HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning November 9 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
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
November 9, 2005
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Also Present:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES WITHIN THE SOUTHERN UGA
BOUNDARY FOR LYNDEN (AB2005 -084D)
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, stated this is a 39 acre piece. Six acres are in
the Lynden urban growth area (UGA). Four of those acres are zoned agriculture
and two acres are zoned urban residential mixed, six units per acre (URM -6). The
request is to take six acres out of the UGA and rezone the URM -6 to agriculture.
The staff recommendation is to leave the area in the UGA and downzone the two
acres to agriculture.
Fleetwood asked why it was not recommended to take the acreage out of the
UGA. Holbrook stated the City of Lynden recently finished it's comprehensive plan
and review of its UGA's. The City asked the Planning Commission to deny that part
of the application. The City of Lynden and staff agreed to go back and look at the
areas when the County does its mandatory UGA update in 2007.
Brenner stated it seems like it would have been easier if the first request was
denied, then have a separate request for the two acre change. This way makes it
cloudy. She asked the reason this application was brought forward this way.
Holbrook stated there was no reason. Had there been stronger oversight when it
went through the Planning Commission in May, it would have been done that way.
He had the same question about it also.
Brenner stated the County can't unilaterally make changes. It has to work
with the cities. If the County does this, the City of Lynden would have appealed it.
The smart thing to do is to deal just with the two acres, which everyone agrees on.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2005, 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
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.
Holbrook stated the URM -6 zone boundary was based on the flood zone at
the time. It created a split zone parcel. This change corrects a series of mistakes.
McShane moved to recommend approval of the recommendation to the full
Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane asked if this requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Holbrook
stated it does not. Taking it out of the UGA would have required a Comprehensive
Plan amendment. The rezone is separate from that.
2. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT, SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT, AND SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
BY NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORPORATION FOR "'CAPACITY
REPLACEMENT PROJECT" (AB2005 -419)
Brenner stated she appreciates the information, including the simpler map
that came late.
McShane stated the project includes boring under the river. He asked if the
boring location is outside the meander zone of the river.
Robert Mulrooney, Planner II - Shoreline Administrator, stated the location
won't be outside the river meander zone when boring underneath the river. They
are only 300 feet outside the main channel on the north side.
McShane asked if it is outside of the shoreline substantial development area.
Mulrooney stated that where the project makes entry is outside the jurisdiction of
the shoreline management program. However, because it runs underneath the
river and comes up on the other side, it falls within shoreline jurisdiction for
regulations.
McShane asked if the County could require that they be outside the meander
zone. Mulrooney stated they don't.
McShane stated he would think they would want to be outside the meander
zone. If this infrastructure is to last at least 40 or 50 years, they should want to be
not subject to scouring and erosion. Mulrooney stated the purpose of the horizontal
directional drill is to get below the projected scouring base.
McShane stated it sounds like the applicant evaluated that thoroughly. He
was concerned about the river and scour zone moving laterally. The river has made
some substantial jumps even within the last 20 year in that area. Mulrooney stated
the County's staff geologist reviewed it.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2005, 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
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.
McShane asked about the crossing the landslide on Sumas Mountain. He
didn't see anything in the staff report about it. He had commented on a document
regarding the rationale for and approach to crossing a landslide area. Mr.
Goldthorp agrees that the pipeline was not moved off the landslide when it was
moved up the hill after it broke. The pipeline company disagreed. The County is
required to have monitoring. He asked if that would still be the case. Mulrooney
stated he assumes it is the case.
McShane asked why they would not want to move off the landslide.
Mulrooney stated they probably want to operate within their utility easement.
McShane stated he has yet to see the rationale why it's okay to cross a
known landslide rather than getting a new easement. The staff report did not
discuss the crossing of that landslide, other than the documentation from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that references a broad protocol.
He read an excerpt of the documentation. Northwest Pipeline was not successful in
identifying the landslide that busted the pipeline. The documents say Northwest
follows the guidelines outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49,
part 192 when inspecting pipeline right -of -way. He read from section 4.13 of the
environmental impact statement. There isn't specific information on this particular
landslide on Sumas Mountain near Nugent's Corner. He couldn't find any
information on whether anyone from staff has reviewed information on this
landslide. There is no information in the staff report. He wants to know why they
want to continue to run a pipeline across a deep- seated, known landslide that
already broke the pipe once. He asked if monitoring is an acceptable alternative to
re- routing the pipeline around the landslide. Golder Associates claimed they are off
the landslide, but the boring data shows that's not true.
Brian Knox, Preston, Gates, & Ellis, stated he represents Northwest Pipeline.
Staff report page 37 is relevant. The final environmental impact statement (EIS)
was modified to include a discussion of that issue.
McShane stated he was pleased with the responses to his comments. He
wished he could have seen that document. No one evaluated an alternative route
off the landslide.
Scott Long, Project Manager, stated Golder Associates did the study of the
area. He relies on the consultants for saying they are out of the landslide area.
McShane stated that was said before the pipeline broke. The County's
position is that they are still on the landslide. Using that nexus required monitoring
and strain gauge equipment, which is unusual if not on a landslide. He doesn't
follow the rationale. The penetrometer readings plummeted in the exact same
sequence in the area that failed. Something deep is going on in that area. They
can expect movement again. It's terrible for pipeline projects to go across
landslides. He would simply like to see an evaluation of the alternatives, even if an
alternate route isn't an option. It's a concern for people. Long stated they relied
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2005, 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.
on their consultant, Golder Associates, whose position is that they are off the
landslide. He's not a geologist. If Golder Associates says they are in a landslide
area, mitigation can be done for it.
McShane asked if there will be the same type of monitoring on the new line
as is on the existing line. Long stated there will be. They will use strain gauge on
the new line that are identical to the existing line.
Brenner stated it would be important to get the answers to the questions.
She asked if this issue can be held in committee until they get the answers. On
staff report pages 35, number six, and page 36, number 4, there are handwritten
corrections, "pfoi -ef after." Those handwritten changes should be changed back.
Mulrooney stated it was probably changed so erosion control measures don't get
torn up while the destruction was happening. They would be set up after trees
were removed and clearing was done to prevent soil erosion.
Brenner stated that in Whatcom County, they usually set up erosion control
before land disturbance happens. She's not comfortable with that handwritten
change. It's suspicious and unprofessional. Proper erosion control measures must
be installed at the time the land alteration is happening. She asked how they can
be maintained during construction if they aren't installed until after.
Fleetwood stated that presumably there is no need to do erosion control
before there is land alteration.
Brenner stated there is a need during land alteration. Whatcom County
permits require erosion control to be in place when land disturbance happens, not
after. Knox stated that tree clearing equipment would destroy the erosion control
fences when they arrived.
Brenner stated the tree clearing equipment can arrive before there is land
alteration. This says they will install the controls after land alteration. That's not
what they do in Whatcom County. It's not acceptable. Knox stated he could come
up with language that will address that concern. The problem is during vegetation
removal. They can't remove the vegetation without destroying silt fences that have
been erected.
Carolyn Last, Golder Associates, stated that intent is after clearing, prior to
grading. They will clear it, immediately put up erosion controls, and then grade.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Hearing Examiner
decision is separate from the staff report. She doesn't know how that condition
made its way into the Hearing Examiner decision. There is nothing that reflects
that same language in the Hearing Examiner's decision. She asked if it is even a
condition in the decision they are reviewing.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2005, 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.
Fleetwood moved to recess for five minutes so people can draft proposed
language.
The committee concurred with the motion.
(Clerk's Note: The committee recessed for five minutes at 3 :33 p.m.)
Brenner stated legal counsel said they need to amend the Hearing
Examiner's findings. She moved to amend the Hearing Examiner condition on
packet page 85, "43. Sediment barriers shall be in place when necessary
throughout clearing and construction..." as required by law.
Bob Martin, Land Use Division Manager, stated item 43 is a condition of
approval from the Hearings Examiner. The issuance of a land disturbance permit is
a process standard, not a condition of development. The land disturbance permit,
about which item 43 talks, controls the presence of erosion control measures.
When there is a disruption of the surface, the land disturbance permit requires
erosion control measures to be in place.
Brenner stated she feels it's necessary to include the language because
someone handwrote a change. The requirement needs to be in the document.
Fleetwood asked when it's defined as necessary. Martin stated it's necessary
per the land disturbance permit.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Brenner stated make sure there is mitigation for areas that cross a landslide.
McShane stated he will consider adding another condition, that a strain
gauge be place for the Sumas Mountain slide, before the evening meeting. He
wants to talk to staff and legal counsel about whether the Council has that
authority.
Brenner stated she's not ready to vote on this until that happens.
Fleetwood stated the committee can vote on it, subject to any other
amendments.
McShane stated he is interested in adding that condition, but his committee
recommendation for approval doesn't hinge on it. This was applied for under the
previous critical areas ordinance. The current critical areas ordinances talks about
establishment of meander zones by the County. That has not yet been done for the
Nooksack River. A meeting is scheduled to work on it. The company will want to
be out of the meander zone before beginning its borings.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2005, 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.
McShane continued to state that any project in the meander zone area will
be difficult to permit. They will have to move the pipe back and re -bore. There is
potential for significant evulsions on some of the small creeks. Whatcom County
will probably establish a meander zone that is beyond the shoreline jurisdiction.
They will fall under the critical areas ordinance, and it will be difficult getting
permitted locally to protect the pipeline. It may be challenging even under FERC.
Frakes stated Hearing Examiner condition 29 seems to be relevant to
landslide areas.
Brenner stated it is about extreme conditions. However, erosion can happen
in conditions that aren't extreme. In some locations, it happens slowly over time.
Frakes stated the condition applies to areas that are subject to sliding.
McShane stated there is a specific slide zone. The County already has a
strain gauge on the existing pipeline. It would be nice to have the same criteria, at
a minimum, applied to the new pipeline. The FERC process may require them to do
that anyway, but he doesn't know. That document wasn't available to him.
Knox stated they don't have a problem with that condition being added. It
may already be a condition through the FERC process. Before the evening meeting,
he will examine the final EIS to see if it's included. If it is incorporated in the final
EIS, it will also be binding through the FERC certificate. They can be assured the
strain gauge monitoring will happen. His client assures the County that they will
use the strain gauges. They can also add something on the meander issue.
Brenner moved to recommend approval to the full Council as amended,
subject to review of the conditions by Councilmember McShane and additional
information.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion on this item continued below.)
OTHER BUSINESS
Council to rescind a motion that approved resolution #2005 -062 in
order to accept and vote on a substitute resolution (AB2005 -411)
Troy Holbrook, Senior Planner, stated Acme is not within the subarea. By
adding those two, it creates an even number of members. Staff proposes adding a
Nooksack Tribe representative and a business community member instead. That
would make an odd number of committee members. Acme is in the South Fork
subarea. They are two distinct subareas. He indicated on a map the boundary
between the two subareas.
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2005, 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
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.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
2. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF A MAJOR PROJECT PERMIT, SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT, AND SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
BY NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORPORATION FOR " "CAPACITY
REPLACEMENT PROJECT" (AB2005 -419)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
Knox read page 4 -8 of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS),
which was added in response to Councilmember McShane's comments on the draft
environmental impact statement. The FERC certificate, which is the official binding
order, has a condition that Northwest Pipeline shall follow construction procedures
and mitigation measures described in its applications, supplemental filings, and as
identified in the FEIS unless modified by this order. That means this condition of
the certificate makes binding that assurance in the FEIS.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 11/9/2005, Page 7