HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council May 10 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
May 10, 2005
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 1:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Dan McShane
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
Absent:
Sam Crawford
1. COUNCIL TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO THE
SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM IN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
(ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED INCLUDE: LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT,
PROCESS, JUSTIFICATION FOR LIFTING THE MORATORIUM,
BENCHMARKS, AND PRIORITIZATION OF TASKS) (AB2005 -072B)
Analiese Burns, Common Ground Environmental, stated she is a wetland
biologist, landscape designer, and a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design- (LEED) accredited professional. She handed out information (on file). She
interacts frequently with many in the development industry.
There is great pressure for allowing development in the watershed and great
interest in responsible development. There are several types of site disturbance.
One type is to clear an entire property for commercial or residential use, with the
rest of the property landscaped. Many times that happens in a high density area
with small lot sizes. That is a phasing issue. The question is whether the developer
will clear the entire area at once, or in sections as the property is developed. A
second issue is sprawl. The question is whether they are building out into areas
that maybe shouldn't be developed, sprawling into agricultural and forest areas,
and putting a strain on infrastructure. A third type of site disturbance is trying to
preserve open space for various purposes, such as habitat, recreation, or quality of
life. That's different from phasing and sprawl.
Regarding reducing site disturbance, many programs and rating systems
focus on low impact development, but all have impacts. The question is how to
reduce site disturbance in the first place. Don't clear the area, pick the wrong site,
and then build a green house. Instead, pick the right area first, develop and clear
land the right way, and then talk about the structures. When they talk about rural
areas, some have already been cleared. Few have undisturbed sites. Today, talk
about keeping what is left. The LEED process has some strengths and some
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 5/10/2005, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
shortfalls. It is very weak on site selection and land disturbance. They're working
on it for future versions of LEED. Move to the discussion of how to not disturb
sites.
She read from her handout about nonprofit source pollution, tree retention,
and tree canopy coverage. People seem to agree that less site disturbance is
better, but people tend to develop with site disturbances. She spoke with many in
the development industry. Logistical constraints are always talked about. There
are engineering issues, such as topography and matching grades for stormwater
and erosion control. Those are site - specific issues. Another issue is infill. If there
is a lot of development around the site, one may be required to do more clearing
than preferred. That is a site specific issue, but it is not always an issue.
Project phasing is when a developer clears the entire site eventually. Build
roads first, and houses later. Clear only what will be developed right away. That
causes extra costs for the developer. Phasing has only a cost issue. In that
instance, develop infrastructure, but not the housing site. The additional cost of
$2,500 is partly economy of scale and damage to the new infrastructure when the
lots are developed later in the phase. Phasing takes a lot more planning.
Lack of market demand is the number one cause of no phasing. From a
construction perspective, developers can phase a project if asked, but are not
asked to. She read the remaining list of constraints from the handout. The County
may need to review some of the impervious surface requirements. The number
one issue for developers is the uncertain permitting timeline. Permitting delays
cost the developer money. Developers are careful to not delay the permitting
process. There must be enforcement certainty to avoid cost differentials between
developers. Incentives are the most powerful tool in permitting. Developers want
the permitting time reduced and certainty of the permitting process. Developers
also want reduced impact fees and a volume based stormwater fee. The Puget
Sound Action Team developed a low impact development guidance manual
referenced in the State Department of Ecology stormwater manual. The low impact
development manual can be adopted by local jurisdictions. It provides credits for
low impact development techniques. The City of Bellingham is considering adopting
the manual.
Agency staff must support the developers who want to do low impact
development. Have someone on staff who can champion a development process
through the County process. The City of Seattle has a program to do this. There
can be a list of pre- approved contractors who are proven to not need a lot of
enforcement. That can be controversial in the contracting community. The City of
Redmond has a program like that.
Other counties have adopted low impact development codes. Enforcement
and inspection need to be consistent. Have a way for people to figure out how to
develop with low impact development standards. Teach people how to do
something different. Appropriate staffing for the County is critical. She read the
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 5/10/2005, 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.
keys for success. Look holistically at how they want the county to develop as a
whole.
Mark Buehrer, 2020 Engineering, stated he is a professional civil engineer.
He began his company out of his frustration with conventional designs. The
projects he does have been with sustainable or low impact development techniques.
He has done LEED and low impact development projects all over the country.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council is trying to figure out if there are low
impact development applications to adopt and mandate in the Lake Whatcom
watershed.
Fleetwood asked if there are any low impact development ordinances from
other jurisdictions that are considered the best. Burns stated the ordinances get
better with time. There are things they can learn from and adapt to this area.
Tailor an ordinance to this area and its infrastructure, soils, and economy. There
isn't a silver bullet solution. There is a good body of ordinances to look through.
It's important to coordinate with the cities so there is consistency for the private
sector. There is a grant with the Puget Sound Action Team to do that exact thing.
Work within that framework instead adding another jurisdiction that is working on
the same thing.
Buehrer stated they can pick the techniques that will fit Whatcom County. In
general, the low impact development principals fit everywhere because they are
economical and environmentally friendly.
Nelson stated the standards should apply equally countywide. He asked for
cost comparisons of low impact development versus regular development for
different size homes and lots, particularly entry -level housing. Buehrer stated that
for a particular project he did, the costs using small rain gardens and infiltration
around a site versus the costs of the conventional design was half. There are
savings because the site has overlapping areas that serve more than one purpose.
On residential projects, the overall cost for low impact development is much less.
Nelson asked if low impact development for single - family residences wouldn't
be a burden and change the value of the house. Burns stated it wouldn't, for
construction costs.
Buehrer stated that typically, one is building less infrastructure, which results
in less cost.
Burns stated there is a difference between construction cost and design cost.
Construction costs for low impact development are less. However, developers don't
understand the process. If there is any way low impact development will delay the
permitting process, they will shy away from it. There has to be a way for projects
to go through the permitting process at least as fast. It is better to have an
incentive to reduce the permitting process with low impact development.
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 5/10/2005, 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
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 she also heard the biggest concern is about permitting. She
asked why the Council wouldn't just adopt the Puget Sound Action Team manual.
She asked if there is something different about Whatcom County. Buehrer stated it
gets back to how the standards are interpreted by staff and developers. When
presenting a project for permitting, he references the design to the Ecology
manual. He has to educate the permitting agency that will hopefully be agreeable
to the design alternative. Even if adopted soon, it still takes time to implement.
Brenner stated the frustration is with the permitting process. She asked how
they get there without taking years. Buehrer stated the path the Council is on now
helps. There has to be education and interpretation of any new regulations and
standards.
Burns stated there is something to be said for staff support. It comes down
to people at the Planning Department. They will work hard to do their jobs. They
must know they will be supported when advocating for a project that is a better
project. It comes down to integrating the Planning and Public Works Departments.
Buehrer stated staff won't resist any changes, and things will work out okay.
Roy asked how big a change it will be for someone who has been trained as a
traditional planner or engineer. She asked if this will be in conflict with their
training and if they'll need to be retrained. She asked if the County will need to set
up in- services or consultants. Buehrer stated the basics are engineering and
estimating runoff proposals. Instead of collecting water in a centralized approach,
it's collected in small scale systems. The engineering knowledge that exists is the
same.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Buehrer continued to state it will take training and education, and agreement
among the engineers and staff.
Burns stated it takes a while for traditional developers to warm up to the
idea. It takes about a year for someone to be aware and read the information. The
second step is having confidence in the jurisdiction to approve this type of
development. The technical issues themselves are minor.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any one low impact development
technique the Council can adopt for the watershed that can be applied watershed -
wide right now. Burns stated the worst thing they can do is throw something out
that is not well thought out, so it tarnishes peoples' opinion of low impact
development. Have a thoughtful, integrated approach that fits with all the other
pieces. Start a public relations (PR) campaign to make people aware of low impact
development and know that the County supports it. Begin making low impact
development the status quo.
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 5/10/2005, 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
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.
Buehrer stated the King County Council did three development projects with
the low impact development approach to see how they work. Whatcom County can
learn from what everyone else is doing. The County staff understands these
concepts.
Burns stated have some demonstration projects.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are projects with builders certified in low
impact development. Buehrer stated his contractors must have experience in low
impact development techniques. The designers have to be LEED- certified. The
contractors have to be LEED- certified.
Burns stated certain manufacturers have certified installers for their product.
Buehrer stated that for things like building smaller roads, the contractors
already know how to build roads.
Fleetwood stated the Council created a framework for responding to the
moratorium. The main point was to review and try to establish stricter building
codes. He's frustrated that they are not getting on with it. Today, the Council
should leave this meeting knowing they've initiated something that will lead to a
draft low impact development ordinance. Staff indicated in the past that it can
work on this sort of thing. He asked how staff can proceed.
Bruce Roll, Assistant Director, stated staff could bring forward proposals.
They must be very thoughtful. That's no small task. He and Mr. Hart can come up
with a proposal and timeline. The Council can spend a few minutes next week
talking about it at the work session.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planner I, stated there is a process underway right now.
It won't come forward by next month. It may come up forward to the Technical
Advisory Committee by the end of the summer. He can't see how the process can
happen faster. He's glad to hear the Council is supporting it, but is concerned
about the Council interjecting something into the process.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Council should let that process play out. She's
comfortable with that. Baumgarten stated he can bring the Council regular updates
on the status of the process. The goal now is to come up with a set of development
standards that is similar between the City and County, where the staff can be
assured the developers choose low impact development and who really intend to
follow through with it. Then, Council can apply those regulations anywhere it sees
fit.
Burns stated the Council can still take other actions that won't disturb that
process. Allow demonstration projects that are joint ventures between a private
developer and the County. Through that process, the staff and developer will learn
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 5/10/2005, 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
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.
about low impact development, what parts of the codes are a problem, and the
difference between a design and the actual product.
Nelson stated they must incorporate low impact development into
retrofitting. He asked if low impact development has been successful for
retrofitting. Burns stated she is working on one project now, a single family home,
to restore the shoreline. The owner wants it to be a demonstration project. It
would be a great opportunity for the County and State to show what is right in the
development world. They're learning that no regular person would want to do this
because it costs so much.
Nelson stated that person might want to do a retrofit if there is some sort of
incentive. Reward people for those retrofitting activities. He asked if anyone talked
to the Building Industry Association (BIA) about these issues and how the BIA can
encourage its members to get on board. Burns stated the BIA has a Built Green
program.
Buehrer stated the City of Portland has incentives. Incentives are a simple
way to get environmental benefits and benefits to the developer.
Nelson stated the cost is prohibitive. He asked the root cause of reducing
the amount of people who want to participate. He would like that information from
the building industry.
Brenner stated she would like the Council to do something now, while staff is
going through the low impact development standard process. Another frustration is
with the requirement for wider roads. There are ways to accommodate the
concerns for wider roads.
Regarding the tax incentive, a Focus Northwest workshop was about what to
do to retrofit and save money on utility bills. BIA Executive Director Bill Quehrn
said builders will fight low impact development standards at first, but will eventually
see the benefits when they get used to it.
Burns stated the BIA realizes this is a marketable product. If they can
support their members and distinguish their members from the crowd, it creates an
exciting market. The BIA is excited about it because it makes sense and it can
make money.
Buehrer stated a way to promote the idea is to put something out there that
says the County Council supports it and will support demonstration projects.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested a field trip at the end of the summer to the site
being developed at Lake Whatcom.
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 5/10/2005, 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
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.
Burns stated Whatcom County has some great projects locally. They must
do the right PR to educate the general public. No one does that kind of public
relations better than Sustainable Connections.
Roy asked if the County could facilitate the permitting process more quickly.
She asked what it means practically for the County to show support for a
demonstration project. Buehrer stated the Council could come up with an interim
ordinance that shows the County is going to eventually go this way, and it's not just
talk.
Caskey- Schreiber thanked the presenters.
Amy Pederson, Planner II, stated she needs specifics on what to take to the
Planning Commission regarding the seasonal land clearing requirements.
Roy stated she thought the Council voted on the seasonal land clearing.
There was no vote on the point system.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Planning Commission was going to look at the
dates, see if there is any flexibility that can be allowed, and then figure out if it is
something the Council should adopt permanently. The Council did not decide
anything on the point system.
She would like to hear ideas from staff about how to facilitate demonstration
projects. Baumgarten stated the Council could do a resolution or offer a small
grant.
Nelson stated that if the Council wants to see a demonstration in the
watershed, it would be a way to allow someone to proceed with a development
despite the moratorium.
Brenner stated Ms. Burns said the Council could work with the Puget Sound
Action Team code review process, and there is a grant available. Baumgarten
stated Whatcom County, along with other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound, already
received this technical assistance grant.
Brenner stated Focus Northwest picked a site to do a low impact
development home, including the interior of the home. She asked to keep an eye
on that project.
Burns stated she is working on that project, and will keep the Council
updated.
Roy stated an interim ordinance is too complicated, but she likes
Councilmember Nelson's criterion for getting around the moratorium, especially if
they can specify the runoff limit.
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 5/10/2005, 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
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.
Pederson stated most of the low impact development practices are an option
in the current regulations. There aren't a lot of additional low impact development
concepts they can add for Lake Whatcom. There really are a lot of low impact
development options now.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the new critical areas ordinance will incorporate
low impact development standards. Pederson stated it will.
Nelson asked if a short plat or subdivision in Lake Whatcom has incorporated
those low impact development options. Pederson stated all subdivisions have those
options available.
Baumgarten stated the developer has the option of applying the low impact
development standards up front or recording them on the deed so they must be
done when the lot is developed.
Brenner stated she would like to go on a tour of sites in the county.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on May 24, 2005.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Special Whatcom County Council - Moratorium Response, 5/10/2005, Page 8