HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 7 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
June 7, 2005
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION PROMOTING THE USE OF LEED STANDARDS IN THE
CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION OF COUNTY BUILDINGS AND IN
THE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR (AB2005-
233)
Derek Long, Sustainable Connections Program and Development Director,
submitted and read from a handout of a Power Point presentation (on file)
regarding the local momentum in green building. Sustainable Connections has 420
members and is over three years old. It works on a number of programs including
the green building program, the food and farm program, the think local first
program, and other programs on sustainable practices, reducing impact on the
environment, contributing to the local economy, and maximizing community
benefit. He read the presentation on the green building program. Over 100 people
have attended different workshops and other events. Local government staff and
independent professionals attend. The eco- friendly home and landscape tour is in
July. They have a booth at the Whatcom County Home Show. Many people have
taken or will take the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) exam.
The design and development community is quickly adapting to the standards. The
growth rate is steep.
There is a lot of opportunity ahead. He continued the presentation on the
future opportunities awaiting. On May 9, the City of Bellingham passed a resolution
saying that all new construction and remodels over 5,000 square feet would meet
LEED silver standards. He would like the County to make a similar statement. The
last paragraph in the resolution is important to encourage staff to look for low
impact development from the private sector. The development, construction, and
design communities are ready to go on this. Create incentives such as fast -track
permitting or even cash payouts for green buildings. The assumption is that these
Planning and Development Committee, 6/7/2005, 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.
high performance buildings reduce the need for future infrastructure, so the City of
Seattle provides a present day value of future savings.
Brennan Schumacher, Sustainable Connections Sustainable Designs
Technical Advisor, read from the presentation (on file) about the definition of green
building. Using an integrated design approach brings everyone who uses the
building to the table, including the owner, users, architects, and others. The
process saves money in the construction budget. Reducing the negative impact on
the environment is one of the major strategies behind green building. Promote the
well -being of the occupants by having high - quality interior environments. Life cycle
analysis looks at how the materials used in the building process are harvested and
manufactured, sees how the material performs, and considers whether the material
can be recycled once its lifecycle is over.
He continued to read the presentation on what normal buildings account for
and consume and the benefits of green building. Some green buildings save money
up front, which can be invested in other, more efficient mechanical systems.
Green building has been used for thousands of years, beginning with people
who located their houses in areas where they could take advantage of the sun and
breezes. Many people have been doing green building for many years, but there
was no set of standards to define green building. Ten years ago, a group of people
got together to decide what constitutes and defines a green building. The group
called itself the U.S. Green Building Council. He continued to read the presentation
on the U.S. Green Building Council. The LEED rating system is a set of standards to
quantify a green building. Standards are made up of five categories.
First category is the site. He read the presentation on sustainable sites.
Stormwater management is a huge issue in this region because of the amount of
rainwater they receive and the impact on the salmon industry. There are methods
to manage stormwater onsite. Reduce the level of stormwater that leaves the site
and treat the stormwater that does leave the site.
Brenner stated the Council has discussed changing the minimum size for a
County road, but there were concerns raised by the fire marshal. At one of his
workshops, the Bellingham fire marshal was very interested in the narrower roads.
He asked if they have taken time to talk to the fire marshal. Long stated they have
not talked to the County fire marshal.
Schumacher stated the remaining categories are water efficiency, energy
efficiency, indoor environmental quality, materials and resources, and credits for
exceeding the criteria. He read the presentation on water efficiency, energy
efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and materials and resources.
He read from the presentation on the LEED certification process, associated
fees, and LEED in the USA. Washington State is the first state to require that all
state buildings meet LEED certification standards. There are over 20 buildings in
Planning and Development Committee, 6/7/2005, 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
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.
the state that are LEED certified. The first LEED registered project in Whatcom
County was the North Cascades Institute. The Wade King Recreation Center is also
a LEED certified building in Whatcom County. He's working with the City on getting
the new Market Depot Square registered, also.
Barriers in the industry include education and awareness. They provide a lot
of training, events, and tours of green buildings. There are also economic issues,
code and regulation issues, and resistance to change.
He continued the presentation on three economic case studies. They are
independent cost studies done of a green building, specifically LEED. The average
cost of a green building is around $4 per square foot. There is an incremental cost
from zero to two percent associated with the green building cost. Over the lifecycle
of a 20 -year building, the payoff is tenfold. That payback will continue over the life
of the building.
The second study looked at over 140 buildings to define the cost directly
associated with LEED. It found there are many cost factors that affect the overall
budget of a building, more so than LEED. The earlier the design team has guidance
on the project, the better off are the budgets. Factors such as the prevailing
market, climate, location, and bidding process have a bigger influence on the
construction budget.
The third study was done by the General Services Administration (GSA), the
largest tenant landowner in the county. Their building standards are rigorous and
detailed. The study looked at how the LEED system would affect their standards.
The study found a savings in some of the certified buildings from .07 percent to 2
percent, depending on the project. For a silver certified building, there is a small
up front cost that pays off more in the future.
He's now working with County and City staff on codes and regulations. They
are looking at how the standards relate to State, County, and City codes. They are
creating a matrix of information to find the common denominators, possible
conflicts, and possible improvements.
He continued the presentation on the resistance to change. After working
with the new standards, contractors find that the new methods are easier to work
on than standard methods.
On the Market Depot project, they have done daylight analysis to optimize
the daylight shading to protect the produce in the market. They also looked at
different materials for the site.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she attends the Western Washington University
(WWU) Recreation Center regularly, and she loves the building. It makes great use
of the light. She wished the county had such a facility.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/7/2005, 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
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 her name will be listed as a proposer on the resolution.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this resolution is similar to the City of Bellingham.
Fleetwood stated it is almost identical. The second to last Whereas
statement is different.
Long on proposed amending the first Whereas statement. Acknowledge the
benefits to the buildings they all use now.
Brenner moved to amend the first Whereas statement, "Whereas, while
current development and construction practices provide benefits to individuals and
the community, it is also a a-re significant contributors to the depletion of natural..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Long suggested that they move the fourth Whereas statement to the second
Whereas statement, and make the second Whereas to the last Whereas statement.
Currently, LEED is very popular and a good tool to measure building performance.
It's administered by U.S. Green Building Council. That can be described.
Brenner moved to move the fourth Whereas statement to the second
Whereas statement, and make the second Whereas to the last Whereas statement.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Motion carried unanimously.
Long suggested that they also replace the term "green building" with the
term "high performance buildings and green building practices" throughout the
whole document.
Brenner moved to replace the term "green building" with the term "high
performance buildings and green building practices" throughout the whole
document.
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County
Executive Director, stated "built green" is a trademark term of the BIA and should
be left as is.
Motion carried unanimously.
Long suggested adding Whatcom County to the language in the eighth
paragraph.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/7/2005, 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.
Brenner moved to amend the eighth Whereas statement, , "..with the
support of the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County, Sustainable Connections
held Green Building educational events ..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to recommend that the Council approve the resolution as
amended.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The committee took a break from 4:15 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE ON URBAN GROWTH AREA PLANNING (AB2005 -251)
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, submitted and read from a handout (on file)
of a Power Point presentation.
Fleetwood asked for a clarification of the difference between the five -year
review area and the urban growth area processes. Holbrook stated the Bellingham
subarea plan is currently being updated. That process includes an update of the
urban growth areas, to accommodate the 20 -year projected population. They are
looking at infill capacity in the city and in the existing urban growth areas. After
that, they will look at the five -year review areas for urban growth area (UGA)
alteration or expansion. He indicated the locations on a map. The subarea includes
more than just the city of Bellingham and its UGA's. It goes north to Smith Road,
east to Mission Road, and west to the river. They are also analyzing the rural areas
and other areas with certain zoning, such as the Toad Lake, Marietta, and Marine
Drive areas.
He read the presentation on the background and population.
Brenner stated (inaudible). Holbrook stated the City is also working on the
transportation element of its Comprehensive Plan now. It is a concurrency issue.
Brenner asked if the Growth Management Act (GMA) concurrency allows
areas to develop without necessary infrastructure. Holbrook stated GMA must
require infrastructure to be in place. There must also be a capital facilities plan.
Brenner asked if one can build as long as the money is set aside. Holbrook
stated there must be a plan for keeping the level of service current.
McShane stated the City and County could adopt a low level of service, and
allow development to continue, if they wanted.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/7/2005, 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.
Holbrook continued the presentation on the Bellingham Subarea Plan
components.
Brenner stated she attended a meeting with people from the King Mountain
area who were concerned about what is going on. One person said there was never
any County staff who considered keeping the neighborhood characteristic of the
King Mountain neighborhood. There was never any discussion on ensuring that the
neighborhood quality and amenities aren't lost. She asked what is happening about
that in the UGA's. Holbrook stated that issue is separate from the growth forum
meetings. He will go into the issues for each neighborhood later in the
presentation.
He continued to read the presentation on the growth forum meetings,
Bellingham subarea plan components, and the process. Right now, they are
bringing zoning proposals to each neighborhood. They are trying to get an informal
consensus on zoning for the planning commissions.
He continued the presentation on an implementation package. They are
looking at new zoning designations, so they must develop zoning and development
regulations concurrently to retain community and neighborhood character. They
will also work on an interlocal agreement.
Meetings in the Yew Street, Geneva, Hillsdale and Britton Road, King
Mountain, and Northwest Road meetings were well- attended. The results of those
meetings will go to the two planning commissions. The Yew Street area is a tough
area. It has rural zoning in an urban growth area. The planning commissions have
been through this area three times. It is concerned about the neighborhood
character, the result of increased density, and what the development regulations
and concurrency requirements will be. There is also a concern on whether the City
is doing enough infill. They are frustrated that there are no growth control
measures and policies in place.
He continued to read the presentation on the emerging topics and land
supply. The next step is to review and reaffirm their assumptions on land use,
persons per household, deficits in parkland, infrastructure, critical areas, industrial
lands, and other assumptions. The environmental impact statement (EIS) uses the
level of 2.24 persons per dwelling unit, based on the 2000 census.
They may or may not expand the UGA. As a result of growth forum, people
have asked about the ultimate buildout. They'd like to start looking at that as well
as part of this plan. He continued to read the presentation on Bellingham
Comprehensive Plan Draft Land Use Chapter. The Bellingham change in policy from
the 1995 plan is that they are not going to include the current UGA in the infill
numbers.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/7/2005, 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
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 for the reason for the policy change. Holbrook stated the
reason is because they have no control over whether or not an area annexes into
the city, which the landowners initiate.
Another problem is that utilities are extended into the UGA, development
occurs, and then it's difficult to get those areas to annex into the city. If they are
not going to use the UGA for its infill capacity, and they come up with the shortage,
the question is how to come up with their infill. One solution is to find large
property owners who are willing to be annexed right away, if utilities are provided.
McShane asked if it was suggested that they would drop those areas as
UGA's. Holbrook stated some have entertained that idea, but it creates another set
of problems. The County is put in the position of providing urban levels of service.
That is a result of extending utilities without annexation.
Fleetwood stated a bill in Olympia was put forward to modify how annexation
occurs and solve this problem. He asked the status of that legislation. Holbrook
stated it died. If the bill passed, the City still would have had ultimate say on
whether an area annexes.
Brenner stated property owners should have a say in whether or not they are
annexed into a city. The County is not a purveyor of certain services. People
generally know that. Unless they do something different, the County is not
obligated to be a purveyor of an urban level of service outside the city.
Holbrook stated he has more information for councilmembers anytime they
need it.
Brenner asked what they are doing in the areas to ensure that neighborhood
characteristics are retained. Holbrook stated they are looking at the existing
zoning, infrastructure, critical areas, proximity to the city, and other factors before
making a recommendation on zoning. The implementation package will need
development regulations to identify proper implementation.
Brenner asked if they have decided on the overall level of services necessary
for each area's ultimate infill capacity. Holbrook stated they are looking at each
neighborhood. Parks serve more than just one neighborhood. He meets regularly
with other City and County staff on appropriate levels of service, buffers, wildlife
corridors, and other issues.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there are
emerging differences between the City and County regarding the urban growth
area. One of those emerging differences is the way the numbers are counted. It
may not be consistent with the County's view of growth management. That is an
area of concern the City and County need to work on. That departure emerged in
Planning Commission discussions with the City.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/7/2005, 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
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 they are talking specifically about the County's infill
determination between the City's infill determination. Holbrook stated the first
issue is counting the infill capacity in the UGA's. The City clearly stated it will not
do that.
Brenner asked what the GMA says about it. Hart stated he believes it says
they must first look inside the city limits for infill, then the UGA, then the five -year
review area.
Holbrook stated that if the City doesn't count the infill potential in the current
UGA's, it lessens the total dwelling units by thousands, which will force an
expansion of the UGA in other areas.
Brenner asked if the concern is that the City will ask for more UGA because it
won't count the UGA that exists. Hart stated that is correct. The City will skip over
certain UGA's to focus on areas where it can provide service and accommodate new
development. Again, that leaves the County as purveyor of an urban level of
services in areas where they previously agreed.
McShane stated he's trying to figure out the reason.
Bob Tull, attorney, stated he participated in the first urban fringe plan in
1982. In that plan, the City of Bellingham said it is the sole purveyor in these
areas and has the absolute discretion on requiring annexation as a prerequisite of
service, or not. That policy was repeated in the 1997 plan. It is still in the draft
plan for now. The City and County have to calibrate their methodologies. The City
must calibrate which areas will come in and which won't. The GMA does require
looking at availability factors in the land supply calculations. If an area is not likely
to be available during a certain time, then don't count it. However, those likely to
be available will have to be counted.
Brenner stated she doesn't agree with what was said before. She asked why
the County would encourage someone not to annex by providing an urban level of
service. That is another reason to not provide an urban level of service. Holbrook
stated questions are whether the County should be in the position of allowing urban
development and whether the County should require annexation before any
development happens in the UGA.
Brenner stated that is fine for virgin land, but they're already dealing with
developments that already occurred. Holbrook stated the implementation package
will include zoning regulations, development regulations, and other plans. The
question is whether it is the City's or County's responsibility.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Planning and Development Committee, 6/7/2005, 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
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 to state that they need to look at some of the major
policies, infill numbers, and whether the County should provide services or require
annexation first.
Fleetwood asked when some of the bigger ideas, such as expanding the UGA
into the five -year review areas, will come to the Council. Holbrook stated they
should come to the Council this year. Bellingham needs to have its comprehensive
plan done by December 1. He would like to have this done concurrently. It might
be more appropriate to work on policy issues in other parts of the chapter, let the
City bring forward it's analysis of the UGA's, and respond to the City's proposal.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:10 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, 6/7/2005, Page 9