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