the EIS is being drafted, we will work with the cities to get public
input on what the city UGA proposals will be. Meanwhile the County will prepare the EIS and
analyze the capital facilities and transportation systems necessary to demonstrate that the
UGAs are adequate to accommodate the urban growth expected over the next 20 years.
In conclusion, we are asking the public to comment on the alternatives, mitigation measures and
probable adverse impacts to be studied in the EIS. We are asking the Planning Commission
and County Council to specifically address the range of alternatives to be studied in the EIS so
that we can proceed with this with this work.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Art Hyatt, Whatcom County: As you.explore the population and density forecasts required under
the GMA we must ask the question, can government, local or state, be trusted to make an
unbiased decision? We need an honest broker, a neutral arbiter for this process. Government
and the developers are the primary beneficiaries of growth. The developers get their profits,
government gets their revenue and we the people get the bill, not only in sky high property
taxes, but more pollution, more congestion, higher crime, impacted critical areas and a
diminished sense of community. You are the fox. You can not be both the regulator and the
facilitator of growth without creating the impression of corruption. This is like Henry Paulson, a
Wall Street banker, regulating Wall Street. He was too conflicted to be either credible or
effective. As is now evident this failed growth paradigm is unsustainable. The GMA needs to be
amended so communities aren't held hostage to the growth table. We need a new engine of
governance.
Wendy Harris, Whatcom County: I think that far too much emphasis is being placed on
population growth projections, which is only a segment of this scoping process. I think the
crucial issue is really land use patterns and land use planning. Population growth projections
should not be used as a substitute for determining, as a community, what policies and
regulations need to be enacted to create the type of community that we want in the future. Many
people participating in this public process are here because they will receive a personal or
financial benefit by maximizing growth. I think it's important to remember that the overwhelming
majority residents who participated in the Whatcom 2031 questionnaire and the visioning
workshops indicated a strong desire to minimize rural growth and ensure the protection of our
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 5
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 environmental resources. I am here tonight to represent the voice of this majority. I urge the
2 County Council and Planning Commission to incorporate an action alternative, within the EIS,
3 that relies on land use regulations and policies that protect our critical areas, resource lands and
4 rural areas to the maximum extent under the GMA. To reduce the current trend of growth in
5 rural areas it is crucial that the County enact growth impact fees for parks, transportation and
6 education. Unless developers are forced to pay for their share of the true costs of the growth
7 this cost will be passed along to existing residents and provide a financial incentive for rural
8 sprawl to continue. Opportunities for multi- housing dwelling units should be increased. This
9 encourages urban infill and creates affordable housing. While I understand that there are pros
10 and cons to over planning and under planning for growth I believe that the risks of over planning
11 are much greater. We can correct a mistake in planning for too little growth but we can not
12 correct a mistake in planning for too much growth. Once we destroy our critical areas and
13 resource lands to provide for growth we have forever lost that environmental resource. I think
14 that the methodology proposed for the land capacity analysis is flawed with regards to the Lake.
15 Whatcom watershed. The analysis is reflected in the scoping proposal based on current land
16 use regulations and zoning laws. However, we are mandated under federal law to restore Lake
17 Whatcom which will require more stringent land use regulations and capital facility plans. Since
18 Lake Whatcom is the source of drinking water for all of Bellingham and 50 percent of the County
19 1 believe it's a serious oversight to not incorporate the TMDL requirements into the EIS. We can
20 not plan for growth without securing a safe supply of potable water. Perhaps the best solution
21 for this problem is to withdraw the Lake Whatcom Watershed from Bellingham's UGAs.
22 Lesow: I am going to try to keep track of public attitudes towards the alternatives, as they are
23 presented in the staff report and the new one, Alternative A. Do you have any preference?
24
25 Fleetwood: We are here tonight to take testimony and not ask questions. Council typically does
26 not engage people. The concern here tonight is if we ask questions we will never get through
27 the meeting.
28
29 Rebecca Boonstra, Whatcom County: I am only asking for two things tonight. First, I am asking
30 that as you consider the scope of the upcoming EIS to please study all of Whatcom County's
31 UGAs as they exist today. To consider LAMIRDs is not appropriate and is outside the scope of
32 this UGA review and the EIS. I am also asking you to please adopt population projections
33 consistent with those be utilized by the GMCC of 60,490 additional residents by 2031.
34
35 Clayton Petree, Whatcom County: (Gave handout to the Council and Commission) I want to
36 note that the agenda and staff memo talk about the 10 year review and the planning period for
37 that is 2009 to 2029. 1 put a chart in here that is from OFM that shows how population is tracking
38 with the OFM middle projection. There is another year of population that has been reported,
39 which is 191,000. It is tracking exceptionally well. I colored in blue about where the population
40 figures are being talked about are. What I would really like you to notice is that all of them are
41 below the OFM most likely projection. If you look at the proposed alternatives that have been
42 presented in the staff report all of them want to study at or below the OFM most likely. I don't
43 think that's a reasonable range to study in this EIS. You want to have the most reasonable
44 range. If you are going to study somewhere below the most likely and what is actually
45 happening you really want to study above as well in an equal proportion. Studying all of the
46 ranges doesn't have anything to do with the final number that you pick. I think that all of the
47 action alternatives should consider what happens if we plan high and grow slow and what
48 happens if we plan low and grow fast. What happens if we plan for the most likely and the most
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL g
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
likely takes place? If we make a shift in how we plan, going from Alternative X to Y, I would like
to see something in the EIS that talks about how long a major shift like that will take and what
sort of environment impacts it may have.
Jack Petree, Whatcom: (Gave handout to the Council and Commission) Can a process like this
end well if we don't begin well? The key word is solid data. The GMHB, in the compliance
hearing, instructed the County that the law required using solid data. I would like to imagine for
a moment that this hearing is about a request from a developer on the Nooksack River at
Nugent's Corner. Staff comes to you and says we are only going to study what happens when
the river is at instream flows and low instream flows because we don't want it ever to flood so
we won't study flooding and that will keep it from flooding. Think what your reaction would be if
somebody gave you a bracket like that. The question is how has population tracked with most
likely to occur projections? I have laid them out for you. We have had four projections over the
period of Growth Management. The first was in 1990. In 1990 the OFM projected way under
what actual growth was. We exceeded the 2012 projection by 2003. In 1995 it projected a little
under. In 2002 it projected a number and Whatcom County projected under the OFM projection.
As of 2007 OFM projects that the actual growth is exceeding the projected by 1,821 people for
the five year period. OFM has consistently underestimated actual population growth. How can
an EIS, that only looks at the impacts of growth below those established by law, as most likely
to occur and establish, by experience, as likely to be lower than actual growth, possibly be a
valid SEPA process? A valid EIS would utilize the most likely to occur population established by
law as the midpoint and then examine what happens if we get more growth than we thought we
would or what happens if we get less growth than we thought we would. You bracket the most
likely to occur. Does planning accurately for likely projections lead to more growth? The fact is
that we have under projected for three planning cycles in a row and we have had growth
exceeding that growth by a long way. We continue to see the impacts of that. It's not solid data
to use data that both the County and consultants agree is flawed to justify this. It's not using
solid data to purport to be reviewing growth from 1997 to 2008 and not have a word in the
documentation about what actually happened during that time. It's not solid data to count
thousands of housing units on land that's not zoned to accept them. In conclusion, can an EIS,
only examining environmental impacts less severe than those defined by law as most likely to
occur, be compliant with the law? If you actually go along with that are you going to allow private
projects the same latitude when they do an EIS?
Mary Dickinson, Governmental Affairs Director for the Building Industry Association of Whatcom
County (BIAW), Whatcom County: We want to publicly thank the Whatcom County Council and
Planning Commission for encouraging this public hearing. It's refreshing that some members of
our County government have not forgotten the Washington State GMA requirements for
continuous public participation. In the past the Planning Commission has expressed concern
over last minute contributions of testimony, especially written testimony. We apologize for our
late submission but we must point out that all of the pieces for this public were not available on
Whatcom County's website until last Thursday afternoon, February 13, 2009. In addition with
this past weekend being President's Day holiday weekend we would venture to guess that many
members of the public were engaged in other activities. These types of activities, over a holiday
weekend, frustrated our County's last 10 year review process and lead to the County stipulating
to the GMHB that it did not complete the process correctly.
In terms of the EIS we are not prepared, at this time, to advocate for any particular scope of the
proposed EIS. It would not be responsible for us to comment on a scoping document based on
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 7
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 data that even the County agrees is not yet complete and accurate. However, we are confused
2 of how this EIS process is being proposed. Particularly, we are confused because, although we
3 don't believe this is the intent, it appeared in the text that the County is deciding which option to
4 plan the EIS to examine when in fact all alternatives need to be studied, particularly the no
5 action alternative. In terms of rural lands we want to express dismay that the County is using the
6 fact that its 10 year UGA process, which they are out of compliance on, as an excuse to further
7 explore the opportunity to downzone the entire rural County. The County should first strongly
8 examine why the current UGAs and future UGAs, like the five year review are from the City of
9 Bellingham, are not being built on and go from there. One fiction of GMA, that occurs constantly,
10 is that there absolutely could be no building or development in the unincorporated county for
11 residential purposes and that's not true. In addition the Washington State Court of Appeals has
12 established that a five acre parcel is decidedly rural density. Another legal fiction of GMA is that
13 population projections are like enrollment or admission numbers. In that scenario once a
14 community sets a goal to be reached and once it's reached the door is closed until people
15 leave. That's not true. We want to remind you that GMA must be realistic and the GMCC has
16 stated there are over 6,000 pending building permits in the City of Bellingham. This is not true.
17 These types of assertions are at best conjecture and at worst fraud and we ask that you don't
18 submit them because that could open the County up to litigation.
19 =
20 Darcy Jones, Jones Engineering, Whatcom County: In reviewing the EIS and some of the other
21 material it occurred to me that I'm not quite sure what the project is of the EIS. We have some
22 alternatives, but I don't know exactly what the project is. It seems that the alternatives are set
23 around population management. It seems we need to take a step back. Maybe we want to
24 establish what our priorities are. What do we want to preserve? What communities do we want
25 to preserve? What environment resources do we want to preserve? What industry base and
26 business base do we want to preserve? What housing stock do we want to preserve? Maybe
27 there are some alternatives. I know we want to establish the UGAs. This has been the most
28 amazing mathematical problem I have seen in the last five years. It's a big math quiz. I think we
29 want to take a softer look in this EIS. Regarding the population projections we do need to plan
30 ahead for the most likely scenario. If that isn't achieved by the target year then you haven't
31 necessarily lost anything. You have set aside land for homes, schools, business, industry,
32 medical facilities, etc. and that doesn't necessarily promote growth. There are a lot of other
33 policies you can have to protect the environmental issues and to promote growth in the right
34 directions when it needs to occur. People argue that we should plan for a lower population and
35 keep monitoring things. A lot of communities have tried that but for the most part they don't
36 really end up being affordable but end up being an elitist community. These types of
37 communities are conducive to business or industry. Don't let the current economic downturn
38 dissuade you right now. Don't be short sighted. I believe things will get better and we should
39 plan on that.
40
41 Janice Schuch, Whatcom County: I am here as a long time member of the North Bellingham
42 Community Association. I am speaking because of some proposed maps I saw that show
43 Ferndale's UGA moving to the east. This unincorporated area, east of 1 -5 is not suitable for
44 urban development. It is currently zoned RR1 and RR2. Almost all of that is already built up.
45 The only way to ever get urban density would be infilling within what already exists. This is
46 uncalled for when the County's own projections show that Ferndale has more buildable lots
47 available than any other area. Ferndale needs to decrease its UGA rather than extend them.
48 The area east of Ferndale has three salmon spawning streams. Deer Creek, Ten Mile and
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL $
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
Silver Stream. There are extensive critical areas and flooding that often cuts them off from the
Ferndale area. This rural area no longer has an elementary school and one of its two markets is
closing proving that it is a small rural area with farms, not urban. The area west of Ferndale,
which is being shown on the map to be taken out of the UGA has been in the UGA for at least
10 years. The owners in this area have been counting on that development potential and the
income the UGA density would give them on their investments. The Ferndale School District
has followed this long range planning of the City of Ferndale and built its newest elementary
school in this area and has land there for its potential new high school addition. This area is high
and dry and suitable for building. I ask the County to leave Ferndale's UGA alone to the eastern
direction. The residents of the North Bellingham area scream loudly. It seems that these
changes to the UGA may be a County proposal and the residents of this area do not want the
change there.
Jayne Urlig, Whatcom County: My concern in this whole process is the quality of life for all of
Whatcom County and preserving this quality of life that we have in both our urban and rural
communities. I would like to bring up something that is not usually brought up at this level.
Usually at this level of the EIS we talk about a broad stroke and then at the program and policy
level we start talking about the details. One thing that is very critical, that I think we would all
have an open mind about as we proceed, is that there is a tremendous amount of research data
that bears out that light and noise pollution has a significant unavoidable and adverse impacts
on not only human life, but also on plant and animal life. In terms of light pollution adverse
impacts on plants are that it can delay ? ?? in the fall to an appreciable amount that the trees do
not go into dormancy and at the time of cold or wind or ice storm these are the trees that will
most likely snap and fall on transmission lines and buildings and can cause damage to
structures and even loss of life. In the spring sometimes we have bud break early, again
causing tender growth, die back, decreasing overall tree vigor. This again increases windfall,
downfall, subsequent erosion, land slides, etc. In terms of insects, bird life and mammals, light
and noise both affect these in a huge, huge way. It disrupts biological behavior and in migration
periods. They are delayed which causes a decrease in hummingbirds, bats, etc. It doesn't take
much to have an impact. If we don't look at this stroke at the beginning then it will be too late to
mitigate or prevent those impacts in the rest of our community. We all breathe the air and we
are all affected by the light and noise pollution so please consider it now.
Barb Casort, Whatcom County: I live in the area that is being considered to be expanded into
the City of Ferndale. My property has flooded to 10 feet deep. To consider that area for
development is not reasonable. To think of that as an area that would be considered is not a
responsible thing to consider. I bought the farm so that people who are living in the city and
living in apartments can come and learn to do farming and understand that food doesn't grow in
a grocery store. I would like Ferndale to consider being where Ferndale is now and to consider
their growth to the west because our area is not an area that should be in the city.
Crawford: I believe we need some clarification regarding what is being proposed for the City of
Ferndale.
Stalheim: When the County and city staff were working on the range of EIS alternatives we were
looking at different approaches. One approach was to study areas that might be included and
areas that might be excluded from consideration for UGAs. I believe that is the reference that
the last two people have spoken to. This is discussion staff had been having but it was put out
to the public at one of the Ferndale meetings. The approach that we are doing right now is just
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL g
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 to study the suitability of each of these areas for urban growth or not. There are not any
2 proposals on the table.
3
4 Lincoln Rutter, Whatcom County: I would like to suggest that there needs to be an economic
5 foundation to any population projection. The problem with that is that we are all aware that a
6 recession or depression destroys that economic foundation. I hope it's not news to people that
7 we are in one of those situations right now. By their nature a recession or a depression is a
8 spiraling event. It will continue to eat away at that economic foundation until something acts to
9 arrest that process. As evidence of that I would like to suggest that during the entire decade of
10 the 1930's the Roosevelt administration incurred an annual deficit of over 400 billion dollars
11 annually. We are all familiar with the CCC, WPA, etc. There is wide agreement among
12 economists that it did nothing to stop the depression. It wasn't until 1941, with the outbreak of
13 the WWII that the government deficit reached 2.8 trillion dollars. That caused full employment to
14 be regained. I would like to recommend that the U. S. Government appreciate the fact that the
15 spiral is occurring. I have faith in the common man and I believe that if you all drive around and
16 look at these UGAs and the sprawl that has occurred in places like Birch Bay and Blaine there
17 are rural ghost towns for you to witness where there are 650 lots that were part of a subdivision
18 and there is not a single house in the subdivision. What I am asking is that the EIS, the
19 economic scope of this document involve some common sense in terms of looking around,
20 within our County, and quantifying the number of existing homes for sale, the number of plats
21 that are unoccupied and the degradation to the local economy that has occurred. You can drive
22 through downtown Bellingham and see the number of offices for lease. It's an ignorant policy to
23 make forecasts that are based on anything other than economic reality. I would urge you to use
24 your own common sense to do your own research because there is a direct correlation between
25 the size of a UGA and the amount of taxes it takes to pay for the public infrastructure that has to
26 support that larger geographic region. The population projection you pick should be the
27 minimum in order that we act to preserve the disposable income of the people that are going to
28 be required to start consuming'again if we are to get out of this economic problem that we are
29 in.
30
31 Dave Pros, Whatcom County: I want you to include in the EIS the 220,000 population projection
32 that is allowed by OFM. None of the population numbers or allocations has had a public
33 hearing. The GMA requires the public be involved early and continuously. We are now 8 months
34 into this process with 16 weeks to go and this is the first public hearing that there has been on
35 this issue. The alternatives have not had any public vetting. They have all been discussions
36 among planning people, but no one has gone out into the public and asked us what we want.
37 We have had no discussions on growth models. Growth models will tell us the whole story of
38 where we want to have growth go. The highest percentage of people asked in the workshop
39 want to have the small towns become their own economic centers. This answers a lot of
40 questions about transportation, etc. There is no cost analysis. We don't know how much X or Y
41 is going to cost. I have an Alternative A. Using the lowest population projection will cost the
42 least. That is important for us taxpayers to know. We are the ones that foot the bill on all of this.
43 We know that land use ordinances control how we grow. There are consequences to taking on
44 a number that is too high. We are supposed to be planning which means we are supposed to be
45 proactively engaging in those activities that will accommodate those people. In this kind of
46 economy or any kind of economy please take the lowest number. More than likely this number
47 is going to be good for the next 12 months. 12 months from now we are going to be in 2011
48 when we are supposed to be doing planning for 2031. 1 asked Mr. Bricklin if 22 years was just
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 10
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
as wrong as 18 years and his indication was yes. If the Planning Department can't tell us what
our costs are then I think it's imperative that we go with the lowest number and plot that course.
Historic trends is the basis for the number that they have given. Historic trends are only relevant
if we want to continue to make the mistakes of the past. That's what those numbers represent.
This is a new age. We have grown a certain amount. This is a new Council that is being very
careful about growth. We need to be looking at the lowest cost for these next 11 months. Have
a countywide discussion about various issues including growth models and do a proper
visioning and come up with the proper population projection for the next 22 years.
Carole MacDonald, Whatcom County: I would recommend that you study all Whatcom County
UGAs, as they exist today. Under the current Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan
consideration of LAMIRD alternatives are not appropriate and are outside the scope of this UGA
review and the EIS. I would also ask you to please adopt population projections consistent with
those being utilized by the GMCC of 60,490 additional, minimum, residents by 2031.
Lou Piotrowski, Whatcom County: I am from Glacier and I want to attest to some of the growth .
that is happening in a rural unincorporated area. I was on the Foothills Subarea Plan Advisory
Committee (FSPAC). We found that there were 895 houses that are in Glacier as of 2006. 1
know that many houses have been built there now. At that time we only had a full time
occupancy rate of less than 15 percent. That left a lot of houses that were either vacant or
seasonal. Many are now being sold as full time occupancies. With that many people I don't want
to see Glacier become a UGA. I don't think anybody really wants to see that happen. I want to
try and figure a way to look at how we might move growth some place else. A lot of people are
coming and I would like to see people go into the UGAs. I would like to see us with an
anticipated growth rate of 50,000 to 60,000 people over the next 20 years. I can't imagine why
anyone would want to close down the UGAs. We need to look at all of the UGAs we have and
make them as attractive as we possibly can. I would request that none of the alternatives
include any kind of action that would result in the rescinding of any UGA status in Whatcom
County. Any such action would be outside the scope of the EIS. Only study the UGAs that are
currently in operation and identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the EIS is only concerned
with the current UGAs rural areas should remain outside the scope. I don't think that making any
place a LAMIRD, that has urban density, allows the tools necessary to do good planning.
Norma Otto, Whatcom County: I agree with Lou, Carole and Rebecca. I would like to make sure
that the scoping of the EIS is just about the UGAs as they exist today. Please don't consider any
LAMIRD alternatives. I would like to ask that you remember that the Columbia Valley UGA is
really urban and not rural density at all. I am happy with the population figure the GMCC has
been recommending.
Max Perry, Whatcom County: I live on Northwest Road, where we have Deer Creek, Ten Mile
Creek and Barrett Lake that flow into the Nooksack River. We are not conducive to Ferndale
growth. I recommend that Ferndale look to the north and west for growth.
Richard Banel, Whatcom County: The EIS should study Whatcom County's UGAs as they exist
today in the current Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. I support adopting the population
projections adopted by the GMCC. Consideration of the Columbia Valley UGA as it currently
exists or as envisioned in the Foothills Subarea Plan is suitable under the no action alternative
X and or alternative Y scenarios. There should be inclusion of alternatives contemplating the
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 11
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 rural element, as this is a separate issue and should remain outside the scope of the EIS. 1
2 support retaining the UGA in the Columbia Valley.
3
4 Michael Chiavario, Whatcom County: When I was a student at Western in 1969 there was a
5 guest lecturer who came to talk to us about this new concept called Pugetopolis. I had only lived
6 in Bellingham for about a year at that time and I thought it was interesting but I didn't know what
7 he was talking about. Now I do know what he was talking about. Just this year a fellow named
8 Knute Berger is touring western Washington with his book. The book is called Pugetopolis. It is
9 happening and we all know it. There was a Bellingham Herald article, just yesterday, that said
10 the rate of global warming was recently found to be three times faster than it was projected to
11 be in the last decade. Sea level is rising faster in many places, .8 inches per year. The
12 Governor's Puget Sound Task Force has let us know that our sound is critically in danger. The
13 members of that task force, who have put forward a plan to go forward, are telling us that they
14 don't know how we are going to fix this problem, because it is so severe. All of these problems
15 are related to develop issues like the reduction of forests and impervious surfaces, which are all
16 things that go along with increased development. You all know that citing a low population figure
17 will result in reduction of the development impacts like forest reduction and impervious surface
18 reduction. This is what I want you to do. Set the lowest number please. This isn't a radical step.
19 Some people would like you to believe it is and that it's not planning properly. I believe it is a
20 prudent and moderate step and one of many that we are going to have to make over the next
21 decade. As the reality of the impending environmental catastrophe becomes more apparent and
22 erases our collective denial we are going to eagerly take further steps that would indeed seem
23 radical now. Alternatives X, Y and A will be horribly short sighted.
24
25 Max Duncan, Whatcom County: I have a few facts and quotes from the EIS. "A significant
26 portion of. runoff that originates in the Columbia Valley percolates the subsurface as
27 groundwater recharge. Course grain sands and gravels that are at the surface serve as a parent
28 material for the highly permeable topsoil. Infiltration rates are high. Water levels are generally
29 less than 30 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater flow direction is to the south. The
30 average linier velocity is 4.4 feet per day. Groundwater discharges to Kendall, Sprague Lake,
31 Kendall Creek and likely the Nooksack River." My layman's version sounds something like this,
32 it rains a lot here. We need that rainwater to soak in and recharge our groundwater and if there
33 are sources of pollution, anywhere in the Columbia Valley, it is very likely these pollutants will
34 wind up in our groundwater supply. I am a lucky man. I teach at Kendall Elementary School,
35 which means I get paid to work with the most precious resources in that community. That
36 resource is, of course, our children. Those children drink the water from the downstream end of
37 the Columbia Valley 176 days per year for all seven years of their elementary education. Out of
38 this group a significant number drink water from the Kendall Creek watershed at home and at
39 school. I do not speak for the school district, but I certainly speak for the needs of my son, who
40 is one of those children who both goes to school and live down stream. I also speak for one of
41 the great things that the Pacific Northwest is known for. It's a place where the water runs clear
42 and the fish live in it. I was disappointed that the EIS did not address fish and wildlife but it
43 certainly does address the water. I want to lend a voice to the importance of having plenty of
44 good clean water and that is particularly true for those who are young and developing and do
45 not yet have a voice in the area that will leave for them. I agree with the gentleman that recently
46 spoke, that another way of addressing this is by looking at the lowest population projections.
47 Even under the most optimistic scenarios I think that will offer far fewer jobs and services than it
48 will ever attract compared to the residents. I don't think there are any provisions to pay for
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 12
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
increased services required by increased population and low projections just make sense in a
number of ways. I just saw this alternative A. I like the looks of this out of any of the alternatives
I have seen so far.
Everett Hatfield, Whatcom County: I moved out there because it was an urban area. My
comment is I hope you will consider keeping the towns in a circle. Keep the urban area as much
as you can.
RobRoy Graham, Whatcom County: I am a Fire Commissioner for Fire District #14, which would
provide service to the UGA in the Columbia Valley. Fire District #14 is at a critical point with
regard to providing service to the citizens of our district. We are currently working with ideas to
continue to provide the level of service our citizens have come to expect utilizing volunteer staff
that presently exists. We are working with techniques such as assigning duty nights, rotating
shifts and recruiting more staff to respond to the 450 plus calls a year that Kendall, alone,
responds to. The addition of 250 to 300 homes, in a UGA, would require Fire District #14 to
move to paid staff to meet additional demand. Funding for staff would need to be raised through
additional taxing of our citizens. Failure of passage in these difficult times would place the
burden on our system that could only be met through mutual aid responses from distant stations
resulting in an increased response times. I ask you to consider the volunteer nature of District
#14 when you consider growth brought about by the UGA.
Bill Bliss, Whatcom County: I own property on the east end of Van Wyck and Horton Road, east
of the Guide Meridian. I am glad to see that your EIS study is going to include transportation
and capital improvements as two of its key factors. I think those are critical to planning for the
growth of Whatcom County and considering all of Whatcom County. In the previous UGA
planning, that was undertaken by both the City of Bellingham and the County, my 20 acres and
the 60 acres west of my property was in all of the UGA plans up until the County Council
meeting in February 2008. At that time even with the low growth projections my property was
included in the proposed UGA for the King Mountain area. At that time the property, north of
Van Wyck Road was excluded from the UGA and 228 acres was taken into the King Mountain
UGA area. The decision was made based on the area required and the fact that the dividing line
for the Mt. Baker School District and Bellingham was the Van Wyck Road, not Horton Road. It
was shortsighted in a couple of areas. One is, that transportation is key regardless of what
proposal you take, even today with no growth. I'm sure all of you have experienced the traffic
congestion on the Guide. That traffic is getting people in and out of Bellingham. A corridor east
of the Guide Meridian, from Horton Road to the Sunset area, as is proposed to come down
James Street Road and across the west side of King Mountain, past my property and on to
Horton Road would enable a good traffic corridor east of the Guide Meridian. By not including
that last 60 acres in the UGA you have basically blocked that transportation corridor. There is no
way to get the traffic out of the King Mountain UGA area to the north. There is no way to get
traffic from east of Bellingham into Bellingham. The closing of the Bakerview fire station, with
the recent annexations, has raised the fire code in my area from 6 to 10. My fire insurance rates
have gone up. I would encourage you to include that 80 acres back in the UGA.
Phil Cloward, Whatcom County: I would like to give you some perspective. I first came to
Whatcom County, to work, in 1956. Off and on through the years I have worked here and I have
also lived here. I traveled to work here and I liked it so I moved here. I have a syndrome, just
like everybody else does, you can call it Pugetopolis, or whatever, but basically let's not plan in
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 13
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
a vacuum. I know you don't get governed in a vacuum. In 1957 1 could drive down the Columbia
Valley, in September, and couldn't see my hand in front of my face because of the smoke from
the ? ?? . Let's not be doomsday just because we had people come and live here. There are
positive things and we can, through good management and good government and good
planning, have our cake and live here too. Don't live in a vacuum and pick the lowest figure just
because it's easy and convenient. You need to look at preserving the UGAs the way they are. I
don't think there is any place to be throwing in LAMIRDs as a substitution for UGAs. Let's have
good planned growth and not ignore it. It will bite us and that's what's been happening.
Bill Vaught, Whatcom County: I live on the Mt. Baker Highway at mile post 16. 1 ask you to
envision, for a moment, small streams trickling down saturated Sumas Mountain. Then the rains
begin. By early evening of the second day the intensity of the rain increases causing the
innocent stream to become swollen and then a raging torrent of silt laden brown water. The
power becomes greater with the addition of gravel tearing at the banks on its decline down a 35
percent grade from a distance of two miles. The bombardment continues on rootballs of cut
trees and then non - harvested trees close to the swollen torrent. Now the actions of the water
and its contents carve into the stream bed exposing huge boulders, some the size of small
automobiles. The boulders become dislodged from the mountain side and increase the potent
mix cascading uncontrollably down the steep grade. It has now become a full blown land slide.
As it approaches the more level terrain the mixture spreads out for several hundred yards wide,
tearing at everything in its path for a distance of approximately one -half mile. This stream now
becomes a series of streams following the path of least resistance toward the more level terrain.
As the force of the slide abates the area is inundated with spear shaped tree trunks, mud and
those huge boulders. This happened on the Mt. Baker Highway at mile post 16 on January 8,
2009, at 3:30 in the morning. Fortunately no lives were lost but a few structures were damaged.
The landscape was devastated and the land will remain scarred for some time. In township 40,
range 5E, section 21, the same as the footprint for the proposed Balfour Village, exists the east
side of Sumas Mountain, with some of those 35 percent grades. Maps of geological hazard sites
indicate the presence of alluvial fans on those very same slopes and the terrain below them.
The effect of a slide, with the same magnitude, would border the catastrophic given the
closeness of homes proposed for that area. Are the wishes of a few, who have a substantial
vested interest in a high density development, more great than the moral issue of responsible
development and the welfare of the unsuspecting? Responsible development does not place
families in areas of potential harm. The Council has a moral obligation to the overall welfare of
the citizens of this county. By protecting the rural atmosphere you achieve this obligation.
Dan McShane, Whatcom County: I have five areas that I hope would be considered in the
scope of your analysis. One is for the rural areas. I would like to see a separation out of the truly
rural areas from the LAMIRDs and how you evaluate the alternatives. I think there is a lot of
confusion about what is going on in the rural areas and not recognizing that some of that is
actually in LAMIRDs that exist. Under the EIS analysis please include alluvial fans and go
beyond just the published information. There is a lot of new information that just occurred this
winter. The areas covered by alluvial fans are larger than the maps indicate. Evaluate the ability
of delivering services in a cost effective manner. I think in the last round you had, with the City
of Bellingham, there were certain areas that the cost effectiveness of delivering services to
some of those areas needs clarification. Lake Whatcom is specifically mentioned as a sensitive
area but please do not forget Lake Padden. 75 percent of the Lake Padden watershed is within
the current Bellingham UGA. Urbanizing Lake Padden isn't a good idea. It's a much more
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 14
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
sensitive lake than Lake Whatcom and it will have oxygen problems. When looking at both lakes
also consider phosphorous, not just stormwater. The DOE manual does not go far enough in
mitigating the impacts of stormwater. In the suitability study area there is an area I would be
interested in seeing how it played out. It is the area between Bellingham's UGA western
boundary and the floodplain of the Nooksack River. It's immediately adjacent to land that is
zoned industrial so it will be next to a job center. It's not in an agricultural zone but essentially a
LAMIRD that needs to be analyzed. I am curious why that's left out and preference is given to
areas north of Bellingham.
Eric Hirst, on behalf of Futurewise Whatcom, Whatcom County: We urge you to recommend the
lowest feasible population projection, which is roughly 220,000 people in 2031. We think the
most important thing you could do, in terms of guiding the EIS, is to make sure that at least one
of the alternatives considered includes a low population projection. You can't really adopt a
population projection that falls outside of that considered in the EIS. The proposal from staff has
a very narrow range of population, less than 10 percent. We would recommend that you
eliminate alternative Y and replace it with alternative X, but instead of the population of 258,000
use, instead, a population of 220,000 then you really have a robust range to look at and some
substantial information about the environmental, economic and social impacts of different
population growths. There are 10 reasons why we favor a low population projection. Perhaps
the most important is that we think the population projection should reflect policy. That is the
vision that we, the citizens and the County Council, have for the future of Whatcom County. It's
not just past trends or a technical exercise. It's an opportunity for you to exercise your judgment
and your policy wisdom. Although several speakers mentioned the importance of the OFM
medium forecast, the law allows you to pick any population number within the very broad OFM
range, which is roughly 220,000 up to 330,000. Nothing requires you or encourages you to pick
anything like the mid range. The citizens strongly favor slower growth. The workshops and
surveys that the County did last fall show that almost 50 percent thought that the GMCC
recommendation was too high compared with 30 percent who thought it was too low.
John Flarry, Whatcom County: In preparation for tonight I got on the computer and downloaded
a map of Ferndale's UGA. The Ferndale UGA goes from Slater Road, at the south, to past
Grandview Road, at the north. If you look at the City of Ferndale it covers about'/ of the UGA
area for the City. I'm told that Blaine occupies about 1/10 of the Blaine UGA. I think we need to
look at this in terms of common sense. I drive to work everyday, past Skyview Estates, in
Ferndale. It's a development that has been there for about 2 '/2 years and can accommodate
about 80 houses. Right now there are 3 houses. The City of Ferndale expanded its water and
sewer to accommodate developments like this. The citizens of Ferndale are spending a lot of
Money on their water and sewer bills to pay for it. I understand that the UGA was based on the
medium range population projection. If the medium population range projection can make
Ferndale's UGA four times bigger than what it shows today, and can accommodate growth for
the next 20 years, there is something wrong. I think what we need to be doing is looking at the
lower population projection. We need to focus on compact growth patterns. I would like to
suggest alternative A -1 which would focus growth in the larger cities along the 1 -5 corridor,
namely, Ferndale, Blaine and Bellingham. Let the rural communities and urban areas stay rural
and small.
Laura Leigh Brakke, Whatcom County: I would like to urge the preservation of farmland, as a
priority. I would like us to do the math and find out how many small organic farmers it would take
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 15
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 to feed the 220,000 people we are going to plan for. I would like us, as a county, to be maybe
2 the first county in the United States to grow and provide all of the food for our residents without
3 having to ship it. I think we could do that. We also need to do the math and find out how many
4 empty units and lots we have. There are a lot of places being built. We need to protect clean
5 water and clean air. We need to support the Pacific salmon. We were one of a few places, in the
6 whole world, that at one time had all five Pacific salmon returning. We can't say that now. What
7 will it take to get that back?
8
9 Lynnea Flarry, Whatcom County: I am here from Futurewjse and a concerned citizen. I favor
10 alternative A. I would like to urge you to choose the lowest population number for projected
11 population. Right now I am extremely concerned, and I have been for some time, about the
12 amount of our rural land that keeps getting encroached upon ever more and more by
13 development. In the mid 1980's we lost 500 acres annually. Around 2000 we lost 2,000 acres
14 that was converted from rural and ag use to urban usage. At this rate what will my grandkids
15 have to look for in Whatcom County other than just urban sprawl, more pavement and
16 impervious surfaces? I think we need to draw the line now. Every time we increase the UGAs
17 we lose more of this very precious commodity, our rural lands. When we extend UGAs we are
18 moving the, cities and putting them in very difficult situations because their pockets are empty.
19 Our cities don't have money to go ahead and provide the infrastructure needed for extended
20 UGAs. We need to put in policies that will help make the lowest possible population growth
21 happen. Take the incentives out of moving out into the rural areas. Let's get impact fees in
22 place. Let's encourage people to live in the cities instead of sprawling out into our very precious
23 farm and forestry lands. I was interested to find that there is already enough available land in
24 our present UGAs to accommodate growth for the next 20 years. Ferndale is 4 times larger than
25 it needs to be. Blaine is 10 times larger than it needs to be. Our housing boom has busted. Do
26 we want to expand the UGAs in case we might need them some day? Let's monitor our UGAs
27 and adjust them if we need. We can always add another room to our house, but if our house is
28 huge how do we shrink it down?
29
30 Jan Eskola, Whatcom County: I support using the lowest population projection possible,
31 220,000. It seems every time a staff report comes out the projections increase. This is just not
32 right. I urge the County Council to listen to and respect the wishes of the public that consistently
33 request you to choose the low projections. I support Dave Pros' alternative A, which encourages
34 growth in all cities, discourages growth in the rural areas and utilizes only the 220,000
35 population projection. I also support the Planning Commission's 5 -2 vote that converts the
36 Columbia Valley UGA to a LAMIRD. This is the best alternative for this rural area and I urge the
37 County Council to confirm this vote. UGAs should not be in rural areas. They belong and should
38 be located around cities.
39 Wyburn Bannerman, Whatcom County: I live near the intersection of Valley View and
40 Grandview Roads. I have 90 acres there. I am speaking for my neighbor, also, who has 90
41 acres there. What are we to do with our land? My neighbor has the unfortunate thing of having a
42 small, three month stream that runs through the corner of his property. The EPA person drove
43 by the Grandview Road one day, saw a cow near that stream and sent him a letter saying he
44 was going to get fined $10,000 a day if he didn't keep his cows away from that little stream. The
45 County followed that up with another letter, three days later, saying it was only going to be
46 $1,000 per day for the County. He has been working with them for two years. He has fenced off
47 all of the streams. Right now he has 30 head of cattle and they allow him five acres, of his 95
48 acres, to work with in the winter. What should he do with this land? There used to be 200 to 300
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 16
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
dairy farms on that Ferndale hill. There are two left. Pretty soon those two will be gone. What do
you expect us to do with this property if we can't have cattle on it or dairy farms? This could be
done in Lynden, but they keep expanding out and taking the good land away. Ferndale hill
should be left to a rural type living of five acre lands. It doesn't flood and has great views. I
would like to protect my property from being down zoned.
Heather Swanson, Whatcom County: I support some combination of alternative X and A,
whichever alternative is going to put urban growth in existing urban areas. I generally agree with
Dave Pros and his comments. I urge you to allow the lowest allowable population projections. I
don't think it's short sighted to determine, through a public visioning process, what we want to
preserve in our communities and in our county. We need to enact land use ordinances to back
up the projections. In the end it's the ordinances that are going to achieve what we decide we
want to achieve. We should be looking to manage growth through policy, not simply to
encourage it. The GMA clearly states that its primary goal, relating to urban growth, is quote "To
encourage development where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided
in an efficient manner." To this end we need to use every tool in the box, including converting
non -city UGAs to LAMIRDs.
Heather Wolf, Whatcom County: I represent S.C. Goshen and Holly Associates, who own land
in the Columbia Valley UGA. We are asking that review of the Columbia Valley UGA, in the EIS,
be limited to the existing UGA and that recommended by the Foothills Subarea Committee. The
LAMIRD alternative should not be included in the EIS. It's not a viable alternative for this area. I
want to clear up some misconceptions about LAMIRDs. A LAMIRD is not a growth planning.
tool. It's used to draw a boundary around pre- existing development. Creating a LAMIRD in the
Columbia Valley is not a solution to lack of employment opportunities and services in this area.
If the Columbia Valley UGA is withdrawn these types of services can not develop in this area.
The proposed LAMIRD boundary is drawn around the existing residential development.
Therefore, in order for commercial and industrial uses to develop in this area some of the
existing residential land would need to be eliminated. This does not make any sense. It's
important to understand that LAMIRDs can not be expanded to create new commercial and
industrial uses. This is because the GMA encourages these types of uses in UGAs. Creation of
a LAMIRD in the Columbia Valley will encourage exactly the type of rural sprawl that the GMA is
designed to prevent. This is because the many residents of the Columbia Valley will need to
travel to outlying areas for employment and other commercial opportunities. The reason it's
important for you to make this decision now is so that we don't go further along this path of a
LAMIRD. What needs to happen in the Columbia Valley is good planning. That means drawing
a logical boundary around the UGA and further planning through adoption of a subarea plan.
Amy Mower, Whatcom County: I am speaking tonight on behalf of Foothills Friends. We support
the OFM lowest population projection of approximately 220,000 people. We urge the Council to
listen to the public input from public surveys and workshops. The largest number of participants
urge that you choose projections lower than the 251,000 suggested by the GMCC. We support
Dave Pros' alternative A. In this time of economic crisis it would be irresponsible to choose
otherwise. Foothills Friends urges that if the Columbia Valley were to stay a UGA it should be
part of the EIS process along with all other UGAs in the County. The Columbia Valley needs a
complete EIS, not merely the 2008 SETS. The 2008 SETS did not include many of the issues
addressed in the scoping document for the 10 year UGA review. One jumps out, air quality.
That is a big health issue in the Columbia Valley. Particulate matter and wood stove smoke
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 17
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 hangs over the valley during temperature inversions. The County did not look into this issue in
2 2008. Along with the rest of the UGAs air quality must be reviewed for Columbia Valley. There
3 are other new EIS issues listed in the letter we submitted to you. There are many issues that
4 should have been included in the 2008 SEIS but were not. For example, the completion of a
5 pending investigation of an old landfill. A quantitative groundwater analysis. The LOS capacity
6 of County and State roads, not merely intersections. We urge you to address these and the
7 other points listed in the letter. The most important issues for Foothills Friends were addressed
8 in our earlier letters. We support the Planning Commission's 5 -2 vote to convert the Columbia
9 Valley UGA to a LAMIRD. That vote was the best decision for the rural area and the future of
10 Whatcom County. A LAMIRD is best for the Columbia Valley regardless of the countywide
11 population projections. We urge the County Council to confirm that vote. The planning tools are
12 there for the Columbia Valley LAMIRDs that will serve the resident's needs. We challenge you
13 to use those tools and to do what is best for the County.
14
15 Dennis Jones, Whatcom County: I came tonight without information regarding alternative A. Of
16 the alternatives I did see I saw a no action alternative, which of course is not an option by GMA.
17 1 also saw two other options, one of which they called alternative X, which looked at possibly
18 some pullback and in other areas some expansion of the UGAs. The other option was
19 alternative Y, which I also see as a non - starter. I know the County planners did a lot of work on
20 it but I do see some increased density and with that you provide some open space, so you don't
21 overly increase your level of service on the existing roads in Bellingham. It's not an option at the
22 current time. I support alternative X at this time and not necessarily the lowest possible
23 projection. The only thing worse than failing to plan is planning to fail with a number that's
24 unrealistic.
25
26 Bob Wiesen, Whatcom County: The worst thing we could do would be to plan for an
27 unrealistically low population number. We experimented with this strategy with our roads many
28 years ago and we are paying for it at a very high price. Citizens lose time getting where they
29 need to go. There is a higher costs of doing projects like the Guide Meridian and the Pole and
30 Hannegan Road improvement. There is a higher cost of goods and services due to the
31 increased transit times. My worry is that we are trying to do too many complex things in too
32 short a time. Worse yet, it's hard for citizens to keep up with the process because of the short
33 time between staff releasing important information and public hearings. This makes our public
34 process of low quality.
35
36 Patrick Alesse, Whatcom County: My mother had advice about growth which was crossing your
37 legs does not work. You really have to figure out how you can accommodate growth. It doesn't
38 mean you have to grow that much. In the years 2000 through 2009 1 looked at the total property
39 taxes for the cities. They went up by 35 percent. Their growth of people went up 74 percent. The
40 non -city areas taxes went up 39 percent. The rural area growth was 26 percent. What this
41 means is it isn't the cities that are running out of money, it's the rural County that is running out
42 of money and out of a tax base. In a Smart Growth publication I received someone was talking
43 about carbon footprint, stating if you want to help the environment move to the city. Birch Bay, in
44 the years 2000 to 2007, the population grew 42 percent. That was more, in terms of percentage
45 of growth, than Lynden, at 22 percent. Birch Bay is a place people want to come to. It's a fool's
46 paradise. It has a lot of natural capacity and I think we need to keep growing there. I think there
47 should be some light industrial along Kickerville Road.
48
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 18
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
John Coleman, Whatcom County: I want to commend County staff for working under such a
tight time frame that has been given to them by the GMHB. I am, however, concerned about the
lack of population review that has happened up to this point. During the workshops we were
presented with a number that was already picked. It was the mid -range number. My concern is
that when these types of actions make there way to either the (Loopa ? ? ? ? ?) or the GMHB the
process is more what's looked at rather than the decision. It's stated that the jurisdiction has the
purview to do pretty much what they like, regardless of what people say and what the facts area
However, if you don't follow the process you'll never get beneficial judgment. I don't have a
problem with the population projections. I want to encourage that the EIS actually looks at the
full range so the County isn't in a position where they have to defend their decision in the future,
again.
Rollin Harper, Sehome Planning, Whatcom County: I am here this evening as the City Planner
for Everson, Nooksack and Sumas. Given the tight time constraints that we are facing we are
coming at this in an unusual way with the SEPA process proceeding before the cities have had
the opportunity to bring forward their proposals. The concern for the cities is that we are covered
on the low end, at least with the existing Comprehensive Plan numbers in the no action
alternative. The concern is with having picked some numbers that are below the OFM baseline
we may not include enough room for the cities to go through their process and come up with
what the proposals are. We aren't talking about proposals for sprawl. We are talking about what
the cities see as the most reasonable continuation of what, in fact, has been growth, in
measured levels, in my cities, at urban levels of density. As I looked at alternatives X and Y,
which were based on a number below OFM baseline, then adjusted to see possibly shifting
more population to the small cities, I believe those numbers cover the highest numbers out of X
and Y. I would ask you to exhibit some restraint if you start to crunch numbers lower and
recognize there are a number of reasons why we want to bracket high enough for the cities to
have a chance to do their work.
Michael Lilliquist, Whatcom County: I want to say that the staff I have talked to in the Planning
Department have been friendly and respectful. I think there is a small, but serious,
misrepresentation when David Stalheim says that 50 percent of the people say that the number
they picked is too little or just about right. What he has done is taken that middle number, the
about right number, and he's lumped it with the too little number. You can just as well lump it
with the too much number and say that 70 percent of the people think that the projection was
too much or too high. It's a bogus statistic and I think 50 percent is also bogus. I am not in favor
of Alternative X or Y, but maybe A. Most people favor Bellingham remaining as the job and
population center. That may not be the best way to grow. I would like to see the small cities
become their own economic centers if possible. Staff has talked about how we need to protect
our rural lands, they say we need to have strong preservation, that we've had too much growth
in the unincorporated areas. Then there is a slight of hand in that they are saying we need a
higher or medium population number, as if you have to have one in order to do the other. We
haven't done right by our rural lands. We have allowed too much growth but we don't have to
accept the high population numbers to do the right thing. They are separate issues. I would like
you to pick a rational number. I think you first need to put to rest an erroneous belief that the
past is destiny and the past trends are the only rational numbers to accept. Imagine that you are
a school board and I am going to come before you and talk about school test scores. I am going
to tell you that school test scores are low and it's a fact and it would be foolish and unrealistic to
plan for improved test scores. We need to plan for a current rate of students success and
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 19
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 student failure. We need to set good goals that we can be proud of. We have to have goals that
2 match our.values.
3
4 John McLaughlin, Whatcom County: I would like to remind you that the population projections
5 were generated by an invalid model. We should not be planning our future or developing an EIS
6 based on statistical errors. The projections ignored any limits of any factors or resources. To
7 address those limits I would like to quote SEPA. "The review of alternatives in the EIS must
8 discuss the benefits and disadvantages of reviewing or observing for some future time the
9 implementation of the proposal as compared to possible approval at this time. The agency's
10 perspective should be that each generation, is in effect, a trustee of the environment for
11 succeeding generations. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of proposing
12 future options implemented by the proposal." One can interpret that language as a strong
13 argument for including the lowest projections possible as an alternative in the EIS. Facilitating
14 more development, choosing a higher projection is surely foreclosing on future options.
15 Destroying natural infrastructure or driving salmon to extinction is not acting as a trustee to the
16 environment for succeeding generation. There is a large and growing scientific literature on
17 impacts of land use on stream structure, riparian function and salmon populations, including
18 quite a bit of work done in western Washington. Several general conclusions emerged from this
19 literature. First, when the extent of urban development exceeds a threshold, impacts the
20 streams and becomes so great that salmon and other sensitive species can not persist. The
21 development threshold for salmon depends on several factors, but it appears it's difficult to
22 retain salmon after about 10 percent of watershed becomes covered with impervious surfaces,
23 in some cases the threshold is only 5 percent. Second, the impacts of urban development on
24 streams and salmon have occurred even in the presence of riparian buffers and other protective
25 measures. Buffers do have value but they can't buffer streams from impacts, particularly
26 hydrologic impacts caused by urban development. Third, these impacts have occurred even
27 with aggressive efforts to mitigate development impacts, including best management practices.
28 The EIS scope should consider whether development should be on a level that will cause
29 extinction of wild salmon runs in streams and rivers. Identifying which runs will be lost will
30 require an analysis of impervious surface development and impervious surface coverage by
31 watershed under development in all areas. In some cases we may have exceeded the
32 threshold, already. Any credible EIS must include that analysis and it must consider foreclosed
33 options.
34
35 Betty Shaw, Whatcom County: I live on King Mountain and I'm not happy about what happened
36 there. It will have terrific ramifications. The thing that worried me most about King Mountain was
37 that it was done under the table and illegally, not by you, but by somebody who is no longer
38 here. King Mountain was expanded into the City of Bellingham without annexation. Once that
39 was established then that particular guy was home free to build more homes. That's not right,
40 not fair, not good. The first thing I want you to think about carefully is critical areas. Think about
41 slopes, trees, rivers and all of the things that developers need to think about when they are
42 building. King Mountain is solid rock. I don't know how they are going to get all those houses
43 there. The only impact I see is that it's going to impact the quality of my life. How are you going
44 to provide services in some of these areas? We had a meeting on King Mountain and there was
45 someone there from every City entity. The fire department, police, etc. Every one of them said
46 they could not provide services. It's too expensive and they don't have the people. The traffic is
47 horrible now. James Street Road is a small rural road that is falling apart. It's the major access
48 road. You .are going to have to build new roads or make sure the ones you have are going to
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 20
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
stand up to the traffic because ours don't. When you cut down trees you ruin some of the air
quality. The reason so many of us moved to the county is because of a sense of community. I
know you don't want to destroy that. Be careful, because when you alter the City as much as
this is being altered and we continue to do it you have to do it carefully or we will all have to
move to Everett and I don't want to do that.
Brian Jones, Whatcom County: I have lived through three recessions so I am familiar with them.
The population continued to grow through them. I haven't noticed anyone has stopped having
babies. I don't think people are moving to California. I would like to suggest that we use the mid-
range OFM and look at the high and low figures too. Regarding land supply a lot of people have
expressed surprise that we suddenly have so much land available in the UGAs. If you change
the density in the UGA higher than our analysis and you increase the density in the cities, higher
than our last analysis suddenly we are going to have a lot more available land in the UGA. The
question is do you want to live in a little rat house in a 400 foot tower in downtown Bellingham?
That way we could handle all of our population growth. I am kind of shocked that I haven't heard
a word, this evening, about affordable housing. This is where it starts. If this is not a component
of the EIS it had better be. There has been a huge process, through the CHAT program to
evaluate that. I need to know where my daughter is going to live next year. I need to know
where my son -in -law, who is in Iraq fighting for this country, is going to put his family. I need to
know where my foster daughter is going to live with her baby. This place isn't cheap and there
isn't any place that's much cheaper. I favor the alternative focusing on Bellingham as the growth
area for this region.
Blair Murray, Whatcom County: I was not going to address the issues of LAMIRDs tonight, but l
feel compelled to do so because about half of the testimony tonight has touched on LAMIRDs in
one way or another. The scoping process is certainly intended to insure that the EIS focuses on
relevant issues. Columbia Valley is a community of urban development with a population of
about 4,000 people. We all recognize that it's underserved, both in terms of public facilities and
commercial services. I think the issue before us in regard to whether the Columbia Valley
should be a UGA or a LAMIRD is how to provide the necessary public infrastructure and
commercial services that this community is pleading for. Even those that are opposed to the
retention of the UGA agree the services need to be provided and to do this in a framework
without allowing or permitting excessive growth. The LAMIRD, unfortunately, does not achieve
these objectives. LAMIRDs may not be used to create new small towns or new commercial
development where none had existed previously. A LAMIRD, within the Columbia Valley, would
be a residential type 1 LAMIRD, because there is not, and was not, as of July 1990, any
commercial development in that area. Some would have you believe that a type 3 LAMIRD is
the answer to the issue on commercial services for the community. Type 3 LAMIRDs are
specifically designed for cottage industries and isolated, small scale businesses. It's not a
grocery store or the other services that the residents of the Columbia Valley need and desire. A
Columbia Valley LAMIRD essentially means no necessary services. LAMIRDs have been
interpreted very strictly by the GMHB and by the courts. New development is restricted in terms
of size, scale, intensity and use. It's these uses that have been historically present. The
retention of the UGA status is proper, just and right in Columbia Valley and provides for the
necessary public services and for the commercial opportunities. GMA does allow and provides
the tools to prevent excessive growth.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 21
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 - Rob Staveland, Whatcom County: There was one statement that caught my ear. In the course
2 of a lot of conversation about which population alternatives to use, as if choosing a population
3 alternative was to set a policy, but the EIS scope does not set the policy, it informs the policy.
4 Therefore, it's important to have useful information that must at least analyze the impacts of
5 over planning as well as under planning. There was conversation about the cost of growth and if
6 that's the case we should analyze the difference between the cost of growth,in� rural areas
7 versus the cost of growth in urban areas. I believe what we will find is that= °f,we`°over plan, in
8 UGAs, and the growth doesn't occur there will be little if any harm done, but.,if we under? plan
9 and the growth occurs then we could have significant adverse impacts,.-"
mpacts s` 9'.
10
11 Amy Harksell, City\of Lynden•, Planning Director, Whatcom County You need too. create a"-'
12 reasonable range of alternatives 'to." allow each of us, as the smaller" jurisdictions,.,. to plan
13 appropriately for our jurisdictions, and you. need to give us the respect and. authonty to_ do. that
14 Rollin Harper made the comment'that you need to have a broad enough range so „that "we cane
15 look at all of those numbers. The numbers that are here tonight are certainly witflin -tte range
16 that I would expect my community to grow with. We have all made an effort, over the'ttast 20
17 years, to increase our density and meet the requirements of the GMA. As a plan'net4d(,the City
18 of Lynden, for 17 years, I appreciate the fact that the Council did agree to ask for an extension.
19 Planning for our community does take time. We need that luxury of time in order to formulate
20 what is best for our community and to provide you with the best information to make your
21 decisions on. You need to look at the economic impacts of low growth. How are you going to
22 pay to change policies of the past as well as that upper bracket of how are we going to put
23 services out if we expand the growth.
24 Perry Eskridge, Government Affairs Director for the Whatcom County Association of Realtors,
25 Whatcom County: The one thing that keeps coming to my mind as I look at all of this information
26 is that Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies. There's lies, damn lies and statistics. I took
27 about 15 phone calls today concerning this issue. One of them was actually a realtor. All the
28 rest were members of the public trying to get information about what is going on. I think that's a
29 little disconcerting for me. I think you are going to see a lot more public interest in this. I think
30 people honestly believe that their government is not giving them the full picture. They are
31 looking to professional organizations to give them the information. That should be of concern to
32 you. It's concerning to me. I started really diving into the numbers today and just want to give
33 you something to think about. A lot of my realtors specialize in rural lands. They have people
34 come in and say that they want to live in a rural area. A lot of my realtors are concerned that if
35 we don't have rural land we aren't going to have anything to sell. When I started looking at the
36 Kendall area and the Columbia Valley numbers let's presume they are correct. Taking the
37 number that has been given to us, the medium number, of 3,000 people in the next 20 or 30
38 years. The average occupancy rate is 3.1 people per unit right now. How many houses is that in
39 that area? You are talking about a thousand more homes. If you are looking at 5 or 10 acre
40 parcels what does that mean? It makes no sense. Let's presume these are going to be low
41 income houses and there will be second homes out there. All of a sudden you get lower
42 occupancy numbers. If you only have two people in a house and you are trying to provide for
43 3,000 more people what does that do? If you are going to aim at a target don't put the top of the
44 cross hairs at the area where you think you want the bullet to hit. Move it, get a bracket and line
45 things up in the middle.
46
47 The hearing was closed to the public.
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 22
Special Joint County Council and Planning Commission
February 17, 2009
1 The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
2
3 Minutes prepared by B. Boxx.
4
5
6 The �quncil approved these minutes on April 14 2009.
7 ```v�i i lfffff�'
8 AYE -c Y C0���� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
9 '•VJ Hq '•.:
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
10 0000 �•� CD TCp• �'%
-
11 UN
12 -
13
14 Tana • -^DD y , ourI'il Clerk eth Fle ood, Council Chair
ice'' ��• •v.�• ``��