HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 13 20111
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
Natural Resources Committee
September 13, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL (9:32:56 AM)
Present: Carl Weimer, Bill Knutzen and Sam Crawford.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Barbara Brenner, Kathy Kershner and Tony Larson.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 17, FLOOD DAMAGE
PREVENTION (AB2011 -242)
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, gave a staff report.
The following people spoke and answered questions:
• Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, stated he is on the BIA task force on
this subject, but isn't speaking on behalf of the BIA today. There are six
reasons for not rushing in to this. Don't do anything for one year, which is
one option. The draft ordinance is very complicated because it merges the
local, State, and federal governments. The ordinance contains mapping
conflicts among the 100 -year flood plain, protected areas, and unofficial
channel migration zones. The scope of the ordinance isn't clear on the
definition of habitat. The critical areas ordinance (CAO) already deals with
habitat and wetlands. Revise the ordinance to focus only on habitat that is
critical just for salmonids. Definitions among ordinances, including the CAO,
Shorelines, zoning, and this ordinance, must be consistent. Technical
definitions should include a citation of its source material. Adopt the do-
nothing option for the short run until after the County reviews the CAO next
year. This ordinance should only refer to the buffers in the CAO. The
Planning Department and community specialists need to review this
ordinance. Develop a community ad hoc committee. The biological opinion is
poorly written and unorganized. Whatcom County already restricts
development in the flood plain. It's not practical to bring the flood plain back
to pre - settlement boundaries, as the biological opinion suggests. The BIA
supports more protection for water quality and salmon habitat, tight limits on
flood plain development, and keeping Whatcom County eligible for flood
insurance.
• (10:03:09 AM) Linda Twitchel, BIA, stated the main concern of the BIA deals
with unintended consequences. There should be peer review and Planning
staff review. Get the ordinance right rather than pushing it through quickly.
Allow her membership to review and make recommendations.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/13/2011, 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
• (10:09:20 AM) Dan McShane, Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee
Member, stated the advisory committee went through this already. The
people from Planning who actually process flood plain applications have
looked at the ordinance and helped the Advisory Committee go through the
ordinance. The BIA was part of the subcommittee that reviewed the
ordinance. Think about the areas in Whatcom County that are affected by
flooding. There isn't much development in those areas. The downside of
delaying means a farmer who wants to improve a barn will be required to
have a habitat conservation process and hire an expert to demonstrate the
lack of nexus, which isn't easy. The easiest process is to adopt the advisory
committee's recommendation, and then amend the ordinance in three months
when questions are answered. That prevents farmers from having to get
habitat conservation plans to do improvements.
Weimer asked and there was discussion of:
• Whether the option of doing nothing would leave property owners on the hook
for more expenses.
• Whether staff recommends introduction tonight, with approval in two weeks.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of whether Planning Department staff have
reviewed the ordinance.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of:
• Whether the County could put the federal regulations for salmonids into the
critical areas ordinance instead of this ordinance.
• Whether barns would need a federal permit or are exempt.
Hutchings stated the staff is waiting for official recommendations from the BIA. The
County is stuck with the do- nothing option for a little while because the deadline is too
close.
Larson asked and there was discussion on whether FEMA completed review of any
other communities. Delay until FEMA has reviewed and approved plans of other, similar
jurisdictions so Whatcom County can model approved plans.
Kershner asked and there was discussion of other improvements to Title 17 that
aren't related to the biological opinion.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of allowing exempt wells in the Lake
Whatcom watershed.
Weimer moved to recommend delaying Introduction until staff indicates the
ordinance is not ready and hold in committee.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Knutzen and Crawford (3)
Nays: None (0)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF DESIGNATING BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT LANDS IN THE SAN JUAN ISLANDS A NATIONAL
Natural Resources Committee, 9/13/2011, 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
CONSERVATION AREA INCLUDING CHUCKANUT ROCK, LUMMI ROCKS, AND
CARTER POINT IN WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2011 -271) (10 :20 :04 AM)
Crawford gave a staff report and moved to amend, "Now, Therefore, Be It
Resolved that the Whatcom County Council supports a--na ienal eE)nseF,atiE)ig —area
designatien .. in Whateem Geunty the inclusion of Bureau of Land Management lands in
Whatcom County as part of the proposed San Juan Islands National Conservation Area."
Don't tie Whatcom County to any controversy. Just address the lands in Whatcom County.
The following people spoke and answered questions:
• Elizabeth Kilanowski stated she supports the resolution. It should not be
controversial. Include Seal Rock on Lummi Island in Whatcom County. This
has nothing to do with aquatic reserves at Cherry Point. All of these
companies support local efforts for local control and input. This should not be
controversial.
• Dan McShane stated the only BLM lands in Western Washington are in the
San Juan islands. There is a threat that the BLM could sell the land to private
owners. In 2001, the BLM removed the ability for mining in the three areas
that are in Whatcom County. Designation as a National Conservation Area
requires local involvement in how the lands are managed.
• Ellen Baker stated she submitted a letter. The resolution says that property
in close proximity to other sensitive property makes it ecologically important.
She's concerned about that precedent. The Code and County policies are
already ambiguous. Instead, ecological value of property should be based on
scientific methods, not on proximity to a designated area. The designation
doesn't guarantee local input.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of:
• The location of Seal Rock and why it isn't included.
• The benefits to the County of designation.
Larson asked and there was discussion of:
• The effect and impact of the resolution.
• Not limiting boating and commerce.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Knutzen and Crawford (3)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner asked the committee to amend the resolution, "Whereas designations of
these lands will not create restrictions on current recreational and commercial water uses."
Crawford moved to amend the resolution to add language, "Whereas designations
of these lands will not create restrictions on current recreational and commercial water
uses."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Knutzen and Crawford (3)
Nays: None (0)
Natural Resources Committee, 9/13/2011, 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
Kershner stated and there was discussion of referencing the ecological benefits of
Chuckanut Rock in the resolution.
Crawford moved to recommend approval as amended to the full Council.
The motion to approve as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Knutzen and Crawford (3)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:53 a.m.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�omhatcomma.us
Natural Resources Committee, 9/13/2011, Page 4