Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/2005 Adjourned Meeting 3 1 1; CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 25, 2005 - 7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - YAKIMA CITY HALL 1. Roll Call Present: Council: Mayor Paul George, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender, Dave Edler, Neil McClure, Mary Place, and Bernard Sims Absent: Council Member Susan Whitman (excused) Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; and City Clerk Roberts The Council Members stood for a moment of silence in honor of Rosa Parks who recently passed away. 2. Study Session to review critical areas / shorelines permit legislation Doug Maples, Code Administration and Planning Manager, introduced Dean Patterson and John Marvin from Yakima County who were the primary authors of the draft being reviewed today. Staff is seeking Council direction on the major components relating to the difference between standards in rural versus urban parcels. This document has combined critical areas and shorelines. In critical areas there is a term called "no net loss of ecological functions" and in shorelines a term called "restoration ". With the combination of these two documents, it is possible that restoration could, in fact, be applied to the critical areas component of this regulation, which would then require you to not only go back to no net loss of ecological functions but also have to restore your critical areas. This has yet to be determined legally. Council Member Place commented that the merging of those two documents is the subject of a lawsuit; whether you can merge them and how much applies to both. In our area, there are some jurisdictions that only have critical areas and don't have shorelines. By merging the two, a location like Sunnyside that only has critical areas will now also have to restore to shoreline standards. It could have a huge impact for us as well because we are unsure of exactly what the restoration term means. Council Member Place continued; we also have a need to protect essential public facilities. The airport, which is in our jurisdiction, isn't as much of a concern as our drinking water plant that is not within our jurisdiction. If we must upgrade our drinking water plant, we will have to go through the whole SEPA process because it is a water dependent use. She stated concern about the need for flexibility of buffers within the urban area. Most of what the County is putting together is for the rural area. There you have larger lot sizes and it is not as much of an impact. She then went into detail on questions she had about the various levels of streams and unknown impacts. 312- OCTOBER 25, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING Discussion continued on buffers. There needs to be a way to have a balance between protecting the environment and allowing for development. Otherwise there could be a large impact on how we issue permits. Council Member Place took the lead in the discussions, summarizing that they are concerned about this document. Council Member McClure said he has been involved with this process and appreciates the County's work as the lead. The first meeting was to get a joint document for the entire county so we would all have the same standards for shorelines and for critical areas. Although it has been a good public process, the concerns mentioned are not easy issues. He asked the County representatives why the need to merge this, expressing concern about the possibility of stretching the two, restoration and no net loss, and blurring that line. He said that when we originally were looking at this, they had talked about communities only having to adopt what affected them. By merging this, it seems to take those options away. Dean Patterson of the County replied that one of the reasons to merge is that they are already partially integrated in their ordinance. He said a number of reasons stem from the Everett fix legislation. That came up as a result of a Shoreline Growth Hearing Board case with the City of Everett and the Legislature didn't like the outcome, so they created legislation to address the issues of that case. It basically says that, while shorelines are regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and critical areas are regulated under the Growth Management Act, critical areas that fall within shoreline jurisdiction cannot be protected at a lesser level. They have to be protected at an equal or higher level than outside the shoreline jurisdiction. What that did was create a similar, yet different, situation. There are a couple ways to handle this. One is to have two ordinances; a critical areas ordinance outside shoreline jurisdiction and a critical area ordinance inside shoreline jurisdiction. They are going to be similar yet slightly different and the two ordinances are going to have nuances different from each other that will confuse everyone. The other way to handle it is, since you have two ordinances that are identical in most ways, simply use one ordinance and then have the parts that are extra for shorelines added at the particular locations where they apply. That is what is being proposed. In the current draft are those common elements that would apply to all critical areas but, where there is a project in shoreline jurisdiction, there would be some extra standards required that would be noted in particular places within the critical area ordinance. Council Member Place commented that there is some discussion about what the Everett fix really says and not everyone would agree with what Mr. Patterson had just said. She said their concern is that this is a huge impact for things that are outside. What this has done is take all of the other critical areas and merged them with shoreline. From her point of view, there needs to be two ordinances. She commented that she has trouble even saying that Yakima has shoreline. The state has identified certain rivers as shoreline and we need to protect them, but the impact on the lesser streams by merging these two ordinances is what is causing a great deal of heartburn. Mr. Patterson rebutted by saying if you're looking at the critical areas, those standards apply whether you're in shorelines or not. Either they are going to be the same or they are going to be slightly higher in shoreline. But, you identify those areas where the shorelines are and those standards only apply in shoreline. Council Member Place responded that is not what the ordinance says the way it is now written. 2 31 OCTOBER 25, 2005 - ADJOURNED MEETING Some general comments were made at this time. The Everett fix does not require the critical areas and shoreline be merged. They have been working on this for a long time and if they continue at the current pace, it should be completed by the middle of next year. The statutory deadline for critical areas is 2007 and for shorelines is 2013. One of the benefits of doing the shorelines now is it will be covered under current rules until 2020 giving us 15 years without having to update our Shoreline Master Program. Council Member McClure reiterated the intent of combining the critical areas and shorelines. We tried to make it so every entity within the county used the same ordinances as they affected them. In that way, no matter whether a developer was working with Union Gap or the City of Moxee or Yakima or Sunnyside, the shoreline and critical area would be the same. Mr. Patterson said that some jurisdictions don't have a Shoreline Master Program and some of them have very old ones. Ultimately, each jurisdiction does not have to adopt this regional approach. If each city wishes, they can adopt their own critical areas ordinance and shoreline master program. In response to a question about the Everett case, Ray Paolella, City Attorney, responded that it is a matter of ongoing litigation but that there is an important distinction to draw between mandates and minimum requirements of state law. We are dealing with two distinctly separate statutes; the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act. They are in completely different parts of the RCW with different rules and different requirements. Every jurisdiction is required by state law mandate to have a Shoreline Master Program and to have shoreline regulations for shorelines located within their jurisdiction boundaries. The state establishes the definitions of shoreline and a lot of the basic operating rules. But, there is a requirement to do the local master program under the Shoreline Management Act. That is one category of state law mandate. The Growth Management Act, another state law mandate, has its own set of requirements, minimum standards, and processes that are required by state law as a mandate to be adopted by every jurisdiction that is covered by the Growth Management Act. They are separate laws, they both are mandates, and they both require local jurisdictions to adopt certain regulations to implement the state statutory mandate scheme. Having said all that, once you get past minimum requirements, there are discretionary decisions to make and policy choices that are available in the local setting. This issue of the merger is a policy decision and choice that could be made. The important point is that, under this pending litigation that's not resolved yet, accomplishing this merger might have some consequences that are not fully known at this time. As far as jurisdictions combining together on a regional approach, that decision is also discretionary. The bottom line is, ultimately the City and the County both have to end up with regulations under the two different laws that satisfy the minimum requirements. It is up to the legislative bodies as to whether they want to exceed those requirements. Discussion then went into the buffer requirements and the impacts on existing properties and new development. The potential of variable intensity buffers was brought up. Mr. Patterson commented that some of the concerns that have been brought up are already dealt with in the current ordinance. He said the County's critical areas ordinance has flexibility in the form of adjustments or variances. Council Member McClure asked, when there is a system allowing variances of buffers, how does a homeowner know it exists? He suggested there needs to be a matrix. A very detailed discussion on various zonings and buffer requirements ensued. Mr. Paolella made a point that the discussion illustrates how this issue can get complex and • 3 31` 4 OCTOBER 25, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING technical and very confusing. He said he has a concern about the potential for confusion and it may be difficult for the average citizen to wade through the different parts of these ordinances and the potential for confusion is increased when melding them together. Discussion continued with points being made about how the Greenway provides a great buffer in most cases between us and most of our shorelines, concerns about the mining operation, which could be huge in the future if it goes away. Also noted were the geological hazard area, the critical aquifer recharge area, the upland wildlife habitat, the shorelines environments, wetlands, and floodplains. There is not just one specific issue, but a myriad of different environmental issues around water and fish and wildlife. They then discussed what a "best case scenario" would be, if we could ever getthe money, to buy conservation easements along these areas. If we could do that, we would solve a lot of our problems and, ideally, put in conservancy zoning along some of these critical areas to help insure protection. The detailed discussion on buffer sizes continued. Council Member Place stated it's how we deal with the existing properties on the shorelines that she is most concerned with. Dave Brown, Water and Irrigation Manager, spoke about the impact of the critical areas program on our water use. Part of the goals of the whole project is to reduce river diversions and encourage access to areas in the river; but we don't want to encourage access to the water plant. We're not going to reduce the diversion for the drinking water plant. He then went into great detail about other various properties, such as, the intake structure at the water treatment plant, the water treatment plant facility itself, the Nelson Dam, Naches Cowiche and the City of Yakima irrigation diversions etc. and commented that these are things within the County's jurisdiction that need to be identified and for which there will be ongoing maintenance. Doug Maples raised the question of when does "no net loss of ecological functions" actually begin. Right now it's not stipulated, however it was brought up at the last roundtable and Mr. Patterson indicated it began at the time of permit. That isn't identified for "restoration ". That doesn't have a date of when it begins or how far back in time to go for restoration. Other unclear areas not covered in the document were raised. 3. Audience Comments Joe Walsh, Central Washington Homebuilders Association, said that a communication from County staff prior to the last round table meeting mentioned that the existing critical area ordinance and Shoreline Master Program met the state statute and are in compliance with GMA. What is unclear to him is the reason for the additional changes to our existing ordinance. Mr. Patterson from the County said their existing ordinance is complying with the requirements at the time it was adopted and, for the most part, does a good job of protecting the functions and values which is what critical area requirements and growth management are all about. But, there are some things the ordinance does not do such as the critical aquifer recharge areas, geological hazards, and not all wildlife is covered. It needs to be updated to the best available science. Discussion continued on setting goals and policies for both the critical areas and shoreline programs. 4 315;; OCTOBER 25, 2005 — ,ADJOURNED MEETING Council Member Sims noted that this is possibly one of the most important documents needing to be dealt with. It is similar to when growth management got started. Mayor George commented that due to the complexity it might be appropriate to hold another session on the topic. Council Member Edler agreed and recommended that staff consider timing and schedules and set up another study session. 1/ 4. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:07 a.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY ,I , / f /. UN► , ME BE DATE / i COUNCIL MEMBER DATE ATTEST: CITY CLERK PAUL P. GEORGE, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 5