Ideological lines were drawn Tuesday, July 13, as Whatcom County Council members discussed a plan to restore urban growth areas to some small cities and other areas in an attempt to settle some legal challenges.
Council members heard from a varying public on the matter - though those opposed to restoring the areas were three times the number of those in favor of putting the land back urban growth status.
The council later decided to withhold a decision until its next meeting on July 27.
Some said the county should respect the property rights of landowners as the paramount duty of government and promote economic development. Others argued that residents for decades have demanded that urban levels of growth remain in cities in order to prevent sprawl from encroaching on forestry and farm lands and to prevent taxes from going up to pay for development that benefit only a few.
My full article from last night’s meeting, right here.
July 14th, 2010 at 10:21 AM
A huge turnout against this county’s sell out to developers. Lots of great voices speaking out against this.
July 14th, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Lamont - but do you think that huge turnout is reflective of the majority? And should the council base its decision off of only the people that came last night?
Also - how do you feel about the point made about Ferndale having had an immense public process going into their recommendations and how that reconciles with a significant majority of those opposed to the ordinance being from Bellingham and not from Ferndale, where they’d like to have that portion of their UGA restored?
July 14th, 2010 at 10:49 AM
I was shocked to hear council member Bill Knutzen refer to Bellingham residents as “Europeans and Californians” whose opinions should be ignored in favor of small city mayors (who supported him during his campaign) at last night’s meeting.
I hope Councilor Knutzen realizes that Bellingham residents are smart enough to understand that the county is required to maintain roads and provide other services to support small cities. The cost of road construction, maintenance and repairs costs whatcom county taxpayers millions and millions of dollars each year.
For the life of me, I can not figure out if Bill Knutzen is arrogant or if he is incabable of understanding the costs associated with poorly planned development. (Good development requires a solid Capital Facilities Plan - which none of the small cities have in place). For details, please see David Stalheim’s comments at:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0ByRbnb53t3dnNTVhODllNjYtYjNiYy00NDk1LTllZWUtNzZmOGM5ZDYwOTA2&hl=en
One would think that our local officials would understand voter and property owner frustration with the council’s refusal to be accountable to the voters for the cost of growth and sprawl in our community.
And to think, the new council members ran on a platform that promised citizens would be listened to and that citizen concerns would be addressed without regard for “politics as usual.”
Imagine - calling local registered voters and property owners “outsiders”
Barbs and insults aside - taxpayers have a right to know what development really costs them. Local officials who refuse to listen to citizen concerns about taxation and growth should be voted out of office at the first opportunity.
Jack Petree complimented Futurewise on a great turnout. But not everyone at the meeting was there representing Futurewise. A number of commenters mentioned that last night’s meeting was the first public meeting that they had ever attended. We even heard from representatives from the farming community.
Its time to hold local officials accountable for the costs of sprawl and growth. They can start by providing property owners a property tax impact statement for any proposed development. This is critical, if we want to encourage better planning and put the brakes on frivolous development subsidies in our community.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:07 AM
I would like to repeat Elisabeth’s comments about the people not being from Futurewise. Many of the speakers against the UGA’s were not from Bellingham and not from Futurewise. Our whole community has a vested interest in making sure we use responsible planning. I’m glad that Ferndale is having an open process, the County Council is not. That was one of the major issues of the night.
The turnout shows the breadth and depth of the discontent with the way the county council does business. Closed door, backroom deals with development lawyers from Seattle is NOT how you draft resolutions. This was just a small slice of the growing body of outraged Whatcom citizens, and as the saying goes, they will remember in November.
I think that the county council, as a representative body, should take note that a great many people are upset about this. They need to make their decisions on the law, the county charter, on the information available and what they believe is best for our county. This includes reflecting the public will. So yes and no.
July 14th, 2010 at 11:50 AM
So a question: Why should Ferndale residents not be listened to when it comes to how their city grows in the future, especially if they want to grow their retail base, which is obviously the point of their UGA restoration request.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:04 PM
They should be listened to, absolutely. That’s my point. Most of the decision making is behind closed doors on the County level.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:05 PM
I would agree that Ferndale had a public process and it is easy to see that they were concerned about the UGA being made smaller. I will point out though that Ferndale had no process until ordered to by the County via the Hearings Board in 2008. Prior to that time Ferndale had done no review of its UGA for consistency with the Growth management Act. The mayor did describe that process - they met with and invited people that owned land in the UGA. Of course the majority of those that owned land in the UGAs would be largely supportive of remaining in the UGA.
The way the Council is proposing justification of Ferndale’s still large UGA is by assuming low urban density of 5.7 units per acre in the existing city and only 4 units per acre in the UGA. This density is lower than all of other UGAs and is well below the County’s own Comprehensive Plan goal for Ferndale of 6 to 10 units per acre.
The County designated the area in question as a reserve area in 2009 with the idea that Ferndale needed to complete a capital facility plan for the area and a plan to address stormwater directed to Birch Bay as well as impact to farm land. The Council proposal last night had reference regarding Birch Bay stricken from the facts, but the fact remains the area drains to Birch Bay. The Council should at least attempt to get Ferndale to participate in a TDR program for the area in question such that development of farm land can be reduced. I thought that the mayor’s view of formerly farmed land that was not actively being farmed today said all that needs to be said about his view of farm land.
Personally I think Ferndale growth makes a lot of sense. It’s near the freeway, it’s near jobs and likely more jobs will be located in that area in the future and Ferndale can direct growth away from the best farm land if the city actively participates in a TDR program. But it does not make sense to allow such low density growth in urban areas. I think all tax payers and utility rate payers should be demanding solid capital facility plans for how development infrastructure will be paid for in the future in the proposed growth area. Conservatives want smaller government and as such the days of federal subsidies for sewer systems and city streets may be coming to an end.
One easy example is look at Yew Street in the Padden watershed. One reason the large developments were stalled was the lack of a water tank. The City applied but had not yet received federal funding for a new water tank. Yew Street Road improvements have been largely paid for using federal tax dollars.
It may be that the Vista/Malloy area will be very easily developed and developers will pay for the majority of capital facilities that will be required. But I think it makes complete sense that the public is ensured that such will be the case, or if not, that development there will be so great that local subsidies will be worth it to the tax payers. The County Council should be asking for these plans – it is there job to do so and Ferndale ought not to be refusing. It is their job to be transparent about costs with the public.
As for other areas the Council is considering making urban, I would be surprised if the majority of tax payers would support putting more homes in areas that are known to flood. I suspect that my neighborhood alone pays nearly as much if not more in flood tax than all of Nooksack and at this point in time there is no plan for how to deal with Swift Creek sediment and the filling in of stream and river channels. As a flood tax payer, I would like to see a capital plan for how that problem will be addressed before the homes and businesses get built.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Maybe the council should weight the opposing sides by giving more weight to those who live in the areas of concern.
Bellingham voters should have little say in the zoning of other cities. It’s none of their business.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Dan, were any of the areas that were to be returned to urban growth zoning slated for houses, or were they slated for commercial development? I was under the impression that it was commercial development land that was being added?
Anyway, the other cities in the county need commercial development to expand their tax base to help pay for needed infrastructure improvements and with Bellingham contemplating an increased sales tax, there will be plenty of demand for commercial areas outside of Bellingham.
Bellingham has created a traffic nightmare in the North end of town and I would give anything to be able to avoid even going into Bellingham. Commercial development in Ferndale is needed and actually, over due.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:56 PM
As of now, though, John, the land is still in the county, not in those cities. So their zoning has nothing to do with it.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:01 PM
Sam: There is a need for public process at two separate levels and one does not replace the other.
Ferndale held a public process that considered what was in the best interests of the residents of that city. This formed the basis for the position that was advocated by Ferndale.
However, the mission of the County is much broader than that of Ferndale’s….The GMA requires that growth determinations be made at the County level. Therefore, the County is required to balance needs and requests from all cities and unincorporated areas, and make determinations based on what is best for the entire County. What happens in one part of the County has repercussion in other areas of the County.
Thus, the fact that Ferndale had its own internal public process does not replace the need for public review by the County, or the right of Bellingham residents to weigh in. Those who continue to advocate a parochial attitude where only local residents are entitled to weigh in local decisions fail to understand the purpose and function of County government or the requirements the County must follow under various state and federal laws.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Mr. Galt
It will be our business until the county stops sending us bills for Capital Improvement projects in unincorporated Whatcom County. That could be anything from road construction, to water or sewer lines, public safety or school construction.
Even a die hard conservative should understand that we do not have taxation in this nation without representation. After all, if the council intends to use Bellingham resident’s tax dollars to support growth in the county, (including unincorporated or newly annexed areas near Bellingham). We have a right to chime in and ask the county to be accountable for 1. Providing up to date and complete Capital Facilities Plans; 2. A transparent and accurate accounting of what growth and improvements are going to cost taxpayers for each proposed development.
I can assure you that the developers know what its going to cost and who’s going to pay for it (a small portion by the developers and a much larger portion by local taxpayers). Developers carefully examine the costs associated with development before they begin construction. If the developers know how much we are expected to kick in, why can’t taxpayers know?
Public expenditures are real. Those of us who live in Bellingham (I was raised in the county) have a right to know what costs are associated with growth. You can disagree, but you do so on principle, not fact. Even county kids have to go to school. And, many are bused to the cities.
In Bellingham, not only do we pay for road construction, maintenance and repairs throughout the county, we also pay for the costs of extending water and sewer services out to sprawling development outside of our limits. Pumps and pipes cost millions of dollars to put in the ground. I ought to know, I used to manage a public water system. Yes, the City pays some of the bills (with our tax dollars). Who picks up the difference? The taxpayers do!
No government has its own money. Local, state or federal dollars all come from taxpayers.
Even when impact fees are charged, they often don’t cover the whole cost.
Let’s take a look at other examples. (I’d be happy to use local examples, but we don’t have any data because our county does not track this information).
Arvada, a suburb of Denver, is growing via the tried and true process of land annexation. As part of the annexation agreement, Arvada has agreed to hook up a proposed development, TenEyck, to its sewer system. TenEyck will consist of 90 homes, located 9 miles from the nearest sewer line. The new sewer line will cost between $2.25 million and $2.7 million, yet the average new home in Arvada will bring in only $1,293 per yr in property taxes. Even if all of the residents property taxes were spent paying for the sewer, there would still be a shortfall of well over $2 million. That’s the taxpayer’s share of just one part of a new development.
I’ll be happy to butt out of small city politics when they stop expecting all of the taxpayers in the county to pay for their growth. Until then, expect to hear from me routinely. After all, my last property tax bill was well over $2,600.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Mr. Galt: it’s the business of every taxpayer in Whatcom County. We all pay for infrastructure costs in these UGA’s. They remain in the county (where we all pay) until they are brought into their adjacent city.
One question I have for others is this: do Bellingham taxpayers pay more in total? Since our property values are higher, do we end up paying the lion’s share of growth?
As Dan pointed out, one neighborhood in Bellingham (never flooded) pays as much if not more into the flood tax than the entire town of Nooksack. And Nooksack sees the benefits of the flood tax.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:19 PM
Wendy - thanks for the cogent, clear response to my question. I completely understand your position.
Now, a follow-up and a more complex question. Since I’m not the growth reporter, something always on my mind as I watch this debate is this:
Regarding the debate about population figures, I see criticism about “inaccurate” figures. But as far as I’m aware, aren’t the figures in the proposed amendment partially based on the policy decisions of the elected officials (i.e. ~ the County Council)?
In one instance, the difference between the 2009 figures for Ferndale’s growth and the current amendment is 4 percent, right?
I’d like to hear people’s thoughts on the population figures, the accuracy, and perhaps even see some discussion about projections based on actual figures.
It’s a big undertaking, though, so I understand if nobody is up to the discussion challenge.
July 14th, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Ayn Rand Fan
The proposed UGA area for Ferndale to add is proposed to be entirely residential with on tiny piece zoned light industrial (exists already). The entire area around the Grandview interchange was already in the UGA and is zoned industrial and commercial. A fair bit of this area has been built but does lack sewer, they use septic which has limited some of the business use in the area due to lack of capacity. Two areas are proposed as reserve areas and I believe would require additional study one is near enterprise road near Grandview and the other is north of Slater and east of I-5. The later likely has some attraction for large commercial as it is close to Bellingham. I get a sense that various property owners north, south, east and west of the Slater area are interested in some future large commercial scheme of some kind. Impacts to Bellingham and Whatcom County would be huge as the roads in and out of the area are County roads or to the south city of Bellingham future roads as it abuts the City of Bellingham. Hence, this is more than just a Ferndale issue and apparently you would be part of the scheme driving County roads to shop in Ferndale.
The proposed area for Nooksack would be some residential and some light industrial. Personally, I like how Nooksack has been planning, but am very concerned about the flooding and need to dredge issue on Swift Creek, the Sumas River and Breckenridge Creek. If this issue can be resolved and farm land impacts at least partially off set I’d give it a thumbs up.
I am not sure of Sumas’ intent for the proposed UGA. The area is in a FEMA identified flood area and development industrial or residential will have an impact on other properties in the area. How much is not known because I do not believe the build out of the area has ever been modeled. I would note that a modeling effort for building out another area within Sumas itself had significant off site impacts.
As for your argument that only locals should have a say: That approach would lead to really bad planning. And as a tax payer you should be very concerned about the costs no matter where you live.
July 14th, 2010 at 4:02 PM
From what elisabeth said about Bill Knutzen’s comment concerning bellingham residents, he is utterly failing as the at-large representative on the county council.
.
I live just outside Ferndale, so my opinion on Ferndale’s UGA should count.
Expanding Ferndale’s UGA would take away all incentive for in-fill within Ferndale’s city limits. That’s counter to the city’s stated goal.
Ferndale already has traffic and stormwater management problems that the city does not have funds to address. Expanding without solving those problems first is a bad idea.
An expanded UGA would put more demands on the fire district and school district I live in. I’d be expected to live with reduced services or pay higher taxes because new development in the UGA would not pay for expanded services.
July 14th, 2010 at 7:38 PM
elisabeth, Suzie Q, and Wendy,
I appreciate your comments; they clearly translate the perplexities of urban growth and management into terms that regular people who are not in the trenches with you can comprehend.
I always get a better grasp on understanding local issues when you add your contributions to Sam’s blog.
Thank you.
July 15th, 2010 at 10:37 AM
My father was born in Sumas. My grandparents lived in Ferndale for 50 years. I was born and raised in Bellingham, where I currently reside, but I lived in Ferndale for 10 years. I have a vested interest in what happens to Whatcom County. My opinion should count also, even though I no longer live in Ferndale.
July 15th, 2010 at 11:17 AM
J.Galt said : Bellingham voters should have little say in the zoning of other cities. It’s none of their business
W.Harris said : What happens in one part of the County has repercussion in other areas of the County.
People in smaller towns or in between towns will “go downtown” when they need services. For the biggest things, this means Bellingham. So we build things in Bellingham big enough to accomodate the whole county, like theaters, the airport, or Bellis Fair, or a potential sports stadium, and then we hook up all the highways and traffic control and utilities and things that spring off it. Bellingham is more than just “one of the towns”. It has taken a role that services the whole county. This is best done with a plan and agreement between parties. Everson has no movie theater, they count on Bellingham to deal with the capital investment and traffic that goes with that.
If Ferndale puts in something just like Bellis Fair, that could devalue the capital investment of Bellingham. If Lynden increased their airport to compete with our existing one, this would waste all the expansion of roads, parking, boarding lounge etc. the Port just did. There needs to be a plan, because otherwise the so-called major center would not spend as much money accomodating the traffic and service needs of the whole county.
Do we want an equal number of people living in each part of the county, or is it more efficient to clump residents and businesses together, where services and road investment occurs?
Yes, it needs to be collaborative in all directions. We’re in this together.
July 15th, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Interesting comments and unlike some other blogs almost polite. Mr. McShane, thank for your comments but please do not frame my attitude regarding farms from a three minute comment. I was referring to the people who protest the open,green fields along I-5 and Ferndale who state that it is Ag. land. It is not and has not been so in the recent past. As I stated, it at best is used for cattle and the growing of hay. Again We will pont out tthat the first proposel was to REDUCE our UGA by 57%. We countered with a REDUCTION of 42%. If we can sttle this issue it would allow us to continue planning our future. We feel we are more than staffed with employees ready to accomplish that task. I would defend Bellingham’s right to want to avoid growth and reduce store size. We have voted to go another direction with our EAGLE regulations that do not focus on a size but how it is constructed and how it integrates in our community. GREATER GOOD is the G in EAGLE.
July 15th, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Sam: a great question, but as you note, this is a complicated issue to tackle in a blog response. However, while population figures are partially formed by policy, but they are not arbitrary and also incorporate some technical considerations.
They are chosen from a high and low range of OFM population projections and involve input from the cities and unincorporated areas, the public, the Executive, Planning Staff and Planning Commission. Other factors are relevant in this determination, such as past and current growth patterns, economic conditions, employment forecasts, etc.
These factors, and the public’s vision for the future of the County, are included in a land capacity analysis, which provides a methodology for determining if current UGAs are oversized or undersized. Also quite relevant is the determination by the Growth Hearings Board that our pre-November UGAs were oversized and failed to prevent sprawl. There is also a current Hearing Board lawsuit filed by cities and developers unhappy with the result of the November determination.
The bottom line is that a population projection may be made anywhere within the OFM range, but the public expects some justification because it is an important factor in sizing UGAs.
Many people feel that the current County Council is simply “making up” increased population projections to justify increased UGAs without proper analysis and public input, at a time when new information, as reflected in the Herald, indicates that County growth has decreased since we received the previous population projections.
Current Council believes that although the information from the cities to justify increased growth was considered in the November determination, it was not properly included by prior Council and that they are making valid adjustments, and analysis and public input were included in the November process. Other members of the public and the County believe the increased UGAs are amendments that require a new review and public input process.
In an attempt at brevity, and without researching this issue, this may not be completely accurate, but provides a general sense of the issue in a nutshell.
A more interesting point that was consistently raised at the hearing was the objection by members of the public at having to pay for the costs of private development.
July 15th, 2010 at 12:45 PM
I would like to offer some points which may question Dan McShanes accuracy in relation to his Talking Points. Just FYI.
” I would agree that Ferndale had a public process and it is easy to see that they were concerned about the UGA being made smaller. I will point out though that Ferndale had no process until ordered to by the County via the Hearings Board in 2008.
*****City and County worked very closely in 2005/2006 to put together a Buildable Lands Inventory, which was a big part of the 2005 update to the City Comp Plan. The BLI concluded that the UGA was sufficient (actually more than sufficient), but that no changes were necessary at that time. So – untrue. We did have a process. To this day, I do not know that there is a finding that says that our UGA or other UGA’s are “too large.”******
Prior to that time Ferndale had done no review of its UGA for consistency with the Growth management Act.
****See above – a year + process where EVERY PARCEL IN THE UGA AND CITY WAS ANALYZED*****
The mayor did describe that process - they met with and invited people that owned land in the UGA. Of course the majority of those that owned land in the UGAs would be largely supportive of remaining in the UGA.
The way the Council is proposing justification of Ferndale’s still large UGA is by assuming low urban density of 5.7 units per acre in the existing city and only 4 units per acre in the UGA. This density is lower than all of other UGAs and is well below the County’s own Comprehensive Plan goal for Ferndale of 6 to 10 units per acre.
*****That is the way that the County Council is proposing this. The City hopes to far exceed these totals.******
The County designated the area in question as a reserve area in 2009 with the idea that Ferndale needed to complete a capital facility plan for the area and a plan to address stormwater directed to Birch Bay as well as impact to farm land. The Council proposal last night had reference regarding Birch Bay stricken from the facts, but the fact remains the area drains to Birch Bay.
*****The City has adopted stormwater controls which meet or exceed the County’s own standards (2010). I do not know why that was stricken. If the area was in a reserve area as originally proposed (and to be honest, with the political view from the previous council/staff), there was no incentive for the City to develop capital facilities plans today, when there was no expectation that they would become part of the UGA or that those plans would ever be put into place/ come into being. The City is well underway with water and sewer plans, as well as the City-wide transportation study, which will include the entire area, as well as the new reserve areas at Enterprise and Slater. *****
The Council should at least attempt to get Ferndale to participate in a TDR program for the area in question such that development of farm land can be reduced. I thought that the mayor’s view of formerly farmed land that was not actively being farmed today said all that needs to be said about his view of farm land.
As far as farm land – there is little or no farmland in Vista/Malloy area. The only agriculture is hay, cattle grazing, and small hobby farms. No cash crops are grown in the area that we know of. The argument that development of these areas should require a transfer of development rights or farmland is somewhat dubious, as we generally need to have identified an impact to a certain feature (traffic, wetlands, storm water, etc.) in order to require a mitigation. However, the City is exploring TDR programs.
Personally I think Ferndale growth makes a lot of sense. It’s near the freeway, it’s near jobs and likely more jobs will be located in that area in the future and Ferndale can direct growth away from the best farm land if the city actively participates in a TDR program. But it does not make sense to allow such low density growth in urban areas. I think all tax payers and utility rate payers should be demanding solid capital facility plans for how development infrastructure will be paid for in the future in the proposed growth area. Conservatives want smaller government and as such the days of federal subsidies for sewer systems and city streets may be coming to an end.
****Somewhat of a chicken and egg issue here. How do we begin planning if we don’t know the area that we should plan for? If the City’s UGA were to be restored, I totally agree that the City must develop plans to demonstrate that capacity can be provided at the time of development. But it makes little sense to identify very specific conveyance options that can not flex to reflect the individual development choices of property owners.*****
One easy example is look at Yew Street in the Padden watershed. One reason the large developments were stalled was the lack of a water tank. The City applied but had not yet received federal funding for a new water tank. Yew Street Road improvements have been largely paid for using federal tax dollars.
It may be that the Vista/Malloy area will be very easily developed and developers will pay for the majority of capital facilities that will be required. But I think it makes complete sense that the public is ensured that such will be the case, or if not, that development there will be so great that local subsidies will be worth it to the tax payers. The County Council should be asking for these plans – it is there job to do so and Ferndale ought not to be refusing. It is their job to be transparent about costs with the public.
*****The City will not allow development to occur until it can be demonstrated that capacity exists to serve. The Grandview area is a good example of an area in which the capacity has been demonstrated to exist to serve. If it did not exist, the City would likely not annex it.******
July 15th, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Mr. Jensen:
I did not mean to characterize your position I simply stated that “I thought that the mayor’s view of formerly farmed land that was not actively being farmed today said all that needs to be said about his view of farm land.” You have not elaborated any further, but I am hopeful you will as a city leader be concerned about the loss of farm land in Whatcom County even if its just pasture land or hay fields. I would encourage you to work on an interlocal agreement with the County that would allow for some form of off set for the proposed urban areas.
There are three areas that area proposed for urban growth. The Vista/Malloy area was designated as provisional by the County in 2009. This area is underlain by soils that are predominantly only good for pasture or hay. Within the area in question that is what they are used for today along with rural residences and patches of forest. The City’s proposal is to have this area designated for urban residential development at densities that are well under the goal the County Comprehensive Plan has set. It is clear to me that the leaders of Ferndale do not like that higher density goal. That is OK and it may be appropriate given market conditions and if you want the market to be the primary force behind your planning efforts. I just believe that this information should be very clear to the public and it is appropriate for the public to know that the proposed density goals are less than the density goals that were established by the County.
The second area in question is a provisional urban growth designation near Enterprise Road. Soils in that area are Edmonds-Woodlyn and Tromp loams. Both soils are good row crop soils with Tromp loam being good for berries. As the area has been parceled into rural lots, less row crops are present than there was in the past, but significant areas are still farmed as small farm lots. The third area in question is the provisional urban growth area east of I-5 near Slater. This area has historically been hay or pasture.
The proposed urban areas will mean a loss of soil areas that could be or in some cases are used for growing crops or for pasture/hay. I would like to see at least one city take the lead and develop a modest proposal for requiring development rights transfers prior to upzones. I would suggest if Ferndale is interested they could take a lead from the City of Arlington, WA that faced a similar issue as Ferndale regarding large UGAs.
For the proposed two provisional growth areas described above it is unclear to me what the provisional status means. Specifically what will the County require before the provisional status is lifted? It is clear both areas need further study but exactly what that will entail has not be laid out in the ordinance and the impacts of large commercial development in that area could have profound impacts on county roads and possibly City of Bellingham roads as the area abuts the City of Bellingham UGA.
Finally, I think the tax payers and utility rate payers would all appreciate a capital facilities plan for the sewer, water and roads for these areas. These plans not only make it clear on how and how much and who will pay for the improvements needed but will give policy makers a good idea on whether or not a proposed area for development is viable. Too much of our past planning has relied on subsidies or has designated large chunks of land for development that are so expensive that the development never proceeds and better land for development is never even considered. Just a guess, but without those facility plans it can only be a guess, but I think Ferndale might easily become Whatcom County’s preferred growth area.
Finally, I will add that I do not envy the position you were placed in. You inherited an extremely large UGA area that was larger than needed for future growth needs. The time line for review in ordered by the Hearings Board in 2008 was very short.
Long term planning is an ongoing process and takes a commitment of resources and time by our leaders. I think Ferndale has come a long way in a very short time in that regard as has our other small cities. But much clearer planning with excellent capital facilities plans and solid interlocal agreements will be needed. I hope that Whatcom County can meet the needs of the cities and keep pace. What I have seen over the past few months is far from encouraging.
July 15th, 2010 at 3:10 PM
Beartrap:
In the interest of dialog regarding your points, yours bracketed by stars my responses numbered:
*****City and County worked very closely in 2005/2006 to put together a Buildable Lands Inventory, which was a big part of the 2005 update to the City Comp Plan. The BLI concluded that the UGA was sufficient (actually more than sufficient), but that no changes were necessary at that time. So – untrue. We did have a process. To this day, I do not know that there is a finding that says that our UGA or other UGA’s are “too large.”******
1) Perhaps I overstated that Ferndale had no process. But at the close of 2006 the city proposed no changes to its UGA even though the study found as the UGA was as you said “more than sufficient”. In fact, so much more than sufficient in size that they needed be reduced by upwards of 50%. At that point in time no change was necessary, but at the beginning of 2008 the UGA boundaries were supposed to be set based on that review. That was not done and that led to several parties (Weissen, Petree, Futurewise, CAITAC(?)) to appeal to the Hearings Board. All parties agreed that the UGA boundaries needed to be reviewed. Only then did the UGA boundary review process begin with Ferndale not submitting a boundary proposal until well into 2009.
****See above – a year + process where EVERY PARCEL IN THE UGA AND CITY WAS ANALYZED*****
2) See above. But I will add that the parcel analyses done by Ferndale puts Ferndale on a good track for long term planning and helped Ferndale and the County select the areas that would best be removed from the UGA due to land use constraints such as extensive wetlands etc.
*****That is the way that the County Council is proposing this. The City hopes to far exceed these totals.******
3) I am very glad that the City hopes to exceed those totals with denser development than the County is stating as a factual basis for the area required for the UGA size. That fact, if it is true should be stated in the record as a fact versus the low expectations that are stated as fact. But that creates a dilema. If that is the case the UGA as proposed by the County and fully supported by the city is much larger than needed for the projected population growth agreed to be the City and County. The lower density numbers are being used to size the UGA to include more area than is necessary under the GMA.
*****The City has adopted stormwater controls which meet or exceed the County’s own standards (2010). I do not know why that was stricken. If the area was in a reserve area as originally proposed (and to be honest, with the political view from the previous council/staff), there was no incentive for the City to develop capital facilities plans today, when there was no expectation that they would become part of the UGA or that those plans would ever be put into place/ come into being. The City is well underway with water and sewer plans, as well as the City-wide transportation study, which will include the entire area, as well as the new reserve areas at Enterprise and Slater. *****
4) I too am absolutely perplexed at the removal of reference to Birch Bay drainage. I can not speak to a comparison and contrast of the County standards and city of Ferndale standards for strormwater.
I am glad that the city is moving forward on capital facility plans. I would have presumed that those plans would be absolutely required prior to the completion of the next UGA boundary review due at the end of 2011. Why not wait till then when the plans are done? And allow for time to determine if the storwater and development standards will meet the protection level needed for the upper Birch bay watershed.
****Somewhat of a chicken and egg issue here. How do we begin planning if we don’t know the area that we should plan for? If the City’s UGA were to be restored, I totally agree that the City must develop plans to demonstrate that capacity can be provided at the time of development. But it makes little sense to identify very specific conveyance options that can not flex to reflect the individual development choices of property owners.*****
5) Ferndale is not the only City that has complained that an area should be designated as a UGA before it is put in a UGA. But is that not what the GMA requires – that UGAs have adequate capital facility plans? Otherwise we end up with lousy nearly unbuildable UGAs that give everyone a false sense of where development will be heading in the future. The 2009 UGA boundary passed by the County set the Vista/Malloy as a resrve area for just that purpose. Other areas were completely removed.
*****The City will not allow development to occur until it can be demonstrated that capacity exists to serve. The Grandview area is a good example of an area in which the capacity has been demonstrated to exist to serve. If it did not exist, the City would likely not annex it.******
6) I am not sure why you use the Grandview area as an example. Under the 2009 UGA that the County passed the Grandview area was left in the UGA. The County fully agreed at that time that the area should be UGA and that the City could serve the area. I concur with that conclusion.
Have a good evening you planning policy wonks
July 15th, 2010 at 7:03 PM
Just a note:
County Council Members legally represent the needs and viewpoints of all of their district. Last time I looked, those districts include the city of Bellingham.