Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 12 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee November 12, 2008 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None Carl Weimer Also Present: Barbara Brenner Bob Kelly Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FERNDALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF FERNDALE UGA FOR APPROXIMATELY 41 ACRES IN THE VICINITY OF SHIELDS ROAD (AB2008 -390) Brenner asked if the urban growth area (UGA) to the east is built to the edge. Kate Koch, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this is one of those places where it's not. This is an open area in the UGA. Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously, COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT TECHNICAL WORK REGARDING GROWTH PROJECTIONS, ALLOCATION AND LAND CAPACITY METHODOLOGIES AND REVISED SCHEDULE FOR THE URBAN GROWTH AREA REVIEW PROCESS (AB2008 -389) David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, submitted and read from a presentation (on file). Brenner asked if there should be discussion with the Growth Management Coordinating Council (GMCC) about her concern regarding the interlocal agreements with the cities. Stalheim stated there should be. They will get to that discussion. The existing Comprehensive Plan forecasts to the year 2022. Now, they are forecasting out to the year 2031, because in 2011, they have to do the Growth Management Update. Planning and Development Committee, 11/12/2008, Page 1 Brenner asked if the GMCC meetings can allow a certain amount of time for the public to speak if they want to. Stalheim stated it's up to that group. The general understanding was that public input would occur through workshops, questionnaires, and the respective jurisdictions. They only have two hours of time, once per month. To address the issue, the Council or Planning Commission can have opportunities for public hearings and then inform the Coordinating Council process. Fleetwood stated they may be able to build in a comment period for the public. The GMCC can discuss it at its next meeting. Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated the GMCC may need to meet longer or more frequently. Time is very tight. They will need to make decisions at each meeting. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are mandated to plan to 2031 instead of 2022. Stalheim stated they are mandated to do a 20 -year forecast every ten years. They are going to the year 2031. If they make this UGA decision in 2009, they could make the planning period until 2029. However, they will have to do the Comprehensive Plan update two years later, to the year 2031. His goal is to go through this process only once rather than twice, now and two years later. Craven stated the technical growth allocation is unconstrained by any policy. It is about where people would go based on historic trends, with no other influence on it, such as restrictions regarding available capital facilities or available lots. That allocation is a mathematical -based formula only. Stalheim stated it explains that point on Council packet page 157 regarding the framework for growth allocations. By the end of this year, they will have unconstrained demand and a land capacity analysis to show whether or not the existing UGAs can accommodate the unconstrained demand. Then they get into the policy discussion in step two. Kelly asked if they need policy guidance on the technical work that is done, rather than having the technical work without any constraints. Craven stated they don't need that. The unconstrained technical allocation will illustrate actual demand for the UGAs, based on historical growth trends. The second phase of the allocation process will import various aspects of policy -based constraints. The technical work on the land supply analysis and land demand analysis won't vary much. Brenner asked to not use the word "technical." Also, there are many kinds of economic theory. Stalheim stated the details of this methodology are described in the Council packet. The results may not be accurate, and they may not be what the community wants. It is information to put out there to begin the conversation in the second step. They don't have to use the word "technical." Brenner stated use the word "historic" instead. Stalheim stated that's fine. Caskey- Schreiber stated that title is all over the document. Don't get hung up on words. They know the definition. Stalheim referenced Council packet page 158 and the five Council questions. The Council needs to start getting him the answers to those questions. Planning and Development Committee, 11/12/2008, Page 2 Fleetwood stated they are not considering the allocation, because it hasn't been established. They are approving the process by which they move toward an allocation. Stalheim stated that is correct. Caskey - Schreiber stated it feels backwards to set up the framework when they don't know what decisions will come up. They don't know how much time it will take to analyze the decisions and conclusions that are reached. Stalheim stated that's why it's important to also think about the alternatives. Caskey- Schreiber stated she had a problem differentiating among the graphs in the Council packet. To make her decision on the GMCC's three options, she would like color graphs to read things more clearly and to know how accurate past trends have been. One question is about how they assess land and future jobs for areas like the hospital and Western Washington University. It's not commercial or industrial land, but they create jobs. They are likely to keep growing. Stalheim stated those are all within the employment sectors, for the demand side. Craven stated they are also dealt with in the land capacity analysis as public facilities. Caskey- Schreiber stated another topic is cities that decide not to annex UGA areas. She asked how they keep justifying more UGA areas when they already have existing areas that aren't being annexed. Stalheim stated they are considering that question in the context of the countywide planning policies. The question is whether the County should take an area out of a UGA if the City doesn't want to provide services. Another question is whether there are other service providers, if a City doesn't want to provide services. The GMA says the cities aren't the only providers of urban governmental services. The City of Bellingham operates the sewer treatment plant. Without the cooperation of the City of Bellingham, it's hard to consider other providers. Craven stated they hope the cities' recommendations about capital facilities planning and UGA designation will address those questions and any decisions to not service a UGA - designated area. Caskey- Schreiber stated the County must know if the cities will be able to meet their identified levels of service. The County should insist on realistic plans, and hold the cities to that service level, before granting them anything else they want. Craven stated the cities are getting that information together for an initial look at their existing abilities to serve and their plans for existing and expanded UGAs. The timeframe is tight to do that review adequately for all UGAs and cities. Fleetwood asked if County staff is confident that the cities are actively contemplating those questions right now. Stalheim stated they are all working well together. Planning staffs are meeting regularly. It will be a challenge to get all the information they would like within the timeframe. The County staff sent a list of data needs to all the cities yesterday, with a December 3, 2008 deadline. This relates the question of sequencing. A question is how to get to the 2009 UGA review if part of a city doesn't have a water or stormwater area plan. They have to go through the process of updating their capital facilities plan. That could take a year or two. There is a good possibility they won't have all the information they need. He asked how they phase or sequence the decision - making. An extension is possible. However, the reality is the County went from fifth to ninth on the funding list for the Lily Point acquisition in the amount of $1 million, because the County isn't compliant with Growth Management. They should try to meet the deadline in a defensible manner to Planning and Development Committee, 11/12/2008, Page 3 get grant funding. The workload and stress will be huge for everyone, but the financial benefit is there to try. Weimer asked if the small cities must have a capital facilities plan in place to justify the County's UGAs. Stalheim stated he doesn't know. It's clear from Hearings Board cases that the County must show there is adequate public facilities and services for urban growth areas. There are two different steps in urban growth area decisions. One step is designating UGAs through section 1.10. Section 1.33, the deadline, is just a review of the UGAs to accommodate the projections and density. Weimer stated the City of Bellingham attorney made it clear that the City didn't have to have a capital facilities plan until 2011. The City is already sequencing. He asked if that undermines the County's efforts. Stalheim stated that if the County does a 2011 UGA update, it would need the City's capital facility plan in 2010. Weimer asked how they can do any of this when the State hasn't made up its mind about legal water rights in places like Lynden. He asked if the County can get a delay because that's the State's fault. Stalheim stated that is a good question. It's an issue they need to look at. Craven stated those issues will come up in the policy end of the population allocation and also in the land capacity analysis. It will come up again when the Council decides about UGA boundaries. Stalheim stated it would be good to look at water rights in an environmental impact statement (EIS) review. Brenner stated a past problem has been the cities selectively choosing which UGAs they want and don't want. Also, some properties within the cities aren't getting city services. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Crawford stated the City of Bellingham will not extend services until annexation. He asked if this update process will require the City to address that policy, so that policy may end. Stalheim stated a decision is whether urban growth areas will be adequately served by public facilities and services. If the County presumes the City is the service provider, the County needs information from the City to show that they can provide the service over a 20 -year period of time. Annexation and the extension of services is a different topic, the countywide planning policies. Lay this topic on the table and decide if that's a good regional growth management strategy. It's one way for a city to control growth. Chelan County resolved the issue because the cities' comprehensive plans and zoning standards included the entire urban growth area. The cities' had comfort knowing what was going to happen. Crawford stated that's a great idea. Communicate that to the city councils. He would love to hand over those kinds of UGA responsibilities to the City. Brenner stated she doesn't agree with that idea. Fleetwood reference Council question four on Council packet page 158. He asked for an example. Stalheim stated that when doing population and employment projections in the county, as they're allocated to the urban areas, it has been based on policy, not historic Planning and Development Committee, 11/12/2008, Page 4 trends. Historic trends may favor more population in the rural and resource lands than they want to have, in terms of policy. Caskey- Schreiber stated that's the issue with GMA. The question is whether they grow into the rural areas or expand urban areas into the rural areas. She asked how a County that doesn't have jurisdiction over a City gets infill. It's a frustration. Weimer asked if allocation projections on paper have any effect on whether people end up in rural or urban areas. It really depends on the zoning in those areas. Stalheim stated that if the urban areas aren't adequately sized, it may put more pressure on rural areas. That's a concern if the projections are too low. They are analyzing data such as the number of development rights in the agricultural lands and the number of development rights in the rural lands. They will have information on the number of existing, vacant lots in rural and resource lands, which will help influence a final policy decision. Craven stated there is one way the County can try to affect what happens within the cities. The GMCC will address the question of dealing with the difference between planned densities and achieved densities, within the context of the land supply analysis. The City and County each will have expectations about how a UGA will build out. Talk about which set of expectations they will use. Also, talk about it in the abstract without knowing whose is more or less dense. Brenner stated that just because a city says it will do something within an area doesn't mean that city will follow through with its promise. Councils change. Stalheim stated they are asking for information on what size of lots are considered underused in the details of the land capacity analysis. The County suggested to the cities to come up with a range and also show infill policies that will support their recommendations. The County will have that policy discussion on the city infill strategies before making a final decision. The purpose of the countywide planning policies is to work out as much of this as possible with agreement. They are supposed to form the framework on which the cities and counties will agree to certain things. Their comprehensive plans and the County Comprehensive Plan are supposed to be consistent with the countywide planning policies. Work out these policy issues up front, so they can expect comprehensive plans and development regulations to be consistent. If they aren't consistent, they can be challenged to the Hearings Board. Craven stated the staff would like direction from the Council today. Now, the GMCC made the recommendation that the technical work and land supply analysis go forward. She asked if the Council wants to consider that recommendation before the SEPA growth alternatives are established. She asked if the Council wants to have or direct the Planning Commission to have hearings on that issue. She asked if the Council is sufficiently uncomfortable with it to change it, before the staffs base all the technical work on it. If the Council is a little bit uncomfortable with it, then she doesn't recommend worrying about it. If the councilmembers are more uncomfortable with it, they may want to have a public hearing. Don't make a decision before having the information, but don't wait until too late, when they would have to redo the technical work. There may be some value in asking the Planning Commission to go forward on those hearings and see what happens. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of having the Planning Commission holding a hearing and making a recommendation. Put the GMCC recommendation to the Planning Commission, and have the Commission make some kind of recommendation. At some point, the County Council should weigh in as well. Craven stated have the Planning Planning and Development Committee, 11/12/2008, Page 5 Commission focus on what the allocation and population projection growth alternatives ought to look like. Stalheim stated that if the Council directs the Planning Commission to consider this, it will have to be done in the month of January 2009. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the Foothills Subarea Plan at that time, and it will have to be bumped from the schedule. Caskey - Schreiber suggested that the County Council and Planning Commission have a joint meeting. Fleetwood stated a lot of people in the Foothills area will be disappointed if the County puts them off until after the County makes this decision. From their perspective, their subarea plan should be done first. Crawford stated he doesn't agree with a Council and Planning Commission process for population projections. He wishes the OFM would just give them a number based on objective third -party analysis. Instead, they are politicizing the process. Population projections are supposed to set levels of population growth in Whatcom County. They are supposed to come up with a realistic predicted range, based on historical trends and employment patterns, to allow the County to plan accordingly. Don't politicize the process. Good numbers are available. Use them. Fleetwood stated he agrees the population number tends to become politicized and is generally overrated. People will come to the County, and the County must figure out how to accommodate them sooner or later. However, there is benefit to this in terms of allocations. For SEPA, they must develop alternatives. Caskey- Schreiber stated the County has been criticized in the past for a lack of public process. This is another opportunity for citizens to weigh in. The OFM offers the County a range of projections from which the County must choose. Sometimes, population projections can become self - fulfilling prophecies. The Planning Commission is the Council's advisory board. Don't leave them out of such big decisions for the county. She agrees with having a joint meeting. They must allow some public input. Stalheim asked if the purpose of the joint meeting is to gather public input or for the Council and Planning Commission to discuss the alternatives. His thought was to have a work session. They are scheduling a public hearing process in May, once the EIS is drafted. Staff would also outreach to the public. The cities are doing their own outreach. Craven stated the scoping aspect of the EIS process will also allow for public input. She asked if the councilmembers want early input from the public. Caskey- Schreiber stated she does want early input. The GMCC came up with an agreed forecast. They had limited information. She doesn't want to make any decisions with limited information. Deal with both the Council and Planning Commission before getting too far along in the process. Fleetwood asked how they predict trends into the future. They have to base it on something. Weimer stated he agrees with gathering public input through the Planning Commission sooner rather than later. It seems the public has disagreed with the Planning and Development Committee, 11/12/2008, Page 6 recommendations of the GMCC. Get that public opinion earlier in the process to make sure they are alright with the numbers. Stalheim stated he recommends having the public input. The outcome he would like is for the Planning Commission to come up with some alternatives instead of a decision. They can be population- driven or geographic alternatives. The public can help identify those alternatives. Don't have the Planning Commission make any decisions. They don't want to pre -judge anything before the information is there. Regarding the countywide planning policy issues, come back later and focus on that city /county relationship issue, perhaps at the next meeting. Fleetwood stated that would tie in nicely with density discussions. He asked if they will discuss the Council Questions on Council packet page 159 at the next Planning Committee meeting. Stalheim stated they will discuss the contents of Council packet page 159 and 160. They have answered the Council Questions on Council packet page 161. Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated he appreciates the fact that they are going to have public hearings. The decision is backwards. The number hasn't been chosen, but the process is going forward. They are being given a mess to deal with at one time. The 2022 projection complies with the GMA already. The only thing out of compliance with the GMA is the Blaine UGA. They are done with the 2029 projection if they choose to be. Land use policies dictate how they grow. The Council makes the rules that make the decision. It's not a matter of guessing. Historic trends are an alternative that doesn't work in this kind of environment. The consultants can be of help by putting together the ordinances that will enact the vision they decide on. The update for the 2029 decision can be updated simply by addressing the Blaine situation. They are already deficient in levels of service. Now they have to accommodate for more people. There is not budget to do that. The cities are compliant with the 2029 projection at this point. Separate the update processes. Ask the cities what they want. Don't go through all of this. Spend the money from the consultants on visioning and the 2031 projection, which shouldn't be done until 2011. Craven stated counties need to choose projections within the OFM range. The 2,036 number in the current Comprehensive Plan is within the OFM projection range for up to 2030. As a result of the challenge to the resolution passed Iast.February declaring the ten - year UGA review and revision complete, the County entered into a stipulated agreement with the appellants to undertake this ten -year review and complete it by June 30, 2009. The County was found in non - compliance, and has entered into a stipulated agreement. A scheduling order has been issued. The County is out of compliance on that ten -year review area. There's been no findings as to specific UGAs and which were or were not properly sized. Brenner stated she understands combining efforts to get things done proactively but not if they have to push things faster than they should go. It would be better to go with a shorter timeframe than 2031, and fix what needs to be fixed. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Stalheim stated time is tight. The current Comprehensive Plan goes to the year 2022. It doesn't matter if they go to 2029 or 2031. The fact is that a new 20 -year forecast Planning and Development Committee, 11/12/2008, Page 7 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 is required. The decision is the same, and has to be done by June 2009. They have to do this work, whether it's to 2029 or 2031. They have to do the review again in 2011, because they have to do a 20 -year forecast again. Pros stated all this time they're spending is for a 17 -month life period. The 2029 projection must be done by June 2009. The visioning took longer than seven months last time. They are being asked to condense all of that work into a period from now to June. That only has a life of 17 months. Clayton Petree, citizen, stated public input has been allowed. He appreciates how staff has been open to the process. They take letters. There isn't a verbal comment period, but they take letters and post them on the website. His letters talk about the population projections. He sent in the official OFM population tracking report that shows how population tracks with the OFM medium projection. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated they are getting overloaded. The County won't make the June deadline. Brenner stated they shouldn't overextend themselves. She would rather be less efficient if they can get something in place that makes the County legal for awhile. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. -Z:Zl? 0--7e-- Jill Nixon, Minutes Transc ption C p `�•NATC0•. 0: -ry .p O • [T�na ronrg�ri , pncillerk • .� '% •• gsHING.• WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON J th Fleet od, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 11/12/2008, Page 8