HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole April 10 20121
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
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
April 10, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, Pete Kremen and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, CREATING CHAPTER 20.51, LAKE WHATCOM
WATERSHED OVERLAY DISTRICT, TO ADDRESS STORMWATER AND LAND
USE REGULATIONS IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2012 -117)
Cathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and stated the Planning Commission, at its last meeting, made a recommendation and
moved to the Council proposed codes, definitions, and removal of Lake Whatcom references
from the current code, but it has not yet approved Findings of Fact. The Planning
Commission will vote on Findings of Fact on Thursday.
Kershner stated she was at the Planning Commission meeting. It's not the Planning
Commissioners' understanding that this is their recommendation to the Council. She would
like clarification on the items in the Council packet that are actual recommendations from
the Planning Commission. She understands that the Planning Commission wanted more
time to work on it, so there are sections that they did not address or amend.
Craver stated the Planning Commission motion was to approve Chapter 20.51 and all
the associated sections. That motion passed unanimously, along with the definition section.
Kershner stated the motion was to replace language. It was not a motion to move to
approve and recommend the entire section.
Craver submitted and read from a presentation (on file). The amount of naturally -
occurring phosphorus loading from native vegetation is determined to be .16 pounds of
phosphorus per acre per year. The original criterion from the Department of Ecology is to
allow no additional phosphorus loading beyond that amount. Only new development activity
on a site would be under stormwater review. One is not required to retrofit an entire site to
the phosphorus loading criteria. If there is a low threshold for a retrofit of the entire site,
that site may not ever come into compliance. Work directly with the new addition or
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
activity on the site, and use other means to cumulatively reduce the impacts of the
phosphorus. The proposed threshold is 500 square feet.
Weimer asked if the City's threshold triggers retrofitting an entire site, and whether
the City's requirement or County's requirement will meet the total maximum daily load
(TMDL) requirements. Craver stated the City requires retrofit of the entire site. Their
threshold is 300 square feet for a redeveloped site. A comparison analysis of retrofitting an
entire site versus just the project area hasn't been done. She doesn't believe that anyone
in the city has had to retrofit an entire site. Every project has been just shy of that trigger.
Kremen stated the City's setback from the lake is only 25 feet, which is why they
have to have more stringent regulations. The County has a lake setback of 45 feet. That is
a big difference. It makes sense for the City to have more stringent regulations. There's a
rationale for it. All these years, Bellingham enabled houses to be built up to 25 feet from
the high water mark, which is almost twice as close as the County allows.
Mann asked whether any City residents entirely avoid retrofitting requirements for
the entire site by not getting any permitting. Craver stated she doesn't think anything gets
by the City enforcement staff. They're out there quite a bit. They have a very good watch
on what's going on. They could provide numbers of how many projects come close to the
threshold. The City and County exchange information about the types of activity they're
seeing. The City will begin reviewing their code and whether they want to make
modifications. The overall goal is to allow people to have their development and find a
responsible balance.
Mann stated the point is that if the threshold to require a retrofit is too strict, they
might realize an effect different from what they're trying to achieve. Craver stated the staff
and Inter - jurisdictional Coordinating Team have discussed that concern.
Craver continued the presentation regarding options for stormwater treatment.
Crawford referenced option one and asked if the purpose of the native vegetation is
to take water from the roof, for example. Craver stated it is. Water is being directed
toward the native vegetation.
Kremen asked if they calculate the amount of native vegetation such as a large cedar
or fir tree, using the tree canopy or trunk size. Craver stated the calculation includes the
canopy.
Craver continued the presentation on other options for stormwater treatment.
Kershner asked if the engineering option could include some kind of stormwater
district or collecting area to take the stormwater away to be processed. Craver stated it
could.
Kershner asked whether there is an option for people who can't make an engineered
system work. Craver stated potentially a variance process could be an option.
Mann asked if the phosphorus loading profile allows 25 percent or 125 percent.
Craver stated that is the Planning Commission recommendation. The Department of
Ecology criteria is no additional phosphorus loading. The amount allowed is 25 percent of
phosphorus loading beyond a forested condition.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford stated the amount of phosphorus allowed is 125 percent of the amount
contributed by native vegetation. Craver stated native vegetation is zero. The Planning
Commission is to allow 25 percent phosphorus loading beyond that.
Crawford stated the amount of phosphorus created by native vegetation is .16
pounds per acre per year on average. Twenty -five percent of that is .04 pounds per acre
per year. Therefore, the development would be allowed .20 pounds per acre per year.
Craver stated Ecology's criteria was no additional phosphorus loading beyond native
vegetation, and the Planning Commission recommendation is to allow 25 percent beyond
that.
Crawford stated he would like clarity on that recommendation before the Council
votes on it.
Weimer asked if there has been any consultation with the Department of Ecology
about increasing phosphorus by 25 percent. Craver stated that at this point, the
Department of Ecology will look at the entire ordinance and then decide. The Planning
Commission discussed whether other regulations can deal with phosphorus if they can't be
dealt with in the land use regulations.
Craver concluded the presentation on the timeline. She asked what kind of
background information the committee would like to have.
Brenner stated Exhibit D allows different ways for people to control runoff, including
other dispersion methods if the lot isn't very big. Craver stated the ordinance and exhibits
dated March 13 in the Council packet beginning on page 271 are an old version that should
not have been in the Council packet. Exhibit D was provided by a Planning Commissioner
who initially wanted it to go into the Code, but realized these were some bigger policy
questions that they wanted to forward to the Council to contemplate. Her response was
that she has a land use regulation part of Title 20 that needs to be passed. It is the
Council's responsibility to weigh those other pieces, as they do with the management
program. This was their duty of passing that forward. If there is a specific piece of the
discussion that the Council would like them to go over, they can do that.
Brenner stated item 7 on Council packet page 314 should say, "Smaller lots without
the ability to utilize onsite infiltration should be given access to dispersion sites in the
watershed in the County." Craver stated they will need to discuss what that really means
as far as mitigating offsite and where these other sites are located. One issue is that capital
facility projects require a lot of conservation easements on properties, which can be
expensive. Including a stormwater facility to treat a large area is a concern they'd have to
balance out. If they want to go through that discussion, they can if the other options aren't
feasible.
Brenner stated oxygen aerators don't require conservation easements. They should
have that discussion.
Kershner stated attachment D includes good ideas forwarded from the Planning
Commission for the Council to consider when looking at the overall Lake Management Plan.
Ms. Craver wants them to focus on the actual development regulations today, knowing that
these are good ideas the Council needs to incorporate into the Lake Management Plan at
some point. She congratulated the Planning Commission for creating one of the best, most
comprehensive working document of suggested ideas that she's seen. She would like to
hear from the Planning Commissioners, and then discuss where they go next. She asked
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
47
48
49
50
51
52
what information the Council received has been recommended by the Planning Commission.
She asked if the packet the Council received includes everything the Planning Commission
recommended.
Gary Honcoop, Whatcom County Planning Commissioner, stated the Planning
Commission never made a motion or took a vote for recommendation on what the Council
has before it. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission made several motions for
replacement of language and for some addition of language in the definitions. They never
had a motion or vote on a recommendation.
Brenner asked if Mr. Honcoop is talking about the item that included a Planning
Commission recommendation and staff response. Honcoop stated he's talking about the
entire ordinance before the Council. The Planning Commission never made a motion or took
a vote on the entire document.
Kershner asked for a reason why. Honcoop stated part of the reason includes a lot
of work done by an ad hoc subcommittee that has since been done. They asked for
comments from engineers, and focused specifically on the best management practices
(BMPs). That was where the line was supposed to be drawn. That's where he kept it
drawn, and focused on getting that portion done. That was dealt with at the last meeting.
That's as far as they got. They received an email saying it would be moved forward with
whatever work they had completed by that point. That's what has happened. Basically, the
email said they would take the work done to -date and send it forward.
Brenner asked if the Planning Commission wants to work on this any longer, and how
much longer they're talking about.
Dave Onkels, Whatcom County Planning Commissioner, stated the ordinance isn't
ready for prime time. They are going to receive feedback from the Department of Ecology,
according to this worksheet the Council received today. There are certain conclusions
included in the Council packet that were not part of the Planning Commission proceedings
and are not part of the Planning Commission packet for this Thursday's meeting. He
submitted a handout (on file). The Planning Commission worked with a native vegetation
phosphorus loading number of .15 pounds per acre per year, not .16 pounds per acre per
year. That results in a number of .1875 pounds per acre per year, which is 25 percent more
than the .15 pounds per acre per year. That's the reason for the confusion between the
.1875 and .20 numbers.
At the last Planning Commission meeting, they moved and voted to accept the
amended language for section 20.51.420 and the amended definitions for 20.97. Ecology
has heartburn about the additional phosphorus loading, but he solicited input from quite a
few members of the engineering community during two separate meetings. At neither
meeting did anyone, with one possible exception, express the opinion that no additional
phosphorus loading was an achievable objective. That's the reason he convened the second
meeting with the engineers, Mr. Peterson from Public Works, Kirk Christensen, and
Commissioner Honcoop. They asked the engineers in private practice for input about what
form achievable standards and BMP methods might take. They soon received valuable input
from all those engineers. The day after that meeting, he and Commissioner Honcoop
worked for several hours on new language for section 20.51.420 in an attempt to arrive at
an achievable BMP solution. Mr. Peterson was on the telephone with them for about four
hours. They also met the following Monday for several hours. Mr. Peterson continued to
help them. That work culminated in the extensive list of definitions proposed for section
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
48
49
50
51
52
20.97. An engineer can look at the BMPs, refer to the definitions, and have a clear idea of
what will be and won't be achievable in terms of working with the stormwater manual.
Honcoop stated attachment #4 has the side -by -side comparison between the original
proposal, the Planning Commission recommendation, and the staff response. He referenced
item 1 under item B regarding Stormwater Management BMPs. The engineering people
continually questioned where they start regarding the forested condition phosphorus level.
The solution isn't perfect to establish a .15 or .16 pounds per acre per year. Some areas
will produce more than that, and some areas will produce less than that.
Crawford asked if they've determined a way to find that out for a particular location.
Honcoop stated they have not. That was part of the engineers' issue. They can spend a
couple hundred thousand dollars and take two years trying to determine the forest condition
for natural phosphorus for each specific location. The natural output of natural condition
phosphorus will vary based on type of year, rain event, and other things. The engineers
asked repeatedly for a starting point for what is a natural forested position, and they came
up with a number of .15 pounds per acre per year.
Kershner asked where that number came from. Crawford stated it was derived in
the total maximum daily load (TMDL) findings generally for the entire watershed.
Kremen stated that is an average figure for the entire watershed.
Honcoop stated this appeared to be an acceptable number for a reasonable amount
of phosphorus generation from a native condition. Use that as a starting point. There is
still disagreement over what it could be. The engineering community doesn't necessarily
believe that number. Many believe that the number should be higher, but they have to
start somewhere and use their judgment to determine a baseline. That's where the starting
point came from.
Moving on from there, they came up with a factor of 1.25. It's very confusing
whether it is a 25 percent increase or 125 percent increase. They had written it both ways,
and then revised the language to say, 'shall not exceed by a factor of 1.25." That was an
attempt to clarify exactly the Council's question.
The reason for 1.25 is due to two issues that drove them to increase it beyond zero.
The first issue is the question of whether zero is achievable. After hearing from many
people, including engineers and people from the City of Bellingham, they agreed that zero is
not achievable except if no water leaves the site. The BMP for full infiltration, item 3,
requires that no water leave the site, which makes it achievable.
Regarding full dispersion, it's a 6.5 to 1 ratio. An element left out is that one is also
required to have a 100 -foot flow path. It's not just about the amount of square footage one
has. There has to be 100 feet of travel for the dissolved phosphorus to have uptake and
remove it. In the Lake Whatcom watershed, the topography isn't always conducive to that
travel area. The engineers continually said that removing all the phosphorus is very
difficult, if not impossible. The biggest issue is dissolved phosphorus. The technology
doesn't exist to remove dissolved phosphorous in a mechanical way versus a natural way.
They conveyed through a motion to have the engineering folks come back in. A
number of staff people attended. He and Mr. Onkels demanded that the engineering folks
participated. Their input was needed. They received input from all except one person.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Then they spent many hours trying to put something together that would work, including
getting input from staff. That's how it was rewritten.
When the 200 square foot threshold was proposed, the question asked was how that
threshold number was arrived at. The answer was that 200 square foot is when there must
be a building permit. They didn't buy that argument as an acceptable reason to establish a
200 square foot threshold. There was a debate over several thresholds, and they eventually
settled on 500 square feet.
Kershner asked if there is an option that won't meet options one through four.
Honcoop stated that using full dispersion, one needs about 22,000 square feet minimum.
The biggest impact, and another reason why zero increase wouldn't work, is to the small
lots. That's where Sudden Valley comes in. It's a challenge to not disallow the existing
lots. There were comments about how the small lots can store or disperse the water, but
those are difficult and costly things to do. They're not very practical.
Kershner stated it was difficult to find out how much phosphorus goes into the lake
from natural forested conditions. She asked how they measure a lot allowed to contribute
25 percent more than natural forested conditions. Honcoop stated there is a demonstrative
approach. One has to demonstrate how to remove phosphorus down to that level through
the engineering design. That's a challenge.
Brenner asked if there was any discussion of allowing community dispersion by
people contributing to a fund that would create oxygenators or something like that offsite,
but in the watershed. Honcoop stated there was a lot of discussion about that.
Oxygenation does not take care of phosphorus, according to the engineers.
Brenner stated it provides more oxygen, which helps prevent more phosphorus
loading.
Kershner stated they are on the 303(d) list for low oxygen levels.
Crawford stated nothing in that process prevents phosphorus loading. It is trying to
create an environment that is not good for algae.
(4:05:18 PM)
Brenner stated a good, high oxygen level will result in less phosphorus and algae, all
other things being equal.
Onkels stated conditions are not going to be as conducive for the growth of algae
during the time the lake is stratified. Otherwise, they're not reducing phosphorus loading in
any way with lake management techniques. The Department of Ecology website has
recommendations.
Brenner stated something in the information says that reduced oxygen causes more
problems with phosphorus.
Crawford stated no one is arguing that.
Brenner read from information, "Low dissolved oxygen levels have been connected to
phosphorus loading, resulting in sediments entering into Lake Whatcom through land
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
48
49
50
51
52
disturbance...." They're connecting it. Onkels stated he doesn't know if he agrees with that
sentence. The Planning Commission proposal has an off - parcel mitigation parcel option so
small lot owners might have an opportunity to purchase or lease a mitigation site from
another property owner, and take phosphorus from an unmitigated site and install natural
forested conditions or a permanent forested reserve. Also, the dispersion and infiltration
mitigation methods are presumptive. If one meets the numbers, then one is presumed to
meet the standard. Last, he noticed a discrepancy between the Planning Commission
packet for this issue and the Council packet for the issue. It resides in the conclusions. The
Council has conclusion three, "Because changing conditions have created a threat to public
health...," but there's not documentation of that threat, "...and/or safety, and because this
ordinance will reasonably address that threat, this ordinance shall apply to all lots of record
existing or created before, on, or after its effective date." Give careful consideration to that
language.
Craver stated this is a draft ordinance that staff took from previous ordinances
regarding Lake Whatcom and used as a template and moved it forward. It was also part of
the packet that was withdrawn from the Council packet. It was dated March 13. She didn't
understand that it would be part of this Council packet. That was a misunderstanding with
Council staff. That wasn't intentional. They pulled that ordinance, and it does say it's a
draft. They haven't resubmitted anything with that language. She apologized for the
confusion.
Mann asked about the baseline issue. He used to work for a company that would
design these things. There is pretty good software out there. One takes a survey of the
property, model the existing vegetation, the slopes, and the flow, and then come up with a
computer - generated model that gives a number for how much phosphorus one can have.
He asked if that is where they would get the baseline from. It is an Hydrologic Simulation
Program— FORTRAN (HSPF) model. Honcoop stated it requires an input to start with.
Mann stated input hundreds of years of rain data and treatment information.
Honcoop stated that model is primarily related to water quality other than phosphorus. It's
not necessarily related to phosphorus. It was universal from the engineers that there is not
a method.
Mann asked if they can't model phosphorus with all those software techniques.
Honcoop stated that is correct, according to the engineers, without a study of a specific
location.
Mann asked about stormwater control on small lots, such as those in Sudden Valley.
He asked if they could do a community phosphorus field for those lots in Sudden Valley.
Onkels stated the Planning Commission recommends an off - parcel mitigation option. There
are 717 lots in the watershed under 10,000 square feet and that would probably not be able
to conform. There are an additional 196 that are under 20,000 square feet. Many of the
lots aren't buildable under current regulations.
Mann stated many of those Sudden Valley lots are close together, making them a
useful place to create some engineered solutions. Have that option available.
Brenner stated Exhibit D included a recommendation for smaller lots to be given
access to dispersion sites in the watershed. Craver stated they would have to talk with
Public Works to develop an entire program.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Honcoop referenced attachment #4 under stormwater BMPs, item two. They have a
tendency to focus on existing off - parcel phosphorus unmitigated areas being far away.
That's not necessarily correct. A neighbor may be cooperative and grant an easement for
stormwater, allowing a recorded protected native growth area. The idea was to create
some flexibility with an option that isn't extremely cost - prohibitive and is more natural.
Anytime they can disperse water rather than collect it at a point is better.
Brenner stated that if a lot is a lot of record, the County must allow the owner to
build. The Council can't write regulations that aren't doable for the small lots.
Crawford asked if people could still have a 2,500 square foot building envelope if
they can't meet the stormwater regulations. Craver stated they can't, according to this.
The limit, also with the caveat of the 2,500 square feet, is removed for these options.
They're exploring where the regulation won't work, and looking for ways around it.
Kremen asked if the County has a reasonable use ordinance.
Crawford stated that's in the critical areas ordinance, and he doesn't think it covers
stormwater. Craver stated it doesn't cover stormwater.
Brenner stated she thinks the law says the Council can't put regulations in place that
are impossible for builders to meet. Craver stated that when they start getting into the
regulations, they can fine -tune the argument and the scenario that they're really looking at.
Crawford stated there are pieces of land, such as those on Chuckanut, that are, in
reality and relative to the cost it would take to stabilize an entire mountain, unbuildable. It
sounds like they're treading into a discussion about making quite a number of lots in the
Lake Whatcom watershed unbuildable for all practical purposes.
Brenner stated Councilmember Kremen just said a taking.
Crawford stated that gets into a description of a legal issue. He doesn't think it's a
taking.
Kremen stated he doesn't think it's a taking, either. The Supreme Court ruled that
as long as people have access to their property, it still has value. It doesn't guarantee a
residential lot.
Crawford stated it sounds early for the Council to get this. He would like to see the
Planning Commission's work, including the meeting minutes to look at their discussion.
They're just taking things out of order. As they move into discussions about this, he would
like a phosphorus 101 discussion. He can understand the land disturbance part of it, but
not where the phosphorus will come from once the house is built. Go over why this
impervious surface is creating a problem. He's trying to understand what they're getting at
with these designed stormwater systems.
Brenner stated fowl management is strange.
Kershner stated they produce three pounds of fecal matter per bird every day.
Crawford stated that when they talked about measuring phosphorus off a particular
site, he thought about why someone couldn't just take a shovel -full of the soil, examine it,
and determine how much phosphorus is in it. It must not be that easy. That's why he's
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
trying to understand where this phosphorus is coming from and how the development
regulations will impact it.
Kershner asked how this will go forward and what the Council needs to do today.
Craver stated the purpose of this discussion was to get the Council's mind wrapped around
what these regulations are going to be. It was staff's understanding that the Planning
Commission moved and approved these sections to move forward. It was indicated they
would move forward to the Council, regardless at that point, during the March 22 meeting.
That's why it's scheduled here. They came up with a very general overview to have an
understanding. She's sensing now where more detail needs to happen. That's the kind of
feedback she'd like to get. She needs to come back and revisit more in -depth about what
the smaller lots look like, what the off -site mitigation recommendation looks like, and
examine the thresholds and BMPs. Scheduling another committee meeting would be a good
step. She can't make the decision on whether or not the Council introduces it when there
are findings, or what's going to happen at the Planning Commission. She's not the one to
make the call about whether or not this actually moved forward. She has minutes that say
that the Planning Commission moved to approve these different sections.
Brenner stated she would like to see it go back to the Planning Commission and let
them feel like they've finished it to make their recommendation. There is just a difference
of opinion.
Crawford stated the Council will know when it has a signed document from the
Planning Commission.
Brenner stated the Planning Commission obviously doesn't think it's finished. She
talked to somebody who said they didn't think it would take much longer to get to that
point.
Sam Ryan, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated the staff
hasn't had that discussion. The reason they made a more hasty decision is because she
wanted them summarized and get it moved forward. The Planning Commission did a lot of
hard work, but there was no feeling that would ever end. There was a lot of staff time with
the Planning Department and other departments, so she determined that it was time for the
item to move forward, whether or not the Planning Commission made a recommendation.
Fortunately, the Planning Commission did make a recommendation. There is some
confusion about what the recommendation was. At any rate, she felt it needed to be moved
forward to Council, and Council could start doing its deliberations. She asked how much
time they spend at the Planning Commission. Expecting the Commissioners to be the
scientists that they're not isn't fair. They've done a lot of homework, but it needed to keep
moving forward. The Planning Commission has an agenda for the year and things the staff
needs to do. Her concern was that the Planning Commission was not moving forward. It
just kept revisiting the issues and was not accomplishing anything.
Brenner stated that this is a high priority. If the Planning Commission wants to take
more time, she would like to see them take more time. Whatever they do, they save the
Council time. Ryan stated they do, the whole reason Sandy Peterson put so much effort
into trying to help, on his own time, was to get them to the point where they could hand it
off to the other Commissioners, and make a decision and move it forward. She thought
they were ready to do that.
Kershner stated it's interesting that this project has been in the works since last
March, but the Planning Commission wasn't brought into it until November 17. For future
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 9
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
48
49
50
51
52
projects of large scale significance, the stakeholders and interested parties should be
brought into the process earlier so they don't spend a lot of time going in the wrong
direction.
Crawford asked if there is a deadline for completing this item. Ryan stated the
original timeline was to have this before the Council, so the Council could make a decision
by June. That is not a hard and fast deadline, but it was the original commitment by the
former County Executive.
Crawford stated he's confused about how that occurred. He asked if it was a Council
strategy to move this forward. Ryan stated it was the staff's direction to start meeting,
putting this forward, and doing workshops. It was the direction staff was given.
Kremen stated they shouldn't procrastinate any more than they absolutely have to.
During a meeting with two members of the Department of Ecology, Mr. Grout and Mr. Hood,
they told him that their view of achieving zero phosphorus loading was not that difficult to
achieve. In retrospect, he thinks that message is not valid or accurate. It may have been
hopeful thinking. He was lead to believe that achieving zero phosphorus loading was not
going to be that difficult for most people. He doesn't agree with that now. That's one
reason for trying to achieve this as quickly as possible. He heard Mr. Honcoop say that the
Planning Commission did not take any action or make any formal recommendation on this.
Therefore, he concurs with Councilmember Brenner. There needs to be a definitive product
from the Planning Commission working in concert with staff as quickly as possible. This is
premature to start to take action now. This meeting was productive, informative, and
useful. Send it back to the Planning Commission to resolve discrepancies from staff and
from the Planning Commission. Then the Council can work on whatever product is
delivered.
Craver read from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. There was a
motion to recommend language from the advisory committee for section 20.51.010, which
is the purpose section. That was voted on unanimously. They also voted on section
20.51.420, which is the new section. The other sections, with the exception of minor details
regarding uses and prohibited uses that were already in there, have the thresholds and
BMPs. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously to adopt the definitions for section
20.97. Maybe there wasn't a formal motion to move the entire chapter forward. Anything
that was new was voted on unanimously to move forward. The other pieces were the
already - permitted uses, prohibited uses, and conformance. Those sections were not new,
and were already contained in Title 20.
Knutzen asked if the document in the Council packet has been changed, and the
minor changes still to be done are in the additional information the Council received. Craver
stated the original packet that came to the Council with the entire chapter 20.51 included all
the changes. It was a combination of the three existing chapters that had to do with Lake
Whatcom. The pieces that are new, the BMPs and thresholds, are contained in section
20.51.420, which the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend and move
forward.
Knutzen stated the ordinance in the packet has the past Executive's name and the
past Council Chair's name as the ones who agreed to it. Craver stated she explained that
was a draft ordinance provided as a placeholder that was given to the Council in early
March. That meeting never happened. This was used as a template. She pulled it, but it
continued in the Council packet, which it shouldn't be. This draft with the former
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, 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
48
49
50
51
Executive's name should have been pulled on March 13, because the Council never had that
meeting.
Mann stated there seems to be a lack of communication between staff and the
Planning Commission. He doubts anyone is up to any nefarious activities. He sympathizes
with staff who want to move this forward because they're understaffed and can't spend a lot
more time on it. It's troubling that they don't have their stories straight. That looks bad.
He doesn't understand why it had to be that way. If the Planning Commission agreed on
the hard things, and all that's left is to put an entire ordinance together to vote on, then it
shouldn't take the Planning Commission much longer. They can do that in one meeting. He
gets a call from the Planning Commissioner Chair and other Planning Commissioners have
said that they didn't do what staff is saying they did. It's not helpful when they're trying to
prove who is right.
Crawford stated let the Planning Commission continue to do its work. At the same
time, have a phosphorus 101 discussion. Ms. Craver got good feedback today about what
the Council wants.
Mann stated give them a timeline. They have a lot of work to be done.
Craver stated the Findings of Fact are on the Planning Commission agenda this
Thursday. They made the changes to the sections that are new. All they have to do is
make the motion to move that forward. According to the Code, the Planning Commission
doesn't have to recommend an ordinance. The Planning Commission does have to pass the
Findings of Fact. If there needs to be a motion to recommend the entire chapter, it can be
done on Thursday. She wants to be clear that the Planning Commission already voted on
the sections with the big changes. She's not sure how it would be to send it back and have
them open it up again.
Brenner stated send it back to the Planning Commission until they're comfortable
they've voted it one way or another. She doesn't care how it happened. It won't take a
long time for them to do that. Let the Planning Commission schedule what they want to do
and how they want to do it. She moved to send the item back to the Planning Commission
and give the Planning Commission a deadline of three months.
month.
Kremen stated that's too long.
Brenner stated they can compromise and have it done in two months.
Mann, Knutzen, Kershner, and Kremen stated they would support a deadline in one
Kremen suggested a friendly amendment to set a deadline of one month.
Craver asked if the motion is that the Planning Commission is to make a motion and
forward a recommendation on the Findings of Fact to the Council by the Commission's last
meeting in May.
Brenner stated that's correct. She accepted the friendly amendment and clarified
that the deadline would be the last Planning Commission meeting in May.
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 11
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
IliC
Mann stated it's happened in the past where they can't get enough votes to send
something forward. If they can't get five votes, it would still come to the Council. They can
send it forward with no recommendation.
The Committee concurred.
Kershner stated that the Council will receive a complete package with Findings and
Conclusions and with no typos.
Councilmember Brenner's motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on May 8, 2012.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council4o.w hatcom .wa.us
Special Committee of the Whole, 4/10/2012, Page 12