Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 7 20031 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. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee October 7, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Dan McShane Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Sam Crawford Barbara Brenner Sharon Roy Ward Nelson COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Absent: None 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING IMPACT FEES (AB2003 -331) This item will be rescheduled at a later date. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL — COMP. PI AN 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE INTRODUCTION CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2003 -075A) (3:00 — 4:00 P.M.) Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the purpose of the population projections they're considering is to plan for infrastructure and land use in the future. The projections are what they expect to happen, and not what they want to happen. The County Council has some control over what is actually going to happen. A lot of the development patterns in the county was set in the 1960's and 1970's. Those zoning categories were confirmed in subarea plans in the 1970's and by the County Comprehensive Plan in 1997. At that time, the County Council and Planning Commission were property rights oriented. They did not do downzones. She submitted information (on file) about the number of dwelling units that can be built with the existing zoning. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. McShane asked if the information is just for areas outside of the city limits. Goodwin stated it is. Within urban growth areas, there could be 54,998 additional dwelling units. That accommodates 138,000 additional people. Outside the urban growth areas, they can add another 20,000 dwelling units to accommodate an additional 50,000 people. Even if they were to downzone those areas, a lot of the parcels already exist. Even a massive downzone in the county would not reduce the number of potential dwelling units outside the cities. Crawford asked if the figures are pure acreage, or take into account the non - buildable lands. Goodwin stated she did not account for non - buildable land. They have different infill projections within the cities comprehensive plans. In urban growth areas, the wetlands and critical areas would remove a considerable amount of land. Outside of urban growth areas, they won't. If there is five and ten acre zoning, most parcels can fit one house even with a significant amount of wetlands. Even if they assume that half or three - quarters of the land comes out of the total due to wetlands, there is still a significant amount of development that could occur under the current zoning. This information only accounts for what the zoning would allow. There are a few areas that are zoned for five acre zoning but are still predominantly ten -acre parcels. Those areas are in a checkerboard pattern with five -acre, two -acre, and smaller parcels. If the County downzoned those areas, neighbors would be treated differently. They could reduce some density in certain areas. Brenner asked about the issue of treating one property owner different from another property owner. She's never heard about that issue being brought up. Goodwin stated it's been discussed throughout the Lake Samish rezone. Staff looks at the existing development pattern and whether they are being equitable. Those are things the County Council should think about. Mostly, the purpose was to point out the fact that a significant downzone would not reduce a lot of density. If they do want to go with a slower growth projection in the rural areas, there are a few options to achieve that slower growth. Brenner asked the incentive of the cities if the county can't reduce its density. Goodwin stated they weren't around when the zoning was established. They have to deal with the situation as it exists now. Now, the county has a lot of growth in the rural areas. They need to find creative ways to get the urban growth areas to densify and to discourage people from going to the rural areas. One way to discourage growth in the rural areas is downzoning. Another option is to adopt impact fees in the rural areas. Impact fees across the rural areas would make those areas more expensive to develop. The cities would be more attractive to develop. They all have impact fees right now. Impact fees in the Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. county would level the playing field. They have put a moratorium on gift exemptions. By tightening up the gift exemption procedures, there will be fewer five -acre parcels divided from the big parcels. They've talked about the transfer of development rights (TDR) and purchase of development rights (PDR) programs. They have to have receiving areas to transfer density to certain locations, which means they have to resolve issues in the Bellingham urban fringe to get utilities extended to those areas. They've talked about wetland mitigation banking and other things that encourage development in the city to mitigate wetlands outside the city. They've also talked about land acquisition programs and easements. All of those options are expensive. Buying development rights is expensive. The County may be able to afford three agricultural parcels this year. There are things to do to help the cities make development more attractive in the city areas. Fleetwood stated they always acknowledge that there are things to do to influence growth. He asked why they pronounce that they can't do anything about it. Goodwin stated there are things they can do. With this many existing parcels already on the books, there is only so many the County can purchase. The County can't just take them without compensation. The County can only downzone the ones that are larger than the minimum parcel size or it does no good. The County may be able to eliminate one - quarter to one -half of the parcels in the rural areas through downzoning and other means, but there are still many out there that are likely to develop. Whether or not they plan for the growth and provide infrastructure, it's likely there will be people on a lot of those parcels. She displayed a map of parcels that could be further subdivided under current zoning. There are a lot of areas where the County could downzone and it wouldn't make a difference. Some of the parcels that could be downzoned effectively are in the urban growth areas, and others aren't. There are a lot of five - and ten -acre zoned parcels larger than the minimum lot size south of Lynden, north of Bellingham, and in the east side of the county. The point of the map is to show that there are areas where downzoning could do some good if the Council wants to project lower density in the rural areas and is willing to do downzones and deal with the property rights challenges that are likely to occur. It's a difficult decision. There are now eight alternatives for population projections. The projections are important to know sooner rather than later. They have to make a decision on the Birch Bay subarea plan. There's a difference between the 7,100 units recommended by the Planning Commission and the 9,600 units recommended by the community in the community plan. Staff is continuing to work on the Bellingham urban fringe plan, which also depends on the population projections. McShane asked if the projection recommended by the Planning Commission for Birch Bay for the total growth. Goodwin stated it is the potential population for the year 2020. The community wants to plan for 9,600. The Planning Commission recommended 7,100, which is what they want to plan and zone for. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. Fleetwood stated Bellingham City Council Member Barbara Ryan is of the opinion that the City Council has not reviewed this issue, and thinks it has implications on how Bellingham will grow. The committee is going to hear a request to delay the process a little bit. He asked why they cannot wait. Goodwin stated they can wait. The Bellingham City Council has not taken action on the population projection. The Mayor made a suggestion, and the City staff made a suggestion. Tabling the decision on this item means they are also tabling the adoption of the Birch Bay Community Plan and a lot of the work the cities and County are trying to do to update comprehensive plans. Fleetwood asked the practical implication of delaying the process. Goodwin stated it would save her work if the Council makes a recommendation. She can put that work on the back burner. There are a lot of citizens who are waiting to get it down. The staff is hoping to have an estimate of how the Lake Whatcom downzone effects the future population and the TDR programs. They all tie together. The Council could wait. Ultimately, they can't adopt the population projections for the Introduction Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan until the Council completes review of the other Comprehensive Plan amendments later in the year. She would like to suspend work on the Birch Bay plan rather than rewrite it if the projections change. Fleetwood asked if the Council could indicate what it's willing to do to one certain provisional area, such as Birch Bay. Goodwin stated she would appreciate that. Staff was moving forward on the Bellingham urban growth area plan. It looks like they might be moving more slowly on that plan as well. McShane read a finding of fact 13 from the Growth Management Hearings Board decision on the Lake Samish zoning change regarding the county's analysis of housing needs, available potential lots, and population growth. Goodwin stated that finding is accurate. It came from a table staff did in its geographic information system (GIS) prior to this table. This build out analysis does not include the Lummi reservation. According to the current table, there are 75,000 additional potential dwelling units because they've subtracted Lake Samish, Lake Whatcom, and the Lummi reservation. McShane stated the ECONorthwest low projection is 43,650 additional growth over the next 20 years. If the Council were to choose the low number, that's how many people they need to plan for. The Council could conceivable take half of that growth outside the urban growth boundaries. Goodwin stated they could. If the zoning is left as it is, they could build an additional 20,000 units, to accommodate 50,000 people outside the urban growth areas. McShane stated they could plan to not build another house in the urban growth areas or the cities, and they could accommodate the entire low population projection growth in the rural parts of the county. The cities don't have to do a thing. Goodwin stated that's correct if they can afford the facilities. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. Crawford asked what they are supposed to conclude from this information. He asked if the inception of zoning inferred that a parcel was buildable. Goodwin stated it did not. Crawford stated that all the table does is takes the potential build out according to the zoning, subtracts the number of units, and says they have a phenomenal number left over. His concern is the reason why the existing dwelling units are there is because they are the spots that were most amenable to some form of construction. He doesn't understand how they can say there is a potential for 20,000 more housing units. Common sense says there's no way they can build out to what something is zoned. Goodwin stated that's true, but common sense also says that there is a bunch of vacant parcels that exist. If someone wants to build on them they could. The only point of the map is that they are not restricting the growth if they project the low population projection. The lots are there. If the people want to come there, they will. The map doesn't show that all those parcels will develop, just that they could develop. Crawford stated he would challenge the assumption that they could be built on. Goodwin stated many don't have wells or septic tanks. McShane stated it's important to address this issue. It now makes sense to build on properties that weren't desirable before. People will be creative in their designs and have to do a little extra engineering. It's happening in Bellingham now. There are parcels in Bellingham that will be developed at a high density because it finally works economically. The banks are lining up to loan the money. The market forces will eventually drive people to build on lots if there is an opportunity, through zoning, to build on the lots. It's not necessarily true that people won't build on sites. People will figure out a way to do it. There aren't that many lots that are unbuildable because people will figure out a way to build. That's what the Ayers Consulting, Stratum Group, and many others do. Crawford stated there's an area near Northwest and Aldrich roads that is slated to have 500 homes. Every developer says there's no way more than three houses can be built on that acreage. Much of it's wetlands that has to be mitigated at a ratio of three to one. Councilmember McShane is saying that there will be a point in time when someone will mitigate somewhere else, and actually put 500 homes there. Developers would challenge that statement. McShane stated that's correct. It won't happen today. It may happen in 20 years. Brenner stated it's important to stop demonizing people who live on small acreages. She lives on two acres. People should have choices. Caskey- Schreiber stated she tapped into Western Washington University's demography department to help understand how the census gathers data, how projections are made, and to provide a demography lesson. Dr. Rabel Burdge is an Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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 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. expert in rural sociology, and is also on the Planning Commission. Dr. Kyle Crowder is a well recognized demographer and has published on urban sociology. Lucky Tedrow handles the census material for the State. Dr. Rabel Burdge, 1108 - 13th Street, Bellingham, stated he lives on a 5,000 square foot lot. He submitted and read a handout (on file) on the Whatcom County Population Projections, dated October 7, 2003. Lucky Tedrow, 2433 Fieldview Drive, Ferndale, stated the ECONorthwest projections uses economic links with the State data. The Office of Financial Management (OFM) projection refers to a demographic method that projects age cohorts over time. This is the method he's most familiar with. The demographic methods separately accounts for births, deaths, and migration. Both the ECONorthwest and OFM intermediate forecasts are similar. The State's intermediate projection is the most likely to occur. Migration is the most volatile component of the projection. The numbers of births and deaths is standard throughout all counties. In the short term, from 2000 to 2005, the projection may go over or under the intermediate number, but it will level out to the intermediate number over the course of the 22 year period. The high and low projections reflect uncertainly and the fact that they can't forecast the population growth exactly. Kyle Crowder, Western Washington University Associate Professor in the Sociology Department, stated he lives on a four -acre lot. Research has been done in urban sociology to put population projections in context. There are three questions that are often convoluted in this debate, but need to be separated to reach sound decisions on which population projections they adopt. First, the question is how much they think the county will grow. They've already heard testimony that the middle projection is probably the most likely projection in terms of the demographic and economic forecast. Projections are based primarily on the fast growth of the 1990's. They've already seen the economic growth sag since then in the state, nation, and county. Since economic growth spurs in- migration, a sagging economy will also lead to sagging in- migration and reduce that population growth level. It's more realistic to extend the view back to at least the 1980's. The long -term view would lead to a conclusion that the middle line projection offered by ECONorthwest are most consistent with what will likely happen. The highest population projection from ECONorthwest are divorced from the reality of recent population trends. They imply that annual additions to the population will be about 4,444 new residents per year. Percentages sometimes hide the reality of what they're talking about. Every time they are talking about an annual percentage increase, they are applying that percentage to a larger population every year. The careful study by the Planning Commission supports the recommendations by the Planning Commission. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. The second question is how they will choose to accommodate the growth that will occur. Ms. Goodwin presented good information on that topic. Regardless of the population projections they decide to adopt, they will still have choices. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Crowder continued to state that even though zoning is already established, they still have room to mediate the potential impact of population growth. Adding to existing urban growth areas or failing to rezone current areas that could have high density development in the county paves the way for sprawl and its related problems. The third question is the most important, and asks how the planning decisions impact patterns and levels of population growth. The decisions they make shape the population trends. Planning is an active, not reactive, set of strategies. Take into consideration the impacts that population projections will have. For example, adopting inflated population projections and developing the related infrastructure to accommodate that inflated growth will increase the pace of population growth. Adopting high population projections, and increasing the availability of land for development, lowers the economic costs of using these resources and encourages more use, creating a phenomenon called induced usage. Evidence is most clear when they look at the development of roads. They often develop and expand roads to alleviate traffic congestion. Unfortunately, it's only a short -run solution. Over the long -run, it lowers the cost of traveling by car, induces more people to travel by car, and exacerbates the traffic congestion problem. They can expand that same logic to other kinds of infrastructure. All those provisions tend to reduce the cost of using those lands in the outer county areas and pave the way for more development in those areas. If they adopt the high projections, they are not wedded to measures that directly affect higher densities or development in the outer county, but it will create pressure. If they plan for a high population growth, that's what they will get because people will take advantage of the infrastructure that they've developed. He highly recommends that the Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations. They are the best thought out and most consistent with the trends. The variable projections across the county allow for steering growth into areas that take advantage of existing infrastructure and avoid that self - fulfilling prophecy. McShane stated a lot of the population projection appears to be focused on what's happening locally. He asked how well demographers do at predicting population growth in communities that are 50 to 90 miles from large urban areas. Crowder stated Seattle and Vancouver B.C. are both cases that contradict general trends. They have both experienced certain inner -city problems that tend to fuel suburbanization. They've also experienced a tremendous amount of gentrification as well, such as in the central district of Seattle. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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 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. He's concerned that the cost of business that goes up very high in the cities and creates an engine that drives population they can't prepare for. Crowder stated the suburbanization process and decline of the central city are locked in a downward spiral. There is a debate about whether or not the problems in the central city are a cause or consequence of urban decline. The tax base of the central city is declining because it is going to the suburbs. The businesses have also taken their tax dollars. If they continually focus economic and infrastructure development on the outer fringes of the urban areas, they are taking away funds from the central city and worsening the problems people are reacting to already. McShane stated the idea is that they should focus attention on the areas they want to have growth occur, and then plan the infrastructure there. The Planning Commission reflected that somewhat. His concern is how solid that number is. They are running out of land because of decisions made between Seattle and Everett. People are pressured to come this way. Crowder stated the downtown core of Bellingham will change if they infill and build up densities. They don't have to change in ways that other central cities have changed. In other cities, densities exploded and made it impossible for businesses to adapt to the lack of resources and land in the city. Whatcom County isn't at that point yet. They have a long way to go before reaching the point where land is completely unavailable in Bellingham. If they take those resources away from the central city, they lose control over the way the city develops. What's left is a tremendous infrastructure that's underutilized because businesses and people have relocated to the suburban fringes. They should all think about how they view population projections as self - fulfilling prophecies. Much of the super rapid growth reflects the fact they've been planning for super rapid growth. It's tough to plan for less growth. It's a big risk, but it's the only way to get a handle on it. Fleetwood stated many people propose that they choose the high population projection because it's better to be prepared, and it's extremely expensive to retrofit because of poor planning. He asked for Mr. Crowder's comments on that option. Crowder stated it seems to make good economic and common sense to overbuild, but it reduces the cost of development, which will spur development and population growth. At the other end of the extreme and under - build, it will increase the cost of development so much that people can't afford to move in. There won't be enough land and infrastructure to accommodate the people who want to move in. The end result is that the population growth slows. Something between the two extremes is ideal. Crawford stated the question is whether or not growth is good. His experience says that most people in the room were not born in Whatcom County. He thought it was pretty cool that he could move here. It sounds like they're Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. saying growth and population increases are bad. He asked if people who desire to come here should be able to come here. Burdge stated the purpose of their presentation is to give the best technical estimate of what the population will be. It's not their goal to decide whether growth is good or bad. Their presentation doesn't imply that growth is bad. They're simply saying that, based on their technical knowledge and experience, the Planning Commission recommendation is the best estimate. It's the Council's decision to evaluate the value of growth. Tedrow stated they have to make a distinction between population growth and geographic growth. By definition, sprawl is geographic growth that outstrips population growth. Population growth is good. That's what's allowed people to move here. Geographic growth is bad for the health of the cities, suburbs, and county in terms of attracting businesses and the environmental health. Population growth is possible without geographic spread. The Council has an opportunity to help steer that population growth into areas that are healthy for the entire county. Brenner stated the Growth Management Act can be interpreted many ways. It does talk about urban growth areas. People don't want to be in urban growth areas. She asked a better way than incrementally increasing the urban growth areas. Tedrow stated the urban growth areas are a good idea in principle. It's a matter of how they use the urban growth areas and whether or not they can avoid adding to the urban growth areas. They can argue there is ample area for development within the existing urban growth areas. Steering growth to those existing areas is what he would prescribe. Roy stated the notion is deciding what they want to preserve ahead of time, during the planning process, so the government and community have already determined the areas that will be green spaces, natural resources, or other uses. She asked if there's a pattern for how to do that. Tedrow stated that's a matter of being proactive instead of reactive. Have those philosophical conversations that tend to get lost in the day -to -day operations. Caskey- Schreiber asked about Councilmember McShane's proposal of choosing high projections for the cities and low projections for the rural areas, and whether that will work. Burdge stated Ms. Goodwin will provide information on what's available within these areas. Caskey- Schreiber stated it's difficult to divorce the population projection from the land use issues. The City of Bellingham is far from using all the tools available to encourage infill. They need to make it more attractive and competitive for people to locate in the city versus the county. They can do that. They don't need to adopt the high projection to get there. Fleetwood stated finding of fact 13 in the ordinance mirrors a finding of fact in the Planning Commission recommendation. It is what Councilmember McShane proposes. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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 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. McShane stated his proposal is not far from the Planning Commission's proposal. They should choose the highest number for the cities to make sure the cities are putting in place the infrastructure necessary to accommodate as much growth as possible. He's worried about more than 20 years. Nelson stated that if the land supply is adequate and the costs are down, they won't force people into the rural area. David Hunter, 819 Mason Street, stated he lives on a 5,500 square foot lot. He is not speaking as a representative of the County Planning Commission. It's important to recognize that a population projection is not purely reactive. It's proactive. It matters what they project. Increased population is not purely benign. It's damaging. It causes damage to the natural resources, even if it all occurs in the cities. The population in the cities will still transport to the county. They will still send pollution out into the county and affect the water supply. Recognize that the projections will have an impact on actual growth. Contemplate the special character of Whatcom County, with remarkable natural resources. Consider that low projections will have an impact that is different from a medium or a higher impact. Don't consider anything higher than the recommendation from the Planning Commission, including projections for the cities. The problems with shellfish and salmon are harbingers of future problems. Consider the Planning Commission recommendation, or something even lower. Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council Member, stated the Bellingham City Council and the City Planning Commission have not been able to have the same discussion as the County Council is having today. The City would like an opportunity to look at the numbers, and at how much growth the city can handle before it's not livable. Another question is what they can do to mitigate the impacts of growth. She is concerned about the increase of population without annexation. The City has looked at the areas that depend on City services that aren't part of the city and aren't paying City taxes. They have more work to do on that analysis. They are also interested in areas inside the city that are capable of becoming more dense, but they don't know what the numbers are. They need to analyze those areas. They need to figure out what they want Bellingham to look like in 2020. The City Council asks that the County delay the decision until the City has an opportunity to ask their questions. Fleetwood asked if the City knows how much time it needs to come to their position. Ryan stated she doesn't know. It needs to be done soon. Crawford asked for staff's response. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the administration was disappointed when it heard this, but understands. Crawford asked if they can delay this portion of the Comprehensive Plan update. This item carries a lot of weight. Bellingham is the largest city and Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. contains about half the county's population. It will have a major influence on what the County does. Goodwin stated they could delay this decision as long as to the end of 2004 if necessary. However, in order to plan for infill in Bellingham and growth in the urban growth area, staff need a projection on how much growth to plan for. County staff has worked with City staff on the Bellingham urban growth area. County staff recently heard that Bellingham staff wants to stop work on the Bellingham urban growth area plan and work on the city plan instead. If they try to wait until after they get done with the Bellingham urban growth area plan, it could be years. It's difficult for the city to plan for additional density if they don't have a population projection. It's easier for the city to plan for low projections, not infill, and let the growth go elsewhere if there isn't a projection to work toward. The County is required to update its Comprehensive Plan by the end of 2004. Caskey- Schreiber asked that someone from the City Council tell the County its timeline. The County can work with the City. It doesn't have to wait for a year. Hopefully they can get it done within the next couple of meetings. Dan Warner, 3854 Squalicum Lake Road, stated they all agree that they don't want to be another King County. At the present rate of growth, the City of Bellingham will have a population of 1.5 million in 100 years. That population is not acceptable or sustainable. It's a political decision. The people of Whatcom County have a right to say what they want the County to be like. At some juncture, the county population has got to stop growing. Of course the Council doesn't have the power to do that. Begin to take the action to stop growth sooner rather than later. Pat Jones, 153 Soundview Road, submitted information for the record (on file). He came to Whatcom County from Bellevue. He understands the consequences of not planning for the right population. As a consulting engineer, he saw it. He introduced two members of Northern Economics, who did a report for his firm a year ago. Donna Macomber, 159 Larson Road, Bellingham, asked the Council to use the low population forecast. Don't make judgments and decisions because they can't predict the future. The population decreased in Whatcom County last year. If they use the high forecast, the UGA will be increased. The builders will have more land, and taxpayers will pay higher taxes to subsidize them. The County has to review this again in seven years. If the Council chooses the high projection, the developers will be back in seven years to ask for more land in the UGA. Let Bellingham's current UGA do what it is supposed to do, which is infill. Tamer Kirac, Northern Economics Inc., stated he lives on a sailboat in Squalicum Harbor Marina. He did not specifically work on the report Mr. Jones submitted to the Council. Because of his background in economics and demographics, he may be able to provide some useful information and answer questions. Having worked for numerous counties, cities, and the Department of Commerce, he had a chance to review and critique some of the population Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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 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. projections that OFM conducts. The methodology used by OFM are quite credible and accurate. The OFM projections probably reflect reality and performance of actual population attainment in many counties and cities. Underestimating population growth in cities the size of Bellingham result in spillover of population. The UGA was established to manage that growth. Two communities that would be affected by such spillover would be Lynden and Ferndale. Underestimation can be a problem that would be difficult to solve in the future. Decisions should be made very carefully. Dave Paulsen, 3310 - 32nd Street, Bellingham, submitted his letter into the record (on file). He read his letter. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Paulsen continued to read his letter into the record. There are ways to grow in a sustainable way, create living wage jobs that increase the quality of life in Bellingham and Whatcom County. Kenni Merritt, 1304 -39th Street, Bellingham, stated she believes there is a strong common thread running through the community. Citizens want to preserve the rural character, farmland, and open space; the character of established neighborhoods, and; the special qualities and appearance of the community. These goals can be achieved if they use the low population number, retain existing urban growth area (UGA) boundaries, and retain the current zoning. There have been heated discussions on the Planning staff recommendations. Over the past two years, they've learned that corporate boards cannot simply accept staff and management recommendations without independently look at the recommendations and conclusions. The elected officials are directly accountable to the citizens. The impacts of these decisions go far beyond land use planning matters. Wynne Lee, 2171 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, stated she recommended the Council consider the low population, with more of the growth being put into the urban growth areas, and less into the agricultural and rural areas. The growth in the last 20 years has not paid for itself. Whatcom County is still facing an infrastructure problem. In the next 20 years, they have a lower of level services to look forward to. Cheryl Lovato - Niles, 2631 Sunset Drive, Bellingham stated she is most concerned about sprawl and its effects. Owning a car has negative environmental and personal effects. Make sure impact fees reflect the true cost of development. Focus on infill development. Larry Mansfield, 4145 Ridgewood Avenue, stated they have to stop growth. There is no affordable housing on either coast of the United States. He grew up in Medina, near Bellevue, which used to be very rural. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. Susan Tercek, 102 Briza Court, Bellingham, stated the Council should select the low number. The idea that they should plan for the worst possible population growth is misguided. The growth prediction will have consequences. They are having difficulties solving today's problems at today's population levels. If they can't solve the problems now, when they are small, don't allow the population to grow by 60 percent. Keep growth to a minimum until they can handle it. Barbara Rodak, 4456 Aldrich Road, stated she is against the big growth number and asked the Council to select the low growth number. She lived through the huge, unplanned growth in southern California from 1962 through 1973. Jack Petree, Sunset Drive, stated the Council is not deciding the amount of growth that will come to the county, but where it will go. It can go in the cities or in the county. If they restrict the cities' ability to build the infrastructure by going with the low projection, they will build smaller roads, units, and sewer. If it's too expensive to build in the cities, it's easy to go into the county. Lynn Alton, 4790 Aldrich Road, stated she is for low growth, not high growth. John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated he agreed with comments made earlier by Bellingham Council Member Barbara Ryan. Growth management is a serious problem. Both the County and the City are responsible to do their duties to plan for this growth in a reasonable, rational way. Take into consideration of the comments and concerns of all the citizens. This matter came before the City Council just yesterday. The City Council unanimously decided to express its concerns that population projection decision goes too far and too fast without significant input from the City Council. The City Council has had little feedback or participation to make its voice heard. This doesn't make a lot of sense. The update of their respective comprehensive plans need to be done in a spirit of collaboration. This plan must succeed far better than any past plan. There have been problems with growth. It's difficult to have cities plan and take infill. It can be done. It takes time to convince the public what to do, and then put those mechanisms into place that will enable the infill to happen. In the urban growth areas now (UGA) there is a debate about whose standards must be followed. The development community is getting worn out going back and forth between the City and County. They need to fix the problem they have before taking on additional problems. Another problem is revenue sharing. Now, about 12,000 people are living in the City of Bellingham UGA. This is one in six of the current population. The City does not collect property tax for any of those people. No one wants to live in the urban growth area. This is the place where they are supposed to take much of the growth. The urban growth area has become a no man's land because the City expects that it will come in eventually on annexation and things will happen. The Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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. County doesn't spend any additional funds on infrastructure because it thinks the City will do it. The two entities never meet on that issue, which needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed concurrently with any growth projections. Associated with those problems, the City is also continuing to withhold the extension of water and solution, which will allow density to occur and will trigger annexation. This has to happen, as does transfers of development rights (TDR's). Before they get too far down the track, they need to bring everything and everyone together. There's something of an artificial urgency being created. He's not sure the number they pick makes a lot of difference. People think it does. If people think it makes a difference, it will make a difference. Be careful about the perceptions they are creating. There's no rush. McShane asked that, regardless of what the County does, make sure that the City uses an entire County map instead of just city maps. People consider what's outside the city limits when considering what makes this a great place to live. This is only one political decision. He commended Barbara Ryan for taking the hard position of not providing infrastructure that would enable growth outside of the city. Caskey- Schreiber stated she was also surprised that it was on the track that it was. They've only had a half meeting before this one on this topic. She was told that planners, small cities, and administrations got together last October on this issue. It seems like the County Council is getting pressure to make a decision they've already come to. She has a document that talks about making infill work. It takes time, neighborhood cooperation, and infill -like existing properties. She welcomes the opportunity to work with the City of Bellingham on this issue. Brenner stated she was pleasantly surprised to hear from the City. The City Council must have heard about what the City administration has been saying. She's been hearing it for months. The City and County planning commissions have been meeting. She's surprised he hadn't heard that this is what the City administration is planning. Watts stated that's the point. He prefers to let the Planning Commission and public do their things first, and then come in after it's been conditioned. He has an interest, but he lets the Planning Commission and the citizen's groups do their work first. The City Council may or may not make changes. That's how the process ought to work. Polly Hanson, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated she looks at things based on reality. Don't lose a grip on the fact that there are beautiful, life- Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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 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. sustaining, necessary things that are under threat and showing signs of wear. First decide what they absolutely have to have. Decide what is most important in the Whatcom County area. Decide whether they want to preserve the forest or the water quality. Glaciers are melting, and the storehouse of fresh water is being lost. When they build more roads and houses, the aquifers become polluted and used up. They are pumping water out faster than it filters into the aquifer. Build the population around keeping those things that are critical to support life. The newcomers should pay their full way financially, and they should not do in the people who already live here. Alan Rhodes, 1211 - 38th Street, Bellingham, stated he agreed with Council Member Barbara Ryan in not rushing on this issue. If a population figure were to be chosen, he would choose the low projection. A study was done in 2000 at the request of the King County Council on the cost of growth in Oregon State. The study supported what has been determined throughout the country for many years. Growth tends to raise taxes and decrease the level of services. This particular study discovered that, in urban growth areas in Washington State, the infrastructure costs of the average single family dwelling was $83,000. The average impact fee is $2,500. There is a phenomenal cost to the taxpayer. He wants to know the cost to the taxpayers of Whatcom County for each new single family home being built. They need to take a very conservative approach. Pick the low population figure. The costs of growth can be staggering. He doesn't want to see taxes increase and services dwindle. Warren Sheay, Humbolt Street, stated he lives in the York neighborhood, which is the single most crowded neighborhood in the City of Bellingham. There are about 12 people per acre. They are already at a high density. When they talk about infill, they should be careful. There is an infill design that is not for affordable housing or families. They are for single people and college students. They are studios and one - bedroom apartments that will rent for about $600 per month. The developer has been uncooperative with the neighborhood. When the building goes in, there will be overflow parking. Infill sounds great, but they have to stop all population growth. They have a chance to do that. It will take courage. The problem with the planning process is that it focuses on the people who are coming. They have to remember the people who are already here. The people here are ignored by real estate developers and the planning process. They've already figured out what they want for the county through the visioning process of the Comprehensive Plan. Non - public lands are to stay rural in agricultural and forestry uses. Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated there's a profound disconnect and disagreement between planners and the public. He understands that planners like streets that go through subdivisions. In reality, the public likes cul de sacs. There is a reason why elected politicians, not scientists, make the decisions. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, 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 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 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. Choosing these population numbers is about how they are going to handle buildable land. This exercise should involve how to enhance the quality of life. The high and medium numbers are too large to enhance the quality of life in any area. The argument is that rural areas are saved by densifying and expanding the UGA's. However, that hasn't been shown as true. No one has come up with an answer to how big the projection has to be to stop people from going into the rural areas. Even 10,000 or more new lots will change the fact that people will go to the rural areas. The problem is not solved by the staff's recommendations. It also doesn't help them expand or densify the UGA's. Keep the zoning the way it is in the UGA's. Put as much density as much as possible in the cities. The County will have to deal with the rural areas at a future time. They are only faced with the UGA's right now. Those population numbers don't work for any area. The low number can be workable. Fleetwood stated the Planning Committee lost it's quorum at 5:25 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription /X—E&i71 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2003, Page 16