CALL TO ORDER:
The public hearing of the Planning Commission was called to order by Judith Wiseman, Vice Chairperson.
ROLL CALL:
Commission Members Present:
Judith Wiseman
Travis Holland
Mary Passmore
Carol Salisbury
Michael Kohl
Commission Members Absent:
Nick Zaferatos
Fred Wagner
Planning Staff Members
Patricia Decker, Director
Jackie Lynch, Planner
Greg Aucutt, Senior Planner
Dawn Sturwold, City Attorney
Clark Williams, Public Works
Patty Jameson, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Continuation from June 5, 1997, the consideration of WWU Neighborhood Plan Update.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Greg Aucutt began by reviewing the agenda planned for this evening. Mr. Aucutt proceeded to a review of the University responses to Planning Commission Questions (packet pages 7-22). He reviewed the responses page by page asking for Commissioner questions or comments.
Judith Wiseman asked Greg Aucutt to clarify the difference between WWU's Comprehensive Campus Master Plan and the City's Institutional Master Plan.
Greg Aucutt explained that the first is a document developed by the University, the second being a City developed Plan.
Mary Passmore referred to Page 9 asking about the use of the word "mandate" with respect to acquiring property.
Patricia Decker explained that she doesn't understand it to be a mandate, but rather a process.
George Pierce, WWU, agreed that there is no mandate, but rather a process they are asked to follow when acquiring land from campus expansion.
Judith Wiseman asked what the HEC Board said about this.
George Pierce said the HEC Board developed a policy, as stated in the packet, which states that if the property is within their sphere of influence it could then be considered for purchase.
Patricia Decker asked WWU to provide the Commission with the HEC Board language. Ms. Decker explained that WWU's plan is required to show an acquisition area in order to be able to acquire property.
George Pierce said they do have such a plan and will provide the Commission with the language.
Patricia Decker referenced page 11, no. 4, feeling that WWU's response needs some clarification. She said her interpretation is that it would help the university if the City was very clear about what they feel is important regarding property maintenance.
Peter Harris, Director, Physical Plant, WWU, gave a couple of examples to explain this in more detail. He said they have many properties scattered around various areas, which may be subject to a variety of different rules. He said they must first comply with the local codes, etc, before aesthetics. He said they do not have schedules for maintenance, but respond or react when they receive complaints or notices. He said, however, that properties are monitored.
Judith Wiseman said when they get to Item 1, it might be useful to have some language regarding property maintenance.
Unidentified speaker from the audience asked if this is a public hearing or just a WWU forum. He expressed his feeling that the public is being muzzled from speaking here.
Judith Wiseman said it should not take long to get through this initial review and then they will open up the meeting to public testimony.
Mary Passmore questioned the statement on page 13: "current density in Bellingham is 3.5 people per acre..." She asked what acres are they talking about.
Jackie Lynch said this is a gross figure that includes land zoned Residential, Commercial, and Industrial. The first figure is the current gross acreage of the City of Bellingham. The second figure is what is expected in 20 years.
Mary Passmore asked if it makes sense to compare WWU to the rest of Bellingham since WWU is much denser, but has different uses.
Patricia Decker agreed that they are comparing apples and oranges. She said that when you deal with gross density per acre in a city, you deal with those employed in the city, who go home somewhere else. WWU, however, has students and faculty that are there only part of the time. She said comparing residents would be different.
Rick Benner, WWU Facilities Planning, explained that the calculation used 400 acres, which includes, for example, the main campus areas, as does the University of Washington figure. He felt it is a good comparison.
Mary Passmore asked for an clarification of Attachment 1 (page 23). She said she is interested in actual classroom space per student.
Rick Benner said key is the right hand two columns. His conclusion is that WWU is suffering a shortage of classroom space, or student stations, when compared to the excesses in other universities. He said they use 15 square feet per station as the standard.
Carol Salisbury said the figures appear to be enrollment, not student spaces.
Judith Wiseman observed that the number of students can be increased to a point before actual costs need to be increased. She thinks the figures given are an ideal for planning, but are not realistic and do not reflect how the university hires.
Rick Benner said they are hiring that way now.
Patricia Decker observed that all students are not there all day or at the same time. She asked how that relates to student stations.
Judith Wiseman explained that head counts are often actually higher than the FTE counts.
Judy McNichol, WWU, said these figures are based on national average standards. She explained that head count are approximately 10% more than FTE's. She explained that they came up with these figures to help legislators make the decisions they need to make.
Michael Kohl attempted to bring the discussion back to the original question (no. 8, page 15) about how much square footage per student is present now.
Judy McNichol explained that this is not simple information to quantify.
Michael Kohl said this is important in that it tells them what the space requirement is at WWU. He emphasized that they need to understand this if they are to decide if this campus should be allowed to expand.
Judith Wiseman observed that she doesn't see "visitors" mentioned on page 18, Item 14(c), and yet it has been cited many times as a critical need. She thinks "visitors" needs to be mentioned.
WWU Speaker said they acknowledge that oversight.
Jackie Lynch noted that WWU proposes to reduce the number of vehicle trips. She asked if that is after the expansion or is it per capita.
Carl Root, Transportation Management, WWU, answered that it is per capita. It is not a project specific number.
Carol Salisbury referred to page 18, Item 14(d), regarding parking structures. She noted that the recent Herald article on the Viking Union expansion did not mention any planned parking structure. She expressed concern that they are not seeing any specific action toward building these needed structures.
Carl Root said they do not get into the specifics of their campus transportation plan, which they have been operating under for two years now. He recited figures to demonstrate the improvements that they have made as a result of their Transportation Management Plan. Carol Salisbury asked for comment on students taking the free Campus Shuttle, who are parking in the York neighborhood.
Carl Root said they have Bellingham Police and the owner of the Nelson's Market monitoring this. They believe students, who have missed the bus at Civic Field are trying to beat the bus by catching it in the York Street area.
Mary Passmore asked staff how much it cost to park in the parking garage downtown.
Patricia Decker said it depends on what level you park on.
Travis Holland said it is $32/month for uncovered, upper level parking.
Carl Root said they do look at it as a disincentive for parking on campus. He clarified that parking costs from $24 - $44 per quarter for staff or students.
Judith Wiseman asked if there is any underground parking planned in the buildings proposed to be built.
Carl Root said they always look into that.
Judith Wiseman asked if any of the new fees will go for parking.
Carl Root answered that no funds will be directed to parking.
Mary Passmore asked how many park each day at WWU now.
Carl Root responded that approximately 4,000 cars park in peripheral lots.
Judith Wiseman questioned the $50-80 monthly fee for parking. She asked why monthly parking. She asked who needs monthly parking.
Carl Root said staff and faculty use monthly parking, but they use monthly figures just to show the cost.
Mary Passmore clarified that the figures seem to indicate that WWU is providing a parking space for almost every two people who go to WWU, be it staff, faculty, or students.
Travis Holland asked how much is set aside as capital reserve for parking each year.
Carl Root answered approximately $160,000 - $200,000 goes into a capital reserve account to pay for parking improvements.
Michael Kohl explained that the cost of land in Bellingham makes the cost of high rise structured parking prohibitive. While we would like to see parking structures, the cost of land here is still too low to make it happen.
Judith Wiseman referred to page 19, Item 14(f), where it states that WWU will inform by printed matter. She encouraged this for employees as well.
Michael Kohl referred to page 20, Item 16, "eminent domain". He asked how this effects zoning.
Patricia Decker explained that even if the land is acquired and WWU owns it, it does not change the zoning or the allowed uses.
Carol Salisbury asked about a different Happy Valley boundary than what is shown on the open space maps. She asked if this expansion is not going into Happy Valley's growth area as defined in the old plan.
Greg Aucutt said the neighborhood boundary has always ended at Bill McDonald Parkway.
Tip Johnson, 2719 Donovan, Bellingham, WA, Happy Valley Neighborhood, read sections from the original plan that he felt is conflicting language.
Carol Salisbury asked for clarification that before the WWU Acquisition Plan the acquisition boundary went to Douglas; not to Knox, as is now stated.
George Pierce confirmed that the boundary has been moved to Knox.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY OPENED FOR TESTIMONY ON NEW INFORMATION JUST RECEIVED:
Clyde Hackler, 404 20th Street, Bellingham, WA, referenced WWU's response No. 12 on page 17, sentence 2 and 3. He said he has personally witnessed several accidents on W. College Way, where they came close to losing lives. One accident was before the guard rail went up. He described the accident that prompted the installation of the guard rail. He then described the problems that occurred after the guard rail went up. He described another accident, a serious roll-over. He fears that some day we are going to have a car load of kids speeding down that hill that will result in lost lives. He said the grade is wrong and now with the repaving, it is higher. He emphasized it is a very serious road.
Patricia Decker said that either Public Work's realignment of 21st Street or the predesign work will address that.
Clark Williams, Public Works, Traffic Engineer, said they monitor accident history and they have not noted anything that makes this road a hazard. He said the recent repaving was part of the annual repaving program. He concurred that the realignment will address these issues. If the realignment does not go through, they would need to see three or more correctable accidents per year to require action. He said he can bring the Commission an Accident Report for that area. He said they reviewed WWU's Transportation Impact Plan and agree it should not increase the number of vehicles, but it will improve circulation.
Travis Holland asked if certain pedestrian improvements could not be made to make this a safer place.
Clark Williams said there could be many pedestrian enhancements. However, for example, an overpass over the south campus would be extremely expensive.
Tip Johnson, 2719 Donovan, Bellingham, WA, reviewed each of WWU's written responses to Commission question. In summary, he generally felt is was poorly written and contained unprofessional answers. He felt that Items 1(a)-(e) indicate a failure of the WWU to realize their problems. Regarding Items 2 and 3(a), he believes the 10 minute walking zone policy should be retired.
Judith Wiseman asked Mr. Johnson if he could make suggested solutions as well.
Mr. Johnson said he was not hired to do WWU's job and continued his review of Western's written responses. Regarding Item 3(b), he asked them to compare the staff ratios from 1970 to 1990. He said space needs will vary widely depending on your assumptions. Regarding Item 3(c), he hoped new buildings will not look like the physical plant. Regarding Item 3(d), he would like to see more details of what plans are being referred to. Regarding Item 4, he suggested they must be joking in that they have a long history of ignoring local codes. Regarding Item 5(b), with reference to infill he felt that parking structures should be noted first in priority. Regarding Item 5(d), he questioned the 54 FTE per acre figure, saying it excludes much open space. He asked what other institutions exclude open space. Regarding Item 6(b) with regard to satellite campus, he suggested downtown where there is room and parking. Regarding Item 7, he said if too much housing has been sited in the new plan, then redo the plan to provide for less. Regarding Item 12, the dangerous area on W. College Way, he suggested avoiding the hill completely. He suggested connecting W. Campus Way to a new road behind Carver Gym. He approached the aerial map to describe his proposal. He noted that this was the old highway. The route would begin on Garden Street, through the small parking lot and down behind the Carver Gym and out to Bill McDonald Parkway.
Judith Wiseman asked if WWU has considered this in the past.
Robert Bruce, Architect for WWU, said they did look at alternatives, including going behind Old Main, but to get traffic from the east side to the west side of the university, they felt the route chosen is better.
Tip Johnson felt that if they are going to spend millions of dollars, they should spend the little it would take to do an analysis to see if his suggestion could work.
Mr. Johnson continued his review with Item 14(a) and 14(b), saying the plan will provide up to another 200 parking spaces. He wondered if 200 spaces is consistent with City parking requirements. Regarding Item 14(c), he pointed out that mitigating impacts on surrounding neighborhoods comes last on the list. He hoped that is not a priority list. Regarding parking, he suggested expanding downtown. Regarding Item 14(f), he said WWU's answer is unclear. Regarding Items 16 and 17, he believed them to be a challenge to the City to enforce land use.
John Servais, 1609 Mill Avenue, Bellingham, WA, felt the format they have been given to work with is impossible. He referenced the Oak Street Improvements, done by WWU, which have taken place in the last few weeks, saying the City of Bellingham's Public Works Department did not even know about it. He referenced the low attendance tonight, asking why the meetings are scheduled now during July and August when many citizens cannot show up. He asked that this be extended into the Fall. He added that this was originally labeled a worksession, now it is suddenly a public hearing. The nature of this continues to change and this baffles them. WWU assumes a manifest destiny with regard to Happy Valley. He feels that City Planning is helping WWU take Happy Valley. He said, however, that Happy Valley is rising up and saying that this is an illegal expansion. He said his neighborhood has discussed many alternatives, but they have not been given the venue or opportunity to present their suggested alternatives.
Judith Wiseman asked what he thinks is the proper venue.
Mr. Servais suggested that WWU's Master Plan should go through a visioning process with regard to WWU and their connection to the three surrounding neighborhoods, providing the neighbors a venue to present their ideas and information. He said WWU must integrate with these three neighborhoods. He feels they need to step back to this venue. He next noted a dramatic turnaround by WWU, when they use the "mandate by the HEC Board" reference. He says this is a dramatic change in testimony by WWU. He added that WWU has a 30 year history of trashing 21st Street. He questioned the FEPG discussion. He feels they need to know who came up with those figures and how. He said student enrollment at WWU is just slighting higher than in 1970; having dipped in the 80's. Yet staff is significantly higher. He presented a solution to the multi-million dollar proposal on W. College Way to 21st Street, suggesting a curve could be cut into the trees; creating a more gradual curve down the hill. He said there is no bank on the existing road. It is a bad road. He asked why WWU is planning our City streets here. He approached the WWU Plan displayed and suggested an alternative. He said the loop road is incredibly wasteful and it doesn't access any parking. Buses let off people where they have to cross traffic. He suggested an alternative that would require less space. He questioned the campus' effort to face south instead of toward downtown. Regarding transit for staff, he felt that WWU has a poor participation by staff. He said they are pushing students to use public transportation, but what about staff. He said staff have regular hours and it is actually easier for them to use transit. He emphasized that WWU needs the will to make this happen. He next questioned the placement of the visitor's center. He said they are not looking at expansion down the hill toward the armory as WWU has dismissed it. He said we should look at the expansion needs. He asked why automatically go to Happy Valley. He said costs are lower, but why not look at areas closer to campus. He pointed out the additional playing fields they would have if the loop road were taken out. He said Happy Valley is not opposed to some of their fields integrating in their neighborhood. Their kids could use them when students are not. He agreed that the physical plant is a very unattractive, trashy place.
Paul DeArmond, 1344 Humbolt Street, Bellingham, WA, said he is happy to see the public testimony at last happening. He addressed the square footage per student issue. He said all this specific detailed information is readily available and explainable by calling a Mr. Jim Korsky. Regarding the York neighborhood, he referred to a previous slide show. He said he counted cars at Civic Field one day, which numbered 50-60 cars. He also noted 40 some people entering the bus at Potter and Humbolt. He does not know why they were getting on there. He asked when did the WWU get granted a variance for building without adequate parking.
Patricia Decker said she would be happy to respond to that question in writing.
Paul DeArmond said it occurred to him that WWU could increase their parking budget by redistributing staffing requirements out of parking, then their funds could go to capital improvements. He feels that WWU is overbuilt already per the acreage they have. He referenced WWU's library, for which there is no parking. He feels that is an important public building. He thinks no parking is being added even though new building is going on. Regarding the official record of these proceedings in the past, he said he has noted substantive deletions. He said he has video recordings of the meetings and there are many deletions. He warned the Commission from operating on the staff packet, which is missing pertinent information. He suggested maintaining a strong tie between WWU and the downtown area. Regarding eminent domain, the only condemnation he recalled was for Fairhaven College and Buchanan Towers.
Discussion recalled also the Rufus Jones School as well.
Paul DeArmond said the loop road is an attempt to address WWU's lack of internal circulation. He reviewed the history of the proposed expansion, when it was initially intended to double student housing. He concluded by saying he expected a worksession this evening and so was not prepared for a public hearing. Regarding the water tower road, he does not think it would take much of a regrade to change the slope and make it a safer road.
Mary Passmore said she has been uncomfortable with this process for months because a decision to extend the boundary to Knox does not address some serious problems that the citizens and the City of Bellingham face. She thinks the idea of a visioning process would be valuable. They need to problem solve with everyone because everyone needs to buy into the solution. She expressed concern over property values, loss of low cost housing in Happy Valley, traffic and parking problems, and loss of tax revenue. She feels they need to look at alternatives to WWU's expansion proposal. She is not comfortable with continuing the current process which seems to be piecemeal. She feels it is okay to take longer if necessary because we will all have to live with the results for many years to come. She believes we need long-range planning and visioning. This will require WWU to become open-minded to participating in this and receiving this input.
Michael Kohl said the key is neighborhoods. He does not see how they can deal with this issue without dealing with all three abutting neighborhoods simultaneously. He suggested a larger venue; the neighborhoods could have elected representatives to control the number who participate. These representatives and this commission need to meet together. He does not think the current process will work.
Judith Wiseman recognized that WWU has many voices to listen to. She agreed that the neighborhoods should have been included earlier in the process. She asked if there is a way they can make some decisions to give some direction to staff, but leave other neighborhood related decisions until further discussion occurs.
Mary Passmore said it is not a matter of WWU involving just the neighborhoods, but that the entire community and the City of Bellingham should be involved. She said they should look at WWU expansion as an impact on the entire City of Bellingham.
Discussion ensued regarding what course should be taken.
Michael Kohl asked how they will replace housing stock lost to WWU expansion.
Patricia Decker said that all the Commissioner's comments are constructive toward a solution. She said the reason they have had such difficulty with this plan is because WWU has proposed major expansion into Happy Valley, and like all neighborhood plan updates staff and the Commission is responding to that. She clarified that when they do any neighborhood plan update, they invited the neighbors to participate. In the case of the WWU neighborhood plan, the neighbors are WWU. She re-stated that staff is not buying into WWU's proposed expansion into Happy Valley. She explained that all they are buying, at this time, is what WWU's Updated Master Plan says about the WWU Neighborhood Plan. Therefore, the Commission is not making a decision, if they follow the recommendations of staff, to approve an expansion area into Happy Valley if they approve an updated WWU Neighborhood Plan.
Mary Passmore said her understanding, however, is that the Updated Neighborhood Plan hinges on the eventual expansion.
Patricia Decker explained that WWU may say that they need to know, at a certain time, about things that they have applied to the legislature for funding for. Some of that involves property acquisition. She thinks they need to ask WWU where their priorities are for property acquisition in the next two years. From there, they can decide, as a community, if they are comfortable giving them that or not. She added that there is language from the State Capital Budget that was passed by the legislature that very clearly says "for the campus services facility and for facility and property acquisition and for campus infrastructure, that the university shall comply with local comprehensive land use laws and regulations for this project". Ms. Decker said this means that the City does, according to the State Legislature, regardless of the fact that WWU wishes to reserve the right to do things in certain ways, have the ability to say this plan does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan. That would mean that WWU cannot use this money to spend on these projects. Therefore, if they want to help WWU, as a university in this town, the Commission should identify those things that they think are consistent with our Comprehensive Plan and the will of the community and neighborhoods and see if they can move those things forward. If there are things that WWU wants to spend money on that they think are not consistent with our Comprehensive Plan or the ways we want to update the WWU Neighborhood Plan, then they can say no. She said if WWU does not agree, they can challenge them in the proper venue. She concluded that the Legislature has spoken very clearly and she has communicated the City's position on this to George Pierce.
Michael Kohl asked how they can give that information if they do not have that information from the neighborhoods.
Patricia Decker said they can proceed with some planning for projects that do not have negative impacts on neighborhood.
Michael Kohl asked if 21st Street is not a long time planned City arterial extension.
Patricia Decker presented a clarification/correction on this topic, and passed out a new handout. She read the most recent language from the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan: "alternative connections between the 21st Street/Donovan Avenue intersection and Old Fairhaven Parkway should be evaluated and the most appropriate route identified." She said this issue will not be resolved in the WWU neighborhood plan update, but will be addressed in the update to the Happy Valley Neighborhood Plan.
Patricia Decker next addressed a visioning process. She agreed that expansion to the north is equally as valid as expansion to Happy Valley and it needs to be explored. She also agreed that they cannot look at the neighborhoods just from the WWU perspective because they are more than that. Patricia Decker said there are a number of items that have been funded by the legislature which have to do with property acquisition and utility infrastructure and preliminary design work on buildings. She reviewed examples of what the Commission has heard testimony on and could possibly make recommendations on.
Judith Wiseman addressed traffic, saying they do not have the expertise to micromanage the plan. She would like to give staff their input so they can begin the draft neighborhood plan. She said she would like more discussion about the effect on a neighborhood when someone is about to expand into a neighborhood.
Mary Passmore said she is only comfortable giving direction that is based on no expansion of the WWU institutional zoning.
Travis Holland said that WWU will not be able to act on Happy Valley issues until their plan is completed, which will take sometime.
Discussion ensued concluding, in agreement, that the 21st Street issue cannot be solved at this point. It is a city-wide issue, not just a WWU or Happy Valley issue.
Paul DeArmond observed that the big discussion is about the need to hurry to get WWU going with their plan. He said there is no hurry. He said WWU will not move a brick for several years.
DISCUSSION ENSUED DECIDING THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE NEXT AUGUST 7TH PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS AGREEMENT TO CONDUCT A WORKSESSION ON THIS ITEM FOLLOWING THE ONE ITEM SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 24TH MEETING. THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS WORKSESSION. THE WORKSESSION WOULD MOVE FROM THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS TO THE MAYOR'S BOARD ROOM.
Judith Wiseman proceeded to review the Meeting Agenda for tonight's meeting: Regarding Recommendation 1(d), she requested background information on parking requirements. Regarding 1(a), she asked that they include the contribution that WWU makes as an employer in the City. Ms. Wiseman referenced neighborhood houses that are now multiple unit housing, creating a parking requirement that is a problem. She said it would be important to mention that part of the parking problem is a result of the development of the South Hill.
Travis Holland referenced Recommendation 1(c), asking if Public Works could address some of the issues brought up tonight.
George Pierce said they have heard a lot from the neighborhood over the months. They have provided notes from those meetings. He expressed deep concern as well about the way the process has gone to date. He acknowledge the time the Commission is devoting to this. He said they know this is a draft document from which they will learn from the Commission's review and comments. He said they welcome neighborhood and City participation in their pre-design studies. What they hope does not happen is that they get so bogged down in the process that they lose sight of their mission, which is to provide a quality educational facility.
Mary Passmore asked if there is flexibility by WWU on the issues that have been raised.
George Pierce said there is flexibility on all issues.
John Frazier, 2706 Mill Avenue, Bellingham, WA, Happy Valley resident, said that tonight is the first time he has felt they are making progress.
ADJOURNED: 10:45 PM
Return to Public Good's Western Washington University page