HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 10 20091
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
February 10, 2009
Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood Bob Kelly
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
I. SUMMARY OF THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM ON AGRICULTURE LANDS
(CPAL) INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF 2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND GOALS
FOR 2009 (AB2009 -103)
Oliver Grah, Planning and Development Services Department, stated his program is
very involved with agriculture in the county. This presentation is on just one aspect of that
involvement, the Conservation Program on Agricultural Lands (CPAL). It is a code
compliance issue more than a code enforcement issue. Unlike previous years, they are
focusing more on public outreach and making contacts with ongoing agricultural operators
to help them come into compliance. Code enforcement, which includes penalties and
citations, is required for operators who commit egregious violations and are unwilling to
comply. This enforcement disqualifies them from participating in CPAL. The CPAL program
is to bring ongoing agricultural operators into compliance with the critical areas ordinance
(CAO). The primary purpose of this presentation is to present results of their efforts in
2008.
Elke Daugherty, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and
read from the presentation (on file). The agencies they worked with included the State
Department of Agriculture and Department of Ecology, the Conservation District (CD),
ReSources, and the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Advisory Committee. The Conservation
District has taken the lead for technical support. A major accomplishment was creating a
strong CPAL program, which has been in the code since 1997. Farm plans are now tracked
in the Tidemark tracking system. As the year progressed, people have become less hostile
and warmed to the program. They would like to begin concentrating on the more egregious
cases to focus on areas that have the potential for real water quality gains.
Brenner stated the Council had talked more about providing incentives instead of a
quicker transition to enforcement. She thought they agreed to have the County pay people
to do the plan, rather than requiring the landowner pay the fee.
Weimer stated there is no agreement. They haven't changed the fee schedule.
Brenner stated they must understand what enforcement means and where it takes
them. More enforcement won't be as beneficial as showing how important agriculture is.
Most people who aren't doing things well environmentally don't know or are having
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, 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
problems financially. Go through farmer organizations, such as the Dairy Federation, to find
out what the County could do to create incentives and help people come into compliance.
Weimer stated they want to emphasize compliance in 2009. The Conservation
District is taking on the education component. The Planning Department role is to make
sure people abide by the law, which is compliance. They haven't used enforcement at all
yet.
Brenner stated that George Boggs said the County would get more benefits if it paid
for the farm plans instead of charging the farmer. Enforcement isn't cheap, and the
enforcement process can languish. She asked if staff has talked to the Prosecuting Attorney
about enforcing these cases. Daugherty stated they spend significant time helping people
come into compliance through education and outreach. Most people come around. There is
one case in which the County had to send a letter about levying a fine. Only then did the
owner comply. In this one case, enforcement worked effectively. They try to use
enforcement sensitively. They are sensitive to agriculture, and don't want to condemn the
use through this process. A quicker transition to enforcement doesn't mean they'll do it
blindly. Some people just won't act on their own.
Brenner stated the staff should bring this presentation to Farm Friends. The Council
has made agriculture a priority. There may have been a way to help the person in that case
some other way. The case was solved, but that bad feeling won't go away. There are ways
to do this without a quicker transition to enforcement.
Weimer stated he agreed that their efforts ought to be about education and technical
assistance. However, they need to at lease let people know there is enforcement if they
disregard the law. The County has never had to go to enforcement for CPAL. Let people
understand that's an option.
Fleetwood asked for an example of a most egregious case. Daugherty stated a
landowner who was spreading manure 'in the ditches is one example. It's egregious when
there is a one -on -one, direct correlation between the action and the impacts. Manure put
directly into surface water must stop.
Fleetwood asked if the CPAL is a local program. Grah stated CPAL is a creative effort
driven by the Conservation District. The Conservation District used examples from British
Columbia and King County to develop the technical documents used to create farm plans.
Fleetwood asked about the workbook. Daugherty stated the workbook is the
checklist they use to calculate the number of animal units per acre and how the farm is
managed.
George Boggs, Conservation District Manager, stated he applauds the County for
acting on CPAL. The program is gaining momentum. The outreach effort is bearing fruit.
The County staff appreciate the elements necessary for the program and the balance
necessary for a measured application of the program. Enforcement is really a last resort..
Give resources to the director and staff to say how they can use the dollars to make the
program most effective. They must have resources for enforcement, if necessary. A
disincentive is being required to pay for a plan. In some fashion, those dollars earmarked
for a staff position could possibly be best used to offset lost revenue for the Planning
Department subsidizing the cost of the plans. Listen to staff about how they can best use
the available resources.
Natural Resources Committee,, 2/10/2009, 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
This program has been for small farm outreach. The dairies have been under
scrutiny since dairy nutrient management act in 1998. The community has been chagrined
about commercial livestock operations having closer scrutiny, but not the hundreds of
smaller operations and hobby farms. There is general sentiment that it's about time they
scrutinize the smaller operations.
Brenner asked if the Conservation District met with the local Dairy Federation and
Farm Friends about the best way to do this program. Boggs stated they looked at it when
they revisited CPAL in 2004. Their representatives were on the citizen advisory committee.
The head of the Dairy Federation at that time wanted the program. They want the
regulations applied equally. Farm Friends supported the CPAL program at that time. This
program provides an alternative to losing acres of available land.
Weimer stated CPAL wouldn't be targeted at people who are members of the Dairy
Federation. Large dairies are covered under another enforcement scheme. This is targeted
to smaller hobby farms. Boggs stated the concept was that agencies wouldn't duplicate
efforts. If dairies needed a nutrient management plan under State law, the County
accepted that plan as being protective. The checklist was meant to provide hobby farms
with easy options. CPAL provides great flexibility to the landowner. When it comes down to
it, farmers just can't pollute.
Brenner asked if there are any organizations that will help people implement
measures.
Weimer stated the Conservation District will provide technical advice. He asked if
there is a cost - sharing program. Boggs stated that if the critical area is a salmon- bearing
stream, they have unlimited resources to plant a 35 -foot buffer. They have been pursuing
resources for small farms at the State level. They expect resources to be available
statewide. Contact State legislators about providing funding. The Nooksack Salmon
Enhancement Association (NSEA) provides fencing as they can afford to. The Conservation
Crew can do the labor. Resources are available. There are some incentives.
Brenner stated focus more on incentives. Enforcement is not a cheap fix. It can get
extremely expensive. Keep good feelings with the farmers, and save money with
incentives. Boggs stated reflect on all the mechanisms. Enforcement is the last option.
Weimer stated put the emphasis on getting a contract with the Conservation District
to do education, and begin compliance. It seems like they are firmly ensconced in the
compliance effort right now. Grah stated they made modifications in the fee schedule to
accommodate a cost - sharing incentive. Ongoing agricultural operators who voluntarily
participate in the program contact the Conservation District, which prepares a farm plan for
the operator. The processing fee will be reduced from $200 to $100. Egregious cases and
farm plans required for development permits are required to have a farm plan through the
Conservation District or a private- sector consultant. That fee is a $200 site inspection fee
and a $300 farm plan review fee. For voluntary participation, the fee was essentially
reduced from $500 to $100.
There has been a lot of discussion about cost - sharing programs. The Public Works
Department pursued a cost - sharing program for installing fences. There has been
discussion about having funds for a staff position to go to a cost - sharing program instead.
Those are discussions coming up in the next few weeks.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 3
1
2
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
Weimer asked if a fee is necessary at all, if the County is providing the funds for this
position. Grah stated they have a fee recovery goal of 75 percent. If they don't charge for
services to facilitate the program, it's harder to meet the internal goal.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated the
$100 fee is the lowest in the schedule. Cost recovery isn't huge. He is worried about fee
recovery for the department. If they aren't recovering fees, they will have to cut expenses.
Weimer stated fees usually go directly to the service provided. The County has
provided the funds for the CPAL program directly. He asked if the fees go toward the CPAL
program or subsidize other Planning Department costs. Stalheim stated it takes more than
$100 to review the program.
Brenner asked if they would be better off to use monies directly with the
Conservation District to cost -share for the program rather than create another County
position.
Weimer stated the County needs compliance staff to direct people to the
Conservation District. He asked if the position should be focused on compliance.
The committee concurred.
2. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND
DISCUSSION OF A RESOLUTION TO BE INTRODUCED THIS EVENING
DECLARING COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND INTENTION TO ADOPT THE
FEBRUARY 10, 2009, AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 23
(AB2008 -303B)
Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the resolution
before the Council, which will forward this to the State Department of Ecology, will be
introduced. He submitted and read from a presentation (on file). They've said that a lot of
20,000 square feet in size shouldn't matter. It should be about any lot that can't meet the
2,500 square foot building area outside the shoreline buffer. He showed examples of site
development options when conditional use permits would and wouldn't be required.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Gill continued the presentation on examples of site development options.
Brenner asked about site design when neighboring houses are closer to the water.
She asked if the State Department of Ecology does variances.
Steve Hood, Washington State Department of Ecology, stated he doesn't deal with
this in his work, normally. However he has reviewed variances under the shoreline
program. One reason the Department of Ecology will grant variances is because
neighboring houses are located closer to the water.
Crawford asked about landscaping being within the 2,500 square feet. Gill stated the
side yard and road frontage setbacks don't apply in these proposed amendments. It applies
in the existing requirements. He continued to present examples of site development
options.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 4
1 Weimer asked if the driveway portion in the road setback would count toward the
2 2,500 square feet limit. Gill stated it would not.
3
4 Brenner asked what the staff considers as the commencement of a permit process,
5 as referenced in section 23.50.07(F)(1).
6
7 Chad Young, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the permit
8 process commences when an applicant files an application.
9
10 Brenner asked if the application expires. Young stated the expiration clauses are the
11 same as they have been, and are from the Shoreline Management Act. The effective date
12 of the shoreline permit doesn't begin until they have obtained all necessary permits to
13 initiate that process. In most cases, folks will have the finances together by the time the
14 building permit is issued. Then they are subject to the building permit expiration procedure,
15 which includes extensions based on these types of circumstances.
16
17 Crawford referenced 23.50.07(I) and asked how the term 'critical area' is used. The
18 definition comes from Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 16.16. He asked if establishing
19 a 150 -foot shoreline buffer would not be a critical area. Gill stated it is the buffer to the
20 critical area, not the actual critical area.
21
22 Crawford stated make the section clear by adding Language to 23.05.07(1), "...further
23 into a critical area (:excluding the buffer „Io „acr�t�ca! „area);, further into the minimum side
24 yard....” The language becomes circuitous. Everything they do is in the buffer of the critical
25 area, so they can't get there from here. Most of this will probably be within the 150 -foot
26 setback. Make sure future interpretation of this language doesn't include the buffer to
27 critical areas. Essentially, the entire 150 -foot shoreline is a buffer to a critical area.
28
29 Weimer asked if there are times when the critical area and the buffer are the same
30 thing. Gill stated he didn't think so.
31
32 Crawford stated there is a 10 -foot buffer to the buffer for access for a building
33 permit, so a fire truck can get in. Practically, buffers are being protected just like the
34 critical areas are being protected.
35
36 Gill stated WCC 23.50.07(N)(9) uses similar language about where an onsite septic
37 system (OSS) is allowed.
38
39 Weimer asked if Councilmember Crawford's suggestion creates any problems. Gill
40 stated he doesn't think it does.
41
42 Fleetwood moved to amend by adding language to 23.05.07(I), "...further into a
43 critical area (excluding the buffer to a critical area), further into the minimum side yard....”
44
45 Motion carried unanimously.
46
47 Crawford referenced 23.05.07(F) regarding hazardous areas. Most of the older
48 structures around Birch Bay are around the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
49 V zone. That fits within this hazardous area designation of a coastal high hazard area.
50 Therefore, they are not allowing people to replace what they had in -kind. Young stated a
51 lot of the hazardous areas have to do with life safety issues. They can't authorize
52 construction permits in hazardous areas at all, according to the International Residential
53 Building Code. Therefore this is redundant. The frequently flooded section of the critical
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 5
1 areas ordinance refers to Title 17, the flood ordinance through FEMA. When replacing a
2 structure under FEMA, a person has to bring the structure up to a certain percentage of the
3 flood standard. Nothing in the proposed amendments would preclude the redevelopment of
4 those parcels.
5
6 Crawford stated it seems like they aren't including an exception in the shoreline plan
7 for in -kind replacement. The definition of in -kind replacement could still require building to
8 today's standards. As it's worded now, the County can exclude someone from building,
9 even to today's standards, simply because it's in a hazardous area. He's concerned about
10 that. Add language to fix that. He suggested amending WCC 23.05.07(F) to add language,
11 "If the structure is in a hazardous area, may be reconstructed in the same location if the
12 property owner can present an engineered design to mitigate the hazard." He asked staff to
13 create language that would take care of his concern.
14
15 Fleetwood referenced 23.05.07(K), add a verb, ° ... appurtenances in excess...." A
16 scrivener's error.
17
18 Crawford stated he won't support the resolution in general because of other
19 differences, but he appreciates the committee helping him clarify language.
20
21 Ron Jepson, 222 Grand Avenue, stated the narrower the lot, the closer to the water.
22 He has four 150 -foot lots. Using this criteria, his buildable area would be +/- 130 feet by
23 20 feet. The wider lots were created to make more space between houses for a vie. There
24 are more lots that are wider than that, but aren't nearly that deep, and are penalized
25 accordingly. He asked how they get around that. Gill stated the 2,500 square foot is an
26 allowance outside of the normal process. The normal channels are still available. Buffer
27 reduction through the critical areas ordinance is still possible.
28
29 (Clerk's Note: The Committee continued to discuss this item later in the meeting.
30 See below.)
31
32 3. DISCUSSION OF WHAT IS NEEDED TO END THE INTERIM LAKE WHATCOM
33 SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM (AB2008 -114B)
34
35 Weimer stated the Council received additional information in a memo from Council
36 Policy Analyst Rebecca Craven dated February 9, 2009. There are three options. He asked
37 where the Council wants to go on this item. They don't know yet how to keep development
38 around the lake from impacting the lake further. He's considering the permanent downzone
39 solution.
40
41 Fleetwood asked the number of homes at urban density could be built if they lifted
42 the moratorium.
43
44 Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, read from her memo.
45
46 Fleetwood stated the current ban would prevent development of 184 units out of a
47 total 2,300 units. A permanent downzone would affect eight or nine percent of homes that
48 could be built. The Council did a complete overview of the water resources overlay and the
49 stormwater ordinance a few years ago. He asked if the County completed those updates
50 before or after the moratorium on subdividing five acres or less.
51
52 Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, Bellingham, stated they were done before the
53 moratorium. They're not that important.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 6
1
2 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
3
4 McShane stated it was a very rapid update of the regulations. He sent an email
5 about revisiting the development regulations. It's fine if the Council wants to do that. The
6 Council did a lot of that already. This is separate from that.
7
8 In 2004, there was a subdivision moratorium in place and a zoning amendment to
9 change the zoning all around Lake Whatcom. The Council missed an opportunity at that
10 time. The Council did a downzone that was only outside the LAMIRD areas and the urban
11 growth areas. There was a proposal to downzone the urban growth areas as well at that
12 time. Unfortunately, the City of Bellingham didn't participate, and the County couldn't
13 unilaterally downzone the urban growth area. The County backed off.
14
15 When this moratorium was put in place, it was critical to work on two things. First,
16 they needed to get the TMDL update. They have that now. Second, the City and County
17 update of the urban growth area took longer than they thought, and was a lot more
18 complicated. He had hoped that the City and County would figure out a zoning change.
19 The zoning change was never implemented. There's not a good discussion between the City
20 and County about changing the zoning in this urban growth area. The County has had two
21 opportunities to work with the City to change the zoning in the urban growth area.
22 Therefore, the easiest thing to do may be to remove those areas out of the urban growth
23 area.
24
25 He's pleased about option three. There aren't many lots left, but the location of
26 those lots is important. Those lots are right in the area where the County has a big problem
27 to fix. Don't add more houses to the very location where they have a problem. Don't
28 further urbanize an area where urbanization has already caused degradation. If they decide
29 to make it permanent, the hard part will be getting to that end result.
30
31 The deadline for reestablishing the urban growth areas around Bellingham is June
32 2009. Set that as a policy to look at it now. Extend it another six months and make a
33 decision. Either downzone the urban growth area jointly with the city, or pull the areas out
34 of the urban growth area, and downzone the area independently. Based on his experience,
35 he recommends removing the areas from the UGA and downzone them independent of the
36 City. The two opportunities to work with the City haven't worked.
37
38 Crawford asked the growth numbers assigned to the Lake Whatcom watershed
39 UGA's. He asked the impact that would have on the numbers. McShane stated that when
40 the County passed the resolution for the urban growth boundary for Bellingham and the
41 zoning within the urban growth area, the zoning hadn't been changed. Part of the
42 resolution included a plan to change the zone at some point in the future.
43
44 Craven stated the developable capacity is 166 units in Geneva and 62 units in
45 Hillsdale.
46
47 Crawford asked if that includes lot consolidation and underlying density. Craven
48 stated it does include application of the existing lot consolidation rules.
49
50 Crawford stated they are not only talking about parcels that can be subdivided, but
51 they are also talking about previously - platted lots have an underlying density that can be
52 boundary line adjusted.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 7
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
Craven stated the total build out memo includes those numbers of the vacant
existing lots and those that could be subdivided. The numbers in her memo only speak to
those lots that can be subdivided.
Crawford stated that under the current moratorium, they have not allowed folks to
boundary line adjust based on an underlying density of three units per acre that had
previously platted smaller lots. It's not taking what they've had in the moratorium and
making that permanent. It's affecting folks who currently have the ability to boundary line
adjust within the regulations.
Craven stated a proposed set of alternatives for the environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the ten -year UGA review will come before the Council and Planning Commission on
February 17, 2009. Within the alternatives is a map that describes an area that would
undergo a suitability analysis for whether or not the area is suitable for additional, future
urban growth, given a set of criteria. Currently, in that draft map, the watershed UGA areas
are included as an area to undergo suitability analysis for whether they are suitable for
additional urban growth. At the same time, in the course of this ten -year UGA process, they
expect proposals from all the cities about areas where they may want to have their UGA
boundaries changed. The land capacity analysis suggests that, without major changes in
the methodology, there will be a number of UGA's that need to shrink. It's conceivable that
the need to shrink the UGA will absorb the change to this zoning.
Also, an immense amount of work is going on to respond to the TMDL study, which
will lead to a summary implementation strategy. That will lead to a detailed implementation
plan, which will incorporate land use strategies and stormwater management issues. The
Planning Department is undertaking an effort to bring more low- impact development
standards into the County's countywide development regulations. Many of the development
regulations around the lake are already low- impact. The Council may want to consider
additional low- impact regulations in the course of responding to the TMDL study. Decide
whether they want to make that a part of a moratorium response plan.
Weimer stated the State Department of Ecology indicated that the County must
reduce its phosphorus input to the lake by 90 percent. Even if they are only looking at eight
to ten percent of potential lots, removing the potential of an increase is a start. He asked if
the Council wants to take a stand to make this downzone permanent, and whether the time
is appropriate to do that, given all the processes going on. He asked if the Council should
wait for the conclusions of the suitability analysis and EIS, or decide what to do now.
Craven stated there isn't any shortage of information that suggests that urbanization in the
Lake Whatcom watershed contributes to water quality problems in the lake. There is
sufficient background information on which the Council could base findings at this point. If
the Council wants to wait, the County could work collaboratively with the City, if the City is
willing to work this time. The City has not been willing to do that in the past.
Fleetwood stated that given the fact that the moratorium is in place, nothing would
stop the Council from approving an interim one more time. Then they would be able to get
formal recommendations, which is something that is required for the UGA update. He
agrees a recommendation isn't required, but it would satisfy one more step. There would
be no harm. There is some reason to believe that members of the City Council would
support the County in removing the urban growth areas around Lake Whatcom. He believes
the City and County could go forward with an agreement.
He asked if an argument could be made that removing nearly 200 units from the
watershed is an obvious requirement, given the TMDL study requirement to reduce
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 8
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
phosphorus input by 90 percent and to maintain compliance. He asked if it will be that
much more difficult to comply with the TMDL by permitting nearly 200 more units.
Steve Hood, State Department of Ecology, stated he's scared about the thought of
making the kind of reductions that are necessary to the existing infrastructure. They don't
know how to make the roads look 90 percent more like a forest. It will be really difficult
and take a really long time. Those 200 homes makes that problem larger. It increases the
size of the problem they have to deal with. Every home that goes into the watershed will
make that problem larger.
Fleetwood asked the reason for not originally including five -acre parcels in the
moratorium in 2002. McShane stated the original moratorium did include these areas. At
the time, he speculated the amount of support he had from all seven councilmembers. The
UGAs became thorny for that reason. It was a compromise. Also, they didn't comprehend
how bad the situation was in the existing urban growth areas as much as they do now. At
the time, they didn't know how expensive it would be.
During that interim period, exemptions allowed for lot adjustments in the Geneva
area to motivate people to do positive things in those areas. Keep in mind that a new zone
shouldn't be just one unit per five acres. It may need to be more complex and nuanced to
address positive things people could do with lot line adjustments. If they are worried about
property values, think about paper development rights that can be sold, but not used on the
land. Those are options for a special zone for the watershed. He used to think that it would
be most appropriate to leave the areas in the urban growth area. However, being involved
jointly with the City complicates things. He has faith the County can figure out how to
protect the lake and those areas fairly. The County as a government is good at doing
resource protection. It should have been done along time ago.
Brenner stated the City of Bellingham used to want the area out of the UGA, but the
County didn't want to take it out because it was expensive. She asked for examples of
creative incentives for lot line adjustments. McShane stated he doesn't have specific
examples, but keep the ideas open.
Weimer stated they could allow someone in Geneva with five acres to have more
than one house if the developer mitigates neighboring lots in addition to the subdivided lot.
McShane stated people have said that the City doesn't want those urban growth
areas. Officially, the City is still involved.
Craven stated that according to City's 2006 resolution regarding the UGA
recommendation, the City is still involved.
Fleetwood stated the areas currently in the UGA around the lake are significantly
built out. He asked if the real question is reduction of density potential, whether it's done
by a downzone or by removing it from the UGA. Craven stated there are political inter -
jurisdictional questions about how to deal with those areas. It's the City's drinking water
supply and those areas are in the City's UGA. The City has made absolutely no sign that it
is remotely interested in annexing those areas ever. If the City were interested in reducing
density, protecting and paying for stormwater, and increasing the standards, it ought to
annex the area. This is really a discussion about density reduction. The areas are already
zoned urban residential, three units per acre (UR -3), which is lower than the typical urban
density that the Hearings Boards have suggested as minimums for urban areas. Futurewise
didn't challenge the lower density. She doesn't know whether the Hearings Board spoke
Natural Resources Committee, 2 /10/2009, Page 9
1
2
3
4
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
affirmatively to whether they can have lower-than-urban densities in sensitive watersheds.
That leads to the question of whether the County can lower the density further and still
leave them in the UGA. Last, this moratorium deals with areas not in the UGA. The
discussion must be broader than deciding what to do with the UGA.
Crawford asked if people will line up to subdivide as soon as a moratorium is lifted.
He hasn't heard from anyone.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated he
can think of only one person who spoke to Council. There are probably encounters
periodically. There are old applications around Lake Whatcom that are expiring. He doubts
that masses would beat down the doors to subdivide.
Brenner asked if the expiring applications are vested. Stalheim stated they aren't if
the application expires. If they. don't finalize their short -plats by the deadline, their
applications will expire and they won't be able to reapply. The moratorium doesn't affect
the existing, expiring application, but it will the option to reapply.
Weimer asked the process to make this permanent. Stalheim stated it depends on
their approach. To make it permanent, it has to go through the Planning Commission. It
can be structured by a rezone or a clause in the zoning code that prohibits certain land
divisions in the watershed, as an overlay. It depends on the policy intent.
Weimer asked if there is a savings to making it permanent now instead of waiting for
the suitability analysis through the ten -year review. Stalheim stated they don't have time
to take anything else to the Planning Commission. The easiest way to deal with those areas
inside the UGA is to put it into the urban growth area ordinance package. For those areas
outside the UGA, it would require a different process they don't have time to make
permanent now.
Weimer stated it looks like they will have to renew the moratorium one way or
another. Craven stated the zoning and the UGA area are two separate issues. The interim
would have to be renewed by March.
Crawford stated it's probably appropriate to extend the interim. He appreciates staff
for looking at it. He would like to know if there's anything they can do to refine the
analysis. All councilmembers should have a very clear picture of the impact. Be creative to
come up with ways to make something permanent not as painful as it could be. Find
creative solutions to address long -term issues of how development impacts Lake Whatcom,
while simultaneously addressing long -term financial and cultural interests of property
owners. Craven stated she could ask staff later to do a parcel size analysis to figure out
how many parcels and owners would be affected.
Weimer asked staff to also come up with examples for lot line adjustments.
Brenner stated areas with long -term significant resources shouldn't be in a UGA.
Craven stated the only reason to leave those areas in the UGAs is if the City wants to
annex and take care of them at some point. Mayor Pike has indicated he's not interested in
annexing anything in the watershed. Therefore, there is no reason to leave those areas in
the UGA. It comes down to whether a UGA designation makes sense, and whether this is
an area where the community wants to encourage future urban growth.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
Weimer stated they will continue to discuss this during the ten -year review process.
2. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND
DISCUSSION OF A RESOLUTION TO BE INTRODUCED THIS EVENING
DECLARING COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND INTENTION TO ADOPT THE
FEBRUARY 10, 2009, AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 23
(AB2008 -303B)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.)
Gill stated that whether they want to allow a destroyed home Ao`be rebuilt rrl'a - Iife
and safety hazard area is a policy discussion. If they do,.- there are potontii l 'code
modifications. Amend 23.50.07(F)(1) to add language, "...in subsection (H1 and. (II below-
" It would `-first .look at
avoidance, then engineering for mitigating the life and safety issues.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Weimer stated he's not sure about allowing people to build a house where they know
it's a hazard. That is the big issue.
Crawford stated the style of construction for the habitable area is mitigating that.
The design prevents living in the hazard area. A person can only live on the second floor,
for example, not down in the hazard area. People will have to deal with their insurance
companies.
Nelson stated high hazard areas include alluvial fans and steep slopes. Gill stated
the changed language doesn't include alluvial fans or high slopes.
Weimer stated they are only talking about coastal areas, such as at Birch Bay.
Nelson asked if it would be applicable to riverfront property along shorelines. Gill
stated it would not.
Motion carried to amend unanimously.
Weimer moved to recommend approval as amended to the full Council for
introduction this evening.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcri 'tion
Go vti
•�
•
D�yia un Clerk
ON
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 2/10/2009, Page 12