Lake Whatcom Downzone Delayed

Tom Pratum is a watershed resident who is very concerned about the future of Lake Whatcom.

On November 21 Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (PDS) presented the Whatcom County Planning Commission with a revised downzone proposal for the Lake Whatcom watershed.

The downzone originally proposed by County Councilmember Dan McShane in May, and passed on an interim basis by the County Council on June 18, would have rezoned all of rural, residential and urban areas of the watershed either R2A or R5A (see accompanying map for defined zoning designations).

In the proposal presented by PDS, the urban growth areas of Geneva and Hillsdale were not rezoned at all, as was also the case for much of the urban zoning in Sudden Valley. Other changes include leaving the rural residential zoning along much of the shoreline of the lake in place.

These changes are partially a result of trying to match zoning to existing densities, and partially due to the fact that the county zoning code dictates urban residential zoning cannot be developed at a density higher than one home per five acres unless sewer and water are present. This latter fact leaves the development of areas with urban zoning designations to the whim of the providers of those services: the City of Bellingham in the case of Hillsdale, or Whatcom County Water District 10 in the case of Sudden Valley and Geneva.

The analysis of this proposal presented in the PDS staff report stated that the rezone would reduce the ultimate build-out of the watershed by 1,700 homes. Planning Services director Sylvia Goodwin stated at the hearing that the original downzone proposal would have reduced the ultimate watershed build-out by 3,500 homes. In the revised proposal, a potential build-out of 7,000 additional homes would remain.

Conspicuously missing from the staff report was a traffic analysis regarding the effect of all those additional homes. The report stated merely that the downzone would reduce the number of average daily trips by 17,000, and that no comment was received from Whatcom County Engineering regarding this. One would wonder how the watershed is supposed to handle the expected 70,000 additional trips at build-out, but this is not addressed in the report.

Predictably, the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County and real estate interests blasted both the downzone and the staff report. Using the Growth Management Act, which they diligently fought at inception, as their tool, they claimed that the county has not taken into proper account the future housing needs of this region.

Apparently this area’s future water needs are immaterial to them–once the builders have gotten their money out of development and the realtors theirs from the property transactions, any future watershed issues are of no concern. To these groups, short-term financial gain is all that matters, and the loss of even one potential building lot in the name of watershed protection is unacceptable.

The Planning Commission left the record open for public comment until December 16, and is expected to issue a final opinion in early January. The County Council will likely extend the interim downzone at its final meeting of the year on December 10.