Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 1 20051 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Special County Council March 1, 2005 Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy L. Ward Nelson 2. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, SECTION 20.80.735, TO IMPLEMENT A SEASONAL RESTRICTION ON LAND CLEARING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND APRIL 30 (AB2005 -125) Andrew Craig, Department of Ecology Water Quality Inspector, stated his primary duties have to do with construction and industrial stormwater sites that have National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System ( NPDES) permits, although not all sites he inspects are under those permits, but may be causing stormwater pollution. He was made aware of the ordinance to implement a seasonal restriction on land clearing in the watershed. He has worked with County staff on at least a dozen different construction sites, with or without NPDES permit coverage. County staff is very responsive in coordinating with the Department of Ecology (Ecology). The bottom line in coordinating with County staff is that there are not enough people for the job. He works with two County staff on construction stormwater issues. He supports the County in trying to address source control measures. The County implemented the point system. As he understands it, the system evaluates each site's risk for pollution of stormwater. It's a great system on paper. In practice, it's difficult to evaluate those sites once they've been given the point value, due to limited manpower. This proposed amendment to the ordinance, a seasonal ban on activities during the wet season, appears appropriate to address the lack of manpower. It would simplify the criteria that a County inspector can use to evaluate sites for compliance. The site can change over the time, which the point system doesn't account for. Having a simpler set of rules makes it much easier for a person to evaluate those sites. Construction sites can rapidly change Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 1 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 1 daily because they are constantly moving materials around. It's too difficult for an 2 inspector to go out there to keep up on it. 3 4 Another reason for simpler rules is the cumulative construction sites on one 5 parcel. A site will be developed by a single developer. Once the initial roads and 6 infrastructure is in, individual lots are built on the site. That brings in more builders 7 and contractors, which mushrooms the amount of activity on that particular 8 location. To check on those sites and provide a level regulatory playing field, have 9 a simpler set of rules, which is more feasible and reliable to address resource issues 10 and works better fiscally for the County. 11 12 Ecology wants to continue working with the County in all county watersheds. 13 All the steps the Council has taken are legitimate steps to protect water quality. 14 Ecology wants to provide as much support and staff time it can. There is no way 15 Ecology can do all this work itself. It takes a team effort to make a measurable 16 impact on stormwater pollution in all county watersheds. 17 18 Brenner stated it still isn't clear how the point system changes. Either a 19 developer can clear and grade or can't. That doesn't change. Either the parcel is 20 on a steep slope or is not on a steep slope. Craig stated the point system doesn't 21 change. However, site conditions can change. The percentage of exposed soils can 22 change, and the degree that those areas are covered can change over time. 23 24 Brenner asked about the possibility of a more simplified point system that 25 doesn't change, and just allows for the facts of the property that can't change, like 26 slopes. Some sites wouldn't even need a site visit if they already know those facts. 27 Fewer people could build, but some still could. They'd know that those who can't 28 build, but do build, would be violators. Craig stated Ecology would support that 29 option as well. This proposed ordinance is an effective source control approach. 30 Tightening up the point system may limit areas that are cleared, but still opens 31 some areas to clearing. For totally eliminating pollution at the source, the proposed 32 ordinance is the best. A better point system would be better than the current point 33 system. 34 35 Kurt Baumgarten, Planner stated he can answer questions on the point 36 system. This point system represents a snapshot of the site in time. A site can 37 change. Another site above the subject site could be cleared above the subject 38 site. A person may clear a greater amount than proposed. It's accurate to say that 39 this point system requires more oversight and follow up. If there is a full seasonal 40 clearing restriction, those sites would still be under construction, including framing 41 and utility work. Those sites would still be monitored for compliance. This 42 ordinance enables him to better follow up on the existing sites that are under 43 construction during the winter months. 44 45 Roy asked what resources and staff would be required to keep the current 46 system and how many times staff should visit each site, just for Lake Whatcom. 47 Craig stated the County has more than one watershed to deal with. If they narrow Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. down the focus for staff, they could focus on that watershed. However, there are enacted rules and regulations for other watersheds. Those other watersheds need to be checked for compliance also. The County must have a presence in those watersheds as well. Roy stated she's prone to support the seasonal land clearing ban, but there are options. She asked what means in terms of staffing for the option to provide more resources to visit the sites more often and retain the point system. Baumgarten stated if they can bring in enough staff, the point system should be given a chance to function accordingly. There is not enough staff to do that presently. There are between 300 and 400 sites open in the lake Whatcom watershed. There are two staff who work in Lake Whatcom and also Birch Bay, Drayton Harbor, and Lake Samish. The ration just for Lake Whatcom is over 150 sites per staff member. The question is the frequency of visits to each site. The first year he started doing this, there were 50 to 60 sites, and now it is up to over 300 sites. Roy stated they'd have to at least double the staff. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated they might not have to double the staff. A lot of this depends on what growth will be over the next couple of years. His recommendation to the Executive would be for one additional staff person to handle the existing growth. If they increase growth by another 25 or 50 percent, which is the kind of growth they're beginning to see, he'll be back for more staff. With the existing point system, the County is one staff person short of keeping up with Lake Whatcom. Nelson asked if they have explored the option of outsourcing the resources. Staffing is an issue countywide. For instance, if someone wants to clear during the wet season, that person must have engineering people to do assessment and be willing to pay for those assessments. Hart stated he discussed options with the Executive briefly this morning. The administration wants the departments to look at staffing as an overall approach department -wide. Before asking for a full -time equivalent (FTE) employee, look at what they can change and outsource. The number one service to outsource in his department is plans examination. They are currently outsourcing two plans examiners. He would have to carefully think through any kind of erosion control outsourcing. Mr. Craig might know of other jurisdictions that have done that. He will look into that if that is the direction from Council. Nelson stated the County wouldn't hire the erosion control outsource, but require it of the developer in addition to regular permitting. Craig stated he doesn't know in his experience of other jurisdictions doing that. Certain individuals have hired consultants to monitor and report to government agencies. The County must be careful about the reliability of the information reported. The relationship between the landowner and consultant can provide an opportunity for dishonesty. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Hart stated the County is still responsible for evaluating the consultant's report. Brenner stated that if they change the point system, and an application has higher soil, slope, and proximity to wetlands, there is outright denial for those properties during the wet season. She asked what would happen if there is a point system like that, with a new staff person. She understands how much simpler the process would be to not allow any building activity during the wet season, but it doesn't seem fair to the property owners who won't have runoff to not supply them with what they need, too. Baumgarten stated that when the point values were established, the system came from a long discussion with many stakeholders. If the numbers of a few categories were increased, they would effectively have a seasonal ban. Staff still has to review every site, but they would still have an effective seasonal ban because they'd increase the numbers of permits the department holds on to until the wet season is over. Staff would have to evaluate the site, then still do follow up on the sites that are open. That number of sites would get much smaller. Sites that were started in August, for example, must maintain best management practices (BMP's) throughout the winter. During the heavy rain events, the BMP's aren't necessarily 100 percent effective, even if installed correctly. The councilmembers must ask themselves if the level of sediment is acceptable to leave the site, given the phosphorus discussion. Even with an enhanced point system or seasonal ban, some sediment still leaves the site. The discussion should also include how much is acceptable. Fleetwood asked if staff is saying that a point system, if properly staffed and implemented, would be just as effective at protecting the lake as a seasonal ban. Hart stated the County can do a better job with existing point system with additional staff, if they can button up the sites tighter. That was the entire process they went through before. The key policy debate was how far they want to go buttoning up those sites during the winter. They can do a better job on those sites with additional staff. They can work with and educate people in this and the other three watersheds as well. However, if the Council wants to go the next increment higher, then tighten up the criteria. Fleetwood asked if there is a compelling reason to convert to a seasonal ban. Baumgarten stated that if everyone does everything perfect on all the sites, then maybe those BMP's will still be 80 percent effective during heavy storm events in the winter. If they kept the point system, then they have X number of those sites are open. A seasonal restriction is X minus those sites that are banned. The County still has to inspect all the summer sites going through the winter. The decision becomes the level of risk they want to take. McShane stated there was a site along Lake Whatcom Boulevard in a little valley that the County staff had to visit. He asked if there were fines on that site. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Craig stated there were, by the County. That site is still under investigation by Ecology. McShane asked the fine levied. Baumgarten stated there were two fines of $1,000 each. McShane asked the fee for the clearing permit. Baumgarten stated there were long plat fees. Craig stated that developer spent in excess of $30,000 on source control and pumping. McShane asked if that is taken into account when assessing a penalty. Craig stated it is. Everything is taken into account. The developer made strong efforts to put in source control measures, but it was too little, too late. The result was ongoing discharges to Euclid Creek, which discharges into Lake Whatcom. If that area was preserved in native vegetation, the runoff would not have happened, or would have been less likely to happen. McShane asked how much staff time was put into that site. Craig stated Ecology spent about 35 hours on that site because of ongoing risks to water quality and violations. Hart stated the County also spent about 35 hours. If this site becomes a formal enforcement case, then additional time is spent by enforcement officers. Nelson asked the impact of a seasonal ban, during which the department would not request additional FTE. Some people will do things they need to do anyway, and begin building anyway. He asked if they have weighed those questions. Baumgarten stated one question being asked is whether they will have enforcement problems regardless. Some people don't do what they say they are going to do. Occasionally, someone does something without a permit, but that's different from an erosion control violation. Hart stated someone without a permit becomes an investigation and enforcement case. Nelson stated a question is whether the regulations will force people into that violation. They may find an increase in people who risk penalties because the cost - effectiveness is far better. Or, should they tighten up the system, fix the point system, and work with the public. They can't always say that strict prevention of any type of activity will alleviate the activity. Craig stated in any regulatory program, there will be people who choose to break the rules. It becomes a question of the percentage of people who are regulated. However, if there is a set of rules where clearing is prohibited, it will be Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 5 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. easier to identify those people who are violating the rules. People will report to the County or Ecology for speedy follow up. Nelson stated it may not be as clear to the public. Forestry land would be exempt from clearing bans. The public would have a hard time discerning between clearing forestry land or for development. Baumgarten stated that if folks are aware of the seasonal ban, they are more apt to report a violation. In addition, the City of Bellingham has not had that type of problem with its Silver Beach Ordinance. At the beginning of the season, the City spends time making contact with people to make sure they know the regulations. It closes that window of sites that are confusing about whether or not they should be open. Someone violating would be pretty flagrant. Hart stated the County has about six times as many units as the City that are going into the watershed now. If there is a scale issue, he's not sure that the ban is going to lessen the workload. A ban forces the same number of permits into a smaller window of time. They have to factor that in as well. He may still request that additional FTE. Brenner asked if they would effectively be doing a seasonal ban if the point system is based only on soil slope and proximity. Baumgarten stated that when establishing the point values, staff ran a bunch of scenarios. They looked for the breaking point. Once they start changing the points and raising them, they would effectively still have a seasonal ban because so many would not make it through the point system. Brenner stated that is not a ban. Only fewer properties would be allowed. It would be a seasonal ban for some people, just like it is now. Baumgarten stated the Council has to decide how much sediment it wants to allow. Brenner stated it seems like the problem is more about violations rather than about a point system not working. Raise fines, eliminate the clearing part of the point system, and readjust the points. She asked if that would solve the problem and still allow the people who can adequately clear in the winter. Base the points only on soils, slope, and proximity to wetlands. Caskey- Schreiber stated that at the very best, BMP's are still only 80 percent effective. During a rain event, there is no way to keep sediment from leaving that site. Brenner asked how sediment would leave a flat site. McShane stated that on an interim level, the Council should go forward with the seasonal ban. The point system could be tweaked to allow a few places that could be cleared. The key issue is the hydrologic soil groups. The point system can be tweaked, and they can find places in the watershed that can be cleared and won't have phosphorus loading. On other sites with infiltration problems, there will Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 6 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. be runoff no matter how flat the site. There may be places where the County can allow land clearing during the wet season. On an interim basis, move forward with the ordinance, revisit this after the moratorium is lifted, and deal with this in the most appropriate matter with sound, technical decisions. The County has had a two year experiment and found out about which soil types could not be cleared during the winter. That debate should occur later. Don't get hung up on just land clearing. They have to deal with many other standards in a very short time. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Caskey- Schreiber stated they have talked about the months a seasonal ban should begin, either September 1 or October 1. Craig stated October 1 is historically and statistically when most precipitation begins in the Pacific Northwest. Stabilizing the site before that date with a root system is an issue. The question is whether the site is covered with mulch and whether there is an established root system. On some sites he's seen, hydro -seed will be placed on the soil, but the seed hasn't had time to germinate to be established. Effectively, the landowner waited to the last minute to put them in, but it is not effective if there is a storm event. Any rain event greater than half an inch in 24 hours can cause erosion, which will render many BMP's ineffective. After that starts, more erosion can occur. It becomes more difficult to stop that process from happening. Hart stated he agrees with those comments. Craig stated he recommends that the Council consider starting the ban sometime in September, not October 1, for more preventative source control. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is willing to work in the long run to determine areas where the seasonal clearing would not be in effect. However, a seasonal ban is the only thing guaranteed to not add phosphorus and sediment loading to the lake. They are at a crisis point, according to the information provided by Dr. Matthews. The Council has a responsibility to not contribute any more to the eutrification cycle. They've tried the compromise. It's not fair to the rest of the citizens for the County to keep throwing staff and money at this problem to subsidize someone's right to clear in the wet months. They can accommodate the county, and clear when it's safe. There will be a lot of expense to upgrade the water treatment system to keep out sediments. It's prudent to save costs up front and still allow development in the watershed. This is the only responsible alternative they have. Fleetwood stated assume they have fully adequate staff and either a point system or seasonal ban. He asked which system would afford greater water quality protection. Baumgarten stated that not opening up a site during the winter is compared to an open site with BMP's. Anyone would agree that a site in its natural vegetative state would lessen erosion. That's the comparison to look at. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Roy stated she agreed with Councilmember McShane. Move the date from October to September. There are many other issues to talk about. This interim ordinance provides a structure for the Council to move forward. Discuss tweaking the points later. If the Council tweaks the point system today, they will have to put off the vote on this. She would like the Council to go with this decision, then step back to consider changes to the point system. McShane moved to amend the ordinance to change the effective date of the ban to September 1, throughout the ordinance. Nelson stated he is not comfortable with beginning the ban on September 1. He hates choosing arbitrary figures because he can't defend it. He understands the argument about getting the plantings in on time and giving them a chance to make sure they take root. According to the precipitation schedule, move back the period to be from September 15 to April 15. Allow germination in the spring. That would allow the same building period, but would not unduly burden the building developer. McShane stated he likes September 1 because it allows the entire length of September. Growing degree days are better the first part of September than the latter part of September. The growing days in April are very different. The risk of soil being saturated and susceptible to erosion is higher in the spring. Nelson stated from personal experience, don't plant in September, because the plantings will die from lack of moisture. Baumgarten stated the reason they chose those dates in the ordinance are because they look at the greatest changes in the rainfall pattern and to match the Silver Beach ordinance, which provides predictability for builders working in both watersheds. The Ecology manual recommend those dates, based on analyzing similar precipitation data. McShane stated he agrees with the dates for precipitation. His experience is with dealing with cleared and unstable slopes, getting vegetation planted the end of September, and watching all the sprout die in early October. The vegetation will not be well established. It's an aggressive position, but they are in a unique circumstance that goes beyond what should be typical of stormwater controls because the lake is a drinking water reservoir. Roy stated this is an issue she would like to talk about if they pass the October through April deadline, and get some horticultural experts in to talk to them about this. There may be another way of saying they can't disturb the land unless there is a certain degree of groundcover. There may be other ways to approach the issue. She would like to hear more expertise. The Council can still look at and tweak this, but not today. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Caskey- Schreiber asked Ecology's opinion of the ban from mid - September through mid - April. Craig stated that if the Council does that, it still presents risk during the spring time. He agrees with Councilmember McShane. There is more possibility of soils being full of water in April than in September. In addition, this Council adopted an ordinance preventing dairy farmers from applying manure to bare corn ground beginning September 1, and chose that date because it was considered more protective of water quality and runoff of pollutants into ditches and streams. It's worked. It's helped very much in cleaning up water quality in the county. If this is a drinking water reservoir situation, and the water body is already impaired, then choosing a preventative measure like the September 1 date is more effective and is defensible. That's the defense for that date. McShane referenced the average number of growing degree days. September is fourth best, and is much greater than October, May, and April. It makes much more sense to choose the September 1 date. A decision was made some time ago that was radical. It was to allow residential development in a drinking water watershed. The solutions need to be more protective than usual. Nelson stated the size of many developments they're looking at are not the size of dairy pastures. It is not the same scale. He'd like to change that date, too, however. In August, the developer will be out there watering the vegetation. It will be a factor to get anything to grow. If it gets hot in August, they can't get stuff to grow on dry ground. A ban of September 1 means planting in August. Caskey- Schreiber stated the September 1 date means no clearing by September 1, not that the developer has to lay down his or her yard by September 1. Nelson stated he's talking about erosion control, not yards. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of the motion. Be more restrictive up front, then lessen it as they go along if the science supports it. For so long, the Council has gone the other way, trying to accommodate development in the watershed. The results are disastrous. No one can deny that the lake is in a serious state of decline. At some point, the Council has to address the fact that what it's allowed in the past isn't working. The Council must be more aggressive. This is the only opportunity they have. This watershed will build out. How they get to that point will determine how much work it will take to keep the watershed healthy down the road. Proceed cautiously, but still allow development. The worst case scenario is that it all goes to pieces, and the Council will be asked to allow no development at all. Make development as responsible as it can. That is prudent and makes good sense. Baumgarten stated County Code section 20.80.735 says that if the proposed clearing activity exceeds the maximum established threshold for seasonal clearing limitations, the technical administrator shall deny approval of the proposed activity during the wet season. That section only covers whether or not an activity is Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 9 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. approved for clearing. It does not have the same provision as the Silver Beach ordinance, which says that the land has to be completely covered by that date. The code also doesn't address a site that is open longer than one season. It prevents the staff from issuing a permit for the winter. Once the developer got that permit for spring and continue to work up until the next winter, the staff doesn't have the authority to close that site down. That is something to consider. Given the number of permits that have come in and are "vested" next year, they will have a mix of permits that are under either the point system or ban. The ban will have a limited impact next winter. Caskey- Schreiber stated a vested permit is a completed permit, not the appointments that are hanging out there. Baumgarten stated staff needs that clarification. Brenner stated the temporary ban ordinance says those who already made their appointments would be allowed to continue. It's an allowance made by the ordinance. Caskey- Schreiber stated legal counsel stated those applications are exempt from the moratorium, but not from clearing regulations that the Council comes up with. Nelson stated he can't support the motion. They need more discussion before he can defend that position. He asked about the number of stop work orders that were issued during the wet season. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, submitted permit tracking numbers (on file). The department does issue a lot of stop work orders. According to the information, the department only issued two correction notices in 2003 and seven in 2004, which are the formal correction notices issued and documented. Normally, staff works with people to educate them and get them into compliance rather than issue a stop -work order and fine. They've only issued stop work orders when the person refuses to come into compliance. Usually, the department gives builders a couple of days to come into compliance, which they usually do. Crawford asked if those numbers are stop work orders for stormwater problems only. Goodwin stated they encompass many issues. Staff hasn't documented the number of violations, but focus on getting the violations under control. They are working on a better system for tracking the information. Nelson stated they are enforcing the seasonal clearing regulations. Goodwin stated they are. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 10 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Nelson stated if silt -laden runoff leaves the construction site or if clearing activity sediment control measures are not maintained during the course of construction, a correction notice shall be issued. He asked if that is done. Goodwin stated it is done, to the extent they can with two staff. Some may be missed. Nelson stated there were 300 site reviews in 2004, with seven notices. Goodwin stated that is correct. Baumgarten stated the numbers are artificially low. There were problems with the Tidemark system in 2004. In 2003, certain numbers are more accurate. Early in 2003, he wasn't entering correction notices into the system. Many correction notices were written up and started that didn't get into the system. They have gotten better at making sure they are in the database. Hart stated the numbers in the handout are accurate to what they know. The numbers will go up as they recreate the data that occurred during the year. The county had so much growth this year, staff is still accounting for it. Staff will continue to account for that growth during the next 60 to 90 days. Crawford stated he opposes the motion. If phosphorus levels are going up, they can't blame it only on construction. It is not the single source. There have been landslides they haven't looked into. The staff has issued only a few correction notices. The Council is stretching very far to attach development to the degradation of Lake Whatcom, especially new development compared to current development that provides contribution to the lake already. Roy stated she supports the motion. She still wants to have a discussion with the horticulture experts. She's not inclined to shorten this any more than they need to. Start off more restrictive, and bring in experts to justify the dates. She is impressed with the growing season statistics, but they must still talk about it. Clearly, the heavy rainfall starts in October. Motion carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford opposed. (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued, below.) 1. COUNCIL TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO THE RECENTLY ADOPTED BUILDING AND SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED INCLUDE: THE PROCESS, JUSTIFICATION FOR LIFTING THE MORATORIUM, BENCHMARKS, AND PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS) (AB2005 -072B) Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are ways to adopt development standards that have less impact to water quality. Craig stated tree retention and natural vegetation requirements that the Council is considering or has implemented is a step in the right direction. The Council has already talked about low impact Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 11 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. development techniques. Those examples abound. The City of Bellingham City Hall is an example that works well. It includes a rain garden that collects the stormwater runoff from the parking lot to infiltrate into the soil. Those measures can be effective if implemented and maintained on a broad scale. They act like any filter that will wear out quickly if the filter is not changed periodically. The percentage of impervious surfaces can be reduced in many ways. The Puget Sound Action Team has a website devoted to these types of measures. There are more and more examples every day that communities nationwide are implementing. For existing development, the City of Portland is tracking areas where it finds runoff from parking lots and puts the stormwater back into the soils. That is a way of measuring and demonstrating how they reduce the stormwater leaving impervious surfaces. Downspout retrofits keep roof runoff out of the system. Those are all just examples. (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued, below.) 2. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, SECTION 20.80.735, TO IMPLEMENT A SEASONAL RESTRICTION ON LAND CLEARING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND APRIL 30 (AB2005 -125) (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.) McShane moved to introduce as amended. Motion carried 5 -1 with Nelson opposed and Crawford out of the room. 1. COUNCIL TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO THE RECENTLY ADOPTED BUILDING AND SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED INCLUDE: THE PROCESS, JUSTIFICATION FOR LIFTING THE MORATORIUM, BENCHMARKS, AND PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS) (AB2005 -072B) (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from above.) Steve Hood, State Department of Ecology, stated they can't do development with zero impact. They can do many things with minimal impact. Sudden Valley has shown that a standard design requirement can reduce the amount of stormwater discharge, but they haven't eliminated it and the increase doesn't seem to be caused by human impact. If they want to move toward zero level, they need to focus on a negative net loss. The Building Industry Association (BIA) proposed some sort of tie between new development and funding of retrofits to make sure retrofitting gets done. That's a great idea. He doesn't know now how much retrofit is needed. That shouldn't stop them from examining how to go forward with an Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 12 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. idea like that. Start getting the retrofitting done as part of the growth process, which will result in a negative increase. Nelson asked if there has been legislation to allow counties to provide incentives in the property tax mechanism to allow credit to homeowners. A credit would be against the property tax in the amount spent on retrofitting. If the legislature is really concerned about it, it should provide the counties with tools to do that. Hood stated stormwater fees are frequently associated with impervious area. The concern about stormwater and the need to fund stormwater infrastructure is related to impervious area. To the extent reasonable, a municipality will examine the amount of impervious area. Low impact development reduces impervious areas. Nelson stated that is all to do with new construction. He asked about retrofitting of existing construction. Hood stated that when a tax collected is based on an impervious area, the fee should go down when those areas are reduced. He doesn't know if there are barriers to do that. McShane stated the BIA view that new development pays for retrofits is not legally possible. In the City of Bellingham, there is some flexibility about how much people pay into the stormwater utility fee for impervious surface. There was a heated debate about a fair way of doing that. A day will come when the County Council will have that same debate. The County may require new development to approach zero hydrologic impact, but with the knowledge that those individuals who own the property will pay a lesser amount for stormwater fees. Those with more impact may have to pay more. Keep that in mind as they work on development standards for new construction. It may seem unfair to new development up front, but it will be made up down the road in terms of lower utility fees that they would pay. Those not causing as much impact shouldn't have to pay as much. That is a way to tip the fairness issue back the other way. Nelson stated that's not an incentive. McShane stated the County can't tell property owners to put in rain barrels, for example, but if the property owners do put in rain barrels, the property owners would get a break on their utilities. Nelson stated all the property owners see is increased utility rates. They may or may not see an incentive to spend additional money. McShane stated that would be the property owners' decision. Nelson stated there are easier tools to use. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 13 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner stated there are easier ways to start off that are tied to the moratorium. She submitted an article (on file) on Urban Lake Management. She read the third paragraph on page two of the handout regarding lawn runoff consistently being the greatest source of phosphorus in urban lakes. When she brought this up, people didn't listen. Fertilizers were the first things she mentioned, in addition to pesticides. This information shows that lawns are a big source of the problem. Someone said that according to Craig MacConnell, phosphorus from lawns is not a big problem. She talked to Craig MacConnell, who told her that wasn't true and that Cooperative Extension helped create the phosphorus -free lawn fertilizer for Lake Whatcom. There are communities in Wisconsin who have banned phosphorus fertilizers for lawns in the watershed. That regulation, which other communities have done, is simple to do. There will be more compliance. People who are asked to retrofit can do that now to make less of an impact. Caskey- Schreiber stated Councilmember Brenner could bring something like that forward, and she would support it. Executive Kremen and the City of Bellingham are proposing a ban on phosphorus fertilizers in the watershed. Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated the staff has a draft they're working on. They are wrestling with how to apply it for enforcement. Staff looked at all available ordinances in other jurisdictions around the U.S. It comes down to some policy questions they will have to deal with on enforcement, implementation, and certain exceptions. Staff is working with agencies such as the golf course on good integrated pest management. That proposal will come forward soon. Fleetwood stated he would support a phosphorus fertilizer and pesticide ban. People For Lake Whatcom have spent a lot of time recently working with the Washington Toxics Coalition to come up with a version. The City incorporated parts of it into its proposal. Roll stated that was the starting point, but it needs a lot more work. He has that information and is using it. Fleetwood stated the program is to review and establish, if necessary, stricter building codes. The answer from staff and Ecology is that they can do that. Staff allocated resources to work on that in the next few months. The question today is the direction that staff needs from Council to start this process. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated staff first needs a schedule of when the Council wants to bring up these policy discussions, so staff can bring forward recommendations and information. Staff would invite Ecology to work with the County. Fleetwood stated staff should move within the moratorium deadline. He asked when staff would be comfortable bringing proposals forward to the Council. Hart stated the more time staff has, the better the recommendations will be on ways to incorporate additional low impact development into the watershed. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 14 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated staff will know soon if the County will receive technical assistance from the Puget Sound Action Team on this for the entire county. It would be a way of looking at the code to develop a stronger set of low impact development guidelines. Fleetwood stated his concern is the development standards in place for land clearing. His emphasis is looking at those issues and the dates. Get information back to the Council on what works well so they can work on that legislation now. McShane stated the next step for the Council, now that they've dealt with land clearing, is Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 20.71, the water resource protection overlay rules that go with Lake Whatcom. Revisit those debates on the amount of impervious surface. Next, look at changes to the stormwater section, whether they allow discharge to offsite locations or require treatment onsite with no runoff at all. That is a policy decision, which may be more important than WCC 20.71, that the Council should talk about. Third, look at development standards from foundation design. Look at development that has no surface water flow off the site at all, and no drainage either. It may be that, instead of a standard foundation design, a builder would do something else with the subsurface flow. Those are really technical issues. Finally, address road design standards. Look carefully at the required road designs. One builder in the watershed wants an eight -foot driveway, but is required to develop a 12 -foot driveway for emergency vehicles. Some people are trying to do the environmentally right thing in the watershed on their own, but are told to build a wider driveway. That causes a lot of upset. Road design may be a huge factor. It's a big issue on five -acre lots as well. Silver Beach Creek is now starting in ditches along the road. Those are the four areas of concern. Hart stated another issue is the urban growth area (UGA) and its future. That totals five issues, in addition to seasonal land clearing. The County must indicate to the community the County is going forward in a logical way. Brenner stated she attended a workshop on Friday. During the workshop, she'd asked about the problem with the requirement of wider roads for emergency vehicles. Participants at the workshop from the Seattle area have worked with the fire personnel to devise ways to develop narrow driveways and roads. Whatcom County should contact those communities and find out what they are doing. Roy stated it seems a lot of the points Councilmember McShane raised were subsumed under low impact development discussions. When the Council talks about stormwater protection and the water resource protection overlay, they allude to low impact development without being specific. She's seen presentations on areas in Seattle that have practiced low impact development, including narrower Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 15 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. driveways and parking strips that have been approved by fire personnel. She asked if onsite stormwater treatment is subsumed under the technical aspects of low impact development. Hart stated that's correct. That would give staff an option to bring forward for logical discussions. The Council will begin to see the links between the recommendations. Roy stated when she hears about these things, she thinks of other watersheds in the county. Some of these measures could be applicable in the future, even though they must focus on Lake Whatcom now. Regarding road width, she's had the same experience as Councilmember McShane with developers who want to do low impact development strategies, but were discouraged from doing so by the current regulations. Hopefully, the Public Works Department can be part of the discussion. Hart agreed. He will work with the Public Works Department, including the Engineering Division. With the $50,000 grant, all will come to the table at once. Roll stated the Public Works Department will work to evaluate these measures. However, deal with long -term maintenance to make sure these measures functions properly. Many times, with untested processes, they don't work without a clear monitoring and upkeep program. Hart referenced Councilmember Fleetwood's February 18 memo. Item three is Public Works Department responsibility, to initiate development of a comprehensive stormwater plan. All the low impact development options are linked to that. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council is asking Mr. Hart to come forward on March 15 with low impact development standards to consider adopting for this area. It would help the councilmembers prioritize which will be most effective. She asked if that is possible. Goodwin stated staff can come up with a list for discussion. Brenner stated she appreciates Dr. Roll's willingness to look at this. However, everyone was invited to the workshop she attended. The Public Works Department must be in sync with what the rest of them want to do. Hart stated the Public Works Department is really feeling the growth in the county, just as they are. The County growth is really going to hit the Engineering Division hard. Brenner stated someone from Public Works Department can always come to workshops. There is a lot of staff in that department. Fleetwood stated staff has direction on the different areas of interest. Hart stated they do. Fleetwood stated he would like a progress update in two weeks. Hart stated that is possible. The Council should look at item three on the memo. Create a clear schedule for that item. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 16 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Caskey - Schreiber stated they talked about it a week ago. The consensus was that developing a comprehensive stormwater management plan is a big part of the solution, but is not necessarily related to new building. In this interim, focus on new development. Fleetwood stated someone made that observation, but this is a matter of policy that this Council kept in. It is a part of their moratorium response. The proposal is to start the process to create the comprehensive stormwater plan in the next eight weeks. He agreed the County couldn't implement a plan in eight weeks, but they demonstrate a commitment to that process and can come up with an outline for creating the plan. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council needs to prioritize what Planning staff and Public Works staff will work on. Fleetwood stated the Council talked about item four, phosphorus. They talked about item one, stricter building codes. They talked about land clearing. The next item is about initiating the development of a comprehensive stormwater management plan. They haven't had that conversation yet. He hopes they do have that conversation. McShane stated narrow the items to two possibilities. First, deal with WCC 20.71. The Council had a long struggle with it before. It loosely gets into road and curb designs. Focus on the stormwater special overlay and requirements in place for onsite development. Look carefully at that ordinance. It will be discomforting to ask staff to make policy recommendations and take onerous positions. He commended the County staff and Ecology staff for helping to clarify a variety of issues. They've assisted enormously today on the land clearing issue. Begin to answer the questions as honestly as they can. At the next meeting, talk about WCC 20.71 and stormwater overlay. Recognize that they will give a break in the future to those who are carrying this burden. Roy stated she agrees with that approach. She would still like to see them look at WCC 20.71 and stormwater, within the template of low impact development. The Council knows more now than it did before about low impact development. Address how those regulations relate to and incorporate with the things they know now. Hart stated staff has heard that message from the councilmembers. The staff will come forward with both those parts of the code and have that discussion during the next meeting. Roy asked to bring up items that are not related to lifting the moratorium, but that need to happen. Do whatever they can to strengthen the transfer of development right (TDR) program, and get some receiving areas that are Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 17 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. meaningful and useful. She asked if they need a TDR bank. Anyone who wants to transfer a development right could do that by selling the right to the TDR bank and getting instant money. She asked if there is a system so anyone in Lake Whatcom who wants to transfer their development rights can do that. Goodwin stated there isn't a system for that now. It's in the ordinance to allow for it. It would require funding from the County to buy and hold those development rights. Troy Holbrook is leaning away from that option now. They are seeing a lot of private market transfers of development rights, and are seeing people buy them. It may be premature for the County to have a TDR bank if the private market is doing that. The City is putting TDR's on the private market for sale to see what prices they will get. The County and City have created some TDR receiving areas, and are starting to see some action. A TDR bank is something they can do in the future if the County has the money. Hart stated staff and the Council will have a discussion about TDR's. McShane stated he is not thrilled with the City of Bellingham flooding the TDR market with development rights. He's worried about that because it may be contrary to the goals of protecting the watershed. Brenner stated someone said a problem with TDR's is the cities are not setting up enough receiving areas. There was an implication that they should look to the UGA's for the receiving areas. She's in favor of that, however those in UGA's don't want to be dumping grounds. Negotiate with the cities so that the cities will develop a percentage of receiving areas that are not in the UGA's. Otherwise, the County has no means to control where the receiving areas go, except in the UGA's. Caskey - Schreiber stated the Councilmember Fleetwood listed a goal of establishing a revenue source for stormwater. She asked who would work on that. Hart stated it is a joint effort between the Planning and Public Works departments. The Council will see something on March 9 for the Birch Bay area as an effort to define how the County wants to do regional stormwater planning in Birch Bay. There is also an opportunity to decide on a utility stormwater concept within the county. That larger strategy will be presented shortly for the Birch Bay area. Staff in the Planning and Public Works department have discussed how to make recommendations for the county. Roll stated staff needs Council input. Staff is using the Cable Street area to flush out the policy questions. There are on- and off -road issues, including enforcement and maintenance. Concurrently, they are developing good loading estimates for all drainages in watershed so they can be more prescriptive in the drainages. Staff is bringing forward what they can do in retrofit areas to reduce phosphorus. He cautions against having a fiscal discussion until the Council knows how big the project and accomplishments will be. In some cases, they may find sufficient revenue for a project. However, other projects are multi - million dollar projects. In the Lake Whatcom watershed alone, they will never have a revenue Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 18 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. stream large enough for retrofits. Staff has a lot of work to do before they can describe specific revenue sources. Caskey- Schreiber stated they can explore it, but they won't have information before the May 1 moratorium deadline. She wants information on any ways to address pollution at the source and onsite. They can develop a porous recharge area, for instance, to filter through the ground more naturally. Come up with things like that that don't need a lot of maintenance down the road. Come up with suggested improvements. As part of what they are going to require of new development, look at how to manage onsite drainage. Roll asked if they are talking about new or existing development, or both. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is talking about new development, because that is what the moratorium is about. That doesn't mean the Council won't address both. Roy stated she agrees with working on items that have specifically a one -on- one correlation with the moratorium. However, a large part of the pollution comes from existing homes. The Council doesn't talk about that very much. The Council needs to start talking about retrofitting options. Roll stated they need to understand how much land is left to be built out and how much time and energy the Council is spending in that area compared to other areas. Hart stated the question is what they do once the remaining lots are built out. Initiating that conversation is what the councilmembers are asking. To provide that information, staff must break it down to its component parts, including the staff's strategy and best recommendation for evaluating stormwater and the level of information it has currently. That information will imply the design approach the County should take. McShane stated there are difficult -to- design, publicly -owned stormwater retrofit areas. The Council needs to take steps to minimize the size and amount of water that has to be handled. Minimizing the cost to the County should be the goal of the moratorium. Another step beyond is retrofit on individual lots and how retrofitting will minimize costs to the County. The Public Works staff is working toward that. He thanked Dr. Roll, who put together a proposal to the State for a grant application of $1.5 million. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Brenner asked if build out in the watershed is not going to be as high as they originally thought. Hart stated the numbers are a moving target. He will work out an answer by next week. He needs many people to contribute to the answer to that question. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 19 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner stated that even if the City information isn't ready, she'd still like to know in the unincorporated area of the watershed. Fleetwood stated the conditions in place to lift the moratorium need to deal with the moratorium, which is a moratorium on new development. Regarding initiating development, some people will be concerned that it could be used as justification for not lifting the moratorium. That means they must establish an outline for a process to guide them in the future. He wants to see a process for establishing a jurisdictional boundary, within which they could seek public funds and identify the big issues. Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, Bellingham, stated encourage onsite stormwater treatment, maximize the small scale treatment facilities through regulatory or educational techniques, look at the cost and responsibility of private homeowners of existing and future development, determine how much of the cost should be borne by the public, and determine who will finance the expense. Bring all these issues into a comprehensive plan for a low impact development plan or low impact retrofit plan. Chris Ungern, 2095 Northshore Road, stated it seems they've overlooked two things. First, there are a number of wet season streams that are dry during the summer. As they get into the wintertime storm events, plumes go into the lake that provide silt. Generally there is no construction or development happening upstream. Some of the storm events are such that the storm overruns the banks and begins eroding the banks. That is a large source of silt contamination in the lake. The second item is related to inspection and enforcement efforts. He knows that's a challenge. There is an opportunity through the stormwater watcher training to allow volunteers to get into the process and help the County staff see violations. That is an area the County could develop. Roy asked who runs the stormwater watch workshops. Baumgarten stated those trainings were sponsored by RESources. Ecology and Planning staff were on hand to provide training, at RESources' request. Gary Lysne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated he speaks on behalf of Jean Quinliven, regarding the trail at Northshore. He has the photos the Council requested (on file). Whatcom County property in basin three at end of Northshore is not following best management practices. In his opinion, Whatcom County doesn't have the data yet needed to make decisions. If they are going to control water, control all the water and runoff on Whatcom County property. Set the example. Staff doesn't have any data. The Council is drawing conclusions on assumptions. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 20 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. One of the Whereas statements in the ordinance reference Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70.390 and 36.70.795. Compare those to RCW 36.70A.390 and 36.70A.330 in terms of the legality of what they are doing. Allow the planners to do their jobs. Protect water quality in a legal way, without stepping on peoples' rights. Fleetwood stated they've gone over most of the outline, except the UGA's. Staff understands what needs to be done. Goodwin stated staff is working on looking at the UGA's right now. A Planning Commission hearing on Geneva is scheduled on April 14, preceded by a neighborhood meeting in March with the Yew Street and Geneva neighborhoods. Most of Geneva is platted, developed, and vested. The Summit View property the City just bought from Kurt Denke and certain other areas may be able to come out of the UGA. The Planning Commission will also look at Hillsdale in late April. Those should be through the Planning Commission before the May 1 deadline. If necessary, the Council can adopt the Geneva and Yew Street areas earlier because they are not in the Bellingham Urban Fringe Subarea. Hart stated another layer to UGA planning is the TDR layer. He suggested to the City of Bellingham Planning Director that they begin to structure the City County UGA agreement. In terms of TDR's, the question is how to get the density in those neighborhoods, or how to treat resource protection neighborhoods, such as Geneva. Amy Pederson, Planner II, stated staff is working on build out numbers. She hopes to have that information ready by the Council's next meeting. She hopes those numbers will help define the discussion on the City of Bellingham UGA in the watershed. Those numbers can target what may or may not be effective. Caskey- Schreiber stated Sudden Valley has been a leader in the watershed for the amount of building and permits issued. She also asked for an update report of that. McShane stated that just as important, or more important, than the UGA size is the neighborhood protection overlay in an urban growth setting. However, don't be too panicky about rushing it to May 1. Because of the timeliness of that process, they could extend the subdivision moratorium in the Geneva Hillsdale area until all that is worked out. Brenner stated she wants to hear specifics on what has been done on the phosphorus fertilizer ban in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Roll stated he can go over a draft, but it's not available yet for public release. He understood from the last Special Council Meeting that it wasn't a priority over the other stuff. Caskey- Schreiber stated she said during the last meeting that it wasn't important for the moratorium, but it is an important issue. Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 21 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Roy stated they have accomplished a lot today. She's willing to wait until the next Water Resources Work Session to hear about the fertilizer issue. Fleetwood stated they've made progress. Things are moving forward. People who want more information can talk to staff afterward. OTHER BUSINESS No was other business. ADJOURN Fleetwood moved to adjourn. Motion carried 4 -1 with Brenner opposed, The meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on March 15 , 2005. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair Special County Council- Moratorium Response, 3/1/2005, Page 22