HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning December 8 19982
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
December 8, 1998
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:
Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
15
16 1. REVIEW OF THE WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION ON
17 THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCE PLAN (AB98-
18 416B)
19
20 Sutter stated that this is in response to a request the County Council made to have the
21 Advisory Committee review the plan. There are recommendations as to what needs to be added
22 to the plan.
23
24 Brenner stated that she was impressed with the contents of the recommendations. If the
25 County followed their recommendations, then they would have a clearer view of what needs to
26 be done before the County begins taxing people and hiring staff. She questioned the comment,
27 "...rigid institutional momentum should be avoided." She requested clarification.
28
29 Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, spoke as a member of the Water Advisory
30 Committee (WAC) and stated that there are two pieces in the data report. That comment meant
31 that they should not continue doing business as usual just because they said they would do
32 business as usual. The comments that were made were presented just as they were stated.
33
34 Brenner stated her concern about having too much federal or State involvement. The
35 idea was that the County would do it itself. Interjurisdictional coordination has some merit, but
36 she did not support adding every federal and State agency that is available.
37
38 Sutter stated that the comment originated from the fact that they were not just talking
39 about Whatcom County doing all of the things itself. Other topics included ESHB 2514 and
40 shellfish protection. Some of the other agencies may have regulations, requirements, or funding.
41 The County may need to have their involvement.
42
43 Brenner questioned whether the County would be hiring an employee from a State
44 agency.
45
46 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that in the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
47 portion of the plan there is a coordinator that deals with the planning processes. There is a fish
48 biologist assigned to Public Works and is under contract with State Fish and Wildlife. He is
49 assigned to deal with project permitting and technical review.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/08/98, Page 1
2 Hoag questioned whether it was the position that they approved a few months ago.
3 Monsen responded that it was. It was under an agreement with the State Department of Fish and
4 Wildlife. It is a separate position.
5
6 Nelson commented that a concern was that if the County contracts with an employee of
7 the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), then would that employee act in the best
8 interest of the County.
9
10 Sutter clarified that the staff person was an employee of Fisheries.
11
12 Nelson questioned whether the County funded a position to do grant writing. Sutter
13 stated that there has been discussion about the need to have a grant specialist. The WAC
14 recommended that there be a system of fiscal control for the whole process. One of the elements
15 of that is a person that can identify funding and bring it into the County.
16
17 Hoag stated that the during the preliminary budget discussions, they discussed the
18 possibility of a grant writer. There were questions to the department heads about whether they
19 would find that useful. She questioned whether this meeting was addressing the comments of the
20 WAC only, or whether they would be discussing the plan itself.
21
22 Sutter responded that discussion of the plan was not scheduled on the agenda. She only
23 intended that people knew what the comments mean and where they came from. Some of the
24 recommendations needed to be included in the plan at the earliest possible date.
25
26 Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, stated that he read the letter from the Council of
27 Governments (COG) and the comments from the WAC. He spoke on behalf of the County
28 Executive and the Water Team and stated that this type of information is most helpful.
29
30 Sutter stated that this was the only public process the document has gone through to date.
31 Wareing responded that a part of the problem is that this is a complex issue and has taken a lot of
32 effort to gather and coordinate the information in order to develop a concept of where to proceed.
33 They now have the ability to have a place to start from. The administration is looking to be able
34 to sit down with the County Council and the public and begin to flush this out. To enable this to
35 go forward immediately, there are other things that need to be done.
36
37 Sutter stated that this demonstrates the tremendous resource in the community. It is
38 important to utilize that resource as much as possible.
39
40 Dawson stated that she distributed a synopsis of a case in Oregon and stated that the
41 Secretary of Commerce makes the final decision on science disputes. The bottom line is that the
42 input will come from the State and federal governments, not Whatcom County. According to the
43 case, they are not looking for voluntary actions. They are looking for tested data being used.
44 They are not concerned with harvest reforms. It is the habitat, not fish.
45
46 Nelson stated that one of the recommendations suggested that the County should spend
47 time to organize a good plan with established outcomes and performance measures. Later in the
48 report it suggested that the County not get hung up on the process.
49
Planning and Development Committee, 12/08/98, Page 2
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
Sutter responded that there are contradictions in the raw comments. Those comments
were distilled down into what achieved general consensus.
Brenner commented on packet page 143. Funds should not go to existing organizations.
Also, she agreed with the comment that there were too many Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
employees and not enough consultants. She also agreed with a fiscal specialist to control the
money contract for grant writer. Regarding keeping the WAC updated and informed, the County
is not doing it alone. She agreed with the WAC comments and still feels uncomfortable with
COG'S control of the WAC.
Sutter stated that the status of the WAC is in suspension. It will be up to those people if
they want to continue.
Brenner stated other things she liked, including organizing a good plan, specifying
achievable and measurable goals, spend the first year developing the plan, recommend use of
local experts and contracts, identify costs with source of funds, and early involvement of the
public. There was also discussion about having deadlines and meeting deadlines. She supported
that also.
Hoag questioned whether Dawson's points are argument points in the case or judgement
summary points from the judge. Dawson stated that they are judgement summary points.
Hoag stated that it matches what she has been reading. The problem was because of the
plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) chose not to list the fish. The
environmentalists supported the plan, but still wanted the fish listed. The County can learn from
what happened in Oregon. They need to address the issues listed.
Dawson stated that she has a copy of the case.
Brown stated that he liked the WAC recommendations. Under the plan elements,
sentence #1 on packet page 141, was appropriate.
Sutter stressed that funding needed to develop the scope of work.
Hoag stated that only 13 people were there. Sutter responded that when it comes to
achieving consensus, it is a good size number.
Brenner stated that she liked the public involvement section and the funding section. She
also agreed with the data management section and the process section. For the plan element,
enforcement was very important. A slap on the wrist is not going to stop people from polluting.
Sutter stated that she would assume that these are acceptable recommendations, and
should be forwarded and distributed to all involved in the development of the plan. She
questioned whether there were any objections.
Nelson stated that he hoped he could integrate the recommendations into the plan.
Brenner stated that they have to have inclusive public involvement and questioned how
they go forward with that.
Planning and Development Committee, 12/08/98, Page 3
1
2 Sutter stated that after December 31St, there will not be a WAC under COG. They will
3 meet one more time about whether or not they want to continue their operation in some other
4 manner, either the County's jurisdictions or as a private entity. Those questions will have to be
5 decided by that group. They are not under anyone's jurisdiction.
6
7 Brenner stated that the County should have a defined public process. She suggested
8 asking the WAC members and others if they would be interested in setting up a County Water
9 Advisory Committee. She wanted a spokesperson to talk to and ask questions of. A committee
10 should include different aspects of the public in its representation.
12 Sutter stated that they would soon be receiving a proposed structure for the planning unit
13 under ESHB 2514 from the initiating governments. Some of Brenner's concerns would be
14 addressed through that process. The Council needs to wait and see what will be proposed for
15 that process.
16
17 Brown stated that during the discussions about ESHB 2514, they wanted representatives
18 of agencies. The County has to be careful about getting too many agencies with too much
19 authority. It may ruin the process.
20
21 Sutter stated that for ESHB 2514, they need to wait and see what will be proposed for the
22 planning unit and how it will function. She understood that it would be based on a caucus
23 structure. The State agencies would get together and send one person to sit at the table and
24 represent the State.
25
26 OTHER BUSINESS
27
28 Nelson stated that they would be dealing with the Ordinance extending the Interim
29 Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2.24A, on a one year interim basis for those fee lands within
30 the Lummi Reservation and within the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (AB98 -415)
31 at the evening's regular Council meeting. He questioned the ramifications if they don't make it
32 permanent.
33
34 Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that they could do
35 that. They have tried to work with the Lummi Tribe. There have been employee turnovers and
36 postponed meetings. They could go ahead and install permanent zoning. It would not be in sync
37 with what the tribe wants, but they can move that through the Planning Commission. They have
38 tried very hard to work with the Tribe.
39
40 Nelson questioned whether annual interim zoning creates a problem with property
41 owners. Knapp responded that it does, although they currently have zoning.
42
43 Nelson stated that one of the zoning issues was water quantity. He questioned whether
44 permanent zoning has an impact on that.
45
46 Sue Blake, Water Resources Planner, stated that it depends on the zoning that is installed.
47 Under the current zoning, subdivisions are possible, as well as considerable additional
48 development. The amount of water will not supply the full potential of subdivision build -out.
49 To that extent, they have a challenge of how to allocate that resource. They were working on
Planning and Development Committee, 12/08/98, 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
that. They are unsure of all the parameters defining the quantity available and how it would be
distributed.
Knapp stated that subdivision would not be possible in that one has to have water to
proceed, whether there was a permanent or interim zoning designation. They would not approve
those plats without adequate water. The Health Department would have to confirm whether
there was adequate water. He concurred that it does have an impact.
Sutter stated that this item was to be discussed at a public hearing during the evening
regular Council meeting.
Nelson requested that information be included in the staff report at the evening meeting.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Committee, 12/08/98, Page 5