HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council March 31 1992 630 pm1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Special Meeting
3 March 31, 1992
4 This "town meeting" was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Mount Baker High School
5 gymnasium in Deming by Council Chairman Dan Warner.
6 Present: Absent:
7 Marge Laidlaw None.
8 Dennis Vander Yacht
9 Bob Imhof
10 Larry Harris (arrived during the slide show)
11 Ken Henderson
12 Barbara Brenner
13 TOWN MEETING ON THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT:
14 CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (AB92 -058)
15 A notice (on file) mailed to all postal patrons in Whatcom County in mid -March
16 advertised the meetings and briefly explained all aspects of planning that are underway due
17 to the Growth Management Act. Approximately 130 people were present for this first in
18 a series of three town meetings to explain the critical areas ordinance, which is proposed
19 to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The County's Senior Planner,
_� 0 Terry Galvin, gave a short slide show and oral presentation to explain the Growth
21 Management Act and the critical areas portion. Warner introduced State Rep. Pete
22 Kremen (D- Bellingham), who was in the audience. Afterward, the floor was opened to
23 public comment.
24 Bob Hughes, 6895 South Pass Road: Co- president of Mount Baker School District's
25 Parent- Teachers' Association. Spoke about a proposed gambling casino at the Nooksack
26 Tribal Center; people in the community are very concerned about this proposal, because (in
27 part) it is located near the high school. Hughes said the Tribal representatives are
28 proposing this as an economic development boost. He suggested that the Council open a
29 dialogue with the Tribe. Also, the Council should look at the Growth Management Act's
30 economic impacts, and make sure that some economic development, is ' allowed for in the
31 foothills area.
32 Jeff Margolis, 5465 Potter Road: He is concerned about page 19 of the proposed
33 Critical Areas Ordinance, permit exemptions. Gossip would indicate there are plans for
34 damming the South or North Fork of the Nooksack River. Specifically, he's heard about
35 plans to dam the South Fork above Skookum Creek. It could be done for very noble
36 reasons, but it would make the South Fork Valley an area that is no longer a wetland so
37 that it would end up looking like Bellevue, something Margolis would like to avoid. The
Whatcom County Council Town Meeting, March 31, 1992- Page I
1 Council needs to specify the limits of the public interests that might otherwise allow for the
2 damming of the river. There is a pressing need for water now. The city of Bellingham is
3 on a water orgy; there is no monitoring of water use by residences. This county needs to
4 think about conserving water if it wants to conserve wetlands. The way to do that is to
5 declare that cities need to start monitoring water use and people need to start paying for
6 the water they use. Building codes need to be established that separate activities that use
7 potable and non - potable water (two separate plumbing systems, with cisterns, etc.); streets
8 should be graveled to avoid impermeable surfaces.
9 Galvin was asked by Laidlaw and Warner to address the rumors about damming the
10 Nooksack. He said that Whatcom County is putting together a comprehensive study of the
11 Nooksack basin, and at several meetings with users of the river the possibility has been
12 brought up but as a very undesirable alternative. At the staff level, Galvin said, there are
13 no plans to pursue it.
14 Virginia Naef, 2596 Valley Highway. She and her husband own 70 acres in the Black
15 Slough area. Consider themselves to be good stewards of the land. They favor the
16 ordinance, and do not want it to be diluted. Planning legislation is not always popular, it's
17 usually controversial, but it's needed. She reminded people that child labor laws, clean food
18 laws, pesticide and dumping laws and other legislation was equally disliked when it
19 originated, yet all are of benefit to the public, just as this ordinance will be. Cautioned the
20 Council about the problems associated with growth, including police and fire protection
21 impacts, insurance risks (due to people building in alluvial fan areas, etc.), and water quality
22 and quantity, loss of wooded areas.
23 Beverly Siguaw, 5520 Marshall Hill Road: Wants to know how to get her "land out
24 of this." Doesn't know if she is within the 100 -year flood plain, although she sees the
25 boundary on the map includes her property. She thought the voters had voted down growth
26 management but "here it is around our necks." Doesn't understand why there seems to be
27 a need for channeling growth into cities.
28 Warner said the federal government determines who is within the 100 -year flood
29 plain, and he isn't aware of any way she could opt out of this planning process; he explained
30 that the County is required to work on this ordinance by state law. Siguaw said her field
31 is wet because the state highway drainage is not adequate; therefore her land is not a
32 natural wetland.
33 Galvin said flood plains are not included in the ordinance, but wetlands are; category
34 three wetlands are so classified because they are within the 100 -year flood plain. These
35 maps are only indicators of potential critical areas elements. If land appears within one of
36 the boundaries on the maps, that doesn't automatically mean it is impacted by this
37 ordinance. Citizens can complete a checklist in the Planning office, have a site inspection
38 done, and can attempt to be exempted from the ordinance. Even after that, citizens can
39 appeal that determination to the Hearing Examiner. Discussion continued.
40 Brenner asked why Siguaw thought that growth management was voted down; Siguaw
41 responded, and her comments indicated she was confusing the Growth Management Act
Whatcom County Council Town Meeting, March 31, 1992 Page 2
1 with Initiative 547, which was a more intense version of growth management that was
2 rejected by a vote of the people. Siguaw said if she had the opportunity to vote down the
3 Growth Management Act she would have.
4 Dick Gilda (no address): Asked why Whatcom County had to be included with
5 growth management planning processes; he said people in Olympia said the County chose
6 to be involved. Warner and Brenner said the County didn't have a choice. Gilda said he
7 was glad to see the Council "got off your duffs" and had a meeting in the Deming area. He
8 talked about the difficulty the Mount Baker -School District had passing a levy until it
9 worked with the citizenry to get a levy proposal that was palatable to voters. He suggested
10 that in the future, the Council have a meeting of this sort earlier in the planning stage. He
11 acknowledged that 20 to 30 meetings have taken place, but they were not advertised in the
12 paper where people could find them. He said this meeting is a sign that officials are starting
13 to listen, and he is thankful for that. Responding to comments in the past that swamps,
14 streams, etc. should be left in their natural states, Gilda said sometimes lakes and streams
15 need maintenance in order to prevent them from becoming swamps and mud holes. Galvin
16 said wetlands are dynamic and will change over a long period of time. The most important
17 reasons for preserving wetlands are water quality and quantity, fisheries, wildlife. There is
18 a provision (on page 53) that allows for enhancement (cleaning out) wetlands, with some
19 conditions. Galvin said Gilda and others with similar concerns were to be commended for
20 bringing about this provision. Gilda said he feels this is an indication of how the citizens
21 can make a difference in the evolution of this plan if they speak out. Gilda said he
22 disagrees with the requirement for a certain level of geotechnical expertise in the review of
23 some issues.
24 Doris Prather, Valley Highway: Supports the ordinance. Protection of critical areas
25 is long overdue. Rumors are flying around about wetlands, even though wetlands serve as
26 restoration areas for groundwater. The attitude of some people is that the only good swamp
27 is one that's been filled in and paved over. She has a wetland on her property that used to
28 be a pond; she considers it an asset. She wants to have it restored, and is receiving a U.S.
29 Fish and Wildlife grant to help with this.
30 Mike Brennan, Director,Whatcom Chamber of Commerce and Industry: Was on one
31 of the advisory committees for this ordinance. People should appreciate the Council's
32 efforts to notify the public of what is happening (via the postal patron mailing) (the crowd
33 applauded, incidentally). Growth management legislation was designed for King, Pierce and
34 Snohomish counties where growth is a severe problem, he said. For Whatcom County, it
35 translates into a much more difficult process. The Critical Areas Ordinance is going to
36 dramatically impact Whatcom County citizens. If a property holds water it's a wetland. If
37 water runs through the property it's a recharge area; if the water runs off the property it's
38 a steep slope. Whatcom County probably has more critical areas than most counties in the
39 state. Regarding environmental issues, the planning process needs to be redesigned.
40 Political boundaries (cities, etc.) should be removed from consideration and planning should
Whatcom County Council Town Meeting, March 31, 1992 Page 3
1 be done according to watershed areas. It's also important the county bring on staff with
2 technical expertise to help with this planning process. People in the community should not
3 have to hire the technical expertise to fight whether their land is a wetland. Somebody
4 needs to look at the economic impacts of this ordinance. Tax revenues will be lost; the
5 County should protect its revenue sources. The loss of property rights was also of concern
6 to Brennan. He doesn't want Whatcom County to be on the leading edge of land use
7 litigation; tax payers don't want to ,spend their money on that. The Growth Management
8 Act is trying to legislate lifestyles. The County needs to evaluate other types of
9 technologies, such as cisterns; gray water-processing for recharging aquifers; and desalination
10 facilities in areas like Point Roberts. He doesn't like a provision that says if a non-
11 conforming use is not used for a year, it's no longer permitted.
12 Harris addressed Brennan's comments regarding economic impacts. He said there
13 are two arguments regarding critical areas: One is that it will preserve the quality of life so
14 that more people will want to move here; the other is that it will restrict things so much that
15 no one will be able to move here. He asked Brennan which one he agreed with. Brennan
16 responded that in past years the industrial areas were located on wetlands, where no one
17 wanted to live. People in Bellingham don't want increased density; Lynden and Ferndale
18 residents have the same concerns. The County needs to specify where industry is going to
19 go, and have the technical expertise to properly mitigate impacts on the environment while
20 preserving the opportunity for economic development.
21 Evelyn Roth, 51 Bay View Drive, Point Roberts: Hopes that the heron rookery and
22 associated buffers are preserved, and that Lily Point bluffs are preserved. Of concern to her
23 is the lack of a formal sewer system in Point Roberts. Some people believe the water level
24 is rising, land is less likely to perk, more erosion is occurring, and toilets are not flushing
25 well. Lives on the beach and notices erosion even without storms. Appreciates the meeting
26 tonight, and the mailing notifying citizens.
27 Doug Dobyns, 3231 Hillside Road: Concerned about page 21, at the bottom, under
28 the "authority" section, paragraph B. Some definition needs to be attached to the type of
29 how that hierarchy of permitting would be nested.
30 Galvin turned to page 46, where the relationship among jurisdictional agencies is
31 discussed. The word "may" was used, rather than "will" or "shall," so that if the administrator
32 feels another jurisdiction's requirements are adequate the County won't require duplication.
33 Dobyns said that explanation started to satisfy him. On page 65, in the wildlife section, the
34 Nooksack Tribe's jurisdictional interest was not mentioned, Dobyns said, adding that this
35 is a sample of the type of problems he sees with the document. Galvin said those were
36 good points and that these issues would be worked on.
37 Dobyns talked about the fee schedule on page 27, the $1,500 fee level; he said the
38 larger developers need to bear more of the costs (no cap should exist). Imhof said the
39 County can't charge fees beyond the cost of processing a permit; Dobyns said he thinks the
40 cost of processing certain sizes of permits are the same. Warner commented; Brenner made
41 a suggestion.
Whatcom County Council Town Meeting, March 31, 1992 Page 4
1 Dobyns asked about the provision that was at one time included which would require
2 a "flag" on plat maps and legal assessors documents to warn people that they have property
3 with wetlands; he would like it to be re- instated.
4 If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 standards are used for identifying wetlands,
5 Dobyns doesn't like that. He wants the 1989 standards to be used. Galvin said the 1989
6 version seemed to make better sense, although there isn't a huge difference between the
7 two. Galvin's recommendation was overturned, and the 1987 document was decided upon
8 instead. It will be of a lesser impact to developers. Dobyns said there is a lot of dispute
9 as to which manual the Tribe should be using;- the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
10 is using the 1989 manual. This lack of coordination bothers him.
11 He recommends that on page 53, the mitigation banking proposal be struck from this
12 ordinance (the concept of development credits). He doesn't disagree with the concept, just
13 the execution. This is a temporary ordinance, and mitigation banking would not be
14 appropriate under these circumstances.
15 Responding to the question Harris asked of Brennan, Dobyns said he perceives this
16 ordinance to benefit very large developers and cutting out opportunities for the little people.
17 That drives some of his concerns. The quality of life should be for the people who live
18 here; in particular, he will later bring forward some information about low income housing.
19 He applauds the use of the language regarding the "public trust" and said the
20 concepts in this ordinance (preservation -wise) are good; he feels a comprehensive wildlife
21 management plan is needed in this County. In the appendices, priority habitats that are
22 mentioned to not include the spotted owl or the marbled murrelet, and they should at least
23 be mentioned.
.4 Henderson asked about Dobyns' comments regarding the 1987 and 1989 wetlands
25 rules; why does it matter which one is used? Dobyns said using the 1987 rules will make
26 it easier for Ann Anderson to get into office, because she will see that as a "win." Wet
27 meadows will be impacted. Wetland protection should be an ongoing, active methodology,
28 not something done in a laissez fair manner.
29 Harris asked Dobyns where specifically the ordinance allows developers more leeway
30 than the average citizens; Dobyns said it was his general impression. Warner asked about
31 the priority habitat comment.
32 Helen Cunningham, Point Roberts: Suggested that the Council limit the amount of
33 time people speak. She asked about enforcement; rules in existence are blatantly ignored
34 _ in Point Roberts. She said a wetland in Point Roberts was drained illegally by a developer.
35 In Europe people hold Washington State in contempt because State residents don't manage
36 natural resources; it's about time we start. She favors the planning process used to develop
37 the document, because large groups are not as effective in forming the initial draft
38 document as small groups. Environmental impacts need to be taken more seriously.
39 Warner commented. Cunningham said she has had terrible experiences in seeking help with
40 forest practices violations.
41 Bart Clendenen, 5885 Schornbush Road: Commended the planning staff. The
Whatcom County Council Town Meeting, March 31, 1992 Page 5
1 temporary ordinance is a job well done. No one likes to see regulation taking place, but
2 better to have local control from the County than have the state involved. Growth will be
3 allowed in an orderly fashion, which will make the county a more enjoyable place; the
4 ordinance offers compromises. The Council has done an excellent job in terms of seeking
5 public impact, and he'd like to see more of them. He also made it known that people can
6 contribute their input at any time. The ordinance addresses land, water and people. Land
7 and water are finite; people are the big variable. We need to work with the environment,
8 not against it. Growth without planning is chaos.
9 Peter Rasmussen, 7603 Kendall Road: Regarding population growth, the country
10 needs to eliminate it (he said he was joking). Also sewage should be pumped back into
11 Lake Whatcom to recycle the water. He wanted to know if the County would be regulating
12 existing developments, such as in Paradise Lakes, because they do pollute the ground water.
13 Will the new Courthouse have enough room to accommodate staff and paperwork associated
14 with this ordinance? He also wanted to know why "takings" weren't defined. Were wetlands
15 created by glaciers differentiated from those man-made wetlands emerging within the past
16 12 years? He asked that there be more scrutiny of exceptions. Warner commented.
17 Shelly Weisberg, 1817 McKenzie Avenue, Bellingham: Believes very strongly that the
18 County needs this Critical Areas Ordinance. Growth has happened so quickly. People are
19 afraid of regulations and of losing their property rights, but she defended the ordinance and
20 its goals.
Ll Carl Franz, 3356 Mosquito Lake Road: Feels this is basically a very good document;
22 but it's actually a damage control plan, not a critical areas document. It's an attempt to
23 contain a damage process that began probably 100 years ago. For example, the salmon have
24 gone as the wetlands have gone. People who enjoy hunting and fishing should favor this
25 ordinance.
26 On page 44, ditches: A ditch near his home was cleaned to such an extent that fish
27 and wildlife were damaged, and it cost tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore some of the
28 exemptions provided for in this ordinance should be more tightly controlled.
29 Page 50, paragraph D, mitigation of wetlands: Agrees to an extent with Dobyns. If
30 mitigation is to occur, the wetlands should be functioning before other wetlands are
31 destroyed (in other words, don't wipe one out until the wildlife has another habitat to move
32 to); also these wetlands should be of higher biological value so the wildlife has some benefit.
33 Page 64, corridors: Buffers are too narrow. If they aren't based on scientific evidence
34 as to benefit to wildlife, why do we have them? The Nooksack elk herd was damaged
35 because logging didn't take into consideration the migratory patterns of the elk.
36 Property rights also contain a responsibility to the community and to the ecosystem.
37 Unless we bite the bullet now there won't be anything left 40 years from now.
38 Warner said that only 1/2 hour remained, and asked how many people wanted to
39 speak; about seven people indicated they would like to speak. An unidentified citizen (later
Whatcom County Council Town Meeting, March 31, 1992 Page 6
1 identified as Lee Williamson, Jr.) said he was tired of hearing from "all those
2 environmentalists ... Let's hear from the working man."
3 Mark Schuller, Dept. of Fisheries: Mankind has destroyed the salmon and trout
4 habitat. Wetlands do fill in naturally, but not in a 20 -year period. That rapid change (such
5 as with Barrett Lake) happen because of impacts from agriculture, logging, and others. He
6 talked about some specific environmental tragedies, and how land use impacts fisheries. He
7 also noted that salmon are spawning in Fishtrap Creek in Lynden (an environmental
S success).
9 Brian Knutzen, 3600 Nelson Road: Owns timber and farmland in the Acme Valley,
10 and wanted to know how the County planned to compensate him for the loss of use of his
11 land if it is designated as a wetland. Warner said it would depend on whether it was
12 designed as a "taking," although perhaps money from the Conservations Futures levy would
13 help compensate some people for their loss if it is a "taking."
14 Henderson said "taking" is a gray area, and that there is considered to be a public
15 value to preservation of certain land. Whether a "taking" exists is difficult to define. These
16 regulations are being written in conformance with the law as it is.
17 Deputy Prosecutor Bob Carmichael pointed out there are two sections in the
18 ordinance dealing with variances. If all reasonable use of a property is deprived of a person,
19 a variance is possible. He talked about the other possibilities, which are administrative
20 remedies that would be pursued prior to a legal action. Simply because there is some
21 diminishment of property value does not mean that a taking exists, he said. The impact on
22 the use of the whole property would need to be considered. Carmichael said he'd be happy
23 to talk with anyone who has questions about it. Knutzen commented further.
24 Lee Williamson Jr.., 6455 Mount Baker Highway: Special interest groups are the ones
25 making the decisions and influencing government. He's in the logging industry, and cites
26 a poll taken recently in which people said two out of three people would rather have jobs
27 than preserve the environment. He doesn't think the laws represent the interests of a
28 majority of the people. He said the oil spill in Alaska did not impact the fishing industry;
29 the fears expressed in the media about the alleged impact on the environment are an
30 example of special interests misleading politicians. "Who are you people really listening to
31 and what is going on around here ?" he asked. He said the Executive has her own planning
32 commission, headed by a Mr. Scott. He attacked Warner's statements regarding takings.
33 "I don't know why you're so pugnacious about this, we're just here to listen to what you have
34 to say," Warner said. Williamson continued.
35 Roger Hawley, 495 E. Axton Road: Potato farmer near Lynden, commissioner for
36 Drainage District No. 5. Page 46, beaver dams, paragraph 2: Beavers need to be controlled
37 so that the wetlands don't expand. In another place, blind ditches are not addressed; he
38 thinks farmers need to be allowed and that they should be allowed to replace them. Galvin
39 said staff agrees with him, and plans to make those alterations; Galvin commented further.
H%Xcom County Council Town Meeting, March 31, 1992 Page 7
1 Skip Richards, 214 N. Commercial, Bellingham: He distributed a letter dated March
2 31. He asked if his 100 -page notebook of information had been received earlier in the
3 month by the Council; Warner acknowledged that it had. He criticized the planning process,
4 which he felt had helped to polarize the community on this issue. Richards read directly
5 from his letter.
6 Warner told him to wrap up his comments; Richards objected.
7 BRENNER MOVED TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK AS LONG AS THEY
8 FEEL A NEED TO DO SO.
9 Motion failed 4 -3, with Laidlaw, Brenner and Vander Yacht voting in favor.
10 Elaine Cedebaca: Regarding the geotechnical engineer, she talked about experience
11 levels and how the requirements in the ordinance are not out of the ordinary. Regarding
12 channelized streams, they cause problems in the ecosystem. Opposed to any channelization
13 that might be suggested. Didn't find siltation addressed; inadequate siltation will degrade
14 spawning habitat. A lot of people don't understand how bad the wildlife and fisheries
15 problems are. She talked about some of the problems, and the loss or endangerments of
16 species. Fishing isn't the only problem; "We can't point fingers, we have to work together."
17 Steve Irving, 6022 North Star Road: Is on the wetlands map, and wants the Council
18 to adopt the ordinance. He doesn't want the area to become another Bellevue.
i9 Bill Henshaw, 2653 North Park Drive, Bellingham: Concerned about affordable
20 housing. On page 51, there is a bonding requirement having to do with compensatory
21 mitigation which appears to be overly restrictive.
22 On page 53, the practical alternative test: There is no mention of when people enter
23 into the market place, which is of concern to people who may have had their land for 15
24 years and decide to develop it at that time. A clearer definition is needed.
25 The corridors need to be maintained for wildlife migration, etc., the wording is too
26 restrictive on page 64.
27 The appendix having to do with wildlife habitat, when compounded with the corridor
28 language, is arbitrary; more scientific data is needed to justify areas. On page 84, regarding
29 runoff buffers or slopes, the proposed restrictions are not practical. Whatcom County is not
30 only a beautiful place to live, and housing has been relatively inexpensive for a long time.
31 He hopes the Council will look at the economic impacts.
32 Rod Rood, 5225 Potter Road: A dairy farmer who has concerns about land use
33 planning. Economics are his primary concerns. Agriculture is changing, restrictions are
34 getting tougher. Therefore fewer farms will exist in the County. Economic viable
35 alternatives for farm land are needed when farming is no longer practical or feasible.
36 Talked about what he called the Potter Road Dam, which is the Potter Road bridge. He
37 said it causes flooding. People need to be compensated for the damages suffered. The
Whatcom County CouncU Town Meeting March 31, 1992 Page 8
1 problem needs to be corrected; the span is not good enough, rip - rapping is inadequate.
2 Laidlaw said Engineering is addressing the Potter Road bridge problem and working
3 with Bob Paulson to try and find a solution. Rood said he still hadn't seen anything done.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Warner said people who didn't get a chance to speak should attend one of the other
two town meetings, or the Council's public hearing on this issue May 26.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
1�, e4,4-��
Ramona Reeves, Clerk of the Council
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Daniel M. Warner, Chairman
Whatcom County Council Town Meeting Marsh 31, 1992
Page 9