HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources January 16 20071 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 January 16, 2007
5
6 Committee Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.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
16
17 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
18
19 1. WORK SESSION ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL
20 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (WCC TITLE 23), THE OFFICIAL
21 SHORELINE MAP, AND ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF THE CAO (WCC
22 CHAPTER 16.16), AND THE ZONING CODE (WCC TITLE 20) (AB2006 -442)
23
24 Jeff Chalfant, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a memo
25 from staff to the Council dated January 16, 2007 in response to comments from the public
26 and the State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (on file). He read through the memo about
27 proposed amendment 1.
28
29 McShane stated that subdivision is getting old. It is unlikely it will ever change
30 significantly. He moved to approve the first proposed amendment in the January 16, 2007
31 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
32
33 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
34
35 Chalfant read proposed amendment 2 from the memo.
36
37 McShane moved to approve the second proposed amendment in the January 16,
38 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
39
40 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
41
42 Nelson asked if they are going to say that those areas not legally designated as
43 shorelines will have a conservancy designation. Chalfant stated on- the - ground conditions
44 rule whether or not a body of water is within shoreline designation. It's possible that they
45 are not aware of some lake or stream, especially in the eastern part of the county. Ecology
46 requires a placeholder for the future discovery of those potential shorelines, and that they
47 are designated as a conservancy once they are identified.
48
49 McShane stated that once found, it would be evaluated based on criteria for its
50 designation. Most likely, it will end up in conservancy or natural.
51
52 Chalfant explained the designation identification process.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 1
1 Chalfant read proposed amendment 3 from the memo.
2
3 Weimer moved to approve the third proposed amendment in the January 16, 2007
4 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
5
6 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent
7
8 Chalfant read proposed amendment 4 from the memo.
9
10 McShane moved to approve the fourth proposed amendment in the January 16,
11 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
12
13 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent
14
15 Chalfant read proposed amendment 5 from the memo.
16
17 McShane moved to approve the fifth proposed amendment in the January 16, 2007
18 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
19
20 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
21
22 Chalfant read proposed amendment 6 from the memo.
23
24 Nelson asked why they wouldn't put that language in the section for conditional uses,
25 subject to applicable policies and regulations. It would provide better coverage for all the
26 areas, which are all conditional uses. Chalfant stated they may not be appropriate in the
27 case of residential development or a low intensity water - oriented commercial resort. They
28 may want to have that within shorelines. They may not want to apply that across the
29 board.
30
31 McShane moved to approve the sixth proposed amendment in the January 16,
32 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
33
34 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
35
36 Chalfant read proposed amendment 7 from the memo.
37
38 McShane moved to approve the seventh proposed amendment in the January 16,
39 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
40
41 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent
42
43 Chalfant read proposed amendment 8 from the memo.
44
45 McShane moved to approve the eighth proposed amendment in the January 16,
46 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
47
48 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
49
50 Chalfant read proposed amendment 9 from the memo.
51
52 McShane moved to approve the ninth proposed amendment in the January 16,
53 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 2
1
2 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
3
4 Nelson asked about residential development limited to farm - related residence, or one
5 residence and one accessory dwelling unit. He asked the resource shoreline permitted uses.
6 Chalfant stated resource areas are zoned for resource land uses based on the zoning code
7 and Comprehensive Plan. They are agricultural zoning, commercial forestry, and rural
8 forestry areas. Some of those zones are in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Accessory
9 dwelling units aren't allowed in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
10
11 Nelson stated this language is confusing. It implies that accessory dwelling units are
12 allowed. Chalfant stated it is subject to the zoning code and the shoreline program. The
13 most restrictive provision would apply. Therefore, there is an overlay for Lake Whatcom.
14
15 Nelson stated include that language, so people don't get confused when they look at
16 the shoreline program. Chalfant stated he can do that. Those uses are in section
17 23.30.08.4.
18
19 McShane stated make the language clear to people that accessory dwelling units
20 wouldn't be allowed in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
21
22 Nelson stated the language could be confusing.
23
24 McShane moved to amend 23.30.08.4(A) "...outside the shoreline. N6te�'th6t
25 accessory. dwelling units are not permitted. , within the Lake. Whatcom watershed."
26
27 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
28
29 Chalfant read proposed amendments 10 and 11 of the memo.
30
31 McShane moved to approve the tenth and eleventh proposed amendments in the
32 January 16, 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
33
34 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
35
36 Chalfant read the proposed amendment 12 of the memo.
37
38 McShane moved to approve the second half of proposed amendment 11, to item
39 23.30.10.5(C), in the January 16, 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
40
41 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
42
43 Chalfant read proposed amendment 13 of the memo.
44
45 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 13 in the January 16, 2007
46 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
47
48 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
49
50 McShane moved to reinstate item D in proposed amendment 12 in the January 16,
51 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
52
53 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
Natural Resources Committee, 1116/2007, Page 3
1
2 Chalfant read proposed amendment 14 from the memo.
3
4 Nelson asked if commercial activities are allowed in aquatic shoreline areas if they
5 are water - dependent. He asked if someone could put up a hotel. Chalfant stated someone
6 could, but not over the water. Hotels and restaurants are water enjoyment uses, but
7 they're not water - dependent. Things that actually need to be over the water, such as a pier
8 or dock, can be located over the water. The terms "water dependent," "water enjoyment,"
9 and "water related" are all defined in the definition section.
10
11 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 14 in the January 16, 2007
12 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
13
14 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
15
16 Chalfant read proposed amendment 15 of the memo.
17
18 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 15 in the January 16, 2007
19 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
20
21 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent
22
23 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 12 in the January 16, 2007
24 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
25
26 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
27
28 Chalfant read proposed amendment 16 of the memo.
29
30 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 16 in the January 16, 2007
31 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
32
33 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
34
35 Chalfant read proposed amendment 17 of the memo.
36
37 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 17 in the January 16, 2007
38 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
39
40 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
41
42 Chalfant read proposed amendment 18 of the memo.
43
44 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 18 in the January 16, 2007
45 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
46
47 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
48
49 Chalfant read proposed amendment 19 of the memo.
50
51 Weimer moved to approve amendment 19 in the January 16, 2007 memo from Mr.
52 Chalfant to the Council.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 4
I Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
2
3 Chalfant read proposed amendment 20 of the memo.
4
5 McShane moved to approve amendment 20 in the January 16, 2007 memo from
6 Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
7
8 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
9
10 Chalfant read proposed amendment 21 of the memo.
11
12 Nelson asked the meaning of restoring a stream or creek that is damaged. Chalfant
13 stated an example is Saar Creek. It has been dredged many times. When first dredged in
14 the 1950's, a legal hydraulic capacity was established. That can be hard to establish in
15 certain circumstances, but most large stream systems that are dredged have some sort of
16 record to identify the original dredging.
17
18 Nelson asked if a stream could be enhanced for fish habitat. Chalfant stated it could.
19 This section is just solely about maintenance dredging.
20
21 McShane asked if a new dredging plan for a separate stream is a separate process.
22 The maintenance plan would developed to follow. Chalfant stated that is correct.
23
24 McShane moved to approve amendment 21 in the January 16, 2007 memo from
25 Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
26
27 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
28
29 Chalfant read the first and second bullet point and the second footnote of the fourth
30 bullet point in proposed amendment 22 of the memo.
31
32 Nelson asked if this is a new section. Chalfant stated it's a new column on the table
33 that addresses impervious surfaces and zoning density. They should change the title, "-64
34 Geyer-age Impervious Surface Coverage.
35
36 McShane moved to approve the first and second bullet point and the second
37 footnote of the fourth bullet point in proposed amendment 22 in the January 16, 2007
38 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
39
40 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
41
42 Chalfant read the third bullet point and first footnote in the fourth bullet point in
43 proposed amendment 22 of the memo.
44
45 McShane moved to approve the third bullet point in amendment 22 of the January
46 16, 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
47
48 Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
49
50 Chalfant read proposed amendment 23 in the memo.
51
52 McShane moved to approve amendment 23 in the January 16, 2007 memo from
53 Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 5
1
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3
4 Chalfant read proposed amendment 24 in the memo.
5
6 McShane moved to approve amendment 24 in the January 16, 2007 memo from
7 Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
8
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11 Chalfant read proposed amendment 25 of the memo.
12
13 McShane moved to approve amendment 25 in the January 16, 2007 memo from
14 Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 Chalfant read proposed amendment 26 of the memo.
19
20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
21
22 Chalfant continued to read proposed amendment 26 of the memo.
23
24 McShane moved to approve amendment 26 in the January 16, 2007 memo from
25 Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 Chalfant read proposed amendment 27 of the memo.
30
31 McShane moved to approve amendment 21 in the January 16, 2007 memo from
32 Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Chalfant read proposed amendment 28 of the memo. He submitted a map of a 27-
37 acre manmade lake to the south and west of Everson (on file).
38
39 Nelson asked if it was permitted without a shoreline condition, and how that affects
40 the mineral resource land (MRL). Chalfant stated that is correct. He read the proposed
41 language.
42
43 Nelson asked if approval is automatic, or if one has to apply for it. Chalfant stated it
44 is automatic. If the lake or pit were expanded, it's a shoreline conditional use permit.
45
46 Nelson asked if the expanded lake, due to expanding mining, is a permitted use.
47 Chalfant stated it is. Once the pit hits the 20 -acre threshold, it may continue extracting
48 gravel with a permit, until they've done everything allowed under the original State
49 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permit. Once the operation has exhausted that
50 permit, it would need to get a conditional use permit for further expansion.
51
52 Nelson asked if the area remains in natural conservancy once the pit is closed down
53 and the permit is expired. Chalfant stated it is a resource designation. They could apply for
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 6
1 a different designation if they want. It may be appropriate for a commercial development at
2 that time, depending on adjacent uses.
3
4 Fleetwood asked how that comports with reclamation requirements. Chalfant stated
5 the area could be left as a lake. It depends on what the reclamation plan required. There
6 are instances where the end result of a reclamation is the lake. A use doesn't have to be
7 restored to its previous use.
8
9 McShane stated reclamation can be to a variety of uses. Some view it's better to
10 leave it as a lake in areas where aquifer recharge areas with concerns about water quality.
11 The susceptibility of development on permeable ground above a water table is a greater risk
12 than a lake. Not everyone agrees with that.
13
14 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 28 in the January 16, 2007
15 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 Chalfant read proposed amendment 29 of the memo.
20
21 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 29 in the January 16, 2007
22 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
23
24 Nelson stated add language about the use in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
25
26 McShane amended his motion to approve proposed amendment 29 in the January
27 16, 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council and to amend 23.100.11.C(6) "...outside
28 the shoreline. Note that accessory dwelling units are not permitted within the Lake
29 Whatcom watershed." Chalfant stated there are some instances where accessory dwelling
30 units are allowed in the watershed. They are allowed under certain circumstances, with
31 significant limitations. It may not be wise to add that language.
32
33 McShane moved to rescind the vote taken on section 23.30.08.4(A) "...outside the
34 shoreline.
35 d"
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 McShane restated his motion to approve proposed amendment 29 in the January
40 16, 2007 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 Chalfant read proposed amendment 30 of the memo.
45
46 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 30 in the January 16, 2007
47 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
48
49 Motion carried unanimously.
50
51 Chalfant read proposed amendment 31 of the memo.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 7
McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 31 in the January 16, 2007
memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant read proposed amendments 32 and 33 of the memo.
Weimer stated the advisory committee wanted it noted that it be an important
project, not just any project. Striking the language would lose that intent. He asked if the
Council could develop its own language defining what is a significant project. Chalfant
stated the existing language ensures that the project must be water dependent and have
long -term economical benefits.
Weimer stated he would like to have a specific definition of a significant project.
Nelson stated the Comprehensive Plan is the appropriate place to define what types
of development will occur in a particular industrial development.
McShane stated the Council should take a closer look at Cherry Point in the future.
Make sure that what happens at Cherry Point really is significant to Whatcom County. The
area of the Cherry Point urban growth area (UGA) was a bit over - reaching.
Fleetwood asked who and how a cost - benefit analysis would be done. Chalfant
stated the ultimate decision maker on any facility in that area will be the Council, especially
if it's a major development process. The applicant must demonstrate that a balance has
occurred. Any facility would require an environmental impact statement (EIS). That is the
context in which it is announced to the public.
Fleetwood asked how that analysis would occur without any criteria to direct it. It
would come down to political will. Chalfant stated they may have to define that criteria.
Weimer stated the State legislature attempted to define it at one point.
McShane stated the question is whether the committee wants to define economic
and ecologic benefits or let it go for now.
Weimer asked what other water dependent uses they could talk about. Chalfant
stated folks on the advisory committees were concerned, but they understand that not
much more will be happening out there, given the DNR's restrictions. Instead, they will
probably see expansions of current facilities to accommodate future markets.
Fleetwood stated he's satisfied with supporting this amendment today.
Nelson stated what can and can't happen at the shoreline is pretty locked. There are
many review processes, which are cost- prohibitive. Another issue is land use in the
uplands. Those are separate areas where they focus on what they want to do, and wouldn't
pertain as much to this.
McShane stated only one more pier will be allowed. The idea of leaving the big
urban growth area (UGA) industrial zone is because of the deep -water area. It's starting to
be clear that the connection isn't good. He agrees it will be an uplands issue to deal with in
the future. Leave the language the way it is.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 8
1 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 32 in the January 16, 2007
2 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
3
4 Motion carried 2 -1 with Weimer opposed.
5
6 Chalfant read proposed amendment 33 of the memo.
7
8 McShane moved to approve amendment 33 in the January 16, 2007 memo from
9 Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
10
11 Motion carried 2 -1 with Weimer opposed.
12
13 Chalfant read proposed amendment 34 in the memo.
14
15 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 34 in the January 16, 2007
16 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
17
18 Nelson stated feasibility is a subjective determination of staff. He asked the process.
19 Chalfant stated an administrative decision would be administered internally, then appealed
20 to the Hearing Examiner, then Council, and then the Shoreline Hearings Board. There is
21 one option to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision directly to Shoreline Hearing Board.
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 Chalfant read proposed amendment 35 of the memo.
26
27 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 35 in the January 16, 2007
28 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council, with one change, "...Required open; . °space
29 percentages, as applicable, .are not to be used for purposes .of calculating total
30 impervious surface."
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 Chalfant read proposed amendment 36 of the memo.
35
36 McShane moved to approve proposed amendment 36 in the January 16, 2007
37 memo from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 Chalfant read proposed amendments 37 and 38 of the memo.
42
43 McShane moved to approve amendments 37 and 38 in the January 16, 2007 memo
44 from Mr. Chalfant to the Council.
45
46 Motion carried unanimously.
47
48 Chalfant stated staff chose to not make any more amendments in response to the
49 public's and Ecology's suggestions, as shown in items in 39 through 43. When they
50 identified all the appropriate maximum density provisions, they looked at the zoning
51 designations to make sure the shoreline designation was consistent. They found a few
52 inconsistencies. Most prominently, there were a few neighborhood commercial or general
53 commercial zones that were improperly designated and would conflict with future uses.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 9
1 They changed those, consistent with proposed criteria, to an urban shoreline designation to
2 allow for a host of commercial uses in those areas. It was a check for consistency. He
3 submitted a map of the areas (on file).
4
5 McShane stated the only area of concern is in the Acme area. They should do some
6 different things in the Acme area due to what's going on in ]ones Creek. However, that's
7 unrelated. He moved to approve the amendments to the map of shoreline designation
8 changes.
9
10 Nelson asked if the area along Chuckanut Drive is primarily conservancy. Chalfant
11 stated it is all platted and developed north of Governor's Point. That whole reach, to the
12 southern city limit, is designated as shoreline residential. From Governor's Point to the
13 south, it is all a conservancy designation. It's all intact shoreline.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 McShane stated the new chair of the committee would contact Mr. Chalfant about
18 when this item will be discussed again. He asked if there may be other changes from
19 administration and staff. Chalfant stated recommendations for changes came in from the
20 Building Industry Association (BIA) related to the public access provisions of the code. Staff
21 will review those changes with legal counsel.
22
23 McShane stated he would like to discuss buffers and setbacks, in terms of their links
24 to the critical areas ordinance. He would also like to discuss a change in the critical areas
25 ordinance regarding experience of wetland consultants. He would like background
26 information on that item in the future.
27
28
29 OTHER BUSINESS
OR,
31 There was no other business.
32
33
34 ADJOURN
35
36 The meeting adjourned at 11:04 a.m.
37
38
39—�-
40 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
41
42
43
46 •
47
48
49 Vana
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
/// /1
McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 1/16/2007, Page 10