HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources January 9 20071 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 January 9, 2007
5
6 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 12:25 p.m. in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
8
9 Present: Absent:
10 Seth Fleetwood None
11 Carl Weimer
12
13 Also Present:
14 L. Ward Nelson
15 Barbara Brenner
16
17
18 I. WORK SESSION ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
19 PROGRAM .(AB2006 -442)
20
21 Jeff Chalfant, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they would go
22 through the side -by -side comparison of the current shoreline management program (SMP)
23 and the proposed update.
24
25 Fleetwood asked for an overview of the committees that have reviewed this.
26 Chalfant stated a citizen advisory committee assisted the Planning Department with
27 developing an initial proposal that went to the Planning Commission. He described the
28 membership of the citizen's committee.
29
30 Fleetwood asked if the critical areas ordinance people are the same as the shoreline
31 people. Chalfant stated they are, for consistency. There has been a lot of community
32 input.
33
34 Weimer asked if there was unanimous consensus among the committees. Chalfant
35 stated there were different perspectives from different interests. The process brought
36 forward a project that is balanced and represents the community. There are diverging
37 perspectives, but generally the committees are happy. They did not use a consensus
38 model, but there is general consensus.
39
40 Margaret Clancy, ESA Adolfson consultant, stated the committees are advisory and
41 did not make a forma[ vote and recommendation. There were compromises. 'In general,
42 the committee was happy with the result. They went through the entire program word -for-
43 word at feast twice, in addition to the preliminary work.
44
45 Chalfant read the side -by -side comparison in the Council review packet of Chapters 1
46 through 3.
47
48 McShane asked if the Cherry Point Management Area is State mandated. Chalfant
49 stated it is not. It is unique to Whatcom County. There is nothing specific in the State
50 guidelines.
51
52 Clancy stated a reason for modifying the shoreline area designations in Chapter 3 is
53 to more closely match zoning provisions.
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, Page 1
1
2 Chalfant continued to read the comparison of Chapter 4.
3
4 Weimer asked why Birch Bay is called out separately. Chalfant stated that area is
5 also a shoreline of statewide significance.
6
7 Chalfant continued to read the comparison of Chapters 5 through 9.
8
9 Clancy read the comparison of Chapter 10 for agriculture and aquaculture.
10
11 Nelson asked the definition of aquatic organisms. He asked if it could be non - native.
12 Chalfant stated it could be.
13
14 Clancy stated the aquaculture section had extensive review and revision. She
15 continued to read the comparison of Chapter 10.
16
17 McShane stated there was considerable concern from the Marine Resources
18 Committee in terms of shellfish reintroduction in Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor. Chalfant
19 stated they wanted a way to do that activity. One of the biggest obstacles was the way
20 aquaculture was defined in Title 20. The staff modified that definition as part of this
21 proposal, so they can proposed those types of activities at a variety of locations across the
22 county. The definition should no longer get in the way.
23
24 Clancy continued to read the comparison of Chapter 10 regarding commercial uses.
25
26 McShane asked if this section applies just within the 200 -foot jurisdiction of the
27 program. Clancy stated it does. However, on river shorelines, jurisdiction can extend well
28 beyond 200 feet. There are jurisdiction limits.
29
30 McShane stated 200 feet for commercial development isn't much. He asked if there
31 is any idea of considering zoning changes in areas identified to have navigable water rights.
32 Protect the water areas for water - dependent uses. However, 200 feet isn't much space.
33 Chalfant stated non -water oriented uses were previously prohibited. They are now allowing
34 non -water uses under limited circumstances. Public access and shoreline restoration is
35 required. These new allowances are used to encourage restoration. Where they can't
36 develop water - dependent commercial uses, allow other uses to encourage restoration and
37 public access.
38
39 Nelson asked if commercial forestry is exempt. Chalfant stated it is.
40
41 Chalfant continued to read the comparison of Chapter 10 regarding dredging and
42 forestry practices.
43
44 McShane referenced prohibiting forest practices roads on slopes greater than 35
45 percent, except where necessary. He asked if that is from the guidelines. He would be
46 interested having those references in the guidelines. Chalfant stated it is from the
47 guidelines.
48
49 Chalfant continued to read the comparison of Chapter 10 regarding historic cultural
50 sites.
51
52 Nelson asked if the State process is similar to the local process. Chalfant stated it is.
53 They don't have an interest in managing the cultural resource unless it's been uncovered,
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, Page 2
1 when it Incurs a cost. The program is trying to prevent sites from being uncovered by
2 getting folks to identify the protection standards in advance, before excavation.
3
4 Nelson asked if someone would not need to go to the County if a site to be
5 excavated has never been identified. Chalfant stated that is correct. The County has a map
6 from the State of current locations.
7
8 Chalfant continued to read the comparison of Chapter 10 for landfill and excavation.
9
10 Clancy continued to read the comparison of Chapter 10 for marinas and launch
11 ramps and for mining.
12
13 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
14
15 Clancy and Chalfant continued to read the comparison on Chapter 10 for mining,
16 piers and docks, port and industrial development, recreation, and residential.
17
18 McShane asked if this is partly addressed under the channel migration zones.
19 Chalfant stated that how the channel migration zones are managed defers to the critical
20 areas ordinance. They are trying to refer everything they can regarding wetland, shoreline
21 buffer, and marine standards to the critical areas ordinance, so they don't have duplicative
22 standards.
23
24 McShane stated they haven't defined the channel migration zone in the critical areas
25 ordinance.
26
27 Clancy and Chalfant finished reading the comparison on Chapter 10 for restoration,
28 roads and railways, shore defense works, signs, stream control works, utilities, and the
29 Cherry Point Management Unit.
30
31 McShane stated he would like to address any controversial issues that came up.
32 Chalfant stated the most controversial component of the shoreline management update
33 process is public access. The provisions in the proposed program are consistent and
34 essentially the same as what is in the existing program. However, they've put in
35 clarifications related to constitutional limitations and the need to protect private property
36 rights. There is a balance of considering proportionality when deciding when to require
37 public access.
38
39 Royce Buckingham, Prosecutor's Office, stated the controversy is with the proposed
40 changes to WCC section 23.20.03.B. There is citizen concern on this topic because it
41 directly touches on landowner rights. When it comes to shorelines, case law says there is
42 an automatic State interest in the shorelines, which is a nexus. There needs to be a nexus
43 and proportionality when the government regulates something of this nature. The
44 government must have a legitimate interest. Regulations must be reasonable. That is the
45 two -part test. The law presumes that the government has an interest in public access to
46 the shoreline. That part of the test is satisfied as a matter of course. They've said that in
47 the Shoreline Management Program. They've said that the nexus test is satisfied. Then,
48 move on to the proportionality test. The proportionality test is about whether or not one
49 must provide public access. Although there may be a nexus, the State may not be able to
50 require public access. There are examples of how one may or may not be required to
51 provide public access. The proportionality test is where the protection of the landowners
52 come in.
53
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, Page 3
They've gone to great lengths and listened carefully to what the Building Industry
Association (BIA) and other folks had to say on this issue. They have put tests in the
legislation so it's clear. People had good, legitimate questions about how it would be
applied. The legislation defines how something must be proportional. If someone isn`t
happy with the proportionality decision, it can be appealed. The landowner has more
protection by saying the test will be administered by an administrative official than if every
specific situation were listed in the code, because individual decisions of the administrative
official can be appealed, rather than having to appeal the entire statute. In that case, a
landowner would have to battle the presumption that the statute is correct instead of
battling an administrative decision.
There are some guidelines for common situations. In many situations, they will
leave the decision to the administrator, who will have to do a proportionality test that is
immediately available and can be appealed. It is better for the landowner to be able to
appeal the administrative decision than it is to have to appeal the legitimacy of the entire
statute.
McShane asked if the decision can be appealed in both directions. Buckingham
stated it can.
Fleetwood asked if the administrator's decision is presumed valid, and stands on
appeal unless it is proven to be not valid. Chalfant stated the criteria is the proportionality
test.
Fleetwood asked what the need for public access is balanced against in the
proportionality test review. Buckingham stated each scenario can have a different decision.
That's why it's left in the hands of the administrator. They can't anticipate all the possible
scenarios.
Fleetwood stated that the administrative official would apply the proportionality test
as described in constitutional law. If appealed to the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing
Examiner would apply the same proportionality test. They will end up trading the subjective
opinion of one individual for that of another. He asked if that is essentially correct.
Buckingham stated it will be subjective, based on the facts.
Chalfant stated the Hearing Examiner would weigh the facts'and make a decision
that could be appealed to the County Council, then the Shoreline Hearings Board, and then
the courts.
McShane stated it may not be an error of law committed, but a judgment call on
weighing those proportions. Buckingham stated that any time there is a fact - finding
situation, there is a lot of discretion on the part of the fact finder. The fact finder can
choose to believe one party over another party. Proportionality is about all the facts on one
side versus all the facts on the other side, and then balancing those facts. There is an
enormous amount of discretion.
Fleetwood asked what the proportionality test is. Buckingham read the test in WCC
section 23.90.08.A.2.
Nelson asked about the liability of a property owner who must provide public access.
A development of four units and less is exempt, and this only applies to people who build
something larger than four units. He asked who is responsible for any accidental death on
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 11912007, Page 4
the public access portion of the property. Buckingham stated the landowner must maintain
the access for the duration of their ownership of the land.
Clancy stated Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 4.24.200 limits the liability of
property owners who provide public access. She read the RCW. The program specifies
measures that must be taken to mitigate things like noise, hours of operation, security, and
health and safety considerations. Many criteria are built in to the process of determining
when public access would be appropriate.
Fleetwood asked the reason for exempting a group four units or less. Chalfant
stated small units should not be burdened and required, per the guidelines.
Weimer asked if the exemption for flood control structures is in the guidelines. They
are great places for people to walk. The structures are paid for using public monies.
Chalfant stated he could check to see if it is in the guidelines.
Buckingham stated they are subject to decision on a case -by -case basis. If there is
something uniquely good, the administrative official would flag it.
Weimer asked if illegal but historic public access of an area, which is technically
trespassing, is considered a historical use. Buckingham stated that is a complex legal
consideration. The illegality is a consideration.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Brenner stated that regarding flood structures, the purpose of flood control is health
and safety, not public access.
Chalfant stated the exemption on flood controls is not in the guidelines.
McShane stated he wants to talk about how to proceed next. He asked if the
committee is interested in changing anything about public access at this time.
Fleetwood asked if there was anyone during the public comment period and public
advisory committee process who wanted to do something significantly different regarding
public access. Buckingham stated some folks wanted them to not require any public access.
However, that isn't the law. There are grounds for allowing public access. Others discussed
how the public access is worded, so the administrator making the decision will be held to a
standard. They tried to use language that would not need to be updated as case law
changes over time.
Chalfant stated staff incorporated some of the suggested language from those who
were most vocal about the section.
McShane stated he may want to amend 23.90.08.B(7)(a). He asked why language
on fencing was stricken. There may be situations where they want to allow public access,
but property owners would want to fence non- public access areas for protection of those
areas. Foot traffic can do a fair bit of damage on some slopes. Chalfant stated it was
removed because of inconsistencies related to fencing. They tried to address all fencing
requirements in one location. The project can still be designed to include fencing. It's just
not specified in this section. Fencing is still allowed as another separation technique in
subsection (d).
Special Natural Resources Committee- Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, Page 5
Weimer stated he may want to amend WCC 23.90.08.B(3)(g) regarding Flood
control. Chalfant stated concerns have to do with motorized vehicles creating opportunities
for the dike to fail.
Weimer stated certain uses can be limited. Chalfant stated this provision provides
for general exemption, but a case -by -case review may allow the use where appropriate.
McShane moved to amend the proposed ordinance to reinstate the stricken
language in WCC 23.90.08.B(7)(a), "...and controlled access to sensitive feat_ ures and the
waters edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control dama.ge to plants and
other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed...." It
provides protection to the environment and to the property owner. That language makes it
clear that fencing in that location is appropriate.
Nelson stated it may advocate the inappropriate use of fencing. He asked why that
language was removed.
McShane stated the original concern was about the consistency of fencing
requirements.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's !`tote: The Committee took a ten - minute break at 2:15 p.m.)
Fleetwood stated that language from the guidelines was inadvertently left out of
the program, according to a representative from the Department of Ecology. He moved to
amend section 23.90.08.A, "7. Public access should be required for, projects on public
property."
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood referenced section 23.90.08.B.3.g, which would support Councilmember
Weimer's concern. The proposal was that they add language to that subsection, "g. Flood
Control and Instream Structures, unless. publicly funded structures located on publicly
owned land or leased land...." The idea is that access be granted where public funds are
used to improve a structure.
Barry Wenger, State Department of Ecology (Ecology), stated this has to do with
projects on public lands. If they have a dike system on public land, they probably should
require public access. If the land is leased from a private property owner for a conservation
easement, for example, public access could be required. It would have to be decided on a
case -by -case basis. It's been a sensitive issue over the years with diking districts. An
existing program requires public access on regular dikes. However, it's hard to get the
owner to allow people a right to walk along the dike, even though people do it anyway. This
highlights that it is not automatically exempt. It needs to be looked at on a case -by -case
basis.
McShane stated he wants to think more about this idea. It's critical that vegetation
on levees are maintained so it's not eroded. Grass cover is very critical. He will talk to
Paula Cooper about this. He's open to the idea of making that access available where
appropriate.
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, page 6
Fleetwood stated the Act talks about preserving the ecological function. It also
references preserving aesthetics. In refining the local program, they talk about governing
principles, but there is no reference to aesthetics for the basis of this regulation. He asked
if it is appropriate under the governing principles to include the aesthetics of the shoreline
as a reason for having this. Clancy stated the language in section 23.10.03 came from
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) section 173 -26 -186, which does not mention
aesthetics, even though it is a policy goal of the Act. They have dealt with aesthetics in
WCC 23.90. There are general policies and regulations regarding views and aesthetics, but
it's not a guiding principle. They were specifically looking at the guiding principle language
out of the WAC.
Weimer referenced the definition of public access, which is physical or visual access
to the water. He asked if the definition includes other types of access, such as auditory
access. Clancy stated the language specifies, "reach, touch, view, enjoy, and travel on."
Hearing can be considered part of the enjoyment. There are a number of places in the
program that address noise impacts and require steps to minimize noise impacts. It's not
specifically to let someone be able to hear the water.
Weimer stated he's hearing about that conflict now in areas like Birch Bay, where
people or restaurants play music that hides the sound of the beach.
Chalfant stated that the first sentence of the third paragraph in section 23.10.02.C,
regarding purpose and intent, references aesthetic qualities.
McShane referenced the purpose of the added language in section 23.50.07.H. He
is fine with the language, with an exception. Allowing up to 50 percent of the pilings to be
replaced is really a rebuild of the pier. Lower the percentage. He moved to amend to
lower the percent to 20 percent over a period of ten years. This would encourage
replacement of the pilings more frequently. If this passes, inform Conoco - Phillips and
Intalco.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
McShane referenced section 23.90.03.A(1). He asked the reasoning for the added
language, "that is appropriate, necessary, and planned." Shoreline use and development
should be carried out. The language came from a comment from the Building Industry
Association. He moved to strike language in section 23.90.03.A(1), "Shoreline use and
development should be carried out...." Clancy
stated one could make a case that those words are presumed in the Act and the guidelines,
and that everything about this program assumes that the use is appropriate, necessary, and
planned. Therefore, these words aren't necessary.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane referenced the end of section 23.90.03.6.5. He asked the reason for
adding the term "residential." The fencing would not be exempt otherwise. It would need
to go through the regulations as they are laid out. Chalfant stated that is correct.
McShane referenced section 23.90.06.A.d. He's pleased that language is included.
It's critical to help reduce the occurrence of slides.
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, Page 7
He referenced section 23.90.06.B.3.a.2. He asked how that will be done. Clancy
stated the administrator would look at the site conditions and adjacent areas to determine
the density and species that would likely occur based on natural conditions.
McShane referenced the last sentence in section 23.90.09.2. He moved to amend
the language, "An engineering geologist or geologist geete_`:ngea! _ngine_- should be
consulted...." A geotechnical engineer deals with forces, and typically has limited geologic
training. The evaluator must understand the likelihood or unlikelihood of a perched horizon
that might create slope stability issues, Otherwise, they would ask a geotechnical engineer
to practice geology without a license.
Fleetwood asked why they specified a geotechnical engineer. Chalfant stated no one
specifically choose a geotechnical engineer. The intent was to get a qualified professional.
An alternative is to reference a qualified professional.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend 23.100.08.B(11), "11. Surface Oil or Gas Drilling or Coal
Bed Drilling: As provided...." Coal bed drilling may be related to gas drilling, but he has a
similar concern. The likelihood of coal bed drilling is much greater in Whatcom County than
the other two types of drilling.
not.
Fleetwood asked if coal bed drilling was consciously omitted. Clancy stated it was
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane referenced section 23.100.08.C.7. Mining may be a non- issue, but Lummi
Island is an example of superior aggregate in a conservancy zone. There isn't a mineral
resource lands (MRL) designation, with the exception of the one area that is in a resource
zone. Prohibit mining outright in a conservancy area, or make it a conditional use. Chalfant
stated that when Ecology, the Tribes, and others looked at the mining issues a few years
ago, they gravitated to permitting mining adjacent to areas like the Nooksack River to
create off- channel habitat. The idea was that there is an economic incentive to provide
ecological restoration. Many of those opportunities may occur within a conservancy
designation.
McShane referenced section 23.100.09.8.6 and asked the threshold of defining what
is substantial. Chalfant stated this language may be in conflict with the nonconforming use
section. This section may need to be amended.
McShane moved to amend section 23.100.09.B.6, "New and substaHtiall-f expanded
pPiers and docks...."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane referenced section 23.100.14.A.3. He asked why the language "public
access" was stricken. Chalfant stated the Realtor's Association commented that private
signs on private property have no effect on public access. He agrees.
McShane referenced section 23.100.14.A.7. The word "lawful" was stricken. It
seems like the entire shoreline program and the entire section on signs would indicate that
there is some law that allows enjoyment of limited and scarce areas not being impaired.
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/7007, Page S
1 There are plenty of laws that regulate private property for the lawful benefit of the
2 community at large from negative activities that might occur on private land. lasing the
3 word "lawful" emphasizes that they are protecting limited and scarce areas that are
4 important. He assumes they have some kind of law backing them up.
5
6 Fleetwood stated the addition of the word "lawful" doesn't really add any meaning.
7
8 Chalfant stated there was an argument about the interpretation of the language, and
9 that the language could mean that it was impairing a lawful right to enjoy free speech. He
10 read the comment from the Realtor's Association.
11
12 McShane stated he agrees, but there is also a lawful right for the shoreline to be
13 protected. Chalfant stated he interprets that the word "lawful" limits the enjoyment to
14 lawful enjoyment. It's not a big issue either way.
15
16 Weimer referenced section 23.100.17.A.2 and asked what is an industrial facility of
17 statewide significance. Clancy stated it is defined in the State statute. There are specific
18 criteria, population sizes, and number of employees. If one meets those criteria, the facility
19 can go through the designation process through the State Department of Community,
20 Trade, and Economic Development (CTED). She doesn't know if there are any such facilities
21 in Whatcom County.
22
23 Weimer stated he would like to read that statute. It seems like they are really
24 limiting Cherry Point to expansions of facilities that have already been designated. He
25 asked if that is an economic benefit to the County, State, or the refinery.
26
27 McShane stated a similar argument can be made about the inter -modal facility in
28 Custer. He has some concern about what they are locking the County or property owners
29 into. Chalfant stated this language, although used, isn't defined in the Shoreline
30 Management Act or guidelines. The people who wrote this language may not realize that
31 this is to be reserved for really important things. They didn't recognize the limiting nature
32 of the term. The intent was to limit development to things that are important to the
33 community.
34
35 Weimer stated this ties them to things that are water - dependent. Chalfant stated
36 the limits are only within the shoreline management area in the Cherry Point Management
37 Area. It's not the same as the entire Cherry Point urban growth area (UGA).
38
39 Clancy stated RCW 43.157 clarifies the definition of "projects of statewide
40 significance."
41
42 Chalfant stated it may be appropriate to strike language, "Water- dependent
43 industrial facilities ef statewide signifleaigee."
44
45 McShane referenced section 23.100.17.A.5,
46
47 Clancy stated there may be a problem with leaving in the language about facilities of
48 statewide significance. It would limit the types of facilities that would be allowed to those
49 statewide significant facilities listed in the RCW.
50
51 McShane stated he prefers to keep the language as it is. Whatever facility goes in
52 should be very significant and important. Clancy stated it may create a nonconforming use.
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 11912007, Page 9
The intent of the guidelines is to allow for water- dependent industrial facilities, but not
require them to meet the criteria of facilities with statewide significance.
McShane stated this area was identified as very critical because of its location to a
deep -water shoreline. Limit potential development to facilities that rely on a deep -water
situation. Clancy stated the language as it is may limit the use to only those listed in the
RCW .
McShane referenced section 23.100.17.B.4.a.4. He moved to amend, "exceeds
fifty percent (59%) twenty percent (20 %) over ten years of the existing pilings...."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane stated they should carry this item over to the next Natural Resources
Committee next week, so they can get more input. This committee has made some
changes. Also, additional comments were received today from Ecology. Staff needs to go
over those comments.
Wendy Steffensen, North Sound Baykeeper, stated think about how they are going to
access those beaches that are public, but are constrained by private lands. Think creatively
about how they are going to make it possible for the public to access lands that are public.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Steffensen continued to state that, regarding Cherry Point, the Citizen Advisory
Committee intent was to make sure that there is a really good reason for any new
development, which is where the phrase came from, not knowing that phrase is already
defined.
Weimer asked for an example of beaches that don't have access. Steffensen stated
there isn't access to areas north and south of the Gulf Road access. The Cliffside Beach is
also difficult to get to.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Governmental Affairs Director,
asked that the Council keep the record open. She disagrees with Mr. Buckingham on
several points of public access. They still have to do a nexus analysis in addition to
proportionality. Washington State doesn't always have an interest. The concern is the
presumption of always having a nexus. Under the Shoreline Management Act, there is a
public interest, but they are talking about private property. She thanked Jeff Chalfant and
Margaret Clancy for working with her and the members of the community all this time.
McShane stated a number of changes were made because of BIA comments that
were really useful. The committee hasn't had any trouble with them.
Chalfant submitted a memo dated January 9, 2007 regarding proposed amendments
to the October 26, 2006 Planning Commission recommended draft SMP, draft SMP map, and
2005 Critical Areas Ordinance (on file). The memo suggests amendments to the program.
He read through proposed amendment 1 from the memo.
Weimer moved to amend by adding section 23.50.07.L, as recommended by staff
in the memo.
Motion carried unanimously.
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, 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
52
memo.
memo.
memo.
I AW 1 -11.11
memo.
Ii-dr4 il•71
Chalfant read through proposed amendment 2 from the memo.
McShane moved to amend section 23.90.08.A, as recommended by staff in the
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant read through proposed amendment 3 from the memo.
Fleetwood moved to amend section 23.100.11.C, as recommended by staff in the
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant read through proposed amendment 4 from the memo.
McShane moved to amend section 23.100.14.6.1, as recommended by staff in the
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant read through proposed amendment 5 from the memo.
McShane moved to amend section 23.110.A.28, as recommended by staff in the
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant read through the first change to proposed amendment 6 from the memo.
McShane moved to amend section 23.110.F.18, as recommended by staff in the
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant read through the second change to proposed amendment 6 from the memo.
Fleetwood moved to amend section 23.110.F,19, as recommended by staff in the
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant read through proposed amendments 7 and 8 from the memo.
McShane moved to amend sections 23.110.M.1 and 23.110.M.1.7, as
recommended by staff in the memo.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant read through proposed amendment 9 from the memo.
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, Page 11
1 McShane moved to amend Article 8 of the critical areas ordinance, as
2 recommended by staff in the memo.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 Chalfant read through proposed amendment 10 from the memo.
7
8 McShane moved to amend the Official Shoreline Map regarding Shoreline
9 Designation Changes on the Lummi Reservation, as recommended by staff in the memo.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 Chalfant read through proposed amendment 11 from the memo.
14
15 McShane moved to amend the map of Refined Floodway Boundaries on the
16 Nooksack River, as recommended by staff in the memo.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 Chalfant read through the second part of proposed amendment 11 from the memo
21 regarding Jorgenson Lake. However, it's not a policy issue. It's an issue of fact. The
22 question is whether the lake is, in fact, greater than 20 surface acres. If it is, then it is a
23 shoreline of the State. Based on staff analysis, the lake appears to be a shoreline of the
24 State. He believes Ecology also takes that position.
25
26 McShane moved to include Jorgenson Lake in the Official Shoreline Map - Exhibit 3.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 McShane asked if staff can review and comment on the latest comments received
31 from the State Department of Ecoloay. Chalfant stated staff can.
32
33 McShane stated the committee can also
34 next week.
35
36
37 ADJOURN
38
39 The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
40
41
42
43 Jill Nixo u lion
44 �� �,
45 �'0 ATCo •C /'�.
?••�N_ �'•,c
46 ATTES�•k •
47 •
i0., y Ir
48
49 • ,`
50
51 '
52 Dan o -Da `i* C uQ,9 Clerk
consider the levee issue for the meeting
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHAT COM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan cShane, Committee Chair
Special Natural Resources Committee - Shoreline Management, 1/9/2007, Page 12