HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole Comp Plan April 8 19971 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Special Committee of the Whole
3
4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SESSION
5
6 April 8, 1997
7
8 The meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m. by Council Chair Ward Nelson in the
9 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
10
11 Also Present: Absent:
12 Marlene Dawson None
13 Barbara Brenner
14 Tom Brown
15 Alvin Starkenburg
16 Kathy Sutter
17 Robert Imhof
18
19 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
20
21 1. WORK SESSION ON THE DRAFT WHATCOM COUNTY
22 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB96 -051A THROUGH 051K)
23
24 Nelson began the meeting with Chapter 8, Resource Lands. Dan Gibson, Prosecuting
25 Attorney's Office, gave a brief overview.
26
27 Brown moved to strike on page 8 -1 the word "cutting" and replace it with "harvesting" in
28 the Introduction section.
29
30 Nelson seconded.
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 Brenner stated that, unless three Council members agree to an amendment proposed by a
35 Council member, they aren't even allowed to discuss them. Nelson stated each Council member
36 brought forward his or her suggested amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, a rather thick
37 document. Each of the Council members were to review all the proposed amendments from the
38 other Council members. They were each to designate which of all the proposed amendment they
39 agreed with. Those amendments with at least three approvals, which is still a minority of the
40 Council, would be entertained at the meeting. They could spend a lot of time going page by
41 page, and end up spending a lot of years working on the document. Brenner stated there were
42 many Council members who did not understand certain proposed amendments. There has not
43 been an opportunity to discuss them. Nelson stated if it is significant, each Council member has
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 1
I the opportunity to bring amendments forward at the final meeting. He would hope that all
2 questions could be answered by the time they get done with the work sessions.
3
4 Sutter moved to amend on page 8 -6, Policy 8A -10 to read: Use a "Resource Protection
5 Zone" designation in where appropriate as one way to achieve this
6 goal."
7
8 This item was not seconded.
9
10 Sutter moved to amend on page 8 -8, policy 8D -4 to read: "Recognize the importance of
11 surface mining W as aft of eonElug1im an agricultural practices and when the activity
12 contributes to enhancing subsequent agricultural uses on the property."
13
14 Dawson seconded.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 Sutter moved to amend on page 8 -9, policy 8D -10 to read: "In the "Resource Protection
19 Zone" require nen aoeukufa4ly related developm new subdivisions in the Rufal 5 aer-ea an
20 on tracts of 20 acres and larger to
21 cluster development with the r-emai de leaving the majority of the land available for open space
22 and agricultural uses."
23
24 Brown seconded.
25
26 Gibson explained the effect of the above motion by stating there are two parts to this, one
27 being the new subdivisions and the other a majority. Sutter stated it removes the 20 %, which is a
28 development standard and doesn't belong in the Comp Plan. This doesn't specifically reference
29 cluster development, which she would have liked. Nelson stated they previously dealt with this
30 on land use, and changed it to 30 %. Gibson clarified it was 20% with an opportunity for more.
31 Nelson stated he leaned toward that type of language. He questioned whether that would be
32 agreeable to Sutter. Sutter stated it would not.
33
34 Starkenburg stated the issue is when they start talking about non - agriculture related
35 issues. That can be pretty broad. He asked Gibson to explain how broad that could possibly be.
36 Gibson stated the concern is that the term development is used to non - agriculturally related
37 development. The definition is fairly broad. He questioned the intended definition of
38 "development" in the resource protection areas. He questioned whether the intention of the
39 definition was subdivision or a broader sense of development. Nelson questioned whether the
40 definition may mean more than just subdivision. Gibson stated that was correct. "Development"
41 as defined in the glossary is a broader term. If they are intending to talk about subdivision, then
42 they should be more specific.
43
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 2
1 Nelson stated his concern was with the 20 %, and preferred to go up to 30 %. Brenner
2 stated she would rather see the same language that was used in the other place.
4 Motion failed 5 -2 with Sutter and Brown in favor.
5
6 Imhof moved to use the same language from Chapter Two regarding up to 30 percent of
7 available land: "In the "Resource Protection Zone: require non - agriculturally related
8 development in the Rural 5 acre and 10 acre zones located on 20 or up to 30 percent of the
9 available land on tracts 20 acres and larger, with the remainder available for open space and
10 agricultural uses. Development standards shall provide flexibility to achieve development
11 _potential in case of natural limitations."
12
13 Nelson seconded.
14
15 There was discussion regarding the definition and types of development and what
16 development would be allowed with the 20% restriction. Nelson questioned the remaining area,
17 which is the Resource Protection Zone reserve tract, outside of the 20 %. He questioned the
18 definition of the Resource Protection Zone. Brenner stated nothing precluded developing in
19 sections. Nelson stated the question is what one can do on the reserve tract acreage. He
20 questioned staff's intent when they developed the language and whether there was a definition
21 for Resource Protection Zone. Gibson stated it is not defined, and clarified that the intent was for
22 the preservation of large parcels for ag uses and other spin -off uses associated with ag use. He
23 questioned the Council's intent by restricting the reserve tract to non -ag development and
24 whether they intend to prevent clearing activity or to prevent a subdivision. Michael Knapp,
25 Planning and Development Services Director, stated that the available open space /ag can also be
26 reserved for urban growth. Gibson stated there is a definition of development in the glossary.
27 Non - agriculturally related development shall be limited to the 20 %. That makes the reserve tract
28 off limit to non - agriculturally related development. It is for development, including agriculture
29 and not including subdivisions. Knapp clarified that the permitted uses for the ag zone are dairy
30 raising, livestock, public facilities, surface mining, timber harvesting, and other conditional uses.
31 Starkenburg stated there is a gray area, and asked staff and Council members to continue to
32 work on it. The Council can continue on with the day's work, knowing they have to take a closer
33 look at the subject and see if it is covered or if they need to do additional work. The issue is the
34 concern over the allowed activities in the 80% reserve tract, or whatever that percent would be.
35 If Knapp's definition is as he read and all that can take place, then they are covered. He
36 requested verification.
37
38 Brown asked what would happen if 50% of the land is not usable for ag and asked if they
39 can be incorporated for housing. Also, Council needs to help the people who have not been able
40 to make a sustainable living in ag areas by allowing them to sell off one or two acres
41 occasionally to support their income.
42
43 Knapp stated that the ag uses in rural zones should apply instead of the ag uses in the ag
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 3
I zones, because most of these areas are rural zones. Sutter asked how much of the land must be
2 unfarmable before the landowner can opt out. Knapp stated the Council could set the criteri.
3 Gibson stated that is best addressed in the development regulations.
4
5 Motion to change language as moved by Imhof carried unanimously.
6
7 Brown moved on page 8 -9, Policy 8D -9, to replace language: "Encourage low intensity
8 recreational activities which sustain and are compatible with agricultural uses."
9
10 Dawson seconded.
11
12 Motion carried 4 -3 with Imhof, Nelson and Sutter opposed.
13
14 Gibson noted scriveners error on page 8 -11, one paragraph above the Forest Resource
15 Lands section, which should read: "Map 24 22 designated forest lands for purposes of long -term
16 commercial significance ". Council concurred.
17
18 Gibson stated that Sandy Mackie stated that Council should include the state and federal
19 forest lands in the Comprehensive Plan. This would give the County a voice before the state or
20 federal decision was made. This should be made on page 8 -12 and the map.
21
22 Nelson moved to include federal forest lands on the forest resources map and include
23 language in background summary of the total acreage that includes federal forest lands.
24
25 Imhof seconded.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 Gibson noted Policy 8F -8, on page 8 -16, that the County may not have the ability to
30 manage and privatize Department of Natural Resource (DNR) lands. There is no impact to
31 leaving the language in the document.
32
33 There was discussion regarding the effect of Policy 8G -6 on page 8 -17 on the Lake
34 Whatcom Watershed. Imhof stated this is appropriate for the development regulations. Council
35 can adopt stricter regulations for the Lake Whatcom Watershed through the development
36 regulations.
37
38 Gibson gave a background summary of the Mineral Resources section of Chapter 8. The
39 main issue is what an MRL designation means; Policy 8P -4 is the heart of the procedure of that
40 meaning. The issues have been mining in ag zones. Mining could be allowed in ag zones if not
41 in prime ag soil zones. There is also an issue of mining within the ag zone on prime soils. The
42 Planning Commission believes that mining should not occur in ag zones on prime ag soils.
43 Lastly is the issue of horizontal time of travel of water for wellhead protection areas.
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 4
2 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
4 Gibson continued to state that staff recommended a 10 -year time of travel, serving as an
5 exclusionary boundary for MRL designation; the Planning Commission stated 15 years. The
6 Planning and Development Committee preferred a five -year exclusion with limited mining
7 between the five and ten year points. Also, there are approximately a dozen requests for MRL
8 designation.
9
10 Brenner stated there has been a bill proposed in the legislature that would make it
11 automatic, within any Mineral Resource Land, to mine. It would take the authority away from
12 the County. She questioned what that would do to County zoning. Gibson stated it is a bill
13 that's been in front of the legislature a number of times. He didn't know whether it would pass.
14 It would make mining a permitted use in an MRL designation. Nelson stated those bills deal
15 with the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) activities. They pertain to land of three
16 or more acres. If the Council states language regarding the County as lead agency, then the
17 permitted uses could only extend up to three acres. Brenner questioned whether a larger
18 permitted area that only uses 3 acres would keep the jurisdiction away from the State. Gibson
19 stated, as he understood it, if it is subject to County reclamation requirements, then it does not fit
20 the State definition of surface mining and would not be covered by the bill. Sutter stated that bill
21 says a designated MRL is automatically permitted. That is the concern. Once the County
22 designates the area, it loses control. Gibson stated the County also requires project - specific
23 SEPA review. He could not tell the Council for sure that it would not affect the County. If that
24 happens, then the legal advice would be for the Council to revisit what they have done. If the
25 legislature is putting more meaning into an MRL than what they intended, then there is nothing
26 that prevents the Council from rethinking what they've done regarding MRL's. Nelson stated his
27 understanding was that anything over three acres would become automatic jurisdiction of
28 MRL's. He questioned whether that was Starkenburg's understanding. Starkenburg did not
29 comment because he did not want the lead the Council in some direction. Brown stated he was
30 concerned whether they could contest the MRL land use designation. Gibson stated the bill talks
31 about an allowed use being reviewed for project - specific impacts, which may be conditioned to
32 mitigate significant adverse impacts within the context of a site plan approval, however such
33 review shall not revisit the question of land use.
34
35 Brown moved on page 8 -20 to include at the end of the last sentence, second paragraph:
36 "...if reclaimed properly, to create wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat, productive ag land; bark
37 sites, housing, industrial sites, etc."
38
39 Dawson seconded.
40
41 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
42
43 Dawson moved to add new policy #5 under 8H, on page 8 -21, to read: 'Allocate MRL
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 5
1 zoning to consistently allow a 20 -25 year supply of sand and gravel in order to conserve
2 aggregate resources and to also ensure a competitive market."
3
4 Sutter seconded.
5
6 There was discussion on the concept and intent of the language of the policy. Dawson
7 stated the concern was if the designated 50 year supply was used up in ten years, there will be
8 problems.
9
10 Dawson accepted a friendly amendment to change her amendment to read: "...and which
11 could ensure a competitive market."
12
13 Motion failed 3 -4 with Brenner, Dawson and Sutter in favor.
14
15 Dawson moved to modify Policy 8J -6 on page 8 -21 to read: "Address neighboring
16 property owner concerns in part by establishing reclamation or- ether and liability bonds through
17 the permit process."
18
19 Sutter seconded.
20
21 Brown moved to amend by striking "...and liability bonds..." Gibson stated the question
22 is whether an operator could get a bond for protecting the water. He suggested, from a policy
23 level, that Council should address the issue by establishing financial responsibility. They should
24 use a more specific tool, the development regulations, to define what that means. The practical
25 question is whether liability bonds available for certain things or would this be covered under a
26 general liability insurance policy. He was not in the position to say which types are available for
27 which activities.
28
29 Dawson changed her amendment to read, "...and a demonstration of financial
30 responsibility through the permit process."
31
32 Nelson stated Brown's amendment had no second. Dawson's new amendment stands.
33
34 Brenner stated they need liability bonding. There are other places that use liability
35 bonding. It puts the onus on the owner /operator and not on the insurance company after- the -fact.
36 They can't reclaim polluted water once it is damaged. If they do enough of a liability bonding
37 on a good operator, then it is an incentive to be a better operator. Knapp read policy 8J -6,
38 submitted to the Council previously. There was further discussion.
39
40 Dawson withdrew her motion and moved the Planning Department's amendment to
41 policy 8J -6, which states: "Require security to cover the cost of reclamation prior to extraction
42 activity and insurance policies or a similar type of protection as appropriate to cover other
43 potential liabilities associated with the proposed activity."
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 6
1
2 Imhof seconded.
3
4 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
5
6 Gibson addressed Policy 8H -4, page 8 -21, and suggested moving this to policies under
7 Goal 8N, which specifically addresses river gravel.
8
9 Imhof moved Gibson's suggestion.
10
11 Nelson seconded.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 Sutter moved to amend Policy 8L -2 on page 8 -23 to add at the end of the policy: "Avoid
16 the use of designated agricultural land for mineral or soil mining purposes unless the soils can be
17 restored to productive capabilities as soon as possible after mining occurs or unless the land has a
18 higher resource value for mining than for agriculture."
19
20 Brown seconded.
21
22 Dawson asked how the higher resource value will be determined. Sutter stated that a
23 point would come where no one would dispute there was a higher resource value for mining
24 resource lands. Nelson stated that if, in the future, that were the scenario, it could be dealt with
25 by future Councils through zoning changes.
26
27 Motion failed 3 -4 with Starkenburg, Brown and Sutter in favor.
28
29 Brenner moved a new policy under 8N, page 8 -26, to read: "Create a lobbying
30 organization to influence federal and state governments to open W river mining. Enact policies,
31 ordinances, and resolutions to support this. Require regular, frequent public meetings with state
32 and federal officials and state and federal elected officials to intensify lobbying efforts. Create
33 Council sub - committee to insure pressure for river gravel removal is increased. Work with
34 administration to consolidate these efforts."
35
36 Brown seconded.
37
38 Sutter proposed an amendment where policy would say, "...work with other jurisdictions
39 and other agencies to create opportunities for river mining... "; the rest would be an action item to
40 accomplish the policy. Brenner accepted that as a friendly amendment.
41
42 Sutter stated the policy would read: "Work with state and federal agencies to develop
43 greater opportunities for river gravel extraction." The rest would become an action item.
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 7
1
2 After Knapp pointed out if this were to be approved, policies 8N -8 and 8N -9 would be
3 redundant, Sutter restated her amendment would read: "Work with other jurisdictions and related
4 agencies to reduce or eliminate redundant regulations and streamline the permitting process and
5 provide greater opportunities for river gravel extraction."
6
7 Brown suggested another amendment as a friendly amendment to add: "...and protection
8 of farmland or ag land ". Brenner accepted this as another friendly amendment, which would
9 read: "...to enhance other important resources, specifically agricultural ".
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13 Gibson suggested on Goal 8P, page 8 -28, deleting the second to last sentence: "Promote
14 the best use of available mineral resources." because it is redundant, being covered under 8H -2.
15
16 (Clerks Note: End of tape one, side B)
17
18 Nelson moved to delete " ."
19
20 Imhof seconded.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 Dawson moved on page 8 -29, Policy 8P -4 (3), to change the language to read:
25 "notification to neighboring property owners within JW 1.000 ft to insure opportunity for input
26 and/or appeal'.
27
28 Imhof seconded.
29
30 Motion carried 6 -1 with Starkenburg opposed.
31
32 Sutter moved on page 8 -29 to change the Mineral Resources - Designation Criteria
33 section. Sutter was willing to postpone this change until the amendment process immediately
34 following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan with the guarantee that it would be handled
35 then.
36
37 Gibson suggested on page 8 -29, policy 8P -4(3) to add language, "...opportunity for
38 written comment input..." It would happen at the administrative input phase. Brenner
39 questioned whether input was written or oral. Gibson stated if there is an administrative permit
40 phase where there is not a hearing, then they would want to specify they are talking about written
41 comment. There could not be any oral input if there is not a hearing. The oral input would come
42 in through a hearing.
43
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 8
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
Dawson moved to add language: "...opportunity for written input... ".
Sutter seconded.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Gibson suggested on page 8 -29, policy 8P -4, adding language: "Allow mining within
designated MRLs through zoning12lus a discretionary and administrative permit process
requiring:... ". This clarifies that an MRL designation is followed by an MRL zoning, which is
followed by the permit process.
Sutter moved to add language: "— designated MRLs through zoning and a
discretionary... ".
Nelson seconded.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Gibson suggested changing language on Policy 8P -5, page 8 -29, to read: "Utilize the
adopted Mineral Resource Area (MRA) classification system during county review of land
development projects in order to avoid development incompatible with
mineral resource r-eseFves extraction ".
Sutter moved to change language as above.
Imhof seconded.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Gibson stated in the Design Criteria under #5, a comma is missing after "...proven
resource... ".
Sutter moved placing a comma after "proven resource ".
Brown seconded.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Brown moved on page 8 -30 to delete #7 at the top of the page: "MRL Designations
should not occur within the 100 -year floodplain, except those areas designated for gravel bar
resources."
Sutter seconded.
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 9
1
2 Motion carried 5 -2 with Brenner and Dawson opposed.
3
4 Dawson moved to change language of #7 on page 8 -30 to read: "MRL designations
5 should not occur within the 100 -year floodplain, except where it is feasible to create water
6 reserve areas or for those areas designated for gravel bar resources.
7
8 Brenner seconded.
9
10 Dawson withdrew her motion.
11
12 Brenner moved Dawson's above motion.
13
14 Motion was not seconded.
15
16 Brown moved on page 8 -30 through 8 -32 to choose Alternative B.
17
18 Imhof seconded.
19
20 Motion failed 2 -4 with Brown and Imhof in favor and Starkenburg abstaining.
21
22 Nelson moved to adopt Alternative A with an amendment to the language at the top of
23 page 8 -31 to read: "...may be identified as an AG /MRL for no more than five years and shall not
24 be designated as MRL within this time frame ".
25
26 Sutter seconded.
27
28 Jeff Griffin, Planning Department, clarified the intent of the committee was to hold the
29 designation for a full five years.
30
31 Nelson accepted Sutter's friendly amendment, which was to adopt Alternative A, with an
32 amendment to the language at the top of page 8 -31 to read: "...may be identified as an AG/MRL
33 for no more than five years . During the
34 five year data collection..." and eliminate the language in the last sentence of the paragraph
35 which begins "...listed above, no ° than two y ° af- °r gie fi perie "
36
37 Dawson seconded.
38
39 Nelson requested clarification of the need for another study regarding future additional
40 mineral resources. Gibson responded Council would then default to #12, which states
41 designation shall not be located within a prime farmland soil area.
42
43 Sutter suggested an amendment to read at the end of the first paragraph: "This study
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 10
I be updated every five years to ensure an ongoing twentY-year supply of quality aggregate
2 material."
3
4 Griffin suggested amending the action plan item #11 on page 8 -37 by adding language to
5 read: "Update the study as needed as practical, given the results of the initial study."
6
7 Nelson so moved.
8
9 Sutter seconded.
10
11 Gibson noted there is not a time frame designated for the study. Imhof suggested adding
12 language to that last sentence: "...given the results of the initial study for no more than five years
13 based on the outcome of the study ".
14
15 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
16
17 Nelson moved Alternative A as amended above.
18
19 Brown asked if there would be a limit to study costs. Sutter responded that this would be
20 done during the development regulation process.
21
22 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
23
24 Gibson brought up the issue of the designated wellhead protection areas, #8, page 8 -30, to
25 discover if Council wished to deal with this item. The consensus was not to do so.
26
27 Sutter moved amending on page 8 -34, #2, to read: "Direct the Task Fvrw Advisory
28 Committee to review the existing Comprehensive Plan and... ".
29
30 Dawson seconded.
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 Sutter stated there are no action items for cluster development provision and transfer of
35 development rights to protect ag lands. Gibson and Starkenburg stated this was not addressed
36 during the Planning and Development Committee discussions. Imhof stated this needs to be
37 reviewed during the amendment process next year. Council concurred.
38
39 There was discussion regarding Agricultural/Open Space Tax Classification. Gibson also
40 commented. Council concurred this also needs to be examined during the amendment process:
41
42 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A)
43
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 11
1 Brown moved to amend on page 8 -36 by moving item #9 to the two -year study period,
2 where it would become item #8.
3
4 Dawson seconded.
5
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8 (Clerk's Note: A lunch break was taken at 1: 30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 2:05
9 p.m. with Imhof absent. Begin tape three)
10
11 Sutter stated she was concerned with maps in the MRL section, specifically Map 20 vs
12 Map 21 regarding ag soils. Mackie responded by stating both maps were referenced.
13
14 Mackie discussed with Council the process for tonight's possible adoption of the Plan.
15 Knapp stated two weeks is too short a time to complete Council's requested changes. Mackie
16 recommended no finalization of the ordinance at tonight's meeting.
17
18 Sutter stated she wanted to know which soils map they are going to use, Map 20 or Map
19 21. They are not identical. One is based on soil conservation and one is based on the LESA
20 classification system. Mackie stated they are reference maps and both were considered. In terms
21 of identifying ag related issues such as the consideration of prime soils under the WAC, they
22 have both the soil conservation service maps and the LESA maps, which provide different
23 information and help to generally understand how the County is laid out. Neither is
24 determinative with respect to the ag issues. Both are informative. That is why both are included.
25 Starkenburg stated the Planning and Development Committee had discussions on this subject.
26 The committee brought forward the recommendation that the LESA system needed to be further
27 clarified and worked on. That was an action item. The committee was not ready to say they had
28 worked through it.
29
30 Sutter had several concerns regarding designated forestlands map, Map 22. They decided
31 they would include the federal forestlands, and they need to be on the designation map. They
32 need to be shown as designated. Starkenburg stated they would make the motion at the evening
33 meeting, then continue to work on it. All those types of changes would be carried forward.
34 Sutter stated those concerns should be brought forward to direct staff that is part of their task.
35 Nelson questioned whether there was consensus among the Council members to include the
36 federal forestry issue be recognized in the mapping.
37
38 The Council concurred.
39
40 Nelson then moved to Utilities, Chapter 5. Sutter was concerned on page 5 -5, Policy
41 5A -2, and moved to amend to read: "When proposed within 300 lateral feet of existing utility
42 corridors, require eenventional and elusteF future residential subdivisions development to have a
43 "hold harmless" agreement attached to the face of the plat deed, the intent of which is to facilitate
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 12
1 the unhampered continuation of legal and customary operations associated with the production,
2 transmission, or distribution of electric power, natural gas, petroleum, water, or
3 telecommunication systems.",
4
5 Brown seconded.
6
7 Brenner proposed a friendly amendment to change language to "future residential
8 development ". Sutter accepted.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11
12 Brenner pointed out on page 5 -19, Policy 55 -1, the need to revise the solid waste Comp
13 Plan due to litigation. She said she would make this an action item to read: "Review and revise
14 the solid waste Comp Plan due to litigation.
15
16 Nelson seconded.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 Brenner moved to reinstate "encourage" instead of "support" on page 5 -20, Policy 5T -1.
21
22 Brown seconded.
23
24 Motion failed 3 -3 with Dawson, Sutter and Starkenburg opposed.
25
26 Gibson spoke to various concerns and information regarding MRLs and Map 23. He
27 reviewed the handout from April 1 prepared by Jeff Griffin regarding applicants and
28 recommendations. He resumed with Columbia Aggregate. Council had selected Alternative A
29 within the ag zone on prime soils. Jeff Griffin clarified the list was prepared listing sites
30 receiving additional requests after Planning Commission's recommendation. A portion of the
31 wellhead protection area does fall into this area (Sumas). Gibson stated recommendation #2
32 (Columbia Aggregate) and #3 (Boundary Aggregate) may be affected by Council's decision
33 regarding designation.
34
35 Dawson moved to place Columbia Aggregate into the ag MRL zone pending the outcome
36 of this study.
37
38 Sutter seconded.
39
40 Sutter stated the reason she supported the motion was because this was one of the largest
41 areas of mixed sand and gravel. She did not want to see it have some kind of designation so they
42 have an opportunity to study it. Brenner questioned whether this was the same area in which the
43 County has been in court to prevent them from doing mining in that area. Gibson stated this is
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 13
1 the same site. They were probably applying for a portion or all under a Conditional Use Permit
2 (CUP), which was denied. Brenner questioned whether this would be the County changing its
3 position, opening up wellhead protection of Sumas to potential problems, and giving up control
4 over where the gravel goes. Nelson stated they don't have any control where the gravel goes.
5 The designation is for MRL Ag, which requires a study to be completed to determine need. If
6 there is a need, then there is still the process of standards and zoning. Sutter questioned why the
7 CUP was denied. Gibson stated the CUP issue revolved around the use of the term "limited." It
8 was deemed by the Hearing Examiner, and affirmed by the Council, that the proposed extraction
9 was not limited. That was in the context of the CUP rules for extraction in the ag zone. Nelson
10 questioned whether local government had the ability to limit extraction, if they so wish. Gibson
11 stated there are a variety of devices to limit extraction. This is not the place to discuss all of
12 those because it would take a long time. There are mechanisms. Starkenburg stated he will be
13 abstaining from voting on this section.
14
15 Brown stated this item was not requested by the owners. Gibson stated it was requested
16 to Planning Commission, who did not include it in its recommendation to Council. They have
17 not requested it since then. There is not a live request on the table at this point. If the County
18 Council wants to pick up what the Planning Commission had before them, then they could.
19 Brown questioned whether the rest were live requests. Gibson stated they were.
20
21 Sutter questioned whether they can designate MRL's if they don't have a live request.
22 Gibson stated that was not correct.
23
24 Brenner stated it was denied by the Planning Commission. Gibson stated that was
25 correct. They recommended it be denied.
26
27 Dawson stated the Planning Commission did not have Alternative A before them.
28
29 Motion carried 3 -2 with Brenner and Brown opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
30
31 Sutter moved to place Boundary Aggregate into the ag MRL zone pending the outcome
32 of the study as above.
33
34 Dawson seconded.
35
36 Motion carried 4 -1 with Brenner opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
37
38 Gibson stated the following requests did not go before the Planning Commission. They
39 came up since that time. They are not included on the map. There was no Planning Commission
40 process on these. There had been legal notice provided in the month of March.
41
42 The following applicants were discussed:
43
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 14
1 Request #4, Pit #103, Enviro -Chem Technologies at the south end of Lake Whacom:
2
3 Gibson stated the area is zoned R2A. The current status of that operation is a non -
4 conforming use, with a DNR reclamation permit.
5
6 Griffin stated they did not have a DNR reclamation permit. It is strictly non - conforming
7 status.
8
9 Gibson stated the recommendation is to decline the MRL designation.
10
11 Brown stated this is a valuable resource. It is needed to eliminate a lot of transportation
12 costs. He was not in favor of the MRL designation. He questioned whether the pit will still be
13 able to continue to operate on a limited basis if it is not designated as an MRL. Griffin stated
14 they could at their historic rate of extraction.
15
16 Sutter. stated it doesn't meet criteria #10. She questioned whether it meets criteria #6.
17
18 Griffin stated it is in R2A zoning. R2A is not considered residential zoning. It is rural
19 zoning.
20
21 No motion was made.
22
23 Request #5, Mischaikov/Brandorff:
24
25 Gibson stated this item was not in front of the Planning Commission. It is a request made
26 to the Council after that. It received publication once in the Bellingham Herald. It is now before
27 the Committee.
28
29 Griffin questioned whether the Committee's motion included the land within the
30 wellhead protection area as it regarded requests #2 and #3.
31
32 Sutter stated what they did makes it subject to study.
33
34 Nelson questioned whether the MRL /Agricultural designation would allow local
35 jurisdictional control, or whether the State would not allow any restrictions. Gibson stated, by
36 County requirements, the requirement would not allow any disturbance larger than three acres at
37 one time, so it would not fall under the State surface mining definition.
38
39 Mackie stated none of the specific sites have been looked at with project -level
40 considerations. From a policy point -of -view, they are deciding on areas that are suitable for
41 mining, the resource is there, and meets all criteria. They've made the policy decision that the
42 impacts of mining shall be contained within the MRL areas. Noise, dust, vibration, and other
43 impacts must all be contained within the site. Thus, the MRL will be somewhat larger than the
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 15
1 area to be mined because the buffer is within the MRL and not imposed on the adjacent property.
2 The State legislature could elect to preempt the areas from all planning. The County is trying to
3 avoid that and maintain a degree of local control by saying the environmental review for this
4 determination has been at the programmatic level only. The County's level of decision - making
5 . is a general locational one, and not a project level designation.
6
7 Griffin stated they way the first sentence was written, is not a designation. He viewed it
8 as an Agricultural MRL potential area or study area. It would not be an official designation.
9 That may need to be clarified in this text. The committee deleted some language that clarified it.
10
11 Nelson asked staff to look at the language and bring it forward at the evening meeting.
12 The intent is that it be a study area. The committee concurred.
13
14 Regarding the MischaikovBrandorff request, Gibson questioned whether this request had
15 any programmatic SEPA review.
16
17 Griffin stated he did not think it had. In addition, the south half does not meet criteria
18 #10.
19
20 Sutter questioned what the staff's suggestion was. Griffin stated they need to consider
21 public process.
22
23 Brenner stated these items have not gone through the Planning Commission and should.
24
25 Gibson stated there has been relatively little public process and there has not been a
26 programmatic SEPA review of this item. He recommended not taking any action to approve at
27 this point.
28
29 Brown questioned the location of the Nooksack UGA in relation to this area. Griffin
30 stated he would provide the map.
31
32 Request #6, Cowden Gravel:
33
34 Gibson stated the property owner requested that his property be taken out of the MRL
35 designation.
36
37 Brown moved to recommend approval of the reduction agreement.
38
39 Dawson seconded.
40
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42
43 (Clerks Note: End of tape three, side A)
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 16
1
2 Request #5, Mischaikov/Brandorff:
3
4 Griffin stated the map indicates the Planning Commission's proposed final MRL and the
5 requested MRL. The map showed the proximity to the City's UGA. Some of the parcels meet
6 the criteria and some don't.
7
8 Brenner stated this is information the Planning Commission should be determining, not
9 the Council.
10
11 Brown moved to approve the top three lots and leave out the bottom two lots.
12
13 Sutter seconded.
14
15 Motion carried 4 -1 with Brenner opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
16
17 Request #7, Cowden Gravel, Maple Falls:
18
19 Gibson stated this item went through the Planning Commission. It is 70 acres in the
20 Maple Falls area.
21
22 Griffin stated the recommendation is to decline the request because it is adjacent to the
23 Glen at Maple Falls and fails to meet criteria #6. This is an area that is adjacent to a site with an
24 existing quarry. They added a number of acres already for this applicant. This extends the area
25 further into hard rock deposit. It is thatapart of the request that is adjacent to the Glen and
26 doesn't meet the criteria. The geography slants towards the Glen at Maple Falls. It needs to be
27 demonstrated that any blasting will not impact the Glen. Map #23 had a large portion of this in
28 it. This is a request for the extension to the east.
29
30 Brenner stated there are also homes on the north side that could be impacted.
31
32 No motion was made.
33
34 Request # 8, Concrete Northwest:
35
36 Gibson stated there is currently a 250 -acre site at the Siper Road, which is currently being
37 mined. This represents about 11 acres in the northeast portion of that existing site. It is located
38 in the agricultural zone.
39
40 Griffin stated it is located on prime soils. It is 11 acres adjacent to the roads. Under the
41 new Alternative A, it meets criteria #12. This item went through the Planning Commission.
42 They recommended denial because of the prime farmland. Staff is recommending endorsement
43 because it meets Council's criteria #12 under Alternative A and is bordered on two sides by an
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 17
1 existing MRL and the other two sides by roads.
2
3 Sutter moved approval.
4
5 Dawson seconded.
6
7 Motion carried 4 -1 with Brenner opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
8
9 Request #9, Honcoop Gravel:
10
11 Gibson stated this item is a proposed extension of Ag West's MRL designations located
12 to the south of Pangborn Road and west of Van Buren. It did not go through the Planning
13 Commission. The review has been minimal. It is adjacent to an existing area. There is a well -
14 site to the south.
15
16 Sutter moved approval subject to a wellhead area evaluation and site hydrological report.
17
18 Griffin stated there is language in the Comprehensive Plan that allows the County to
19 remove a designation if it is found to be in a wellhead protection area. This site technically
20 meets the criteria, however, it is highly likely it is within the wellhead protection area. Staff
21 endorsed the request because it technically met the criteria. Subsequent to that, the language was
22 removed that said it can be removed from a wellhead protection area. At this point, it would be
23 nice to see a wellhead delineation prior to making the decision on this. They have not done their
24 wellhead protection area yet. They can assume it runs northwest to southeast. They do not know
25 where the five and ten -year zones are located.
26
27 Gibson stated it is likely that the designation would be within a five -year zone. It all
28 depends on the flow of the water.
29
30 Brenner stated this did not go through the Planning Commission and has had minimal
31 evaluation. They should go through the Planning Commission.
32
33 Brown seconded.
34
35 Motion carried 3 -2 with Nelson and Brenner opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
36
37 Request #10, Van Boven and Ferndale Ready Mix/Van Boven Gravel:
38 Brad Dehaan /John Van Boven:
39
40 Gibson stated numbers 10 and 11 are two different situations. The first is a request to add
41 22 acres on the north side of Pole Road and the east side of Mecklum Road.
42
43 Griffin stated there are six parcels, two are one -acre and four are 5 -acre parcels. The four
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 18
I 5 -acre parcels are not owned by Ferndale Ready Mix. He did not know whether the property
2 owners favor this designation. On the four 5 -acre parcels, the request is by someone who does
3 not own the property. The two one -acre tracts are owned by Van Boven.
4
5 Gibson stated it would be best to split out the request into two sections, one being the two
6 one -acre parcels and the second being the four 5 -acre parcels.
7
8 There was no motion to approve the four 5 -acre parcels.
9
10 Gibson stated the two acres did not go through the Planning Commission. They are
11 adjacent to an existing site. It meets the criteria.
12
13 Sutter moved approval of the two acres.
14
15 Dawson seconded.
16
17 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
18
19 Request #11, Ferndale Ready Mix/Van Boven Gravel:
20
21 Brenner moved approval.
22
23 Brown seconded.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously with Starkenburg abstaining.
26
27 Request #12, Concrete Nor'west:
28
29 Griffin stated this request moves some of the area from the flood plain. The owner
30 proposed it. It corrects the property ownership map and the result is removing some MRL from
31 the Sumas River flood plain. They are not going to mine there anyway. It is by choice of the
32 owner.
33
34 Nelson moved approval.
35
36 Brenner seconded.
37
38 Brenner stated there are more negative health impacts from gravel mine zoning than from
39 R5A zoning. She questioned whether this would go automatically through the Planning
40 Commission if one wanted to opt out of gravel mine zoning.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously with Starkenburg abstaining.
43
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 19
1 -Gibson noted the Killam site, in the area of the gas pipes, is an existing pit site in a
2 proposed expansion area. Griffin stated that the existing pit lies to the northwest of the pipeline.
3
4 Brown moved to accept MRL designation and to stay'on the appropriate side of the
5 pipeline, no closer than 125 ft of the pipeline.
6
7 Sutter seconded.
8
9 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed and Starkenburg abstaining.
10
11 Gibson clarified that designations that would be within a wellhead protection area that
12 fall within a five -year zone of contribution, it would not be within the MRL designation per
13 designation criteria #9 or any of them.
14
15 Chapter 6, Transportation. Sutter spoke to her concern regarding levels of services (LOS)
16 (page 6 -4 and 5, Policy 6A -3 -8) set by letter designation and in Capital Facilities are set by
17 number designation; she requested they both be the same. Knapp responded.
18
19 Brown moved on 6 -5, policy 6A -5, to amend LOS D to a C.
20
21 Sutter seconded. After discussion, Brown withdrew his motion.
22
23 Chapter 7, Economics. Sutter moved approval on page 7 -4, Policy A -2, to read: "Foster
24 a diverse, private- sector job base which will suppe t provide family -wage jobs at the state
25 median income level..."
26
27 Dawson seconded.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 Sutter moved on page 7 -7 to delete Policy C -7, which supports the Whatcom County
32 Water Board in their efforts to develop new water resources. The Council questioned what the
33 Water Board is. Knapp stated that language was put in a long time ago. He didn't know where it
34 came from. It may have come from the Economic Development Council. They may have been
35 in error in their information.
36
37 Brown seconded.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40
41 Sutter moved to add new policy 7C -8 on page 7 -7: To participate in the creation,
42 implementation and operation of a County -wide water resources management body currently
43 being proposed for Whatcom County_,
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 20
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
Nelson seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved on page 7 -9, Policy 7E -3 to amend to read: "Rely e Use Western
Washington University as a regional resource..."
Sutter seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved on page 7 -11, Policy 7G -6 to amend to read: "...airport can expand as
necessary with using mitigation banking or other appropriate mitigation arabieved elsewhere
measures."
Brenner seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter moved on page 7 -12, Goal 7J, to amend to read: "...initiative to be pursued in an
economic strategy for Whatcom County address unemployment and underem loyment as
important issues and continue the effort to increase family wage jobs."
Brown seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B)
Sutter moved on page 7 -13, Policy 7K -2, to amend to read: "Designate adequate zoning
to allow business and industrial development where it is needed and most appropriate, including
the I -5 corridor."
Nelson seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brown moved on page 7 -13, Policy 7K -6, to amend to read: "Support industrial
development efforts "
Sutter seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 21
1 Brown stated. it was brought to his attention that the wording in the motion regarding the
2 Killam Pit did not specify a 125 -foot buffer. Nelson stated he re- stated the motion to ensure it
3 was specified.
4
5 Mackie then spoke to Custer, noting he was using a revised draft of this area, which he
6 summarized (handout on file).
7
8 Dawson moved approval of Mackie's revised draft.
9
10 Starkenburg seconded.
11
12 Discussion followed, which included development at current zoning; the planning block;
13 the well water situation regarding the master plan; zoning adoption for the site can be done
14 without owner's consent; and financial institutions approving loans for these proposed areas.
15
16 Mackie recommended language changes: "intermodal facility" instead of "intermodal
17 yard "; "transportation services" instead of "activities "; master plan "approved" not "identified ";
18 "It is also Uunique also in that it is a... "; and "A minimum 40 acre tract..." should read "A 40
19 acre minimum tract... ".
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22
23 (Clerk's Note: A five- minute break was taken)
24
25 Chapter 9, Recreation. Sutter noted a grammatical correction on page 9 -4, Policy 9B -6,
26 to clarify that sentence. Nelson requested staff make the correction by changing "lose" to
27 "impair ".
28
29 Sutter noted that on page 9 -6, Policy 9C -4 should be combined with Policy 9C -5. Nelson
30 requested staff put this in the Findings.
31
32 Sutter moved to amend on page 8, Policy 9E -2, to read: "Make evefy °ff ft to }mplem
33 Conduct a thorough study of the Nooksack River Plan (Jones and Jones, 1973) and implement
34 those elements which are beneficial and app=riate."
35
36 Nelson seconded.
37
38 Sutter amended to read: "Conduct a thorough study of the Nooksack River Plan (Jones
39 and Jones, 1973) and implement those elements which are beneficial, appropriate and
40 economically feasible ".
41
42 Nelson seconded.
43
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 22
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3 Sutter proposed a new action item #4 under General Park and Recreation Services on
4 page 9 -11: "Implement those elements of the Nooksack River Plan. (Jones and Jones, 1973)
5 which are beneficial, appropriate and economically feasible."
6
7 Dawson seconded.
8
9 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed. (The rest of the numbers will be renumbered
10 accordingly.)
11
12 Sutter moved to amend action item #8 to read: "In the residential UGAs not associated
13 with cities suburban enclaves and small towns, mechanisms are needed for acquisition ice,
14 development and subsequent maintenance and operations."
15
16 Nelson seconded.
17
18 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed.
19
20 Brenner spoke to implementing a bicycle plan and was unsure if it would fit best under
21 the chapter on recreation or transportation or both. There was no second.
22
23 Brown moved to amend on page 12 by deleting action plan #6.
24
25 Brenner seconded.
26
27 Brenner asked for a friendly amendment to delete the first four words. Brown accepted.
28 The language would read: "Require when apprepriat&opinMake it advantageous to land
29 developers and landowners to dedicate land for public use."
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 Sutter moved to amend action plan #20 to read: "Develop -a specific implementation
34 strategyi.es for those elements of the Natural Heritage Plan which are appropriate, beneficial,
35 consistent with this plan and within the County's fiscal capabilities. Review the Natural
36 Heritage Plan annually and incorporate appropriate items in the Capital Facilities planning for
37 parks and recreation in fiAufe year."
38
39 Dawson seconded.
40
41 Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed.
42
43
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 23
1 (Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side A)
2
3 Chapter 11, Environment. Sutter moved to amend on page 11 -14, paragraph 2, line 3:
4 "...a lack of adequate water storage and delivery systems to meet the
5 requirements of growth and development; concerns... ".
6 Dawson seconded.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9
10 Brown moved to delete on page 11 -6, Policy 11 -9, and replace it with: "Cooperate with
1.1 state and federal agencies and neighboring jurisdictions identifying and protecting threatened and
12 endangered fish and wildlife species and their habitat."
13
14 Brenner seconded.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 There was discussion on Policy 11A -10, page 11 -6, regarding the definition of what is
19 conservation zoning and should it be "resource protection zoning ".
20
21 Brenner moved for staff to change the above language.
22
23 Sutter moved to delete that language in the above Policy: " ".
24
25 Nelson seconded.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 Glossary, starting on page A -1. Sutter requested definitions for "cluster development"
30 and "compensation ". Sutter moved to amend the definition of forest land to read: "Land
31 primarily „she devoted to growing trees for long -term timber production on land that can be
32 economically and practically managed for such production, including Christmas trees subject to
33 the excise tax imposed under RCW 84.33. 100 through 84.33.140, , and
34 that has long -term commercial significance eemmeFeial4y.
35 (RCW 36.70A.030(8))
36
37 Dawson seconded.
38
39 Gibson commented regarding Growth Management Act (GMA) language. Mackie also
40 commented.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 24
I Sutter pointed out the definition of impact fee should include impact mitigation fee and
2 should be the same as the definition in the County -Wide Planning Policies, as well as in -fill,
3 interlocal agreement, etc. Staff will take care of this.
4
5 Sutter moved to amend the definition of mitigation to read: " measure(05 taken to
6 avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse environmental impacts to elem°„ +s , fthe
7 associated with a (project or non - project) land use action."
8
9 Sutter amended her motion to read: "Aany measure(s)s taken to avoid, minimize, or
10 compensate for adverse impacts associated with a (project or
11 non - project) land use action."
12
13 Brenner seconded.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 Sutter moved to amend the definition of parcel: "A 12ortio n esenAinuous quant of land;
18 assigned a tax assessor's parcel number in usually
19 considered a unit for development purposes." Gibson spoke to this proposed definition. Mackie
20 commented. He suggested "contiguous ". Sutter amended her amendment to read: "Contiguous
21 piece of land in single ownership or under single control, and usually considered a unit for
22 development 12=oses." Mackie suggested "common ownership" instead of "single control'.
23 Staff will work the language. Knapp noted the language is in Title 20.
24
25 (Clerk's Note: Imhof returned to the meeting at this point.)
26
27 Sutter pointed out the scrivener on the definition of restoration and noted that on rural
28 lands, it should read: "All lands which are not within as city y o an urban growth area... ". There
29 was discussion, and no motion was made to change that language. Further, she was concerned
30 with strip development: "High amounts of ;moo high density development in a linear
31 pattern ... ". Knapp responded. Mackie recommended deleting this definition.
32
33 Sutter moved to delete the definition of strip development.
34
35 Nelson seconded.
36
37 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
38
39 Sutter stated abetter definition for transportation analysis zone.
40
41 Nelson noted it was 5 p.m. and noted there are still Council member questions, as well as
42 remaining issues regarding addendums. He asked consensus of Council members. There was
43 discussion. Brenner gone. Mackie reported the target is to approve as discussed. Some items
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 25
1 may need to go before the Planning Commission.
2
3 (Clerk's Note: At this point, Brenner left the meeting.)
4
5 Starkenburg noted the Planning and Development Committee had opportunity to review
6 the Land Use requests and spoke to the issue of the study area. He was concerned about the area
7 on the west side of the intersection (where the Holiday Theater was) in particular. He did not
8 wish to put this property forward until after Custer had been discussed. He also suggested
9 wording for the action plan regarding the resource lands, which will be further worked on.
10
11 Knapp then reviewed the Addendum handout (on file). He noted the new language on
12 page 2 for page 2 -22: "...development will not occur;. This is intended to be a sprawl -
13 preventingon ... level is appropriate.te This will assure both... ".
14
15 Nelson moved approval.
16
17 Dawson seconded.
18
19 Policy 2R -2, page 2 -22: "The County and City have agreed on a joint plan or have
20 incorporated into a city /county interlocal. agreement agreed upon €eF land use and development
21 standards." Knapp clarified "agreed upon" was the area of concern, as there is only partial
22 agreement. Staff will work on this language so the County and the city "are working toward
23 agreement ".
24
25 Nelson moved approval.
26
27 Sutter pointed out the above policy and Item 2 are both bullet points and are correct as
28 written.
29
30 Nelson moved approval of both bullet points.
31
32 Imhof seconded.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Policy 2 -23, page 3: "Ne water lines shall notbe extended to serve urban levels of
37 development outside a short term betmdaF5 planning area."
38
39 Imhof moved approval.
40
41 Nelson seconded.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 26
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
Pages 2 -23 and 2 -24: "It continues to become H-A-Aff-et a challenge to find ... the
UGA for Bellingham was sized _ ensure an adequate supply of
developable residential land for the 20 year time frame, including the use of a 25% market
factor." Mackie commented, recommending Council find that as of its latest adoption,
Bellingham has done a land needs analysis which demonstrates the land necessary inside the city
and the UGA to meet OFM population projects and their assigned goal. The language was good
through mid - February. Nelson stated it should read: "
fwA ...." There was further discussion on this item. Nelson requested staff work on the language
to reflect what is current and correct.
Sue Blake, County Water Resource Manager, stated that the one item that will not be
discussed tonight will be Policy 25 -6. She requested Council discuss this now (below).
Sutter moved the language as noted on page 3 of the packet the Council is working from:
"Designate all areas within Bellingham's Urban Growth Area that are also located within the
Lake Whatcom Watershed as a resource Protection Area/Urban Growth Area."
Dawson seconded. There was discussion on the motion.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side B)
Motion carried 5 -1 with Brown opposed.
Dawson moved approval to amend language on page 4, page 2 -28, to read: "These areas
are historically where urban growth is anticipated but are limited in their development levels
until water and sewer services are awe extended."
Imhof seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Page 2 -29, paragraph 1, to read: "Uni"ely, Blaine does not propose to serve this area
with utilities."
Dawson moved approval to change language in paragraph 3, page 2 -29, to read: "The
to alse has urban serviees avail The city of Blaine and the Birch Bay Water and Sewer
District will provide services to the Loomis Trail development."
Nelson seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 27
1 . Sutter moved approval to delete Policy 2T -4, page 2 -29, and replace it with: "Readjust
2 the short term planning area as urban services are made available."
4 Dawson seconded.
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7
8 Mackie gave background information on his modification to this motion. He read the
9 language for the record, a new Policy 2T -2: "No annexation of Cannery Hill West Semialvnoo
10 is permitted until the identity of the sewer and water purveyor in that area is resolved by
11 determination of the agency with jurisdiction or by a eement between Birch Bay Water and
12 Sewer District and the city of Blaine. The conditions of annexations should be consistent with
13 this resolution or agreement."
14
15 He also noted that on pages 14 -15 of the April 4 addendum, it reads: "The city's
16 proposed water service area is contiguous with the proposed UGA." This is inconsistent with the
17 dispute resolution as above. He recommended deletion of that sentence. Nelson requested staff
18 make those changes.
19
20 On page 6, page 2 -36, regarding the Ferndale urban growth areas: Mackie recommended.
21 deletion of the first half of the sentence and insert the highlighted section only: "Fnncourag
22 Ferndale to revise its development regulations to encourage clustering of development outside of
23 critical areas and to work toward development of a "wetland bank" to mitigate impacts of
24 development on scattered wetland areas within the city." Council agreed.
25
26 Mackie called attention to a new policy on page 8: "Recognize the Breckenridge
27 Plateau as the long term expansion area for the City of Nooksack and avoid interim land uses
28 which would conflict with eventual urbanization as far as the MRL designation." Mackie
29 recommended deletion of this item. Council concurred.
9
31 On page 14, page 2 -58, regarding text changes to Cherry Point (corrections supplied by
32 PUD #1): Nelson requested staff change language to reflect PUD's input.
33
34 On page 16, page 6 -19, Knapp pointed out the City of Bellingham does not have the
35 Whatcom Connector in its Transportation Improvement Plan.
36
37 Page 17, pages 8 -19 and 8 -21: Council concurred to strike the last part, regarding
38 proposed language changes regarding Mineral Resource Lands. Nelson stated they just dealt
39 with this earlier in the day and questioned whether the proposed language was reflective of their
40 language regarding insurance policies and similar tactics. Knapp stated it is.
41
42 On page 18, Policy 2HH -9, there was discussion regarding the proposed language. Policy
43 2KK -2 language would be inserted in each one of the above sections: resort; recreational
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 28
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
subdivisions; small towns; and transportation corridor. Council concurred.
Council concurred also on page 18 regarding Policy 2 -HH -1 and Policy 2GG -1 on the
proposed language changes.
It was agreed to discuss new 15 on page 19 at tonight's meeting.
Policy 213-6 was already discussed (page 19). Also discussed was page 20, Policy 2L -3
(new policy). It was decided to put Policy 2L -3 in the Environment section rather than Land
Use.
Locations, page 20, was also discussed, as was Coordinating Committee, page 22, page
1 -3.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
Jill K. Nixon, Recording Secretary
Elizabeth Bennett, Recordin S retary
These minutes were approved by Council on August 10, 1999.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana B r D. • uncil Clerk L. Ward Nelso'n,—CouWcil Chair
Special COTW Minutes, 4/8/97, Page 29