HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning April 6 19992
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
April 6, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
(Clerks Note: Due to audiotape malfunction, there is no audio recording of this
meeting.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION REGARDING DRAFT WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING
POLICIES (AB99 -119)
Bob Andersen, David Evans & Associates, stated that the proposal is an evolving issue.
He submitted some policies for discussion. The next step is negotiating conflict resolution with
other agencies and parties. They would also need to develop examples.
Hoag questioned where they would get the lands and wetlands that would be banked and
whether they have to be protected anyway. Anderson stated that there are a number of
categories. They would have to create a logical priority. Restoration of a degraded wetland
would be a priority.
Sutter stated that the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) prioritizes in an opposite method.
Andersen stated that a good quality site already works and doesn't have to be banked.
Michael Knapp, Planning & Development Services Director, stated that the key is to
create a wetland. The entire Nooksack River was once a giant wetland. A landowner could also
link to an existing river system or wetland to create a new wetland.
Sutter stated that Barrett Lake would be a good place for mitigation.
Knapp stated that another opportunity is for the enhancement of fish habitat along the
river system. There are potential financial resources to find ways to do that.
Sutter questioned whether there is anything about a rating scale for these sites. Andersen
stated that those are things still to come. It could turn out that a functional assessment is needed
for the impacted wetland or to identify whether it plays a key role in the watershed. If there is a
situation where it pays an extraordinary site, it would receive more credits.
Hoag read policy 2.2 into the record. She questioned why they would include existing
high quality wetlands in a bank and how land would be available for credit. Anderson stated that
Planning and Development Committee, 4/6/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
they would find a network of potential areas that are degraded. There may be a key wetland area
in good condition, but its function can enhance the degraded portion. There is a gain to be
received in habitat linkage. He can find ways to integrate functions. One could even find an
upland area that has benefits.
Hoag questioned how they would bank a high quality wetland area. Andersen stated that
the federal rules identify that, under rare instances, it can be banked.
Knapp stated that, regarding the banking of the existing wetland, enlarging an existing
wetland may be considered.
Andersen stated that a high quality wetland cannot be working to its maximum function
because it is small or isn't linked to other areas.
Sutter stated that they need examples.
Hoag stated that they need qualifiers as to what constitutes a rare and unique site.
Andersen stated that it is the composite of the policies that create the plan.
Hoag asked about 1.2 and 1.3. Andersen stated that it has to do with philosophical and
strategic programs about the ability to do larger scale wetland mitigation banking or corridor
enhancement. A function of wetlands is that it may not be appropriate in an urban setting.
1.2.
Hoag stated that she preferred "may be appropriate" instead of "is appropriate" in section
Knapp stated that it opens up to needed qualifiers. They need to have good criteria.
Sutter asked how extensively the CAO covers offsite mitigation. Andersen stated that
there are references to the need for watershed analysis. There are controls for offsite mitigation
in the CAO. They need regulatory adjustment to include listing issues. Mitigation banking
could be a solution.
Hoag asked for an example of 1.2. Andersen stated that an urban setting is not an
appropriate function. Therefore, one would need a substitution. Water quality and quantity is
the most obvious. Other mitigation might be more suitable.
Brenner asked if they can do offsite mitigation for new development. Andersen stated
that they are trying to get a composite set of policies. They would allow one to go offsite
because there are other municipally maintained features that would substitute.
Sutter questioned what they would be mitigating for.
Knapp stated that there could be more significant wetland improvements somewhere else.
Hoag questioned section 3.0. A reduced size may be acceptable. She questioned whether
they would consider the previous one being impacted. Andersen stated that all will be judged by
a case -by -case evaluation.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/6/99, Page 2
I Hoag asked if a pre- existing wetland buffer should be taken into consideration. Andersen
2 stated that it could be.
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
Hoag suggested a new section 3.4 that suggests the surroundings for the pre- existing
wetland should be taken into consideration.
Goodwin stated that the concept was about one site that may mitigate the impact of five
or ten development sites. The question is about how big is the site for mitigation. They should
compare functions, not necessarily size. Reduced size means smaller than the 40 acres
minimum.
Knapp stated a Greenway or other linear area isn't going to have the necessary amount of
area. In working with the character of the land, the area may be smaller.
Hoag was concerned that, with the reduction in size, nothing takes into account the
function of the previous area. She would like language that takes that into consideration.
for.
Andersen suggested another section that defines the impacted area.
Goodwin stated that when a bank is set up, they don't know what site would be mitigated
Hoag stated that they could take that into consideration when trading credits.
Hoag questioned the policy of Code 4.0. This policy should be required.
Andersen stated that this is an important component. There is a new attitude about going
outside of the basin, in -kind for out -of -kind, exchange of functional characteristics. He didn't
know whether the basis for new views is well- centered.
Hoag asked about "structural classes" in section 5.1. Andersen stated that freshwater is a
specific class with conditions. There are also other types of wetlands.
Andersen stated that they have to look at the whole package. There could be an incentive
program for current protocols if different classes require different sizes of areas.
Hoag wanted to encourage a bank with less structural diversity, then one would have to
make improvements to meet the same structural diversity. Andersen stated that the detail is in
case examples. When one fills in and destroys existing wetlands, it would take a long time to
come up with substitute systems.
Hoag stated that's why they should exchange kind for kind. Andersen stated they can't
make instant ecosystems. This comes up with incentives for long -range management programs.
Sutter didn't want to step over policy into regulation.
Andersen stated that there could be something in this policy to refer to another policy.
The committee concurred.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/6/99, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hoag asked about section 8.3. Andersen stated that they don't know what will be
available. Things don't always work out as planned. They may allow one that works better to be
substituted for another.
Hoag asked about section 9.3. Andersen stated that this is common in public works. It is
in the CAO right now.
Hoag asked if funds are in a trust. Andersen stated that was correct. It is an incentive. It
is not bonding. There would be an account with the County and the owner. The owner would
get the interest on the principle that is deposited.
Hoag asked about section 11.2. Andersen stated that they create manuals on mitigation
banking. If an analysis shows a wetland is not doing its function, then they might give the
benefit of the doubt to the bank. If the area they are replacing is not functioning well or
providing a great resource, then out of kind banking may be warranted.
Hoag asked about section 12.1. Andersen stated that the system is being promoted at the
federal and State levels. Whatever the County comes up with that is simple, effective, and easy
to administer should be integrated into the more complicated programs.
Hoag asked about the policy of 13.0. Andersen stated that candidate sites may mature
quicker than others. A partial release is similar to a real estate transaction. An area with
multiple sites may purchase one or more sites and there is a release to get the cash flow to
purchase the remainder.
Hoag asked about policy 14.0. This policy will be the most controversial. It needs to be
well substantiated. Andersen stated he is suggesting that the early views may not have as much
of an understanding of landscape management. This is trying to address landscape management.
If there is going to be a successful bank, it should entertain trades within other regions.
Brenner stated that she wanted an indication in the policy that this is not the first choice,
but is only done as a last resort. It should be kept in the watershed as much as possible.
Hoag stated that they need language that prevents abuse. The Watershed Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) #1 is large enough that they shouldn't have to go outside the region.
Andersen spoke about barriers. There are three types of barriers, physical, economic,
institutional.
Sutter stated that they should consider areas outside of WRIA #1, but within County
borders. She could see doing exchanges within the WRIA, but they should keep in mind areas
outside of WRIA #1.
Goodwin stated that this policy would not change CAO, which would prevail.
Hoag asked about 15.1 and how the outside audit system is funded. Andersen stated that
a bank is a form of a development project. They need someone to come in and look at banks.
They have to ensure that the system is running. It would be funded from within the system.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/6/99, 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
48
49
50
Sutter asked if there is a potential for mitigation credits to be available on the market.
Andersen stated that the State and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will have rigorous review of
the operation. If they have a catalogue of properties, they might be able to do that. It doesn't
seem like it fits into a typical banking scenario, but is an option.
Hoag asked about section 16.2. Andersen stated that publicly owned land can provide
buffers to mitigation sites.
Sutter asked if they would run into problems about activities in the wetlands and buffers.
Andersen stated that a conflict would be reviewed on a case -by -case evaluation.
Hoag stated that public lands and private lands are different and that installing restrictions
would be taking away public lands.
Sutter stated that they need to enable public policy so that doesn't happen. It still would
be public land.
Hoag stated that the wording should reflect that there are two issues. 1. If can achieve
this without detriment of the public, then can use public land. 2. If use is changed to the
detriment of the public, the public should be compensated.
Sutter stated that a benefit rating would show that a buffered wetland is more valuable to
the public than certain activities allowed on public lands.
Brenner stated that doesn't preclude a public use for a private benefit. They have to
weigh in what is already available to the public.
Hoag asked about policy 18.0 and asked for an explanation of the last sentence.
Andersen stated that fragmentation of systems is a problem. There is no linkage between habitat
areas.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter stated that the ordinance regarding the conditional uses in rural forestry zoning
needs to be rescinded. It has to be an emergency resolution to send it to the Planning
Commission to take it into consideration. At the evening meeting, the Council needs to rescind
the emergency ordinance and adopt an emergency resolution to Planning Commission.
Goodwin stated that they have already done the emergency resolution. It would
automatically go to the Planning Commission
Sutter stated that the resolution was rescinded and they would need to approve it again.
Stutter stated that she received correspondence regarding a drainage ditch on Sucia Drive
about an exposed culvert.
Brenner stated that Council Member Dawson is taking care of it.
Sutter stated that she received a letter from State Representative Morris regarding the
conditions of Alder Drive and Cain Lake Drive.
Planning and Development Committee, 4/6/99, 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
Brenner stated that she sent a letter to the County Executive requesting an update.
Hoag asked if the committee could set a time limit on future meetings to allow for a
dinner break.
Sutter stated that it depends on the discussion in committee.
Brenner stated it also depends on the number of items scheduled.
Brenner suggested a 4:30 deadline, then the committee could vote to extend the meeting
if needed.
Sutter suggested switching committee assignments and restructuring committee times.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 4/6/99, Page 6