HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources October 23 20121
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
October 23, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(9 :32:58 AM)
Present: Carl Weimer, Bill Knutzen and Sam Crawford.
Absent: None.
Also Present: Ken Mann, Pete Kremen, Kathy Kershner and Barbara Brenner.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
20.51, LAKE WHATCOM OVERLAY DISTRICT (AB2012 -117)
Weimer stated the County received a letter from the Bellingham City Mayor asking
the Council to delay until the City does its own analysis.
Mark Personious, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
report and submitted a handout comparing the proposed code with the 2012 Department of
Ecology (DOE) stormwater manual (on file).
Weimer stated the Council had asked for two things. First, exempt 700 small lots
from what the Planning Commission had come up with. Second, move forward with the
Planning Commission recommendation for the remainder of the lots. He asked and there
was discussion about the 2012 versus 2005 stormwater manuals. Personious stated they
can use the 2012 manual now. Provisions allow for feasibility criteria, best management
practices (BMPs), and full dispersion and full infiltration requirements. Staff can cost
effectively produce a checklist and other matrices to help small property owners figure out if
they are able to not do full dispersion and full infiltration, but can do BMPs instead. That
addresses the stormwater parts of the manual, but doesn't address phosphorus removal
requirements.
Weimer stated the County needs to concurrently come up with a way to offset the
phosphorus allowed by the exemptions. He wants to know the phosphorus loading that will
result from exempting these 700 lots versus if they were subject to the requirements, and
the amount of phosphorus for all 1,400 lots, and whether there is not a good way to do
that, as DOE hinted. Before spending time trying to approve this, find out if it is even
possible.
Mike Kershner' Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from a handout (on file) and described the differences between the 2012 DOE stormwater
manual and the proposed code.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2012, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of whether there is a grant to pay for rain
gardens.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of whether the 2012 DOE manual is a new
regulation that will impact every lot, and where it will have impacts. Mike Kershner stated it
will impact the national pollutant discharge and elimination system (NPDES) phase two
permit areas.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of whether this applies to a lot in Cordata
right now, for example. Mike Kershner stated it does. It applies to permits that have come
in since August.
Weimer stated and there was discussion of how the requirements are in order,
beginning with full infiltration, full dispersion, and then a rain garden. One doesn't have to
meet all the requirements, but works down from the top of the list.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of whether this applies to Lake Whatcom
and why the Council would pass anything if the requirement is already there.
Weimer asked and there was discussion of whether the exemptions or the Planning
Commission recommendations are more stringent.
Cathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a handout
(on file) and answered questions.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether the Planning Commission
recommended the ordinance in the packet.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of the threshold defining whether a
property owner on a very small lot is cost - effectively capable of full infiltration or full
dispersion or a rain garden.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether there can be a community
system for small lots. She would like a presentation showing examples of the requirements.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of the 2016 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and whether they can coordinate that effort with Sudden Valley.
Knutzen stated he encourages communication with Sudden Valley and also with the
Public Works Department.
Sandy Peterson, Public Works Department, stated the code is trying to be
phosphorus - neutral, but the 2012 manual does not focus on phosphorus. If they use just
the manual, and say that full infiltration or full dispersion works on a lot, they will get their
phosphorus removal according to the manual's definition. It's not a direct achievement, but
an indirect achievement. If a lot can do full infiltration or full dispersion, that lot won't later
have to be made phosphorus neutral. Beyond those two options, there will be some
phosphorus removal, but it won't be phosphorus neutral.
Crawford asked and there was discussion of when the cost is considered in the
process.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2012, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Kershner stated the DOE manual is more liberal and less onerous than the Planning
Commission's recommended code, but the DOE says the proposed code isn't good enough,
because it allows phosphorus from some lots. She asked and there was discussion of the
DOE's power to mandate these requirements, and where the local authorities get to weigh -
in on these processes. She asked who put the NPDES together and how they did it.
Steve Hood, Department of Ecology, stated the Clean Water Act included municipal
stormwater in 1987. The DOE was delegated by the federal government the authority to
write all the permits. The stormwater manual is guidance, not a rule. It becomes a
requirement when there is a permit. There is also a requirement to use the rest of the
manual as guidance. Whatcom County is meeting or modestly exceeding the 2005 manual.
The DOE guide for full infiltration and full dispersion is all about hydrology, which also
creates phosphorus treatment. He described the difference between the 2012 stormwater
manual and the proposed code.
Crawford asked if cost criteria is considered when determining what is feasible.
Hood stated the Pollution Control Hearings Board gave the DOE an additional mandate that
requires low impact development (LID). Regarding cost, they do consider it.
(10:14:23 AM)
Brenner asked and there was discussion of:
• When in the near future they are required to adopt.
• How much is the cost to the County to enact all this.
• Whether all lots have full infiltration and full dispersion in their natural state.
• Whether a home owner is allowed to collect rainwater during the rainy season
for later use.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of whether stormwater treatment is allowed
and whether they are working with DOE and Sudden Valley to enhance the County's effort
with funding from other sources, such as Economic Development Investment (EDI) money.
Kremen stated he told DOE representatives that there is no way the County can
achieve what DOE is asking. After a lengthy discussion, the DOE representatives told him
that these requirements weren't that difficult or expensive to achieve. He was surprised to
hear that. Only because of those assurances from DOE, he reluctantly agreed to attain
what the DOE asked. He's extremely disappointed. This is not the first time the DOE
willfully misrepresented their agenda. The County has spent staff time and resources on
these requirements. Now they're in this situation. He doesn't know how they're going to
resolve the situation.
Jon Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated the question is that the reasonable
cost threshold ought to be for the imposition of a requirement for engineered solutions on
small lots. They don't have an answer to the question. The Council needs to understand
the question about the true cost burden. That's why the Planning Department suggests
three paths. Adopt the proposed code, look for an alternative that gives time to develop
that threshold for small lots, or leave things status quo. To further the conversation about
that threshold, the County is talking with the Sudden Valley community about how to work
together with the City and County. Most of those small lots are in Sudden Valley. They
have not yet come up with a proposal. When they do, it will come back to the Council. It
will take time to figure out the implications for those small lots. The question today is one
of direction. Decide if the County will continue down the path of adopting the proposed
code, ask for more information on cost to owners, or have the administration stand fast.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2012, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford referenced the memo on packet page three regarding designating a square
footage. A technical advisory group is looking at those costs. Staff should use that
resource, and make a presentation that includes dollar figures on each of those
requirements. He's concerned about Sudden Valley and Geneva. Lots and houses cost
more in Geneva, so the cost may be more realistic, and Geneva is in basin one. Sudden
Valley is in basin three. He wants the costs for each option. Possibly have more stringent
regulations in Geneva. He asked how many of the lots are in Geneva. Look at the relative
comparison of benefit to the lake based on those differences
Weimer stated they need information on costs. He also needs to know the specific
amount of phosphorous loading, so they know if it's possible to allow ten or 25 percent
more phosphorus and still meet the total maximum daily load (TMDL) permits.
Crawford stated he is willing to look at that impact to basin three.
Weimer stated the Planning Commission recommended a funding source through
permit fees and a stormwater utility district to cover these costs. They need to have this
discussion concurrent with the funding discussion.
Craver stated they want an analysis of cost and pounds for phosphorus. The
purpose of the exemption is that this would go through when the Council passes the final
ordinance. In the meantime, the staff would look at some of those things. She's hearing
that staff will come back with a scope, not the analysis. When they did an analysis of cost
and general staff time to get information, the numbers were higher than expected. It takes
a lot of staff time to come up with an acceptable model for estimating costs.
Weimer stated come back with the cost of getting that analysis sooner rather than
later.
Ken Bell stated the Council should have the information from the Planning
Commission's May 10 meeting. If the County imposes a $10,000 engineering standard on
700 homes in Sudden Valley, they will have $7 million. It will cost more than that. He's
tired of hearing that the County isn't doing anything. The County doesn't get credit for
what it's doing elsewhere. They have time to do this right. Use the Planning Commission.
2. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ADOPTION PROCESS FOR THE
LAKE SAMISH COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER PLAN (AB2012 -227A)
Crawford asked what action the Council must take today.
Kraig Olason, Public Works Department, stated he wants to give an update on the
Lake Samish plan. He submitted and read from a presentation (on file). Today's action is
to discuss options for concluding the planning process.
Weimer stated the plan to move forward makes sense. Make sure all the residents
are heard, and tweak the plan accordingly. Time isn't of the essence to pass right away.
Brenner asked and there was discussion of whether it goes through the Planning
Commission.
Knutzen asked and there was discussion of Samish Bay problems resulting in
requirements to address the fecal coliform issues.
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2012, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Crawford asked and there was discussion of annual associated costs equaling
$15,000 per year for administrative costs. Let people know in detail what they are getting
for that amount.
Jerry Johnson stated Kraig Olason waited too long to respond to Penny Jewitt's
letter. He only received one letter about meetings. Staff haven't responded to 34
questions. They object to the way the plan is being crammed down their throats at the end
of the process. Mr. Olason is being deceptive. He said the plan isn't funded and the
residents have no say in the plan because it's up to the Council. However, a letter said that
the community advisory committee decides on priorities. He represents 80 to 90 residents
who didn't know about these meetings. Mr. Olason talks to a few people, not the entire
Lake Samish community.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
j
3 Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
3 official, signed copy:
3
3 360- 676 -6690 or council &o.w hatcom .wa.us
Natural Resources Committee, 10/23/2012, Page 5