Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council August 8 1995WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING WORK SESSION August 8, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 10:07 a.m, by Council Chair Robert Imhof in the Multi- Purpose Room, 311 Grand Avenue. Also Present: Absent: Marlene Dawson None Larry Harris Alvin Starkenburg Ken Henderson Ward Nelson Barbara Brenner (late) SPECIAL ORDER, OF BUSINESS 1. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF WHATCOM COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 2, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (VERSION DATED JULY 1995) (AB95 -325) .Nate Brown, Public Works, opened the discussion by reviewing the origins of the Technical Advisory Committee. The committee members introduced themselves: Derrick Holzl, Engineer Pat Jones, Civil Engineer Philip Whitson, Geologist George Raper, Land Surveyor Dan Sturtz for Larry Steele & Associates, Land Survey /Land Use Technician Jay Gordon, Technical & Environmental Engineer Albert Doan, Architect (absent) Brown resumed by stating that the Stormwater Program is designed to be flexible and incorporates best management practices from the Department of Ecology Manual, which is based on several sources of information. Much work went into this packet. Terry Galvin, Planning, spoke to the proposed development standards. A format handout was distributed (on file). Stormwater Minutes, 8/8/95, Page 1 1 Dan Gibson, Council's counsel, responded to the prior question of whether the 2 Council has the authority to delegate the responsibility of the actions taken to the 3 Technical Advisory Committee by turning the discussion over to Karen Frakes, 4 Prosecuting Attorney. Frakes discussed her review of Rolf Beckhusen's memo. She 5 noted, in her opinion, he misstated the issue, which throws his entire analysis off. 6 7 Galvin noted that his department attempts to ensure consistency of the standards 8 with the regulations by developing everything before it reaches the Council for final 9 approval, but there will be a preliminary phase where Planning comes before the Council 10 with the regulations conceptually. Council may amend or give direction to Planning, and 11 then Planning develops the standards with the Technical Advisory Committee. The final 12 form is then presented to the Council, whereupon the formal approval process is 13 completed. 14 15 Pat Jones spoke to his understanding of the work completed by this committee. 16 Phil Whitson also commented. 17 18 Brown felt the enabling ordinance gives the Technical Advisory Committee only 19 certain authorities. He was concerned .the committee would be going beyond their 20 authority when it is relied upon to make other recommendations, although he also felt 21 the committee members were very capable. Brown would support additional expanded 22 responsibility to the committee. 23 24 Nelson suggested adopting a resolution giving the Planning Department direction. 25 Brown stated he had no problem with that. 26 27 Bob Woods, Council Budget and Program Analyst, suggested an executive order 28 laying out the procedure which would bypass the Planning Commission but would codify 29 the procedure in the Administrative Manual. 30 31 Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that Public Works will be reviewing 32 the stormwater management standards /regulations. Imhof stated he and others would 33 confer with Brown to discuss the necessity of a resolution. 34 35 Galvin reported that any development permit application will be submitted for 36 review. There will then be three environmental review processes: critical areas 37 ordinance (CAO); State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA); and shorelines. 38 Once the review process has been completed, the next review will be for erosion 39 sedimentation control. A large development will require permanent stormwater 40 management, which will be under the jurisdiction of Public Works. A small development 41 will be reviewed under land clearing. 42 43 44 Stormwater Minutes, 8/8/95, Page 2 Roger McCarthy, Engineering, ran through a couple of scenarios of how the process will work. Pat Jones offered his insights into this process. He noted that the variables are complex and interrelated. Those commenting included: Ed Good, Hearing Examiner Dan Sturtz for Larry Steele Jay Gordon Phil Whitson Bob Andersen (handout provided) Harris thanked the Technical Advisory Committee for all their work. Imhof stated this item will be scheduled for adoption at the September 5 meeting. (Clerk's Note: At this point, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 cam. The next item, flow control, will be discussed beginning at I p.m.) 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING FLOW CONTROL Imhof called this portion of the meeting to order at 1 p.m. He gave a brief background of Flow Control and asked where it will go from here. Are the priorities that were set six years ago and voted upon three times in the last year and a half still valid from Council's standpoint? He asked the Council to consider whether reduction is priority number one. A discussion followed about where and how to proceed. Imhof noted one of the reasons for this work session is to define "recycling ". Reduction, recycling and composting were discussed at length, as well as the hierarchy. Dan Gibson, Council's counsel, commented on the legality of hierarchy. Harris thought the Council was mixing process with standards. He referred the members to Jeff Monsen's letter of August 3, which stated the County has three basic options available as to the scope of regulated solid waste control: "1. Continue to actively promote certain waste handling /disposal methods in selecting what vendors are allowed to operate at any given time; 2. Establish a performance standard, without preference to any handling or disposal method, that all vendors must achieve in order to be allowed to operate; or, 3. The only vendor requirement is collection of a surcharge." Stormwater Minutes, 8/8/95, Page 3 Again, Harris thought it was time to discuss recycling, economic and environmental standards. There was discussion on the members' various opinions. Jeff Monsen, Public Works, commented on the concept of the performance standards. Imhof asked if the Council is going to give direction regarding setting priorities. If so, then ask staff to meet with the Prosecuting Attorney's Office, etc., to create an ordinance and bring it before the Council. Imhof moved to stay with some sort of hierarchy. considering economics, competition and new technologies. His preference is to continue with the present priority level, allowing staff to change it to make the process work and move on from there. Brenner suggested having hierarchy priority number one as reduction, number two as recycling and numbers two through eight as other (all these items were written on the board) and let staff come back with what is legally defensible. Discussion followed with Monsen, Gibson and Council members. The Council members then discussed their comments about which direction they would like to see this issue go. Imhof moved to continue with the present priority levels and allow staff to create documents that will be legally defensible and that can be workable with this resolution, having competition, cost containment and enhances new technology, and then the Council can move forward with this issue. Imhof restated the motion supporting number one of Monsen's letter (see above). He asked for a show of hands. Imhof, Nelson and Starkenburg raised their hands. Imhof asked those in favor of number two (of Monsen's letter as above). Brenner, Henderson, Dawson and Harris raised their hands. Imhof told Monsen he would contact Monsen about the timeline for this issue. Stormwater Minutes, 8/8/95, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. 13 14 15 1 / '. 17 18 a rown- avi , ouncil Cle k the Council on September 19 , 1995. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Stormwater Minutes, 8/8/95, Page 5