HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources January 29 20081
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
January 29, 2008
Committee Member 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 None
Bob Kelly
Also Present:
None
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
1. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB2008 -021)
Fleetwood nominated Weimer.
Nomination carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF LAKE WHATCOM WORK PLAN AND POLICY
DECISIONS (AB2008 -073)
Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated this is a continuation of a previous
discussion. Each council and commission is to discuss the proposed work plan and policy
discussion items (on file). Program areas five, six, and seven are ongoing programmatic
items in the regular staff work plans.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval of program areas five through seven in
the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program Priority Tasks for 2008.
Motion carried unanimously.
John Everett, Planning and Development Services Department, described program
area eight. The biggest impact from transportation is simply the number of cars traveling
within the watershed. Investigate how to reduce the vehicle mile trips (VIAT), which blends
with commute trip reduction. Create a prioritized list of action items to reduce trips.
Weimer asked if the funding for task 8.1 already exists.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2008, Page 1
1 Cathy Craver, Planning and Development Services Department, stated they have
2 some funding for ongoing activities, but the activities could be expanded. To go any
3 further, they may need more funding.
4
5 Weimer stated they have funding to come up with priorities, but it would take extra
6 funding to implement anything. Craver stated that is correct.
7
8 Kelly asked how the policy discussion issues fit into the work plan. Everett stated
9 those items are suggested for consideration from the policy group. The first policy
10 discussion item for program area eight is covered by the suggested work program. The
11 second discussion item is related to transportation, because there may be a desire to revisit
12 current road standards. City and County transportation staff have talked about the third
13 discussion item. It's not really related to reducing traffic. It makes sure vehicles are well -
14 maintained. The cost -to- benefit ratio of such a program may be high.
15
16 Fleetwood asked if they are looking at how to reduce traffic on roads adjacent to the
17 lake. He asked how they'd do that. Everett stated they want to look at all their options for
18 reducing vehicle miles and prioritize those options by the level of effort required and the
19 possible results.
20
21 Fleetwood asked if one solution is to tell people they can't use Lake Whatcom
22 Boulevard. Everett stated it is a solution, but they must understand the ramifications of
23 that solution. They would need to accelerate the improvement of Lake Louise Road as an
24 alternative safe route. Consideration of closing the road can be a staff work item.
25
26 Fleetwood stated they could create conditions by which people can use the road,
27 such as limiting drivers and drive time. It could be tied to commute trip reduction, and be
28 an incentive for people to look at ride sharing. Everett stated they could. It would be very
29 ambitious.
30
31 Weimer asked how extreme the options can be. Everett stated the staff can consider
32 more extreme options if the Council wants.
33
34 Craven stated the goal of this policy discussion paper is to collect the ideas that are
35 in the community. They are formulating the work plan for the year. The Council can
36 indicate which items on the work plan should continue and which should not continue. Staff
37 would like the Council to approve or not approve the items on the work plan list.
38
39 Weimer asked if item 8.2 on the plan includes more drastic options for trip reduction.
40 Don't spend a lot of time on such measures. Everett stated that the staff's proposed work
41 plan includes the same as the items in 8.2. The more radical ideas are not included
42 because of a lack of resources. If they add more items to 8.2, they run into resource
43 issues.
44
45 Weimer stated the items in 8.2 are the more standard trip reduction items. Those
46 are things to keep on the list to address at some point, but it isn't a high priority. Other
47 issues are more important.
48
49 Kelly stated don't get caught up on issues that aren't part of the biggest limiting
50 factors in terms of water quality for the lake. It doesn't allow them to get to the crux of the
51 problem. He agrees with Councilmember Weimer. Include in the work plan the analysis on
Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2008, Page 2
water quality impacts, which is bullet point two of the policy discussion for program area
eight. He asked if that work has been done and further analysis isn't required.
Kirk Christensen, Public Works Department, stated they haven't done major work to
look at narrow roads. The main issue is balancing safety with narrower roads.
Kelly asked if there has been analysis of stormwater runoff effects associated with
existing roads in terms of water quality.
Claire Fogelsong, City of Bellingham, stated this is a sleeper item. There is an
assumption that paved roads that are fast and safe will improve water quality. A question is
whether those paved roads will increase development potential in the watershed or if there
is less water quality degradation from gravel roads. This item represents many issues
dealing with infrastructure as an attractive nuisance for development in the watershed. This
item is about considering whether paved roads with curbs and gutters are a benefit or
detriment to water quality in the watershed. It's an issue they've heard about from the
community.
Weimer stated they are monitoring the runoff from the current road. Christensen
stated they are. They must find the balance between reducing impervious surfaces and not
creating other problems.
Kelly asked if they have a handle on current stormwater implications to water quality
on the lake. He asked if they don't need further analysis of that. He asked if it is being
monitored enough. He's leanin.g toward not including any of the policy discussion items in
program area eight in the work plan. Christensen stated they can use more monitoring
data. They've monitored some of the runoff.
John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated a body of work to analyze
stormwater runoff and its impacts on water quality is being done. The work isn't enough to
identify the specific sources. They would not get that information, even with a lot more
money. The information they get must help the Council make decisions about roads.
Continue to focus on those things they're undertaking now regarding water quality. They
expect the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study analysis from the State Department of
Ecology (DOE) soon. The DOE's response will shed light on the level of knowledge they
have on the individual sources of phosphorus and other things. The information is coming
forward. Don't focus too much on something that they can't answer without a substantial
investment.
Christensen stated their focus of study and capital projects is in the denser areas
where there are more roads.
Fleetwood moved to recommend approval of program area eight.
Motion carried unanimously.
Weimer stated they must make sure development of new recreation areas around
the lake doesn't impact water quality.
Kelly stated he hesitates about focusing on smaller issues regarding limiting factors,
but he doesn't want to restrict discussion between the two bodies.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2008, Page 3
1 Weimer moved to recommend approval of program area nine.
2
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4
5 Craven stated there is a correction to item 10.3, in the products column. Strike
6 unified reports. The reports will be from each of the jurisdictions about their respective
7 monitoring and maintenance.
8
9 Kelly stated the goal is to develop a unified report.
10
11 Fleetwood moved to recommend approval of program area ten.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 Weimer referenced program area 11.4. There's a sense among County
16 councilmembers that putting 21 people in a room to decide anything is silly. Come up with
17 a better working group amongst the councils. The entire group can still meet once or twice
18 per year. Add language to task 11.4 to develop a way to keep policy decision - makers
19 involved on an ongoing basis. Have more ongoing policy discussions.
20
21 Fogelsong stated he suggests language, "Staff will support, organize, and facilitate
22 joint council members and commissioners at designated committee meetings regarding
23 Lake Whatcom." Indicate that staff will support the councils' small group meetings. Make
24 that a different task within the program area.
25
26 Weimer moved to recommend approval of program area 11 with a new task, 11.7
27 that staff will support development and ongoing meetings of a working group of the
28 councils.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 Craver described program area 12, which is a new program area. It is based on
33 creating a joint enforcement team and identifying gaps in regulations.
34
35 Fleetwood asked if this requires additional staff. Craver stated this item is to get
36 existing staff to the table to discuss issues. They would develop recommendations and a
37 possible new budget request.
38
39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
40
41 Weimer moved to recommend approval of program area 12.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
45 Craven stated deal with program areas one and three in the policy discussion
46 document with new Planning Director David Stalheim.
47
48 Fleetwood asked if the second bullet item in program area one of the policy
49 discussion document refers to downzones or upzones in the watershed. Craven stated that
50 item refers to the possibility of both downzones and upzones.
51
Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2008, Page 4
1 Fleetwood asked if the first bullet item in program area one of the policy discussion
2 means they will try to get more money for acquisitions. Craven stated it does.
3
4 Fogelsong stated the City used to have a program to buy lots in tax foreclosure.
5 They were restricted by policy to not be allowed to bid on the properties above the
6 minimum bid. One option is to allow the City to participate in the bidding process. Be
7 creative about how they participate in those opportunities.
8
9 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they're trying to
10 step back as a department and develop an overall work program for the department. These
11 items are part of that overall work program. They don't anticipate having that fully vetted
12 until the end of February. For instance, the issue of changing zoning takes resources.
13
14 Conversation and leadership on the transfer of development rights (TDR) program
15 has gotten lost. Reenergize that program with the City planning staff. A State committee is
16 reviewing State TDR programs. They may get hooked into that State program in the
17 context of a program in Whatcom County,
18
19 Weimer asked if the ongoing moratoria will stay in the plan or wait for growth
20 management review in the future. Stalheim stated those are in the work plan. There are
21 over 90 items in the work program now. Those will all come forward for further discussion
22 and prioritization.
23
24 Weimer stated the plan doesn't include the task of looking for more funding.
25 Stalheim stated they will make sure these issues are integrated into the long range work
26 program. Staff has created a database to assign work hours for staff. They're trying to
27 quantify that information. They will identify tasks for consultants. When all that's
28 quantified, they will see existing resources and funding and identify gaps.
29
30 Weimer asked if they will work on developing options for a new funding structure.
31 Craven stated they will, within a couple of contexts. That is part of phase two of the CH2M
32 Hill scope of work on the comprehensive water resources integration project. The
33 consultant will look at options for funding water resource programs in the county and
34 potential governance structures.
35
36 The work plan now is generally a reflection of funded work programs within the
37 County, City, and District. As things from the policy discussion list are added, they can be
38 treated as requests for additional funding or something must get kicked off the existing
39 work plan. As they go through the policy issues, or if the Council needs additional
40 information from staff, make sure to ask how much it will cost.
41
42 Weimer asked if the City is part of that discussion about overall management. The
43 County may have a great idea for a new district, but it must talk with the City about It.
44 Fogelsong stated each program area may have different funds available. They don't have
45 much flexibility with present programming to drop a task and apply the money elsewhere.
46 The same is true for the acquisition program. If they replace the current funding
47 mechanism with only district funding, they would get a lot less out of the district than they
48 receive now from various programs that tax city and lake residents for activities in the
49 watershed. The Lake Whatcom staff is sparse. They don't have a lot of full -time equivalent
50 (FTE) employees assigned to develop a funding strategy.
51
Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2008, Page 5
Weimer stated focus on program areas one through three in the policy discussion
paper.
Fleetwood stated he agrees on program areas one through three. The City has
identified locations in the watershed that have the potential for buyout. They need more
money.
Weimer stated the potential for land acquisition isn't clear.
Fleetwood stated further refine and present recommendations on funding options.
That may be happening through other means. It's a component of the Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Plan. This is an inter - jurisdictional group. He asked if they can
charge the inter - jurisdictional group to come up with global funding options. Craven stated
leave it up to the individual bodies. There are differences among the three jurisdictions and
what funding options are available to them. Don't task the collective staffs with doing that.
They could have a conversation with the City about whether and to what extent they are
pursuing these same things. The City is bonding future revenue on the acquisition fund to
get more of that money up front. That will give the City $21 million to spend over several
years.
Weimer stated he is looking for more clarity on what's available for acquisition and
the associated costs regarding program area one.
Fleetwood asked if the second bullet item in program area one is left over from the
past, before they did the Lake Whatcom downzone. He asked if it is the present
recommendation from the group.
Weimer stated these are ideas floating around in the community, not
recommendations from staff.
Stalheim stated it's fine to have a list of these bullet points. However, talk about the
overall growth management program, and their long -term goals, and how they consolidate
these conversations. He doesn't recommending going further with these items until they
have that larger conversation. Think about the global context of that conversation before
they start another task.
Craven stated there is information on what land is available and how much it will
cost. The Council has tasked her to look at options for a potential new zone in the urban
growth areas (UGA's) in the watershed to get an idea of parcel and permit tracking
information. She will come forward with specific information on the potential effect of a new
zone in that area and whether it produces any substantial benefit. That work is in the larger
work plan.
Fogelsong stated the City put together a rough draft estimate of the number of units
left in the watershed to be developed and how much development happens every year.
From that information, identify a trend of whether downzoning becomes moot to lessen
development pressure in the watershed. Have a paper that outlines all the consequences
and factors that play into the voices that have been given to this issue.
Weimer stated he would like information on what's out there, available, can be
purchased, and is vested. Fogelsong stated staff can package that information.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2008, Page 6
1 Weimer stated he doesn't know what a successful downzone would do without that
2 information. He asked about defining urban levels of service. Stalheim stated that is in the
3 work plan.
4
5 Weimer asked if the Council will get a white paper that defines what is urban and
6 what is rural. Stalheim stated the issue is what happens outside of urban growth areas.
7 That gets to the discussion of limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRD's).
8 That's an extensive effort the staff will undertake after the UGA review. Staff is assigned.
9 Part of that conversation includes issues associated with water and sewer line extensions.
10
11 Weimer stated he wants information about sewer and water extensions. There is a
12 gray area about whether those are urban or rural. The court case may clarify that
13 confusion. Stalheim stated Hearings Boards have been clear that sewer outside urban
14 growth areas is an urban service and should not be allowed.
15
16 Weimer stated program area two of the policy discussion paper isn't clear.
17 Councilmember Brenner advocates a retrofit program on existing lots. He agrees. He
18 asked how to address that. He asked if they need more information about a retrofit
19 program.
20
21 Bill Riley, City of Bellingham Stormwater Manager, stated the City has regulations to
22 implement bullet item one of program area two. Those things are included to a degree in
23 compliance with the 2005 stormwater manual for Western Washington. Infiltration is the
24 best management practice (BMP) for stormwater management. Depending on soil
25 conditions, it may be impossible to mandate infiltration on all lots. Allow for those kinds of
26 circumstances. If soils aren't conducive to infiltration, it could become a development
27 restriction. Regulations require an analysis of stormwater infiltration. He discussed the
28 City's tasks and regulations regarding stormwater. The bullet points on the list are close to
29 the joint City and County efforts. Consider funding if available.
30
31 Regarding the third bullet point in program area two of the policy discussion issues,
32 it's important to join efforts. They are already sharing resources and working together in
33 the Lake Whatcom watershed for monitoring, education, and other tasks. The City will
34 reenergize the stormwater staff between the County and City to explore this even more.
35
36 Weimer stated work is being done on all three of the bullet points in program area
37 two. He asked if the City's pilot project on retrofits may lead to a white paper on what
38 works and what doesn't work. Riley stated it may.
39
40 Christensen stated they are working hard together on the TMDL.
41
42 Weimer stated it is due February 15, according to the Department of Ecology. They
43 will discuss the rest of the policy discussion program areas at the next meeting. Program
44 areas one through three are the highest priorities.
45
46 2. STATUS REPORT ON THE LAKE WHATCOM LAND RECONVEYANCE PROCESS
47 (AB2008 -074)
48
49 This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
50
51
52 OTHER BUSINESS
Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2008, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
a
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
AT Fot% kl C O
6pna Qavi. Quncjk Clerk
.• si ',
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 1/29/2008, Page 8