Resort Semiahmoo Master Plan amendments revisited

In a May 13 presentation to city council, city manager Michael Jones explained the process by which the area south of Fire Station 62 and west of Semiahmoo Parkway was removed from the Resort Semiahmoo Master Plan (RSMP).

This became an issue as the Woodberry project has moved forward. The Woodberry project has upset some Semiahmoo residents who are concerned that the project deviates from the aesthetics and character of other Semiahmoo developments.

As the Woodberry project gained momentum, attention turned to the process whereby the area encompassing the Woodberry project was removed from the RSMP several years ago.

Speaking at a study session, city manager Michael Jones said there were two fundamental issues that prompted the planning commission’s request to council to docket this proposal. First, he said, “there were approximately 80 acres that were inside the city limits that were not included in the RSMP. So there was a large chunk of property that didn’t have direction.”

The second major issue was the decision by Whatcom County to reduce the city’s Urban Growth Area (UGA). This decision made various proposed developments impossible, including proposed developments called West Semiahmoo and Cannery Hill.

In light of these issues, the planning commission submitted a comprehensive plan application on March 28, 2013 to the city to amend the RSMP. The proposed amendment was included in the docket and submitted to city council for consideration in 2014.

The primary intention was to resolve the long-range planning issue created by the reduction of the UGA, and a variety of alternatives were considered. “Ultimately, the planning commission decided to recommend rescinding the West Semiahmoo and Cannery Hill amendments and remove all areas west of the parkway and south of the fire station from the RSMP, and to accompany that action with the adoption of development standards for future projects in the subject area,” read a city memo.

As with all amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan, there were opportunities for public input into the process, including mandatory public hearings before the planning commission.

In addition, city staff met with Semiahmoo Resort Association (SRA) staff, said Jones. “We had multiple meetings over time, and there were minutes and emails and things went back and forth,” Jones told council.

Jones said it’s understandable that people today don’t remember all of that interaction. “There are folks today who were not on the [SRA] board at that time and may not be aware of that,” he said. “And I’m sure that some people didn’t know all of the things that were happening or be able to keep track of all of the things that were happening because it’s complicated stuff and it’s happening over here [at the city] with people who work on it day in and day out.”

While Jones isn’t certain, he also believes that some members of the public may be confusing inclusion in the RSMP, a planning document, with inclusion in the SRA, a homeowners association. “I think, but I don’t know, that some people believe that inclusion in the RSMP means the project has to be in the SRA and that it will be subject to the SRA’s CC&Rs,” he said. “But that’s not how it works. Working with SRA is an optional thing for a property owner, and it’s also subject to the approval of the SRA.”