Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 29 20041 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee June 29, 2004 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Sharon Roy Dan McShane COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004- 121) Fleetwood stated at the end of the last Planning Committee meeting, they dealt with all issues except one relating to planned unit development clusters and a density of 5.8 units per acre versus eight units per acre. The committee will discuss that issue. Brenner stated she's recently had a conversation with people from Birch Bay. The Birch Bay area is an extremely sensitive watershed. She'd rather stick to the density of 5.8 because of the sensitive watershed. Generally they should increase the density as much as possible and give that as an incentive. However, Birch Bay is very sensitive. Fleetwood asked if there were other issues in addition to this that the committee needs to take up. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated they also have to address capital facilities. She rewrote the capital facilities chapter. Caskey- Schreiber stated they are talking about only adding 42 dwelling units with the density increase to eight units per acres. It only applies to planned unit developments (PUD's). Her goal is to encourage 40 percent open space, which they would mandate with the PUD's if they use the higher density of eight homes. It can be done with low impact development. If they encourage 42 more dwelling units in appropriate areas with open space, they won't have increased impervious surface amounts. It can be done in a way that will keep them healthy. It will be Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. easier to serve a development like this rather than a development with one home per acre. Regarding wetland areas, they're going to have to have some respect for those areas anyway, and the 40 percent open space tracts will incorporate those wetlands. At some point, this community will build out. It would be nice to get some open space that is locked in. When development is in sensitive areas, they need to create greenway and habitat corridors. It's something to think about for this plan. Fleetwood stated the first issue is the density of planned unit developments 5.8 or eight units per acre. Brenner moved to make the maximum density for PUD's 5.8 instead of eight units per acre. Fleetwood asked if the science says that a density of eight is worse for the bay. McShane stated it's okay to go back to a density of 5.8. One issue from the last meeting was that the higher density is very urban. The County isn't urban. The development criteria that might create dense housing that is attractive is not just about water quality, but also the character of the community. The community is clear it doesn't want a bunch of apartment buildings. Go back to a density of 5.8 and designate the Birch Bay urban growth area (UGA) an urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4) zone as a potential pilot project area for doing that sort of project to see if it can be done. That creates an opportunity for someone in the future to do a small project to see how it works. It may work well for the community and developer, but now the County doesn't have those standards in place. Fleetwood asked if McShane recommends going back the way it is, and having a pilot project for a density of eight. McShane stated the pilot area could have a density of eight or ten. Caskey- Schreiber stated this isn't for the whole UGA, just in short -term UGA P D's. Goodwin stated that with the current PUD ordinance, a developer can do small lots now. The County doesn't have the standards and criteria the developers would have to meet. They could add a policy to develop a cottage housing ordinance or design standards for higher density. There's a site specific rezone procedure that goes before the Hearing Examiner where individual parcels can get rezoned. Also there is a transfer of development rights (TDR) program that one could use to transfer density to the PUD he or she may want. The policies they Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. want are in the plan. They could add another policy about small lot design standards. Fleetwood stated next week is the beginning of the second half of the year. This item has been in the Planning Committee for a long time. He asked if language relating to small lot subdivisions would be incorporated into this plan if the committee gives staff direction to develop that language. Goodwin stated the Council could docket a zoning text amendment for staff to work on a cluster subdivision ordinance or design standards for small lot subdivisions. The zoning changes done every year are docketed every year on June 30, which is tomorrow. Roy stated she agrees with the design standards option. She'd like to see that happen. Her issue is that every example she hears about has nothing to do with being on a shellfish threatened status with the State Department of Health. Birch Bay is threatened. It's the biggest recreational shellfish harvesting area in Puget Sound. Be really careful about the stormwater runoff. Drayton Harbor has been provisionally reopened, and is closed when it rains. This is a huge asset for the county. Her concern isn't the density, but the impervious surface, stormwater runoff, and whether an increase in density will increase the threat to the bay. Jim Dawson from People for Puget Sound is an expert who has looked at shellfish bed closures statewide. He said his warning light goes on at a density of six houses per acre. The other issue is the community's vision. There is a strong desire to keep the relationship between single - family resort commercial and multi - family housing as it is now. There are a lot of families out there. There are so many wetlands in central Birch Bay that it may be a limiting factor to increase density anyway. If there is a pilot project, include design standards and stormwater standards. Caskey- Schreiber stated this was originally brought up to look at ways to remove Birch Point from the UGA, at the request of the Puget Sound Action Team and the State Department of Ecology. The County is planning for more than the community needs. She asked if there is a trigger that happens if they were to go to eight houses per acre for more stormwater treatment instead of 5.8 per acre. Goodwin stated stormwater treatment is based on site conditions, soil, and amount of impervious surfaces. It's engineered. It really depends on soil conditions and amount of impervious surface. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. They're only talking about 42 more units. If they want a pilot project, do it with a PUD. The PUD would still have to go through the permit process. It would force them to look at ways to have some density with a lot of open space. Fleetwood stated he supports Councilmember Caskey - Schreiber's reasoning, but will support the motion. There will be a majority of councilmembers who Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. support the 5.8 density. It's difficult to imaging that 42 units will have an effect, but he respects the community's intent. He will support the motion to move this forward and out of committee. Motion carried 2 -1 with Caskey- Schreiber opposed, Roy asked if they can still ask the Planning Department to work up a scenario for some of the design standards and stormwater standards for a pilot project, even if it's not in Birch Bay. Fleetwood stated he agreed. Caskey- Schreiber stated the City of Bellingham doesn't have allowances for this type of development, so the question is where the County would even put it. Goodwin stated the County would put it in the Birch Bay UGA or Bellingham UGA. Sudden Valley and Columbia Valley are already platted out. Caskey- Schreiber stated the builders want to try this, and there's nowhere for them to try it. Goodwin stated there is already language in the utilities chapter on low - impact development. They could add a policy or action item in the land use section. It would be easier to docket as something they should work on. Fleetwood stated the next issue is capital facilities. Goodwin stated she added changes to the capital facilities chapter. She added the language about incorporation. Caskey- Schreiber stated the community should know that the County is collecting these funds, but they may not be spent on Birch Bay unless the community incorporates. Goodwin handed out information on potential revenues for Birch Bay capital facilities. Roy stated a question that will come up will be whether the residents' taxes would increase if Birch Bay incorporated. Goodwin stated it wouldn't necessarily go up. The County could add the fees before incorporation, so taxes would go down upon incorporation. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they have to pass an ordinance for transportation impact fees for the whole county or just one area. Goodwin stated they can draw district boundaries and collect just in one area. However, it's a logistical issue for the Public Works Department to make sure the money is spent where it's supposed to be spent within six years. Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Goodwin stated add a map that shows the Birch Bay watershed. Add it as figure 1 -5. Brenner moved to add a map of the Birch Bay watershed as figure 1 -5. Goodwin stated she doesn't have the map now, but it would be included in the final version that goes to the public for the public hearing. Roy stated that's a great idea. Motion carried unanimously. Goodwin stated she submitted a memo dated June 22, 2004 with requested changes to the land use chapter and capital facilities chapter. Replace table 8 -4 as shown on Council packet page 208. Brenner moved to replace table 8 -4 as shown on Council packet page 208. Motion carried unanimously. Caskey- Schreiber stated they estimate a population in Birch Bay of 9,000. Currently the population is 6,000. Another 1,000 to 1,500 homes will be built this year. That puts the population to at least to 7,500. This plan calls for adding 4,000 more homes at 2.33 people per home, which is up to 14,000 people. She asked how they can do that. Goodwin stated the 1,500 homes that will be built is in the entire county, not just in Birch Bay. Caskey- Schreiber stated that information came from Planning Director Hal Hart. Goodwin stated that's for the entire county. If there really are 1,500 houses per year built in Birch Bay, then in 20 years there would be 20,000 to 30,000 additional homes, and a population of 80,000. Caskey- Schreiber stated that if there are 6,000 now, and people build 4,000 new units at 2.3 people per unit, that's another 8,000 more people, for a total of 14,000 people. Goodwin stated the Census in 2000 showed 4,961 residents in Birch Bay. There is more than that now. The projected 2002 population is 9,600. In 2000, there were 5,100 housing units. Half of those housing units are vacant or seasonally occupied. There really aren't 10,000 houses, but 10,000 units if they count all the recreational vehicle (RV) sites. The number of fulltime units is 4,128 in 2022. There would be another 4,128 seasonal units. A lot of those units Mr. Hart discussed would fit into the seasonal unit category. There is a total projected demand in 2022 of 8,256 units. They need 3,457 more units between 2000 and 2022. If 1,500 of them were built this year, that will fill up half the remaining land and no more houses would need to be built. If that is the case, they will need to adjust their population projections. Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Fleetwood stated that given the opinion that the projection is low, he asked if that is cause for concern. Goodwin stated it's not a concern. There is adequate land supply. If the growth rate is low, adjust the plan in five years. Roy agreed. Originally the steering committee pushed for a population projection of 12,000. That was adjusted down through the population projection process. Birch Bay Drive is zoned resort commercial. On Birch Bay Drive, every property being developed is going into condos, not resort commercial. She asked how much residential is assumed in resort commercial zone. Goodwin stated the plan assumes that the majority of that resort commercial would be condos and timeshares with retail on the ground floor. That's what is happening. The County calculated land supply on the geographic information system (GIS). They assumed that there is only 123 acres of vacant resort commercial in Birch Bay now. When they take out the acres for roads, wetlands, market factor, and commercial uses, only 21 acres will be available for residential. That would total 457 housing units. (on file). (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Goodwin continued to state they won't run out of commercial space at Birch Bay. There is commercial space allotted at the Alderson Road and Blaine Road intersection and the Birch Bay- Lynden Road and Blaine Road intersection. A lot of the ground floors of the timeshare units will be commercial. Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council, as amended. McShane asked about a utility district and UGA boundaries. Locations included in the UGA were outside of the Birch Bay water and sewer district boundary. Goodwin stated there are at least 100 acres of the UGA not in the district. There are different boundaries. The water and sewer district boundary is slightly smaller in the Blaine Road area, and needs to be adjusted. The sewer service area is the same. McShane stated there is also a boundary difference at Point Whitehorn. Goodwin stated there is another water district out there. McShane stated that is the Grandview Beach Water Association. There is an area south of Grandview and North of Grandview Beach that is outside of the utility district. Goodwin stated those areas would have to be long -term planning areas until the utility district boundary is changed. They would have to amend the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Plan. If they can't adjust the boundary, the density would be held at one house per five acres. There is an issue with water pressure in the Koehn Road area. Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane asked if it is okay to have a UGA that extends beyond the service area. Goodwin stated it is because the service area would be amended. The Birch Bay Water and Sewer District boundary goes into the Blaine UGA in places. McShane stated one reason for the whole discussion of density was the idea of dropping out the Birch Point area, and where they would put that density. One problem is that the Council has to look at tax implications and how to service the areas. One of the biggest problems is stand -alone urban growth areas. In all three cases of stand -alone UGA's in the county, there are problems with providing services. He has a problem with expanding those areas at all. That puts the County in conflict with the population projection it approved in January. He suggested that the plan is good, but it's too big of an area. Don't force Birch Bay into becoming a city. But if it will grow, it should grow as a city. He suggested that Birch Point and Point Whitehorn be taken out for growth issues and environmental consequences the County isn't ready to take on. Point Whitehorn is a conservancy shoreline. That might have an effect on the total population projection for Birch Bay. Those things can be figured out later on. Fleetwood stated the majority of councilmembers already weighed in. McShane stated the Council said take out Birch Point. That may change. Take those big issues up with the Council at this evening's meeting. He will vote against the plan if Birch Point and Point Whitehorn are left in the UGA. That will be a fiscal disaster for the County in addition to the significant environmental impacts. Roy stated she doesn't understand the fiscal disaster concern. The chance of Birch Bay supporting itself as a city gets better with more of a tax base. The urban growth areas of Birch Point and Point Whitehorn have been in the urban growth area since it was created. The inference is that the UGA has grown and expanded. The community dealt with the boundaries the County gave them at the time. The community didn't expand to those areas. McShane stated the County doesn't have to accept those areas for the urban growth area. The complaints about a lack of sheriff coverage comes from the urban growth areas. He's not sure the County can provide that service adequately out there. If population continues to grow at an urban level, the problem will get worse. Another major issue is the environmental consequences of developing in areas with sensitive environments. Roy stated that whether or not councilmembers have indicated an opinion before now, they owe everyone an opportunity to change their minds. Bring it up to a vote before the full Council. Her concern with Birch Point is putting that population projection in the center part of Birch Bay. She's hearing Councilmember McShane say that's not an issue. McShane stated shifting the population elsewhere is not a problem. It's fine if they have to correct the population projection for Birch Bay. Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Roy asked if Councilmember McShane is not satisfied with the conditions put on the long -term area. McShane stated he is not. He likes the language proposed. Someday, someone should be able to make that decision. That decision should be made by Blaine or Birch Bay. Then he would be fine with it. It would be them taking on that responsibility. Caskey- Schreiber stated that on Council packet page 202, Ms. Goodwin says there's an excess capacity of 899 homes. That's the projection for Birch Point. The Council can remove Birch Point from the UGA and still be comfortable with the population projection selected. The Puget Sound Action Team said Birch Point is not a candidate for low impact development and instead must have serious bio- filtration and water quality treatment programs. The Council ought to incorporate some of the Puget Sound Action Team recommendations. Direct discharge will lead to sloughing of the slopes, which will lead to armaments. The entirety of Birch Point is sloped. She questions whether this is the right place for density. She asked Ms. Goodwin to comment on the letter from the Puget Sound Action Team. Goodwin stated she already accommodated the Puget Sound Action Team comments in the chapter. Plan page 10 -13 has action items and goals. They don't want to encourage infiltration on Birch Point, but other techniques to get water off Birch Point would work. Caskey- Schreiber stated the letter says that if infiltration is contraindicated by site conditions, bio- filtration for water quality treatment and reduced rates of flow can be achieved by lined facilities with flows discharged off site. She asked if they should put that language in the plan for that area. Goodwin stated they could, or they could add increased stormwater and infiltration where appropriate. Roy asked if the letter talks about areas on the edge of the bluff, as opposed to inland. Caskey- Schreiber stated the letter asked the County to not include Birch Point in the UGA, and then listed their recommendations if the County had to include Birch Point. Goodwin stated they can add that language to the end of action strategy nine in the utilities section. Caskey- Schreiber moved to add language, "Infiltration on eroding bluffs is not recommended where it may exacerbate slope and stability problems. However, if infiltration is contraindicated by site conditions, bio- filtration for water quality treatment and reduced rates of flow can be achieved by lined facilities with flows discharged off site." Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. (Clerk's Note: The motion was not voted on.) Goodwin stated that wouldn't be an action item. Caskey- Schreiber stated she's concerned about moving flows off -site, which can change the salinity. McShane stated a key environmental issue for him is impact to the nearshore environment from upland development. The changes that occur will influence the nearshore beach environment. Changes to salinity will occur in critical herring and juvenile salmon habitat. They use these areas to adjust to the ocean. Salmon fry spend a lot of time in estuary environments to make the adjustment from fresh water to salt water before going out to the Pacific. Given how little they have left of really good eelgrass beds, herring spawning areas, and salmon habitat, don't mess with the area. Society isn't capable yet of developing in ways to protect those areas. In the future, it might be appropriate to grow out there. Until they know all the ins and outs of that, technically and financially, it's better to stay away. Caskey- Schreiber stated that if the majority of the Council wants to include Birch Point, she still wants to work on this language some more. She would like to talk to other agencies to help the Council develop language to protect this area. This area is significant to the aquatic life of the entire Puget Sound. They shouldn't move quickly on that. Fleetwood stated they don't have to rush it, but a number of things will begin in committee the second half of the year. Roy stated she suggests that some of these issues aren't determined without a vote of the full Council. They can keep this in committee for eternity. However, it needs to get out to the Council. McShane stated that if these areas are taken out of the UGA, the Council doesn't have to struggle with all this. Fleetwood stated the committee should defer making a recommendation on whether or not to include these areas to the full Council. Goodwin suggested that the committee adjourn the meeting soon, and she can work with councilmembers to develop a goal and action item in time for the evening Council meeting. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Puget Sound Action Team has recommendations and a website on guidance for protecting and preserving nearshore ecosystems. She would like to see that information and hopefully incorporate some of that language in the plan so there won't be a detrimental impact to the herring beds. Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner withdrew her motion to recommend approval to the full Council, as amended. Lincoln Rudder, Semiahmoo Drive, stated the committee considered a density of eight instead of 5.8 for PUD's. Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), if they increase density in one area of the UGA, they can reduce the UGA elsewhere. Given that this UGA is crowded with wetlands, reducing the scope of the UGA will protect the environment of Birch Bay. When they increase the urban density in a portion of UGA, they can use conventional technologies to deal with stormwater runoff. So, increasing density doesn't necessarily mean degradation to the environment. There is a second issue of whether 1,500 building permits were issued. In 2002, there were 4,961 people in Birch Bay. That number is prescribed by the U.S. Census. The County is legally obligated to use that number. The population is projected to be 9,619 in 2002. That leaves a population of 4,658. There were 1,500 building permits in the Birch Bay UGA since 2002. Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber's population estimates for population and building permits are accurate. If they use the density of 2.33, the 1,500 permits represents a population of almost 3,500 people. That only leaves 1,115 people left to accommodate for the rest of the planning period ending in 2002. If they only have to accommodate 493 more houses, there is a tremendous amount of rural area available. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there are a lot of ways to count number of units being created. They can count the number of units over the last several years that have been permitted. Now, they are seeing a number of condo projects that counts as units. They can count the creation of plats. It might be helpful in the next few days to do a recount of the last few years of what's coming in. Bill Grant, 7806 Birch Bay Drive, stated Goldstar has permitted two projects in five years, for total of 130 condominium units, most of which are timeshare resort units. The Homestead units are also timeshare units. The only residential condos in Birch Bay in the last five years are the Sands, which is half sold. When evaluating plats for larger developments, there is usually an absorption period of two to seven years. The numbers Mr. Hart gave for 100 to 125 units was traditionally what was permitted in Birch Bay each year, until about two years ago. For all residential and resort condominiums for this year is about 230, not 1,500. Patty Rudder, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated she had asked the Council for a change from 1.97 to 2.33 people per unit. She asked how many homes is taken out of the plan because of the change. They are trying to find a location for some phantom people who don't exist. Once zoning is changed, they won't go back. She is in the fastest growing area. The crime rate has gone up. If this is the fastest growing area with the cheapest land to build, they have to ask what that does to the community. Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Goodwin stated the answer to Ms. Rudder is in the plan on page 8 -10. The number of housing units was changed from 9,898 to 4,128 units. Patty Rudder stated the boundaries should have changed. Goodwin stated the boundary doesn't change because they still need 51 percent of the housing units for recreational people. Instead of having less than one person per household, they have half as many households that are year -round households and half that are part -time, recreational households. Dave Determan, Birch Bay Steering Committee, stated they've been told that it's better to leave Birch Point in rather than out of the UGA. A PUD is much easier to control. There needs to be a concern over the wetlands. They've let the wetlands issue slide. He doesn't know why Point Whitehorn is of concern. There are five lots out there, and the rest has been developed. The five lots are 15 or 16 acres each. Some contractor has been reported to get the whole thing. He'll annex into the urban growth area and create houses out there. As a private citizen, he is concerned about the shoreline. The steamer clams are not being over - produced. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Determan continued to state that a pod of orcas came in and ate the herring. The herring aren't coming back in large numbers any more. There are also cyclic things that happen. Ellen Gray, Thousand Friends of Washington, stated they should keep the big picture in mind. If the Council comes to the conclusion to protect these two areas, it has to remove them from the urban growth area. They shouldn't be designated for urban growth. Take the population assigned to those areas and work with it a number of different ways to relocate the growth areas. Ms. Goodwin's June 22 memo to the Council identifies that there is an excess capacity already. If the issue of reallocating that population growth keeps them from removing those areas from the UGA, then explore opportunities to look at those densities again. That's easier than designating these areas for urban growth. There are two letters from experts in the file that say these areas should be removed from the UGA. Remove these areas from the UGA. Jo Slivinski, Birch Point, stated the residents of Birch Point aren't represented by the Birch Bay Steering Committee. One representative, Barbara Skudlarick, recently resigned. Lincoln Rudder is no longer on the shellfish committee. Since she last spoke to this committee, she contacted three more households, which all ask that Birch Point be removed from the UGA. That's a total of 23 out of 36 households, which is more than 65 percent of the community. Each new property Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. owner she's talked to has heard what the Birch Bay Steering Committee is not hearing, which is to protect the bay. Remove Birch Point from the UGA. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated this process has gone on for at least three years. The community made these decisions already. Now, the Council thinks they did it all wrong. However, the Council agreed with the residents of Lake Samish. That bothers him. Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, he agrees with Councilmember McShane. A question is whether the Council would put Point Whitehorn and Birch Point in the UGA if they weren't in there now. The answer is probably no. Then the question becomes whether they should leave these areas in the UGA just because they are already there. When these areas were put into the UGA originally, no one asked the migratory birds, herring, or any other organism that depends on this area whether or not that was okay. It's unclear whether low impact development would deal with the impact of development at a density of urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4). There are large lots on Point Whitehorn that don't have any pending plats. Point Whitehorn is ripe for removal from the UGA. It doesn't make sense to leave it in. Cathy Seeman, 6057 Birch Point Road, stated many neighbors are concerned about water management. They want to know if Birch Point or the entire peninsula is being recommended for restrictions. Caskey- Schreiber stated the City of Blaine may be willing to pull back its UGA if the County pulls back its Birch Bay UGA. She would like to see great care taken with development all around that peninsula and in Birch Bay. Seeman stated they should look at the peninsula as a whole. Just doing Birch Point would not be as effective. Caskey- Schreiber stated they focused on Birch Point because the State Department of Ecology and Puget Sound Action Team asked the Council to consider removing Birch Point and Point Whitehorn because of the sensitive soils in those areas. They didn't mention the whole peninsula. Roy stated the County can't make rules for the Blaine part of the peninsula. Seeman asked the Council to do uniform rules for the peninsula. The recommendations for Birch Point should be for the whole peninsula. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council will advocate for the conditions at Birch Point and Birch Bay to be the same. The Council has already adopted language about using low impact development standards and a special district overlay for the area to limit impervious surface, tree retention, and wetland protection. The areas are different because of the soils and slopes. Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Goodwin stated areas of the entire Birch Point peninsula are in the City of Blaine urban growth area and other areas are in Blaine. The County can't do zoning or UGA work to those areas. The shellfish protection standards, shorelines, critical areas, and stormwater regulations will cover the entire area. Claudia Hollod, 8240 Birch Bay Drive, stated the Steering Committee recommends the plan. She's frustrated to hear that the steering committee expanded the boundaries. Point Whitehorn and Birch Point were already in the UGA. They didn't expand the UGA. Their job was to deal with those areas in everyone's best interest, not according to personal agendas. There were a lot of personal agendas. The Steering Committee were elected to represent about 6,000 people. Point Whitehorn and Birch Point residents were invited to the table, and never came. Now there here after the work is done. They represent only 46 people. That's self- interest. It's also self- interest that they have houses on large lots with no sewer system, and they say they are really worried about the bay. If they take these areas out, it is a downzone. These people bought these properties knowing they were urban growth areas. Now they want it downzoned. If they take it out, they will be able to drill wells. There is no stormwater requirements even though they are sitting on the bluff. The Puget Sound Action Team told them nothing should be built on the bluff, but it's already there. There can be a myriad activities which are not allowed at present. The Steering Committee did a good job. The big issue is stormwater. Residents take water samples on a regular basis to keep the place open for swimming. Now the Council wants to take the extra growth from Birch Point and put it where there is no stormwater plan and where road systems are a mess. It doesn't make sense. If they take those areas out of the UGA, there will be a problem in the middle of the beach. There is an enforcement problem. There is a two -year old unresolved shoreline violation next to her. If they are going to reduce UGA's and start infilling, then put a moratorium on any growth. The Steering Committee tried to work for the best interest for everyone. She doesn't have problems with amendments to keep the shoreline safe. They can't put a patch on one problem to the detriment of other areas. Caskey- Schreiber stated no one is advocating for an increase in density other than for planned unit developments. Carol Sandvig, 8212 Birch Bay Drive, stated she doesn't understand what they're talking about by removing Point Whitehorn. She lives across from Point Whitehorn, and its almost entirely built out. She asked if they are talking about the acreage west of the Koehn Road. Goodwin indicated on the map the areas of Point Whitehorn that are proposed for removal from the UGA. Sandvig asked if someone is not eligible for sewer if not in the UGA. Goodwin stated that's correct. Some areas already have sewer, which is a nonconforming use outside of a UGA. Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. McShane stated there is some accusation that there are people who are advocating for the downzone of Birch Point. When this was initially proposed a couple of months ago, he never heard about it. Individuals got excited about it once the Council considered it, but those individuals did not drive this proposal. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BIRCH BAY URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -122) This item was not discussed. OTHER BUSINESS Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, submitted information (on file) to recap their planning tour. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 6/29/2004, Page 14