HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 28 20101
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
September 28, 2010
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 :30 :38 AM)
Present: Carl Weimer, Bill Knutzen and L. Ward Nelson.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Kathy Kershner and Sam Crawford.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. UPDATE FROM PUBLIC WORKS STAFF ON THE STATUS OF SEDIMENT
MANAGEMENT AT SWIFT CREEK (AB2010 -055A)
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a handout (on
file). This item is related to an item scheduled in Finance Committee today. (9 :33 :45 AM)
There is liability to be regulated under cleanup laws and exposure to third -party lawsuits,
which is the underlying issue. Any solution that acknowledges those regulatory problems
puts them in a really difficult position in terms of financing a management strategy.
The cost of dredging has gone up. There is no place they can put the materials
because landowner easements along the creek are no longer available. The existing piles
are affecting landowners' ability to use their land because they can no longer use the
material. Therefore, creek material is building up, and flooding becomes worse. There are
questions about the overall existing risk.
The Department of Ecology received State funding to do interim work on the creek,
as they develop and implement a longer term strategy. He described the interim work and
read from the handouts on the 2010 work plan, 2011 -2013 work plan, and long -term work
plan. They have been working with landowners to gain easements to deal with the
questions of liability. Great Western, who owns all the property to the east of Goodwin
Road, is as concerned as the County about potential liability under the Superfund law. They
understand that if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a third party chooses to
take an action against them under those laws, they could go out of business. There is a
burden to the taxpayers from owning a piece of property that comes with liability under the
Superfund law. They need a discussions about liability with the EPA at a higher level. Great
Western has refused the County access to do this work. That has made it to the
Congressional delegation to Washington D.C. (9 :46 :38 AM) Discuss the question of liability
and define a reasonable solution that doesn't involve liability. Trying to improve a
worsening solution is a Good Samaritan act. However, they're struggling.
(9 :47 :39 AM)
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2010, 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
Today, a plan is acquiring a property at the corner of Oat Coles Road and South Pass
Road. When the creek breaks from its banks and floods the roads, the County will have to
do something with it. They must find property that is close to the creek and is not a
wetland. Anything they do in the creek will impact adjacent landowners. A purchase and
sale agreement for that property is in the Finance Committee and needs Council approval.
This is consistent with Ecology's agreement with the County. They intend to spend State
money on this acquisition.
The following person answered questions:
Jeff Hegedus, Health Department
Discussion included whether they put people at risk by moving the material; the
risks of different types of dredging; developing a protocol to ensure worker safety; the
difference between occupational safety of workers on the site and public health to protect
homeowner safety; making dredging a higher priority to prevent flooding in the Oat Coles
Road area, and; State versus federal funding sources.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE APPLICATION FOR OPEN SPACE CURRENT
USE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE OPEN SPACE LAND CLASSIFICATION AS
REFERENCED UNDER MASTER FILE NUMBER OS2010 -1 (AB2010 -331)
Erin Osborn, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report
and submitted photos (on file).
Discussion included the redistribution of the reduced property tax; (10 :19 :54 AM)
the County's ability to change the open space system, since it is State law; how public
access would be allowed on this property; whether the conservation easement allows for
public access; whether these open space areas could be included in the County's level of
service for parks since they allow public access.
Weimer moved to recommend approval to the full Council.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Knutzen and Nelson (3)
Nays: None (0)
Weimer stated they can have a bigger discussion about County open space policies
some time after the budget is adopted, in December or January. Osborn described the
items she would like to discuss in the Council work session on open space issues.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING WIND ENERGY SYSTEM (WES) ORDINANCE
PROPOSALS (AB2010 -116D) (10 :31 :11 AM)
Weimer stated the Council has developed this ordinance backwards. Legal counsel
has determined that it needs to go through the regular process. Therefore, they need to
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2010, 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
extend the moratorium. He asked how much work this committee wants to do on this
today, before it goes to Planning Commission.
Crawford stated Councilmember Mann's ordinance looks good. Get the use out of
the rural forestry (RF) zones. Send the message to Planning Commission to analyze the RF
and agricultural zones. He's fine with the use in the industrial zones.
Brenner stated also consider where those zones abut other zones with residences.
Mann stated he would like to talk about why the use would be prevented in
agricultural or rural forestry lands, which are working resource lands. Don't think of
agricultural and rural forestry zones as residential zones first, and resource lands second.
Resist a blanket prohibition in those zones. The setbacks are a backup protection. His
proposal includes a rigorous performance standard that is the first level of protection. Look
at the performance standards first.
Weimer stated briefly consider the four main issues first, to see what type of
direction to give to the Planning Commission. The four issues are setbacks, noise
standards, zones, and type of permit.
Nelson stated setbacks are important to him. Evaluation of noise in terms of
setbacks is important. He is concerned about the RF zone. Recognize they are changing
the use of agricultural and RF zones. All zoning laws regarding agricultural and RF have to
be regarding agricultural and RF use. This is a change of use, and opens the door to other
changes of uses. Ask the Planning Commission that question. Consider who has the
authority to look at the administrative use.
Weimer stated leave agricultural and RF zones in the proposal, and have the
Planning Commission look at them in that context.
Brenner stated hear from the agricultural community about whether it's appropriate
in the agricultural zone. Hear from the forestry community about whether there are
disturbing low frequency vibrations from the use. The people who live on agricultural and
forestry lands work the agricultural and forestry land.
Weimer moved to recommend to the Planning Commission to look at the zones
currently in the existing ordinance in the current moratorium, paying special attention to the
agricultural and forestry zones.
Weimer amended his motion and moved to recommend that the Council refer
Councilmember Mann's proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission, paying special
attention to agricultural and RF zones regarding whether it's appropriate to exclude or
include the agricultural and RF zones.
Nelson asked to put forward his question of whether they are opening the door to
allowing other uses on these lands, or should they maintain only agricultural and RF uses.
Knutzen stated he prefers to send the whole thing as is to Planning Commission.
Weimer withdrew his motion.
Knutzen moved to send Councilmember Mann's proposed ordinance to the Planning
Commission as it is, and include the Brenner document to look at for reference.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2010, 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
53
Weimer suggested a friendly amendment to send the proposals to the Planning
Department to create a staff report that reflects Council concerns.
The following people answered questions:
• Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department
• Tyler Schroeder, Planning and Development Services Department
Discussion included the process for sending items to the Planning Commission;
docketing amendments versus settlement procedures; whether or not the Council is
supposed to docket this item, and; how soon staff and the Planning Commission can
address this issue once it's referred to the Planning Commission.
Knutzen moved to forward Councilmember Mann's document, along with the
Brenner document for guidance, to the Planning Commission to make recommended
changes.
Schroeder suggested a motion to present either or both the Councilmember Mann
proposed ordinance and Councilmember Brenner proposed ordinance to Planning and
Development Services Department staff to prepare a staff report to review the ordinance in
regards to the zones, uses, setbacks, noise, and permit types associated with those small
wind energy systems, which will then be represented to Planning Commission to make a
recommendation to the Council.
(10: 57:18 AM)
Brenner stated the staff report will not have the Planning Department staff put in
their own opinion. Schroeder stated they will state the issues the Council would like to
address in a staff report to the Planning Commission, and try to outline both positive and
negative reasons of Councilmember Mann's proposed ordinance.
Harrison stated he is in favor of Mr. Schroeder's suggested amendment. Keep the
staff report as simple as possible. Simply state the Council's concerns. Let the Planning
Commission address that, to eliminate the possibility of including personal opinion.
Knutzen amended his motion and moved to present both the proposed
ordinances from Councilmember Mann and Councilmember Brenner to Planning and
Development Services Department staff to prepare a staff report to review the ordinance in
regards to the zones, uses, setbacks, noise, and permit types associated with those wind
energy systems, which will then be represented to Planning Commission to make a
recommendation to the Council.
Nelson stated the staff report should go to the full Council for final approval, before it
goes to the Planning Commission.
Mann stated that's not normal.
Nelson stated he would like a final look to make sure the staff report reflects all the
concerns mentioned by the councilmembers.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer, Knutzen and Nelson (3)
Nays: None (0)
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2010, Page 4
1
2
3 OTHER BUSINESS
4
5 There was no other business.
6
7
8 ADJOURN
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
18
19
20
21
22
23
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/2010, Page 5