HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 7 20021
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 7, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Sharon Roy
Also Present:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE OR MODIFY THE SCOPE OF
WORK FOR A COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE STUDY
(CCAS) TO DOCUMENT THE SHORT AND LONG -RANGE AVAILABILITY
AND LOCATION OF QUALITY MINERAL RESOURCES (AB2002 -192)
McShane stated he appreciated the work Mr. Aamot did with the scoping
committee.
Matt Aamot, Senior Planner, stated the 1997 Comprehensive Plan set a goal
of designating a 50 -year supply of mineral resources. An action item was created
in the Comprehensive Plan to perform a comprehensive mineral resources study by
within five years. Last November, the County Council established an advisory
committee to develop a scope of work for the study. The committee finished its
work on the scope of work. The geographic scope is the entire area of Whatcom
County west of the national forest. There are five priority areas to be studied:
1. Existing mineral resource lands (MRL's). First determine what
resources Whatcom County has;
2. The Columbia Valley. The State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) report identified it as an area of potential significant resource;
3. Specific rock units, identified by County geologists, that have yielded
mineral resources in the past. There are existing quarries in these
rock units;
4. Other areas identified in the DNR report;
5. The area north of Lake Terrell.
The scoping committee identified criteria for quality mineral resource and
quantity. One criterion is a minimum thickness of 25 feet. That is the same
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
criterion DNR used. They don't want to disturb large land areas of thin deposits.
Another criterion is that the mineral resource meets specifications for strength and
durability set by the Washington Department of Transportation (DOT). They've
recommended that the sand and gravel deposit be a minimum of 20 acres. For
hard rock and bedrock, they recommend a ten -acre minimum size. The committee
recommended dividing resources by sand, gravel, or hard rock. The committee
recommended identifying the depth of overburden. An economic viability of a
deposit is an issue.
The committee talked about level of funding for the study. The Council
allocated $15,000. There is a concern about the level of detail at that level of
funding.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if any reclamation has to happen with 20 -acre sites.
Aamot stated reclamation has to happen for sites that are three acres or more. A
site that has less than three acres requires a County conditional use permit. The
County has some reclamation standards, but they are not very extensive.
Roy asked the implication of item six, in terms of affect on the water table.
McShane stated there are some deposits that will have to go below the water
table. There are different impacts when doing that. Going below the water table
would create a lake. The committee thought that they want to know, in an area of
mineral resource, how much of the resource is below or above the water table. The
purpose of the study is not to establish mineral resource areas, but to provide
information to the decision - makers. Knowing how much resource is below the
water table will be good information to have.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the committee considered compatible zoning
around these areas.
McShane stated that other than the consideration of the urban growth area
(UGA), the committee did not. The idea is that the study is based on the geology
and where the resource is. Those other considerations are the policy decisions they
will have to make later.
Roy stated that right now they just want to find out where the deposits are
and what their characteristics are.
Lesa Starkenburg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, Whatcom Sand and
Gravel Association, stated this study is just to say where the material is. The
question will come up later of where to extract the resources. Make sure the
consultant is not misled by the very first sentence that includes, "...location of
quality mineral resources necessary to provide a 50 -year supply." She understands
that the consultant would actually look at all the areas, and not stop when they feel
they've reached a 50 -year supply. They are to quantify what is in all of the specific
areas.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, 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
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 that is correct.
Starkenburg - Kroontje stated item 4C indicates the minimum acreages. The
Sand and Gravel Association is concerned that a minimum of ten acres for bedrock
is small. They don't want the consultant to chase small deposits that don't have a
chance of use because of their small sizes. Bedrock needs blasting, and ten acres
is small for that. The Sand and Gravel Association recommends approval of the
scope of work, with those two concerns in mind.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Director, stated they have $15,000 in the
budget for the study. It may cost $30,000 to $50,000. If they do the study, the
Council will have to appropriate some money. They tried to get funding from the
Port of Bellingham, who suggested the County use the rural sales tax, but the study
doesn't qualify for those monies. They tried to get DNR to pay, but DNR backed
out. Until they identify a source of funds, this scope of work is a moot point.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can add the cost onto the permit fee.
Goodwin stated the County might be challenged if it raises fees beyond the cost of
the permit.
Crawford asked if the Sand and Gravel Association would contribute to the
cost. Starkenburg- Kroontje stated they have an interest, but the idea of the study
is that it is an independent study. She wouldn't want someone to say it was
tainted.
McShane moved to recommend that the scope of work go forward to the full
Council, with the 50 -year reference pulled out. Send it to the Finance Committee
for a discussion on funding the study.
Crawford asked if this would qualify under flood fee revenue. They could say
a certain percentage would be applicable to flood issues.
McShane stated they might be able to get a little money, for the cost of
riprap. The cost for the riprap was remarkably high because of the distance to
market.
Roy agreed with sending it to the Finance Committee. The rules have
changed regarding the rural sales tax. There are other possibilities they could
discuss.
Crawford stated the change regarding the rural sales tax is that the type of
capital facilities allowed, under the guidelines of economic development, has
broadened. It would be a stretch to think a gravel study would be a capital facilities
investment.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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 restated his motion to send this to the Finance Committee to make
a recommendation on the expenditure, including striking the reference to a 50 -year
supply.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING LAKE WHATCOM ZONING (AB2002 -199)
McShane stated a moratorium is in place currently. The Council approved
the moratorium in December. Since then, they've spent a fair amount of time
looking at actions that would be required before they lift that moratorium. The
primary issue is stormwater impacts. The cost and difficulty of maintaining
stormwater systems is an issue. It is an issue of whether the County can enforce
stormwater to maintain them, and who would maintain them.
He went around the watershed last winter and looked at stormwater ponds,
which don't appear to work well. One concept is low- impact development. The
question is whether they can accomplish that in areas around the lake. Zoning
decisions were made, not understanding the implications of that level of
development to water quality of the lake.
His memo, dated April 30, 2002, lists in ten different areas. They are for
discussion only. One area is a Geneva change from rural residential, two units per
acre (RR2) to rural, one unit per five acres (R5A). However, this change would
have no impact because the area is already platted as a pending subdivision. He
also mentioned Sudden Valley as another area, but he didn't propose any zoning
changes because most of the lots are vested. Zoning will not necessarily reduce
density and development around certain areas of the lake. In other areas, it will
have a significant difference in the amount of potential density.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, showed a map of the Blue
Canyon area, which is item six in Councilmember McShane's memo. They would
want to focus on the areas that are vacant, or in a forestry use. The areas that are
zoned for residential are already developed. There is a possibility that additional
houses could be built on the larger parcels.
McShane stated there are currently 173 homes in this area. Build out to
current density would total 523 homes. If they rezoned to R5A zoning, the total
build out would be 352 homes. Basically, 400 homes under current zoning could be
built at this end of the lake. There may be other issues beyond water quality that
these additional homes would present.
Goodwin stated she developed a set of criteria to consider while rezoning a
particular area. They should think about the existing land use. The areas that
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, 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.
would be of the most value due to a rezone would be the areas that are in rural
forestry or undeveloped. The public land is already protected, and the residential
land is already developed. Also look at patterns of surrounding land use. Don't
take out areas that are predominantly developed, if there are only a few vacant
areas left. Changing the zoning for those areas would create inequity between
property owners. Look at areas with large blocks of land, as opposed to individual
lots. Look at the parcel size also. Many of the five -acre parcels zoned R2A could be
further subdivided. Another thing to look at is whether the areas are public lands
with conservation easements or if there is an open space tax status. Much of the
land in the watershed enjoys a tax benefit from open space taxation. Those are
areas where people pay fewer taxes because the owners intend to keep them in
open space. Another criterion is land that can be further subdivided, depending on
water and sewer availability. There are water and sewer lines around the entire
lake, except the north shore. The lines go to Sudden Valley and east of Agate Bay.
McShane asked how small a parcel could have a septic system. Goodwin
stated the smallest size is 12,500 square feet if it can perk.
Goodwin stated transportation access is another issue. The farther south one
has to go, the farther the cars have to travel. The greatest impact from
transportation will be from cars traveling through the watershed. They will have
more impact if they reduce the density at the south end of the lake than at the
north end of the lake.
The last issue is transfer of development rights (TDR). The entire watershed
except Sudden Valley is a TDR sending area. If they change zoning, do it in a way
to retain the opportunity for those folks to transfer the development rights,
provided the County can continue working with the City and get additional receiving
areas. There is not much incentive now for anyone to do a transfer of development
right, because there are not good receiving areas.
Goodwin showed a map of Lake Whatcom /Geneva. Many of the parcels in
Geneva are large and can be further subdivided. Many of those larger tracts have
one house on several parcels.
McShane stated Geneva is complicated. Doing a blanket zoning change
would be tricky.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin offered to provide aerial photographs of the area that show a lot of
detail.
McShane stated Water District 10 is starting to develop a sewer pipeline. A
significant part of the pipeline is for Sudden Valley residents. He asked the
potential number of hookups that can occur in the Geneva area.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, 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
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.
Margaret Curtis, Wilson Engineering, stated there could be 1,700 to 2,000
total hookups, including what is already there. There are about 950 existing homes
in the Geneva area, which is everything west of Sudden Valley.
McShane asked how many hookups are needed in the Geneva area to not
cause serious economic problems for the water district. Curtis stated the utility
local improvement district (ULID) 18 was created to finance the interceptor. They
identified all the vacant parcels in Sudden Valley and Geneva that don't have
houses. There are approximately 2,700 to 2,800 vacant parcels. Some of those
parcels are large enough to be subdivided. They only chose to assess every parcel
at one house. Someone can voluntarily request additional assessments. By doing
the ULID this way, it doesn't encourage development. They expect about 2,000
requests for hook up. Someone is in the ULID for one connection if he or she has a
vacant parcel, unless he or she chooses to restrict it for 25 years. People have a
choice to opt out. They are looking for 2,000 hookups.
Goodwin asked when someone has to opt out.
Curtis stated someone has to decide to opt out by December, 2002. Some
developers who are not ready to request additional assessment will pay for one
assessment, and then request a latecomers for more assessments later.
McShane asked if a zoning change would only have an effect in that decision
if someone is thinking about coming in as a latecomer. Curtis stated that the
Council's decision is important to those who have parcels that could be subdivided.
They are struggling with whether or not to take more than one assessment.
Fleetwood asked how many of the 2,800 lots are currently vested. Curtis
stated it's hard to compare. For example, Lee and Barbara Denke are vested for
230 or 240 lots, but they are only assessed one assessment. The vested lots are in
addition to that number of 2,700 to 2,800 total available lots that were notified.
McShane asked how many hookups they need to be financially viable. Curtis
stated they based the preliminary assessment role on 2,100 hookups. That gave
individual homeowners a trunk sewer cost of $2,400. An onsite septic system is
more like $8,000 to $12,000.
Caskey- Schreiber stated some of the existing homes are going to have to
pay the assessment fee of $2,100. She asked if that is included in the 2,100
homes that have to hook up. Curtis stated existing homes on septic systems in
Sudden Valley that were built during the moratorium will have to hook onto the
sewer. They were notified. They are included in the 2,700 who were notified.
They can't opt out because they've already signed a no- protest agreement. Part of
the 2,100 hookups that the water district needs can include those existing homes in
Sudden Valley that have septic systems.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, 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.
Roy asked for clarification of the cost difference between a hook up and
septic system. Curtis stated the cost is $2,400 for trunk sewer and $8,000 to
$12,000 for a septic system.
Roy stated there is some wiggle room to increase the cost to the homeowner
and still make it a lesser cost than a septic system for the new homeowner. Curtis
stated that is correct. When they notified the 2700 parcel owners that they were in
the ULID and would have to participate, less than three percent protested the
formation of the ULID. That is a fair indicator that people are interested.
Goodwin showed a map of Geneva /Hillsdale.
McShane stated the area he calls Hillsdale is in the UGA north of the city
limits at the north end of the lake. It includes Tweed Twenty.
Goodwin stated there is vacant land in the R5A area and in the RR2 area
around Agate Bay. There are some vested plats there, but not many. A good
portion of land between Agate Bay and north of the lake can be further subdivided.
There is property zoned rural, one unit per two acres (R2A) and is in larger parcels
with more acreage. Much of the RR2 is currently at a low density.
McShane stated there are some significant differences here if they change
zoning. In areas zoned rural residential, one unit per acre (RR1) and RR2 at the
north shore, there are currently 302 homes. Under current zoning, they can have
as many as 1,210 homes. At R5A zoning, the total build out would be 456 homes.
Goodwin stated that area doesn't have water or sewer.
McShane stated the R2A area is undeveloped in 20 -acre parcels. The
number of total homes currently is 115. Leaving the density as it is would create a
build out of 419 homes. That area is bracketed by RR2 zoning already. If they
allow RR2 development to continue to pinch in that area, it would be logical that
someone would think about developing it at a density of RR2. From the sewer and
waterline perspective, that may happen.
Goodwin stated the City of Bellingham is working on some acquisitions in this
area. They are still under negotiations. Take that into consideration once those
areas are made known.
Goodwin displayed the map of Lake Whatcom /Sudden Valley, including some
areas north and south of Sudden Valley. A few areas are fairly undeveloped and
zoned for a higher density. Areas southeast of Sudden Valley is the Firwood Camp.
They chose to leave the area zoned urban residential, three units per acre (UR3)
even though it is substantially undeveloped. The land to the south is still zoned
R2A, even though it is in much larger parcels. That is an area that has a potential
for further subdivision and development, if they ever chose to do that. There are
some areas zoned R2A north of Sudden Valley that are still in large parcels. A lot of
the land along the South Lake Whatcom Boulevard can be further subdivided.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, Page 7
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.
1 Those areas are fairly steep. Land that can be further subdivided won't be very
2 valuable.
3
4 Jamie Henifin, 17 Strawberry Point, stated he wanted information sent to all
5 the property owners in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Fewer than three percent
6 challenged the ULID, and there aren't very many people at this meeting. It seems
7 that not a lot of people knew what was going on. People would be at this meeting if
8 they understood the amount of money the County would be pulling out of their
9 pockets by doing this downzoning.
10
11 He stated the landing zones for the TDR programs were not very good, and
12 they need the City's participation to entice a property owner in the watershed by
13 using better incentives. He asked why the County cannot open up more of its area.
14 It's set up in the urban residential, mixed use (UR -MX) zones now. This is a good
15 plan, but it was set up to fail. There are many smart people in the community that
16 can develop and make the area grow. The County hasn't given them a chance to
17 make it work. Open it up to zoning where there is already water and sewer.
18
19 McShane stated they've discussed this issue in determining where the new
20 urban growth areas would be. They also may want to reduce density in agricultural
21 areas. They discussed opening up areas in the county. If zoning changes were
22 implemented, the total amount of building sites would be 2,000. If they do a TDR
23 program that will take care of all these and any other vested lots, they are talking
24 about 3,000 to 6,000 homes sites, including agricultural sites. Determining where
25 those sites should go will be hard to do. The Council will need a lot of input. The
26 other difficulty with TDR's is that they have to find areas where they are okay with
27 high densities, but not real thrilled about a high density. If they want a high
28 density in the middle of the city, they shouldn't require developers to pay for it.
29 There has to be a motivation for someone to pay for the development rights. This
30 is something they need to think about. He asked for suggestions on areas that
31 would be good receiving areas.
32
33 Henifin asked how long the TDR program has been in affect. Goodwin stated
34 it is going on four years. They haven't transferred one density yet.
35
36 Henifin stated it is difficult for him to listen to the councilmembers explain
37 where the transfers would go, when the program has been in place for four years
38 and not one transfer has happened. They knew there was a problem two years
39 ago. If it were a good plan, developers would act quickly on it. The Council should
40 ask the staff to look into where it would work.
41
42 Goodwin stated the staff needs to look at the Yew Street area, which is one
43 of the areas that Mr. Henifin has an interest in. The area is zoned at a density of
44 two units per acre, and as soon as the sewer is installed in three years, the density
45 should be increased to four or six units per acre. They are looking at the five -year
46 review areas in the urban growth area. Birch Bay is talking about increasing its
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, 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.
urban growth area. If that is necessary, those should be accompanied with the
right to purchase development rights, and not have just a free increase.
Roy stated there have to be incentives built in for the developer. It has to be
something the developer can't get any way other than buying it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated King County has a program in which a developer
must acquire rights from another area every time the County approves an upzone.
Whatcom County can do something like that here. The incentive is that the
developer would be granted an upzone if he or she acquires some rights from a
location the County is trying to move out of.
Henifin stated the County Engineer explained to him that it will be about
three years before the sewer goes through on Yew Street. The Council should take
immediate action to get buildable lots out of the watershed. Immediate action
would be to open up zoning that is enticing to a developer.
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association (BIA) Executive Officer, stated the
Board of Directors decided not to take a position on the moratorium. There seemed
to be no clear and present danger to public health and interest, but it was for a
community time out to put together some things that would address the immediate
problems of water quality in Lake Whatcom and develop some things that may set
into place ideas that would allow building in the future that would protect water
quality in the lake. The downzone is more draconian than what they had originally
hoped would come out of the moratorium. The concern is that before taking that
step, look at things that need to be done. There is a difficulty in creating a
stormwater improvement system that would begin to address existing development
as well as new development. Houses that haven't been built yet are not polluting
the lake. There are a number of developments and human activity that cause
runoff into the lake, which causes concerns about the surface water. The water
quality is excellent at the point where public water systems are withdrawing it.
Surface water quality is a result of existing and present human activity around the
lake. Those things can and should be mitigated. Look at development standards
for the future. The BIA proposed a stormwater improvement district and standards
that can result in a net reduction of the amount of runoff from surrounding
properties. Those immediate things would affect the water quality around the lake
now. That ought to be considered before a moratorium on people who have an
opportunity to buy and build homes. Some people may profit materially from a
downzone because the land will become more valuable. Others will lose
considerable amounts of their investment in the watershed area. If the water
quality is the problem, fix the things that can be fixed first. Some people are doing
a decent job of keeping pollution out. Consider those first.
Gary Reed, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County President,
stated the BIA feels that the quality of the unfiltered intake is some of the highest
in the state. This is a question of land use and lifestyle. This is a worthy goal and
a valid concern. The BIA is concerned that they can't take this out of context of the
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, 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.
comprehensive plan. If they take 2,000 units away from this area, they have to go
somewhere. The people who are taken out of the watershed are going to go into
the county and buy five -acre lots. They will have a view of Mt. Baker instead of the
water. By shifting 2,000 units, they have created urban sprawl in contradiction to
the Growth Management Act. The City of Bellingham will not accept these
densities. If other small cities do, it accelerates their use of land and projections of
use, which creates increased UGA's, which creates urban sprawl. If they do absorb
it in Blaine or Ferndale, he asked what planning model has been developed. It is
the commuter model, which many people avoid. It creates pollution and traffic
problems. There would be a disconnection between where people work, go to
school, live, and vote. The drinking water is fine, and surface water could be
improved. Make the decision in context, or they will create chaos in the planning
process.
Erik Golub, 976 Sudden Valley, stated downzoning is the wrong solution to
fix water quality. Bellingham is not the only city in the country that is being
challenged by water quality issues. Science is rising to those challenges. There are
methods of treating stormwater. The County should spend its time and resources
to charge the engineering community to come up with better methods of treating
stormwater.
Roger Ellingson, Land Use Attorney, stated he strongly endorses a
downzoning for the Lake Whatcom watershed, but the proposed rezone falls short
in density reduction. Don't create more human activity in an irreplaceable
watershed.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Ellingson continued to state they need to compensate property owners for
the loss of any economically viable use of their property. An ineffective watershed
management program may postpone the death of the lake or ruin of the water, but
it will still occur. Conservative management is key for an appropriate watershed
management program. Until they know that additional development in the
watershed will not further degrade the water, development should be minimized
and controlled when practical through a comprehensive work plan. Not a single
solution suggested will work. All of the suggestions are a part of an appropriate
work plan for the watershed, which should include downzoning, TDR's, tougher
stormwater treatment standards, low impact development standards, incentives for
lot consolidation, retrofitting of existing stormwater systems, and new voluntary
methods for raising money for acquisitions of critical lands. Water District 10 must
be dealt with after further investigation of their financial circumstances. Rezones
can affect legally platted lots. They can rezone Sudden Valley, but they can't
eliminate any economic viable use of property without compensation. He's
proposing to compensate people through TDR's. A successful TDR program is
critical to a successful watershed management program. It is a method of
compensating the property owners. It pays for itself. TDR's can also be used to
protect agricultural lands. The City of Bellingham has a TDR program, and is in the
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
process of trying to expand the receiving areas. The City's TDR program doesn't
appear to work either. That doesn't mean a working program can't be developed.
They need the cooperation of citizens, developers, the BIA, the real estate industry,
and banks. They have to involve those people. He's hearing that the BIA is willing
to work to make the TDR program work. The most crucial component is how to
treat those people who are going to lose their rights. There is no better way to do
that than through a successful TDR program. Right now, property owners who
receive an upzone don't pay anything for the benefit that they get. People who
receive a downzone are supposed to be paid for their loss. TDR programs can
require a purchase of a TDR or a deposit into a TDR bank in exchange for an
upzone. Once the funds are put into the TDR bank, the County or City can use
them to purchase the development rights of people who are affected by a
downzone or restrictive regulations. One of the problems with facing a downzone
right now is someone doesn't know what the limitations are in the County or City of
Bellingham until the financing mechanism is in place. Elimination of 20 percent of
the build out in the watershed is not adequate. They've already got problems.
The lake is already listed on the 303(d) list. They are going to have to go well
below a 20 percent reduction. Don't take care of it through trampling on the
property rights of the people who live in the watershed. Take care of those people
because they put their money in their property. The way to take care of them is
through acquisition programs and TDR's. They don't need to worry about whether
it can or can't be done. They need to just do it. It's been done elsewhere.
Causing urban sprawl is not the solution. Put a ring around Bellingham to prevent
more agricultural land from being taken. They will then begin to increase density in
Bellingham, which helps the transportation issues and create better communities.
They do not want to make a watershed management program a series of political
battles. They need to make it a comprehensive package, and fight that fight just
once. Make the City of Bellingham belly up to the bar. Most of the people drinking
this water are residents of the City of Bellingham.
Tom Pratum, North Shore Road, stated that if the lake were downzoned, his
property would also be downzoned, and he would lose value. Regarding the issue
of sprawl, the question isn't whether or not they will have sprawl, but if they are
going to have sprawl in the watershed. It's difficult to argue that driving to Sudden
Valley is different than driving to Ferndale. Sprawl is not an issue. Some of the
councilmembers know that he is very interested in zoning. He is not a planner and
doesn't have any qualifications. This proposal is good from a zoning perspective.
It's one of the things that have to be done. It would be a mistake to assume that,
if the land use is residential, rezoning would have little affect. There are many
residential land use parcels that could be subdivided, and a rezone could have an
effect. The same is true of areas that are classified as forestry and open space.
His family owned a parcel on Academy Road that they donated to the Land Trust.
That parcel was classified as open space, but it didn't stop people from offering to
buy it anyway. The only thing that happens when taking land out of the open
space classification is that the person has to pay the back taxes. It is not a
financial disincentive. It is still worth rezoning. On the north shore, even if Water
District 10 doesn't have water and sewer, there are a few large property owners
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, 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.
such as Trillium, that have agreements with Water District 10 to provide service
when they develop. The rezone would be good from that standpoint. It would
prevent that from occurring.
Not much can be done about Sudden Valley. The Firs is a large piece of
property. It doesn't look residential, but it is zoned UR -3. If developed at that
zone, there could be a couple of hundred houses. Something can be done there.
Other areas in Sudden Valley that are zoned UR -12 could be downzoned. This
proposal keeps parts of the watershed that are not developed and are functioning
as watershed properties in a nonstructural manner. The County staff would classify
this as a nonstructural best management practice (BMP).
Seth Cool, 818 E. Maple Street, stated this is an excellent proposal. He is
appalled that the current build out potential for the Lake Whatcom watershed is
10,000 homes. This is their drinking water. It is important to have clean water.
There are a few holes in the proposal for Sudden Valley and parts of Geneva.
Those should be addressed. The TDR and stormwater systems could be addressed.
Stormwater systems are expensive, and as a taxpayer, he doesn't want to foot the
bill for a development. Many TDR's work and many more don't work. The supply
of development rights is too high around the county. There is plenty of vacant land
with a high density and that can be bought and developed. There is a problem all
around the county. It will take the County and City working together to fix the
problem. Downtown Bellingham should be included. Don't grant upzones without
TDR's. There is no way a TDR program can get rid of 6,000 potential development
rights, which exist in the Lake Whatcom watershed. They have to first get that
number down, then work on ways to promote sending areas. Growth can happen
in a good way.
Dave Simpson, 215 Commercial Street, stated he is a past chair of the
Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission and County went through
the Growth Management Act (GMA) process, they achieved a balance between the
cities and the county in densities. Using numbers from the Office of Financial
Management (OFM), they had to come up with a projection of the amount of
housing units that would be needed. It wasn't an overly generous amount of
housing. Over the last two years, building sites for homes have nearly doubled in
price due to a lack of desirable housing sites in the county. If they are going to
take thousands of units out of the watershed, they need to consider where to put
them according to GMA. Receiving areas need to know about it. The type of
housing units is an issue. These are view - housing units that are valued at
$300,000 per lot. They have to look at the quality, not only the quantity, of the
units they are pulling out of the watershed.
The TDR program and UR -MX zone have been brought up today. The UR -MX
zone was supposed to have a minimum density of seven or nine units per acre. To
get that, a developer had to get TDR's. People have been able to take areas zoned
for multi - family housing, and the City allowed them to put in single - family housing.
Densities have been voluntarily reduced. The idea of a UR -MX zone was that, to
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, 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.
get a higher density, the developer had to get TDR's from somewhere, and the
developer had to build to a higher density in that area. TDR's haven't been around
for the last two years in this county. When Sudden Valley was developed in the
late 1960's, there were TDR's in Sudden Valley, for which someone in this county
still owns the rights. They have never been put anywhere.
McShane asked how Mr. Simpson determined a buildable supply when they
know that the zoning doesn't reflect what is buildable. The Council did a land swap
a few years ago between RR2 and Rural Forestry zoning in the watershed. It was a
transfer of development rights. A developer could never have built the homes in
that RR2 zone because it was an impossible place to build. The land was located on
a rockslide. There are some areas that are not going to be built in any reasonable
time because there is not any sewer or water. A change in zoning would have an
impact, but not for a long time. Simpson stated they had to take the marketplace
into account. The City of Bellingham did not want to receive density in the city
limits. Even if they have the density, it doesn't mean it's going to be developed
tomorrow. They have to have a number of desirable densities that are available
now. Some areas they designate may never develop. They have to have an
oversupply of available land beyond what the OFM numbers require. The bare
minimum amount will create a supply problem like they are having now because of
the time it takes to get lots developed and families moved into them. If the County
wants to get a TDR system to work, they need to get input from the builders,
banks, and realtors. It has to be economically viable. If the Council downzones
any property, and puts those people in a nonconforming use status, it may make it
difficult for those people to get financing for doing anything.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:37 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, Page 13
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.
1 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 5/7/2002, Page 14