HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning June 18 20021
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
June 18, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Sharon Roy
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EVERGREEN WATER -SEWER DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2002 -228)
McShane moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR HAL HART REGARDING PLANNING ISSUES (AB2002 -184)
McShane stated this item was discussed earlier in the Natural Resources
Committee meeting.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING INTERIM ZONING WITHIN THE LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2002 -226)
McShane stated he brought this item forward for discussion.
Nelson stated they are looking at approximately 2,000 parcels in the Lake
Whatcom watershed.
McShane stated that is an approximate potential build out.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
Nelson asked if the committee has considered where the density will go. In
light of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and comprehensive planning, they have
had to use all their zoning and densities to outline where growth will occur and how
big the urban growth areas (UGA's) will be. That amount of density is over what
the County permits in the watershed in one year. This will have other types of
impacts, such as economic and political impacts. He would like to know how that
would be addressed in a comprehensive way, as they did with three years of work.
McShane stated the Comprehensive Plan talks about reducing zoning in the
watershed, but it doesn't specify how. In the long -term, they will need to take a
look at increasing density elsewhere to make up for lost areas of density in the
watershed. In the short -term, it will not create an emergency density shortage.
Those densities cannot be achieved in the short -term anyway because of a lack of
water and sewer availability. The vast majority of the zoning changes will have a
long -term impact.
Nelson stated it would change the Comprehensive Plan, which took them
many years to develop. Downzoning was not an element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Also, don't jeopardize the County's legal position in this action. One Supreme
Court case found that government extractions must be proportional to the cost of
impact to the landowner's activity. Citizens will be concerned if they purchased
property in anticipation of being able to do something. The downzone has to be
proportional to what they are trying to protect. If they are trying to protect 1,000
lots, each valued at $100,000, it would cost $100 million. They may be violating
the proportionality by preventing property owners from doing what they intended
with their properties. The intent is water quality. They have to demonstrate that
the significant savings is valued at more than $100 million. He asked if the County
legal counsel reviewed this.
McShane stated the legal counsel reviewed the proposal. Counsel did not
express a concern.
Fleetwood stated the background sheet in the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) determination of non - significance suggested that the interim zoning
ordinance and a moratorium are one in the same. He asked if that is correct.
McShane stated that language was left in, and shouldn't have been.
Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association (BIA), stated protection of the
quality of water in the lake is divided into two parts. There is a concern about the
pollution of the lake right now from existing homes and development. There is also
a concern about what might be built in the future. His concern is that it is bold to
downzone the watershed, if the quality of the water and protection of that water is
at issue. He asked what is being done to improve the pollution that is taking place
from runoff, stormwater, and all the things that are currently polluting the lake in
those areas that are already developed. They are focusing on homes that have yet
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
to be built and that aren't polluting the lake. There is pollution taking place in the
portion of the watershed that is built out. He asked how soon the problems from
the current developed would be addressed.
McShane stated the Council has worked on looking into some street sweeping
equipment to reduce the pollution runoff from the roads. They will also have to
seriously look at creating stormwater districts in areas of the watersheds. As they
do that, they may find that some zoning changes need to occur. Allowing
additional development may alleviate the cost of that. The Council hopes to do
more aggressive things in that direction, but it is not easy.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed that the biggest source of pollution in the lake is
development. Right now, they don't have a stormwater system that guarantees
100 percent offset to pollution runoff. Therefore, downzoning is one of the safest
things they can do to reduce the density. When they zoned the area originally, the
best available science was not developed to make a good decision about how
densely the development should occur around the lake. This is a good step to
rectify what has already happened. They know that they cannot build out a lake
and expect it to survive. She supports the downzone because it is a tool they need
to save the lake. This is not an attack on development. It is about saving the
water reservoir for the City of Bellingham. Reducing density does work. She is a
strong proponent of it.
Tom Pratum, North Shore Road, stated this is a great proposal. It corrects a
lot of zoning that makes no sense in the watershed right now. It is not going to
affect 1,000 parcels, and it will not cost $100 million. He suggested that the
committee look at the area around Sudden Valley. The proposal appears that it
doesn't deal with some lots north of Sudden Valley that are large and zoned urban
residential, three units per acre (UR -3) or urban residential medium density, 12
units per acre (URM -12). They are just outside the UGA. It doesn't make sense to
rezone the Firs and Sudden Valley without rezoning that property as well.
Myron Wlaznak, 4215 E. Oregon, Bellingham, stated Mr. Emerson makes a
great point. If they haven't fixed the existing problems, he asked why they would
allow more development if they haven't fixed what they have.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion of this issue continued after the following item.)
1. REQUEST TO AMEND WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO EXEMPT
PARCELS WITHIN THE DRAYTON HARBOR STORMWATER SPECIAL
DISTRICT FROM ON -SITE STORMWATER DETENTION AND
INFILTRATION REQUIREMENTS (AB2002 -174)
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated this proposal has gone back to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration. The Planning Commission supported their original
recommendation to leave Drayton Harbor alone. The Planning Commission also
reconsidered the other two stormwater special districts in light of the new
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
standards, and decided to apply the standards equally in all three stormwater
special districts. If the committee approves the Planning Commission
recommendation, there is nothing to adopt. There is no ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend upholding the Planning Commission
recommendation.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING INTERIM ZONING WITHIN THE LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2002 -226)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
Nelson stated he has information from 1999 on the potential build out. A lot
of the development is in the area of basin one, which is of great concern. Those
are areas that were previously platted. Some lots in Geneva were platted but can
never be fully developed. He asked the impact of this on water quality. When the
diversion is on, there is less of an impact on basin two. Basin one is the
contributing factor. There are thousands of development sites around it.
Downzoning won't solve the problem. All it does is frustrate the citizens. He asked
how they evaluate the effectiveness of a downzone when the contributing factor is
what already exists around basin one.
McShane stated the zoning changes in Sudden Valley, unless they look at the
lot consolidation rules, wouldn't make much of a difference in potential future
growth. The areas where there are existing plats or where it is reasonable to
expect to develop the property, the zoning is not going to address those problems
in those areas. Zoning changes will address places that can develop a high density
far into the future. The vast majority of those areas are on the North Shore, from
Agate Bay to the Academy Road area. There are large areas at the south end of
the lake, also.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, submitted information on the
density reduction that would occur. Four areas would be downzoned: North Shore,
Sudden Valley, South Lake Whatcom, and Geneva. In those four areas, they would
reduce 3,565 potential housing units.
Nelson stated the value could be well over $100 million.
McShane stated this is to go to the Planning Commission, which would
hopefully have a lengthy legal discussion. Councilmember Nelson's concern could
be overly warranted.
Crawford stated they have to acknowledge whether or not they want to
speculate what the real value is. That would be very difficult to do unless they
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
contracted for a professional appraisal. They can assume there is some value to all
those potential lots.
McShane stated there is. There is also value to the lots after the downzone.
They are going to have a significant value zoned at rural, one unit per five acres
(R5A). The value is not completely removed. In the short -term, there will not be a
lot of difference in the value. The only value is the potential for development.
Crawford stated there are other things that have value. First, people invest
in property and subdivide to make money. If they second -guess the market to say
the potential is minimal, it would be a stretch.
McShane stated that potential exists in the long -term.
Crawford read County Charter section 1.11, regarding the rights of the
citizens being guaranteed, and that no regulation shall be generated without
consideration of and provisions for compensation to those unduly burdened. There
would be an interesting legal debate about what "unduly burdened" means and
whether or not someone with property is unduly burdened by this ordinance.
"Consideration of" is a legitimate thing. If this proposal totals 3,000 potential lot
reductions, there is no doubt that there is some value.
They need to think about mechanisms for compensation. Their Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program has not worked because they have not found
receiving areas that are providing some equitable value for the right that is being
transferred. For example, if a development right is worth $50,000 or $100,000 in
the watershed, and the receiving area value is only $30,000, then there isn't
enough equity there. That's the flaw of their TDR program. As they move along
with the TDR program over time, this is a hot enough issue that they are going to
see movement forward on developing potential receiving areas that will have a
more equitable value. If that happens, they can meet the mandate of the County
Charter, which says they will give consideration to provide compensation. There is
a cause for concern from an economic perspective.
McShane stated he took into account not unduly burdening people the best
he could. It is one reason some of the decisions about how the zones proposed
were made. For those who are interested in going beyond this type of density, they
should be thinking about compensation when they get into unduly burdening
people.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a Planning Commissioner who is a realtor stated
that a five -acre waterfront lot would hold its value equal to anything with two or
three lots on five acres. The County Charter also says they should protect the
public's health and welfare. Protecting the water supply certainly is part of that
mandate as the Board of Health and as the County Councilmembers. They know
that development is a problem around the lake. A surefire fix is to reduce density
and development. That's why she supports this proposal.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
Fleetwood stated the concern is that this action may be a regulatory taking.
Based on his reading of the law, they are not close to that threshold. There is a
clear beneficial public purpose that they've identified to support this. It might be
interesting to ask the County attorney to look at some cases and present a brief.
They should not shy away from taking action because of a potential threat that
someone might challenge the County. The fear of a takings challenge is not a
reason to not vote on the downzone tonight.
Nelson stated they haven't completed the stormwater standards. They
haven't developed a mechanism for funding support of the stormwater standards.
They haven't completed the studies they need to make careful deliberations on
stormwater in certain areas. The data collection isn't that accurate. There are
limited creek studies from Dr. Robin Matthews. They have not recognized the
impacts to the Comprehensive Plan. An interim ordinance requires that citizens will
not be able to take benefit of their property according to the assumption for which
they purchased it. He asked if that is completely fair to those individuals when they
have not developed their property and have not contributed to the impact to lake.
Fleetwood stated they've talked for months on how they want to put in place
a comprehensive plan for water quality concerns at Lake Whatcom. They've been
actively working on that. The are taking on a multi- faceted approach. Now, they
are contemplating one element of that, which is a downzone. A downzone is not
incompatible with all the things that Councilmember Nelson wants to do. It's just
that those other things are not going to happen tonight. It is an ongoing effort.
Nelson asked how much acreage they are impacting. They are impacting
thousands of lots. Only a hundred sites are developed per year. Many of them are
in Sudden Valley. They are impacting people who are not causing a problem yet.
This Council has done quite a few things since 1992, when the first proposed
downzone came forward. Today, they are ready to implement some of the things
that will actually be on the ground, and will have a full benefit to the lake and the
community, but have not yet been implemented.
Fleetwood stated the multi- faceted approach involves dealing with current
development, and part of the approach is preventative and deals with future
concerns. This downzone deals with that preventative aspect.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is still a lot out there they need to do. She
suggested that Councilmember Nelson may be in favor of continuing the
moratorium. She would consider that, as well. This proposal is one tool that
works. She is willing to pass a moratorium and continue it until they develop
stormwater standards that work.
Nelson asked what it means when they say "It works."
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that reducing density works to avoid the human
pollutions, such as what exists in basin one.
Nelson stated they have pollution.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Councilmember Nelson is saying that allowing
development will not add to pollution.
Nelson stated the lake is an aging lake. It will change, whether humans are
here or not.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Dr. Matthews has studied the lake for ten to 15
years, and determined that human pollution is the biggest factor that is a detriment
to the lake. Development is an enormous part of that human pollution. Dr.
Matthews has said she has not seen one single stormwater system that has worked
effectively to mitigate or reduce that pollution and, therefore, a reduction in density
can only help. It certainly can't hurt.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson stated that when they implemented the sewer line around Lake
Whatcom, it reduced algae blooms in basin one greatly. There are many different
things that have been implemented that have made progress in reducing impacts to
the lake. He'd like to see them get the traffic off of Lake Whatcom Boulevard and
move it away from the lake, but he doesn't get a lot of support of that. There are a
lot of things they can do other than simply downzoning people. A downzone will
not have one impact, because there is no development.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they all see this as one tool. It is not a solution.
McShane stated people who are concerned about being downzoned have
contacted him. However, no one that would actually be affected by the downzone
has contacted him except one person who indicated that he wasn't concerned about
it. One individual wanted to do a cluster subdivision, and dedicate the remainder
parcel to the Nature Conservancy. The moratorium is keeping that landowner from
doing that. Three other individuals who all want to erase lot lines to create larger
lots are prevented from doing that, because the new lots are still smaller than five
acres. He doesn't want to create spot downzoning that would create spots of rural
development amongst urban areas. That is not a part of their goal, it doesn't make
good planning sense, and it isn't fair. Those individuals have water, sewer, and
road access. They have a reasonable expectation to develop their land.
Downzoning will take that away.
Nelson stated Councilmember McShane has done a lot of research on this
proposal. He came onto the Council in 1993. The first downzone proposal was in
1992. He remembers all the angry citizens at that time. It takes a while for the
public to get an idea of what actually occurs. That downzone didn't happen. It's
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
difficult trying to get input from people. Often, they don't get input until something
is proposed. This is a new Council that was elected with a new purpose. He
commends all of them for taking this issue on. He's trying to provide insight into
some of the things that he went through when they discussed these very same
issues. TDR's were not something that was actively considered back then.
Stormwater management and activating the Lake Whatcom Management Group
have taken years of development. Don't alienate the citizens and go back to what
they had in 1992.
McShane stated he's surprised at the lack of concern he's heard so far. Paul
Isaacson had some concerns and presented language. He asked for some insight.
Goodwin stated Mr. Isaacson would attend the evening meeting.
McShane stated the face of Mr. Isaacson's recommendations seemed to
make sense. Goodwin stated that Mr. Isaacson's biggest concern was that he has
280 acres, and 100 of the acres are in the watershed. It is forested right now. It is
all divided into five -acre pieces. He owns quite a few five -acre parcels. He was
hoping to put a horse pasture or something like that on about 35 acres. Under the
land clearing regulations that are proposed, every lot has to have 50 percent
retained in natural vegetation. The trees over eight inches have to be retained.
Mr. Isaacson would not be able to clear 35 acres. He wanted to exclude parcels
that are over five -acres to be cleared. He did get a forest practices permit, and can
clear -cut the entire 100 acres if that's what he wants to do, but he would have to
replant it. He could clear it, do a conversion, and not replant right now.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated that Mr. Isaacson's situation is
specific, and not applicable to a lot of other situations. Mr. Isaacson has a
conversion option harvest plan from the County and an active State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) forest practices application (FPA). Mr. Isaacson is
proposing to do a mix of a conversion and retention of active forestry. DNR says
that it wouldn't be selective forestry, but County staff says Mr. Isaacson needs to
separate the two situations. Part of the land will be converted, and part of it will be
active forestry. Mr. Isaacson is loosely basing it on soil types and productivity
levels. There is a solution for Mr. Isaacson. Keeping it under five acres would work
for Mr. Isaacson's situation. It's important for him to do everything as legitimately
as possible. He seems to be on the right track. They talked about the five -acre
threshold. It works well because it fits in. People will do a great amount of clearing
associated with residential development. Mr. Isaacson agreed that most forestry
doesn't happen on five -acre lots, but stated that they don't want to restrict too
many people with acreages over five acres, because they will do Class III permits.
They also talked about the difficulty in enforcing this. Suggested changes
include language that cleared areas shall not exceed 5,000 square feet, or 50
percent of the volume of the eight -inch or larger timber, whichever is greater, of
the total lot area. They have to somehow calculate the volume of timber on the lot.
That might be a burden they don't want to put on a small lot owner. However, the
stormwater special district standards propose to protect 65 percent of the native
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
growth area. Depending on how they word it, it could be retroactive. The five -acre
threshold is good. It matches other regulations that they have. It would still allow
5,000 square feet for the building site, driveway, parking spot, and landscaping. As
they get into the larger lots, 2 Y2 acres would be naturally vegetated.
Goodwin stated the danger of excluding the larger parcels is that someone
could go in, remove all the trees, do a conversion, not replant, and subdivide. That
would create a bunch of barren lots. What they originally tried to achieve with this
rule something like Sudden Valley or Semiahmoo, where the majority of the mature
trees are retained, and the houses are worked in among them. Once someone
clear cuts the land and turns it into pasture, they have a bunch of barren land
without trees. It will take 100 years to re -grow them. That is the danger of
excluding the larger parcels. It is something to think about.
Baumgarten read from the Point Roberts language that specifies existing
trees over eight inches in caliper. The more common term to use is diameter at
breast height (DBH).
Roy stated supporting the downzone could be a temporary fix, or not. She
would like a downzone to be a lasting legacy. She urged the support of it in
conjunction with a TDR program. She intends to make this a permanent fix so
those lots will stay as they are zoned now.
OTHER BUSINESS
Steve Jilk, Port of Bellingham, stated the Port staff and Planning and
Development Services Department staff have been working on the
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Greater
Whatcom (AB2002 -248). It is an opportunity that hasn't been used in Whatcom
County for almost ten years. CEDS is, by definition of the federal Economic
Development Administration (EDA), a comprehensive plan the community puts
together to highlight the economic development need of the community. The EDA
requires a county, region, or community to have one of these CEDS in place before
they will fund economic development projects. That is one reason they are going
through this process.
In cooperation with the County and the Port of Bellingham, they are
expanding this process beyond what most counties and communities have done.
This is an opportunity to create a platform for all representations from all
communities to be engaged in a process that sets vision, values, and direction for
economic development. The Partnership for a Sustainable Economy, which includes
the Port, County, cities, and the Public Utility District 1, has taken on some
leadership in some of these areas. That group suggested that someone take this
effort on, and that they need to look at economic development, quality of life, and
sustainable issues. Historically, those issues have not been integrated into the
discussion on economic development. He provided a handout (on file) on the CEDS
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, Page 9
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.
1 process. The Council will have a public hearing on this on July 30. He read from
2 the handout. They hope that the CEDS process will gather a complete list of
3 expectations, goals, and objectives from the broader community. They just
4 completed eight community meetings that were held throughout Whatcom County.
5 The purpose of those meetings was to take the work already done by the 25-
6 member advisory committee and get the perspectives of the individual
7 communities. Even though the individual communities have unique issues, they
8 didn't hear about that. There was a balance of sustainability to protect the natural
9 resources and investment to create jobs and promote industry. The public process
10 has been very effective.
11
12 There are three purposes for completing the CEDS. It will hopefully create a
13 plan for retaining and creating better paying jobs, create a diverse economy, and
14 improve the quality of life in greater Whatcom County. The second purpose is that
15 the planning process should provide a mechanism for ongoing coordination between
16 individuals and agencies, both public and private, that are involved in these kinds of
17 efforts. The third purpose is a continuing effort to include the public in these
18 decisions. The 1993 document included factual data and focused goals and
19 objectives. However, it did not have an inclusive and thorough public process.
20
21 Throughout the county, they've heard that there is no single agency to go to,
22 to talk about these issues. There is no coordinated and collaborative effort to bring
23 the issues forward and act upon them. The community expects the public agencies
24 to make sure this effort continues in the future.
25
26 The EDA provides funding for projects, but it won't fund projects that aren't
27 included in the CEDS document. The Certified Community Initiative, through the
28 State Office of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED), is a
29 technical assistance program to help communities better market their development
30 opportunities. The County has agreed to use this process as a basis for developing
31 the economic development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The value that the
32 County will see in completing the CEDS will be ongoing.
33
34 McShane stated he attended one of the community meetings, and thoroughly
35 enjoyed it. ]ilk stated it was the first effort of the advisory committee, who agreed
36 that they needed a broader base of input. They felt that they represented a broad
37 cross - section of the community, so they each picked five or six people, and
38 extended an invitation. People really appreciate the process. He hasn't heard one
39 negative comment. People are looking to make something happen.
40
41 Unidentified citizen stated a challenge of this process is to not make it seem
42 too bureaucratic. They are calling this a blueprint for economic development. It's
43 been about ten years since this kind of effort was done. There is an eight -month
44 process. They spent the first part of the process gathering a lot of information on
45 the county regarding demographics, land use, and job trends. The advisory
46 committee was formed in October. It includes 25 members who represent a broad
47 cross - section of community members representing business, non - profits, the
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, 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.
environment, agriculture, and other interests. There are six economic development
goals and a preliminary set of strategies. They've held a series of community
meetings. The strategies for each goal are being defined. The goal and strategy
set will cover every aspect of economic development. This isn't just about job
creation, but also balancing sustainability, communication, coordination, education,
work force development, and infrastructure. They will finalize the draft in July. At
the end of July, they will send out a document that will be more extensive. It will
include an action plan and the strategies.
The advisory committee did an assessment process and a series of
community leader interviews. A lot of the local economic development planning
efforts were evaluated to use and make the best use of what people have already
said.
Fleetwood stated the Council is being asked to authorize funding for a
contractor to work on the economic component of the Comprehensive Plan. He
asked if this would minimize the need for that consultant.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the two items tie
together. Nancy Jordan, the consultant, has been working closely with the Port and
the County. That is what they hired her to do. The first $10,000 of her contract
was spent to read all the existing plans, documents, and studies that they have,
and to pull out everything related to economic development for the CEDS. Ms.
Jordan has attended meetings all over the county to get an idea of what the
economic development goals are. Ms. Jordan also pulled out all of the capital
projects and economic development - related projects that any of these subarea
groups have been trying to do. Staff would like her to now update the County
Comprehensive Plan's economic development chapter to reference the new CEDS
document and some of these other goals. The reason they are trying to do it this
year is to spend rural sales tax on any of the projects that they want to spend it on.
They have to be specifically mentioned in the economic development chapter of the
County's Comprehensive Plan.
McShane stated he is optimistic about this process.
Roy stated she attended the Birch Bay /Blaine community meeting. They are
getting good results because they did a very nice job of running the meeting. They
created a wonderful atmosphere. She felt very good about the priorities that came
out. Jilk stated it is starting to evolve so many of the communities initiated their
own economic development planning processes. The Port has sponsored four of
those meetings so far. People are beginning to appreciate the process that is
ongoing and building.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 6/18/2002, Page 12