HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole July 24 2007WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
July 24, 2007
Council Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. in the Council
Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
Weimer,. stated he would turn the duties of the Chair over to Councilmember
Fleetwood. Tonight is not the final vote on the urban fringe subarea. This is just a non-
binding resolution to allow them to enter into negotiations with the City of Bellingham.
1. RESOLUTION INITIATING RECONCILIATION OF DIFFERENCES WITH THE
CITY OF BELLINGHAM RELATING TO LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS, PROPOSED
UGA ZONING, AND UGA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE BELLINGHAM
SUBAREA (AB2007 -318)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a
memorandum and draft resolution (on file).
McShane moved to recommend approval of the resolution to the full Council.
Brenner moved to amend, "Now therefore it be resolved by the Whatcom County
Council: 1. ...using a ten -- percent no more than an 18 percent safety factor...." All these
numbers are arbitrary. Allow some flexibility.
Weimer stated he is opposed to the motion. He would like lower numbers, not
higher numbers.
McShane stated the Planning Committee attempted to craft a recommendation that
would be broadly supported by the Council. He appreciated that other councilmembers
participated in the process. The Council should set a clear message of where it's going.
The motion is unclear about what the Council wants.
Crawford stated it's not a matter of where the Council wants to go. The Council
must plan appropriate and adequate land supply for the next 20 years. That's their task.
It's unwise to use less than a 25 percent safety factor, the amount the Growth Management
Hearings Board has allowed and says is appropriate for community planning. The 18
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 1
1 percent safety factor is the amount the City came up with, however, so he supports the
2 motion. He supports the City's recommendations.
3
4 Fleetwood stated that the Hearings Board allows a safety factor up to 25 percent, not
5 that 25 percent is acceptable in all cases.
6
7 Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Crawford, and Nelson in support.
8
9 Weimer moved to amend to remove and replace the first resolved statement, "1.
10 The Whatcom County Council resolves that based on the Bellingham urban fringe subarea
11 plan recommendations of the Whatcom County Council's Planning and Development
12 Committee and the Bellingham City Council, a significant difference exists An the
13 recommended .expansion of the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA).." His amendment
14 recognizes the significant difference and begins the reconciliation process.
15
16 Fleetwood stated he would not support the motion. The language in the resolution
17 already indicates there is a difference that provides justification for going into negotiations.
18
19 Brenner stated she supports the motion. She does not support the City's numbers,
20 They don't all compute. The County hasn't analyzed the City's numbers.
21
22 Caskey-Schreiber stated she is against the motion. It's important to call out the
23 areas on which they agree. The City agreed that these are good areas for future possible
24 annexation. Councilmember Weimer may not agree with the areas listed in resolved
25 statement one.
26
27 Motion carried 4 -3 with McShane, Fleetwood, and Caskey- Schreiber
28 opposed.
29
30 Weimer moved to correct resolved statement number 4, "[and eapaeity supply
31 analysis."
32
33 Fleetwood stated that is a scrivener's error.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 McShane stated the question is whether they want to indicate where they want
38 growth to occur.
39
40 Weimer stated they've done that in the whereas statements.
41
42 McShane stated they should have a resolved statement that indicates where they
43 think the growth areas should be, so the City is clear. A whereas statement is not a
44 resolution. This means the Council has no opinion on where the growth should be. That's
45 not what the Council wants to say. The County Council should be clear about its
46 recommended percent and exactly where it thinks the growth should be. Having been on
47 the committee and worked through a lot of these issues, he has a view of where expansion
48 is appropriate. By removing that language, it does a disservice to the community and the
49 committee.
50
51 Fleetwood stated he agrees. The committee voted unanimously to include that
52 information in the first resolved statement before it was amended. Councilmember Weimer
53 seems to be concerned with the notion that they implicitly agree with Bellingham's land
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 2
1 supply analysis. The committee generally agreed that the land supply analysis was
2 appropriately done. The committee has issues with a couple of things. He asked to
3 reconsider Councilmember Weimer's motion in a way to address just the provision relating
4 to the land supply analysis, which would allow them to keep in the additional provisions to
5 which Councilmember McShane spoke.
6
7 Weimer stated he doesn't agree with the City of Bellingham's land supply analysis.
8 The land supply analysis that the committee accepted is what brought the committee to the
9 conclusion that they need to bring in these UGA areas. The land supply analysis has
10 significant inaccuracies. The City used the lowest density allowed, not a medium or
11 maximum density allowed. Overall, the Council is looking at a lower safety factor, but he
12 doesn't want to accept their numbers. He also doesn't accept the countywide assessment.
13 Things have changed drastically over the years. He is trying to avoid spending two hours
14 coming up with the exact numbers.
15
16 Bremner moved to amend the first resolved statement by reinstating the original
17 language, with an amendment, "1. ...projected growth based en the Gity ef Bellingham's
18 land supply analysis using the teR peFeefit safety faeteFF addiRg by considering the Queen
19 Mountain review area...."
20
21 Caskey- Schreiber stated they should not gut the resolution by taking out the heart of
22 what they voted on. She came up with a ten percent recommendation when taking into
23 consideration the City's land supply analysis flaws and shortcomings. It's important to
24 specify a safety factor. She understands the concern with the analysis, but this isn't the
25 place to express it. They must specify areas. They've all considered that these areas are
26 the best fit. The safety factor is a huge driving force in this decision.
27
28 Nelson stated the concern is about the work done by the Planning Committee
29 compared to the City's recommendations.
30
31 McShane stated his concern is that the language now tells the City nothing. It gives
32 the City no indication of where the County is going.
33
34 Nelson stated item three recognizes the process that takes place because of a
35 difference of opinion.
36
37 McShane stated they're not expressing an opinion.
38
39 Nelson stated they don't want to lead the discussion and they do want to work in a
40 conciliatory fashion with the City. Item three can identify the Planning Committee's
41 recommendation, and that the County Council anticipates that the reconciliation process will
42 involve discussions between the City and the County staff and at least one joint work
43 session with the City Council and County Council, recognizing the recommendations from
44 the County Planning and Development Committee and the City. That gives the City an
45 indication of the Planning Committee's recommendation, acknowledges the City's
46 recommendation, and that the County wants a joint work session to come to a conclusion.
47
48 Fleetwood stated they have to have a majority of expression of the will of the Council
49 to get into negotiations with the City.
50
51 Nelson stated this process involves both the City and the County, not just the
52 County's will. He agrees there is a difference of opinion. He doesn't know what the City's
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 3
analysis will bear upon his decision. He's not sure the City has had an opportunity to
respond to the Planning Committee's recommendation.
Brenner stated the draft resolution is a recommendation of the County Council that
includes these areas. All she's taken out is the idea of basing their decision on the City's
land supply analysis or the ten percent safety factor. She's not comfortable adding the
safety factor amount. Her motion doesn't base the decision on Bellingham's land supply
analysis. The rest of the language includes a lot of the committee's work. She doesn't see
the problem.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she thought the Council would put forward a
recommendation, with the knowledge that this may change through the negotiation phase.
She feels like the last six months of work have been in vain. She's frustrated by the
ambiguity.
Weimer stated he doesn't know what the City wants. City Council members have
publicly expressed concerns with these numbers. It's clear that a majority of the County
Council wants a lower safety factor than the City recommends. He's not willing to accept
their land supply analysis.
Brenner stated her motion removes reference to Bellingham's land supply analysis.
McShane stated he will support the motion just so they can have some direction.
The committee worked on this and came to a unanimous decision. The Council must be
clear about its position. He took the land supply analysis flaws into account when he made
his decision. He takes issue with certain aspects of the analysis. At some point, they have
to decide that the land supply is okay. They are never going to agree on every issue. He
decided that a lower safety factor is acceptable because there is enough cushion in the
methodology. The City should have given a clearer message than it did. This issue is
asking for some clarity, whether they like it or not. Provide clarity to the City and County
officials and planners. They must compromise before going into the negotiation.
Fleetwood stated he would support the motion also, for the same reason. There is
more information in it than in Councilmember Weimer's motion.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the motion falls short of its duty. They first identified the
appropriate safety factor. 3ust adding areas, without a safety factor, leaves a gaping hole in
their responsibility. The County Council must debate and conclude on some kind of safety
factor, rather than nothing. They must include some kind of safety factor, not just areas.
Fleetwood suggested a friendly amendment to reinstate the original language
for resolved statement number one and create a new resolved statement, "6. The majority
of the County Council has expressed concerns over some perceived flaws in the land supply
analysis that it would..like to address during the negotiation with'the City."
Brenner stated she is not comfortable with the City's land supply analysis. She did
not accept the friendly amendment.
Fleetwood stated the negotiation should include a conversation about land supply
and about the safety factor. They can't do that without any kind of reference.
Brenner amended her motion and moved to amend the first resolved statement
by reinstating the original language, with an amendment, "1. — projected growth based eR
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 4
analysis using the __.. ,._. _...._ a safety factor less than
2 the City's, adding by considering the Queen Mountain review area...."
3
4 Weimer stated they can't say they're going to establish a percent without meaning
5 that they are using the Bellingham land supply analysis as a basis. He doesn't agree with
6 the land supply analysis, so he doesn't want to establish a percentage.
7
8 McShane stated they should just talk about the land supply analysis. The Planning
9 Commission discussed this issue for a very long time. In the end, a new land supply
10 analysis wasn't done. The committee also discussed this issue and decided to not go down
11 that road. They accepted the analysis for what it is. It may not be quite right in some area.
12 if necessary, discuss the areas in the analysis that are of concern.
13
14 Brenner stated she doesn't need to deal with the land supply analysis because she's
15 not using a safety factor. She's just including the areas that the majority of the committee
16 considered.
17
18 Caskey- Schreiber stated that by removing the safety factor issue, Councilmember
19 Brenner is removing the justification for adding those areas.
20
21 Brenner stated they don't have to be based on the land supply analysis. They can be
22 based on making the city boundary more regular, for instance.
23
24 Caskey - Schreiber stated one negotiation goal could be to work out the issues with
25 the land supply analysis. This language weakens the County's negotiation posture. The
26 County gives up control by not linking its decision of where it wants the City to grow to a
27 common sense denominator. Like it or not, the County used the City's land supply analysis
28 to come to this decision. It's not perfect, but knowing that the analysis is not perfect was a
29 factor in the committee's decision on a ten percent safety factor.
30
31 Nelson stated the staff's recommendation of 18 percent seemed reasonable, and had
32 more analysis than the ten percent recommendation. There must be agreement. The issue
33 with the resolution is that it doesn't reflect the opinions of all the councilmembers. He
34 doesn't want to diminish the work done by the Planning Committee. However, other
35 councilmembers have done research on this and may have different opinions, which the
36 resolution doesn't reflect.
37
38 McShane stated the goal of this meeting is to make sure they get to that point.
39 Break this into three steps. First, address the methodology. There is a lot of argument
40 about it. Second, decide an acceptable safety factor based on what they know about the
41 methodology. Third, if they decide there should be growth, determine the areas. If
42 someone disagrees with the methodology, then define the specific concern and redo the
43 methodology. He doesn't want to redo the methodology. It's easier to recognize the
44 problems and factor those into a decision. It's okay to define the concerns with the
45 methodology in a separate resolved statement. They can strike the reference to the City's
46 land supply analysis, which seems to get people worked up. The County Council can reach
47 a conclusion about its concerns.
48
49 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
50
51 McShane continued to state that his concerns, which colored his view of the
52 necessary safety factor, include the park acreage, projected densities in the urban growth
53 area, and the Old Town and waterfront areas. The City had to come up with some
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 5
methodology. Picking it apart isn't worthwhile, but acknowledge that the methodology has
influenced their decision. He would like to know what concerns other councilmembers have,
beyond what he's mentioned. Another concern is with the acreage for public facilities.
Brenner stated she doesn't understand why they have to reference Bellingham's land
supply analysis. The majority of this Council has already decided on the areas it would like
to look at. That speaks for itself. When discussed in committee, the numbers for these
areas came out to be higher, more than ten percent. Davis stated the overall, effective
safety factor of the areas included is about eleven percent.
Crawford asked if safety factors other than 25 percent are commonly adopted by
other jurisdictions, and how they are arrived at, if so. Davis stated a wide range of safety
factors have been adopted. Other municipalities and counties typically use anything from
ten to 15 percent. The Hearings Board decisions are that any UGA safety factor above 25
percent will receive automatic scrutiny.
Crawford asked if it's typical for jurisdictions to have this discussion, in which they
differentiate between ten, 15, 18, and other safety factor percentages. Davis stated he
doesn't know if this discussion is typical. Much, maybe too much, emphasis is placed on the
numbers. it's not just a numbers game. it's also about identifying the areas that make
sense to include. There is no one, perfect, correct way to do a land supply analysis. Many
assumptions must be made. It is a tool to guide the decision about how much area overall
needs to be brought into the UGA. Once areas are identified, it can be compared with and
based on the overall UGA and overall final, safety factor. They need some guidance from
the numbers to identify areas. Once the areas are identified, they see if it makes sense in
terms of an acceptable safety factor.
Crawford stated this Is a guessing game. The safety factor acknowledges that they
aren't perfect, and must therefore provide room for the unpredictable. There is more to this
25 percent than saying they can do less than that. The target is tough to hit, even with the
best analysis and efforts.
As a community, they have figured out a way to accommodate a 20 -year growth rate
within the City, and not expand the urban growth area. However, if they don't hit that right
on, they need some expansion of the urban growth areas, up to a 25 percent factor, which
includes all the proposed areas. The community generally acknowledged that the 1997
buildable land supply was short. It was an inadequate prediction for the amount of
buildable land they needed inside the City of Bellingham. Take the land supply issue
seriously. The 25 percent factor is a reasonable amount to consider. If they don't expand
urban growth areas at all, or at the small level that the committee has proposed, they are
going to continue to have an affordable housing and land supply crisis in this committee.
Fleetwood stated that Councilmember Weimer's motion, which passed, references
the Planning Committee's recommendation to adopt the Bellingham land supply analysis
and use ten percent safety factor. The resolution also makes reference to having a dialog
with the City about issues with establishing the UGA boundary, the extent to which UGA
expansion is appropriate, and the appropriateness of various expansion areas. The
resolution, as amended, gets them into negotiation with the City and allows the County to
negotiation the things it wants.
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated some of the differences among the
councilmembers may be resolved by amended language to the original language in the first
resolved statement. She suggested an amendment, "I..Jn the existing UGA as reflected in
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 6
Exhibit A, provided that review of the land supply analysis in;.the reconciliation. process
confirms the need .for additional. growth." The fourth resolved statement includes reference
to discussion of the land supply analysis in the reconciliation process. They could also
change the language in the fourth resolved statement, "4. ...the UGA boundary, including
eenfmFmatmeR review of land capacity analyses,...."
Weimer stated he doesn't have a problem with the analysis or methodology, just
assumptions. He suggested, "...including ~fi~~~ assumptions within the land
capacity analyses...."
Brenner restated her motion to amend the first resolved statement by reinstating
the original language, with an amendment, "1. ...projected growth based en the Gity e
Bellin0am's 'and supply analysis using the ten per a safety factor less than the City's,
adding by considering the Queen Mountain review area...."
Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor.
Weimer moved to reinstate and amend the original language in the first resolved
statement, "1. ...in the existing UGA as reflected in Exhibit A, provided that review of the
assumptions in the land supply analysis in the reconciliation process confirms the need for
additional growth areas."
Nelson asked if the motion recommends the Planning Committee's recommendation,
and any changes based on the land supply analysis would have to be agreed upon to add
more areas or change the safety factor. He asked if this locks the City into accepting the
Planning Committee's recommendation. Craven stated the reconciliation process will allow
both the City and County to revisit their respective positions on the boundary, the land
supply analysis, the existing UGA zoning. It allows them to come to an agreement on the
zoning, land use policies, safety factor, and analysis. Everything is back on the table
through the reconciliation process to reach an agreement with the City. Ultimately, the
County will make the decision. The County does not bind itself to any decision in this
resolution. This resolution simply forwards a recommendation to the City to begin the
reconciliation process.
Brenner asked how this is more flexible than her amendment. It's not.
Fleetwood stated it includes reference to a land supply analysis, whether or not they
like it, that is the evidentiary basis for predicting how they are going to accommodate
growth. Councilmember Brenner said there was no need to reference a land supply
analysis. A majority of the Council fundamentally disagrees with that.
Brenner stated the amendment she proposed did the same thing.
McShane stated they need some rationale. Unfortunately, the land supply is part of
that rationale. This allows them to comfortably look again at the analysis. It would be nice
if they could present the Council's specific concerns with the analysis. It would be good for
the councilmembers to express their individual concerns with the analysis.
Motion carried failed 3 -3 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford opposed and Caskey-
Schreiber out of the room.
(Clerk's Note: Caskey- Schreiber returned to the meeting.)
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 7
1 Caskey - Schreiber moved to reinstate and amend the original language in the first
2 resolved statement, "1. ...in the existing UGA as reflected in Exhibit A provided that review
3 of the assumptions in the land su pply analysis. n. ahe reconciliation process: confirms the
4 need for additional growth' areas."
5
6 Motion carried 4 -3 with Brenner, Nelson, and Crawford opposed.
7
8 Brenner moved to amend the fourth resolved statement, "4. ...the UGA boundary,
F
9 including ce- rmatie review of the assumptions of the land capacity analyses,...."
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 Nelson asked if the fourth resolved statement includes discussing the safety factor.
14 Davis stated they would assume that.
15
16 Fleetwood stated there is a motion to approve the resolution, as amended.
17
18 McShane stated he is comfortable with the methodology. The assumptions influence
19 his view of the safety factor. If they get more confident in the methodology, the need for a
20 safety factor should decline. The less confidence there is in the methodology, the greater
21 the safety factor should be. If they understand that safety is already built into the
22 methodology, they may be able to lower the safety factor. Assumptions in the methodology
23 cause him in some cases to say the safety factor can be lower or, in other cases, higher.
24
25 An influencing factor to him was the City's proposal to create another urban center in
26 the existing urban growth area. The two issues tie well together. The transportation issues
27 may be more readily resolved than other areas they consider.
28
29 They haven't had debate on where they disagreed with the existing urban growth
30 area boundaries. Those areas include the James Street and Bakerview Road area, the Lake
31 Whatcom watershed area in the UGA, and the Lake Padden watershed.
32
33 Brenner asked if the County could change to a system to go through this process on
34 annexations, not on urban growth areas. She asked if the County can do that, or if those
35 areas have to be in urban growth areas first. Davis stated the GMA requires that counties
36 adopt Comprehensive Plans that include urban growth areas.
37
38 Craven stated the GMA requires that counties create UGA's to accommodate growth
39 for the succeeding 20 -year period, based on the Office of Financial Management (OFM)
40 growth projections. The GMA doesn't require giving five -year review areas priority.
41
42 Brenner asked if they could substitute annexation areas for urban growth areas if
43 they go to a monitoring program instead of a safety factor program. Craven stated the GMA
44 requires the creation of urban growth areas.
45
46 Motion to recommend approval of the resolution as amended to the full
47 Council carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed.
48
49
50 OTHER BUSINESS
51
52 There was no other business.
53
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ADJOURN
T meeti djourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.
]ill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes an September 11 , 2007.
ATTES *- %00N1 ""'111 V C
QS C�. wk ,
a Br%A ,vis; CogP& clerk
lk
s �
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Special Committee of the Whole - Bellingham UGA, 7/24/2007, Page 9