HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 6 20051
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
December 6, 2005
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE BY PLANNING SUPERVISOR TROY HOLBROOK ON THE
FUTUREWISE DECISION (AB2005 -383)
Troy Holbrook, Planning Supervisor, submitted a presentation (on file) and
stated several areas around the county are affected by the decision. About 19,000
acres countywide are affected. Areas that are rural and under five acres are not
compliant. Areas that are under four dwelling units per acre within an urban
growth area (UGA) are not compliant.
Brenner asked if the decision about the urban residential, three units per
acre (UR -3) zone not being compliant has not been upheld. Holbrook stated there
are a couple of good things about this decision. The population allocations were
scrutinized. The Growth Management Hearings Board upheld the allocations. Also
upheld was the UR -3 zoning in the Lake Whatcom watershed and the airport
approach zone. Those are sensitive or hazardous areas.
Brenner asked if UR -3 is only valid in sensitive and hazardous areas.
Holbrook stated it is.
Brenner stated the Hearings Board is not policy makers, which is why the
UR -3 zone was upheld. Holbrook stated there was a recent court case where the
court decided that the Hearings Board was making policy, but wasn't empowered to
do that. The four dwelling units density threshold was not explicit in the Growth
Management Act (GMA), and was a policy decision the Hearings Board made. The
County did not appeal this decision, so it's bound to comply with the Hearings
Board decision. There is an intervener in the case, who has appealed this decision.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked if it is a valid assumption. She asked if everything is opened
up again if the intervener wins. Holbrook stated he'd have to check with legal
counsel. The Comprehensive Plan policies call for a density higher than the UR -3
zone density. Therefore, the zoning designation is not compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan. If they want to leave the zone UR -3, the County would have
to update the Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner asked if all the small cities agree that UR -3 is the least urban of the
urban areas. Holbrook stated his presentation will address that question.
He continued with his presentation on the steps to compliance. The County
is starting to see a bit of a land rush in certain areas. That is a concern because
someone could say that the County is not doing anything to prevent this and ask
the Hearings Board to invalidate the zoning. Now, the geographic information
system (GIS) staff is gathering baseline data, going back to 1992, to establish the
development patterns, which will help track policies and draw the lines.
Brenner stated the County already has policies about suburban enclaves.
She asked if they can use those policies for limited areas of more intense rural
development (LAMIRD's) instead of drafting new policies. Holbrook stated they can
use suburban enclave policies if refined to fit the current needs. They still need to
go through the process.
McShane stated there may be no changes or very minor changes to most of
these areas, but it will take a lot of work. Holbrook stated that is correct.
McShane asked if a rural, one unit per five acre (R5A) zone over a suburban
enclave would achieve compliance. Holbrook stated most suburban enclaves would
fit the LAMIRD criteria.
McShane asked if they will have to go through the LAMIRD process
regardless. Holbrook stated they most likely will have to.
Holbrook continued the presentation on steps to compliance regarding
upzones. Most of the small cities will not want the UGA's upzoned. They are
beginning to talk to the cities about this issue.
Brenner stated a complexity with UGA zones is when the cities annex and
change the density. Holbrook stated the County has an interlocal agreement with
the City of Bellingham that says city zoning will be applied, but it must be
comparable to the County's zoning. Every time there is an annexation, the
interlocal agreement is updated. Through the interlocal agreement, the County can
enforce the agreed upon zoning and also invoke the Boundary Review Board to
make a decision about compliance. He's met with the Boundary Review Board,
which first considers what the Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning
Policies say.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 2
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Holbrook continued the presentation on steps to compliance regarding the
transportation corridors, which is an overlay zone. There is a hodge podge of
development patterns and underlying zones. He's not sure how they will address it.
They may have to create new LAMIRD's.
Brenner asked if they can create new LAMIRD's. Holbrook stated it depends
on the criteria. They have to meet the State criteria. That's what the GIS staff is
working on now. They're establishing what those development patterns are and the
infrastructure in 1990. There may be nodes they can designate as LAMIRD's, or
there may be a new innovative zoning designation they can come up with.
He continued to presentation on steps to compliance regarding Lummi Island,
Toad Lake, and other areas.
McShane asked if there is a time frame for interim measures. Holbrook
stated they will probably begin in January.
Brenner asked if this will put on hold the notion of standards in R5A zoning.
Holbrook stated staff has been working on design criteria for cluster subdivisions
and other similar programs. They may have to drop some of that and make
tradeoffs.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated
work on the interim measures gets staff off the goal of addressing the Futurewise
concerns. That is a concern for him. He will bring forward a work program.
McShane stated he is not interested in sweeping interim measures.
Futurewise was well- warned that they are reaping what they sowed. They knew,
and they didn't care. They were made very aware that could happen. His only
concern is where it really undermines certain policy. He is interested in interim
measures that really fit the Comprehensive Plan as a whole.
Brenner stated that if the intervener's case opens this up, consider fighting it.
This will cost the County a fortune and will slow down a lot of the processes. Be
careful when they talk about how dense the lowest urban threshold will be for the
small cities. Have a certain amount of buy -off from the cities. They have different
visions of what a city should be. Don't necessarily say no to the UR -3 zone if they
don't have to. Holbrook stated they will work with all the cities. Many of the cities
are updating their comprehensive plans right now. The County needs to work with
them extensively.
2. UPDATE BY PLANNING SUPERVISOR TROY HOLBROOK ON URBAN
FRINGE SUBAREA PLANNING (AB2005 -383)
(Presentation continued from the above item.)
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Troy Holbrook, Planning Supervisor, stated the Futurewise decision will affect
many of these areas.
Brenner asked if Marietta would be considered one of the sensitive or
hazardous areas. Holbrook stated it is an option they will look at. The geographic
information system (GIS) staff is looking at it.
He continued the presentation by indicating areas on a map. Much of the
infrastructure in the urban growth area is already in place. In some areas, utility
infrastructure is driving land use decisions. It should be the other way around.
Nelson stated some of the five year review years have been there for ten or
12 areas. He asked how long they will be five year review areas. Holbrook stated
they were established in 1997. The City of Bellingham Planning Commission
proposal is to all the five -year review areas into the urban growth areas (UGA's)
except the Toad Lake area. It will also bring in the King Mountain area at the urban
residential mixed use, 14 units per acre (URMX -14) zone. There may be other
commercial or industrial areas the City wants to bring in. The land supply analysis
shows that they need about 200 acres of industrial and commercial land.
Fleetwood asked if that is the City Planning staff recommendation to the City
Planning Commission. Holbrook stated it is.
There are several processes happening concurrently. The County is updating
the subarea plan. The City is updating its Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood
plans, zoning, critical areas, and shorelines. The size of the urban growth area
joins those efforts. The City is supposed to have its comprehensive plan update by
December 1 of this year. They have an extension. As part of that update, the City
must size its UGA and make a proposal to the County. The County is not under any
mandated timeline for the subarea plan update. They are mandated to respond to
the UGA. The City hopes to have the five -year review area proposal before the City
Council by the end of January 2006. The City suggested to the County that it
brings forth an interlocal agreement establishing a new timeline. Have the UGA
sized and agreed to by both councils by the end of March 2006 and have the
subarea plan done by the end of 2007. Staff is working on that interlocal
agreement right now.
The County has proposed an implementation package. The URMX -14 zoning
doesn't exist at that time. The County must update it's zoning code.
He continued the presentation on emerging topics.
Brenner asked if the Council would have a presentation about John
McLaughlin's methodology before making decisions. Holbrook stated they can do
that. He has talked to Mr. McLaughlin. One issue is population. The other issue is
land use methodology and analysis. The population allocations were established
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, 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
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
two years ago. If they want to reexamine them, it must be a Comprehensive Plan
amendment docket item for 2006.
Brenner stated that if Mr. McLaughlin's proposal is valid, they may be able to
use it on future reviews rather than change it now. Holbrook stated staff can
pursue it. If they do, allow Eco- Northwest and the Office of Financial Management
to weigh in.
He continued the presentation on land supply and infill capacity, land supply
totals with the UGA adjustment, and policy implications. The major bone of
contention is with the safety factor. The City is proposing a 25 percent safety
factor. The County and City are negotiating what that safety factor should be. It's
hard to move forward with land use and expanding UGA's until they can establish
the existing infill capacity. They are doing that now in the UGA's. They are looking
at the UGA's and rezoning or proposing rezones. How the City amends its
Comprehensive Plan is still in question.
Nelson asked if the market factor is the percentage of land they have to
assume will be held undeveloped or developed at a lower density and if the safety
factor is the amount allowed under GMA to accommodate changes in growth
patterns. Holbrook stated that is correct. The safety factor also accounts for things
like affordable housing. The Hearings Board said anything above the 25 percent
will be scrutinized more closely, and the land supply should be closely monitored
and UGA's adjusted more frequently.
Brenner asked for a summery of the City's accessory dwelling unit policy.
Holbrook stated he believes there are criteria that have to be met. It is
implemented through the neighborhood plans. There may be a limit to the number
of accessory dwelling units allowed in each neighborhood. He can provide more
specifics.
McShane stated single family houses are allowed in multi - family zoning. His
neighborhood is zoned for multi - family zoning, but it's exclusively single - family
housing because the rules on parking availability and lot sizes are so stringent that
people could not build multi - family housing there. It is fantasy zoning. The
neighborhood plans in Bellingham are extremely inconsistent with what can actually
be done. It would be challenging for the County to evaluate actual infill capacity.
Holbrook stated it is challenging, but a built -out neighborhood will probably stay
that way.
McShane stated that in some areas, blocks of houses are held and being
allowed to deteriorate in hopes of a zoning change.
Holbrook stated another issue is basing the decisions on existing regulations,
and then finding out more infill capacity is available. The City has worked on its
Comprehensive Plans
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Holbrook continued to state that another policy question that may be brought
forward is about annexation policies. They allow utilities to extend beyond the city
limits without requiring annexation.
Brenner asked if most cities already have a policy to not extend services
without annexation. Holbrook stated that is mostly true, unless there is a health
and safety issue. They may want to establish an annexation program through the
interlocal agreement. Now, the County is serving as a surrogate city out there. A
lot of staff work goes into subdivision and plats in the Bellingham UGA. If they
require annexation, it will help the County staff workload. County zoning may not
be appropriate out there. They may need a reserve city zone with a county overlay
for large lots, such as ten acre lots or larger. Once the lot is annexed, it could
revert to the agreed -upon city zone. A question is why they even need URMX
zoning. The County used to have reserved zones. In a way, the UGA is a reserve
urban zone. Another idea is a tiered UGA or a 60 -year UGA.
Fleetwood asked the timeline once the City makes it's formal
recommendations on the UGA's. Holbrook stated the City and County planning
commissions meet and come up with a joint recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council forwards its final recommendation to the County Council. If the
County Council disagrees, the City and County councils work out the disagreements
before it can be approved. There may be proposals from the City Planning
Commission, County Planning Commission, and staff recommendations that are all
different. He hopes to avoid that from happening.
Fleetwood asked if the interlocal agreement requires consensus between the
two planning commissions. Holbrook stated it doesn't go that far. Last time, there
were two slightly different recommendations, one from each planning commission.
It depends on zoning, infill capacity, and the land use analysis. They need to work
on the interlocal agreement to implement this at the same time.
Brenner asked if the County has tiered UGA's now. Holbrook stated the
County has a short -term UGA and a long -term UGA, but not in the Bellingham UGA.
They may develop a similar, but different tier system that extends 60 or 100 years.
3. PRESENTATION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MANAGER HAL HART AND PLANNING SUPERVISOR TROY HOLBROOK:
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT IN WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2005 -384)
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Department Director,
submitted handouts (on file). Concurrency is a tool that Whatcom County has not
implemented. Implementation is in the Comprehensive Plan. This will be a long
process. Concurrency is a tool the County would use for new subdivisions, certain
kinds of commercial developments, large projects with conditional use permits. The
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
number of new subdivisions is up considerably this year. The total valuation shown
in the handout is about 10 to 20 percent below market value.
Nelson asked the reason the valuation is below market value. Hart stated
the County administration hasn't wanted to overcharge the building and
development community for the cost.
Brenner asked the number of permits issued for accessory dwelling units.
Hart stated they haven't counted those permits, but he would.
Concurrency isn't just a transportation issue, although transportation
infrastructure is the big dollar value concern, especially in the Birch Bay area. After
the Birch Bay Subarea Plan was adopted in 2004, there was an increase in
development. At the time, it would have been far sighted if there was a section
that planned the financing for capital facilities to accommodate the people in Birch
Bay.
Brenner stated some of them begged for that information to be included in
the plan. Hart stated they are closer now to having the capacity to do that. At the
time, getting out the plan was only done by him and former Planning Manager
Sylvia Goodwin working in the evenings. There wasn't any staff capacity to work
on it.
As they move forward with the urban growth area (UGA), they are going to
bring forward a package of recommendations. Concurrency will help in Birch Bay
and could help elsewhere. It is not a quick fix. It will take 20 years or more to
build their way out of it, just using concurrency, impact fees, and the six -year
transportation plan.
McShane stated they are mostly talking about car transportation. He asked if
there is any way to fund non - automobile transportation. Hart stated there is. The
State has a study on that issue.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) applies to all aspects of local
government infrastructure. The GMA only requires jurisdictions to adopt ordinances
that establish a concurrency management system for transportation. Using
concurrency for any other service, such as sheriff and parks, is a policy decision.
The question is how to pay for an urban growth area that is trying to be a city.
Look at rural growth. If they are infilling at a rural, one unit per five acre (R5A)
zone, there are some significant issues with parks and sheriff needs. Track that
rural growth number, and make sure they've set a level of service for those areas.
The first two decisions are to what concurrency will apply and the appropriate
level of service for those areas. Those decisions will inform the capital facilities
plan process.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, 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
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Mitigation allows jurisdictions and developers to avoid a level of service
failure by implementing a system improvement that eliminates the effects of
development on the transportation system. Set a level of service for any facility. If
the level of service falls below the established level, the County can not allow the
next increment of development to set it below that service.
Brenner stated there is a problem with calculating level of service. Look at
how they are doing it now. It doesn't work now. Hart stated that issue exists.
Staff will provide more information and options to the Council.
Fleetwood asked for an example of a system improvement that eliminates
the effects of development. Hart stated there could be a turn lane near a
subdivision that falls below the established level of service when the influx of new
cars from the development floods the intersection. When that happens, the County
is in a position to negotiate.
Fleetwood asked if the County can deny the subdivision unless it can mitigate
the effect within six years. Hart stated that is correct. It doesn't have to be six
years. It can be required at any time the policy states.
Fleetwood asked who decides if the improvement strategy is capable of being
implemented within some time frame. Hart stated that is a decision - making
process staff will do. They have a transportation planning and transportation
engineer. They monitor the system and provide annual reports. It's what they look
at during the six -year transportation program and annual transportation program
reviews.
Brenner stated everyone in the county all say that development should pay
its own way. Tailor something specifically to Whatcom County. Do an interim
concurrency ordinance. Use an existing ordinance for another county on an interim
basis to provide a safety margin for development that is going in, until they get a
final concurrency ordinance. Hart stated one interim measure is an interim impact
fee ordinance. The Engineering Division has done some work on that already.
Make sure the Engineering Division has the capacity to implement an impact fee
ordinance.
Brenner stated they have talked about doing impact fees before. She asked
why they are not seeing a draft. Hart stated the most recent recommendation was
at the Technical Advisory Committee.
Troy Holbrook, Planning Supervisor, stated the recent batch of
Comprehensive Plan amendments the Council just approved includes background
information the staff needed to go forward with the impact fee program. It is
before the Technical Advisory Committee. There has been a lot of debate of how
the models work.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated other counties have done this. Use what they've done for an
interim. Hart stated staff needs to accomplish 14 things, listed on page 12 of the
presentation handout. First, measure the system's capacity. They have to undergo
that modeling effort. Now, the Council of Governments (COG) has the one model
they can use, but it may not be adequate for their needs. They would have to
engage a consultant to assess their long term needs for modeling. They may be
able to use the COG model for the interim.
Nelson asked if that is the only approach they can take. A problem in the
County is inadequate capacity to handle all the projects they will need to do, due to
increased growth in the county. He asked if there are a combination of methods to
use to alleviate the pressure, such as working with the developer to do these things
before developments are put in. It would be much easier to have the developer
construct the infrastructure. Hart stated the Engineering Division would be glad if
that happens. They could use the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) more
aggressively than they have in the past. It's an administrative call.
Concurrency management must first figure out road capacity to absorb
additional growth. In addition, they must think multi - modally. A developer could
get credits for finding ways to lower the number of car trips on the road. Other
jurisdictions have done that successfully. The County will benefit from things other
jurisdictions have done.
Next, they have to compare the capacity required to serve an applicant's
proposed development and develop an application for concurrency. Compare the
capacity required. Concurrency calculations and reservation software will be used
to keep track. They need a really tight interlocal agreement to look at concurrency
regionally. If there is nothing to do to recover costs, they still need to know the
capacity of County roads for development, especially in Birch Bay. Now, they are
living with the lack of improvements required 20 years ago. There are road
improvements they have to finance now, such as Lincoln Road and Birch Bay
Lynden Road. New development will carry part of the investment. The County six -
year transportation plan will carry the rest of it.
Brenner stated whatever the small cities do will create impacts to County
roads, even if the development is right in the center of the city. Hart stated the
role of COG is to look at regional concurrency. The County will look at the County
network, including State highways that are not of statewide significance. The
smaller State highways that go through urban growth areas can use these
management tools by working with the Washington Department of Transportation
(DOT).
McShane asked if they can work with the DOT on concurrency. Hart stated
they could.
McShane stated there are areas around the state that are traffic nightmares
because no one probably thought of the amount of commercial development that
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 9
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
could occur. Hart stated they are starting the east county planning process. The
DOT and Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) are helpful partners in the
effort. The DOT is contributing money to the planning process.
There are 14 items that staff needs to accomplish. They don't have the
expertise on staff yet to do them. It would require a Senior Planner with years of
specific training on modeling. They will develop the model with a consultant over
the next year, query the data, and run the model. Start with the COG model. With
the skills in place, they can depart from that model. Staff is considering a
partnership approach. Staff recommendations will come forward in the next few
weeks.
Nelson asked why COG wouldn't be more of a lead on gathering that
information, from which the County can build its policies. Hart stated staff
considered it. there is a large volume of projects. The County continually tries to
streamline its operation. In this case, they are not focused on the regional
network, on which the COG is focused. He can't ensure the COG model can provide
the needed detail cost - effectively. The model may not be calibrated that is
sensitive to some of the new ideas they want to explore, such as multi -model
concurrency.
Nelson stated the County is part of the region and gets impacts from the
region. COG is a regional planner and for the county more than the region. A
question is why they need COG if they need more staff to deal with issues. The
work is duplicative. Hart stated COG is not negotiating in 15 different negotiating
rooms daily with the private sector. That is the County's role. The closer he is to
the public officials, the more sensitive he is to the needs of the community. That is
the purpose of local government, 24 hours per day. The COG is one step removed
from that. They make broad policy recommendations for the region.
Nelson stated they are talking about level of service. Hart stated level of
service is customer based. They know the transportation expectations ahead of
time. The County must track and maintain that level of service for the customer
along any County road in the network. That information has to be with the County.
It is information sensitive to the land use.
Nelson stated the staff wants to deal with the impacts of level of service for
each development. Hart stated the County sets the level of service. A developer
will pay for an analysis that says the amount of capacity that is on a road in front of
the development. That analysis triggers the next set of requirements such as road
frontage requirements. These are all negotiated between the Engineering Division
and Planning Department.
Brenner stated there is a makeup of COG. There is very little weight for the
unincorporated county on the COG membership. The COG deals with general stuff.
When it comes to specific stuff, there is only the County representative on COG.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 10
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Many people are going to have to pay who don't live in unincorporated Whatcom
County. They have their jurisdictions to deal with.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Nelson stated the County doesn't then need to participate with COG.
Brenner stated they do need to participate in a general way.
Nelson asked how they integrate them.
Brenner stated the final, specific items are the County.
Fleetwood asked if they will see an ordinance in 2006 and if staff has the
resources to do this complex work. Hart stated they will see an ordinance in 2006.
Part of it depends on what happens with the budget request. The Engineering
Division needs the capacity to build those roads. Assuming they have capacity,
there are three parts to concurrency management. The first part is the Executive's
team that determines what they do and how they fund capital facilities. The second
part is the Engineering Division, Parks Department, Sheriff, and emergency
management services. The third part is the Planning Department. Transportation
is a big part of concurrency, but not the only part. All three of those parts will bring
forward recommendations in 2006.
The general recommendation is to apply it to transportation and parks. The
forthcoming Parks Plan will have a recommendation for how to finance parks. One
option for funding parks is concurrency. Investigate concurrency. Get a consultant
to tell them the revenue they might expect from it and whether it's worth the
trouble to go after that revenue. Look at all those policy issues, and make an
informed decision.
The Executive has requested immediate action on this. Staff is geared up.
He will bring forward detailed proposals. He will keep talking to consultants across
the area and locally to see how they've done it. He will talk to all the stakeholders
in the process. Once they have an informed recommendation to the Executive,
they will present a recommendation to the County Council in January.
Brenner asked when they will have something in place. Hart stated the best
case scenario is to have something before the Council in August. He has the
capacity for this in his office, and the Engineering Division has made their capacity
requests known. He's not sure the Finance Division has capacity. This is also a
financial program. They need to talk about accounting and impact fees. They need
a system that will help fund infrastructure.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this will make growing areas much healthier in the
short -term and long -term. Developers will have some predictability. They won't
have to fix something for another area. Everyone will pay their portions. They can
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 11
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
do some big projects. Hart stated it is not a quick fix. It starts to make a
difference when looking at the 20 -year planning horizon.
Jon Sitkin, Whatcom County Fire District 13, stated the district passed a
concurrency resolution two months ago. It's hired a consultant to do a capital
facilities plan. The Council received a letter from the district two months ago
outlining the analysis, excluding an anticipated new station and including property
tax revenues and the approval of the emergency medical services (EMS) levy.
When looking at concurrency, consider the fire districts. They are not a County
service, but urban levels of response is an obligation of the district for the non -
municipal urban growth areas.
Brenner asked if the districts and fire department have the ability to create
their own impact fees. Sitkin stated they don't. The definition of public facilities
speaks to transportation, schools, parks, and fire facilities when not within a fire
district. Cities can charge fire impact fees, but a fire district cannot charge fees in
urban growth areas.
McShane stated that's probably an issue regarding EMS. That's why they got
to the point to need a significant change to EMS. The ability to provide countywide
service began to degrade the situation to the point where they had to request the
EMS tax levy. Sitkin stated an implication of the EMS plan is that districts now
have to do transport. The districts will talk to the Council about that impact in
January.
Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset, Bellingham, stated the Council ought to put the
McLaughlin situation out to someone like Hart Hodges to see if they want to spend
the time going into it. He went over Mr. McLaughlin's numbers. In order for his
projections to be met, growth would have to slow in Whatcom County over the next
seven years by 54 percent to meet McLaughlin's projections. Over half of his ten -
year projections have already been done. The only number he offers would be
illegal for the Council to adopt because it is well below the minimum set by the
Office of Financial Management (OFM).
Brenner stated she doesn't want to adopt anything different. In the future, it
can be used as information for changing population projections in the future.
Petree stated someone who wants to bring something forward should bring it
forward the same way everyone else does, unless it's something really spectacular.
Brenner stated Mr. McLaughlin did bring it forward normally. She didn't
understand it, so she asked about it.
Petree stated he wished the Council had been given certain charts regarding
the City of Bellingham's urban growth area that excludes about 1,200 acres in the
city. The City also has a chart that shows all the zones will have to be almost 40
units per acre on every vacant acre if all the proposed growth goes into the urban
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 12
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
growth areas. The downtown will have to have a density of about 70 units per
acre, or about 20 units per gross acre. Bellevue has about 5 units per gross acre.
Regarding concurrency, the County certifies that concurrency is available
when it adopts the Comprehensive Plan. The County is not supposed to plan to put
units somewhere unless concurrency is available. If concurrency becomes not
possible for some reason, they have to plan to put the units elsewhere or fix the
concurrency problem.
McShane asked if there have been any growth management appeals on
concurrency. Petree stated there are a number of them.
McShane stated the County Council is well aware of that issue. Some
councilmembers may be frustrated that they have been a little slow taking some of
the actions listed in the Comprehensive Plan. He is aware that other counties have
been quicker in setting up concurrency. That hasn't worked all that well for them.
Petree stated that when anyone cites information to the County Council, it pays to
read what is being cited.
Brenner stated concurrency impact fees don't get counties out of
development trouble. Concurrency impact fees only pay for the exact percentage
of the problem caused by the developments. They can't fix problems that already
exist. Petree stated the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) say concurrency
cannot be used to stop growth. Concurrency is supposed to allow the counties to
make the things they've planned happen.
Fleetwood asked why the law says that lack of concurrency requires denial of
the permit or mitigation. Petree stated lack of concurrency can happen for a
variety of reasons. The choice is to mitigate it or put the growth elsewhere. They
have to monitor and adjust in a timely manner. They can't monitor and adjust
urban growth boundaries on a one- or two -year basis.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she never thought of concurrency as a tool to stop
or slow growth. It's a tool to make sure they have the infrastructure to support
growth. They aren't doing this with the school districts, which leads to big
problems. The City of Arlington charges a $2,700 school impact fee to every new
home. If that's the true cost to deliver services, the County needs to make sure it's
working with the school districts, developers, and communities. They hear so many
outcries against growth because the incremental growth adds up to a lesser quality
of life. Concurrency is a tool to make sure they have the appropriate infrastructure
to service the growth they allow. Petree stated that is exactly why concurrency is
required.
Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, Bellingham, stated the situation of infill numbers
becomes murky when they go into it deeply. One expert said there is an excess
supply of lots in the city. Most Planning Commissioners want to know the status of
the building permit allocation concept, which David Hunter proposed.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 13
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Fleetwood stated they will close the discussion on concurrency, first.
Hart stated make sure there is a stakeholder process, especially including the
special districts such as fire districts and school districts. In the new world of
concurrency management, the districts need a capital facilities plan. They have to
show that they need additional assistance.
Brenner asked if the school districts can enact their own impact fees. Hart
stated they can. The County Council should review those capital facilities plan. As
the regional government, coordinate the capital infrastructure. The districts would
send the information to the County, staff would review the plans, and staff would
recommend whether or not the plans are consistent with known potential growth.
Sitkin stated the schools can have a impact fee, but the County Council must
adopt it because it is the implementing entity. Fire District 13's capital facilities
plan will go through County Planning Department staff. Once it's approved, the
district will propose an interlocal agreement with the County so its plan becomes a
part of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, Bellingham, stated the issue of concurrency
brings forward the notion of building permit allocation. If the 20 -year projected
growth occurs in less time, it changes the way they look at everything. Building
permit allocation is a tool that allows more orderly planning. He asked where that
is in the Council process.
McShane stated he hoped to get it in the Planning Committee today, but the
committee was full. In terms of process, this is being brought forward by the
Planning Commission, which is outside the normal process. He asked if the Council
must give an indication that it is interested in having the Planning Commission
pursue it.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Department Director, stated the
administration's position is the same. The administration recommends that staff
learn and use concurrency management and other tools in the next year. Give the
departments the ability to withstand a surge of development by building additional
capacity into the department so the staff can take the extra work for a few years.
That's good planning. Things will always go up and down. They don't want to lose
the capacity to do a good job with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). They
don't want to lose the capacity to do good record - keeping or data management
during a surge of development. Build engineering capacity so they can withstand
surges and create good infrastructure. Staff will have work through the regional
impacts of a permit metering system. The State Department of Community, Trade,
and Economic Development said that building permit allocation was possible. Their
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 14
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
recommendation was that the County would have to work with neighboring counties
and look at what it does to the housing market. If they go in that direction, they
have to look long -range at the economic process.
Fleetwood asked the process by which the Council can consider building
permit allocation and give direction to the Planning Commission to consider it.
They will look at that procedure in the next month.
Brenner stated she wants to hear staff's recommendation about it. She
doesn't know anything about it.
Fleetwood stated that is what he is saying. They're not ready to have that
discussion right now.
Pros stated the Planning Commission, in dealing with the urban growth area
(UGA) issue, will know what kind of recommendation to make, knowing they won't
fill up those UGA's in a short amount of time. He would appreciate whatever
information the Council can provide.
McShane stated there were a couple of building permit allocation proposals.
Give the Planning Commission some guidance. They've recognized this issue as an
area of concern. It's the Planning Commission's job to advise the Council. This
issue can be addressed in a manner that might be narrow. The Planning
Commission has asked to hear an opinion of the Council, and the Council should
respond in some manner. Personally, he is not comfortable with permit allocations
within the urban growth areas. They can't predict what will happen far into the
future. He is concerned about the areas in the Comprehensive Plan that are
completely inconsistent with the current zoning in certain parts of the county.
Therefore, the population projections in certain areas is very inconsistent with what
is actually happening. The allocation issue might give them some time to address
that if done carefully. Either narrow the scope or tell the Planning Commission the
Council is not interested in building permit allocation. The councilmembers are not
ready to give the Planning Commission a response today.
Brenner stated she doesn't know enough to make an opinion about spending
time on this. She's not willing to do permit allocation on already- existing lots of
record. She'd have to hear what staff has to say about permit allocation in
subdivisions.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated permit allocation could lead to
significant unintended consequences all over. They have an example of what
theoretical permit allocation would do. The City of Bellingham does not have the
housing they need in this county. That is causing problems in rural areas, which
isn't sensible because there are no jobs. Get the City of Bellingham to take on the
population it is supposed to take on. The County doesn't have leverage to force the
City of Bellingham to do what it should.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated that is a good argument for permit allocation in the county.
If the county only allows a few buildings, people would be forced back to
Bellingham or other cities. Wiesen stated they can't be forced into a place they
can't afford. Don't forget about the working people in Whatcom County.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:15 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 12/6/2005, Page 16