HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works February 28 20061 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Public Works and Safety Committee
3
4 February 28, 2006
5
6 Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 L. Ward Nelson None
11 Sam Crawford
12
13 Also Present:
14 Seth Fleetwood
15
16
17 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
18
19 1. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
20 AMENDMENTS FOR 2006 (AB2006 -082)
21
22 Docket # 2006 -DD: Add a new Chapter 12 and goal regarding LOS
23
24 Brenner asked if they are already doing this through the concurrency process.
25
26 Troy Holbrook, Assistant Director, stated they are. When the Council adopted the
27 concurrency resolution, they didn't docket code amendments or Comprehensive Plan
28 amendments. If they adopt a version of this, amended to establish governmental levels of
29 service and policies to implement a concurrency program, then it will serve as the
30 concurrency process.
31
32 Crawford asked if the concurrency ordinance is to analyze and make
33 recommendations to the Council about what Comprehensive Plan change need to occur, not
34 to make specific Comprehensive Plan changes. Look at all this stuff and come up with a
35 coordinated program rather than have 30 random items submitted by folks.
36
37 Brenner stated that sounds great, except they haven't found a place to put
38 concurrency so it will move ahead. Holbrook stated that is correct. It's not formally
39 docketed. Amending the wording on this could allow concurrency to be docketed.
40
41 Brenner suggested amending the amendment, "LOS standards must be adheFed to
42 affd cannot be diminished by increases in population."
43
44 Crawford stated that means they can't plan for any population increase because it
45 will diminish the level of service.
46
47 Brenner stated that's not what it means. It means that levels of service have to
48 keep up with population increases.
49
50 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated maintaining LOS is already a part of the
51 Comprehensive Plan. In some cases, it hasn't been maintained.
52
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 1
1 Brenner stated the goal now is that the LOS should be maintained. The amendment
2 says the LOS shall be maintained. The amendment makes it a rule, not a suggestion. Pros
3 stated that is his intent. Chapter 12 is the place for concurrency. A six -year window is
4 onerous on people at Birch Bay. He also had suggested that infrastructure be constructed
5 before people move in. That entire issue needs to be discussed. These kinds of
6 Comprehensive Plan amendments give the Planning Commission and Planning Department
7 opportunity to flush out the issues.
8
9 Crawford stated levels of service go up and down depending on the use of a facility.
10 When a road capacity is increased, there isn't a slow in crease incapacity. Mr. Pros's
11 proposal says that there must be an increase in capacity before there is an increase in
12 growth. That's not how society works. When growth starts to happen, the Council begins
13 to address it. That process takes awhile. It's unfortunate that there could be a gap in
14 between capacity and use. With persistence for a long time, the capacity will be raised.
15
16 Brenner stated she disagrees. Levels of service are compartments, not small
17 increments. The level of use could go up and down, but the level of service should not
18 deteriorate. There are categories that are for levels of use, not tiny increases. There could
19 be a variation in use and still have the same level of service.
20
21 Nelson stated level of service may be based on a certain timeframe.
22
23 Brenner stated they have a choice of how they define level of service.
24
25 Nelson stated there are other types of services besides transportation that are
26 important. He asked if this amendment is to try and establish levels of service for those
27 other services, such as fire service. That's part of concurrency. When they plan for growth,
28 they should plan for those changes in service levels. This isn't something that would be
29 negative for growth. It should go hand -in -hand with growth.
30
31 Brenner stated the level of service is defined by its impacts on people. Level of
32 service is degraded when it takes more time to do something. The proposal will be to
33 develop infrastructure concurrently to avoid degradation of service.
34
35 Nelson stated that's what they do.
36
37 Brenner stated the proposal is that the level of service shall not degrade. It will
38 inspire developers to do their infrastructure in a more expeditious fashion when they
39 develop. That's in everyone's best interest.
40
41 Nelson stated the subarea plans look at patterns of growth. That's where the levels
42 of service should be established. If the levels don't meet what's in the plan, then put in the
43 infrastructure. They can't put in infrastructure before development occurs.
44
45 Brenner stated that's not what the proposal is. The proposal is that the level of
46 service shall not be degraded. She agrees with that. Birch Bay is an example of degraded
47 levels of service.
48
49 Nelson stated Birch Bay levels of service are being addressed.
50
51 Brenner stated the levels of service in Birch Bay are being addressed now.
52
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 2
Nelson stated the Council moved up projects on the six -year road program to
address it because it was becoming a serious issue.
Brenner stated the Council did it after the fact, after the level of service got really
bad. The Council didn't do it while it was just beginning to get worse.
Nelson stated that happened because the Birch Bay subarea plan didn't come out
until this year. Development occurred because the Council established urban growth areas
without having an adequate concurrency program.
Brenner stated this should be part of the concurrency program.
Crawford stated consider this in light of the docket load they have to work through.
He is not swayed by this discussion. The concurrency ordinance put forward by the
administration to look at these things comprehensively over a period of time was a result of
a good effort by the Planning staff working with the administration and Council. Staff,
administration, and Council is considering all of these issues in a way that won't bring
forward many docket items and increase the work load of planning staff.
Brenner stated she didn't hear from staff that this proposal would add terribly to the
workload. She heard from staff that this proposal would help and enhance the concurrency
resolution.
Crawford stated he agrees, but they must first think of the LOS issue along with
other growth issues. Out of the concurrency ordinance would be a prioritizing process for all
the concurrency issues.
Holbrook stated the concurrency resolution directs staff to develop a concurrency
program. That hasn't been docketed. It's only a resolution. It doesn't say that it will go
into the Comprehensive Plan or zoning code. Amend this docket item, "To establish
governmental levels of service and include policies that establish a concurrency program."
Therefore, they will be ready to bring forward recommendations with the other
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Crawford asked if Mr. Holbrook is speaking for the Executive about what is intended
for the concurrency resolution. Holbrook stated he is.
Brenner moved to recommend the amended version, "To establish governmental
levels of service and include policies that establish a concurrency program."
(Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
Crawford stated there is no amended version.
Brenner stated Mr. Holbrook just stated the amendment.
Crawford stated he recommends that the committee vote against this level of service
issue. There should be a resolution to docket the items as presented in the concurrency
resolution. He asked if it was a concurrency resolution, not a concurrency ordinance.
Holbrook stated it was. They can docket concurrency ordinances for zoning text changes by
June 30, but this will help with the Comprehensive Plan docket.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 3
Brenner stated they can only do that as an emergency, if the Council doesn't docket
this item. This is not intended as an emergency.
Crawford stated he doesn't know if the Council's legal counsel would say that's a
much broader topic that would require public notice.
Nelson stated just docket the resolution.
Brenner stated they would have to do it as an emergency amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. It's supposed to be part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Crawford stated the Council could introduce it as this evening's meeting and discuss
it in two weeks. It doesn't have to be an emergency.
Brenner stated they've missed the December 31 deadline. It will have to be done as
an emergency. She asked if that is correct. Holbrook stated he will have to find out.
Brenner stated Hal Hart told her that it would have to be done as an emergency.
She attended a Blaine City Council meeting and explained why it would have to be docketed
as an emergency. Holbrook stated they need to get more clarification.
Fleetwood read Whatcom County Code section 20.10.070. It clearly says that docket
items must meet the deadline or be done as emergencies.
Brenner stated they should approve the amendment, and see which is right.
Crawford stated he is in favor of bringing forward broad concurrency issues. He
asked Councilmember Fleetwood's interpretation of Executive Kremen's concurrency
resolution. Staff is prepared to work on it, but nothing is docketed for the Planning
Commission.
Brenner stated that once the staff starts working on all these docket items, the items
can evolve and change. She doesn't believe that they are prevented from changing the
wording so it is broader. This is a resolution. There is a public process for people who have
a problem with the broader scope.
Crawford stated he questions whether or not the Council has legally given adequate
notice and followed the process if it makes this change. This proposal should come out of
the Planning and Development Committee if it is changed.
Brenner stated the amendment doesn't necessarily broaden the scope. It's worded
differently and leaves the options open. They could end up diminishing the level of service.
Amendments that go through the process can be changed in a lot of ways. She will hold
this item in committee. She would like to know the answer to that question of whether they
can add a docket item without it being an emergency.
Crawford stated that Executive Kremen proposed the concurrency resolution and
given staff approval to work on the concurrency issue this summer. However, staff is
coming to the Council saying there isn't a mechanism to docket the issue. Executive
Kremen should enable the proposal by proposing an emergency docket item.
Brenner stated Executive Kremen should write a letter to the committee if he is
opposed to it. Pros stated LOS is a level that the Council determines.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 4
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
Brenner stated she just wants to find out whether or not it has to be done as an
emergency.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
�CQ �j�i5"4 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
r
•
Dala Bep n *Ayes(# rail C�rk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Z
see Go
%%%�
06,11,1111114, 111%%%%
Public Works and Safety Committee, 2/28/2006, Page 5