Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 6 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee May 6, 2008 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 None Bob Kelly Also Present: L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF THE BUILD OUT POTENTIAL IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2008 -188) Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, submitted a handout (on file) of the draft Lake Whatcom Potential Buildout - May 2008 and maps. The City of Bellingham has done a basic analysis of potential buildout in the past few years. The analysis doesn't include a variety of building restrictions and policy decisions, which should be included to determine actual possible buildout. The County geographic information system (GIS) staff went parcel -by- parcel and looked at the Assessor's database, permanent restrictions placed on many parcels, utility local improvement district (ULID) restrictions from the water and sewer district, County lot consolidation rules, and a variety of other buildout limitations. She expects that the County numbers would be several hundred developable units less than the City's estimates, however it is less than 100 fewer, for several reasons. First, the Assessor parcel data already consolidates some of the platted lots. The City's analysis already limited those numbers of lots. Second, there are two watershed boundaries being used by the two jurisdictions. The County started using the water resource inventory area (WRIA) 1 boundary and adopted it for the purpose of the Lake Whatcom watershed subdivision moratorium. The City uses a different boundary. That boundary difference accounts for 123 potential units. The WRIA boundary is a bit bigger. To the area south of Toad Lake, there would be an additional 123 units in that WRIA area that's not included in the area the City analyzed. Third, there is a difference in the numbers from the County's inclusion of underdeveloped lots in addition to vacant lots. Those three items account for the bulk of the differences from what they expected. The database is ready for the staff to use to analyze a variety of policy changes, such as the proposed Lake Whatcom urban zone and the draft technical report for the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study that the State Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued. That report assumes a particular level of buildout. The full buildout potential that Ecology assumed included an additional 15,000 people over the 13,000 they said lived in the watershed in 2003. With this detailed analysis, the County can clearly show Ecology that that level of buildout isn't possible. Only an additional 2,200 additional units can be built in the watershed. That's not enough space for 15,000 people. Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 1 1 Weimer asked the date of the TMDL numbers. Craven stated the whole report was 2 written as a snapshot from 2003. Ecology looked at the full buildout potential of 28,000. 3 She hasn't looked at what has happened in the watershed since then 2003. That's 4 something the County should do. 5 6 Crawford asked the factor for the number of persons per residence. Craven stated 7 the City used a factor of 2.1 people per household for the last final environmental impact 8 statement (FEIS) for the City's last population analysis. The City land supply analysis split 9 that out and had a slightly higher number for single family dwelling units and lower number 10 for multi - family units. 11 12 Crawford stated there are almost no multi - family units. It seems like 2.1 is low. 13 Craven stated that is a countywide estimate. 14 15 Crawford stated a safer factor seems to be three per residence is more likely. That 16 would be a buildout potential for about 7,000 people. Craven stated that's something they 17 should talk about, especially within the context of consistency with other County decisions 18 on population. 19 20 Nelson asked about the numbers assigned to the vacant land on the maps. Craven 21 stated the first number represents the existing units on the parcel. The second number 22 represents the potential additional units. They assumed that The Firs property would not 23 build out. 24 25 Crawford asked for an explanation of the color code on the maps. 26 27 Sarah Watts, Planning and Development Services Department, explained the color - 28 coded areas on the maps. 29 30 Crawford stated he loves the map. He asked for the colors to be more clearly 31 indicated. 32 33 Watts stated the City's analysis was before all the zoning and urban growth area 34 (UGA) changes in Geneva. 35 36 Weimer asked how easy it would be to look at aerial photos of Sudden Valley to 37 evaluate it for limited area of more intense rural development (LAMIRD) status. Watts 38 stated it's pretty hard to look now at houses. There's so much tree cover. 39 40 Craven stated (inaudible) on the ULID restrictions. They considered those as either 41 vacant of developable depending on whether there was a (inaudible). If they pay the 42 original assessment plus a latecomer's fee, they can buy out of the ULID restriction. That 43 amount of money now is about $4,000. The most expensive it will get is about $8,000. 44 Given the cost of a house in the watershed, that's not a sufficient barrier to someone 45 overcoming that restriction and buying their way out of the ULID. Those parcels are 46 included in the developable category. 47 48 Jim Neher, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District Manager, stated the latecomer 49 buyout is only for those parcels created after the ULID was formed. For example, if the 50 County allows a short plat, 6fid the owner bought one ULID, there would be three additional 51 lots that could buy in. The restricted lots have to be transferred lot- for -lot with an 52 unrestricted lot. There's no gain or loss of the number of those restricted lots. Many people 53 have a restricted lot, didn't want to build on it during the ULID, and now want to build on it. Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 2 They have to get a ULID from another property, and transfer the restriction to another lot. There is no net gain. Crawford asked if that is just for Sudden Valley. Neher stated it is for anywhere in ULID 18, which includes Geneva. Crawford stated a person on five original platted parcels could develop on those separate lots if the County approves, and the district would provide water and sewer service. He wouldn't have to transfer a ULID restriction. Neher stated that's correct. Weimer asked if that changes the analysis significantly. Crawford stated it doesn't. Weimer stated it seems there isn't much difference from what the City analyzed, but it was a good exercise to go through. Craven stated that had the City's area been the same as the County's area, there would be a greater difference. Weimer stated they are using different watershed boundaries. Craven stated also that the City,didn't make the changes in the UGA boundary that were made in the Geneva area, which would change things. Weimer asked if they can tell the size of the lots in rural areas. Craven stated they can. That information is in the database. There are some parcels larger than five acres. Nelson stated it looks like the maps indicate commercial forestry zones allow zero to one unit per twenty acres. ;He asked if that's reflected in the 924. Watts stated that's correct. There are some rural, one unit per.five acres (R5A) zones. If a zoning boundary splits a parcel, she would apply the density (inaudible). COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LAKE WHATCOM COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER PLAN (2008 -181) Chip Anderson, Public Works Department, gave a staff report. The plan provides options to deal with stormwater pollution, the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) phase two permit, and the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study requirements for the Lake Whatcom watershed. The capital improvement plan identified 20 projects that would reduce phosphorus and other pollutants. Many options deal with surface water runoff. The plan emphasized programmatic approaches to increase awareness of adverse and undesirable behaviors of those who live in the watershed and use the watershed. The plan recommends having a full -time employee deployed in the watershed to educate, inspect, and enforce regulations when necessary. There is no single source of problems in the lake and surrounding watershed. The natural aging process of the lake has been accelerated by 150 years of human activity in the watershed. Some have criticized this plan as not being thorough or aggressive enough. ' rhere is some merit to that criticism. However, the consultant took a holistic approach while taking into consideration the realistic financial constraints. Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 3 With the release of the TMDL study, it may be prudent to accelerate the activities contained in the plan. Chapter 7 of the plan recommends solutions. It would also be beneficial to expand coordinated efforts with the City and Water District. The plan provides a good road map to protect the lake and watershed. It may not address every concern from individuals and groups. It does provide a path forward and a process to deal with individual groups and agencies that have valid concerns. Four people responded with comments on the draft, including Councilmember Nelson and the State Department of Ecology (DOE). He described the comments, which support capital improvement project 8, additional sanding activity on Coronado Avenue, and factual corrections. In general, respondents supported the plan, and there were no substantive changes as a result of the comments. He will continue to work with the public and other agencies to implement and update the plan as they proceed into the future. Weimer asked if the plan doesn't address the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit. Anderson stated it does. The draft referenced recommendations rather than requirements. The word "recommendation" was removed from the final plan. It was thoroughly identified with the NPDES stormwater program, which clearly stated they would deal with the problems. The permit and plan are more coordinated now. Weimer stated the TMDL emphasized getting individual property owners to infiltrate their water. It's mentioned in the plan, but isn't an emphasis. He asked if it makes sense to pass this plan now or wait to analyze the TMDL. Anderson stated pass it now. Many solutions can be implemented. Many of the capital improvement projects focus on activities that undermine solutions. Weimer asked if this is integrated with the coordinated water resource integration project (CWRIP). John Hutchings, Public Works Department, stated they are integrated. As they begin to develop a detailed implementation plan for the TMDL, they will likely move above and beyond those activities in the stormwater plan. As part of the NPDES phase two permit and eventually the TMDL, they must do those first steps that will lead them to phosphorus loading reduction. Regardless of the required reduction, the first steps are the same. The stormwater plan gets them there. Fleetwood asked about the opinion of certain people who think this isn't thorough enough. Hutchings stated they all realize there is more to do in the watershed than is included in the plan. He doesn't know when they will get to the point of seeing positive changes in the watershed. Recognize that this plan is the first step in a complete response. It does a good job of comprehensively outlining the direction in which they need to go, but it doesn't include concrete answers for things like retrofitting. The plan doesn't go that far. Folks out there would like to see those solutions in the plan. He's not sure they're there yet. Fleetwood asked if this plan can be improved over time, Hutchings stated it can. Weimer asked if they are using the plan or the TMDL to drive the budget cycle. Hutchings stated they are using both. Kelly stated he views the TMDL study and permit as driving the plan. The plan is a good beginning. It's not fair for staff to take criticism about how aggressive the plan is or isn't. It's up to the policymakers to decide how aggressive they are going to be. This is a Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 4 1 start and something they can build on. He asked if the TMDL, even in draft, is driving the 2 permit, and the permit is driving the plan. At the end of the day, they have to have a plan 3 to get the permit. Be up front about that. It's not a bad thing, If they are aggressive 4 enough and tackle this the right way, they can get to the ultimate goal, which is clean 5 drinking water, by implementing the permit. Hutchings stated a higher level of government 6 recognizes the need for local governments to take steps toward maintaining clean water for 7 a wide variety of purposes. 8 9 Nelson asked about funding and revenue sources, including a flood sub -zone, which 10 provides a fee. He asked about a 50 percent match also from the countywide Flood Control 11 Zone District. Hutchings stated the source of money is up for debate and discussion by the 12 Council. This plan makes recommendations based on the existing funding structure. 13 14 Nelson stated be careful that they don't adopt a funding mechanism when they adopt 15 the plan. He asked if the revenue estimates were derived from identifying problems that 16 needed to be solved. 17 18 Bill Derry, CH2MHill, stated that's correct. They looked at the regulations for NPDES 19 phase two and the key issues behind the listings for phosphorus and coliform. Those things 20 drove the recommendations in the plan. They made judgments about an aggressive, but 21 feasible, financial level. The plan identifies about $1 million per year. They considered 22 creating a flood sub -zone district that collects the same rate the City and Birch Bay collects. 23 That would generate a little over $400,000 per year, which is less than half the amount in 24 the plan. 25 26 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 27 28 Nelson asked how much the City spends from its stormwater fund for the watershed. 29 Hutchings stated the City spends about $1 million per year in the watershed. It's about 40 30 percent of their capital program. 31 32 Nelson stated they're trying to be fair and equitable to homeowners in the City and 33 County rural areas. Hutchings stated the Council will have a lot of discussion about that 34 relationship at the Council's surface water work session. 35 36 Weimer stated there are multiple funding proposals. Approving the resolution 37 doesn't approve a funding source. 38 39 Kelly asked if the revenue estimates are integrated into the options they've seen to- 40 date in the surface water work sessions, and if they recommend a base programmatic 41 approach. Hutchings stated they are integrated. Service level three, presented aL the last 42 work session, includes a line item to implement the Lake Whatcom Stormwater Plan, at a 43 cost of about $1 million per year. There are additional line items about responding to the 44 TMDL and NPDES phase two permit, which covers more than just the watershed. 45 46 Nelson asked about the phrase "somewhat excessively drained" in his neighborhood 47 of Agate Bay, and what that phrase means. Derry stated it means there is a higher sand 48 content, so it drains very quickly. 49 50 Nelson asked if they are saying that's not necessarily good or bad. Derry stated it 51 depends on what they want. It's good if he wants to get rid of water quickly. To filter out 52 pollutants, add some organic material. It's possible those pollutants will go quickly through 53 the gravel and into the groundwater. Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 5 Nelson asked if they're saying that forestry practices should be careful to not take away too much surface material, because it will wash water quickly into the lake. That term bothers him. Hutchings stated that soil scientists have always tried to confuse things. Any soil survey uses standard terms, and "somewhat excessively drained" is one of those standard terms. Nelson stated that in terms of policy, it may be better for homeowner who live in those areas to import soils and have better lawn coverage. There are no soils. It's all sand and gravel. He asked if imported soils and maintained lawns would be better than throwing grass seed on the gravel. Derry stated it would be better. Nelson stated they should get a credit, then. Fleetwood referenced Bill McCourt's letter. Much of the plan proposes high priority capital projects along corridors and ditches. However, onsite filtration remains the best solution to deal with stormwater pollution, according to Mr. McCourt. He asked how they address the inconsistency and reconcile the need for onsite filtration, once they have the revenue and begin prioritizing. Hutchings stated there isn't much inconsistency. The plan recognizes the need and importance of some of those programmatic and policy activities. The plan doesn't line out the polices that have to be implemented. The DOE expects some sort of program to assist infiltration in the watershed in response to the TMDL. They will get there. These are things in the plan they can do now. There are recommendations to carry out the kinds of things Mr. McCourt recommends. He agrees they're all important. Fleetwood asked if they don't have a specific policy for house -by -house onsite infiltration. He asked if they need more staff resources to implement that aspect of the policy. Hutchings stated that given the existing resources, they will be able to move forward with some kind of proposal for a pilot effort, hopefully leveraging outside money. He's not sure how that turns into a watershed -wide activity. It may be education - driven or something more focused on County administration. There has to be some pilot project to educate the staff about how people will receive the prospect of doing onsite implementation. Fleetwood asked if the Council can do anything. Hutchings stated take a hard lool< at level of service three, which gets them far down the road. The Council asked staff to separate out those things they must do. They've done that in level of service three. Weimer stated this will be discussed further at the work session next week. Nelson stated his concern is that they should do an analysis that evaluates the effectiveness of whatever they decide to do. 'He asked if this program includes an analysis of effectiveness. Hutchings stated it does. Part of phase two requirements include a level of monitoring. Nelson asked if it will be the same or different scope than what the State did to determine 303. Anderson stated it will be more extensive. Hutchings stated the State has to approve the entire package. Marian Beddill, People for Lake Whatcom, submitted a letter (on file), earlier referred to as the letter from Bill McCourt, who is a member of People for Lake Whatcom. She read from the letter. Most large engineering facilities have very little effectiveness in removing Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 6 V 1 phosphorus. It doesn't work to spend big money on civil engineering projects to solve the 2 phosphorus problem in Lake Whatcom. 3 4 Fleetwood stated Bill McCourt thought early on that they need an assets inven�ory 5 and a funding mechanism. The plan includes an assets inventory. He asked if it is not 6 adequate. Beddill stated she will ask Mr. McCourt to clarify his statement. 7 8 Nelson stated the assets inventory may be on culverts, drainage ditches, and other 9 things that they don't know about, and make them a priority for repair. The County needs 10 to have an inventory of those things. 11 12 Beddill stated she agrees. Emphasize source control. Don't let the pollution get on 13 the ground or into the water in the first place. That is the most effective technique. It has 14 to be done by both the jurisdictions and the individual land owners. She was able to dg a 15 hole in her yard, install a box, and fill it with gravel. That box captures a substantial 16 amount of the surface water runoff on her property, and puts it directly underground. It 17 cost about $40. Half the households in the watershed could do something like that, and 18 make a major benefit. 19 20 Crawford stated asked if the County could have a grant program of about $100 Der 21 homeowner to install this simple design. 22 23 Weimer stated those are things they need to look at. Look at how individual 24 property owners can put the water back into the ground. 25 26 Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council. This is a s`�ep 27 forward in the right direction. Everyone agrees that this is good. 28 29 Crawford stated he supports the recommendation, but it's difficult to watch "ow 30 slowly these things happen in government. Now they've got another big document. 31 32 Weimer stated that's why they need to vote for level of service three. 33 34 Crawford stated they need to do more if Dr. Matthews' is going to continue to -,ay 35 harm is being done to the lake. He's not sure how to do that. The plan is one step, but 36 he's not sure what they're going to do. 37 38 Fleetwood stated that with the TMDL study, national pollutant discharge elimination 39 system (NPDES) permit, and Dr. Matthews' report all being released at the same t �e 40 makes them better - poised to ?ake action. This process was necessary. 41 42 Crawford stated this leans toward public works projects as opposed to dealing th 43 the million points of pollution. 44 45 Fleetwood stated they've identified the large capital projects that also need to be 46 done. The plan recommends that they continue creating policies for onsite filtration. 47 48 Weimer stated there is a difference between the capital projects in this stormwE ter 49 plan and engineering fixes they've tried. Many capital projects in the plan are to repair 50 damage to streams from excess flow. The projects are to repair damage that has been 51 done. 52 53 Motion carried unanimously. Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 7 1 2 2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WHATCOM COUNTY'S APPLICATION FOR 3 FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO THE RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE, 4 WASHINGTON WILDLIFE AND RECREATION PROGRAM PROJECT TO AID IN 5 THE FINANCING COST OF LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION OF 6 FARMLAND, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE THE SORENSEN AND PEPRY 7 FARMS (AB2008 -191) 8 9 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated these are two 10 properties on the purchase of development rights (PDR) list. The Resource Conservation 11 Office has a farmland preservation program. The County can apply for funding from that 12 office. There is no more U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding. They are trying to 13 find other matching funds. Because this goes to the legislature, the funds won't actually be 14 available until July 2009. 15 16 Kelly asked for a cost Brojection. He asked the impact of no longer having the USDA 17 funding. Stalheim stated they are trying to close out deals so they don't lose that funding. 18 If the Farm Bill is renewed, there may be more funding. He will find an estimate of hnw 19 much additional money this will cost. One of the properties is very large, and the co-' of 20 the development rights are about $1.7 million. They are also trying to work with the PDrkS 21 Department and the conservation futures fund. Both departments are interested in the fund 22 for different reasons. 23 24 Fleetwood moved to recommend approval to the full Council. 25 26 Motion carried unanimously. 27 28 29 OTHER BUSINESS 30 31 There was no other business. 32 33 34 ADJOURN 35 36 The meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. 37 _ r' 38 40 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 41 42 \\1111uli1N1. IL i 43 AT� C, 0 �4 46 47 48 49 Dana Br ourril Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 5/6/2008, Page 8