HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole March 25 1997WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee of the Whole
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WORK SESSION
March 25, 1997
The meeting was called to order at 11 a.m. by Council Chair Ward Nelson in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Marlene Dawson None
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Alvin Starkenburg
Kathy Sutter
Robert Imhof
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
WORK SESSION ON THE DRAFT WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB96 -051A THROUGH 051K)
Nelson commented today's session will review Council member comments. He thanked
Starkenburg and his Planning and Development Committee members for all their work. Nelson
requested Starkenburg review the committee process and his visioning for the continuation of
that process. Starkenburg spoke to the process and then acknowledged the "catch 22" regarding
the desires of the citizens vs the state's requests, stating he prefers to follow the community's
wishes. He wondered if Council will be accomplishing what needs to be accomplished. Also, he
was concerned about the ag areas. Various complex issues are being faced, as Whatcom County
is unique.
Nelson stated he wanted to focus today on less detailed areas, leaving the more detailed
work until the Tuesday, April 1, work session.
Michael Knapp, Planning and Development Services Director, addressed Council
regarding his handouts (on file), which included an overview of all issues presented at the
hearings; an addendum regarding final items; and comments from Holly Gadbaw, Senior
Planner, Department of Trade and Economic Development (CTED). He spoke to CTED's
comments regarding issues of concern (page 8). Speaking to the addendum, Knapp stated
further language has been included regarding short- and long -term boundaries.
Sutter asked Knapp to clarify the definition of infill and the short -term boundaries before
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 1
moving the long -term boundaries. Sandy Mackie, Whatcom County legal counsel, replied short-
term boundaries tend to come before Council as a particular region. One of the questions that
must be asked is if the city is meeting its growth management targets and objectives regarding
sprawl. This is done as a zoning matter, not a Comp Plan matter, so there is no waiting for an
annual review. The criteria for the change is set forth in the Comp Plan; the mechanism for the
change is set forth in the development regulations.
Sutter then wondered why the short-term boundary extensions are not tied to a specific
event for each of the short-term boundaries. Mackie stated his recommendation would be that
short-term boundaries would be eliminated at such time as the need which precipitated these
boundaries is met. He stated the question is how much of this instruction needs to be pulled into
the Comp Plan and informed Council the choice must be made between clarity and policy
guidance in dealing with the issues. Sutter urged simplicity and clarity. Mackie recommended
the following language: "The specific criteria by city will be identified in the development
regulations to facilitate relocation of the short-term boundaries." He then addressed his
reasoning.
Dawson moved approval of the definition with Mackie's changes about "shall include
one or more areas" and his addition of No. 5.1 (see attached handout, "Final Comprehensive
Plan Addendum Items ", 5. 1, "short-term boundary definition ").
Nelson requested staff work on the definitions and changes recommended by Mackie and
bring this information to Council at the next work session on April 1.
Sutter requested amending #1 by deleting it and substituting the following: "The city has
satisfied the deficiency which created the need for the short-term boundary."
There was discussion with Imhof stating this be inserted as #6. Brenner wanted the small
cities to review the handout. Knapp pointed out a meeting was held recently with the small
cities, and Lynden, Nooksack, Everson and Sumas are now off the list of needing long -
term/short-term boundaries. There was further discussion. Nelson requested clarification
regarding the short-term boundary and asked what happens to extended services outside the
short-term boundaries already existing. Gibson responded to a specific situation.
Brenner had a friendly amendment and asked Sutter if she would be willing to split her
motion or eliminate the "strike #1" part. Sutter agreed with the condition Brenner clearly define
"planning subarea ". Mackie then defined the term as it is currently contemplated, which would
be the area the County is approached to consider for change. Knapp noted the confusion and
stated staff would do clarification language, perhaps deleting "sub" in "subarea ".
Sutter inquired about the density requirements. Mackie replied that would be an issue
needing to be addressed in the development regulations, which is continually evolving and which
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 2
is one of the dangers. He recommended against quantifying this issue, as it would work against
the County. The GMA is the accommodation of all of the goals and objectives, which is an
entire series.
Dawson asked Sutter if she would be willing to drop her proposal and go forward with
those modifications. Sutter replied she would accept the modifications to #1 but would still want
the language she suggested included, even if it were made #5.
Nelson stated Sutter's request regarding #1 would be considered a motion.
Mackie stated #1 would read: "The planning proposed for change and adjoining short-
term urban areas are meeting density objectives and accomplishing more than the projected
growth within the planning period."
Motion carried unanimously.
Mackie stated the specific criteria will be identified in the development regulations for
planning areas to facilitate relocation of short-term boundaries, which was already part of #1 and
which will remain.
Sutter suggested a new #2 would read: "The City has corrected the deficiency which
created the need for the short-term boundary." Discussion followed. The suggestion was
considered a motion by Nelson.
Motion carried unanimously.
The new #6 (proposed by Sutter) would read: "The short-term boundary would be moved
by zoning action consistent with the Comp Plan." Mackie stated the reasoning would be to
eliminate the confusion about amending the Comp Plan in order to move a short-term boundary.
Nelson also considered this a motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Knapp then spoke to the Lummi Island Subarea Plan, supporting that plan. He noted that
if any conflicts were to occur, the Comp Plan would prevail. Gibson noted that the Island Plan
discusses mining on the scale of existing operations, which Council needs to be aware of in
considering subarea plans in relation to other items. Mackie pointed out one of the changes that
took place in growth management: prior to growth management were guidelines, but the binding
document was the zoning ordinance. Growth management said the Comp Plan is the binding
document and all must be consistent with the Comp Plan. If the subarea plans are adopted as
part of the Comp Plan, Council will be taking a document that is not intended to be binding at
that level, putting it into the present Comp Plan, and creating a risk of ambiguity. He suggested
retaining the adopted subarea plans as development regulations. There was discussion. Sutter
suggested adding "interim" to the language in that sentence so Council would know to return to
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 3
the regulations.
Nelson read the motion as amended, attachment 2.1: "...retain the adopted subarea plans
as interim development regulations."
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter commented there is no mention of Lummi Island in the Comp Plan. She suggested
the previous language be put back in, as it was appropriate (page 2 -90). Imhof requested staff
review this and make a recommendation to Council at the next meeting.
Nelson moved to request staff include Lummi Island in the Comp Plan along with Eliza
Island and return to Council to make a recommendation. Additionally, the section on Eliza
Island (p 2 -79) should be included in that section on page 2 -90.
Motion carried unanimously.
Knapp then spoke to Lake Whatcom, noting the need to protect water resources, which is
not included in the addendum. He indicated the need to identify specific kinds of regulation to
protect runoff, especially from single family developments, into Lake Whatcom, which is one of
the primary issues relating to maintaining water quality in the future for the Lake. One of the
ideas being discussed is to retain water on site. Nelson stated development standards could be
discussed at the next work session. Council concurred.
(Clerk's Note: Starkenburg moved to adjourn for lunch at 12:30 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously)
The handout regarding Custer #3 was discussed ( "Strategic Comprehensive Plan
Issues "). Mackie spoke to the process and the issue of compliance. He recommended Council
read CTED's letter, page 3. He suggested a language change in the Comp Plan regarding a
master plan (a rezoning process). The Comp Plan should state clearly that when the zoning
process is complete, any final environmental review of a specific layout should become part of
that master plan. Sutter stated she was in favor of the proposed changes regarding removal of
potential urban growth area (UGA), thereby making it consistent with Whatcom County Superior
Court's finding that the only mistake made in making this an industrial area was that it was not
designated an UGA first and also concurring with the Growth Management Hearings Board's
(GMHB) finding. Sutter proposed Council adopt the suggested changes submitted at the public
hearing to make that an UGA specifically for an intermodal transfer industrial area. Mackie
clarified that with that proposed change, the need to go through a binding master plan process
before starting site development is not removed. He had no objection to the master planning
process outlined by Council but was concerned about the designation of an urban area before
that master planning process was begun. He suggested Council make it clear that the master
plan does not divert to a generic light industrial (LI) commercial zone if Council designated this
an urban area. Brenner thought "potential" should remain in that section. Gibson suggested
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 4
Council take action after the lunch break. Nelson stated his concern was that if this is not
identified, how is it then identified at a later time if there are no services? Mackie stated he
would recommend a timeline stating specifically if the master planning process has not been
reviewed (five years is the normal), reconsideration of the designation of urban would need to be
done. The path to eliminating the sunset clause is the processing of the master plan and not
beginning building, and this path needs to be clearly identified. Litigation stops the clock.
There was discussion.
(Clerk's Note: A short lunch break was taken)
Nelson requested Planning and Development Services compile Council's concerns so
staff will know what the issues and concerns are.
Sutter stated she would like to see the sunsetting clause reinserted, Policy 2B(b)(3), with
language to the effect that litigation would stop the clock from running. Mackie stated this is the
law. Gibson noted that in order to do a master plan in the Custer area, certain regulations must
be in place which are currently in place. The Comp Plan acts as a pointer to the development
regulations. The sunset clause should be in connection with adoption of those development
regulations that would enable it. Mackie pointed out Council is examining the ability to use
rules already in place to accomplish the master planning process. Nelson requested clarification
regarding Sutter's proposed master planning regarding the timing of the five -year review.
Mackie responded there would be a five -year period to accomplish the administrative process, if
necessary, to conclude zoning. The zoning is the master plan. Once the zoning is in place, the
sunset disappears. The issue then becomes whether this area is then designated urban. Nelson
then asked Mackie if there were anything in growth management preventing designating UGAs
with criteria. Mackie replied in the negative. Brenner wondered if by leaving in "potential ",
potential lawsuits were alleviated. Mackie stated he would respond to this and other questions at
the next work session. Referring to Policy 213(b)(3), Sutter stated she wanted only the last
sentence reinserted.
Knapp next spoke to the Lake Whatcom Connector (Addendum, 4. 1), noting a
clarification in that this is a study examining a right -of -way and not a committed improvement.
Also, the Knight urban area expansion request in Custer (Addendum, 1.2) would need to be a
map change. Carl Batchelor, Planning, clarified Imhof s question regarding acreage of this
urban area. Knapp stated this area needs additional SEPA evaluation.
Starkenburg requested Knapp address the land use requests regarding how they were
handled and their status. Knapp noted there are two types of requests: Comp Plan, and rezone,
which his department is not handling at this time and which can be done as a package, not
individually. Gibson stated Council is in a position to deal with UGA configurations, as well as
ag, rural, or industrial Comp Plan designations. Nelson informed staff individual requests need
to be reviewed collectively to be identified. Gibson recommended Council may wish to send the
Planning Commission the requests that have been given direction or attention.
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 5
There was confusion regarding information from the city of Bellingham - -is its
information complete? Knapp stated Council needs to know the text changes Bellingham is
making in order to use this information effectively.
Starkenburg requested staff batch suggestions into two different categories so Council
can see a list that moves through at this time regarding the status. The second batch - -the one that
needs to move forward through a Planning Commission/Council review - -can easily be pulled for
action. Nelson asked about the process and whether requests go initially to the Planning
Commission or come before Council to be sent to the Planning Commission. Gibson replied the
basic idea was to ensure all requests coming before Council are referred to the Planning
Commission. Nelson noted the packet Council needs is the one requiring Comp Plan decisions.
Gibson further noted that most of the MRL requests went through the Planning Commission, but
some have not received the proper process, so Council needs to decide what to do with them.
From a legal standpoint, Knapp requested Gibson clarification regarding adopting the
urban fringe plan to proceed with adoption of the Comp Plan. Gibson replied in the negative,
noting that some information received may be of help to the Comp Plan process.
Knapp then spoke to the issue of the Lummi Island quarry, noting the issue is one of
designation. Gibson distributed a handout regarding mineral resource land (MRL)
designations /gravel permitting (on file). He then spoke to what is currently happening and the
legal basis for it (see pages 2 -3). A significant amount of activity is occurring, according to
Gibson, and will continue to occur apart from the MRL designation issue. Jeff Griffin, Planning,
assisted Gibson and spoke to the river gravel issue, noting the two designation criteria, #15 and
#16. Gibson then resumed his comments regarding MRL designation, speaking specifically to
#2 and #3 on page 2. The focus of concern is #4, he noted, the expansion of an existing or any
new site. Moving to page 7, the remaining key issues on MRL designation criteria, Gibson
addressed the wellhead protection area, summarizing the attached (the last three pages)
Department of Health (DOH) Wellhead Protection Guideline. He requested Griffin relate to the
level of risk associated with gravel mining activities (according to the study done by Thurston
County). This risk was low to moderate to groundwater contamination depending upon the
activity occurring.
Brown requested clarification regarding a standard conversion factor used to generally
define the distance in a given time. Griffin replied it is the porosity factor. Nelson asked about
the fixed zones and non - potable water. Gibson replied the DOH guidelines relate to public
drinking water sources.
Gibson described the wellhead protection areas, speaking specifically to the significance
of vertical distance (the rate of infiltration vertically into the aquifer) from the water table. State
DOH guidelines note the factors of the vertical distance are so variable that they do not deal with
this issue in terms of the areas of wellhead protection. The vertical distance, according to the
state, is likely to provide some protection; therefore, the horizontal times of travel are
conservative (protective). Griffin stated in this area there is only gravel and sandy soil, so the
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 6
water will percolate fairly rapidly. If there is much clay or silt, the time to percolate will be
increased. Gibson noted the vertical distance can also provide somewhat of a shock absorber.
Brenner asked about sand lenses. Griffin stated test holes must first be drilled in order to see
what is happening. Estimates can be made, however.
Gibson noted he listed the various options (pages 8 and 9). He suggested Council
consider and deal with these options at the next work session because he has summarized the
DOH data and applied it to this County.
Sutter referred to her proposal regarding MRL designation, stating her proposal covers all
Gibson's points; everything addressed in the Comp Plan is also in her proposal.
Gibson pointed out that, regarding the Lummi Island quarry, there is currently a matter
on appeal to the Hearing Examiner relating to the non - conforming use that could eventually
come before Council, so care needs to be taken in discussion of this area.
MRL designations within the ag zone is another major area of concern. The Planning
Commission recommended no MRL designations within the ag zone on prime soils. Currently,
there are approximately 300 acres within the ag zone proposed for MRL designation, about 260
acres at the Siper Road area and about 40 acres on Oat Coals Road. Most of these acres do not
fall within the prime soil area. Virtually none of the areas being proposed for MRL designation
involve prime soils. Griffin added that depending on how Council moves forward on its criteria
will affect future proposals. Gibson stated there are approximately 4,000 acres total proposed for
inclusion in the permanent MRLs. The more difficult question pertains to the designation of
MRLs in the prime soils area; in terms of current requests, approximately 229 acres are within
prime soils areas.
Gibson then spoke to the three options discussed: the Planning Commission's
recommendation for no MRL designation within prime soils in the ag zone; alternative A, which
calls for a comprehensive study of aggregate availability and would place a five -year moratorium
on designation within the ag zone on prime soils pending the study outcome, assuming there was
a demonstrated need for additional high - quality aggregate; and alternative B, a study but no
moratorium at any point. An MRL designation could be made within prime soils in the ag zone
if an applicant demonstrated that it was in the County's best interest based upon the weighing of
various factors. Both alternative A and B call for the limitation of pit size to three acres or less,
which maintains local control over the reclamation efforts. If pit size is greater than three acres,
the County is subject to the state Surface Mining Act; Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
reclamation rules govern this Act. These three options are the main ones only, as there are other
options.
Nelson asked Griffin about the quantity available and the quality of aggregate. Griffin
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 7
described his process of determining quantity. He felt the quantity figures obtained were
conservative. There is an ongoing debate regarding quality. Much testing and data gathering is
required to determine quality; however, there was insufficient funding to accomplish this. He
then spoke to the various pit areas in the County regarding quality. Discussion followed
regarding recycled material and the Planning Commission's recommendations. Knapp pointed
out he supported those recommendations. Griffin spoke to Map 23 regarding the quality of
various quarries. Dawson asked about the percentage of export, which Griffin estimated to be
approximately 10 -15% which is built into the per capita rate, which works out to be
approximately 150- 170,000 cubic yards annually. Gibson noted there is a significantly smaller
portion that is imported. Brenner asked if there are any controls. Sutter stated that unless a limit
is placed on a specific amount of mineral resource that is exported, there is potential for that
resource to be exported to the detriment of the use in this County or to use up the resource faster
than it should be used. Gibson pointed out the practical considerations are price, cost of
transport, price of the aggregate, and cost of transport.
Gibson further emphasized the importance of the discussion regarding quality and
quantity. He stated there is a proposed designation for 104 acres at the Lummi Island Quarry.
Under the non - conforming status, there are an additional 64 acres; the company has also
requested approximately 40 acres in addition to the 104 acres. He pointed out the matter before
the Hearing Examiner relates to the non - conforming acres. Another topic he discussed was the
Nooksack area regarding designation criteria for existing sites. Currently, the designation
criteria state if it is within the interim MRL and is a valid existing use, then the consideration is
strong for a permanent MRL. He asked Council how far back it wanted to go in examining
whether an issue was a valid non - conforming use. Other areas of concern include the Killam
MRL and Pit
No. 103 at the south end of Lake Whatcom.
Gibson then shifted the focus to the issue of MRL designation regarding mining. What is
being suggested is that if an MRL designation is obtained, it is an important albeit a first step to
mining. This is an indication that an area is generally a place where aggregate will be found and
which is generally appropriate for mining. In terms of environmental review, no site specific
environmental review has been done. There was a short discussion regarding MRL designation
and property values. He concluded by stating that MRL designation is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for mining.
The next topic of discussion was MRL zoning. Gibson stated the proposal would be to
pick up all MRL designations within an MRL zone once the development regulations are
adopted. After the Comp Plan has been dealt with, the next item will be the development
regulations; within this regulation process is the establishment of an MRL zone. Contained
within that zoning regulation would be performance and development standards similar to what
is currently in WCC 20.073. These performance standards would address the following issues:
noise; air quality; buffering; site slope requirements; etc. All the relevant considerations must be
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 8
addressed at that point. The scheme of enforcement is an extremely important part of the zoning
regulations, which would make the performance standards conditions of the permit so that if the
conditions are not met, there will be some form of penalty. Nelson then asked if the County is
currently able to enforce what is there now. Griffin replied that there is one staff person in the
Land Use Division whose time is mostly devoted to enforcement of surface mining regulations.
His position is paid by various miners in the County. A discussion of the definition of
"enforcement" then took place. Knapp replied to Nelson's question by stating yes, to a large
extent, noting there are differences of opinion about what to enforce. Nelson spoke to an
adequate funding mechanism and asked if this would be compatible with the direction Council is
going with MRLs. Knapp replied there is certainly a difference of opinion in the various
communities as to "enforcement ". Further discussion followed. Mackie also spoke, noting that
in order to secure a permit, the ability to comply must be demonstrated; the technical
requirements that apply now become part of the conditions of approval. One of the advantages
of obtaining a permitting process is the ability to grant the condition, modify and withdraw the
permit, which makes enforcement manageable and timely. The availability of resources and
recycling were briefly discussed.
Gibson then inquired as to how the permit is sought and issued. The recommendation, he
noted, was for an administrative discretionary permit process, which means an applicant submits
the required material, including environmental material, to an administrator who, with well -
defined criteria and options, would then issue or deny the permit. The reasoning behind this
process is to create as much predictability as possible, which concentrates on the issue of how
this should occur. Regarding the non -MRL uses, the availability would continue for the
conditional use process (CUP). Conditional use could be a continuing vital process for particular
types of activities within MRL designations. Attempts have been made to define and narrow the
issues as much as possible, according to Gibson.
Speaking to the resource protection zone (8.1 attachment, handout), Knapp then gave
Council the highlights regarding the ag resource protection process. He explained this process
ensures that lands 20 acres or greater within R5 and R10 areas have the potential for protection.
One of the issues in terms of addressing these areas within close proximity of UGAs is
downzoning (which is what the County does not want to do) and yet protect the resources.
Starkenburg was concerned about the differences of the County lands and the reality of
20% regarding the wellhead areas. Sutter agreed with Starkenburg but thought it inappropriate
to put a number in the Comp Plan quantifying items. The areas needing protection, she thought,
were the farmlands. Knapp clarified staff is attempting not to preclude future urban uses as well.
He further stated it was the division of the land that precludes the resource. There was further
discussion. Mackie also commented, noting that what is being attempted is to satisfy the criteria
for ag lands and potential ag lands. Also, the identification of lands of long -term commercial
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 9
significance is being attempted: ag lands; resource protection zone; lands in the flood - hazard
areas not designated ag; the ability for voluntary ag protection, which is outside the resource
protection area; and the small farms operating close to urban areas not grouped in one area. He
reminded Council that as a minimum base for maintaining long -term ag resources, two things
need to be accomplished: identify as a core mass approximately 100,000- 110,000 acres and
provide additional mechanisms for dealing with the smaller parcels also needing protection.
When this entire process has been completed, he asked Council to answer the following
questions: has a critical mass of lands been set aside which are suitable for long -term
commercial ag that will provide the core of the base for ag industry for at least the next 20 years;
and have steps been taken to ensure protection of these same ag areas from incompatible
development?
Mackie then answered questions from Council members. Topics discussed included:
land in R5 and R10 zones and ag activity; the impact of the right -to -farm issue; resource
protection zones; acreage figures for the core level; those who choose to live on five -acre tracts;
sufficient flexibility to examine this issue in its broadest scope; acres in ag /open space (20 acres
or larger); and short- and long -term boundaries.
Mackie stated that according to Washington State law, unless a specific covenant is
written which consents to a specific activity, a newcomer can curtail an activity that has been
continuing for years. Gibson pointed out there are 77,000 acres zoned R5; the resource
protection area would affect approximately 15,000, so at least 62,000 acres are remaining that
are currently occupied as five -acre parcels or has been platted down to five acres. Mackie
continued by stating that the greatest risk Council has with this entire issue is ensuring
quantification and solidification of the core. Gibson stated that qualifying for ag /open space is
not dictated by zoning. Further, he clarified the 100,000 acres noted in Whatcom Conservation
District's plan is 100,000 large parcel acres; the 139,000 acres include both large and small
parcels. Open space /ag does not indicate a present commercial ag use. Gibson then stated that
of the 139,000 ag usage acres, 92,000 of those are cropland. He then quoted various statistics
regarding ag lands.
Nelson noted the next work session will be Tuesday, April 1, and the procedure will be to
review each chapter of the Comp Plan.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 10
Elizabeth Bennett, Recording Secretary
These minutes were approved by Council on , 1997.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown- Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Special COTW Minutes, 3/25/97, Page 11