HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 18 19991
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
May 18, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
(Clerk's Note: Much of the audiotape is inaudible due to sound system malfunction.
Portions of the minutes were transcribed from the clerk's notes.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING PARKING STANDARD REVIEW (AB99 -172)
Sutter announced that this item has been postponed for two weeks.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE REVIEW OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR TEXT ACCURACY (AB99 -173)
Sutter stated that minutes will be transcribed verbatim and compared to the
Comprehensive Plan. A thorough review must be done to iron out the problems.
Brenner stated that it would be helpful if Council Member Hoag pointed out some of the
errors she found.
Sutter stated that she would rather wait until there is a complete and accurate list. The
point today was that they found sufficient potential error to warrant a closer look. It isn't
necessary at this time to go through the errors one at a time.
Hoag stated that she was told, at the last Council meeting, to bring proof of the errors to
this meeting. During a very brief review, she found four errors. She wanted to ensure that
everyone was aware that there are errors. A specific error regarded the Agricultural Mineral
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/99, Page 1
I Resource Lands (MRL) study area. This topic was debated for over an hour and the motion was
2 restated very clearly and voted on.
3
4 Sutter stated that the committee doesn't need to go into specifics. The obvious issue is
5 that there are errors that need to be corrected.
6
7 Hoag continued to state that, during the MRL discussion, there was a motion to change
8 the language, which was then withdrawn. There was a lengthy discussion about fine- tuning the
9 language that remained. There was a clear restatement of the motion and a vote. The other item
10 that she found was item #12 on page 836 regarding river gravel. The language that was adopted,
11 which was clearly stated and voted upon, is not in the Comprehensive Plan. Instead, there is
12 language from a different page. There was a third item regarding prioritizing project review in
13 the Lake Whatcom watershed. That language was stricken. The motion to include it, with the
14 stricken language, was very clear. It is not in the Comprehensive Plan. She disagreed with
15 Sutter about what to do with the errors. To correct them as clerical errors is important and
16 appropriate. They were already voted on and clearly adopted by the Council. However, they
17 should correct immediately what they already know is wrong. A letter from the Municipal
18 Research Center explained that the County may end up with a land rush once the errors are
19 identified. The County wants to avoid that mess. The Municipal Research Center suggested
20 adopting an ordinance that explains the chronology of the events and makes clear that the
21 changes detailed are corrections to the copies of the Comprehensive Plan, not amendments to the
22 Comprehensive Plan. It should be made very clear. There should be a public hearing to tell the
23 public exactly what they are doing and why. They should then make the corrections that they are
24 aware of, then research the Comprehensive Plan to find out what else needs to be changed. At
25 that time, they can bring forward an additional ordinance that says the additional errors are also
26 correcting the copies of the Comprehensive Plan. There is no reason to hold up the corrections
27 that they are aware of
28
29 Sutter questioned who is going to make the decision on what is correct. They need a very
30 coordinated effort that should not rely on what one person says. They need an official record
31 before them to work on.
32
33 Hoag stated that the official minutes are the May 20, 1997 minutes adopted by the
34 Council. There are still other minutes that have not come forward. In addition, there are
35 audiotapes of the meetings. Any change that they are going to make needs to come back to the
36 Council as a discrepancy that needs to be proven. This has to be a process that is not subject to
37 tampering.
38
39 Sutter stated that she has not gone through the minutes or listened to the tapes. That
40 needs to be done before they begin making changes.
41
42 Brenner would like to see the minutes in question pulled, even though they were adopted.
43
44 Hoag stated that the original minutes came forward in February 1998. At that time, she
45 realized the minutes were not correct. She was at those meetings. The minutes were pulled and
46 she had someone go through and listen to all of the tapes. They were compared to the minutes
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/99, Page 2
I and suggestions were made, based on the tapes. Then, those minutes went back to Council staff,
2 who listened to the tapes to verify whether the corrections were accurate. They were then
3 brought forward again for approval.
4
5 Brown questioned who reviewed the tapes for accuracy.
6
7 Hoag stated that a volunteer went through the tapes and made the comparisons and
8 suggestions.
9
10 Brown stated that he can't visualize making changes with a partial document. There
11 were memos that passed back and forth between staff and the Planning and Development
12 Committee. Things were discussed at one meeting and the discussion finished at a meeting three
13 weeks later. For a while, they were meeting twice a week. Often, questions arose in which staff
14 would bring an answer at a later meeting. To say that they made mistakes is out of line until
15 everything is laid and they re -trace the entire process.
16
17 Sutter stated that there is sufficient evidence that errors were made and they need to
18 correct those errors. The first step is to get correct transcription of the minutes, then compare
19 them to the Comprehensive Plan.
20
21 Hoag stated that she has repeatedly stated that these minutes are the May 20, 1997
22 Council work session prior to the Comprehensive Plan. There were no more changes after this
23 meeting. The motions that are in those minutes are the last ones that were voted on. This has
24 nothing to do with memos going back and forth between people. This has nothing to do with
25 different drafts coming forward. It has to do with the votes that were taken in that work session,
26 just prior the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. She also has a copy that shows what
27 happened at the night meeting, in which they brought the Comprehensive Plan forward and
28 adopted it without any further changes. The only language that was made prior to the adoption
29 was in that evening work session. To determine whether there are additional errors, they will
30 have to go back to the process. The language in the Comprehensive Plan was adopted piece by
31 piece during several meetings. There are very definite errors.
32
33 Nelson asked Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Prosecuting Attorney, about the process of
34 adopting large documents such as this, and the ramifications of correcting errors regarding
35 Growth Management Hearings Board. Gibson said he hasn't talked to any other counties.
36 Nothing he has seen so far is very substantive. He suggested completion of a final review
37 process before any further action is taken.
38
39 Nelson questioned how far back before the adoption they should go in the review
40 process.
41
42 Sutter stated that there was a great deal of paperwork at the time. She would like a
43 thorough review of the minutes, not just one night's worth.
44
45 Nelson agreed that they should be looked out. If there are not substantive changes, they
46 should be able to simply go through and make the changes. He questioned whether it would
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/99, 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
require a process of having public hearings. Gibson stated that it depends on the nature of the
change. If there is something which, by consensus, is determined to be substantive, then the
process should be afforded.
Nelson stated that the tape should be transcribed verbatim.
Sutter agreed.
Brenner would like to do the procedure suggested by Municipal Research Center. She
wanted to see a verbatim transcript, but would like to see any item that any Council Member
brings forward.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, agreed with the first course suggested by
Municipal Research Center.
Hoag asked to begin the transcription with the May 20th meeting.
Sutter agreed.
Brenner asked about the legal options regarding people who want to act on the errors and
what can be done to protect the public in the meantime.
Sutter explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a policy document, not a regulatory
document.
Frakes explained that problems might come up in the context of a conditional use permit,
but she can't perceive the errors are going to create an issue.
Hoag disagreed. She stated that the development regulations were worked on
concurrently. There was a lot of controversy about the 40 -acre lot size in the Agricultural
section, regarding road frontage. There are other issues like that, which are issues of substance.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning and Development Services Planning Manager, stated that the
language regarding the road frontage was deleted the evening of May 20.
Hoag questioned why it was deleted again. Goodwin stated that it was an interim
ordinance for six months. It had to be re- adopted every six months, until the permanent was
adopted.
Hoag stated that she contacted the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC),
the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (DOTED), and others about
this problem. DCTED said that, occasionally, they will end up with grammatical errors, but they
haven't seen any substantial errors.
Dawson asked that Hoag indicate which errors are substantive. Hoag stated that
Municipal Research Center indicated that the concern about substance comes in to whether or
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/99, 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
not the County will get sued for making the change. She believed they could fix them all as
clerical errors, but if there is an issue that is substantive, then there needs to be a public process
to make the change. She would agree with whatever the Council decides is or is not substantive.
The main issue is not whether the change should be made, but how much public process they
have to put with it. The Council has to make sure they don't get sued for a lack of public
process.
Sutter stated that she wanted to give direction to staff to have the verbatim transcripts of
the May 20, 1997 minutes done first, and then make any changes from there.
Hoag stated that the cost of doing verbatim transcripts can be costly and that just the
motions need to be transcribed. Discussions don't need to be transcribed verbatim.
Sutter stated the full verbatim needs to be done.
Brenner stated that she wanted Council staff or someone to determine where the original
motions are that were never changed.
Sutter stated that there are unclear discussions throughout the minutes.
Hoag stated that was not correct.
Sutter stated that she was at those meetings and remembered some of the discussions.
The committee concurred to have the May 20, 1997 work session minutes transcribed
verbatim.
Hoag stated that the Development Regulations are based upon the Comprehensive Plan.
If there are discrepancies that come forward with the Comprehensive Plan, then the Development
Regulations need to be checked. If there are areas that conflict, then the Development
Regulations need to be corrected at the same time the Comprehensive Plan is corrected.
Hoag stated that, when bringing up these errors, she tried to make it clear that Council
staff was not at fault. However, the Council staff has been taking a beating in letters to the editor
and editorials. The Council staff did not transcribe these minutes. Because of that, she would
like the Council staff to bring the corrections to the Council. She wanted to ensure that all of the
Council members have a chance to look at the discrepancies and verify them with the tapes. She
supported beginning the verbatim transcriptions with the May 20, 1997 meeting, but wanted to
ensure that all errors are corrected. If there are a lot of errors in the May 20 minutes, then it
stands to reason there are other errors. The Comprehensive Plan is so important that it should be
reviewed for accuracy.
Nelson stated that he found it amazing that no other county has had this problem.
(Clerks Note: End of tape one, side A)
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/99, Page 5
I Nelson continued to state that probably no one has ever reviewed it as Council Member
2 Hoag has. Nelson stated that there was no intent of malice by any department or any staff person
3 to mislead any of the motions. There was no intention by any Council member to subvert the
4 Comprehensive Plan process. They should refrain from that type of discussion, and just look at
5 ensuring the Comprehensive Plan best reflects the final decisions.
6
7 Brenner stated that any member of the Council or the public that finds a discrepancy
8 should bring it forward.
9
10 Hoag stated that she was very involved in the process and had a great deal of respect for
11 the staff that worked on the process. She was not interested in pointing fingers at this point.
12 Staff only does what they are directed to do. It is not appropriate that staff be blamed for things
13 that were not their fault.
14
15
16 OTHER BUSINESS
17
18 Sutter discussed a citizen concern about the pavement of road. (This section of the
19 audiotape is inaudible)
20
21 Brown stated that they need to respond to that person.
22
23 Sutter stated that Council Member Nelson has spoken to that person and that person has
24 spoken with staff. She just wanted to ensure that everyone is on the same page with the message.
25
26 Dawson explained the process of dealing with complaints and comments from the public.
27 The Clerk of the Council will forward complaints and comments to the Executive, and a note
28 will be sent to the person regarding the forwarding of their complaint or comment.
29
30 Sutter stated that she received a letter from the Department of Community, Trade, and
31 Economic Development (DCTED) about the Development Regulations. They made some
32 recommendations and expressed some concerns.
33
34 Goodwin stated that those Development Regulations are scheduled for Council
35 Introduction at that evening's night meeting. If the Council chooses a public hearing, then they
36 can make changes. Otherwise, they would need to be adopted exactly as recommended by the
37 Planning Commission. They have already looked at the concerns by DCTED. The Planning
38 Commission made a recommendation regarding the DCTED concerns. It is up to Council to
39 decide whether they agree with the Planning Commission. They can't be approved before June
40 15, to allow for a DCTED review.
41
42 Sutter stated that they will probably have to have a work session to get through them.
43 She will be scheduling some Planning and Development Committee work sessions.
44
45
46
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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
Kathy Sutter, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/99, Page 7