HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 3 1996WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
December 3, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 2 p.m. by Committee Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
Marlene Dawson
Staff Also Present:
Tom Brown, Council member
Ward Nelson, Council member
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services
Mike Donahue, Engineering
Ravyn Whitewolf, Engineering
Gordon Rogers, Council of Governments
Dan Gibson, Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services
Barbara Brenner, Council member
1. REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES (AB96 -051D)
Starkenburg commented that committee needs to recognize that from the Resource Lands
Chapter (8), the sections on ag, forestry and minerals need further discussion, as there were many
questions and suggestions at the last committee meeting. Also, he noted that committee has been
working on County -wide Planning Policies, which will be set aside to allow staff time to work
with the cities. He suggested committee work on. issues first rather than goals and policies,
discussing transportation first.
Elizabeth Sjostrom, Planning and Development Services, introduced Mike Donahue and
Ravyn Whitewolf, Engineering, and Gordon Rogers, Council of Governments.
Sutter addressed impact fees and a mitigation ordinance. Dan Gibson, Council's counsel,
stated he thought one of the key considerations would be what is currently in place regarding
County development. Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services, stated Capital
Facilities is central to the Growth Management Act (GMA). There have been many suggestions
on how to finance the future. He noted that most developers are very supportive of having a
means to pay their share of the cost necessary to make their development work.
Planning Minutes, 12/3/96, Page 1
I Mike Donahue, Engineering, stated the current policy is to negotiate with each developer
2 regarding impact fees. He explained the process, stating the cost is $182. Permits are handled
3 through SEPA. Starkenburg commented the input he gets addresses the unfair treatment from
4 Planning to the public. He requested predictability for everyone, noting that something must be
5 done that is better than what is currently in place. Donahue suggested the County be divided into
6 different transportation analysis zones, which would be a different fee depending on the project.
7 The cost of projects in those zones are a known factor, and the impact fees would then be able to
8 be determined with the transportation model. The two parts of the mitigation would be the
9 impact fee and any frontage.
10
11 Gordon Rogers, Council of Governments, said the City of Bellingham uses the same
12 system. The logic behind this is its predictability. The developers know the process and have an
13 opportunity to argue the zone fee, which is set every year. The engineers know the problems
14 related to each zone and are able to factor them into the use in that particular zone. Starkenburg
15 thought it was somewhat difficult to apply the Bellingham system to the County. Knapp noted
16 the concept was the same. He thought that with the zones mentioned, urban growth area zones
17 are also needed. Ravyn Whitewolf, Engineering, commented about various areas.
18
19 In answer to a question from Starkenburg regarding this system fitting to interim growth
20 areas, Donahue stated there was potential for this to work. Gibson noted that from a legal
21 standpoint, the County would be administering the impact of mitigation of this until the
22 annexation. The transfer of funds which may need to occur as properties are annexed in and the
23 city takes over, the improvement transfer can be worked out through interlocal agreement.
24 Rogers stated the zone alignment is plain enough to aggregate the information to scale.
25
26 Sutter stated she was unclear on how fees would be set. Donahue replied there would be
27 different levels of fees. The impacts would be a percentage of the process. Whitewolf
28 commented that the fees are based on the number of trips per zone. Knapp pointed out more trips
29 are generated within urban areas because more potential development and revenue are generated.
30
31 Knapp noted capital facilities and the linkage to land use is what growth management was
32 intended to do in that in determining the 20 -year growth projection will be for population,
33 employment and job growth. With that analysis, a level of trip generation is created. A capital
34 facilities element must be in place that reflects the projects and the funding mechanisms. Gibson
35 asked how long the County is willing to have people wait at traffic lights, etc. This is the basic
36 issue regarding cost. Brown noted the entire transportation plan relates to funding, which makes
37 impact fees critical. The same funding mechanism- -the gas tax - -is still being examined.
38 Government entities are causing larger impacts on County roads than developers. No provision
39 for roads have been made.
40
41 Dawson noted the Whatcom Connector would be an exception to the 20 -year growth
42 projection, as this would access Lake Whatcom and Sudden Valley, which would be a major
43 County impact. Brenner asked Gibson if the County were legally allowed to create toll roads, to
Planning Minutes, 12/3/96, Page 2
I which Gibson responded it would fall under interstate commerce issues. Donahue thought the
2 Connector would be public expense also. The level of service will also play an important impact.
4 Rogers gave a brief overview of the process by the City of Bellingham.
5
6 Gibson stated that with every improvement there is a public cost and developer
7 contribution. The County may seek a developer contribution, such as impact fees. The details of
8 that need to be worked out.
9
10 Brenner asked what would be the change in level of service (LOS) with the Whatcom
11 Connector. Ravyn Whitewolf, Engineering, replied that in the traffic model, there is a level of
12 service problem without the Whatcom Connector. With the connector, the problem would be
13 lessened. Starkenburg stated that one of the problems with LOS would be eliminated with the
14 Whatcom Connector. The public and the developer should be involved as a matter of fairness and
15 predictability. Dawson concurred with Starkenburg. Sutter also concurred and further stated a
16 concern that the cost associated with developer involvement would mitigate the actual impact.
17 The County also needs the flexibility to look at alternatives to impact fee charges. Brown
18 concurred with Sutter.
19
20 Gibson stated the committee needed to define LOS. Starkenburg stated LOS is dealt with
21 on page 6 -4 and asked legal and Planning staff to look at pages 6 -4 to 6 -5 and explain policy
22 6A -3, 6A -5 through 6A -8. Gibson replied that in a legal context, these are relatively higher levels
23 of service. As development occurs, if the County is looking to maintain higher levels of service,
24 the developer contribution will be higher than if County establishes a lower LOS. In addition, the
25 rest of the capital facilities plan will have to meet that higher LOS.
26
27 There was discussion on the definitions of C class roads and class D roads.
28
29 Gordon Rogers stated that when one establishes a LOS, the task is to maintain that LOS,
30 not improve it.
31
32 Starkenburg asked Gibson to clarify how committee would deal with outside city urban
33 growth and peak areas. Gibson stated that, regarding 6A -3 and 6A -5 and peak hours, the County
34 could be prepared to put up with a slightly heavier traffic flow on state routes. Regarding policy
35 6A -8, if a route is going into the city and is going to be annexed by the city, the County may back
36 off on expenditures on LOS. Sutter asked if the County could specify some roads that have a
37 different LOS. Also, regarding policy 6A -8, what would be the impact on current incorporated
38 growth areas? Gibson replied that those concepts have been combined to cover urban growth
39 areas which have not yet been annexed into the area.
40
4.1 Gibson stated that, when defining a LOS for state routes, state routes are state funded.
42 When the County sets a LOS for state roads, committee should ask what that means. Is the intent
43
Planning Minutes, 12/3/96, Page 3
I to seek developer contributions to pass on to the state to maintain those roads? Rogers stated
2 that the regional plan sets LOS of D in urban growth areas for state roads and LOS of C in rural
3 areas for state roads.
4
5 Starkenburg stated the County may need to strike the word "unincorporated" in policy
6 6A -8 and asked staff to research the effects of this language change.
7
8 Knapp stated that within the city urban growth areas, there should be a different LOS than
9 in the County. There is going to be greater focus on development within the city urban growth
10 areas. Level C would be much more costly than an unincorporated urban growth areas. Donovan
11 Kehrer clarified that policy 6A -4 addresses city urban growth areas and policy 6A -8 addresses
12 County urban growth areas. Maybe the two need to be combined somehow. Starkenburg
13 concurred with Knapp that they need to distinguish between city and County urban growth areas
14 LOS. Starkenburg asked the Council Of Governments and staff to work on this problem.
15
16 There was further discussion regarding establishment of LOS between cities and the
17 County. Starkenburg stated that the County needs to look at the next 20 years. If the state sees
18 the Guide as a pass - through. from Canada, why should people in Whatcom County pay for that?
19 Gibson replied that there must be a balance between costs vs convenience from a
20 single- occupancy vehicle perspective. The County must also think about the impact of industry
21 on businesses. There is a relationship between industry, business, and LOS.
22
23 Brown stated that LOS is based on efficient movement of people and goods. An
24 increasing hang -up within the transportation system is the movement of goods. All intersections
25 are designed for specific movement. That design criteria needs to be examined and a new policy
26 implemented. Truck trailers cannot make a turn at intersections or people will not yield to a
27 truck. Intersections are bottling up miles of roadway. Committee needs to examine other aspects
28 of LOS.
29
30 Gibson replied that policy 6A -7 addresses Brown's question. Also, one can address LOS
31 at peak hours through a variety of ways, such as through upgrading infrastructure or spreading
32 out peak hour traffic by having flexible work schedules. One can address that through policy to
33 some extent. Brenner stated that staggering work schedules is not going to work on the Guide
34 because so much traffic is international. Cities must ensure intersections are adequate for the
35 Guide.
36
37 UTILITIES
38
39 Knapp stated that currently, County water isn't used in a way to capture the water for
40 usage. There is a need to capture the water, put it back in the aquifers, use it for salmon and
41 provide cities with water. No one has found a cost effective way to manage capturing the water.
42 Some suggestions have been to store it along the river during winter, then put it back in the
43 system when needed.
Planning Minutes, 12/3/96, Page 4
I Sutter suggested a language change at bottom of page 5 -9 to strike at the beginning of the
2 section, the word "quantity" and substitute with the word "supply." Also, when looking at these
3 areas, what is the best -case scenario for development and growth in these areas, and how do we
4 get the services there? Starkenburg stated committee concurred to give staff time to work on this
5 chapter and update information and asked staff to bring these pieces together to look at in the
6 light of land zoning.
7
8 Sutter suggested that on page 5 -10, the third full paragraph down, adding to the end
9 "and/or making use of new.technology as it becomes available and economical." Also, regarding
10 policy 5P -2 on page 5 -16, Sutter suggested deleting the reference "Areas of Special Concern" to
11 read "The maintenance and operation program should be phased in beginning with high priority
12 areas designated by the Council."
13
14 Gibson focused the topic to address telecommunications. One question that should be
15 asked is if there needs to be more specific language regarding telecommunications. Industrial
16 development is also related to the availability of high level communications. Does the language
17 that we have address that fully enough. Sutter stated that could be addressed in the Economic
18 Chapter. Committee concurred that it would be addressed.
19
20 Starkenburg stated that this chapter needs to recognize the support of small generating
21 plants and should be reflected on the maps. He then asked staff to explain service area overlaps.
22 Blake responded that purveyors were asked to draw lines around where they would like to expand
23 in the future. This is not consistent with current water systems.
24
25 ADJOURN
26
27 The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
28
�D!/�
30
�1 �1 A �„ n
31 Eliz4beth Bennett, Recording Secretary
32
33 ATTEST:
34
35
36
37
38
39 `OanalkevGn- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Alvin Starkenburg, Council ember
Planning Minutes, 12/3/96, Page 5