HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council Meeting February 13 1996 amWHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING/
WORK SESSION
February 13, 1996
The meeting was called to order at 10 :09 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
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WORK
PLAN TO COMPLETE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (AB96 -051)
Nelson turned the meeting over to Starkenburg, chair of the Planning &
Development Committee, who noted the meeting. today is to establish the purpose and goal
of the work needed to be accomplished within the next five months. Topics to be discussed
today include: development standards; Critical Areas Ordinance; regulatory reform;
Comprehensive Plan; and Urban Fringe, as well as their individual time frames.
Starkenburg also stated he hoped the Council could come to an agreement regarding the
basic foundation from which to function.
Time Frame
Vickie Harden - Woods, Planning Director, reviewed the deadlines and requirements
of each of the five sections (on file). She then addressed each section individually. In
answer to a question regarding the time frame for the Growth Management Act (GMA)
planning process, she responded that in order to be in full compliance with growth
management, the County's Comprehensive Plan needs to be adopted. The subareas should
be consistent with that Comprehensive Plan, and development regulations should be
Growth Management Minutes, 2/13/96, Page 1
1 adopted that are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan. As long as the
2 County is not in compliance with the GMA, opportunities are lost to apply for some grant
3 monies, and the County is also subject to sanctions imposed by the governor.
4
5 Those speaking included:
6
7 Dan Gibson, Council's counsel
8 Terry Galvin, Planning & Development Services
9 Skip Richards
10 Bob Tull, Attorney
11 Dick Gilda
12 Bill Geyer
13
14 Development Standards
15
16 Bill Geyer spoke briefly to the original enabling ordinance process.
17
18 Starkenburg noted that the ordinance before the Council would replace the land
19 disturbance ordinance.
20
21 Critical Areas Ordinance
22
23 Gibson spoke to a meeting he had with the Executive, Planning Department staff,
24 legal staff, Ward Nelson, Kathy Sutter and Alvin Starkenburg. He noted the purpose was
25 to discuss options and possible solutions regarding Chapters 9 through 12 (handout
26 provided). Gibson stated the 1992 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) was subjected to
27 referendum, which passed in November 1993. It was challenged at two levels: by the
28 County through the court process; and by various environmentalists through the Growth
29 Planning Hearings Board (GPHB). In June 1994, the GPHB found the referendum
30 procedure out of compliance. The County continued to operate under the referendum
31 version until November 1994, when the Supreme Court struck down the referendum
32 process as it applied to CAO, indicating that the referendum process was not available in
33 the planning context. The Council then adopted - -by emergency - -a form of the CAO, which
34 was not identical to but similar to the referendum version. In April 1995, the Council
35 adopted a version of the CAO which was very similar to the referendum version. Again,
36 this was challenged to the GPHB in June 1995. On November 2, 1995 a hearing took
37 place. Gibson spoke to the County's defense argument. The Board then ruled Sections 9,
38 10, 11 and 12 invalid, which means they are inoperative.
39
40
41
Growth Management Minutes, 2/13/96, Page 2
1 Gibson noted that presently the Administration has determined that in terms of
2 predictability and risk concerning permit applicants, it is appropriate to operate under the
3 1992 ordinance. He stated that something needs to be done. The question is, what is the
4 course of most appropriate action.
5
6 The original ordinance adopted in 1992 was intended to be temporary. What is
7 being proposed here is still intended to be temporary. In the final analysis, what is being
8 proposed is a package of regulations which may look different than what is being discussed
9 here. This final package is incomplete at this time and is expected to be available at the
10 end of the year.
11
12 Gibson stated further that several things have been learned that the GPHB is
13 looking for: a particular format in terms of adoption; discussion of various options; and
14 extensive Findings.
15
16 Sutter expressed concern regarding having a public hearing and a decision by the
17 Council on the same date.
18
19 Gibson discussed briefly the development permitting process, stating that less than
20 10 percent of incoming applications are affected in any way by the CAO provisions. He
21 asked that if people are going to be subject to challenge under a law which is eventually
22 adopted, what represents safe ground? The Administration has apparently determined that
23 the 1992 version is more restrictive than what will eventually be adopted. What will save
24 people from challenge if they act now? He stated the idea is to adopt a CAO which
25 provides safe ground for everyone with a minimum of governmental intrusion.
26
27 Brown pointed out there is no provision for exempting a property owner. These are
28 the majority who are affected by the CAO. The people who want to use their land are
29 being totally ignored. Gibson called attention to the exemption classification. He asked if
30 this was, in fact, entirely safe ground. At this point there are no guarantees.
31 The mode of operation where the law being administered is no longer a law is stop -gap
32 until a law is adopted which puts into place that which the legislature has determined to be
33 in the County's best interest.
34
35 Richards spoke briefly to the original CAO, safe ground and the agricultural
36 exemption.
37
38 (Clerk's Note: A five- minute break was taken.)
39
40 Discussion followed on permit administration. The County has no basis for this, as
41 legislation has not yet been adopted. Moratorium was then discussed. Hardin -Woods
Growth Management Minutes, 2/13/96, Page 3
4.1
clarified that the Executive's commitment was to attempt to comply with the GMA, not the
Hearings Board; the Council has also made this commitment.
In answer to a question regarding time frame, Hardin -Woods responded that a
hearing cannot be held until a SEPA determination has been made. Various time frames
were also discussed.
Nelson moved to adopt the previously agreed upon schedule.
(Clerk's Note. No vote was taken on the motion.)
Sutter recommended holding the April 16 meeting to another day, either before or
after that date. Time frames continued to be discussed. Planning will revise the schedule
and make it available to the public.
Nelson moved Starkenburg send a letter to the Executive to produce specific clarity
as to what the Council is doing.
(Clerk's Note. No vote was taken on the motion.)
Starkenburg stated the above - referenced letter will also contain the direction the
Council is going as a legislative body, as well as the Council's concerns.
He also noted that the Council's main goal is to maintain what is already in place
and take care of some procedural glitches. In order to meet this goal, care needs to be
taken regarding records and follow up.
''r
Terry Galvin, Planning, gave a brief presentation on a regulatory and administrative
reform time line (handout on file). Discussion followed. Galvin pointed out this meets the
minimum time line, but his department needs Council direction.
Council directed staff to hold meetings with other individuals /organizations more
expert than the Council in dealing with administrative details.
Hardin -Woods spoke to the one of the Council's obligations: consider the
recommendation from the Planning Commission in its entirety, noting it will need to
Growth Management Minutes, 2/13/96, Page 4
1 prioritize and arrange these recommendations how it wants them. Discussion - followed on
2 the original and current Comprehensive Plans, as well as outside legal counsel to review
3 this Plan.
4
5 Bob Woods suggested if the Council is considering this legal review as a public
6 document, issues it needs to be concerned with include: agreement with the legal
7 reviewer's advice, and possible litigation post- adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Does
8 the Council wish to make public an attorney - client document?
9
10 Topics discussed included: possible billing hours for the legal reviewer; funding;
11 work session schedules; and receipt of chapters from the Planning Commission for Council
12 review.
13
14 Hardin -Woods pointed out to Council where it is now in terms of the GMA and
15 where Planning & Development Services is regarding the Comprehensive Plan. She
16 reviewed the time frame schedule, noting Planning continues to work on the Land Use
17 section until the end of April.
18
19 Nelson recommended the Council tighten the legal review schedule and do a work
20 session in early April. Discussion followed. It was suggested by Starkenburg that Council
21 ask staff to proceed on securing legal help under a waiver of bid requirements to be voted
22 on by the Council at the time the contract is brought forward. It was decided to first find
23 funding (in February); hire someone for the legal review in March; send existing subarea
24 plans and background documents to the legal reviewer; and give the Planning
25 Commission's Comprehensive Plan to the legal reviewer for completion of review by June
26 16. Beginning in March, the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed by
27 Council. The purpose of this review is to provide preliminary direction to the legal
28 reviewer regarding what Council might want to keep and what it might want to exclude. By
29 June 16, the Council would be prepared for a public hearing, after which the Council would
30 hold weekly work sessions.
31
32 Urban Fringe Subarea Plan
33
34 Hardin -Woods pointed out Council will be receiving this plan from the City Council.
35 Within it is the setting of the Northern Urban Growth Area boundary for Bellingham. This
36 piece is critical to adopting a final Comp Plan.
37
38 Starkenburg called Council's attention to the various rezones. How do they fit into
39 the Comp Plan?
40
41
Growth Management Minutes, 2/13/96, Page 5
1 AD JO
2
3 The meeting was adjourned at 1 :10 p.m.
4
5
7 ti_. ,/
8 Eli eth Bennett, Recording Secreta
9
10 These minutes were approved by the Council on April 2 , 1996.
11
12 ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
13 WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
14
15
16
17
LW
18 - avis, Nu erli and Nelson, Council Chair
Growth Management Minutes, 2/13/96, Page 6