HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council March 26 1996WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
WORK SESSION
March 26, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m. by Council Chair Ward Nelson in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner Robert Imhof
Kathy Sutter Marlene Dawson
Alvin Starkenburg
Tom Brown
Staff Also Present:
Dan Gibson, Council's Counsel
Vickie Hardin- Woods, Planning Director
Jeff Monsen, Public Works
1. DISCUSSION/DIRECTION FOR THE INTERLOCAL NEGOTIATING
COMMITTEE REGARDING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PURPOSED URBAN
GROWTH AREAS (AB96 -042)
Starkenburg moved to go into executive session.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: This portion of the meeting adjourned at 11 a.m)
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE AND
THE PROCESS FOR BRINGING THE ORDINANCE INTO COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (AB96 -118)
The meeting was called to order; at 11:09 by Council Chair Ward Nelson in the
Multipurpose Room in the Courthouse basement, 311 Grand Avenue.
Special Council Minutes, 3/26/96, Page 1
1 Also Present: Absent:
2 Alvin Starkenburg None
3 Tom Brown
4 Barbara Brenner
5 Kathy Sutter
6 Marlene Dawson
7 Robert Imhof
9 Staff Also Present:
10 Terry Galvin, Planning Department
11 Vickie Hardin- Woods, Planning Director
12 Dan Gibson, Council's Council
13
14 Also present were Steve Wells, Assistant Director, State Department of CTED
15 (Community Trade & Economic Development) and Dick Grout, DOE (Department of Ecology).
16
17 Gibson reviewed background information relating to critical areas of the Growth
18 Management Act, noting that the deadline for compliance with the Growth Management Hearings
19 Board (GMHB) is April 16.
20
21 Galvin gave a presentation regarding the definition of the issues regarding the GMHB's
22 decision and how the team attempted to respond to those issues now before the Planning
23 Commission. He summarized the amendments proposed in the revised Critical Areas Ordinance
24 (CAO) (handout on file) (violations stated by GUM listed below).
25
26 Inadequate Protection of Wetlands: Galvin had slides showing the different areas with the
27 different wetland rating systems. He addressed the current inadequate rating system.
28
29 Jim Wiggins, a wetland botanist specializing in environmental planning, was introduced.
30 He made himself available to answer any questions.
31
32 Inadequate Protection of Rivers and Streams: Galvin shared slides on various County
33 streams and rivers and discussed buffers that may protect these waterways and their banks. He
34 noted that stream definition needs to be clarified regarding fish habitat. If there are significant
35 populations offish, it is a stream, not a ditch.
36
37 Inadequate Protection of Fish & Wildlife: The County is to create a board (Fish/Wildlife
38 Habitat Advisory Committee) to keep track of its habitat.
39
40 Inadequate Protection of Critical Areas on Agricultural Land: This provision is written
41 correctly, but the implementation is inadequate. The County must allocate to the Soil
42 Conservation District the responsibility of implementation.
43
Special Council Minutes, 3/26/96, Page 2
Lack of Clear Administrative Provisions: The County needs to work on development
standards.
No Shellfish Protection: Shellfish critical areas have been designated. A chapter of
definitions, regulatory restrictions and references have been included.
Inadequate Public Participation: The current process adequately responds to this issue.
The Ordinance Is Adopted in Violation of SEPA: The checklist has been submitted.
Homeowner exemption is also an issue. Some direct recreational and viewing access to
wetlands or streams located on the owner's property is necessary, and is provided.
Steve Wells discussed the goals and working process of the County and state agencies.
He stated critical areas is an interim protection of critical areas until the Comprehensive Plan is in
place. The state does not intend to impose its view on the County. This County has a good mix
of regulatory and incentive components. Discussion followed regarding funding for incentive
programs. Suggestions included (handout on file):
- Whatcom Conservation District
- Whatcom County Land Trust
- County Land Ownership Options
- County Less Than Fee Options
- Property Rights Ombudsman Office/Development Assistance Center
- No Cookie Cutter Buffer Regulation Standards
- Public Benefit Rating System
- Assessor's Programs
- REET for Conservation Areas Acquisition
- Create a Metropolitan Park District with Levy Authority
- PDR: Conservation Futures Purchase of Development Rights on
Enrolled Current Use Taxation Lands
- Dispute Resolution/Mediation
- State Grant Funds
- Regulatory Actions
Discussion followed with Council regarding the blanket regulations imposed by the state
on all Washington Counties. Whatcom is a unique County and needs to find creative ways and
tools to work with the state - mandated Growth Management Act (GMA).
Grout spoke to past discussions with the County, specifically addressing buffers.
(Clerk's Note: This portion of the meeting adjourned at 1 p. m)
Special Council Minutes, 3/26/96, Page 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
ORDINANCE AMENDING LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS IN TITLE 20,
THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE (AB96 -074)
The meeting was called to order at 1:20 p.m. by Planning and Development Committee
Chair Alvin Starkenburg in the Committee Room of the Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
Also Present:
Marlene Dawson
Barbara Brenner
Tom Brown
Kathy Sutter
Absent:
Robert Imhof
13 Staff Also Present:
14 Vickie Hardin- Woods, Planning Director
15 Dan Gibson, Council's Counsel
16 Bill Florea, Planning Department
17 Karen Frakes, Acting as Council's Counsel
18
19 TAC members Pat Jones, Derek HoW and Jay Gordon were also present.
20
21 Terry Galvin, Planning Department, gave all a handout regarding suggested changes to
22 clearing regulations based upon public and Council comments. The committee discussion
23 proceeded from this handout. Starkenburg noted Planning and Development Committee will
24 review today's comments at its next meeting (April 2), and its recommendations will be
25 forwarded to that night's Council meeting.
26
27 First discussed was the penalty section. Pat Jones, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
28 member, stated his committee was uncomfortable with the punishment mentality notion.
29 However, another mechanism could not be seen for effective enforcement.
30
31 Brenner responded she thought the first offense should be a warning only, noting that the
32 warning could be an educational session. However, if another offense is committed, then a fine
33 should be imposed.
34
35 Bill Florea, Planning Department, stated that that is the intention of the ordinance.
36 Brenner further stated that the fine should cover the County's costs.
37
38 The purpose statement was discussed. Sutter was concerned that more concise language
39 is needed. She suggested: "The purpose of this ordinance is to minimize impact to adjacent and
40 downstream public and private property as a result of clearing activity."
41
42 Jay Gordon, GeoEngineers, commented briefly.
43
Special Council Minutes, 3/26/96, Page 4
Starkenburg noted another language option is to delete everything after "sedimentation ":
"...through oil site erosion and sedimentation; iesulting in degraded natural system . The purpose
of this ordinance is to insure that clearing acftvity is do i . nsible nianner by providing a
reasonable standard fbr land deating in YA.tcotn eotinty. it is also the ptn pose of this ordinancE.
to estabtish a eounty SS fbi larger clearing projects to ensuie that these regulations
are met:"
Pat Jones thought the last statement under "Purpose" was important ("to establish a
County review process for larger clearing projects to ensure that these regulations are met ").
Brenner suggested inserting "and" between sentences: "...erosion and sedimentation to
establish a County review process... ".
Skip Richards commented regarding the last sentence and the purpose statement's
language.
Sherilyn Wells thought prevention impacts should be the first tier response with
minimizing impacts the second.
Vickie Hardin -Woods requested clear direction from Council.
Pat Jones commented on "prevent" vs. "minimize", recommending the latter. Wells
defended her wording.
Brown suggested using the last two sentences only: "The purpose of this ordinance is to
insure that ... that these regulations are met. ".
Sutter re -read her proposed purpose statement.
Dawson thought the use of both "prevent" and "minimize" was appropriate.
Derek Holzl suggested using "minimize" only.
Jay Gordon offered a comment regarding off -site activities.
Brenner requested clarification of impacts off an owner's property. Jones responded.
Dawson moved to included the last two sentences as part of the purpose statement.
(Clerk's Note: No vote was taken, as Starkenburg noted this was discussion only, and re-
stated Planning and Development Committee will make recommendations to Council next week.)
Starkenburg requested Planning draft the changes discussed today so the Council will have
them in hand before Tuesday's meetings.
Special Council Minutes, 3/26/96, Page 5
1 Exemptions were then discussed. Galvin noted there are two alternatives proposed and
2 requested Council decide on one. Brenner suggested language on alternative 1: "
3 exposed soils do not result in off-site MM Sedhnent Jones and HoW commented on
4 specific language. Florea suggested alternative 2. After further discussion, Council decided to
5 use alternative 2.
6
7 Sutter suggested language change in the section on permit approval process, (5)A:
8 "...must be submitted by the owner joijoh" and approved... ".
9
10 Pat Jones spoke to section (6)A, land clearing requirements, questioning "measurable
11 amounts". He suggested using different wording. Brenner suggested deleting those words and
12 using "should" instead of "shall": "Measurab! . g:jj �! yj t 1� f egrosion, sediment, and other impacts
13 resulting from any land clearing activity shall 1M be contained... ". Further discussion ensued.
14 Holzl, Richards and Wells commented. After discussion, it was decided to leave "shall" in place.
15
16 Hazards, (6)B, was then discussed. Galvin noted Council was considering the alternative
17 language. He suggested "off-site": "...nor pose a danger or a hazard to life or property it r
18 =ff m- Wsite."
19
20 Frakes commented to a question regarding liability after the alternative language was
21 discussed.
22
23 On section (6)D, Sutter stated she was concerned the language was not sufficiently
24 specific, feeling it was too open-ended. Galvin responded. Shut down authority was discussed.
25
26 Jones stated (6)C and D are difficult in that they are general and vague. It seems
27 appropriate, he continued, for staff to be given the responsibility in critical times and
28 circumstances to exercise judgment. The consensus was to agree with this statement.
29
30 Nelson was concerned with the language on (6)D regarding shut down authority. Galvin
31 and Holzl responded, HoW stating it was a site by site analysis. Galvin stated (6)C and D could
32 be combined.
33
34 A question on the six-year moratorium arose. Sutter suggested . striking all wording after
35 "codes" (7)C.(b): "...into full compliance with Whatcom County codes, to the satisfaction of the
4 not , esul -m
36 eounty, and when the Executive is satisfied that the clearing activity dl%A Lt
37 . - ental hazards or degiade environmentally sensitive areas, oI create sigrAficant increases
38 of off-site erosion or sedimentation.".
39
40 Bob Andersen expressed his concern of complying with the ordinance, noting that all must
41 be in compliance with current codes. Discussion followed. Florea suggested language relating to
42 codes "that are existent at the date of issuance of the Forest Practice Application".
43
Special Council Minutes, 3/26/96, Page 6
I Wells questioned whether this particular provision is a violation of state law in granting
2 this extra ease of a waiver. Frakes responded.
4 Wells requested a change in language relating to "...when the owner agrees to bring the
5 site... ", perhaps "granting the waiver upon confirmation that the site has been brought into full
6 compliance ". Brenner and Florea responded.
7
8 Jones was concerned that Lakes Padden and Samish Watersheds should be included
9 in section (13)C.i., additional review requirements, which he felt should be consistent with the
10 other watersheds. Nelson asked why not all the other lakes. Dawson pointed out drinking water
11 is not obtained from Lake Padden. Galvin cautioned the use of special management areas, noting
12 that perhaps a higher standard is needed.
13
14 Wells spoke to (13)A, purpose, stressing the important of prevention, suggesting
..................................... ...............................
..................................... ...............................
: ` ....: .:..r:... :s..r::..:... :% :. :.tsar 15 language: "...environmentally sensitive areas that exhibit t .:::::.p: ::
16 evidence of degradation... ".
17
18 Sutter inquired as to the percentage of the build out already done in the special
19 management areas.
20
21 On section (13)C.ii(c) and (d), Sutter was concerned that the thresholds were too large.
22 Those commenting included: Galvin, Florea, Richards, Jones and Holzl.
23
24 Section (13)C.iii(a) was then discussed, changing: "...simple standards by the landowner
......... ...............................
25 or herzeriteiririt?ia�itirit. .
26
27 Starkenburg inquired to the time requirement of 15 days, and Holzl responded.
28 Discussion followed. Brenner suggested an option would be for a waiver to be obtained from the
29 County.
30
31 Wells encouraged reinstatement of the former ordinance standard minimum disturbance
32 over a speedy response to an action in order to prevent damage.
33
34 Brown called attention to the 20% slope in management areas; he would like to see 30 %.
35 Galvin pointed out his slope slide. Jones also commented. Galvin noted that Alabama Hill has a
36 slope of 13 %. Holzl stated the slope percentage is a review threshold with many variables.
37
38 Bob Woods, Council Budget and Program Analyst, noted the language clean up by
39 Planning needs to be handed in by Friday afternoon (March 29).
40
41 (Clerk's Note: This portion of the meeting was adjourned at 3:08 p.m)
42
43
Special Council Minutes, 3/26/96, Page 7
1 4. DISCUSSION/DIRECTION FOR THE INTERLOCAL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE
2 REGARDING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PURPOSED URBAN GROWTH AREAS
3 (AB96 -042)
4
5 The meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. by Council Chair Ward Nelson in the
6 Committee Room of the Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
7
8 Also Present: Absent:
9 Marlene Dawson Robert Imhof
10 Barbara Brenner
11 Tom Brown
12 Alvin Starkenburg
13 Kathy Sutter
14
15 Staff Also Present:
16 Vickie Hardin- Woods, Planning Director
17 Dan Gibson, Council's Counsel
18
19 Starkenburg moved to go into executive session.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22
23 ADJOURN
24
25 The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
26
27
28 %
29
30 Eli beth B- nnett, Recording Sec et
31
32 �
33 I
34
35 Jill Nixon, Recording Sec etary
36
37 These minutes were approved by the Council on June 11 , 1996.
38
39 TTEST WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
40 T M Y, WASHINGTON
41
42 0 - le L. Ward Nels C uncil Chair
Special Council Minutes, 3/26/96, Page 8