Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council September 10 1992WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special Meeting September 10, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. in Arntzen Hall, Western Washington University, by Marge Laidlaw, Vice Chairperson. Also present: Absent: Barbara Brenner Dan Warner Larry Harris Ken Henderson Bob Imhof Dennis Vander Yacht (late) 1. GMA GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT DESIGNATION OF COUNTY- WIDE POLICIES OPENING REMARKS: Dan Taylor, Planning Director - Background of document and State requirements - County -wide policy framework to achieve consistency among jurisdictions - Consensus decisions attempted with Oversite Committee - Process of meetings that brought us to tonight - Once completed, the policies go to the Dept. of Community Development - Will be returned with comments - Detailed how appeals are made to the Growth Hearing Board and the Governor - Because the no consensus was reached on item 6, page 3, of the April 23 version, two alternatives were offered. TESTIMONY: James Gillies, 5363 Bellaire Way, Bellingham: Said that citizen involvement seems not to be important. His area of town is feeling "unincluded" and confused. He wished they had been notified of the County -wide Policies meetings and issues. The County explanation about notification problems is not acceptable. Early notification costs money, but is good fiscal policy for the County. Brenner questioned Taylor about the public notification, asking whose jurisdiction is it to notify the public; we're just the County, so "What do we do ?" Taylor responded that it should be put into some sort of interlocal agreements . making a mandate to get it under some sort of formal qualification. Right now it's just a general policy. Laidlaw pointed out that there's a recognition that broader notification of property County -wide Policies Hearing, 9110192, Page 1 owners should be done in the future. Brenner questioned the value of an interlocal agreement if the work has already been done, if the public has remained uninvolved. Skip Richards, 214 N. Commercial, Bellingham: Announced a meeting Thursday evening, Sept. 17, at the Laurel Grange. It's a C.L.U.E. (Coalition for Land Use Education) workshop on the County -wide Policies (CWP). The present process is flawed. Most people don't know what they are about - -how could they? The CWP is the basis of the new Comprehensive Plan. It needs the following criteria: - no net loss of property rights and property values - no net loss of environmental quality - no net loss of economic opportunity - no net loss of neighborhood integrity - no net loss of County tax revenue on a per capita basis Handed out a memo dated August 10. Challenged the Council to let the citizens get involved in the planning, let the public be heard. Lee Denke, 615 N. 4th St., Mt. Vernon: Stated that he is at odds with the County planning process. Existing zoning and rights should take precedence over changes. County should not be able to take away rights -- legally indefensible. We have too.many regulations now. Which are still pertinent and which conflict? Is the County Prosecutor sure the County is operating legally? Land Use Planners must be licensed. The proposed routes for the Whatcom Connector, for example, are "wild, ridiculous" and the result of lousy planning. Pointed out that regulating storm water run off is a way of stopping growth. The Council is getting terrible advice from its Planners. A terrible conflict exists between existing rights and new, conflicting rights. Ray Giles, 5385 Shields Road, Bellingham: The Council only gets biased information from the County Departments. There is too little public input in the Growth Management's final documents. Public notification is lacking; information does not get out. Pointed out that bad feelings are really developing between the Council and the public. Joe Burton, 3766 Greenville St., Bellingham: Agreed that people are not being notified and challenged each of the Councilpersons to go out into his district and notify the people and be responsible for his district. Asked the Council if they were familiar with the original document of County planning. This document seems to be totally alien to the draft CWP. Who is going to point who to be guardian of the land, the agriculture, timber, and other resources? Who's going to "play god" with his land? Questioned the fiscal impact of the CWP, the CAO? It's hogwash to increase taxes. The GMA will cause a loss of tax base, which is an irresponsible action on the part of the Council. Pointed out that the Supreme Court has decreed that County Councils including the individuals involved in them are responsible for the decisions they make. County -wide Policies Hearing, 9110192, Page 2 Roy Ingham, 2721 Russell St., Bellingham: On Item #4, requested Council to make it clear what will happen to citizen comments. Demonstrate incorporation of citizen input or not incorporated and give reasons why. Some of the language is ambiguous and this needs to be cleared up. For example, Item #3, the word adequate needs definition. In item #5, so does the word reasonable. He also pointed out that on page 3, item #7, "critical areas" should be included in this section. Taylor indicated that "critical areas" should be included. Jay Tabor, 1212 Raymond, Bellingham: On page 2, item #11, add at end of paragraph, "and existing neighbors." In section 12 on the same page, at the end of the first sentence, "watersheds, water resources, and existing neighborhoods." On page 3 under number 2, note should be made that there would be a public hearing process with the Boundary Review Board. People are afraid of losing the public process. On page 6, under number 1, encourage recommending a broader perspective in bringing recommendations to the Regional Transportation Planning Organization from the Transportation Advisory Committee level. Suggests doing something similar to King, Snohomish, Kitsap, and Pierce Counties, like including some representatives from the advisory committee as official voting members, as well as members of the business, environmental, and general community. Duane Zender, 238 Mt. Baker Highway, Bellingham: Concerned that the property owners of Whatcom County have not been informed about the importance of these meetings are. Against downzoning property in rural areas. Danna Beech, 8702 Silver Lake, Maple Falls: Cities and urban areas get attention, but the rural areas are left out. Consideration of citizen input is poor. After much discussion and input, the only visible change she can see from the original document is that the 20 acre terminology has been eliminated. The Steering Committee was composed of representatives from all the incorporated cities, but Dan Taylor represented all the rest of Whatcom County. This document does not represent what the small communities or "growth nodes" want for their future. Small communities are what rural living is all about; we need more of them, not less. Downzoning should be deleted unless the County is willing to compensate the landowner. The document contains 90 should's, a word that means 'ought to." Does this constitute a law? Remember that diversity and freedom are the character of this County. The CAO has certainly changed that. Is the "rural designation" an entity that will be allowed to appeal to the State board? Taylor thinks no. The wording only refers to cities. Donna Macomber, 159 Larson Rd., Bellingham: On page 2, #12, remove the word "consider." Cities should absorb density before rural. On Page 3, utilities should not be extended because this leads to development. She wants alternative 1 to be the only one. On page 4, item 11, an urban fringe study is needed for south Bellingham. County -wide Policies Hearing 9110192, Page 3 Harold Macomber, 159 Larson Rd., Bellingham: Has attended 27 Growth Management meetings. There has been little attendance from the public. Planning policies are necessary. The CWT is well written and the County needs to ahead with it. Roger Almskaar, 1400 Broadway, Bellingham: He has been involved in the process and has made three proposals: (1) public hearings are a poor way to get good communication between citizens and elected officials, (2) informal discussions would be. better for reaching a meeting of the minds, and (3) a background document is needed explaining the policies, information, and reasoning this is based on. Six points on the text: - Page 2, #6; start clock ticking when the all Growth Management policies are in place. - 150% safety factor is too low; vacant land market terrible and other concerns than housing must be considered, like schools and commercial, that take more space than housing. - Page 2, #7, needs to be reconsidered. Negative language regarding new communities. If the point is to control sprawl, then a few new good towns would be a better alternative. This draft gives absolutely alternatives. - Page 4 and 5, #1, the word "encourage" is too weak. Affordable housing is too important to be wishy washy on it. Regulations are excessive and have increased the cost of housing. - Page 5 and 6, #19 5 and 6, economic development. There is too much emphasis on environmental protection over economic development. - Fiscal impact. The County is facing financial problems. For this reason, this document needs to place more positive emphasis on good paying jobs. - State laws that shift too much burden onto the local government Brenner questioned the 150 %. Does it include infrastructures as well as residences? Taylor said it did. Brenner asked for comments on small new towns. Taylor responded that the Oversite Committee chose not to pursue new towns issue. Planning has to use OFM population figures. Council can choose to use other studies and appeal to the State. Laidlaw questioned whether or not the Oversite Committee had considered a background document. Taylor said it was possible. It had been done orally. It's a matter of writing some of that down. Brenner wonder if is was possible to work growth nodes into small towns. Taylor said this was not considered because they were lacking infrastructure and urban services such as utilities. Because of this, Planning's position was that they shouldn't expand. County -wide Policies Hearing 9110192, Page 4 Henderson pointed out that there are areas such as Sudden Valley which has high urban densities, but aren't new town. Taylor said it wasn't incorporated; the County has whatever final authority there is out there. It would be great if they wanted to incorporate. Brenner asked wasn't there anything in between rural and incorporated city? If not, can we do it locally. A township? Taylor said there wasn't any formal structure in the State, but maybe it could be done. It's not clear. Tom Brown, 7024 Mt. Baker Highway, Deming: Glacier used to be a township. The township was abolished. Questioned what the rights of appeal were for a lay person? Where can lay persons go? Laidlaw said to the Growth Hearings Board. The hearings will be held in the communities or in Olympia. Brown: Downzoning needs to be addressed in terms of compensation for loss. Policies do not deal with this. Communities have a history as a group that needs to be considered. The Planners have a different definition of communities. These communities are not like "urban growth nodes." The Growth Management calls for a variety of rural densities; one and two acres parcels or whatever scattered on a historical basis. The CWP wants to destroy the rural character. CWP talks about affordable housing, but when land is restricted, prices go up. High density in the cities leads to a loss of tax base in the County and a need for more trails, parks, recreation, government entities, etc. Suggested that natural gas lines should be able to expand through the county into existing developments. Taylor said that natural gas is considered the same as electricity, which is different from water /sewer. David Zender, 1544 Valley Highway, Acme: Against downzoning and lot consolidation. Property rights should be allowed; an owner should be allowed to do as he chooses on his land. Requested more public notification. Questioned if Arntzen Hall was the only hall where public hearings of this kind could be heard. Suggested the Deming Log Show facilities. That's where the land owners are, out in the County. Laidlaw said this site solves the legal requirements for sound and tapes; other sites do not have the needed facilities. The new Courthouse may help. Henderson pointed out that perhaps the new Mt. Baker High School auditorium will be available now that it's finished. County -wide Policies Hearing, 9110192, Page 5 Jayson Reimer, 1860 H St. Rd., Blaine: This is a poor choice for a hearing. It is not central. - Maybe the County should be split. There is a lack of satisfaction with government control. Lack of a sense of security and no affordable housing. - Clustering housing does not make sense; this isn't a hundred or two hundred years ago when people needed to do that for safety. - Laws should be scaled back to a minimum. Ike Reimer, 1860 H St. Rd., Blaine: Young people are looking to the future; let's keep a future for them. Throw this document out. The process for doing anything is too slow. People need to be freer. Planners and government need to use common sense. H.E. Bill Isenhart: The "Urban Growth Nodes" is an awful concept. He did Paradise Valley Estates which tried to look to the future by creating a fine sewage plant. He ran it for years for nothing; ultimately it bankrupted him. The "Nodes" as stated in the CWP will cripple Paradise Valley. It is not a "node," but a city. Commented about Paradise Valley boundaries, the sewage plant, his bankruptcy. The "nodes" must be expanded or the County must take over Paradise Valley utilities. Sue Lorentz, 511 Wilson, Bellingham: Glad to see the commitment to citizen involvement; would like to see this expanded to participation in implementation as well as planning. - Suggested that #5 under Urban Growth Areas on page 1 should be reworded so that growth nodes should not be able to infill. Referred especially to Sudden Valley because of its severe impact on Lake Whatcom. - Page 2, #7, strongly supports. - Page 2, #10, zoning should be R10 instead of R5 in rural areas. - Page 3, #2, citizen appeal needs the Boundary Review Board. - Page 3, #6, alternative #1 should be adopted. Stressed that utilities should not. be extended beyond the cities. - Page 3, #7, approve. - Page 5, #2, Open Space, would like to add natural areas to greenbelts and open space. - Page 5, #2, Economic Development, environmental agencies should be active in planning economic growth policies. - Page 5, #3, line 4, take the comma out after the word environment. - Page 5, #6, asks that b) be clarified. - Pate 6, #4, the word transportation should be inserted after_ county -wide. Asks that we guard natural extractive resources. Nancy Cohn, 5438 Strand Rd., Deming: Many concerns she will submit in writing. Heavy densities in the cities will have adverse impacts in rural areas. Downzoning and lot consolidation have many problems with property rights. County staff- - Planning Department- - gives conflicting information and direction: advocate PUD's, then refuse to let them be in the County; talk affordable housing, then cram everyone into the cities creating a high County-wide Policies Hearing, 9110192, Page 6 demand for real estate. CWP creates layer and layer of government with more fees, more red tape, more taxes, more expenses. The fiscal impact is on the property owner. A study needs to be done on the fiscal impact on the property owners and the government's tax income. Table the CWP now and let people work on it. Don't be pushed into passing something they would be sorry for. Hal Cohn, 5438 Strand Rd., Deming: Will sue over loss of property rights. There is no reason for restricting development in the County. What is wrong with allowing someone to build on 5 acres in the County? The CWP is another example of socialism at work. The whole downzoning thing is illegal, thanks to Lucas and some other cases, and action will begin. Lorena Havens, P. O. Box 179, Acme: The CWP is very involved and confusing. Citizen participation needs to be better. The unknowns make her nervous. The Boundary Review Board should be kept. - Page 3, #6, Alternative 1 is best regarding water and sewer. - Regarding downzoning, property owners have no guarantee of a profit from speculation land. - Planning for more growth is not a good idea; say "enough." Brenner asked about doing away with the Boundary Review Board. Who's idea? Taylor said it was a consensus of the Oversite Committee. Brenner asked Taylor to explain the differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. What is "rural level "? Taylor said PUD and DOH considers "rural level" would not have fire flow. Brenner asked about downzoning and loss of profits. Taylor said downzoning means taking away the present zoning. Leslie Hamilton, 3443 Breckenridge Rd., Everson: Encourage adoption of these policies. Citizen participation should be codified into the plans for the small cities. Asked if the small city chooses to retain larger lot size instead of a more compact size, will it be allowed to expand more? Taylor said that the County Council could crack down on over expansion. Hamilton added that citizens should be notified of all proposed and pending legislation concerning their property. 1lm Moore, 2100 Lakeway, Bellingham: Basically supports the CWP, but it's too County -wide Policies Hearing, 9110192, Page 7 general. It's too soon, though, to show this document to the public; there is no backup rationale. Feels that citizens should question past zoning as well as proposed zoning. Ann Wendland, 2100 Ukeway Dr., Bellingham: Page 5, #3, Open Space, local conservation is a good idea, but the process is very hard to understand and implement and there are so many legal restrictions. Please go through each of these and make them easy and workable to the people who want to use them. Laura Leigh Brakke, 585 Pleasant Bay, Bellingham: Change is hard. She supports the concept of the CWP, but not some of the details. The law says to manage growth with a plan, with predictability. Growth can't be allowed to happen without a plan; CWP is that plan. Urban density is important. R5 will not retain the rural character; larger parcels are needed. The services are in the cities, not in the rural areas, and it should stay that way. She discussed some specific changes; they are in a memo distributed to Council members 9/9. She strongly favors Alternative #1. Brenner expressed concern about water lines. Taylor said the proposed Alternative #1 is to meet these concerns. Sharon Sebages, 599 Pleasant Bay, Bellingham: Wanted to express her support for Alternative #1 because Alternative #2 is weak and can be manipulated. Steve DeBolt, 5203 Drayton Harbor Rd., Bellingham: CWP misses the spirit of the Growth Management. Cities should grow up, not out. Doesn't see anything in these policies to encourage cities to grow up. Basically what he sees does not eliminate urban sprawl. Urban Growth Areas (UGA) are not good as presently defined. Basically it is colonization. There's no representation from the rural sector; it's been disenfranchised. This whole thing needs added citizen involvement. - Page 1, new #7: Citizens within County designated Urban Growth Areas of cities must have the right to vote on whether or not to be made an Urban Growth Area. - Page 1, new #8: Once the Urban Growth Area is accepted by the local citizens, a Citizens Advisory Committee be formed including residents from the area so that cooperative management does not only include the city and the County but also the citizens who live there. - Cities need to be told to "upzone" as well as a rural "downzone." - Cities need to absorb an additional 20% density increase in present zoning. - Each city should have to do a mandatory inventory of their density capability before designating a UGA. - Cities should have maximum lot, sizes so density is uniform for all and there is an efficient use of urban land. Boundary Review Board should not be eliminated. Developer extension should not be allowed outside the UGA's. County-wide Policies Hearing, 9110192, Page 8 Brenner asked if it was legal to allow the people in a potential UGA to vote on it. Henderson said DeBolt made some really good points and he would like to spend this time listening to the public; we can work these things through later. Taylor said he couldn't give Brenner a definitive answer. John Hruby, 7401 Valley View Rd., Ferndale: We are at historical crossroads in deal with issues of individual rights and those rights impacting our neighbors and ourselves. When you listen to people, you get conflicting views; making decisions is very difficult. Perhaps there is some way of developing an on -going process that taps into prioritization of value systems. We want planning, but we want freedom; we don't want to be locked in. Policies tend to be rigid, but a few years from now the value system and conditions may change, making the policies too rigid and out of touch. Try to reduce these policies into values concepts that are easily understood by people. People don't want to lose options, but they want orderliness. Need to tap into the values and .prioritize them for the County, but don't paralyze process with rigid policies. Sherilyn Wells, 1020 Geneva, Bellingham: Population growth is the problem, and long range planning is needed. Property rights are not concerned with the impacts on neighbors. Good regulations are a protection of rights and minimize costs the neighbors and public need to assume. No net loss is probably impossible under current thinking. Asserts that urban sprawl costs government more in infrastructure and services costs . than urban containment, that increased ag lands actually helps a government become more financially sound and keeps taxes lower. - Supports the document. -.Page 1, #1, Citizen Involvement, public education should be extended beyond the Growth Management Act. - Page 1, #5, is extremely important. Suggests a network within neighborhoods who would be notified by the County and who would then be responsible for spreading the word among their neighborhoods. - Page 1, #5, Urban Growth Areas, strongly agrees with downzoning. - Page 2, #6, would like to see some specific criteria for "adequacy" of land evaluation including resource protection. - Page 2, #7, needs a stronger word than "discourage." - Page 2, #10 & #11, strongly agrees. - Please keep the Boundary Review Board. - Page 3, #3, Lake Whatcom Sub Area should be an exception. Keep it a low density. - Page 3, #6, favors Alternative 1. - Page 3, #7, strong yes. - Page 4, #11, Lake Whatcom Watershed should again be an exception. - Page 4, #12, again Lake Whatcom Watershed should be an exception. P. L. "Bob" Ewing, 9621 Harvey Rd., Blaine: Opposed to the Growth Management County-wide Policies Hearing; 9110192, Page 9 Act. It was conceived in bad faith by the State who used coercion to impose it on the County. CWP is a socialist program. The Soviet state collapsed into itself because of central planning, which is what we're talking about here. It may have been because they destroyed the environment, but it was central planning that destroyed the environment because citizens lost interest in taking care of the land. The real environmentalists are the private property owners, not those from the cities who come out and tell everyone who owns land what they can do with it. Elected officials need to keep in mind that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If implemented, the CWP will create more homeless people than you can imagine possible. - Bill Geyer, 1008 16th St., Bellingham, and President of Cutter Pacific: Trends of urban growth corridor should be avoided here, such things as environmental degradation, traffic impaction, and costly services that get beyond the means of the residents of the County. Suggests the following changes: - Page 1, Citizen Involvement, this section empowers people to be involved, but more quantified impact information around the policies available for the residents is needed. - Page 1, #6, as much published information as you can generate is worth the taxpayers' investment. - Page 2, #6, compare Whatcom County with other areas of the Country that have enacted similar guidelines. He named some. The density outgrowth permitted had some severe impacts such as pricing the housing out of the reach of the current residents. Increase the land supply from 50% as suggested to 150% to 200 %. - Page 4, Affordable Housing, mandate rather than "encourage" a mixture of housing types in all communities. Add some language that speaks to the measurement of the affordability of the housing. Develop an affordability index related to the market. - Page 5, Economic Development, this section is missing a key point, that of family asset base, family wealth, family income. Need a primary goal to provide the economic opportunities for families to increase their asset base, have increased economic opportunity so they can continue to build their ownership in the community. - Pages 7 and 8, Impact Fees and Fiscal Impact sections, We should accept the principal of fiscal impact analysis and the costs inherent to that. It would be tax dollars to explore that. Law makers need to know the impact of the changes of land use that are being proposed and how that affects the ultimate amount of revenues coming in. Loss of rural tax base and rural service requires important revenue sharing policies. Laidlaw announced that the Council is just beginning to study the process of CWP. She encouraged continuing public contributions. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL /? WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Nancy. n, Assistant Clerk arge 'dlaw, Vice Chairperson lu County-wide Policies Hearing, 9110192, Page 10