CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON
City Council Chambers Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:00 PM Book: 63, Page: 1
AB18402 PRESENTATION TO A JOINT MEETING OF THE BELLINGHAM CITY COUNCIL AND THE PORT OF BELLINGHAM COMMISSION OF THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR WATERFRONT MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
Presented by: Les Reardanz, City Attorney on Waterfront Team Mike Stoner, Port of Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike President Barry Buchanan welcomed the Council Members and Port Commissioners. He noted that the Port and City have been working on waterfront development since 2002. There has been a series of Interlocal Agreements formalizing the roles and responsibilities of the City and Port. There has been much public input and hundreds of community ideas and visions have gone into the plan. The City and Port have entered into Interlocal Agreements that formalized how the Port and City would move forward with the planning process. Port Commissioner Chair, Scott Walker, added that years have been spent years looking at alternatives. There is no perfect solution to the issues of this complex site consisting of 220 acres that includes contaminated fill; some with existing structures. There have been well publicized disagreements between the Port and City. In late 2008 the Council and Port Commission came together to forge ahead and get answers in the interest of the community. They were able to get good cooperation and agreement on the list of stimulus projects. Staff is working well together. The local architects contributed recommendations that staff applied to this framework plan. He and Mr. Buchanan have been working closely together to keep the process moving forward. Mr. Buchanan affirmed that there would be much more public input invited. He announced that there will be another public meeting to review the proposed framework plan at the Ferry Terminal on April 29th , 6:30 – 8:30 PM. Mr. Walker announce that the Waterfront Advisory Group [WAG] would hear a presentation on this plan on May 13th. He stated that this is a beginning and definitely a compromise. No one got everything they wanted but that this is a good beginning. Mayor Pike reiterated that there has been a lot of public process and public involvement over the years to get to this point. He recalled the public forum held at Depot Market Square and reported that those comments were integrated into this plan. He reinforced that this is a compromise plan. Everyone gave up something meaningful and everyone gets something else important to them. He reported that the Historic Preservation Commission had a meeting on Friday and that they voted to support the principles in the Architects’ report specifically, that additional analysis should be conducted to determine the level of re-use potential for each structure they identified. The Mayor agreed that should be done. He noted the Historic Preservation Commission’s support of the current plan and thanked them for their public service. He introduced Les Reardanz and Mike Stoner. Les Reardanz and Mike Stoner led a PowerPoint presentation covering: · Port/City partnership and purpose of the meeting · Creating the community vision · Review of prior Joint Council – Commission Meetings and Port/City/WWU meetings · Proposed planning framework · Proposed planning framework assumptions · Assumption: “Complete Streets” · Assumption: Three-dimensional planning · Mill site design assumptions · Industrial structures for further consideration · Other areas of conceptual agreement · Next Steps Barry Buchanan proposed adding a line to the first bullet point of the proposed framework assumptions to read: “Final decisions will be made only after publication of the FEIS” Barbara Ryan clarified that it included all of the listed assumptions. Mr. Buchanan confirmed that it does. Mr. Reardanz stated that the intent was to assure that the plan is tested against the EIS. Terry Bornemann noted that the plan will go to the WAG and to the public and asked when it would come back before the Council. Mr. Reardanz replied that after it is tested against public feedback and the EIS and adjusted to make corrections, then work would begin on a master plan and development agreements which will be brought through the normal process of going through the Planning Commission and then to Council. Jack Weiss asked about the status of the EIS. Mike Stoner stated that it was on hold. A draft EIS was published January 2008. After public comment, they published a supplement to the draft in October. The plan is to now take the proposed framework plan assumptions and build a draft master plan which can be used as a preferred alternative in a final EIS. Barbara Ryan raised concerns about this meeting. She pointed out that the public has not seen this plan. WAG has had little time to look at it but Council has not been able to hear from them. She would like more time to make this decision and wants to hear from the WAG. The Historic Preservations Commission wants to protect all the historic buildings until there is a chance to evaluate the adaptive reuse potential of those structures. To preclude decisions before evaluations are performed is to preclude using a lot of the historic structures and having a historic district area. The community has stated its desire to save the buildings. It is a known economic driver. We need to do the engineering evaluation work to know what is possible. She suggested postponing this decision until after the evaluation and that the planning process could move forward without a map showing the destruction of all those buildings. Mayor Pike responded that the framework plan narrows down some of the choices in a way that is rational. Major building projects, such as the bridges shown on the map would not take place for decades. An intense engineering analysis has been done and is ongoing. Staff is not asking for an agreement to tear down buildings immediately. This is an agreement that is consistent with the needs of both the Port and the City. This is the beginning. There needs to be a show of positive progress. This is showing the work that has been done. The EIS will change things as will the actual planning process. This is a good effort on both sides Mr. Weiss stated that he feels the process is backwards. If it is a good idea then put it before the advisory groups. Memorializing a framework appears to make preliminary commitments with no ability to change it down the road. Holding up the EIS proves the strength of this. It could save a lot of money for everyone to make sure the project in line with the EIS first. If approved today, is there a commitment to a certain street or the urban hard edge? This is the first time Council has seen the plan and he would like to change some of the wording of the Planning Framework language. There is word-smithing needed and it is impossible to address it in one meeting. Passage of the Interlocal Agreement bound the Council to an opt-out situation and created buyer’s remorse for the Council. Mr. Weiss does not want Council to make the same mistake here. Gene Knutson noted that the waterfront work has been going on for seven years and that it is finally to a point where things can move on.
GK/LB MOVED TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED PLANNING FRAMEWORK AND PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS AS A BASIS TO MOVE THE WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLANNING PROCESS FORWARD FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC REVIEW, INCLUDING REFERRAL TO THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY GROUP AND THAT FINAL DECISIONS WILL BE MADE ONLY AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement).
DISCUSSION Doug Smith pointed out that he has not heard any of the economic elements. He is assuming it will be covered in the EIS in depth. However, until anyone has some idea of what is going to be done, the Port and City will thrash about for years spending cash. If it cannot move forward now, why keep spending money? Why not stop now? It must move forward or find something else to do with the property. Ms. Ryan asked, if the framework plan is adopted today, what incentive would there be to use the recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission and the architects to make the evaluation on the buildings with the roads going through them? Mayor Pike stated that the motivation would be making good decisions. Mr. Bornemann stated the need to get moving to get a financial map too. With nine different Council and Port Commissioners there will be nine different ideas about the best way to go. He pointed out that the public will reject the project if it does not meet with its approval. That is the incentive necessary to make the right choices even if they are not memorialized in the decision made at this meeting. If the public does not approve, everyone will lose. Ms. Bjornson noted that discussion has been going on for years and right now all we have is a fenced-off, industrial wasteland and no public access. It is time to get past great dreams and take some steps to move it forward. Mr. Weiss asked how “triple bottom line” principles were being applied? Mayor Pike explained that staff carries out policy and triple bottom line planning is the policy - looking at the totality of the site asking what are the impacts on the economic, environmental and social bottom line in the whole plan. What is the triple bottom line effect of the decision being made today? The plan preserves a lot of the historically significant structures that are great candidates for adaptive reuse. It looks at creating infrustructure that allows for significant economic development that will attract appropriate economic development and at infrastructure in a master plan that will be developed to create a vibrant location for our community to enjoy for generations to come. Mr. Buchanan asked about the upcoming public input sessions. Mr. Reardanz reported that the format for the public meeting on April 29th is not yet determined. The WAG meeting is on May 13 and a presentation of the plan will be done with the Mayor’s Neighborhood Advisory Commission to get input and feedback on this plan. Ms. Ryan pointed out that Council seldom passes a plan before the public input. She questioned why the Council’s decision could not wait. Mr. Reardanz explained that this is an extraordinary set of circumstances. The Port and City are partnering in how to move forward and staff is looking to the Council and Port Commission to say that the plan is good enough to take to the public. The rest of the process will follow the normal procedure through the Planning Commission to the Council. Ms. Ryan expressed that the motion is premature. Mr. Knutson called for the question. A vote was taken and the call for the question passed 4-2. JW, BR opposed. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2. JW, BR opposed. SS excused. A vote was taken by the Port Commissioners and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1:22 PM. Barry Buchanan, Council President ATTEST: J. Lynne Walker, Legislative Assistant APPROVED:
