ISLAND COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS - MINUTES OF MEETING
REGULAR SESSION - AUGUST 28, 2000
The Regular Meeting of the Board of Island
County Commissioners was held on August 28,
2000, beginning at 11:30 a.m. with
the monthly Roundtable with
Elected Officials, followed by
other meeting items as listed on the
Agenda beginning at 1:30 p.m., including
Diking Improvement District #4. The
meeting was held in the Island County Courthouse Annex, Hearing
Room, Coupeville, Wa., with Wm. L.
McDowell, Chairman; William F.
Thorn, Member; and Mike Shelton,
Member, present. By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed the
following minutes: August 21, 2000.
Roundtable Meeting
with Island County Elected Officials
Attendance
Elected
Officials: Tom
Baenen; Robert Bishop; Marilee Black; Mike Hawley; Maxine Sauter
Others: Margaret Rosenkranz;
Dick Toft
The
flashing signal light system for
school zones on Camano Island associated with Utsalady and Elger Bay schools
unfortunately will not be installed by
the time school starts this week.
Having no signal light at
Utsalady school in particular might
place some burden on the Camano Deputy
for a week or two. The County rented
two message boards for a period of two
months to be located about ˝ mile before the schools to warn of school
opening and to slow down for the school zone. A full time deputy probably will be needed in that location for first two weeks just to slow everyone
down.
Initiative 722
State Assessors are meeting tomorrow
with State Department of Revenue
representatives where initiative 722 is
one of the items of discussion.
Assessors have submitted “what if” questions both in terms of additional
work load and additional costs should the initiative pass, but to date, DOR has
been unable to provide answers. Mr. Baenen provided a few ideas of some of
the hardships placed on his office locally should the initiative pass. There will be a substantial impact on the
Treasurer’s Office as well.
UNFUNDED MANDATES
Mr. Baenen serves on a committee which will make a recommendation
to the Legislature regarding unfunded
mandates and how that issue can be addressed.
Referendum 47 and initiatives
695 and 722 are indirect unfunded mandates. New
shoreline regulations have some huge related costs to counties.
Courthouse
Facilities and Remodel
As of last week, the architect, Bryan
Young, seems to have
“nailed” everything nailed down and
most everyone seems at least reasonably satisfied. The proposal now is that Juvenile Court services will go in the
Courthouse; all alternatives are being
reviewed. Mr. Young has asked that everyone
realize there is a plan in place
and asked that everyone please give it
a chance to come to fruition and see how it works out. One example brought up of something that
could be considered while construction is under way was tele-commuting for employees. The County has no official policy on tele-commuting and is
something that should be addressed.
Everyone agreed this topic be brought up at the next Department Head
meeting.
Meeting
adjourned 11:55 a.m. Next Scheduled
Roundtable: September 25th @ 11:30 a.m.
VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT OF BILLS
The following
vouchers/warrants were approved for payment by unanimous motion of the
Board: Voucher (War.) # 81438 –
81571…………………………………$ 138,376.91
Veterans Assistance Fund:
#V2K-9 ……………………………..$
562.29.
2% LODGING TAX ADVISORY
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
By
unanimous motion, the Board appointed Dr.
James Cox, Freeland, to serve as a member on the 2% Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee for Island County, refilling the position vacated by Lynn Tippery
representing organizations eligible to
receive these funds [as recommended by the Freeland Chamber of Commerce, Kevin
Engstrom appointed to serve as alternate].
SEPTEMBER STAFF SESSION SCHEDULE
The
September Staff Session scheduled was approved by unanimous motion of the Board, outlining staff sessions to be
held on September 6 and 20, beginning at 9:00 a.m., held in the Courthouse
Annex Basement hearing room, Coupeville, Wa.
Hiring
Requests & Personnel Actions
By
unanimous motion, the Board approved the following Personnel Action
Authorizations:
093/00 Corrections Officer #4015.18 Replacement 8/28/00
094/00 Acct. Adm. Asst-Temp #2214.00 Replacement 8-28-00
095/00 Index Deputy .5 fte #208.01 Increase
Hours 8-28-00*
096/00 Index Deputy .5 fte #208.02 Increase Hours 8-28-00*
097/00 Dep. Aud/Audit- Temp 30 days New Position 8-28-00
099/00 Data Entry Asst.- Temp 250 hrs. New Position 8-28-00
* increase from
20 to 29 hours per week for this year only
Interagency
Agreement between Washington State Military Department and Island County for
E911 Operations Contract #EM19042 Amendment A
By
unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed Interagency Agreement between
Washington State Military Department and Island County for E911 Operations
Contract #EM19042 Amendment A, shifting dollars within categories [no change to
dollar amount of contract, $272,499.00.
JUVENILE COURT SERVICES CONTRACTS APPROVED
Having
had an opportunity to discuss and review
various Juvenile Court Services contracts with the Board during a recent
staff session, Mike Merringer, Juvenile
Court Services Director,
presented two contracts now ready for the Board’s approval and signature. By unanimous motion, the Board approved the
following contracts:
§
Client
Services Contract, OAC and Island County
Juvenile & Family Court Services, CSC-2001-003, $10,000,
7/1/00 – 6/3/01.
§
Interlocal
Agreement, State of Washington DSHS and Island County #9963-41902, Amendment
No. 2, (decrease CDDA $9,000),
1/1/2000 – 6/30/01. This Agreement includes Consolidated
Juvenile Services projects (CJS) At-Risk, Special Sex Offender Disposition
Alternative (SSODA), Community Juvenile Accountability Act (CJAA), and Chemical
Dependency Disposition Alternative (CDDA).
Stormwater
Mitigation Agreement - Whidbey
Development, LLC; Lot 24, Holmes Harbor Golf & Yacht Club, Division No. 1
Block 2.
On
presentation by Lew Legat, County Engineer, the Board by unanimous motion,
approved Stormwater Mitigation Agreement with
Whidbey Development, LLC, for
Lot 24, Holmes Harbor Golf & Yacht Club, Division #1, Block 2 in
compliance with ICC 17.03, Appendix A.
Contract/Performance
Bond – Island Asphalt; Beverly Beach Culvert Repair; CRP 00-07, WO #280
Following
bid award made on August 7, 2000 [bid opening July 25, 2000] the Board by
unanimous motion as recommended by the County Engineer, accepted and
approved Contract and Performance Bond
from Island Asphalt associated with the Beverly Beach Culvert Repair
under CRP 00-07, Work Order #280, contract in the
amount of $49,690.00.
Supplemental
Agreement No. 4 – to Consultant Agreement
#PW-992045; CNJA Architects; Camano Annex
Gary
Hess, Construction Engineer, presented Supplemental Agreement No. 4 to Consultant Agreement #PW-992045, CNJA Architects related to the Camano Annex. Following staff session discussion about
those items referred to as “show stoppers” and making sure those
certain items were okay before authorizing payment, Gary Hess,
Construction Engineer, sent a memo to
Community Development regarding items of review and was waiting to hear back on
those issues. He agreed to let the
Board know as soon as a response is received.
Supplemental
Agreement No. 4 to Consultant Agreement
#PW-992045, CNJA Architects, was
approved by unanimous motion of the Board, amending Section II-Scope of Work;
Section IV-Time for Beginning &
Completion; and Section V- Payment.
Final PRD 002/92- Penn Cove Associates-Shores at
Penn Cove
Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
The Board received a Memorandum from Debra Little dated
August 25, 2000, advising that the
preliminary PRD application was granted conditional preliminary approval by the Island County Hearing Examiner on December 4, 1997, and confirmed that on review by
staff of the application for final PRD approval, all conditions of preliminary approval had been met. PRD 002/92
by Penn Cove Associates is for Shores at Penn Cove Planned Residential
Development (PRD) consisting of 18
small single family lots and 0.43 acres of open space, on Assessor's Parcel
#S7730-00-0000A-0, in the southwest
part of Section 22, Township 32 North, Range 1 East, W.M., on Central Whidbey.
Two representatives of Penn Cove Associates were present
in the audience at the time of consideration.
By unanimous motion, the Board approved and signed Final
PRD 002.92 Shores at Penn Cove PRD.
Before the Board of Island County Commissioners
of Island County, Washington
Application: Final Planned Residential Development, PRD
002/92
Date
of Preliminary Approval:
December 4, 1997
Name and Address of Applicant:
|
Applicant: |
Owner: |
|
Gordon Capretto |
Penn Cove Associates |
|
2024 NW Blue Ridge Drive |
2366 Eastlake East, Suite 428 |
|
Seattle, WA 98177 |
Seattle, WA 98102 |
Requesting
The Following: Final
approval of the Shores at Penn Cove PRD, consisting of 18 residential lots
together with an approximately 0.43 acre of open space on a total of
approximately 5.68 acres.
Upon
The Following Property:
The site is located at the corner of Park Avenue and Scenic Heights Road, in the southwest part of Section 22,
Township 32 North, Range 1 East, W.M., on Central Whidbey Island, Island
County. Assessor’s Parcel #S7730-00-0000A-0.
This Final Planned
Residential Development conforms to (1) the requirements of the PRD Ordinance
as established by ICC Chapter 16.17 that was in effect prior to December 1,
1998 and (2) the conditions of preliminary approval established by the Hearing
Examiner on December 4, 1997.
Island
County Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to continued conformance
with the conditions of approval listed in the Hearing Examiner’s decision of
December 4, 1997.
BOARD
OF ISLAND COUNTY COMMISSIONER DECISION:
APPROVED
AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August, 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ISLAND
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Wm.
L. McDowell, Chairman
William
F. Thorn, Member
Mike
Shelton, Member
ATTEST:
Margaret Rosenkranz
Clerk
of the Board BICC 00-511
HEARING
HELD: Franchise #318, off-site
drainfield-sewer collection line,
Harbor View Drive and Mardell Drive in the Plat of
Saratoga
Beach, Div. #1
At
2:20 p.m., as scheduled and advertised, a public hearing was held for the
purpose of considering Franchise #318 by
Ann Steel for off-site
drainfield sewer collection line to be
placed in County roads Harbor View
Drive and Mardell Drive in the Plat of
Saratoga Beach, Division #1, located in
Section 14, Township 30 North, Range 2 East. Having reviewed the application for franchise, Mr. Legat reported
that all departments requested to comment had responded with no objection to
the proposal; therefore, based on that
information, recommended the Board grant the franchise.
James
Angst, 3541 S. Passage Way, Langley, Trustee, Saratoga Beach Homeowners
Association, commented that the
Association had not seen the plans and had some concern about the water mains on both of those roads and was
interested to know if the project could have any impact on those water lines.
Mr.
Legat confirmed there were requirements associated with placing sewer lines
when located with water lines, i.e., normal separation of lines is 10”; sewer
lines need to be at least 12” below and divided with a sleeve when
crossing the water line. Item No. 19 in
the franchise itself states:
The holder must comply with the recommended Standards for Water
Works (1997
Edition, Great Lakes – Upper Mississippi River Board of State
Sanitary Engineers);
the Criteria for Sewage Works Design (State of Washington,
Department of Ecology, December 1998); and/or other requirements of
the Island County Health Department.
Conditions
can also be placed on the actual Permit to work in County Road Right of way.
By
unanimous motion, the Board approved
Franchise 318 by Ann Steel for
off-site drainfield sewer
collection line to be placed in County
Roads Harbor View Drive and Mardell
Drive in the Plat of Saratoga Beach,
Division #1, located in Section 14, Township
30 North, Range 2 East, acknowledging that this franchise requires conditions associated with sewer and water
line placement, and that Permit to Work
in County Right of Way contain a condition stating that prior to completion of
the project that owner’s engineer
provide a statement of work completion per submitted plans and
specifications.
STP AND RAP FUNDING
APPLICATIONS
Mr.
Legat reviewed Transportation Funding [STP and RAP] applications with a funding submittal deadline this Friday:
STP Funds
§
Extension
of Rhodie Trail – Highway 20
§
Additional
funding – Cedars Trail
§
West Beach
Road Wayside
RAP Funds: Camano Hill Road; Swantown Road; Frostad Road;
Monroe Landing
In
light of the application submittal deadline, Mr. Legat asked that he be allowed
to review the projects individually with each member of the Board this week,
and that the Board authorize the
Chairman to sign the grant applications after that review has been done.
By
unanimous motion, the Board authorized the Chairman’s signature on the grant
applications as outlined by the County Engineer after each Commissioner has
reviewed applications.
move authorization of
the Chairman’s sianture on the grant applicatoins as outlined by the County
HEARING
HELD: - OPS 749/00 Kerry & Maria Leaf,
Open Space Application
A Public Hearing was held at 2:45 p.m. to consider Open
Space Application #OPS 749/00 by Kerry & Maria Leaf, requesting 16 of 20 acres be given a Timber
Land Current Use Classification, located on Parcel #R23330-329-3600 west of
Taylor Road, North Whidbey.
Phil Bakke, Planning Director, referred to Staff Report
dated July 28, 2000, recommending approval with the following conditions:
1. All future forest
practices activity on the subject property
shall be consistent with the submitted Forest Management Plan
2. All future forest
practices activity on the subject property shall be consistent with Washington
Forest Practices Regulations, RCW 76.09 and WAC 222, and all other applicable
County, State and Federal Regulations.
There were no comments from members of the public either
for or against OPS 749/00.
By unanimous motion, the Board approved Open Space Application #OPS 749/00 by Kerry
& Maria Leaf, requesting 16 of 20
acres be given a Timber Land Current Use Classification, located on Parcel
#R23330-329-3600, correcting misspelled
word asset on page one of the form REV 64-0022-1 above and to the left of the checked box for Timberland; and
correct staff report page 4 of 5 item h to read “There is no evidence to
indicate that applicants have failed to comply . . . “
HEARING HELD; Ordinance
#C-78-00, PLG-022-00, Amending Chapter 17.02 ICC to Comply with the
Order of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board Relating to
Certain Provisions of Critical Area
Regulations
A
Public Hearing was held as scheduled
and advertised to consider Ordinance #C-78-00, PLG-022-00, Amending
Chapter 17.02 ICC to Comply with the Order of the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearing Board Relating to Certain Provisions of the County’s
Critical Area Regulations, involving nine areas warranting special
identification as Habitats of Local Importance in Island County [as introduced
and set for hearing 8/7/00 [GMA record
#5873]. At the time of hearing
six members of the public were
present. County staff represented by
Phil Bakke and Jeff Tate.
Hand-out:
Ordinance
#C-78-00 [PLG-022-00] revised [GMA
doc. #5933]
Mr.
Tate explained with regard to revised Ordinance #C-78-00 handed out today that
on August 7th when the ordinance was introduced and set for hearing
this date and time the exact boundaries were not known of the Habitats of Local
Importance proposed as a part of the
ordinance. And after review by the
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney misspellings were corrected and portions of code
not being amended that had been
incorrectly included were taken out.
This offers no substantive
difference to that introduced August 7 under record #5873. Maps
now [as posted on the wall during the hearing GMA doc. #5932] follow
parcel lines. Photo copies of those
maps were attached to Revised Ordinance #C-78-00. At this point, however, the maps do not include location names.
This
is an amendment to Chapter 17.02 , Island County Critical Areas Ordinance,
identification of nine Habitats of Local Importance as requested by the Whidbey
Audubon Society [two now included together Deer Lake/Useless Bay] :
1.
Deer
Lake and Useless Bay
2.
Newman Road
Lake just east of Freeland
3.
Cultus Bay
Flats
4.
Bos
Lake [aka Swantown Lake]
5.
Hastie Lake
6.
Penn Cove
7.
Crockett
Lake
8.
Whidbey
Island Game Farm [now Au Sable Institute]
Commission
Thorn observed there were no areas
identified on Camano but
presumed that was because Camano Island
is serviced by Snohomish Audubon as opposed to Whidbey Island Audubon.
Mr.
Tate referred to Exhibit A as the
substance of amendment, noting as follows:
Exhibit
A Page 1 No change to the
Comprehensive Plan, but for the benefit of providing what a fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area is and what the designation criteria are.
Exhibit A Page 2 17.02.110.C.7,
all new language:
7.
Protection
Standards. Audubon Habitats of Local
Importance. Property
owners within these areas are required
to comply with Chapter 17.02 ICC,
the Island County Critical Area
Ordinance; Chapter 17.03 ICC, the Island
County Zoning Ordinance; Chapter 11.02
ICC, the Island County Clearing
and Grading Ordinance; the Island County
Shoreline Master Program;
and all other applicable Federal, State
and County regulations.
Exhibit A Page 3 List of
protected species [ no change ]
Exhibit A Page 4 List of
Habitats of Local Importance with footnote showing the map adopted as part of
this ordinance.
Beyond
identification of these areas on the Critical Area maps and amended language in
17.02.110.C.7, no additional
regulatory burden is placed on
property owners. The Ordinance highlights those areas, indicates they are special and should be treated as such and notifies people of the existence of the
areas and the sensitivity of these
areas and where they are located. Public awareness and education is the only
way to achieve successful
implementation of the critical areas ordinance. The boundaries are slightly larger than where the critical areas
are located in most cases and when
staff receives an application, certain
boxes on the application are checked
and triggers to point to this area,
provides impetus to go out and look at the site. As an example, Mr. Tate provided samples of some applications and the request for comment form
used by staff when distributing
applications to other departments for review and comment [GMA doc. #5937].
Mr.
Tate commented also that the designation provides a mechanism for placing a mitigating
condition for a major project that
requires SEPA review, i.e. mechanism for either the hearing examiner or staff
to recommend that a mitigating condition be placed on a project if it would
impact some habitat. The amendment
makes it clear that adherence to existing regulations is mandatory. The purpose of the amendment is not to link
the identification of these habitats to specified protected or unprotected
species thus requiring a Biological Site Assessment (BSA), rather to call attention
to these areas to ensure thorough environmental review.
If
a development is proposed in one of these areas and a protected species is present, a BSA is already required. If a development is proposed to alter a critical area or its
buffer in one of these areas, a BSA is already required. If a development is proposed in what is
identified on the Heritage Lands map as Keystone, Grasser’s Hill or Ebey’s
Landing, which partially fall into some of these areas, a BSA and Habit
Management Plan [HMP] is already required.
If a development is proposed in any other fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area that falls within these sites, a BSA is already
required. If a development is proposed
in those lands within these Habitats of Local Importance that are not currently
encumbered by a critical area already,
a BSA or HMP can be required on larger projects through SEPA.
Additionally, the Planning Director has discretionary authority within
current Critical Areas Ordinance to increase buffers if determined necessary
to mitigate the project. Within BSA requirements listed out are scenarios
under existing regulations BSAs would be required. BSAs are required to address all fish and wildlife habitat
conservations within the area; the BSA
has to address any sort of fish and wildlife habitat conservation area.
ICC 17.02.110.C.2 states that BSAs shall show
all fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; shall include descriptions of all fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas; shall include an analysis of impacts to the protected species or
habitats, including a discussion of impacts to fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas and if there is an adverse impact to any of those protected
species or habitats are likely to occur, a mitigation plan shall be required,
and the recommendations of the BSA incorporated into the development
project. While this amendment does not
require any extra burden on property owners
the regulatory framework is already fairly stringent and already
requires these to be addressed.
PUBLIC INPUT
Steve
Erickson, WEAN, Langley,
had several questions of Mr. Tate, asked and responded to as follows:
What would trigger a requirement for a BSA or HMP
within these areas?
Response: The presence of critical
areas that require alteration or
modification to a buffer or critical
area - anything where there is a
protected species listed. Any other fish and wildlife habitat
conservation area already within the area.
If someone wants to build a single family
residence more than 100’ from a Category A wetland or 25’ or 50’ from a
Category B wetland, then there is no
requirement?
Response: There is no requirement
for BSA or HMP if the proposal does not
infringe on any of those
critical areas listed and also if SEPA is
not required. He agreed there was no requirement for what is known as
Whidbey Island Game Farm.
Whether under SEPA if Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation areas are considered environmentally sensitive areas therefore removing various categorical exemptions?
Response: Not for fish and wildlife habitat.
Development
in the vicinity does not necessarily trigger SEPA?
Response: Correct.
Under
ICC since 1998 an unregulated subdivision or short plat or long plat could occur
that created parcels that would require
road building or road enlargement through a critical
area or its buffer to gain access to
that parcel, is that changed in any way
by
this ordinance?
Response: Did not think that changed with the ordinance.
Are
there any other kind of layers of
protection on some of these areas, such as banning
jet skis?
Response: There are no
additional regulatory requirements.
This does not add any more
regulatory requirements rather recognizes the need to comply with those
regulations already in existence.
Mr. Erickson submitted into the record a publication from the State of Washington,
Department of Wildlife, Final Draft, February 12, 1992: Buffer Needs of Wetland
Wildlife, Habitat Management Division
[GMA #5936] highlighting the following from what he further described is
from a publication from Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, this was their final draft Buffer Needs of
Wetland Wildlife issued February 12th 1992, submitted to the County
years’ go discussing various things
such as importance of buffers,
disturbance and loss of wildlife functions, that Department’s advice as of
eight years’ ago and he was not aware that that had changed substantially in
any way:
Page 1: Under “Disturbance and Loss of Wildlife Function: the following
sentence:
“A person approaching
heron or a flock of waterfowl can agitate and
flush them even at distances greater than
200 feet.”
Page 3: Quotes under
“Summary”:
To retain wetland dependent
wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a minimum of
200-300 feet beyond the wetland. This is especially
the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides
feeding for heron.”
“In western Washington
wetlands with important wildlife
functions should have
300’ upland buffers for
high impact (urban) land uses and 200’ upland buffers
for low impact (rural)
land uses.”
Part 1 Field Study, under “Summary”:
“The most important
finding in this study was that as human activity
around a site increased, the number of birds
utilizing the site decreased.”
Therefore,
it appeared to Mr. Erickson that the proposal
was a “feel-good line-drawing on map” exercise providing no additional
protection to these areas or wildlife resources within them.
He pointed out that GMA’s critical areas protection requirements have
two phases, the first designation; the second, protection. If these are important enough wildlife areas
to designate, then the County needs to adopt protective regulations that go
beyond the existing layers of protection in place, i.e. for those that are
Category A wetlands 100’ buffers are
not necessarily adequate; allowing other impacts not yet a problem but would be
good for the County to take care of in advance, such as jet skis in terms of
impacts to wildlife. He recommended
that in these areas the County:
·
provision
in the code that allows creation of parcels that require access through a
wetland a wetland or buffer or through
a critical area or its buffer be deleted at least for these areas although
he believes it should be deleted for
the entire county;
·
ban jet
skiing in these areas, and also for all the marine fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas along coast;
·
buffers on
the wetlands themselves should be increased to 200’ ;
·
Smith
Prairie and the Au Sauble land referred to as Whidbey Island Game Farm, he is
less concerned about since he is aware
that Au Sable is in the process of developing a long range conservation plan ;
·
various
coastal wetlands and ponds he is concerned about that this proposal does not protect.
Commissioner Thorn called attention to a personal
experience of the last four
months associated with some exceedingly low tides. He lives on low bank
waterfront on the west side of Camano
[Camano City area] and there are some five to seven hundred feet of open shoreline
that at low tide is very shallow
rocky bottom for the most part, pretty
well disturbed for most of the year.
During those low tides there were at peak probably somewhere around
90 to 100 people on the beach out there
doing various things, including walking
through the water looking for crab in eelgrass beds, etc. In spite of all those crowds
it was a surprise to him to see
during those low tides each and every tine that there were eagles that working there and a pair of
heron who come and go from that cove daily and nightly, and were out there with the people. The heron would allow people about as close
as from Commissioner Thorn to Mr. Erickson standing at the podium. The
eagles would allow someone about as close as from Commissioner Thorn to
the gentlemen in the back row of seating in the hearing room before taking
off and when they did they simply moved
over a little bit and did not leave the area, a demonstration of the
adaptability of both of those species to some human interference without going
into a complete panic and leaving the
area and never coming back.
Mr. Erickson suggested that if anything, that
would imply what needs to happen is
more detailed studies for each area to determine the effect. He reiterated from the summary on the last
page of his submittal, a field study
page 39: The most important finding in
this study was that as human activity
around a site increased, the number of birds utilizing the site
decreased.”.
In direct contradiction to that, Commissioner
Thorn pointed out that there is a large
heronry on the Mercer Slough immediately adjacent to I-405 in downtown
Bellevue immediately adjacent to a business park with huge paved parking
areas. While he would like to see as
substantial separation as is reasonable,
he saw some debate about what is reasonable; two or three hundred
feet may or may not be, and it may be
quite variable from site to site.
Mr.
Erickson advised that was why he was interested in knowing the extent to which any kind of more detailed
site specific studies would be conducted
on these sites, which he believed that other than a response to a development
proposal, there would not be which tended to be late in the process.
Commissioner
Thorn observed that today was not a debate about the Critical Areas Ordinance per se’, rather looking at identification of areas to highlight as being more sensitive than other
parts of the county.
Mr.
Erickson stated that what is included now he finds to be inadequate based on, for example, the recommendations of the Department of Fish
and Wildlife. He noted again GMA had
two phases for critical areas: first designate, then protect.
Tom
Campbell, President, Whidbey Audubon
Society, on behalf of the over four
hundred family members of Whidbey Audubon Society, congratulated staff members who worked on this project and the
Board who were about to approve it.
Recognition of the importance of these areas for wildlife he thought
was commendable and acknowledged in the long term the designation will help
to ensure citizens and visitors alike
could continue to enjoy the unique birds that depend upon these sites. He stressed that the economic importance of visiting birders
could not be ignored and appreciated efforts of the Board in passing the ordinance.
Gary
Wood, representing the Whidbey Audubon Society, reviewed a number of points and
through
a series of questions to Jeff Tate, the following points were confirmed by Mr.
Tate:
There are among these nine areas
some 5,278 ˝ acres designated.
Looking at the maps done, the dark-shaded
area on map number one,
the portion just west and just east of Deer Lagoon is
existing wetland.
The
line for the boundary of the habitat of local importance [HOLI] does not
just follow along existing
previously identified wetland in most of the area. In most of the areas
it’s set back away from the
existing previously marked and identified wetlands.
Going through the maps you can see that in some of the areas, for
example the second map, a substantial area that is newly marked and newly identified around
the Newman Lake for example, and that
is not limited to the specific wetland
that used to be identified on the maps.
If someone is located in the white-colored area of HOLIs, if owning property up in the corner not previously marked or identified as a wetland or marsh or protected area or critical area, if applying for a permit would receive notice that he/she would have to be identified as applying within a HOLI area and that will trigger then a HOLI area and trigger notification by the County of the appli