Ticket-Cascadia-770x150_(1).jpg

The Gristle

Code Scrub
  • Google+

CODE SCRUB: Hard to clean house when the sewer is still backing up.

At the start of this year, the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board issued an order, invalidating the rural element of the county’s comprehensive plan for growth. While the board acknowledged county policymakers have made progress in achieving state goals and coming into compliance with state law, the board continued to find deficiencies in the county plan. Among them, the board found incongruity in the county asserting that rural development shall be governed by county code while the code itself is riddled with soft equivocations, “permissive with words such as ’should be’ and ’where practicable,’” the board noted.

“Permissive language, rather than mandatory,” the board observed dryly, “make these measures largely aspirational.”

The guiding language the board referenced is contained in Title 20 of the Whatcom County Code.

“The purpose and intent of the title,” we’re told in the title’s preamble, “is to further the goals and policies of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan by providing the authority for and procedures to be followed in regulating the physical development of Whatcom County, through coordinating the execution of both public and private projects with respect to all subject matters utilized for developing and servicing land. The objective of this title is to assure the highest standards of environment for living, and the operation of commerce, industry, agriculture and recreation; and to assure maximum economies in order to conserve the highest degree of public health, safety, morals and welfare.”

Inherent in achieving these objectives is that the explaining language is consistent and clear.

Whatcom County planners have long known that Title 20 is not consistent and clear, and they’ve long advocated for a comprehensive review of the code to achieve that goal. Similarly, Jack Louws underlined it as an administrative objective when he ran for the office of County Executive in 2011.

In December, Louws began the process, sending a letter to a selected ad-hoc advisory committee to review Title 20 and recommend changes that could help clarify the meaning and intent of county code. Louws said there are sections of Title 20 that are clearly, obviously in conflict with one another and predicted the committee might quickly identify those. His goals, he said, were procedural, to make county development codes more clear, consistent and simpler.

The committee will hold its first meeting later this month. Yet the timing of this effort—with sections of existing code found deficient by GMHB, and county policymakers resisting (for years) to make it compliant with state law—and even the make-up of the review committee are cause for concern.

“‘Code scrub’ is something we were talking about while I was working at the county,” said former planner Kate Blystone, now executive director of Whatcom Futurewise. “Generally speaking, it is what it sounds like—code cleanup.

“Every day when county staff is using the code for reference or to review applications they find little inconsistencies that they then have to make an administrative call about. The idea of the code scrub is to get rid of those little inconsistencies. It’s done everywhere, but typically it’s done by staff and brought forward in a single ordinance. I believe that was the original intent when we were talking about it while I was at the county. Staff would just go through the code and clean it up.”

Instead, Louws selected a committee that includes some of the most outspoken and fiercely defiant critics of state growth laws and consultants to development interests. Those voices include the mischief-making Citizens Alliance for Property Rights and two of the hardest heads on the Whatcom County Planning Commission. Perhaps more disturbing is who the committee does not include: legal counsel who might advise on the peculiarities of law. The county Legal department has not been charged with preparing a first draft or with providing oversight of the committee’s proposals.

In brief, it does not sound like a committee destined to guide the county into speedy compliance with state growth goals. As a taste of what may be in store, CAPR representative Roger Almskaar advised a council committee last March that the code scrub process could be used to relax, rather than strengthen, certain development standards.

“Changes in the law may be solely cosmetic—removing duplicate provisions, for example—but most changes in words have results,” land-use attorney and former planning commissioner Jean Melious warned. “In other words, they change the law. If you take out a provision that ‘conflicts’ with another provision, that can have a profound effect on the law. The ‘conflicting’ provision may provide safeguards or modifications that will no longer exist if the ‘conflicting’ regulation is no longer in the law.”

“I feel a little alone in the group as the only nonprofit representative, let alone the only person from the environmental community,” Blystone admitted.

“Staff has talked about wanting to rewrite Title 20 for years, but this process is different, an intermediate step,” she said. “The code scrub is meant to remove tiny inconsistencies in the code and make the code clearer, not do wholesale changes to sections that folks don’t like. I’m a little concerned that without clear direction to the advisory committee, we may have some ‘scope creep.’ I’m steeling myself for spotting changes that are outside of the scope of this group and stopping them before they get traction. I’m hoping that my fellow committee members are as committed to the narrow scope as I am.”


blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Past Columns

January 27, 2016

‘YOU HAD ONE JOB’: Two weeks into their short 2016 session, and the Washington State Legislature is already bogged down. The 60-day session is ordinarily designed for adjustments to the… more »

January 20, 2016

A MATTER OF CONVICTION: Problems with the jail did not end when voters rejected a proposal to construct a new justice facility in November; in fact, the problems are just… more »

January 13, 2016

GO ASK ALICE: A groundbreaking study released this week finds that nearly one in three households in the Pacific Northwest struggles to afford basic standards of living, a remarkable commentary… more »

January 6, 2016

ALL CHARGED UP, NO GAS: A new year begins, and with it the oaths of office and the swearing ceremonies of new public officials elected last November. Among these, the… more »

December 30, 2015

AULD ACQUAINTANCE FORGOT: Will 2016 be the year Whatcom County finally achieves compliance with the Growth Management Act, enacted a quarter of a century ago? Perhaps; but it’s doubtful.

Whatcom… more »

December 23, 2015

COAL IN YOUR STOCKING: ’Tis the season for retail sales. Following that, the weakened Canadian dollar coupled with the closure of a major industry and its associated payroll could send… more »

December 16, 2015

Farewell: At the end of their legislative year, city and county councils took time to bid farewell to extraordinary departing members with whom they’ve collaborated and (at times, and with… more »

December 9, 2015

HOLDING PATTERNS: Fallout continues from the county’s calamitous failure to pass a funding package for additional corrections capacity. A 0.2 percent sales and use tax to construct a new facility… more »

December 2, 2015

FACTIONS OF MISCHIEF: All eyes turn this week to Paris, where the largest gathering of world leaders in history begin a multinational effort toward forging what many call the planet’s… more »

Cascadia Weekly

Home | Views | | Archives | Advertising | Contact | RSS

© 1998-2016 Cascadia Newspaper Company LLC | P.O. Box 2833, Bellingham WA 98227-2833 | (360) 647-8200