HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning July 14 19982
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Planning and Development Committee
July 14, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Committee Chair Kathy Sutter in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Absent:
None
13 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
14
15 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CODE,
16 CHAPTER 16.08, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA), AS
17 REQUIRED BY THE NOVEMBER 10, 1997, AMENDMENTS TO THE
18 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SEPA RULES (AB98 -253)
19
20 Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Land Use Manager, stated that the State
21 law has changed and required the counties to make amendments. Last November, the Washington
22 Administrative Code (WAC) required the counties to adopt amendments by May. Whatcom County is a
23 couple of months behind. It was taken to the Environmental Review Committee as required by the
24 County's regulations and State law. There is nothing substantial. There are some changes to the
25 exemptions.
26
27 Sutter stated that some of the terminology was changed.
28
29 Middleton stated that they do three -parry contracts when doing environmental impact statements
30 (EIS). The County administers the EIS, a consultant writes it on behalf of the County, and the developer
31 pays for it. The developer pays the County, who then in turn pays the consultants. The State and
32 federal auditors have red - flagged their checkbook accounts because the ordinance does not establish that
33 the deputy SEPA official has the authority to write checks on behalf of the accounts, even though they
34 have been doing it for 20 years. The State Auditor wants it specified in the ordinance. They will work
35 with the committee to draft language. It would go under section 16.08.120, regarding the preparation of
36 the EIS. They could just add a simple statement.
37
38 Sutter suggested adding section D. Middleton stated that would work. He will bring draft
39 language to the regular Council meeting.
40
41 Brenner stated that she did not notice anything of significance in the changed ordinance. They
42 don't have to have a public hearing on it. Middleton stated that they did not. It is simply a clean -up.
43 They are already doing administratively the changes that are proposed.
44 Nelson questioned the project fee in section 16.08 200. Middleton stated that there is a
Planning and Development Committee, 7/14/98, Page 1
I difference in the Unified Fee Schedule between small projects and large projects. The County should
2 redefine several things that were defined several years ago. As they have adopted them, they've lost the
3 exhibits along with it. They need to add those back in as exhibits. They want to pull all fees out of the
4 ordinance and reference the Unified Fee Schedule.
5
6 Sutter stated that on page 174, section 16.08.045, employee titles should be capitalized.
7
8 Sutter questioned the reason people are protesting ordinance #97 -031.
9
10 Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, explained the situation surrounding these
11 protests. The notice that the State law requires, once the State Department of Ecology (DOE) approves
12 the shorelines amendments, were not followed. They have nothing to do with this issue. Council staff
13 has already issued a public notice.
14
15 Hoag questioned whether the Council would have to take any action. Frakes stated that the only
16 thing it affects is the appeal procedure. The appeal period started when the public notice is published.
17
18 Nelson questioned whether there have been actions done based on the approval and whether it is
19 still legal to take action. Frakes stated that once DOE approves it, it becomes an operative ordinance. It
20 could still be challenged, but it is appropriate to consider it an operative ordinance.
21
22 Nelson moved to recommend approval.
23
24 Hoag questioned whether there were any changes except what the State law required. Middleton
25 stated that some exceptions have been broadened.
26
27 John Guenther, Planning and Development Services Deputy SEPA official, stated that
28 redundancies have been eliminated regarding review. The exemption level has already been established
29 in other parts of the County and there is no overlap.
30
31 Middleton stated that, currently, the SEPA official has to review projects that the Critical Area
32 Ordinance (CAO) folks are already reviewing. It is a redundant process that costs $155 for someone to
33 come in and do certain size projects. They are trying to remove the overlap. The exemption level had
34 already been established in other parts of the County. They are broadening them.
35
36 Brenner questioned whether there are more exemptions, or if things have just been moved
37 around. Roland stated that was correct.
38
39 Hoag questioned whether a procedure would be reviewed by CAO or SEPA when, in the past, it
40 was required by both. Middleton stated that the CAO establishes buffers and certain requirements in
41 critical areas. The State Environmental Policy Act does not. It only looks at significant impacts. It is
42 more appropriate to look at those through the Critical Areas Ordinance. On page 177 of packet are the
43 changes to the categorical exemptions. The WAC requires the least redundant review as possible. That
44 is what they are trying to do.
Planning and Development Committee, 7/14/98, 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
Guenther stated that they default to the State categorical exemption threshold levels. Most of the
categorical exemption levels that existed before were written prior to CAO and other regulations.
Hoag asked about effect of striking out language. Middleton stated that the exemption levels are
countywide, not just in the watershed.
Hoag questioned the thresholds. Middleton stated that the lower thresholds were eliminated.
The 30,000 feet has always been there, outside of the watershed.
Middleton stated that the vast majority of changes are to bring the ordinance up to State code.
Brenner stated that the specifics are important.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Sutter stated that she received a letter from Mike Donahue regarding Iowa Heights Road.
She will check into it. They don't want the road paved. They want it graveled.
Hoag questioned whether the changes in the SEPA ordinance were discretionary.
Guenther stated that no discretionary changes have been made.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:27 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Sutter, Council Member
Planning and Development Committee, 7/14/98, Page 3