HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 21 20091 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 July 21, 2009
5
6 Committee Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 3:19 p.m. in
7 the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington,
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Bob Kelly None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15 Seth Fleetwood
16 Barbara Brenner
17 L. Ward Nelson
18
19
20 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
21
22 1. RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE SIX YEAR CAPITAL
23 IMPROVEMENT PLAN (AB2009 -328)
24
25 Alex Cleanthous, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
26 report.
27
28 Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
29
30 Motion carried 3 -0.
31
32
33 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
34
35 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE URBAN GROWTH AREA REVIEW PROCESS
36 (AB2009 -052)
37
38 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, gave a staff report and stated the staff asks
39 the committee to recommend one of the proposed options for the final environmental
40 impact statement (FEIS). The State law requires the County to send a package of
41 ordinances and Comprehensive Plan amendments the State Department of Community,
42 Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) 60 days in advance. Also, staff wants a set of
43 those ordinances that go forward for comment for the public hearing process beginning in
44 September. It's not possible to have multiple options prepared by mid - August, so staff is
45 looking for direction in which option should be prepared into a package. However, the State
46 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) doesn't require a preferred alternative in the FEIS. If the
47 committee isn't comfortable with choosing an option, staff can identify a preferred
48 alternative and prepare a package for that option. The Council could also ask the Executive
49 to make that designation.
50
51 Weimer stated it's an appearance issue if the Council indicates a preferred
52 alternative before moving through the public process. Also, the County Council can't direct
53 County staff to do anything. He asked if staff work on a committee choice would indicate
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 1
1 the Executive's agreement with that choice. The Executive would be the one to direct staff
2 on what to work on. Stalheim stated he would take the committee's choice to the Executive
3 and say it's the choice the Council is interested in.
4
5 Nelson asked what the SEPA would do without a preferred alternative. Craven stated
6 the SEPA would put the option that staff or the Executive chose forward for a public hearing.
7
8 Nelson stated that if the Council doesn't choose an option, someone else has to.
9 Craven stated they don't have to choose for the purpose of SEPA, but for the purpose of
10 practically moving forward.
11
12 Fleetwood asked who decided that this Planning Committee make this decision. He
13 asked if Mr. Kremen has been consulted, and it was his recommendation that the Council
14 make the decision. Stalheim stated the Executive's goal is to support the recommendation
15 of the Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) as much as possible because there
16 was consensus. Two weeks ago, the Planning Committee began to discuss issues that didn't
17 receive consensus. That's when they began to develop the list of options for the Council
18 and public to consider.
19
20 Fleetwood asked if the primary reason to pick a preferred alternative is a practical
21 reason in terms of a staff labor perspective. Stalheim stated that's correct. They would still
22 prepare a package of all three options for the public hearing in September. Practically, staff
23 has to prepare an ordinance package for Comprehensive Plan and zoning code
24 amendments. Preparing three sets of ordinances is impractical.
25
26 Fleetwood asked if the package with all three options is distinct from the ordinance
27 package. Stalheim stated it is.
28
29 Fleetwood stated they could go forward with public review on the package with all
30 three options, and not have the ordinances and attached exhibits prepared. Stalheim stated
31 that's correct. Practically, any ordinance they prepare won't be the final ordinance anyhow.
32 There will be adjustments as they go through the hearing process, Planning Commission
33 deliberations, and the Council's final decision.
34
35 Stalheim submitted and read from a presentation (on file). He read the description
36 of urban growth area (UGA) option one on Council packet page 105.
37
38 Nelson asked the zoning of the urban reserve area. He asked if a forestry zone in an
39 urban reserve would be reduced to a zone of rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A). Stalheim
40 stated urban reserves won't be forestry. Most of the areas are within the existing
41 geography of the urban growth areas.
42
43 Nelson asked if it's more likely that the zoning would be R3A or R5A. Stalheim
44 stated that is correct. They have some R5A zoning and agricultural zoning.
45
46 Nelson asked the reason for the zoning change. Stalheim stated they are sizing
47 urban growth areas to accommodate urban growth. They've heard in the process that there
48 is an expectation that urban density should be allowed in that area. Make sure that urban
49 densities are planned for urban growth areas. Zoning with 40 -acre lot sizes isn't planning
50 for urban densities. They may do a Comprehensive Plan that shows the future urbanization.
51 The zoning may be a holding pattern. There is some concern in the agricultural zones if
52 there is a conflict of uses. They don't want to accelerate the conversion too quickly. Clearly
53 articulate that there will be urban development there in the future.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 2
1
2 Nelson asked if there could be agricultural zoning. Stalheim stated there could be,
3 but the Comprehensive Plan will show the area is planned for urban densities, at least four
4 units per acre. The property will be held in a holding pattern until the property owner is
5 ready to change to urban uses.
6
7 Nelson asked what the zoning would be on a 20 -acre agricultural parcel in the
8 reserve area. Stalheim stated the zone in a reserve area would be either agriculture or
9 R10A zoning.
10
11 Nelson asked if the zone of an area in an urban reserve area would change to R10A if
12 the existing density is R3A or R5A. Stalheim stated the land use designations won't be like
13 that in most cases.
14
15 Nelson stated he would like to see the maps.
16
17 Stalheim read the description of urban growth area (UGA) options two and three on
18 Council packet pages 106 and 107.
19
20 Weimer referenced option three and asked if a City's urban reserve would be held
21 back until the City could update its service plans. He asked if the City would still have their
22 requested population allocation, but that allocation would be in either the UGA or the urban
23 reserve, depending on the City's plans. Stalheim stated that's correct.
24
25 Craven stated that both the population and the geography would be held in reserve.
26
27 Brenner stated option three is confusing because it talks about additional growth for
28 Bellingham, beyond the GMCC allocation, held in reserves. They can't be all things for all
29 cities. Stalheim stated there was Council concern two weeks ago that the GMCC allocation
30 reflected higher- than - expected growth rates for the smaller jurisdictions, and a growth rate
31 smaller than is realistic for Bellingham. Option two lowers the allocations for the smaller
32 jurisdictions and raises the allocation for Bellingham. Option three gives everyone a higher
33 allocation.
34
35 Brenner asked how that translates to all the work the small cities have done so far.
36 Stalheim stated the allocation requests would be the same. The urban growth area would
37 be smaller, but an urban reserve would mimic the jurisdictions' requests. In the next two
38 years, the cities would show the work they've done on the capital facilities and services
39 plans, if necessary, and the County would amend its plan to include the urban reserve in the
40 urban growth area.
41
42 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the urban reserve can be granted sooner than in two
43 years. Stalheim stated it could. The annual docketing process can happen at any point.
44
45 Crawford stated there still seems to be much uncertainty for the urban reserve
46 areas. It's similar to a five -year review area. He asked if including the urban reserve area
47 in the UGA hinges only on a City getting its capital facilities plan done. Stalheim stated the
48 other issues are addressing mitigation for loss of agricultural lands and infill strategies.
49
50 Crawford stated it would be difficult to mitigate for the loss of agricultural lands for a
51 City like Lynden. There aren't any tools to do that. It's asking a lot. Stalheim stated they
52 haven't yet defined what that mitigation means. The City and County must have a
53 conversation about the loss of those lands, and it also depends on the Council's
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 3
1 expectations. Now, the urban growth areas include about 1,000 acres of agricultural zoning
2 outside city limits. That's part of the land supply issue they talked about two weeks ago.
3
4 Crawford stated that's why things are uncertain. Stalheim stated the jurisdictions
5 will want to understand specifically what they must do for the lands held in reserve. The
6 County must provide as much certainty as possible to give the jurisdictions assurance that
7 the urban reserve designation will change to an urban growth area if the jurisdiction does
8 the work.
9
10 Brenner stated the County has said agricultural lands are very significant. The
11 values survey was nice, but didn't address costs. The County is making all these plans and
12 changes that will affect some cities different than others. Everyone should take on the pain,
13 not just targeted cities. They need a workable purchase of development rights (PDR)
14 program. It's not fair to not allow a City to grow at all unless it comes up with an expensive
15 program.
16
17 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's hard to create a market for development rights when
18 there are so many out there.
19
20 Gary Jensen, Ferndale Mayor, stated the Whatcom Small Cities Caucus met this
21 morning and wrote a letter to the Council. He submitted and read the letter (on file). A
22 signature page for the letter will be delivered later. Accept the work the Cities have
23 presented. Each City spent a considerable amount of time to present what the County
24 asked for.
25
26 Crawford stated option one does that.
27
28 Caskey- Schreiber stated the issue is whether each City's capital facilities plan is in
29 line. If they aren't, the County is legally vulnerable to get sued for adopting the plans the
30 Cities wish to adopt. Jensen stated that sets up an extremely complicated system that the
31 Cities don't agree with.
32
33 Crawford asked if the Cities have some other legal opinion that the County doesn't
34 have to show this work. The County is hearing that it won't stand a legal challenge from
35 anyone unless it ensures that the GMCC work is supportable with capital facilities plans and
36 agricultural land mitigation. He asked what is the other view. Otherwise, the County
37 attorneys are telling the Council that's a requirement.
38
39 Weimer stated option one employment and population allocation is based on the
40 GMCC recommendation. If the County Council adopts option one, it seems that is the work
41 that the Cities created. He asked why option one isn't what the Cities worked on.
42
43 Dennis Rhodes, City of Ferndale, stated the City was doing capital facilities service
44 studies to comply with the state, but those are on hold because the urban growth area
45 (UGA) is subject to change because of this action.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber stated the Growth Management Hearings Board is now requiring
48 City capital facilities plans before annexation is considered.
49
50 Stalheim stated the Growth Management Act requires that urban growth areas,
51 including areas with existing adequate public facilities and services or areas that can be
52 efficiently provided with adequate public facilities and services, have a capital facilities plan
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 4
1 to be designated as an urban growth area. The issue is developing a plan to serve the area,
2 including transportation, water, and sewer plans.
3
4 Rhodes stated all the Cities are required to update their comprehensive plans
5 updated by December 2011. That's why they were in the process of going through all their
6 capital facilities studies. It's a lead -in to updating their Comprehensive Plan. They are
7 working to accomplish that requirement, but the studies are on hold because the UGA is not
8 defined, and they know it will change. The City is moving in the direction of creating the
9 plan. The studies will be done this year.
10
11 Brenner stated it's like the chicken or the egg. It seems it's easier to do the capital
12 facilities plan when the City knows the area that is to be included, but they can't include an
13 area in the UGA until the capital facilities plan is done. She asked if the capital facilities
14 plan changes for areas that are out of the UGA and in an urban reserve.
15
16 Greg Young, Ferndale City Administrator, stated the City of Ferndale has had its UGA
17 for some time. The City's water comprehensive plan, transportation and capital facilities
18 plan, and sewer comprehensive plan address the City's ability to serve the UGA in the
19 future. They are not responsible for fire and school.
20
21 Caskey- Schreiber stated the County is responsible for fire and school services. If
22 those services don't exist, the County can't include the area in the UGA. Young stated one
23 purpose of the Boundary Review Board is to ensure these things are in place. They are
24 saying that the City cannot have the UGA it thinks is appropriate in size because it doesn't
25 have a plan in place that it has no control over.
26
27 Caskey- Schreiber stated that's what the Council is hearing. Young stated that is
28 wrong, and would not be supported in a challenge. Cities are responsible for adequately
29 serving the city and the UGA's. Ferndale has those plans in place.
30
31 Kelly stated it's been made clear to the Council that two opposing sides are ready to
32 litigate. He asked if the City of Ferndale's existing process moves toward a capital facilities
33 plan that would address a UGA as the City proposes it. Young stated it would.
34
35 Kelly asked if it's fair to say the City of Ferndale is working on its capital facilities
36 plan, with the idea it would be complete in 2011. Young stated that's correct. The Water
37 Comprehensive Plan was updated a year ago. The Transportation Comprehensive Plan is
38 currently being updated. The update of the Sewer Comprehensive Plan will be given to the
39 development community through a request for proposal (RFP) process.
40
41 Kelly stated the City isn't calling it a capital facilities plan. The County is very
42 vulnerable. It's highly likely that an inadequate capital facilities plan for a proposed UGA
43 would result in losing litigation. Young stated the City refers to its three plans collectively
44 as the City's Capital Facilities Plan. Those three separate plans are incorporated into the
45 City's Comprehensive Plan as the capital facilities element.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the City has a plan identifying measures to pay for those
48 plans. Young stated it does. It's a required component of all those comprehensive plans.
49 One dilemma is a general frustration with this entire process. Many people don't
50 understand the process. Now, County staff is asking the County Council to design a
51 preferred alternative. If County staff prepares the enabling ordinances that go through the
52 public process, and the end product is different, the Council will have to resubmit to CTED.
53 Things are being done in a confusing order because of this time constraint. The EIS is
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 5
1 inflexible, so the Planning staff is faced with the dilemma of having recommendations from
2 the small cities vetted through the GMCC that are outside the limits of the EIS.
3 Theoretically, they would have had the proposals first, before writing the EIS correctly. It is
4 possible to amend the EIS to broaden the employment population bookends to allow the
5 vetted GMCC City proposals to fit. The time constraint is so artificially imposed and rigid
6 that the Council has to make decisions it is uncertain about. Some of the frustration from
7 the Cities is driven by an artificial process that hasn't been explained to anyone and isn't
8 understood. The urban reserve idea they just heard about is a shoehorn method of trying
9 to fit in something that lies outside a preconceived process that no one has explained or
10 understands. They are all frustrated. Use a process that is supposed to be done, even if it
11 means they miss a deadline.
12
13 Fleetwood asked what Mr. Young means by an artificial deadline. Young stated he
14 believes the entire GMCC and urban growth dilemma was driven by a drop -dead date the
15 County was given by the Growth Management Hearings Board. That date - certain has been
16 used as an ironclad end date, and County staff is trying to back -plan all these steps. It's all
17 been driven by the idea that all is done if they don't get done by this date. If that's the
18 case, the County is under an artificial deadline, even though it's imposed by the Growth
19 Management Hearings Board. It's just a date on the calendar that could be modified,
20 possibly with consequences. It's never too late.
21
22 Stalheim stated the original deadline was June 30, 2009. The County received a
23 five -month extension, to December 1, 2009. If the County isn't done, it has to explain itself
24 to the Hearings Board, which will deliberate on what to do. One of the Board's options is to
25 recommend sanctions.
26
27 Caskey- Schreiber stated she understands the pain. Last time the County did this, it
28 took four years. Now they have to have it done in one year. However, the County is victim
29 of the Growth Management Hearings Board decision and the Caitac lawsuit. She doesn't
30 want the County to risk being out of compliance and losing any kind of funding
31 opportunities. She sympathizes with the City of Ferndale, but is willing to keep going
32 forward. They're all going to revisit this in detail through the 2011 process. Now, the
33 County is trying to do the best it can under the situation in which it's been forced.
34
35 Kelly stated it's fair to say there will be more litigation. The County has been
36 promised that today by two opposing sides. They both have indicated they will litigate, so
37 they will litigation regardless of what the Council does. The lawyers get rich and a lot of
38 money is spent, but it gets more refined as they go through it. Stepping back and waiting
39 got the County in the position it is in now. There will be litigation, whatever the County
40 does.
41
42 Brenner stated it was a four to three vote to not appeal the decision. They had the
43 option of appealing it. The County was in a similar situation several years ago, appealed
44 the Hearings Board directive, and won in Superior Court.
45
46 Jack Louws, Lynden Mayor, stated he attended the Whatcom Small Cities Caucus
47 meeting this morning and concurs with the letter that Mayor Jensen read. The appearance
48 of the committee and full Council having this conversation with the cities before the County
49 staff and administration provide a document for review and before the Council receives
50 input does seem inappropriate. Through a public process, there is supposed to be an
51 appearance of impartiality so all sides can be heard. At that time, a legislative body
52 typically takes that information and acts. In this process, two members of the County
53 Council have been very involved in the GMCC. A third Councilmember has attended all the
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 6
1 meetings. Another three councilmembers who weren't involved in the GMCC are now being
2 asked by County planners to make a decision so the staff doesn't have to do any more work
3 than it has to. The appearance is that the Cities are being railroaded. The work the Cities
4 have done isn't being heard.
5
6 He asked that this committee and the Council back away until the public hearing in
7 September. Have staff and the Executive put together a reasonable proposal encompassing
8 much of the GMCC work, which represents the collective wisdom of many elected officials in
9 the county. Incorporate the work of Futurwise, Farm Friends, and others per the
10 Executive's direction. Have a reasonable discussion after the public hearing. He would like a
11 lot of the GMCC recommendations to be included. Administrator Young is correct in saying
12 they need to do this right, even if the County ends up being sanctioned for two or three
13 months. For the good of Whatcom County, the document must be well- considered, well -
14 reasoned, and well- designed so the Cities and the County can work cooperatively to make
15 Whatcom County a better place to live.
16
17 The mitigation for the loss of agricultural land is a sensitive issue. He doesn't have a
18 problem with mitigation if the plan is reasonable. His biggest fear is that they have no idea
19 what mitigation means or what the associated costs will be. He would rather not get
20 involved because it seems to be one more cumbersome step to facilitate the proper growth
21 for the City of Lynden. If they do that, he encourages the County Council to include a well -
22 considered statement in the document so the Cities know what to plan for. If not, the City
23 recommendation would probably be to not go there. It will have consequences for rural
24 Whatcom County and surrounding agricultural land. Take the time to do this right.
25
26 Dominique Zervas, Langabeer & Tull Attorney and Caitac USA Representative, stated
27 nothing allows the County to reserve population. They are to choose a number and then
28 accommodate that number. The idea of a reserve is meaningless. It's another term for a
29 five -year review area. If the reserve area will be used, it should just be included in the UGA
30 so people will have predictability.
31
32 The City proposals aren't present in any of the three options. The GMCC policy paper
33 only reflects those things everyone, including the County, agreed on. Each jurisdiction has
34 their individual, important key areas that aren't included because they may not be shared
35 by each jurisdiction. By the fact that it's not in the policy paper doesn't mean it's not an
36 essential concern of the jurisdiction. Those concerns are very important.
37
38 Regarding this decision today being changed in the future, after the public process,
39 there will be no time to draft a new ordinance within this timeline if the public process
40 shows that there is a need for another decision. If there isn't time now to draft several
41 ordinance, there won't be time by the second Council meeting in September. The Cities
42 already said they would like to see changes. County staff firmly told the Cities that was
43 absolutely not possible to make changes due to time. If there wasn't time for changes a
44 few weeks ago, there won't be time for changes in September. This decision will end up
45 being the decision, without public process. Therefore, put this aside. Encourage staff to
46 draft the provisions they need to in a broad way that allows changes. Allow the public
47 process before the decision is made.
48
49 Brenner stated part of why the County is scrambling is due to the forced deadline it
50 was dragged into by Caitac. She asked if Caitac and Ms. Zervas would be willing to back off
51 if it does take the County longer. Zervas stated she has always encouraged the County to
52 follow the mandates of the Growth Management Act, which includes review and update of
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 7
1 urban growth areas. The County said it didn't need to update the UGA's, just review them,
2 and went to the Board with that conclusion.
3
4 Benner asked if Ms. Zervas would be willing to back off that deadline, because she
5 knows it will take the County longer to do anything meaningful. Zervas stated she can't
6 speak for her client, but her client always said it wants to work with the County.
7
8 Jack Petree, citizen, stated the County told the Hearings Board in 2006 that it was
9 diligently working on this process, and there would be no problem getting done by the
10 deadline, which was in 2007. The deadline was not supposed to be this late.
11
12 The Committee is facing the same thing the public has faced for a very long time.
13 There is no EIS yet. A draft EIS was put out in early May, after the Cities were required to
14 submit their proposals. There is no final EIS that responds to public comments. The final
15 EIS is based on the land capacity analysis that also doesn't exist yet. The land capacity
16 analysis has not been finalized. The Cities and County area still discussing it. There's been
17 no analysis of the rural lands, which was promised.
18
19 The public will get three minutes to give the County Council informed discussion in
20 September on a range of things that don't exist or have been piled on them at the last
21 second. They started this in 2002. There is no reason this couldn't have been done.
22
23 Regarding capital facilities, a challenge by Mr. Bricklin resulted in a finding that the
24 capital facilities plans to support the UGA's created to serve the 1995 to 2050 population
25 addressed in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan are supposed to be done by now. The entire
26 UGA's are supposed to be serviced and ready to be built by now. This is the last year of the
27 capital facilities plans that are supposed to address that. It is the County's obligation, not
28 the Cities' to see that their finished. The Cities are supposed to work in concert with the
29 County to see that's done. If they aren't finished, the County hasn't been doing its job.
30 There's got to be some way to get the information before they make a decision.
31
32 Caskey- Schreiber stated Caitac did not agree to an extension. She asked Mr.
33 Petree's stance if the County doesn't get this done and asks for another extension. Petree
34 stated he likes to see good growth management in Whatcom County that encourages people
35 to live in cities and still offer them the opportunity to live a traditional rural lifestyle if they
36 want to. He has no particular stance.
37
38 Blair Murray, citizen, stated a requirement to change the urban growth area reserve
39 to an urban growth area is that jurisdictions complete public facilities and service plans that
40 demonstrate their ability to serve 20 years of growth in that area. Non - municipal areas are
41 controlled by the County, which does not control any of the service providers. Since 1999
42 when the Columbia Valley UGA was created, the County failed to detail a service plan and a
43 capital facilities plan in those areas. He asked how the County will address that and create
44 some certainty for properties in an urban reserve to be allowed to move into the urban
45 growth area. It seems certain the County cannot provide services, even if it wants to.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's an issue.
48
49 Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, Bellingham, stated he originally liked the idea of
50 the urban reserve. It allows a way to extend the length of time to look at these
51 questionable urban growth areas. They are not going to solve the issue of agricultural
52 mitigation anytime soon. The options will create a framework to force a fair solution within
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 8
1 an interlocal agreement. He likes the idea of pulling out some of the urban growth areas
2 from sensitive watersheds, which is in option three. Many are frustrated with the process.
3
4 When this issue of scheduling was discussed at the Hearings Board, an attorney
5 representing the appellants against the County argued vehemently that this could and
6 should be done in one month. Every time there has been a discussion about an extension,
7 there is an argument put forward to the Hearings Board to find the County out of
8 compliance and issue sanctions. That's the unfortunate environment they are working in.
9 It's not a situation anyone in the County wanted to put on the small Cities. It's being driven
10 by one large corporation looking for a $2 billion decision. It's contaminated a lot of what
11 the community is trying to do in terms of good planning.
12
13 Brenner stated the small Cities are saying it's more difficult to do their capital
14 facilities plan without a specific, identified UGA. She asked if it would be more efficient to
15 designate what they think they can serve as a UGA, and let the City go through the process
16 during the time it takes to decide whether they can. McShane stated he doesn't speak for
17 the Cities. He thinks it would stretch it out to 2011 that they could still do that. He may be
18 wrong. If part of a UGA area were put in an urban reserve, the City could work through
19 that and determine the best location for urban growth.
20
21 Cathy Lehman, Futurewise, stated the number one priority is compliance with State
22 law. This process can be done in the one -year timeline. Futurewise supported the County
23 request for an extension because it knew the County was working in good faith. She
24 doesn't know how Futurewise would feel about another extension or not meeting the
25 deadline. They can't make everyone happy. It's going to be revisited again. Get this done
26 now.
27
28 Brenner stated she knew that one year would not be long enough because of
29 required public process. This is a lot of work. She asked how Futurewise could think that
30 the County could be done in a year. Lehman stated it's been done in that period of time in
31 other places.
32
33 Brenner asked how well it's been done. Lehman stated she doesn't know. It's been
34 done.
35
36 Clayton Petree, citizen, he submitted a letter to the Council on this issue. His letter
37 includes important opinions regarding the different options, growth forecast, and land
38 capacity assumptions. He hopes the councilmembers read the letter.
39
40 Caskey- Schreiber stated they need to put forward a recommendation for review to
41 be compliant with CTED. Craven stated there was a 45 -day comment period on the draft
42 EIS. The September 8, 2009 joint public hearing moves toward a decision. CTED must
43 have 60 days notice before adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. It's not true
44 that the exact wording of that Comprehensive Plan amendment or its enacting ordinance
45 needs to be to CTED 60 days ahead of time. There is opportunity for the ordinance and
46 Comprehensive Plan amendment to be modified. There might be some question about
47 additional notice if there is a complete change from what CTED was notified about. It's a
48 notice to CTED that the County is thinking about doing something. Don't be concerned
49 about not being able to make changes to a draft sent to CTED.
50
51 Fleetwood stated Mr. Jack Petree's testimony referenced several things that don't
52 exist, in suggesting that the public process on September 8 would be ludicrous. He asked if
53 anything does exist. Stalheim stated many things exist. Ms. Craven covered most of them.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 9
1 There is a draft EIS, which did not include a preferred alternative and has been out for
2 comment. A couple versions of the land capacity analysis has been put out for public
3 review. They've also shared those directly with the Cities, before they finished their
4 proposals. On June 23, the County had a public hearing on the City proposals, so they
5 heard from the public about the City proposals before the County staff started developing
6 the County response to those proposals. SEPA does not require the final EIS to be complete
7 more than seven days before the final decision. The draft EIS is the main body of the
8 document. The intention of the final EIS is to respond to comments, correct factual errors,
9 and run another traffic analysis.
10
11 Weimer asked if the County has to send CTED something, if they don't choose a
12 preferred alternative. He asked if they will get in trouble if they choose option one today,
13 for example, and then choose another option later. Stalheim stated one option is for the
14 County to send all three options to CTED. They intend to have the initial options complete
15 by the end of July and the complete Comprehensive Plan, development code package, and
16 land capacity analysis done by the second week of August and out to the public a month
17 before the public hearing. It's best to send a specific ordinance package with the
18 Comprehensive Plan and zoning code amendments to CTED. That is the most defensible
19 way to proceed. If they aren't ready for that, the staff will do what the Council is ready to
20 do in September. If the Council isn't prepared, the staff will do its best to comply with the
21 Growth Management requirements. The notice to CTED is an opportunity to let CTED know
22 that the County is in the process of reviewing this decision and that CTED should weigh in
23 on whether the option is compliant. If there is a big change of course, the State still has an
24 opportunity to participate, just like the public. The State will be given a new package and
25 will have two weeks or a month to comment on it.
26
27 Kelly stated he's looking at option three. He would like to know what it means as
28 they move forward, in terms of their ability to change their minds. The City of Ferndale will
29 complete its portion of the capital facilities plan for their UGA's in 2011. It won't be done
30 any time soon. They will be able to address those issues in the context of urban reserves.
31 He doesn't know how much certainty that gives them. In Whatcom County, they need as
32 much certainty as possible. Asking or pushing cities and districts in a direction where they
33 get real with where they're going in terms of completing capital facilities plans gives
34 everyone an outline of where they're going, rather than arguing about numbers, ranges,
35 and things that really don't exist. At some point, they've got to get a lot closer to where
36 they really can go than where they would like to go. That's his argument for option three.
37 It provides certainty. Folks have to get real to play. That may not be fair to some districts
38 that aren't prepared to complete these capital facilities plans. He doesn't have an answer
39 for those folks. That's the direction they need to go. It definitely lets the agricultural
40 community and Tribes know what's coming. He wants to know how close folks are to
41 getting where they think they're going. The law says they have to have capital facilities
42 plans.
43
44 Weimer moved to recommend to the full Council that the Council ask the
45 Executive, for reasons of staff efficiency, financial savings, and the appearance of proper
46 process, to work with his staff choose a preferred alternative for the FEIS.
47
48 Brenner stated the GMCC went through the process. The Cities made all their
49 presentations. She understood that most of them were reasonable. Option one is more like
50 the GMCC recommendation, but it includes things the GMCC didn't approve. It sounds very
51 negative. She approves of the motion, but include a combination of the GMCC
52 recommendations, done by consensus, and agricultural preservation. She asked why they
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 10
1 can't talk about agricultural mitigation in detail, but they can tell the cities that they have to
2 have their entire plans together before determining the UGA. That's backwards.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber stated she's heard from the attorney advising the Council on these
5 issues that these options were presented to the Council, with the biggest concern being that
6 an area has to have their capital facilities plans figured out. The areas have to show in
7 those capital facilities plans their ability to serve. The County is vulnerable with anything
8 less than that. She's fine with the motion.
9
10 Kelly asked what this does to their timeline if they don't make a decision, send the
11 decision over to the Executive's Office, and the Executive doesn't make a decision. They
12 have developed options because there wasn't consensus in the GMCC policy paper around
13 two issues, the allocation request and agricultural mitigation. The GMCC recommendation
14 approved by consensus is a hybrid of options one and two.
15
16 Caskey- Schreiber asked if they can add a preference that agricultural mitigation be
17 included and that they stay within the scope of the original EIS. Stalheim stated option two
18 has agricultural mitigation. All they would do is change the growth allocations as part of
19 option two to reflect the GMCC recommendations, up to the high end of the EIS. That
20 would be the closest to the GMCC recommendation.
21
22 Caskey- Schreiber asked about the timeline.
23
24 Kelly asked how they, by default, get back to what the GMCC proposed if the Council
25 and the Executive don't make a decision on direction. The GMCC wasn't created to provide
26 policy direction to the County administration. The GMCC was created in an advisory role.
27 Stalheim stated the administration is interested in putting forward the GMCC
28 recommendations, especially those approved by consensus. The legislative issues are now
29 before the Council. If they are going to ask the Executive to choose an option to put
30 forward, he will probably choose the consensus recommendations of the GMCC. They would
31 have to have a conversation about the other issues.
32
33 Weimer stated it makes little difference what they send to CTED. It's more
34 important to maintain the proper appearance that the councilmembers haven't made up
35 their minds before hearing from the public.
36
37 Crawford stated approving this motion is akin to not making any decision at all. He
38 won't support the motion because they shouldn't be in this position to begin with. The
39 Mayors have told the County that the Executive should get staff to work on all the options,
40 and go to the meeting on September 8 with open minds. Send the whole thing to CTED.
41 Had they picked a different attorney to work on this with the County, they'd be getting very
42 different advice. This attorney said to the Council that he's more used to suing the
43 government on behalf of the environmental organizations than he is defending government.
44
45 Fleetwood stated they need to make sure they're prepared for public review in
46 September. Regardless of what they do today, staff will have documents ready for CTED.
47 Mayor Louws and Councilmember Weimer made good comments about appearance of
48 fairness. It seems out of order for a Planning Committee to tip its hat for one option over
49 another before the public process. Therefore, the County Council should not be involved in
50 stating a preferred alternative at this time. It should come from the administration.
51
52 Caskey- Schreiber stated she also supports the motion. She understands Mr.
53 Stalheim's good intention, but it's appropriate for staff and administration to put forward a
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recommendation. When the Council is done with its process, it can fine -tune an option to fit
the public interest and direction of the County.
Motion carried 3 -0.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ON
ATTk `:� �( C
HAT •• I�/
• ;
d,ana' -B _ s— ounciFClerk
SHINS••'
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
't,kaur ie askey -S hreiber, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 7/21/2009, Page 12