HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Natural Resources June 28 20051
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Natural Resources Committee
June 28, 2005
Committee Chair Sharon Roy called the meeting to order at 12:25 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CRITICAL
AREAS ORDINANCE, WCC CHAPTER 16.16 — CRITICAL AREAS AND
ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF WCC TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.33, AND WCC
TITLE 20 (AB2005 -226)
(Clerk's Note: the first five minutes of the meeting were not recorded.)
Jeff Chalfant, Senior Planner, submitted a memo to the committee dated
June 28, 2005 regarding recommended amendments to the draft critical areas
ordinance - conservation program on agricultural lands (CPAL) (on file). Come back
to this memo when they get to section 16.16.290.
Go back to section 16.16.215(A). The Department of Ecology (Ecology)
asked for minor additions to clarify the intent of the section. This section deals with
other jurisdictions with overlapping authority over critical areas. In those
circumstances, the technical administrator may defer to the conditions developed
by those agencies instead of doing a separate County review, if the agency analysis
adequately addresses the concerns of the County's program. As written now, the
language could be interpreted that their conditions substitute for the entire
program. The intent is that their conditions of approval would substitute for County
requirements in this program. The substitute language is attached to Ecology's
letter to Council Chair Caskey- Schreiber dated May 24, 2005 (on file).
McShane moved to amend Whatcom County Code (WCC) section
16.16.215(A) Relationship to Other Jurisdictions, as shown in recommendation
three attached to the Department of Ecology May 24, 2005 letter to the Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Chalfant referenced recommendation four in the supplement to the Ecology
letter to Council dated May 24, 2005. Add subsection (C) to section 16.16.225
Regulated Activities.
Nelson referenced the term "practicable." He believes those hazardous
materials aren't being used any more. A question is what to do with what already
exists. Chalfant stated creosote is proposed to be used from time to time.
Nelson asked how practical it would be to track. Chalfant stated there are
existing regulations. The biggest issue is a provision for removing existing
materials.
Brenner asked when they would use treated materials that are not exposed
to the environment. Chalfant stated materials could be used out of the water.
Ecology is mostly focused on surface waters. Staff doesn't necessarily recommend
that the Council make this change.
McShane asked if treated pilings are not allowed. Chalfant stated no treated
pilings are allowed in freshwater lakes. It may be an issue for the shoreline
management plan. The technical administrator has the authority to address this
issue already.
Margaret Clancy, Parametrix, stated the use of the materials would be
regulated under subsection .225 as written. However, that section does not have a
strict prohibition on the use of the materials, but that is covered elsewhere in
County regulations.
McShane moved to amend WCC section 16.16.225, as shown in
recommendation four attached to the Department of Ecology May 24, 2005 letter to
the Council, with one change. "(C) In all cases, the introduction and /or retention of
weed materials e pilings treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol or other
similarly toxic materials in a critical area or its buffer shall be prohibited. In
frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas such treated materials
may be used provided the toxicants will not be exposed to the environment and risk
of release of toxicants is minimal. Provision shall be made as soon as is practicable
for the removal of existing toxic materials from critical areas and their buffers, or as
an interim measure, for the isolation of said toxicants from the environment." The
prohibition is covered elsewhere. The restriction of wood materials is too broad.
Roy stated railroad ties and the bottoms of telephone poles have creosote.
People use those railroad ties on beaches in conjunction with bulkheads. Be more
specific. She doesn't have a problem with removing the restriction of using wood
materials. Whoever enforces must know that exposure to the environment has a
specific meaning of water that gets on these from lakes, rivers, or tides. Chalfant
stated the language could be clearer.
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated they must consider materials used for emergency management
purposes. They have a permitting processes that addresses these issues. It's clear
already that there are chemicals they don't want to see in the watershed. He is
concerned that people would not be clear about removing materials. Chalfant
stated the current language says that all existing materials treated with these
toxics have to be removed, or they may be isolated from the environment. Many
things would be affected.
Brenner stated they should refer to the materials not being exposed to the
critical area instead of to the environment.
McShane stated creosote and pentachlorophenol are immobile chemicals.
They don't readily move around in the environment. Groundwater rarely picks
them up. If they are exposed on the surface, sunlight breaks down
pentachlorophenol. He's not as concerned as others would be, as long as they
aren't within the erosion control structures. The problem is all the diesel fuel that
comes off the poles.
Roy stated she won't support the motion. It sounds like other areas of the
code cover this issue.
McShane withdrew his motion.
Chalfant referenced section 16.16.260(E). Hold discussion to the next
meeting, because it needs more staff work. The public has made suggestions for
more changes.
Chalfant referenced 16.16.260(F) regarding mitigation banking.
Roy stated the committee had a discussion with Wildlands Inc.
Clancy stated staff reviewed the concern from Wildlands Inc., and does not
recommend changes.
Nelson stated he agrees. He has a concern about subsection (F)(1)(a). He
asked if there is a way to measure "significant" and if there are other reasons for
considering mitigation banking, such as for capital facility planning or other
reasons. He is confused about the term "piecemeal mitigation."
Clancy stated there is a presumption that there are economic benefits
embedded in the mitigation banking process. Those benefits are presumed to be
there. They added language on ecological benefits because there is a risk to
banking. They are putting a lot of eggs in one basket. Because of some perceived
risks, they wanted to create a high test for bankers to meet to demonstrate there is
a compelling ecological reason for the bank.
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
In the past, there have been small mitigated pieces here and there. Instead,
create a more viable, functional, ecological system that is more sustainable and as
an alternative to a piece by piece mitigation approach. However, that comes with
risk. That's the reason for the term "significant ecological benefit."
Nelson stated the section defines the fact that they want a more
comprehensive approach to mitigation banking than they've had in the past. Just
say that. He asked if the County would develop mitigation banking tied to a
comprehensive plan countywide. Before, mitigation was done project -by- project.
He asked if the County would have a plan of where mitigation would occur.
Chalfant stated they are just asking for consistency with the existing
Comprehensive Plan.
Clancy stated there is not a plan in the county for mitigation banking. People
don't presume that the County would develop that plan. A private mitigation
banking enterprise, for example, could develop that plan.
Nelson stated it would be better to define that as a goal if that's what they
want to do. Define who does it, who is the lead, how it will occur, and what they
will expect. Clancy stated there are some differences of opinion about what they
want. Banking may have a role to play, but the County is not at the forefront of
making it happen. If someone can demonstrate to the County that mitigation
banking is a good idea, then the County will have the provision to allow for that to
happen. Typically, people would be required to do traditional mitigation unless they
propose to do a mitigation bank that is ecologically beneficial.
Roy stated don't set up a formal commercial mitigation bank just yet. She
likes the word "piecemeal." It provides a visual picture of what they're talking
about.
Brenner referenced subsection .260(F)(1). Add language, "(d) Preference
shall be given to mitigation banks that implement restoration actions within the
same critical area in the same area or watershed."
Clancy stated there is confusion between that and onsite mitigation. They
have specific provisions that address offsite mitigation. Banking would be large
acreage restoration or mitigation sites, developed to serve a broad service area.
Brenner stated she is uncomfortable with people doing banking projects in
big places where, at the expense of small critical areas. Preference should be given
to the area closest to the watershed.
Roy stated don't get into too much detail if it's not something the County is
going to initiate. Chalfant stated a section in the standard provisions for wetland
mitigation banking talks about providing mitigation onsite, and then looking to an
offsite location as close to the site as possible, and the site must stay in the
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
watershed. That is the guiding principle to analyze this section. The review
process would consider that guiding principle.
Brenner asked if the technical administrator would watch this enough to
know if too much is being taken out of one watershed. Chalfant stated they would,
when they set up the service area. They would look at the information provided by
the bank sponsor and the technical information created through the water resource
inventory area (WRIA) process, the salmon recovery plan process, the landscape
characterization, and other information. They would look at the status of each
function in the watershed and define what functions may be appropriate to move to
another watershed.
Clancy stated language in item (F) of the wetland mitigation section
addresses mitigation occurring in the impact area and same watershed. Limiting
functions shall not be removed from sensitive watersheds.
McShane referenced subsections .260(F)(2)(d) and (f). He asked if the
concept is that the Council can amend the permit. Chalfant stated it is.
McShane stated he is concerned that the County Council would send it to the
Agricultural Advisory Committee. He is concerned the Council would turn down
something on the recommendation of the committee. He is concerned about the
County Council having the option to require mitigation for loss of farmland. The
wetland bank is to mitigate the loss of wetlands. They don't want to do that at the
expense of farmland. Chalfant stated subsection (1)(a) requires consistency with
Comprehensive Plan about having no net loss of agricultural lands. It would be the
responsibility of the Council to implement that policy through this permit process.
McShane moved to amend .260(F)(2)(c) and (f) to add language to the end
of the subsections, "The County Council may require mitigation for the loss of
agricultural land."
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner stated there is nothing in here about going through the Hearing
Examiner. Chalfant stated the language refers to the County code that defines the
Hearing Examiner process.
Clancy explained sections 16.16.265(A), (B), (C), and (D). They are similar
to the existing code.
Nelson asked if retention and detention facilities are considered in critical
areas. Clancy stated they are not.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if people can do anything, including driveways and
parking lots, except put up a building in the buffer that protects the buffer. Clancy
stated that is correct.
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Clancy referenced 16.16.270(A), the reasonable use standards. It is updated
quite a bit.
Brenner referenced subsection. 270(A)(1) and (2)(a). She asked if
agricultural use is considered enough of a reasonable economic use that someone
would not be able to build a house. Chalfant stated that is not the case.
Reasonable economic use has been determined by the courts to be a single - family
residence.
Brenner stated they should remove "including agricultural use" from those
two sections.
Fleetwood asked if the object of this language is to avoid a regulatory taking.
Clancy stated it is.
Roy stated there is a legal definition, no matter what is in the subsection.
Brenner stated they should clarify the language so it's not misleading to the
layperson, no matter the legal implications. This language is for lay people.
Roy moved to remove language, "...allow reasonable economic use,
continuation of legal nonconforming uses;" from
subsection 16.16.270(2)(a).
Motion carried 2 -1 with McShane opposed.
Clancy read sections 16.16.270(B) and (C), the variance standards and the
reasonable use and variance procedures.
Nelson stated there is reference to alluvial fans and geological hazard areas.
He asked if the Hearing Examiner process would require a significant investment by
the proponent for engineering to demonstrate a take. The language says that it
must not cause harm. Clancy stated subsection (C)(4) should include the Hearing
Examiner.
Chalfant explained the typical variance process. It would not do any harm to
allow the Hearing Examiner to require technical reports.
Nelson asked if Hearing Examiners would understand the reports. Chalfant
stated they are trained to understand technical reports.
Nelson stated include a method to require comments on the reports from the
technical administrator. Chalfant stated the County code requires County staff to
forward that technical review as a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Clancy stated there are provisions that describe the types of reports that are
required.
Nelson stated he is concerned there is a disconnect between the technical
administrator and the Hearing Examiner.
Roy moved to amend .270(C)(4), "...technical administrator and /or Hearing
Examiner shall have..."
Motion carried unanimously.
Clancy referenced section 16.16.275, non - conforming uses. If a
nonconforming use is intentionally discontinued for 12 months or more, a future
use has to be in compliance with the new provisions.
Brenner referenced subsection .275(A). If nonconforming uses are
intentionally discontinued for 12 months or more, don't require property owners to
tear down the building. Clancy stated the intent is not to require that. The intent
is to address abandoned buildings that won't ever be used again.
Chalfant stated there is case law about what constitute the intent to abandon
a use. It's a high threshold to meet.
Roy stated they are talking about abandoned structures.
Brenner stated that even if a building is abandoned for a certain length of
time, it can have a use. It may be part of the selling point for the entire property.
Remove the requirement to tear down the nonconforming building. Just remove
the use.
Roy stated this language only applies to buildings in critical areas, not every
area in the county. This chapter is about protecting critical areas.
Nelson stated the County doesn't check on nonconforming uses to see
whether or not they are operating. He asked how staff would manage this
provision. Chalfant stated they don't regulate use through this ordinance, except
for critical aquifer recharge areas. Staff can clarify the language in this section and
make it more consistent with what they actually do in this ordinance. This
provision is almost identical in the existing code. Any future use doesn't require the
structure to be removed, just to conform with current regulations.
Clancy referenced section 16.16.280 regarding appeals, which is identical to
the existing provision.
Brenner referenced subsection 16.16.280(G). It's confusing.
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Chalfant stated subsection (G) is the exact language from Commissioner
Hunter regarding appeals to Superior Court.
McShane stated the idea is that people don't get to raise an issue later if it
wasn't raised to the Hearing Examiner. People don't get to raise new issues, even if
they may be legitimate, to Superior Court.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Fleetwood left the meeting at 1 :30 p.m.)
Nelson asked the intent of subsection .280(C). Chalfant stated the Hearing
Examiner can say that staff made an error in judgment, and that the use can be
allowed subject to certain conditions. This language doesn't limit the Hearing
Examiner. This is how the Hearing Examiner operates now.
Roy stated subsection .280(C) is not clear about to whom it refers. It's not
clear about to which appeal and at what point in the appeal process it refers.
Chalfant stated Ecology asked for a definition of "person" in 16.16.280(B),
"Any person may appeal to the Hearing Examiner...." A "person" is defined in the
shoreline master program. He read the definition.
McShane moved to put the definition of "person" from the shoreline master
program into the definitions of this ordinance, per recommendation one in the
supplemental to the Department of Ecology letter to the Council dated May 24,
2005, "An individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization,
cooperative, public or municipal corporation, state agency, or local government unit
however designated, or Indian nation or tribe."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
Clancy referenced section 16.16.285, penalties and enforcement.
Chalfant referenced Ecology recommendation two in the supplemental of the
letter to the Council dated May 24, 2005. This language would hold contractors and
others liable if they aid and abet a property owner who violates the code.
McShane moved to add language to section 16.16.285, "(H) Aiding or
abetting. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures,
aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for
the purposes of the civil penalty."
Brenner asked if aiding and abetting the violation could be unintentional.
She will only support intentional aiding and abetting of violations. They can't
expect a contractor to know all the rules and regulations on someone's property.
McShane stated "aiding or abetting" implies intention.
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy asked if the term "aiding and abetting" is a legal term with specific legal
definitions. Chalfant stated the citation is from the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) in the new guidelines for the shoreline management program update.
Ecology will require the County to address this in the shoreline management
program.
McShane stated he is comfortable going beyond intentional violations.
Contractors should know the regulations. He's seen many instances when people
who should know about critical areas reports and regulations do anything it takes.
If contractors don't knowingly violate a regulation, they shouldn't be on site with a
bulldozer without knowing what they are doing. That's a reason buffers are as big
as they are. This addresses some of the bad actors who should know better.
Contractors are often more responsible than property owners. This is good
language.
Nelson stated "aiding and abetting" is assumed to be intentional, but it helps
to have it clarified.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
Chalfant referenced section 16.16.290, Conservation Program on Agricultural
Land (CPAL). Hold this to the next meeting, when George Boggs can attend.
He referenced 16.16.295, Open Space and Conservation. This section is
identical to the existing ordinance, with one change. The Planning Commission
removed density credits. The transfer of development rights (TDR) program
addresses the issues separately.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the accusation of aiding
and abetting requires an intent. It's the same intent or willfulness that the main
actor has. That is implied and well established in the law.
Brenner stated sometimes property owners are in violation, but don't know
it. Frakes stated that if the violation is unintentional, the person is not aiding and
abetting.
Earlier in this meeting, the committee discussed the issue of failure to raise
an issue at the Hearing Examiner. The only problem with that language is that
many things will be remanded to the Hearing Examiner. If people are not as
thorough as they should have been with the Hearing Examiner, the Council will
have to send issues to the Hearing Examiner and go through the process again on
that one particular issue. It is not an efficient way of doing things.
Brenner stated she thought they said anything that wasn't appealed to the
Hearing Examiner couldn't be brought up to the Superior Court. Frakes stated an
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
issue has to be raised before it reaches Superior Court, either at the Hearing
Examiner or at the Council.
Chalfant stated they would end up with a protracted appeal process because
issues can be raised at the Hearing Examiner, Council, and Superior Court.
Frakes stated issues can't be raised for the first time at Superior Court.
That's established law that the County has no control of. The Council can control
whether or not someone can raise issues to the Council if the issues haven't been
raised to the Hearing Examiner. This concept is not a legal issue, but to have a
more efficient appeal process, delete subsection (G). It wasn't in there in the
original staff version.
Roy moved to delete section 16.16.280(G). The appeal process has been
working just fine.
Frakes stated this section applies just to critical areas. If approved, it would
create a separate appeals process just for critical areas.
Motion failed 1 -1 with Roy in favor and Fleetwood absent.
Clancy referenced Article Three, Geologically Hazardous Areas. She read the
new provisions.
Nelson referenced the volcanic hazard areas. Almost the entire county can
be considered in a volcanic hazard area. Clancy stated the provisions deal with
development only in a lahar inundation zone, which is a narrower geographic area.
Nelson asked the cost impacts from subsection 16.16.350(C)(1). Chalfant
stated they have not done a fiscal analysis. This subsection applies only to
buildings with special occupancy structures. Also, construction can occur in those
areas if there is no other reasonable location. The facility will need to provide some
sort of emergency plan. Regulations already cover the lahar hazard zone. They are
not adding new, onerous requirements.
Nelson stated the emergency plan must be maintained. There is a cost to
developing and maintaining an emergency plan. Several steps in this subsection
cost money.
McShane stated it only applies to a structure with an occupancy of 1,000 or
more people. His question is why the County would allow structures with 1,000 or
more people in this hazard zone. Schools are a good example. A question would
be whether they should build a school with 1,000 students in a lahar area. That
wouldn't be a good idea. The 1,000 occupancy threshold is too high. Avoid
development in those areas. They may need to debate how extensive the hazard
is. A lahar can occur without an eruption of Mt. Baker. It's good idea for a school
to have an evacuation plan if it is going to build in that zone. Alternatively, they
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
would choose not to build in that zone. The lahar zones are also the flood hazard
zones, and schools wouldn't be built there anyway.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how far down a lahar goes. Clancy stated it goes all
the way down. There are existing flood hazard regulations as well.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Mt. Baker School District's planned new school
next to the existing Kendall school is in the lahar hazard zone. They intend to build
another school there.
Nelson stated Kendall is outside the zone.
Roy stated schools have evacuation plans. That is part of school business.
It's not a big inconvenience.
Nelson stated he would like to know the cost impacts. Clancy stated that if
there were a cost analysis, which could be difficult and cumbersome, they would be
incumbent to assess the costs of not developing these regulations, not protecting
wetlands, and not saving lives.
Roy stated the County Emergency Management Division could produce a
travel time analysis of a lahar, rather than applicants having to hire someone. They
did it with a tsunami. Set up parameters so people don't have to go to that
expense. Clancy stated it would be very difficult for an individual to do that type of
analysis. Typically, it's done by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which is the
agency that did the time travel analysis for Mt. Rainier. That analysis is more likely
to be done by a public entity.
Roy stated the language in subsection 16.16.350(C)(1) requires applicants to
hire their own personal analysis.
McShane stated the analysis is for a building that holds 1,000 people. It's
not required for a house.
Clancy stated the travel time analysis could be prepared by a public entity.
Roy stated the language isn't clear that the information exists at a public
agency, so the applicant wouldn't have to hire someone.
Chalfant stated staff could work on that language.
McShane referenced subsection 16.16.310(C)(5), the Erosion Hazard Areas.
It talks about channel migration zones. The only way there will be a channel
migration zone is if it's defined by the County Council. Chalfant stated they need a
map to regulate it, otherwise there must be individual studies that include an
analysis of the entire geomorphic characteristics of the Nooksack River, which are
too expensive. When a channel migration zone is identified, certain areas can be
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, 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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
removed due to existing infrastructure. They wouldn't let the river go beyond
certain infrastructure. Staff is working on the channel migration zone.
McShane stated he is concerned about areas where there are not defined
channel migration zones, and people are allowed to build simply because the
County hasn't defined those areas. Clancy stated that is the reason for the interim
designation. If the studies haven't been completed, the Council can establish an
interim channel migration zone and regulate development until the study is
complete.
Roy asked if the County would not allow any construction in those areas,
beyond what is already there. Chalfant stated the channel migration zone of the
lower main stem of the Nooksack River is defined by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodway. The County currently limits development in
those areas anyway. This does not apply to agricultural development, mostly
residential development.
Roy asked if they wouldn't be impacting a lot of people by putting in interim
channel migration zones. She would hate to have interim zones, in chase they
change drastically as the real information comes forward. Chalfant stated the river
forks and upper portion of the main stem have channel migration zones going out
of the floodplain, in some areas. He can provide an update at the next meeting.
McShane referenced section 16.16.345, Alluvial Fan Hazard Areas. Define
the maximum credible event that exists on the alluvial fan and that poses a hazard.
There is some debate about what that credible event should be. Don't reference
the Jones Creek and Canyon Creek detailed drainage reports, which may not be
needed, and instead address what the maximum credible event can do, based on
fan morphology. Clancy stated there was intent to leave some discretion to the
technical administrator, which is why the language references those two studies as
examples. Staff can add language to address the concern.
McShane stated allow the administrator some flexibility.
Chalfant stated they must keep in mind the level of County liability that
comes with the freedom to make such decisions. If there were to be a catastrophic
event, the County would be on the hook.
McShane stated define the frequency and probability of the event. Don't
reference the Jones Creek and Canyon Creek alluvial fan hazard studies as
examples. He asked if staff would be comfortable instead referencing what those
reports are after.
Clancy stated the previous sentence is the important language.
McShane moved to amend 16.16.345(C) to delete the last sentence, "...by a
qualified professional. The Canyon Creek and genes GFeel( Alluvial Fan Hazard
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, Page 12
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
McShane stated he would work on a sentence on what scale of event they
are specifically defining.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Chalfant stated the Parametrix geologist, the County's flood manager, and
others had a much different opinion on this issue.
McShane stated he worked on alluvial fans in the past. He is satisfied that
people are mostly protected.
Chalfant stated that some properties that were reviewed have since been
bought out.
Nelson referenced 16.16.320(C), which references volcanic hazard areas,
which includes many areas of the county. Eliminate that reference. It will put a
huge burden on the Planning Department. Chalfant stated the intent was to include
the lahar hazard area.
McShane moved to amend 16.16.320(C),e lahar hazard area..."
Motion carried 2 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
Roy stated the committee would continue at a special meeting on July 7 from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Sharon Roy, Committee Chair
Special Natural Resources Committee - CAO, 6/28/2005, Page 14