HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning September 23 2008I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Planning and Development Committee
3
4 September 23, 2008
5
6 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue; Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 Bob Kelly
15
16
17 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
18
19 1. REVIEW AND UPDATE REGARDING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
20 COORDINATING COUNCIL AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN (AB2008 -304A)
21
22 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated he
23 anticipates three outcomes. The first is to review and revise vision statements for the
24 County. Second is to develop growth forecasts and methods to allocate that growth and
25 determine land supply and demand for that growth. Third is develop regional conceptual
26 growth alternatives.
27
28 Mid -term outcomes are to review and revise urban growth areas and define rural
29 character and limited areas of more rural development (LAMIRD's)
30
31 Long -term outcomes are to review and revise the Comprehensive Plan and
32 development regulations, and coordinate with cities and tribes on growth management
33 issues. Coordination is very important as they do planning and implementation of the
34 Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.
35
36 A key message of the public involvement plan is compliance with the Growth
37 Management Act (GMA). They must get back to the legal mandates, and then look ahead to
38 the 2011 update. Make sure they get compliance with those requirements.
39
40 The second key message is public involvement to identify or affirm the collective
41 vision. Make sure they have public involvement in this process.
42
43 The third key public involvement message is that this isn't the only opportunity to
44 review and revise the Comprehensive Plan.
45
46 For now, they are just getting input and identifying alternative visions. As they go
47 through the review and revision of the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations
48 through the year 2011, they will have additional opportunities for the public to get involved
49 throughout the process. This is phase one of the public involvement plan, and gets them to
50 the end of this year. Jones and Stokes will do a public involvement plan for after 2008, to
51 continue the process over the next three years.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 1
The fourth message is easy and convenient access to information. They've identified
many outreach methods. Email and website distribution works well. There is a website for
this project. They are developing email distribution lists.
The final message is branding. Call the project Whatcom 2031. It will emphasize
their planning target date. The website is already called Whatcom 2031. That message will
be in the logo and all messages going out.
The public involvement plan audience and outreach methods are identified. They are
as expected. Methods for reaching out include email, websites, city meetings, and regional
workshops. They've begun to schedule regional workshops starting in October. They will
receive initial input.
They've also started to work with the cities. A coordinating council meets once per
month. The group includes representatives from every city. Most of the representatives
are the mayors. Just about everyone attending are elected officials. City administrators are
generally alternates.
The coordinating council was formed to keep everyone informed. They already have
draft population forecasts, which are being reviewed. They will also look at land supply and
methodology issues beginning in November.
Have a public hearing before the County Council in December on population and
other forecasts. Get public input more formally to give the County Council some public
input in preparation for those discussions beginning in January. He asked the committee to
think about how the County Council would want to form that public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber stated look at those findings and recommendations in this
committee well before the public hearing. Schedule a committee discussion in November if
possible. Stalheim stated they won't have the whole package in November, but they will
have parts of it. At that time, they will have the countywide population employment
forecast. They won't yet have information on how they will deal with the land supply and
demand methodology and allocation methodology.
Caskey- Schreiber asked when the Planning Commission will review it. Stalheim
stated he is setting that up as well. The Planning Commission agenda is becoming full also.
He hopes to discuss population and employment forecasts in October. He will try to keep
the Planning Commission informed as much as possible. Some of it will come first to the
County Council for initial decisions. He would like the Planning Commission as involved as
possible.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like Planning Commission feedback as much as
possible.
Weimer asked if they will get a range for population projections from the contractor.
Stalheim stated the contractor will make a specific recommendation. This effort extends the
planning period from 2022 to 2031. They will see high, medium, and low projections and
also previous forecasts and what has happened. They will get the entire package and a
recommendation from the coordinating council.
Weimer stated get all that information to the Council before the public hearing.
Stalheim stated the County Council will see that information well in advance of the public
hearing.
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 2
1
2 Fleetwood asked if they are tracking almost perfectly from the previous projection.
3 He asked if that projection was the one done in 2004. Stalheim stated it is.
4
5 Caskey- Schreiber stated it took a year to come up with that projection. She's leery
6 about how easy they think it will be to have a recommendation from the consultant, then
7 have a public hearing, and then make a decision. The reality is that they need to put it
8 through the public process more than planned. Stalheim stated there was a decision to
9 have updated population projections and review and revise all the UGA's by June 2009.
10 That's very ambitious.
11
12 Fleetwood asked if the revision has to be complete, and ordinances adopted, by
13 June. Stalheim stated that's correct. Once they get done with the regional look this year,
14 they must also go through the allocation process with each city. Then they have to go
15 through the technical analysis of land supply. They have a lot of work to do. He's been
16 staging staff to be available beginning in January, based on initial decisions. Any change
17 will affect the timelines.
18
19 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, asked if the consultant will do a population
20 analysis based on the Planning Director's recommendation, the coordinating council results,
21 or whether the County Council will pick a number. Stalheim stated he hasn't seen the data
22 from the consultant yet. He believes they want an idea of the forecast methodology for
23 employment at the outset, and then figure out how that relates to land demand and supply
24 issues over the next couple of months. He met with Economic Development Council (EDC)
25 practitioners today. They feel the same issues about employment. There needs to be good
26 background information to make these decisions. The time constraints to make good
27 decisions are challenging.
28
29 Craven stated a couple of the city representatives have made comments suggesting
30 they aren't planning to take any action between now and June 2009. Given that they're
31 looking at a 2031 projection and the possibility of some urban growth areas changing, the
32 capital facilities elements of the cities and the districts that rely on services to those areas
33 need to be in a state the County can rely on for purposes of making those UGA
34 designations. She's concerned the cities may not think about having to produce those in
35 this timeframe. She asked if they've talked about that. Stalheim stated they've had limited
36 conversations about capital facilities issues. Unless their capital facilities plans are done
37 now, they won't be done in time for the County to use reliably to make a decision next June.
38 They will have to take what information they have, and try to address it as best they can
39 within that timeframe. The strategy for dealing with these things is to have a conversation
40 about the purpose of June's review. It could be a review and revision of the urban growth
41 areas. If there is missing information, they can come back in the next two years through
42 the Comprehensive Plan process to demonstrate what they need to. They will confirm or
43 change those urban growth areas again. They need to start mining that data. He expects
44 the consultant. to define the information they need to have, and relay that to the cities.
45 That list will have to be generated in the next two months.
46
47 Craven asked if the Growth Management Coordinating Council is to receive the
48 recommendation on the countywide population projection at its meeting next week. She
49 asked if the staff expects a decision on a recommendation from the Growth Management
50 Coordinating Council at that meeting. Stalheim stated he will ask for a recommendation at
51 that meeting.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 3
Craven stated that Growth Management Coordinating Council recommendation could
go to the County Council mid - October. The allocation information would be the next
decisions by the County Council. She asked the timing for allocation. Stalheim stated that
would be done in January. They are working through the methodologies.
Craven asked if the public hearing in December is solely on that countywide
population projection. Stalheim stated it would include the land supply methodology and
allocation methodology.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what happens if they're held hostage by another
jurisdiction's decision - making process. Stalheim stated one reason to set up the Growth
Management Coordinating Council is to deal with those deadlines. The cities understand the
deadlines. If something holds them up, the decision about UGA's is the County's decision.
The County has given the cities an opportunity to participate. If the cities don't participate,
the County will move on. Now, the cities are providing good participation. They will feel
rushed into some decisions, just like the County Council will feel rushed. Everyone will want
the option to fine -tune things in June 2009. Employ that strategy if they have to.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's glad they have a plan to move ahead, even if there
isn't a decision from some entities.
Fleetwood asked when the next UGA revision would be. Stalheim stated the next
UGA revision is scheduled for 2017, which happens to line up with the 2018 seven -year
review process. The GMA allows them to put the two together. Next time, the ten -year and
seven -year reviews should be done concurrently.
Craven stated the plan after that is to just do them both every seven years.
Stalheim stated the debate has been that they should, do them every ten years,
which is how often the census comes out. That's what planning directors throughout the
State have been recommending.
Weimer asked if the Growth Management Coordinating Council meetings are open to
public and accept public comment. Stalheim stated they are open. They have not yet had
public comment period, but will recognize anyone who wants to participate. They will have
to manage the process more when more people begin to participate. The thought is that
part of the public comment process should come from other avenues, such as surveys,
questionnaires, and regional workshops. The Growth Management Coordinating Council
only meets once per month for two hours. Adding public comment could make their
schedule challenging.
Weimer stated that people really interested could attend the meetings and inform
their comments. He asked what a workshop format will be.
Kate Cook, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the idea is to
have a two -part format. First is information on the process and what they're doing. After
that, break into smaller groups to work on different vision topics. She doesn't know yet
what the workshop products will be. The consultant is working on that process.
Weimer stated the public hates those types of workshops because they don't think
their voices are ever heard. They never get to come back together and hear what everyone
else is thinking. At the end, have public testimony so everyone can hear what everyone
else is thinking. Cook stated she will convey that idea to the consultant.
Planning and Development Committee, 9 /23/2008, Page 4
David Pros, 1466 Roy Road, Bellingham, stated he's been attending the Growth
Management Coordinating Council meetings. Parts of it are excellent. The. County Planning
Director has taken a neutral stand as opposed to directing the meeting, which is pleasing.
They are trying to do three things at once. They are trying to get a population
projection for 2029, 2031, and a visioning process. Do the 2029 projection, but the
visioning process should be projected out longer.
Currently, they're not being proactive and getting to what they want. They are being
reactive to managing trends. This is a good opportunity to decide on a model to use to
direct growth. Decide if they want Bellingham to continue to grow out or adopt a plan to
have the small towns be their own economic centers, so people don't travel to Bellingham.
Address these key issues in the process, and everything else will come from that. Make
that a part of this process. Tracking what has actually happened is problematic, unless they
count completed building permits. That's why population projections are done after the
Census.
The Growth Management Coordinating Council has decided to not do any surveys.
That's troubling. Meetings are great, but on a wider basis, do a telephone or computer
survey. Some people on the Growth Management Coordinating Council are already saying
they know what they're going to recommend. The Healthy Communities workshop format
was called large group intervention. It was very effective to get to what people want. It
involves people to a greater depth. He recommends using that format.
He read a statement from EcoNorthwest regarding population projection.
2. REVIEW AND UPDATE REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOCKET
ITEMS AND CONCURRENT REVIEW SCHEDULE (AB2008 -120A)
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated the
project list and anticipated action date is in the Council packet. The one item that takes the
most time is the Foothills Subarea Plan. The second item that takes time is the Lummi
Island Subarea Plan, which will go to the Planning Commission in October.
Two items, the emergency issues, the ten -year urban growth area review, don't have
to have concurrent review. The rural element does not have to have concurrent review
because they are under a hearings board order.
Three items not on the list because they won't be done are the parks plan, the
agricultural amendments, and the Bellingham Subarea Plan.
The Foothills Subarea Plan has a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The
comment period is closed. They are trying to determine if proceeding with the plan makes
sense because the County must do the urban growth area (UGA) review next year. The
Foothills plan was first based on the population or planning year of 2027. Then they started
writing the environmental impact statement based on Hearings Board orders that says the
subarea plan can't have a different planning horizon from the comprehensive plans, so they
scaled it back to the year 2022. The Council decided to do the ten -year review in 2009.
They may go through the Foothills plan, and it may be outdated as soon as they're done
because they have to go through the urban growth area, rural element, and limited areas of
more intense rural development (LAMIRD) decisions. It may make more sense to have
those urban growth area and LAMIRD decisions first. It also affects their work plan issues in
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 5
1 terms of finishing the final environmental impact statement and going through the public
2 hearing process and Planning Commission process. The time may be better spent taking
3 care of the big picture and legal issues before finishing the Foothills plan. The Foothills
4 community has anticipated this plan for a long time. He understands that. However, they
5 may not have many options at this time.
6
7 Fleetwood asked when they would adopt the Foothills plan if they slow down on it.
8 Stalheim stated it depends on the Lummi Island Subarea Plan process and a fire district that
9 is going through a capital facilities plan. Going to the Planning Commission in January and
10 Council in February is still logical and will work well.
11
12 Fleetwood asked if the schedule shown is the current or slowed schedule. Stalheim
13 stated they will probably take the Foothills plan off that list, and move it to the bottom list.
14 When done with UGA and LAMIRD issues, put it back on to the public hearing process.
15
16 Caskey- Schreiber stated invested stakeholders in the area spent one and a half
17 years working on this plan at the County's request. Make them aware of this change and
18 get their feedback. It will be hard to extend it indefinitely and not have these people
19 disillusioned. Stalheim stated he understands. The community is still working out issues.
20
21 Fleetwood asked who would make this decision. Stalheim stated the decision is
22 administrative, with Council input. He is also concerned about all the time they've spent on
23 it, and how they will keep people mobilized. This will actually be a second delay in that
24 process. He understands the concern.
25
26 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
27
28 Stalheim stated that work load and legal issues may require the delay.
29
30 Caskey- Schreiber stated the County must really extend itself to the community to
31 draw out the timeline. Hold a meeting up there. Identify when they can actively participate
32 again. It bothers her that the County can't hold up its end of the agreement. Stalheim
33 stated a key issue revolves around urban growth area (UGA) issues, Columbia Valley, and
34 limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) decisions. They could go to the
35 area and specifically involve those folks. in those decisions, and pull those decisions out of
36 the Foothills Plan. The debate happening in the community is around those issues.
37 Package the UGA review into the Foothills plan to engage those volunteers.
38
39 Caskey- Schreiber asked if staff needs Council approval of this plan. Stalheim stated
40 this is just an update. He would like to have a public hearing at some point. He will invite
41 the consultants. The councilmembers can have a public hearing just on population and
42 employment, or they can include methodology. They would have to do it the first two
43 weeks in December.
44
45 Weimer stated he's fine with the public hearing, but it may be difficult during the
46 December Council meeting. Stalheim stated he would recommend a special meeting just on
47 that subject.
48
49 Caskey- Schreiber asked why they wouldn't have the public hearing before the
50 Planning Commission. Stalheim stated they could, and get a Planning Commission
51 recommendation.
52
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 6
Caskey- Schreiber stated that is the usual process. It would mislead the public to
forego the Planning Commission process and put it out for comment without Council input.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated it may make sense to hold off on a
public hearing until they get to the allocation stage. That's when a lot of people will come
forward.
Stalheim stated one reason to go the Council directly was to expedite the timeline.
It may work the other way. He will consider it and consult with the consultant and Planning
Commission Chair. He wants to get through the process by the end of the year, so they can
start crunching numbers in January and have good information by the time they get into
formal hearings.
Weimer asked if there is a Council date for the Cherry Point pier policy. Stalheim
stated it will come to the Council when the Planning Commission is done with it. It will be
before the Council in November, with a requested action to pass on to the concurrent
review.
Fleetwood asked about complete Sudden Valley text amendment. Stalheim stated it
is a simple text amendments because they've already decided on the designation. There
are references to urban . growth areas throughout the Comprehensive Plan, so the
amendments are simple.
Craven asked on how many of these incremental decisions will the Council want to
have public hearings. They could have hearings on the initial population projection,
allocation decision, and boundary selection in the end. She asked if the Council will want a
public hearing on each of those items or just one public hearing at the beginning on the
population projection and one at the end on UGA designation.
Fleetwood stated allocation and final boundaries relate. Have one hearing on those
two. He doesn't oppose having three public hearings over the course of the months.
Stalheim stated a reason to do an allocation public hearing up front is to begin doing
technical work on land supply. They can't do allocation and boundary public hearings
together at the end.
Fleetwood stated they can have three public hearings over the course of five or six
months.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if it goes through the Planning Commission, and
Planning Commission makes a recommendation, and the Council agrees with the
recommendation, it won't have to have another public hearing.
Fleetwood stated that is the customary process. Stick with the customary process.
The Committee concurred.
Kelly asked when they'll know how much work they can do as opposed to how much
work they want to do, in terms of the budget. The Council wants more work to be done
than can be done. He asked if it's too early to talk about public hearings without knowing if
they will be staffed up to do what they want. He envisions reprioritizing what will get done
in the next biennium, given the projected budget shortfalls. Stalheim stated most things in
the work program are all the items the Council previously identified. There are smaller
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 7
I tasks, such as the Cherry Point pier policy. The staff is using consultant resources to do
2 those things in the interim. Come January through June 2009, staff will be solely focused
3 on urban growth areas and the LAMIRD decision, other than ongoing legal mandates.
4 Anything else, including anything not identified in the work program, is not at all within the
5 budget or timeframes in the department's scope of work right now.
6
7 Kelly stated the Council decided to begin the ten -year review this coming year. That
8 affected their ability to continue to move forward with the Foothills plan. The Council made
9 that decision. Stalheim stated that's correct.
10
11
12 OTHER BUSINESS
13
14 There was no other business.
15
16
17 ADJOURN
18
19 The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
20 C D
21
22
23 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
24
25 `011111111111111's
26 ATTES `,-,-,% %' Y C O �i, WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
227$ ``J`J�VA14T,'C/���� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
29
30
31
32 Dana Beo%*$TAT9,9fc
ortil C{erk Seth Fle4twood, Committee Chair
33 '•419 11ING �� •'
Planning and Development Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 8