Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council April 28 1993WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL CITY OF BELLINGHAM COUNCIL JOINT MEETING April 28, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 in the Bellingham City Council Chambers by Mark Asmundson, President of Bellingham City Council. Also present from Bellingham City Council: Tip Johnson, Foster Rose, Arnie Hanna, Joy Keenan, and Louise Bjornson (late). Present from the Whatcom County Council: Marge Laidlaw, Barbara Brenner, Ken Henderson, Larry Harris, and Dan Warner. Also present: Bob Woods, Budget and Program Analyst. Present from Water District #10: Fred Boettner and Tom Getzie. Asmundson presented the background of the meeting, which involves the steps being taken by all concerned to insure the quality of the drinking water for the county. He announced to the public that their written comments were welcomed and considered, but because this is not a public hearing, public testimony will not be taken this evening. Laidlaw introduced the Watershed Management team members: Bonnie Strode from Water District #10, Bellingham Mayor Tim Douglas, and County Executive Shirley Van Zanten plus their support staff, Jack Gardner from City Public Works and Sue Blake from County Environmental Health Water Resources Division. Blake reported for the management team. Their struggle over the past few months has been how to take the Lake Whatcom Watershed Goals and Policies (see attachment 1), translate them into an action plan, and then implement the action plan. The first thing was to take a look at what they're already doing related to the Goals and Policies (see attachment 2). Part of this was to be clear on who was actually involved in the work in order to utilize existing programs and staff members and their expertise. The second major area (see attachment 3) was setting priorities for the Goals with emphasis being placed on the critical areas and then ranking the areas. Because zoning and development in the watershed will be dealt with under Growth Management, it could be at least two years before this part of the project is resolved and completed. The third major step is adjusting everything to the recently passed County -wide Planning Policies. The fourth step was looking at the existing programs and identifying the gaps there (see attachment 5) that needed attention. The proposed framework for action (see attachment 6) will be used by staff and others to establish teams which will develop action plan Bellingham/Whatcom County Joint Councils, Water District #10 meeting, 4//28/93, Page 1 strategies and time frames for implementing the actions. The next major item is funding and staffing. Keenan asked about urbanization and the team for that aspect.. Blake said that at this time the team is Vicky Mathisen from County Planning, someone from City Planning, a representative from Water District #10, and Blake. At their first meeting the team will identify who else it would be appropriate to have on the team such as developers, residents, other interest groups. Asmundson asked for clarification on the team concept; would ,each team operate as if it had a broad mandate from the group, developing their own agenda and own approach for accomplishing the team's goal? Blake said that each team would have a fair amount of latitude. Hanna asked if there would be an appeal process for those affected. Blake said that probably the zoning problems would have to be dealt with under existing zoning laws and appeals process there. The intent is that appeal rights would not be given up. Johnson asked about policy levels and conflicts among /between the layers. Blake responded that no policy had been set for dealing with the conflicts. They hoped that as Growth Management and the zoning laws, etc. took effect, the teams would find there weren't any longer the conflicts or difficulties currently there. Johnson asked about the level of expected involvement of Water District #10 personnel in the teams. Blake said that composition of the teams was basically left open to the jurisdictions, each to determine if he considered the team appropriate to its interests. Johnson expressed concern about the work load this would impose on Water District #10 due to its relatively small size. Henderson expressed concern about working on so many broad fronts simultaneously. He asked the group if they wanted to sit down and prioritize activities and make recommendations. Blake commented that the team players on each committee are different, so while a wide variety is being addressed, it's not as though one individual or one group is involved in all the activities. Henderson suggested that perhaps the best approach is to develop the development standards for the entire county, which would then be appropriate for any watershed, including Lake Whatcom. Blake responded that Nate Brown, Buildings and Code, has indicated that he is working on storm water regulations for the entire county. She said that the first things being asked of the teams is not only names of specific members but also time lengths for their tasks. Asmundson suggested that perhaps a good job for the meeting this evening would be to take the teams that have already been formed and prioritize their work so that Bellingham/Whatcom County Joint Councils, Water District #10 meeting. 4//28/93. Page 2 resources can be allocated. Blake said she thought that would be helpful. Keenan asked if staff which had been approached felt that it was feasible for them to come up with a plan and its implementation time frame, that would be helpful in setting the priorities. It could be that something which might be discarded as low priority could actually be implemented quickly and easily and therefore should be done. Harris concurred that starting with priorities would be helpful. He suggested amending the document to sharpen the way in which priorities are chosen and the way in which they are implemented. The missing item is the concept of Lake Whatcom Drinking Water Reservoir. Bjornson expressed concern about the potential of holding one team back while others were being sent on their way, ready to go. If the team is ready, let them go. Johnson said he hoped that the groups would not come up with a lot of 'options," but would have specific action plans. Blake responded that the goal of this process is not to come up with options but with do -able actions. Johnson also expressed concern about separating one item from another since they were really not clearly separable. Blake said they were aware of this and divided things the way they did with this in view. This is also the purpose of the oversight committee. She also noted the internal staff links. Brenner asked about acknowledging the Lake as the reservoir. Blake asked for clarification from Harris. Harris said what is missing from the document is 1) what is the definition of a reservoir? 2) what are the criteria for a drinking water reservoir? He clarified the data required for defining the criteria. He said that the defining would clarify the prioritizing. He proposed that before anything is done with prioritizing activities and goals, criteria of a drinking water reservoir be established. Asmundson referred Harris to Attachment 3. Johnson said that after years of working with watersheds, he now knows that there are not specific scientific bases for what you do to a watershed. It could be, however, that it would elevate the status of the lake if everywhere the Goals and Policies said Lake Whatcom the words Reservoir Watershed were inserted. Harris, Asmundson, and Johnson discussed the concept of criteria for a drinking water reservoir, including the idea of setting up commissioners to administer the lake with a very explicit program. Asmundson suggested adding as an additional priority the establishment of a team which would focus on the specific aspects of Lake Whatcom as a drinking water reservoir for the purposes of establishing the criteria by which the lake would be managed strictly from a reservoir perspective including the minimum acceptable standards of water quality so that the reservoir status of the lake would be acknowledged and protected. Johnson added that he found it hard to imagine what those Bell inaham/Whatcom Countv Joint Councils, Water District #10 meeting, 4//28/93, Page 3 criteria would cover specifically. Hanna added that when he thinks of reservoir, he thinks of no boating, no fishing, no swimming, no use - -in the long run. The people who live out there, however, don't expect Lake Whatcom to every be called a reservoir, he said, because the concept of reservoir is scary to people. Getzie pointed out that one important aspect is the symbolism value of the word reservoir. He reviewed the many years of work on the watershed and warned of the danger of jumping into some decision process that the group is not yet prepared to deal with. He suggested forming sub - committees to deal with the action plans developed by the various teams; this would facilitate the process. Asmundson suggested deciding several things at this point. (1) Does the group want to have the recommended team approach kick into gear, and (2) Is a sub- committee mechanism what's wanted to deal with and respond to the teams, and (3) should public comment be referred to the appropriate teams since most of the public comment will be substantive rather than procedural. Henderson and Asmundson discussed the public comment aspect. Brenner suggested that the subcommittee should be formed of members from all three entities rather than specific people. Asmundson clarified. Warner moved that the concept of the team approach by staff be affirmed and that a subcommittee of the jurisdictions be created consisting of the Whatcom County Water Resource Committee and the appropriate committee from the City and from Water District #10, and that a quorum consist of a majority of the full number, and that the actions of the subcommittee would be brought back to their jurisdictions for review and approval. Johnson seconded the motion. There was discussion on the motion, including clarification from Asmundson and Warner. Laidlaw expressed concern over the priorities established as presented and would like to give the subcommittee powers to discuss these. Asmundson suggested that the subcommittee meet right away, if it was approved, and explore these . and report back to their jurisdictions first thing. Henderson reminded everyone that this was an evolutionary process; nothing was set in cement. Laidlaw offered as a friendly amendment that the committee be streamlined even further so that the committee would be smaller, suggesting that the official committee be comprised of one member from each of the groups in Warner's motion. Warner said he would accept it as a friendly amendment if the quorum consisted of at least one member from each of the three jurisdictions, but that the subcommittee be comprised as originally stated. Bellingham/Whatcom County Joint Councils, Water District #10 meeting, 4//28/93, Page 4 The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Douglas said that there is one overriding question of maximum concern: that the Growth Management time schedule be followed. He acknowledged that land use issues are the biggest unresolved issues of everything. He asked if it was appropriate to follow those land use questions in the regular Growth Management schedule, or should those be moved up? Laidlaw moved that the land use issues be moved up to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The motion was discussed. Douglas asked if the motion meant to start the legal process of a zoning review. Van Zanten asked for clarification of "as soon as possible" so she would know how to proceed in directing Planning staff and in setting up the 1994 budget. Laidlaw, Douglas, Van Zanten, and Henderson discussed this and the implications of moving this item up in the process. Laidlaw clarified that she meant the motion to be a request that the work schedule be explored to see what could be done and what could be moved. Van Zanten insisted on having a specific time so she could schedule. Harris expressed concern about upsetting the Growth Management schedule. The funding is precarious, and already the county is a year behind schedule. He pointed out that the subarea update for Lake Whatcom is the next thing on the schedule after Growth Management, which has implications for Water District #10's sewer line. He said he couldn't support the motion. Brenner asked for staff input on moving it up. Blake questioned whether or not the group had the latitude to deal with everything already scheduled, let along moving up the zoning of the Lake Whatcom area. Asmundson amended the motion to provide that the respective administrations provide their Councils with information concerning the implications of the adoption of this motion before action is taken. Brenner seconded it and Laidlaw accepted it as a friendly amendment. The motion was discussed by Johnson and Douglas. Topics discussed: Time involved; value placed on watershed; threat to water quality; increased demands on the City., The motion carried unanimously. Bellingham/Whatcom County Joint Councils, Water District #10 meeting. 4//28/93, EI e-5 The Chairs of the three jurisdictions will set the date, place, and time for the meeting and take the responsibility of notifying the appropriate parties. Johnson suggested that the direction for emphasis of priorities should be left wide open and up to the sub - committee. As there was no further business, Asmundson adjourned the meeting. ATTEST: JURISDICTIONS: Nancy Cilfin, Assistant Clerk Mark Asmundson, President Whatcom County Council Bellingham City Council Marge Lai aw, Chair Whatcom County Council Fre Boettner, Chair Water District #10 Bellingham/Whatcom County Joint Councils, Water District #10 meeting. 4//28/93, Page 6