HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works January 27 20091 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Public Works and Safety Committee
3
4 January 27, 2009
5
6 Committee Member Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 1:35
7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 L. Ward Nelson None
11 Barbara Brenner
12
13 Also Present:
14 Sam Crawford
15 Seth Fleetwood
16
17
18 SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
19
20 1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2009 -021)
21
22 Caskey- Schreiber nominated Brenner by acclamation.
23
24 Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner out of the room.
25
26
27 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
28
29 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE BY ADDING
30 CHAPTER 20.78 — TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
31 (AB2009 -066)
32
33 Mike Donahue, Public Works Department, stated there is a substitute for Council
34 packet page 217.
35
36 Larry Toedtli, Transpo Group, submitted a presentation (on file) and read the
37 presentation regarding transportation concurrency.
38
39 Brenner referenced the last bullet point on Council packet page 207. She asked
40 what is considered as a relatively small project. Donahue stated the standards of a
41 threshold that is at least less than 40 lots. He doesn't have an exact answer. Short -plats
42 won't be required.
43
44 Toedtli stated staff will be able to shrink down the traffic study requirements
45 compared to the interim ordinance, if they know there won't be an impact.
46
47 Brenner asked if it takes a change in State law to change the six -year timeframe.
48 Donahue stated that is State law.
49
50 Toedtli stated this isn't about collecting money. It's about establishing concurrency.
51
52 Brenner referenced the third and fourth bullet points on Council packet page 207.
53 She asked for an example. Donahue stated one house generates ten trips per day in all
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 1
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
direction. A peak hour is about ten percent of those trips, so one house will develop one
peak -hour trip per day. This would be for ten houses or more.
Toedtli stated that in a typical housing development, 70 percent of the traffic during
the evening peak hours is in -bound and 30 percent is out - bound, so it's more like 12
households to trigger than ten -trip threshold in one direction during peak hours.
Brenner asked if this recommends concurrency studies for any single lot under ten
trips per day. Donahue stated it isn't a recommendation for a single lot. They will keep
track of concurrency countywide. They will do traffic counts on the roads every years.
When the roads reach a 75 percent threshold, the County will have to look at it. A single lot
will not trip that threshold.
Brenner asked if the Council will make the decision about whether to completely shut
down bigger developments or all development. Donahue stated it's something they'll
decide. It will be bigger developments, not a single lot.
Toedtli stated that small developments and short-plats wouldn't go through
concurrency review, even on roads that are over the threshold.
Brenner asked what it means to have direct access to a road. She asked if a cul de
sac is considered to have direct access to the road if the cul de sac has its own name.
Donahue stated this ordinance is for collectors and arterials. That cul de sac would probably
not come under the concurrency ordinance. However, the six -year road program would
take a look at the cumulative effect of all those short - plats. If tripping the threshold comes
down to a cul de sac, they may have to look at it as a site- specific project.
Nelson asked about section 20.78.110. He asked why they would want to do that.
Donahue stated the reason is to allow cities to make review for the urban growth area
(UGA) standards. Most cities have a concurrency ordinance.
Nelson asked if this section adopts the cities' concurrencies. Toedtli stated it does,
through an interlocal agreement. If there is an issue about something that isn't in the
County's best interest, the County wouldn't pursue that interlocal agreement.
Nelson stated he is concerned because the cost of improvements to meet a City's
concurrency is borne by the few who might live along those transportation corridors during
an annexation. He asked what type of mechanism can be used to not create an undue
burden on a single property owner who was never involved in concurrency or transportation
fees. Donahue stated the relationship is the road programs. That should be planned out
rather than come down to one specific property owner having to handle all the
improvements.
Nelson asked if an existing homeowner with five acres would have to pay for any
concurrency improvements that a City does. Toedtli stated the property owner wouldn't
have to pay unless there is an annexation agreement, local improvement district, or other
type of mechanism to do a project. The only person subject to concurrency is a new
applicant going into the UGA.
Nelson stated that if someone buys that five -acre parcel and develops it to a higher
use, they would have to come into compliance with the city's concurrency. Toedtli stated
that's correct, if there is an interlocal agreement with the County.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 2
1 Nelson asked how they protect property owners from cities. Donahue stated they
2 have to pay strict attention to the interlocal agreements and road programs from the
3 County and the cities.
4
5 Toedtli continued the presentation on the transportation impact fee (TIF) ordinance.
6
7 Brenner asked how long they have to use the impact fees collected. Toedtli stated
8 they have to be used in six years. He hasn't heard of anyone having to refund those fees,
9 because they can pool the fees. They can be used for key projects that include design,
10 right -of -way acquisition, and construction. They can be used as a local match for State or
11 federal grant programs.
12
13 Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend adoption to the full Council. She loves
14 the program.
15
16 Nelson asked if no development could occur if they approve concurrency, set levels
17 of service, but don't collect impact fees on roads that are beyond level of service (LOS)
18 standards. Donahue stated that's correct. They would have to find a funding source to
19 take care of projects that's okay.
20
21 Nelson stated they could change the level of service. Concurrency is required by the
22 State. He asked if they could change the levels of service and not impose impact fees.
23 Donahue stated that is an option. This is a funding source.
24
25 Nelson stated this funding source has impacts on development standards, affordable
26 housing, and other things.
27
28 Brenner stated affordable housing is exempt from impact fees. Toedtli stated that's
29 correct. It isn't exempt from concurrency. The Growth Hearings Boards were very specific
30 to not exempt developments.
31
32 Donahue stated low- income housing is exempt from traffic impact fees, but someone
33 has to pay for those traffic impact fees. According to the ordinance, that decision will
34 probably come to the Council. Someone will pay that traffic impact fee.
35
36 Brenner asked if they can write the ordinance so someone will have to pay a much
37 higher fee. Donahue stated it will be done by zone. The traffic impact fee will come
38 forward later, and is pretty complicated. Now, all transportation impact fees will be paid
39 somehow.
40
41 Nelson stated affordable housing doesn't exist under regulatory practices. He asked
42 why he would support increasing a mechanism for developers to add more houses if he is
43 not inclined to increase densities in the rural area. Donahue stated he wouldn't.
44
45 Toedtli stated don't tie the land use plan to the impact fee proposal. The land use
46 plan about accommodating growth should stand on its own. It needs to be balanced with
47 the transportation system.
48
49 Nelson stated the County would have to look at how each of the urban areas
50 develop, because they affect County transportation corridors. Donahue stated that's
51 correct.
52
53 Caskey- Schreiber stated that's done through the interlocal agreement.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 3
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Crawford asked why they exempt public buildings, as done in 20.78.030(4).
Libraries, schools, and parks generate as much or more traffic than a residential
development. Donahue stated this is an exemption from the evaluation, not from actual
concurrency.
Toedtli stated that such a project would still have to go through the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Donahue stated they would look at the traffic analysis through the SEPA process.
Brenner asked why they wouldn't just stick with SEPA. She asked if this is a
substitute to SEPA. Toedtli stated it is a different part of the State law. Concurrency is not
set up to collect fees.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber stated this is a comprehensive rating plan to establish levels for
the County.
Brenner stated the bottom line is that concurrency gets them impact fees, and SEPA
gets them mitigation. It's a different tool.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a school is part of the infrastructure needed to service
development. They can't charge infrastructure to add infrastructure.
Brenner asked why they should separate public versus private.
Caskey- Schreiber stated public is all paid by the taxpayers.
Crawford stated the County charges fees to other governmental entities for all kinds
of things.
Crawford referenced 20.78.030(5). He asked the definition of something "not
directly accessed from a transportation facility." Donahue stated they will keep track of
projects that push ten trips or more in one direction during afternoon peak hours. If a short
plat has nine or fewer lots, they won't have a concurrency evaluation.
Toedtli stated that if a major transportation route falls below its level of service, a
short -plat that wants to access on that road would fail concurrency.
Crawford asked which County roads are not meeting level of service and would be
impacted by this. Donahue stated all County roads meet the adopted LOS right now.
Roads that may come close to not meeting LOS include Bakerview Road by the airport, the
Birch Bay - Lynden Road by the mall and freeway, and Hannegan Road as it nears
Bellingham.
Nelson asked why they chose the afternoon peak hour as the threshold measure.
Toedtli stated that carries the highest traffic volume in the road system, during the course
of a weekday.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 4
1 Nelson stated it's a known standard that is accepted. It's also Whatcom County's
2 highest peak time. Donahue stated the afternoon peak time will show the highest peak
3 hours. He explained how it's calculated.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7 2. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF VACATING A PORTION OF GRANDVIEW
8 ROAD (AB2009 -093)
9
10 Brenner stated there is a substitute for Council packet pages 220 and 226.
11
12 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
13
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15
16 3. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE REGARDING TEMPORARY INSTALLATION OF STOP
17 SIGNS AND WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON EMERALD LAKE WAY (AB2009 -092)
18�:
19 Nelson moved to recommend approval to the full Council. <.
21 Brenner stated there is a substitute for Council packet paga29: _: Sh,e °asked° the
22 difference between the packet and the substitute.
23
24 Jim Karcher, Public Works Department, stated the difference is, -then title and air
25 additional Whereas statement.`
26
27 Motion carried unanimously,
28
29,;`
30 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL — COMPREHENSIVE
31 PLAN
32
33 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
34 CHAPTER FOUR — CAPITAL FACILITIES, CHAPTER SIX — TRANSPORTATION,
35 AND APPENDIX G — TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES BACKGROUND
36 INFORMATION (AB2009 -065)
37
38 Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
39
40 Mike Donahue, Public Works Department, stated there is a substitute for Council
41 packet page 243. He gave a staff report. Correct the language to reflect that an urban
42 growth area is .9, which is a level of service D.
43
44 Crawford asked if the affect is to allow more or less congestion in an urban growth
45 area that isn't a city. Donahue stated the affect would be a little more congestion.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber stated it would also collect fees to fix that congestion.
48
49 Nelson moved to have a public hearing on this item before moving it forward to
50 concurrency.
51
52 Motion to hold a hearing carried 2 -I with Caskey- Schreiber opposed.
53
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 5
1 Blair Murray, citizen, stated there should be a public hearing on this matter to
2 address level of service (LOS) issues, connections between the cities and non - municipal
3 urban growth areas.
4
5
6 OTHER BUSINESS
7
8 There was no other business.
9
10
11 ADJOURN
12
13 The meeting adjourned at 2:42 p.m.
14 --
15
16 • ----�
17 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
is
19 `\```�����ttttttt►i�i���,
20 AT
22 .o 004N
23 •
24
25 '
26 Dona Kjd� . W?' -ry, bung Clerk
• t�v
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
&_� 6
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/27/2009, Page 6