Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council April 18 2006WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special County Council April 18, 2006 Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Carl Weimer OTHER ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE ENACTING AN INTERIM WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PROVISIONS TO RESCIND THE URBAN SUDDEN VALLEY (AB2006 -132A) Absent: Dan McShane L. Ward Nelson TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE PLAN MAP AND ASSOCIATED TEXT GROWTH AREA DESIGNATION FOR Preston Burris, 4 Cedar Place, Sudden Valley, stated he is a signatory to the letter that appears to have generated this emergency. This entire process is disingenuous. It's dishonest to use an excuse for this emergency that fact that citizens are exercising their right, which comes from the State, to bring forward a petition. The only two elements of an emergency proclamation are the existence of a lawsuit, which was filed some time ago, and his letter. The first whereas statement in the ordinance is factually incorrect. There was a lawsuit filed regarding the procedures the Council used to make the determination. The right of the citizens to pursue incorporation is a State right, and has nothing to do with the County Council. In second whereas statement, there is the phrase "the future city of Sudden Valley...." There is no future city of Sudden Valley. There is a process that could, given a number of events, result in a City of Sudden Valley. The statement as it is written is factually incorrect. Watershed issues are very serious. Incorporating the regulatory and land use processes with Sudden Valley's existing architectural standards would create less of an impact on the watershed. The consequence of this process is to change the zoning to a recreational subdivision He questions what that means for property values and tax designations. He asked if the County Council will oppose the effort of the Bellingham School District to build an elementary school in Sudden Valley, because it would be the largest single development ever built in Sudden Valley. This ordinance is retaliatory in nature. If it had not been for his letter, the December timeframe for the expiration of the urban growth area (UGA) would have come and gone. It's specifically intended to squelch debate on the issue. The County doesn't have the legal or political authority to defend the rights of Sudden Valley to incorporate. The ordinance is entirely suppositional. It's a poor way to Special Whatcom County Council- Rescind Sudden Valley, 4/18/2006, Page 1 govern. There is one reference to the degradation of the watershed. Everything else is procedural and suppositional. The third whereas statement is judgmental and pejorative. The first finding of fact shows no cause and effect relationship. Scientific evidence shows that basins one and two are worrisome. Sudden Valley is far removed from those basins. There isn't any link in the document that ties Sudden Valley to what the document says will occur. The second finding of fact references Sudden Valley's right, as a city, to pursue urban levels of densities greatly in excess of present density targets. What would be greatly in excess isn't defined. A new school would require a rezone that is an increase of land use density. The Council can't do what is said in finding three. If there were an incorporated city, that city would have the right to control its land use designation, but that right doesn't ensure that land use density would be increased or decreased. The Council is presupposing that everyone who wants to incorporate wants to develop more intensely. However, everyone is concerned about the rate of development and its impacts. The ordinance presupposes a mindset that hasn't been established. This ordinance proposes to change the designation from an urban growth area to a residential subdivision. The tax code says it is urban residential. He asked if this ordinance would devalue properties and decrease taxes owed. Kalene Drummund, Sudden Valley Community Association Board President, stated the problem is with the recreational subdivision definition. Sudden Valley does not meet the definition. Of all the residents, 72 to 85 percent are full time. The Board is planning for Sudden Valley's future, which doesn't have anything to do with incorporation. They have to know their zoning. The recreational subdivision zone doesn't apply. The area is an urban growth area, whether anyone likes it or not. There are over 5,000 residents. Building is going on out there. It's not right to limit someone's property use. Reconsider the zoning designation, and get together with the Sudden Valley Community Association Board. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council has no choice to revert back to the previous zone. The Council can revisit the zoning designation. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Director, stated that assumption is correct. The County can revisit zoning in Sudden Valley. Later the County will look at the appropriate zoning. Crawford stated that the Council said Sudden Valley would revert back to its previous zoning when it established the sunset date. The Council hasn't decided that the zone needs to be a recreational subdivision. He asked if they have to accept the wording that says the area goes back to a recreational subdivision. Hart stated that is correct. Dan Marantette, Sudden Valley Community Association Board Vice- President, stated the Board would like to discuss the future of Sudden Valley with the Council. It is a licensed, for - profit corporation in the State. The Board members must be cognizant of what it advocates. Not all stockholders are residents. One hundred percent of the membership is registered voters. They are the only community in the state that has voluntarily put 1,333 lots into a density reduction program to protect the watershed and create a green belt. That is about $6 million of assets they voluntarily retired from the corporation. Special Whatcom County Council- Rescind Sudden Valley, 4/18/2006, Page 2 1 2 Also, they are the only fire -wise community in the state. It has to do with the whole 3 community participating in density reduction and putting in and maintaining good plants 4 that won't burn readily. 5 6 A rural recreational zone, as defined, cannot apply to Sudden Valley. Sudden Valley 7 is too dense and the population is there 100 percent of the time. There is an executive 8 committee of the Sudden Valley Board here right now. That's how much it means to them. 9 10 Fleetwood stated the Council is working on setting a date to meet with the Sudden 11 Valley Community Association Board soon. Marantette stated the Board is not just a 12 property owner's association. It must be careful of what it does, which is to safeguard the 13 assets of the corporation of Sudden Valley, which has a set of trust properties. He would 14 love to discuss that at a joint meeting. The recreational subdivision zone doesn't fit Sudden 15 Valley at all. 16 17 Caskey- Schreiber stated that if there is a better zoning designation, the Council will 18 find it. Marantette stated that Sudden Valley meets the State definition of a UGA. The 19 Board would like to work with the Council. 20 21 Bill Udley, 27 Par Lane, Sudden Valley, stated everyone seems to think that this 22 watershed area will be more polluted if Sudden Valley becomes a city. He can't see any 23 difference whether or not Sudden Valley is an association or a city. It is a municipal 24 governance. It has nothing to do with polluting the lake. The water and sewer district have 25 shown that, as of the end of next year, there will be no more septic systems. That is in 26 contrast to the north end of the lake, where there are many septic systems. The northern 27 portion of the lake, to the east, has the people who are putting things into the lake. Sudden 28 Valley is not polluting the lake. 29 30 This process of changing the County plan doesn't include any due process. Sudden 31 Valley is a UGA by State definition. The County doesn't decide what is a UGA. This County 32 is not following the laws. People aren't given the opportunity to explore the idea of 33 becoming a city. The Council could have let the UGA expire, but it is trying to block the 34 request to become a city. The Council has an agenda. 35 36 Brenner stated she doesn't see that this would cause any reduction in lot value. It 37 may cause an increase in value. The more exclusive something is, the more valuable it is. 38 39 She didn't support Sudden Valley being a provisional UGA to begin with. She isn't 40 thrilled with the way the Council did it. She was told this is the legal way this has to be 41 done. Don't spend any more time and money on considering Sudden Valley as a city. 42 43 She disagrees with the last speaker. It's not just about people's septic systems. 44 There are many rules that have come down from the federal and State governments about 45 stormwater and other things. The more density there is anywhere, the more likely there 46 will be impacts. She can't imagine how a city can be a city without economic development. 47 It's not just a municipal corporation. There must be public services that cost money. Taxes 48 are always higher inside cities than outside the cities. 49 50 She agrees that recreational subdivision or resort recreational zones are not 51 appropriate. There are UGA's that aren't cities. This is the step the County has to take to 52 get back to square one and get to what Sudden Valley really is, which is a UGA. The 53 Council doesn't want to see more density in Sudden Valley. 54 Special Whatcom County Council- Rescind Sudden Valley, 4/18/2006, Page 3 She would not oppose a school being built in Sudden Valley. It's very appropriate to have a school out there. Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Crawford asked the litigation the County is in. Fleetwood stated the Clean Water Alliance filed a lawsuit when the Council designated Sudden Valley as an UGA. They were joined by the City of Bellingham as interveners. The County Council has been defending that legislation for a number of years. During that time, a majority of the policymakers on the County Council have opposed it. Crawford asked if the County is in litigation to defend its designation as an UGA, or in litigation to defend the rights of Sudden Valley to incorporate. He doesn't know anything about the rights of Sudden Valley to incorporate. Royce Buckingham, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Council is using the word "rights" to mean different things. They aren't talking about the right, legally, for Sudden Valley to incorporate. They are addressing procedural issues in the appeal. Whether or not the residents have the constitutional right is not an issue. Crawford stated this ordinance needs to be rewritten. Define the litigation for what it is. Make it a finding. He suggested that they change the second whereas statement to change the words "future city" to "incorporation." There is no future city of Sudden Valley. Fleetwood moved to amend the second whereas statement to change the words "future city" to "incorporation." Motion to amend carried 4 -0 with Crawford out of the room. Crawford referenced the first finding. There isn't a nexus between city -hood and reducing the degradation of Lake Whatcom. There is nothing evidentiary about it. In the middle of the second finding, there is inference to Sudden Valley densities becoming more urban if it becomes a city. If they want to talk about rights, the political winds change. The County Council has the right to dictate density. A city of Sudden Valley doesn't have more or less right than the County to set densities. It's not a correct conclusion. Brenner stated she disagrees. The County's unincorporated areas aren't supposed to increase density to urban levels. The County is to target unincorporated areas, which aren't supposed to be urban. Urban services and areas are to be targeted to cities. The language says "present." Caskey- Schreiber stated she disagrees that the need for the interim ordinance is not factual. For any city to survive, it will need a tax base. Crawford stated they don't know that. Caskey- Schreiber stated Birch Bay is going through this now. Residents of Birch Bay realize that it will be difficult to incorporate because of a lack of a tax base. They need a commercial and industrial area, which this area doesn't have. Their only option is to make different zoning. Since the area is only platted for residential, one could argue they need to acquire additional land. Special Whatcom County Council- Rescind Sudden Valley, 4/18/2006, Page 4 1 Crawford stated that this is not an appropriate action for Council. The best 2 government is local government. The Council should do everything it can to help Kendall 3 Valley, Birch Bay, Point Roberts, and Sudden Valley to move to self - governance. He 4 encourages that degree of independence. All the negatives in the findings could be turned 5 into positives with stringent governments. Sudden Valley has come up with stringent 6 guidelines already. They have taken extremely strident measures to protect the 7 environment, water quality, and quality of life far more than County government will ever 8 do. He asked why the Council is opposed to their incorporation. This isn't right. 9 10 Fleetwood stated the people of Sudden Valley are not villains in any way. He is fully 11 aware of many of their programs. 12 13 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 14 15 Fleetwood continued to state that Sudden Valley has some programs that are better 16 than County programs. His motivation for bringing this forward is that the Growth 17 Management Act (GMA) and Comprehensive Plan state that urban growth areas must be 18 designated for future increases in urban levels of densities. Other areas in the 19 Comprehensive Plan say that the County does not seek that. The Council, in numerous 20 ways in the past, has expressed that it doesn't want density increases in the future. This 21 isn't about what people are doing today. This is based on the chance that future councils 22 would be obligated to express population projections and would be under a duty to meet 23 those projections in precisely the place they don't want that growth. 24 25 The word "disingenuous" is defined as a lack of candor. He filed an application on 26 time to amend the Comprehensive Plan in December, because it was his right as a 27 councilmember to do so. Other councilmembers expressed their support for his 28 amendment, which got significant play in the press. People knew about it. They spoke 29 about it. This was not an effort to be disingenuous. 30 31 When he read the emergency provisions for amending the Comprehensive Plan, one 32 provision says they can use an emergency provision to resolve pending litigation, which the 33 County in on this very point. It's clearly an appropriate basis to use the emergency 34 provision. The code requires an emergency thereafter to continue it. He filed that 35 appropriately. There was public notice. It is well known by all concerned. He takes 36 exception to the claim that this is disingenuous. 37 38 Pursuant to this process, presently designated development rights won't change due 39 to this ordinance. IVo land owners with platted, vested rights to build upon will be stopped 40 by this ordinance. It isn't a downzone. 41 42 The purpose of whereas statement five is to talk about having an urban growth area 43 in a place where they don't want it, as specifically discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. 44 45 Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the ordinance. The GMA, when an area is 46 designated UGA, is the green light for growth. The County is obligated to commit to 47 allowing growth in that area, with the eventual goal of fostering incorporation. However, 48 this UGA lies in a critical natural resource for the wellbeing of the city of Bellingham. 49 Through many sources, they've learned that there are many things that contribute to 50 degradation of a water body. One of them is impervious surface. An impervious surface 51 level over ten percent contributes to degradation in the ocean. The more impervious 52 surface they have around Lake Whatcom, the greater the financial burden. There is a big 53 stormwater problem around the lake they must pay for. In good conscious, they cannot 54 have the UGA out there when they are spending millions of dollars to fix the existing 55 problem around Lake Whatcom. The County is trying to acquire property around the lake, Special Whatcom County Council- Rescind Sudden Valley, 4/18/2006, 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 which is the best way to limit degradation. The County is working with the community to reduce impacts. This isn't against Sudden Valley. It was a poor decision made in the 1970's. The community has stepped up to the problem with its density reduction program. The community and the County have worked well together in the past. She supports them, and would like to continue working with the community. The Council is trying to balance the needs. In good conscious, the Council cannot allow more growth in this area than what is already platted. The risk is too big that the golf course can be rezoned if the area were incorporated. They've seen it happen in other communities. There are no guarantees. When a city controls it's land base, it controls everything. That's something the Council must consider. Property values will not change at all. If anything, the tax value will be higher. It isn't an issue. This is wise for the County's well- being. Weimer stated he supports the ordinance for the reasons stated. He looks forward to the joint meeting with the Sudden Valley Community Association Board. He is impressed with the things Sudden Valley has done. If incorporated, the Sudden Valley Community Association may lose its ability to control that growth, and the city will take on a life of its own. It might be five years or 20 years, but there is concern about growth. There was some discussion that this ordinance is in reaction to the petition that was filed. That's not true. The Council discussed this long before the petition was filed. The City of Bellingham asked the County to do something like this, before the petition was filed. This was a Comprehensive Plan amendment docket item since December. There had been much discussion of this before the petition was filed. Motion to adopt as amended carried 4 -1 with Crawford opposed. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on May 23 , 2006. ATTESTT%%% y C/ O � i C •• 0 mom �. Dana E%r04?Vk!4 cil £lerk • 8HING WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON i Laurie Caskey -S hreiber, Council Chair Special Whatcom County Council- Rescind Sudden Valley, 4/18/2006, Page 6