Bellingham sits out sprawl fight

City officials criticized for lack of action

JARED PABEN

E-Mail

Text Size:

tool goes here

Five new parties have joined in the high-stakes legal fight over the future of Bellingham’s outward growth. But the city will sit on the sidelines.

That’s drawing criticism from former County Council member Dan McShane, who joined the legal fight and says city leaders need to act now to prevent sprawl.

“They’re not willing to put any money or effort into it whatsoever,” he said.

TIMELINE

Several other parties have joined a case over Bellingham’s future and urban growth throughout the county. The case is before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. A timeline of the controversy:
May 2006: The Bellingham City Council approves a resolution asking Whatcom County to give the city 2,128 more acres of urban growth area, expanding urban development north to Smith Road.
June 2007: Ferndale-area resident Bob Wiesen files a petition with the state growth board, saying Whatcom County missed its deadline to review and revise its urban growth areas.
August 2007: That growth board decides Wiesen is right and orders the county to do the review by Feb. 25, 2008.
Feb. 12, 2008: The County Council declares that review complete. The review shows adjustments are needed, but the county doesn’t immediately make any changes, saying they’re not legally required.The council also approves a plan that adds only 286 acres of urban growth area to Bellingham, mostly near King and Queen mountains.
March 10: Wiesen files petitions at the growth board against both of the County Council’s decisions.
March 13: Caitac USA Corp. files petitions against both decisions. Caitac can’t build up to 1,900 homes north of Bellingham and west of Guide Meridian because the council decided to add urban growth area elsewhere.
March 24: Eric and Robin Hitz, owners of 40 acres of Queen Mountain property that the County Council included in the urban growth area, ask the board to allow them to intervene in the case to protect the inclusion of their property.
April 4: Former County Council member Dan McShane asks to join the case to help defend the county.
April 10: Dean Haverstraw files a petition with the board challenging both county decisions. Haverstraw is president of the WFC Rangers, a soccer club, and Caitac USA has promised the club new facilities as part of its proposed development.
April 11: Futurewise, a statewide anti-sprawl group, files a petition. It accuses the county of failing to revise urban growth areas, some of which contain extensive environmentally sensitive lands. That same day, Bellingham resident Jack Petree, a growth researcher whose clients include developers, files petitions challenging both county decisions.
April 14: The board lets the Hitzes in the case. Caitac objects to McShane joining.
April 15: Wiesen objects to McShane joining the case.
April 22: Futurewise asks to join to argue against Wiesen and Caitac.
May 8: Petree argues against letting McShane join in.
May 28: The board lets Futurewise and McShane join the case.
June 5: The parties sign a settlement to the urban growth areas review challenge. It states that Whatcom County didn’t properly review urban growth areas.
Aug. 20: A hearing in front of the board is scheduled for this day. The location is to be determined.
Oct. 13: The board is expected to issue its decision.
-- JARED PABEN

City officials say they want to limit outward growth but that, legally, city government wouldn’t have anything new to contribute by joining the case.

“If the city felt like it could add something significant to that litigation that isn’t already in the record, then I think council and the mayor would have been receptive,” said Alan Marriner, assistant city attorney.

The County Council let the city add only 286 acres of urban growth area on King and Queen mountains, which went against the city’s formal 2006 request for more than 2,000 acres stretching north to Smith Road. In March, landowners Caitac USA, which can’t build a 1,900- unit development because of the county decision, and Ferndale- area resident Bob Wiesen challenged the county’s decision at the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, setting off the legal battle.

Since the petitions were filed with the board, others have joined the case. Two other parties have challenged the county:

Dean Haverstraw, president of the WFC Rangers soccer club (Caitac USA promised the club new soccer facilities as part of its development).

Bellingham resident Jack Petree, a growth researcher whose clients include developers.

Three others have joined the fight to defend the county’s decision:

Eric and Robin Hitz, owners of 40 acres on Queen Mountain slated for residential development because of the County Council decision.

Former County Council member McShane.

State anti-sprawl group Futurewise.

After last fall’s election, Bellingham leaders no longer support the city’s 2006 comprehensive plan recommendation for 2,000 acres, but they’re stuck with it, unless they formally change it.

That’s exactly what they should do, McShane said. Mayor Dan Pike is now wavering on limiting the city’s outward expansion, said McShane, who ran against Pike but lost to him in the general election last fall.

But, Pike said, going through the long process of changing the plan would be a “waste of time and resources” because the board’s ruling may require different changes anyway.

“To make an official change of position there’s a fairly lengthy process we have to go through,” he said. “It doesn’t make sense to me to do these things multiple times.”