Planning Commission

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON THURSDAY PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. January 15, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER5 Video-taped www.cob.org CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Ali Taysi, Chairman of the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL: Tom Grinstad, Jeff Brown, Garrett O'Brien (VC), Ali Taysi (C), Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and Cerise Noah Present: Tom Grinstad, Jeff Brown, Ali Taysi, Phyllis McKee, Steve Crooks and Cerise Noah Absent: Garrett O’Brien Staff Present: Greg Aucutt, Assistant Director; Kurt Nabbefeld; Senior Planner; Steve Sundin, Planner II; Kim Weil, Environmental Planner; and Heather Aven, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - No minutes to approve. 15 MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD No public testimony provided. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of the proposed amendments to the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (BMC 16.55) STAFF PRESENTATION Kurt Nabbefeld introduced staff and provided a brief overview of the item before the Commission. He recognized the concerns expressed by the public regarding the time allowed for public review and requested that the Planning Commission take no action at this time. He responded to some of the public comments that have been received.  LEAN is not a pro-development, nor is it an anti-development, tool. He explained that LEAN is a process that allows something to be evaluated, refined and made better.  Claiming that the process has been flawed because staff did not reach out to every individual / group that has concerns with the proposal is unfair. He pointed out that the technical advisory groups were only a precursor to the broader public process that begins before the Planning Commission tonight.  There is no truth to the statement that the DRAFT of the Critical Areas Ordinance is final prior to the public having the opportunity to weigh in and comment on it. He pointed out that after hearing from the public, the Planning Commission and City Council make changes to DRAFT documents all of the time. Steve Sundin and Kim Weil reviewed the critical area ordinance and highlighted some of the main revisions and those revisions that could be perceived as the "most controversial". They explained the purpose of the update, how the changes were made and which sections were newly added to the ordinance. Fianl Copy - 1 Steve Sundin reviewed the administrative section of the BMC - 21.10.260 and responded to some of the written public comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Wendy Harris expressed her objection to the SEPA determination and the proposed CAO amendments. She encouraged the Commission to recommend denial and start the process over again, due to procedural issues. She discussed those procedures she feels were not followed correctly, and noted that she would like an opportunity to comment prior to the amendments coming forward in final draft form. She commented on the goals of the Critical Areas Ordinance and point out, in her opinion, staff did not use Best Available Science. She stated that there needs to be habitat open space and connectivity included in the ordinance. She addressed the minor impact section and expressed her disagreement. She suggested that there be a determination as to whether or not the ordinance is working. Donna Keleher expressed her objection to the proposed CAO amendments. She expressed concern regarding the release of the SEPA without releasing the CAO. She pointed out, in her opinion, the CAO did not adequately include the public. She stated that although the City has fish protection laws, there is nothing included for terrestrial animals. She expressed concern about the erosion of the wetland buffer, especially the reduction from 15 ft. to 5 ft. She would like open habitat areas set aside for the wildlife; as well as, protection for biodiversity, as it is an important element in keeping the land resilient. John Lesow requested that the comment period be extended and the Commission deny the proposal. He stated that he is aware of the continued impact that development has on the environment. He compared this process to the one that the County is following for their CAO update. He stated, in his opinion, more time for public input is needed. Geoff Middaugh agreed with previous speakers, that the public needs more time. He stated that should be an integrated approach to risk management regarding geo-hazards and conservation areas. He expressed confusion about is meant by conforming / non-conforming. He stated that he is supportive of the City gaining new information of urban habitat conditions, trends and forests. He pointed out that the Best Available Science section needs to be updated. He expressed his support for the sorting out of the essential public facilities in the document. He stated most of the proposed amendment are positive. Charles Law shared some pictures and stated that no matter where you live in Whatcom County there is a connection to water. He shared some contamination statistics on Fever Creek and the diseases that could be realized because of it. He pointed out that water is a valuable natural resource and should be protected. Kim Feringer expressed concern about the lack of public participation. He mentioned that when one or two groups are involved, at that exclusion of others, there is a perception of unfairness. He stated that the process should be started over since the public did not have the chance to weigh in before the document was completed. He noted that he was unclear how a wetland mitigation bank works, especially since most created wetlands are almost always failures. Stacy Neal mentioned that the City and County should work together in an effort to have habitat corridors. She stated that she feels left out of the process and recommended that the process should start from scratch. She reported statistics that would support wildlife corridors. She pointed out that wetlands are one of the most important natural functioning systems and she does not understand why development would ever be allowed on them. She requested that the Commission deny the proposal and allow the process to be started over. Fianl Copy - 2 Roger Almskaar requested that the written comment be held open until January 30th. He expressed agreement with the general goals of the ordinance and stated that he is concerned about the cost of over-regulation. He expressed support for making the process more efficient. He suggested that the CAO not contain words like "'useful" as it leaves too much to interpretation. He requested the additional time to forward more extensive comments on the proposed CAO amendments. Bob Burr expressed concern over the fact that, in his opinion, environmental stakeholders were not properly consulted and the public was not given enough time to adequately participate in the process. He stated that the public should also be considered a customer of the city and expressed frustration that this is not the case. He expressed gratitude for additional time to provide comments. Nicole Brown compared the County's CAO process with the City's and stated that the process is broken. She pointed out that the CAO is meant to protect critical areas; however the amendments do not seem to do this. She suggested that the information being gathered by the County should be shared with the City so that all of the waters can be protected in the same way. She expressed objection to the removal of "kelp and eelgrass beds, herring, smelt and sandland spawning areas" from section 16.55.470. She explained the communication strategy she felt that staff was using by submitting amendments for the public to comment on. Brooks Anderson spoke to the public process and how important it was. She commented on how hard it is to have the public provide input on something that has already been completed. She encouraged the Planning Commission and staff to include the public. COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED STAFF RESPONSES Staff did not directly respond to any specific comments made by the public, as this was meant to be an opportunity to listen and gather feedback and recommendations on the proposed amendments to the CAO. Steve Sundin reiterated that staff is not in a rush to get this done. He stated that staff is interested in furthering the process and encouraged the speakers to send in their written comments on the proposed amendments that have been made. Kurt Nabbefeld stated that, given the comments heard by the public, some clarification needs to be made regarding what is actually being updated and changed. He explained that the changes being proposed are more procedural in nature. 10 MIN BREAK COMMISSION QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION Steve Crooks suggested that staff consider meeting with Geoff Middaugh regarding his public comment. He asked staff to provide some clarification on the strikeout in section 16.55.470 (2) at the next meeting. He also would like to have a discussion about which activities are allowed in stream buffers located inside a park. Jeff Brown asked staff to provide more clarity on the scope of the proposal and how that scope was determined. Fianl Copy - 3 Tom Grinstad wanted to know when the CAO will be looked at to see if it is working and when the other areas of the ordinance will be considered. Ali Taysi would like more details on the role of mitigation banking. The meeting was continued to February 5, 2015. OLD / NEW BUSINESS: ADJOURNED: 9:25 p.m. NEXT MEETING: February 5, 2015 Minutes prepared by: _____________________________ Heather Aven, Recording Secretary Minutes edited by Planning Commission members and various Planning Staff. Fianl Copy - 4