HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works January 25 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
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
Public Works and Safety Committee
January 25, 2005
Committee Member Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson None
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
Dan McShane
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2005 -022)
Crawford moved to nominated Councilmember Brenner.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Brenner out of the room.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY
1. DISCUSSION OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S 20 -YEAR FERRY PLAN
(AB2005 -078)
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, showed an aerial photograph of the two
ferry docks. The first of the four items in his presentation is to provide a history of
the ferry services to today; the planning process for the land use subarea and how
it will affect ferry service levels; an update of all the physical facilities the County
owns, and; the relationship with the Lummi Nation.
This presentation will explain the amendment to the annual program and six -
year program, scheduled before the full Council at tonight's meeting.
Short -term goals, for one or two years, include completing parking
improvements. Preliminary design of a replacement boat is necessary to seek
financial support for the boat. That's one of the reasons for amending the annual
and six -year transportation programs.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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
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 want to go ahead with design and engineering. She
asked if they would be better off to wait until they make a decision on it. Monsen
stated he would discuss that later in the presentation.
In the acquisition process, they want to retain the existing Whatcom Chief as
a backup vessel during dry dock and other downtime. Skagit County is interested
in doing the same thing using cost sharing.
They want to extend the Gooseberry Point parking lease, which expires in
April.
Brenner asked if they are going to enter into one long -term lease with the
Lummi Nation. Monsen stated he hopes to get a long -term lease for everything
regarding ferry operations, not just parking. There is no reason to wait until 2010
to renew the tideland lease. There is no reason to acquire a new boat if they are
uncertain about where that boat will be.
Brenner asked the concerns of the Lummi Nation about renewing the lease.
Monsen stated the Lummi Nation has two primary concerns. One issue is that they
are planning to redevelop Gooseberry Point. To do that, they believe the ferry dock
is in the way, and the landing should be relocated. Until the tribe gets further in its
redevelopment planning, it will not negotiate a lease for that landing spot. The
tribe may negotiate other options, but the County is looking for certainty at some
location. That is the same concern the tribe has regarding parking. There is no
reason to enter into a long -term lease for parking in its current location if the dock
is going to move. He feels good about the progress they're making in pulling these
pieces together.
Crawford asked the timeframe. Monsen stated they need to extend the
parking lease in the short -term. It won't be done by the end of April. In the mid-
term, he expects the tribe to formulate and finalize the redevelopment plans. Also
in the mid -term, the County would acquire a new boat. The redevelopment plan
includes the tribes goal to develop a more aggressive multi -modal facility. That
gives the County reason and timing to deal with passenger and walk -on issues. In
the long -term, they can get into formalizing the lease agreements and construct
individual and /or joint facilities.
The Council action today is to amend the annual program regarding a new
boat and financing for a feasibility study to relocate the dock. Approval of that
amendment gives staff the authority to make grant applications.
One concept for dock location is farther south. It will get the dock out of the
core business area and create new multi -model transport opportunities.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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
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.
Crawford asked if the businesses the Lummi Nation proposes in its
redevelopment is not complementary to ferry traffic. Monsen stated he
understands that the focus of the businesses is from the water, such as fishing.
There would be an interlocal agreement for a feasibility study of relocating
the dock and Lummi View Road.
Crawford asked if shoreline depth is an issue at the new location. Monsen
stated it will be, however this comes out. Shoreline depth relates to the dock
length, not a specific site.
The Lummi Nation thinks it may be able to construct the new facility if the
County pays for the feasibility study.
The issues on the Lummi Island side of the crossing include completion of the
parking lot. The Parks Department's updated Parks plan may influence how the
water frontage is accessed. He will make sure whatever they do with the parking
lot does not take away those opportunities. There is a proposal to retain the
Embrey house for future community use.
He showed a map of the ferry landing location and Embrey property. To
develop a parking lot this year, the timeframe is tight. The proposal is to surplus
the house so it is relocated off the site. A fair amount of the landscaping and
plantings have been relocated.
The resolution to surplus the house is to consider designating the house as
surplus and to schedule a public hearing in two weeks to decide on whether or not
to surplus the house. This resolution does not surplus the house. For staff to make
a transaction with the Land Trust, it may have to go through the surplus process
anyway. He recommends that the Council approve the resolution and set that
hearing. Allow the hearing to set the criteria by which to not surplus or to surplus,
with conditions.
Brenner asked if there are laws to make them take the highest bidder.
Monsen stated that would be discussed at the hearing. The Council can set
conditions. Go forward with the hearing. If the house were to not be there, the
property can be turned into a parking lot this calendar year, before dry dock. To
deliver a new parking lot this year, he needs to know if the house is going to stay
or go.
Crawford asked if they can still do the parking lot if Mr. Monsen knows the
house is going to stay. Monsen stated he could. If the house stays, parking can be
developed on the back and side areas. Stormwater from the site is also an issue
that must be addressed. If the house stays and will have a green space around it,
it will influence the number of parking spaces and how they deal with stormwater.
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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.
If they keep the option open to relocate the house, a path to move the house will
have to be available.
He recommends that the Council move this item and the resolution forward.
They provide him the most flexibility. The contract with Wilson Engineering is
drafted in a way to do typical design and engineering, whichever way the County
decides. Until the Council decides to either keep the house or surplus the house,
he can't give direction to Wilson Engineering. The world won't end if they don't get
the parking lot done this year, but that was the commitment he made. To go
through an elaborate evaluation process, he would like early recognition that the
process means they will likely delay parking. He wants to make that clear. He
doesn't have a position on it one way or the other. He just wants to know so they
can maximize productivity throughout the process.
Crawford stated that if the Council approves the resolution to hold the
hearing and also engage the contract, staff won't need a decision on the house
today. Monsen stated that is correct.
Crawford asked if Mr. Monsen can come up with a design for the
councilmembers to look at during the hearing. Monsen stated he can't speak for
the Lummi Island Community Land Trust. Staff and the Land Trust will discuss the
Land Trust's proposal next week.
Crawford stated he suspects the Land Trust's proposal is a good one.
Brenner asked why they can't say that's what they want to do and approve it
tonight. Monsen stated that if the Council is prepared to retain the house, then
there may not be a reason to schedule a hearing.
Brenner asked if there is an engineering reason for not keeping the house.
Monsen stated he's not sure if they need to go through the surplus process to
transfer ownership of the house. As far as the parking lot design, they don't have
to decide now about when they will surplus the house. If they retain the house,
they don't need to approve the resolution at the Council meeting. The meeting
scheduled next week is to discuss the site and parking lot design process, which is
not a part of the surplus process.
Crawford stated he likes the idea, but he's only read one letter on this.
However, a public hearing will be useful to hear both the pros and cons from the
residents. There will be a downside to the Land Trust's proposal. The Council
needs to have a public hearing with adequate public notice. Approve the
resolution.
Brenner agreed they should have a hearing, but don't title it as being about
designating the property surplus. Make the title more informative. Monsen stated
the purpose of surplus is for the County to extinguish it's hold on a property. By
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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
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.
this evening, he'll know whether the County needs to go through a surplus hearing
process to sell the property.
Crawford moved to recommend to full Council to approve the resolution
setting a public hearing to declare property surplus (AB2005 -081). He
would like to hear more about the Land Trust's proposal.
Monsen stated two public hearings before the Council are to amend the
annual and six -year transportation programs so staff can find financial support for
feasibility and design, not boat acquisition.
Colleen Berg, Lummi Island Community Land Trust Director, stated the
intention is not to slow down the parking project. Their intent is to develop the
parking lot responsibly. Their proposal is win -win. Her engineer developed a plan
that includes the required 72 parking spaces in addition to the house. It will take
effort to work around the house, but they can develop parking on an adjacent
property that the Land Trust will purchase. She recommended not approving the
surplus resolution. The Land Trust proposes a land swap, not a purchase. They
want to keep the house where it is and use it for a community purpose. Have a
public hearing. They don't know what the use the community wants for the house,
and she would like to hear what the community wants. Incorporate the three lots
into one plan that is designed in a way that welcomes those who ride the ferry to
the island.
Crawford stated the resolution is not to surplus the property. The resolution
is to hold the hearing.
Crawford asked about the property to the west. Berg stated about .6 acres.
It has septic and well. It is mostly clear. The Land Trust plan is to purchase that
property and trade it with Whatcom County's portion that encompasses the house,
stump, and live cedar trees.
Crawford asked how the Land Trust will get the money to purchase the
property. Berg stated that is something they'll have to discuss.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Crawford stated the staff will need to know soon which direction the Council
decides. He asked if that's possible. Berg stated it is possible. The County should
move ahead with getting an environmental assessment or anything else it must do
anyway. She wants to address the community and find out what it wants to use
the house for.
Crawford stated that creating a public facility from a private residence
requires a significant upgrade. He asked if that is something that the Land Trust
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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.
can evaluate in this short timeframe. Berg stated the Land Trust would do its best.
It can be addressed.
Crawford asked if the County still owns the property to the north, which is
adjacent to this property. Berg stated it does.
Crawford stated the proposal is a great vision.
Monsen stated the road fund is holding this parcel, waiting for the Parks plan
to be done. Whether or not this parcel is purchased buy the Parks Department to
be used for a park or whether it is used as leverage to acquire other parcels is yet
to be determined. At this point, acquisition would have to be from the general fund
or a grant for it to become a park.
Art Thomas, 2620 Islandview, Lummi Island, stated the Land Trust vision is
nice. However, he's concerned about the parking. The County needs to take care
of the parking issue, which they have been talking about for years. The County
needs to meet the timeline. Don't get into a situation where they get slowed down
by another vision. There are safety concerns related to the parking problem.
Wanda Cucinotta, 2303 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated the parcel to the
north can be used for stormwater retention and to open up places in the Embrey
lot.
Polly Hanson, 2781 West Shore Drive, stated this is a win -win situation.
They won't have to delay parking development. The small lot between the Embrey
lot and the County lot is flat and can be used for parking. Land around the house
can be used for parking. Find out the exact community uses that are best for that
space. The appraiser will have his answer today or tomorrow. It shouldn't delay
the process. She doesn't see any reason for a delay. Stormwater will need to be
treated. They can have an open swale for treatment or something that goes
underneath the parking. It would have to be done anyway. The community use of
the house doesn't have any effect on that.
Michelle Luke, Sunrise Cove, Lummi Island, thanked the County for the work
it has already done. The Land Trust has an existing project on the island with
issues. This vision comes at the last minute. A community center can be located in
other places on the island. She's skeptic of the proposal.
Craig Smith, 2522 Taft Drive, Lummi Island, stated he's concerned that they
get parking. He is one of the fire commissioners. Every year during dry dock.,
they can't get emergency vehicles down the road because of the way people park.
It gets worse every year. Build this parking lot before the next dry dock.
Wanda Terry, 2882 N. Nugent Road, Lummi Island Transportation Committee
member, stated the most important concern is that people are already parking
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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.
illegally. It will only increase. She's a volunteer firefighter as well. All the
firefighter training instructors are concerned about people ignoring the No Parking
signs. They can't get the fire rigs through. It is a safety issue. If the emergency
vehicles can't get to the ferry, a patient will have to pay for airlift, which costs
thousands of dollars. Stay on task. It's taken over three years to get to this point.
Berg stated the owner of the Islander store has opened his parking lot for
overflow parking during dry dock. She submitted a letter of interest in the Embrey
house to Mr. Monsen and Executive Kremen in July. She made an attempt to do
this quite a while ago.
Crawford restated his motion to recommend to the full Council to approve
the resolution setting a public hearing to declare property surplus
(AB2005 -081).
Monsen stated he will submit the correct Exhibit A at the evening meeting.
Brenner stated the motion includes the amended language.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Nelson out of the room.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DECLARE PROPERTY
SURPLUS (AB2005 -081)
See the above item for discussion of this item.
1. RESOLUTION REMOVING THE LAKE WHATCOM CONNECTOR FROM
THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR ROAD PLAN (AB2005 -068)
Brenner referenced a memo from Councilmember Fleetwood dated January
25, 2005 regarding the Whatcom Connector. She asked that the questions in the
memo be addressed. She read the first question.
Jeff Monsen, County Road Engineer, stated the debate is whether
development will occur if they build a connector. A connector won't discourage
development. The decision is whether they finance the connector from
development fees, a grant, or people who already live in the county.
Brenner stated the question really is about the zoning in the area of the
connector, and if it is accessible now for build out to that level. Monsen stated he
doesn't believe that properties in the immediate corridor of the connector need the
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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.
connector to have access. If a road is provided that makes it easier and cheaper to
access those properties, it will likely develop faster. Zoning drives build out.
Brenner stated she doesn't think build out would increase because of the
connector, beyond what is zoned. She read the second question in Councilmember
Fleetwood's memo. Monsen stated there has been some basic design work done.
To get a firm estimate, he needs more engineering. Timing of completion is subject
to financing. Construction funds have never been allocated to the connector. At
this point, he doesn't know if that will change.
Crawford stated projects far down on the list don't get constructed unless
moved up on the list.
Nelson stated the only reason for the connector to be on the list was to do
engineering and find out the costs for constructing it.
Brenner asked the third question from Councilmember Fleetwood's memo.
Monsen stated that whether or not the County builds or rebuilds roads is a
philosophical question. That said, any road the County constructs now will include
better water quality management than it had before. However, because the
connector is in virgin territory, it may not be the case.
Brenner asked if they could improve water quality by building the connector.
Monsen stated any road projects in the watershed will improve water quality
because of design features. A connector will influence the timing of other roadway
improvements in the watershed, such as Northshore Road, but not Lake Louise
Road.
Brenner asked if there is a scenario where the Whatcom connector could
improve water quality in the watershed. Monsen stated one main purpose of the
connector was to divert traffic away from the shoreline. A connector can improve
water quality. He doesn't know if the houses that will be built would offset that
improvement.
Nelson asked if water quality would improve as build out occurs if the
connector were not built and the traffic on Lake Whatcom Boulevard increases. If
there is an increase in transportation needs in the same area, there will be an
increase in pollutant load that will be attributable to that increased need and that
can't be cleaned up because of the archaic road system.
Brenner read question four from Councilmember Fleetwood's memo. Monsen
stated the Council retains the right to remove the connector from the list up until
the County awards the bid.
Nelson stated the Council always retains that right. He asked if the funding
mechanism is through the County road plan or from other funds since it is so
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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
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.
expensive. Monsen stated the road plan is a policy document. It has to suggest
how the road construction will be financed.
Brenner asked how much money it would take for more studies and
engineering. Monsen stated the last estimate for detailed engineering for a route
was $250,000. The County would need to spend that amount of money to answer
the existing questions. The big question is how much it will cost to construct the
road.
Brenner stated her biggest question is whether it will improve water quality
and, if so, how much. Monsen stated that when the decision was made to not
move forward with the engineering work, it was because there was no reason to
spend $250,000 on engineering if they haven't decided on whether or not to
construct the road.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated this is un- planning. Taking the
connector off the plan will create negative environmental impacts. Get the traffic
away from the lake. The citizens need a good way to get around. The system in
place is overloaded. It's time to improve the system.
William Rink, 995 Lakeview Street, Bellingham, stated he is concerned that
this has been on the plan for over eight years. It's affecting people and their
properties right now. He owns two five -acre parcels, and they are having trouble
trying to get his building permit through. The County wants to put a reserve on
some of his land, so he can't do anything with it. This connector will never be
developed. The connector will have to bridge a deep gorge and many creeks. The
slope of the hillside will have to be cut into. The State doesn't have the money to
fix existing bridges and roads. A project of this size, so a few people can get into
town five or ten minutes sooner, is crazy. Environmentally, the road along the
front of the lake will always have cars driving on it, whether or not they build
another road.
Crawford moved to recommend the resolution to the full Council, but he is
against the motion. Including the connector on the list doesn't cost the County
anything. It does cost some property owners in terms of prudent development
today and the anticipation that the County needs to keep its transportation options
open in the future. The 1991 Reid Middleton study concluded that the alternatives
are physically feasible, and future traffic demand in the corridor will require future
construction of another east -west corridor to serve the south Lake Whatcom area.
There has been significant decrease in anticipated build out in the area this would
serve because of downzones, more restrictive regulatory measures, and other
measures. If the Council removes this connector permanently and forever, future
generations of folks don't have this option. It's prudent to leave this in the status it
is. He does not propose building the connector within the next decade, but it's
appropriate to keep the County's options open to reduce Lake Whatcom Boulevard
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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.
traffic levels, which must service a potential population in Sudden Valley of 10,000
people.
This plan was initially proposed with the Sudden Valley development in the
1960's. The Lost Lake /Lost Lane development occurred well after that. Mr. Rink
and Mr. Englestad decided to build houses. They came in with this plan in effect.
They're the newcomers. This plan was there and is not costing the taxpayers
anything. It did affect how much they had to spend on their developments, but it is
prudent to keep this in the plan.
Brenner stated it will cost the County to keep this on the list. Public Works
staff said the County is going to have to spend more money for engineering of the
Lake Whatcom connector.
Monsen stated that the premise is that every project on the six -year plan will
move forward, and money will eventually be spent. How soon that happens is up
to the Council. They are managing the corridor as best they can to preserve the
ability to create a right -of -way. There is some work put into that, but nothing
resembling the design process.
Brenner stated a Public Works staff person said the County needed to
allocate money for the connector, which is why this came up. She questioned why
the County needed to spend anything on the connector when it is so far down on
the list. She was told that the County had to spend money to do a certain thing.
Monsen stated the issue is whether or not the County would continue to reserve the
space, through the permit processes, so the County can develop the right -of -way in
the future without having a residence on the reserve area. An individual came
forward asking that the connector be removed so he did not have to reserve a
portion of his property for potential right -of -way.
Brenner stated she is talking about another thing.
Nelson stated there are other access areas the County maintains. He asked
if the County tries to get rights -of -way as it looks at future traffic development
patterns. Monsen stated there are a lot of old rights -of -way in the county that the
County tries to preserve.
Nelson stated once they eliminate this, those rights -of -way are gone. He
asked how easy it would be to get those back. Monsen stated the County would
have to reacquire the rights -of -way or realign the project.
McShane stated the connector was thought of because of potential future
build out. The total potential build out that this road was planned for has been
significantly reduced. The area around Sudden Valley has been downzoned from
three houses per acre to one house per five acres. The City of Bellingham
purchased part of the Bellingham urban growth area that would have been served
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, 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
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.
by the connector and would have been a significant traffic contributor. People may
not be pleased with the traffic loads, which may go up some. However, the traffic
load will not go up enough to justify this road.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Nelson stated the Bicycle /Pedestrian Advisory Committee recommended
keeping the right -of -way for alternative transportation, such as a bicycle route into
town. If the County is going to support bike and pedestrian pathways, it will have
to maintain those rights -of -way.
Brenner stated she disagrees. The committee said that if the County does
maintain the connector, it should make sure it is bike- and pedestrian - friendly.
Motion failed 1 -2 with Brenner in favor,
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
/X—E&i71
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Safety Committee, 1/25/2005, Page 11