HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning May 18 20041
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
Planning and Development Committee
May 18, 2004
Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OPEN
SPACE /OPEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE TIMBER APPLICATIONS
(AB2004 -209)
Elizabeth Olsen, Planner, read from each application (on file).
Olsen stated the recommendation is for denial of the Johnson application
until trees are planted on it.
Caskey Schreiber if they would apply for open space /open space designation
or replant. Olsen stated the option is for replanting.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a minimum amount of land for open
space /timber. Olsen stated there has to be a minimum of five acres of growing
timber. The applicant applied four years ago and said they were going to forest
part of the land on the east. The Levorsen Family Tracts were put in, they were put
in the middle of the descriptions. The timber manager pointed out there was not
enough acreage to be designated open space /timber. The recommendation was
again denied until the property is replanted.
Caskey Schreiber referenced the Samms application and said they don't
meet the minimum acreage. Olsen stated there is no minimum for open
space /open space designations. The designation will put four acres into open space
and use the area for teaching children.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this is a scary precedent to set. There should be a
minimum acreage requirement, even for open space /open space designations.
Olson stated both owners are teachers and both are very happy about being able to
teach the children about the natural environment.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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
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 if the County ever does follow up to make sure
requirements are followed. Olsen stated she does when she can. This couple is
very enthusiastic about the project.
Brenner referenced the Timberline Logging parcels and asked why the
owners went to the County instead of State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). Olsen stated the property is just under 20 acres.
Olsen stated the Walker /Clark application is recommended for denial because
it has been withdrawn because the applicants thought the designation was for
conservation only.
Brenner moved to recommend approval of the resolution to the full
Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN (AB2004-
121)
Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon Society, stated he submitted
supporting documents regarding Point Whitehorn. He is concerned about Birch
Point. However, that property will be developed if it's put into a long -term planning
area. He supports taking the area out of the urban growth area (UGA).
Point Whitehorn should be removed from the UGA. It's surrounded by
sensitive shorelines and the Cherry Point aquatic reserve. The coast in that area is
very sensitive. The area to the east is a high impact industrial zone. This area
south of Grandview and west of Koehn Road has no reason to be in the UGA. It is
in a long -term planning area now, but that's no reason to leave it there. There are
no pending plats or utilities there.
Lincoln Rudder, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated the conversion to
pastureland is already approved. He asked if it has to be converted again back to
residential, given that the zone is already urban residential, four units per acre (UR-
4). He asked if there is a tax consequence that benefits it being pastureland.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it does not. The
conversion is out of forestry and into another use. The entire area does not have
an approved conversion, only two units. A letter was sent to Mr. Rudder and others
that explains the situation. Once converted out of forest, it only means they don't
have to replant trees and can remove stumps. How the property is used, whether
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
as a pasture, for houses, or as a golf course, is subject to whatever permits they
have to obtain.
Rudder stated the Birch Bay Community Plan says that area will only be
developed on the context of a planned unit development (PUD). He asked if it
makes sense to convert it to pasture, in advance of that plan. Goodwin stated the
plan doesn't require a PUD. The plan assumes that any development over 40 acres
would be done by a PUD. A request for PUD hasn't been submitted. The forestry
conversion just means that the areas was forested, and after the trees are cut it's
no longer forested. It doesn't state what it has to be or what it can't be. The use
proposed was pasture.
Fleetwood asked if this has bearing on the Birch Bay Plan. Goodwin stated
they don't.
Rudder stated his questions have a bearing on the plan. As they speak, the
owners are pulling stumps out of the ground, and the committee is talking about
increasing the protection for Birch Point. He's trying to understand when and why
it was approved. For example, there were to be 200 -foot buffers. In the DNR
State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review, the applicant stated that they
would use the 200 -foot buffers. In the application for conversion, the applicant
stated those buffers were voluntary, not mandatory. He wants to know why the
County would approve a reduction to those buffers in light of the protection the
committee is contemplating. It could be that the Council will adopt protections, but
this destruction has made this protection moot.
Fleetwood stated Ms. Goodwin proposed language for additional protections
for Birch Point. The recommended conditions are on Council packet page 136.
Goodwin stated the recommended shoreline setbacks were in a later memorandum.
The recommendation to increase the building setback from eroding bluffs to 150 -
feet until the shoreline program is adopted is not in the Council packet.
Fleetwood stated the new language on Council packet page 136, Goal LU3
and its policies is language that was drafted since they proposed to remove it.
Goodwin stated that's correct. Those are the recommendations she wrote up after
the steering committee gave some general direction.
Fleetwood stated that presently, the committee recommends to remove that.
He asked if they have to put Birch Point back into the plan before considering this
language.
Goodwin stated the motion would be to add Birch Point back to the plan and
adopt these three policies pertaining to Birch Point. Once that's done, the Council
would have a public hearing on it.
Roy stated she made suggestions to the Planning Committee members in a
memo (on file), but she's not wedded to the language in her suggestions. She
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
wanted to see this issue come forward. She included the term "low impact
development standards." Goodwin stated that term is already in the plan.
Brenner moved to put Birch Point back into the plan, with the extra goals
that Sylvia Goodwin developed.
(Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
Fleetwood stated he originally supported removing Birch Point. There are
good reasons to have never included Birch Point. However, he understands a
majority of the Council may want it in. He wants to consider the proposed
language that strengthens the plan, on the assumption that Birch Point is included.
Given that reality, he supports the motion.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a concern with the plan is that there isn't a clear
path on how Birch Bay will be annexed or incorporated. The Growth Management
Act (GMA) mandates that they don't steer growth where there won't be a municipal
level of government. Condition development of the long -term UGA with annexation
or incorporation. They could phase development of infrastructure and tie in
development costs to the long -term UGA development, especially roads. That's
been held up by the courts. She wants to hear more about capital facilities, and
how they need to service this large of a UGA. Develop a financial plan for Birch Bay
where the County starts putting some of the property tax into a separate account,
which would be ready when the community is ready to incorporate. King County is
paying UGA's to incorporate, which is cheaper than providing services. She liked
the idea of low- impact development, but be specific. Incorporate the standards
that were discussed in the presentation given this morning to the Natural Resources
Committee. Goodwin stated the policy for low- impact development is on plan page
10 -11. The Planning Commission added three new policies.
Roy asked if there is a plan to develop these standards. Goodwin stated
they already have the standards for the special districts that apply to Lake Samish,
Drayton Harbor, and Lake Whatcom. The critical areas ordinance update will
include a lot of this.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Goodwin continued to state they have about all they can do this year with
the critical area ordinance. The critical area ordinance will address a lot of issues.
To build on that, they'll do the rest of the low impact development standards.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they never addressed road standards for low impact
development in the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish development standards.
Goodwin stated they are allowed, but not required. Staff can develop the low -
impact development ordinance, but it's not at the top of the work priority right now.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
Roy stated she suggested the language "low impact development
procedures" with the assumption those procedures would be developed. They need
to work on those procedures.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if it's in a plan, it needs to be as clear as
possible. Councilmembers can give Ms. Goodwin ideas for writing that language,
beginning with the recommendations from the People for Puget Sound
presentation. Their recommendation for low impact development is 65 percent tree
retention, stormwater treatment onsite, and narrow streets with rain gardens.
They recommend eliminating failed stormwater ponds. They also talk about
impervious surface limits. The Count has done good things with Lake Whatcom and
Lake Samish. Birch Bay should have those standards.
Roy stated Mr. Dawson from People for Puget Sound is well versed on this
issue, and has copies of ordinances from other places. There is no reason why
anyone would want to reinvent the wheel. There are examples to pull from.
Goodwin agreed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Puget Sound Action Team came up with
guidelines recently regarding UGA boundaries. Avoid expanding UGA boundaries
into critical natural areas, but if it has to occur, require special regulations as
mitigation. She read the recommendations. Use clustering to retain open space if
a PUD is ever proposed.
Brenner stated they should also limit the footprint and the amount of
impervious surface similar to Lake Whatcom limits.
Roy stated they may also want to change the height restrictions so these
buildings can go up higher. A lot of the property in these sensitive areas is not
view property.
Fleetwood stated this is a list of options to justify including Birch Point in the
UGA. He asked about annexation as Caskey- Schreiber mentioned it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she didn't know if they could condition a long -term
UGA before it is turned into a short -term UGA. Goodwin stated she would do
research on it. They could create a condition that long -term UGA's wouldn't
become short -term until incorporation, but that makes the landowner hostage to
others who don't want incorporation.
Brenner stated she won't support that. One shouldn't be related to the
other.
Roy stated there is another consequence of that. She is for incorporation of
Birch Bay. However, this could backfire. The most unpopular developer in the area
right now is the developer who did the logging. If one is contingent on the other,
people might vote against incorporation as revenge against that company. It would
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
backfire politically. There's an assumption that the Birch Bay community would like
this to be a developed area, but that's not necessarily true.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would hate for annexation or incorporation to
be held hostage by intense emotions. However, somewhere in the plan, there
needs to be an interlocal agreement or clear language about what will happen
before the County puts infrastructure and money into an urban area. They can't
support an urban level of development without a plan for Birch Bay to become
independent.
Roy stated she agrees. The County needs to be supportive in working with
the community to make that happen. That one option of conditioning Birch Point
on incorporation won't work. Politically, it is emotional out there. If the
incorporation of Birch Point were connected to the vote of the people, it would fail.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they could link any UGA expansion to incorporation
or annexation. Otherwise, they can't justify expanding the UGA anywhere around
there. Goodwin stated the problem with incorporation is a vote of the people who
already live there. The people with vacant land that they want to add to the UGA
don't get to vote.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how an area usually incorporates. Goodwin stated
that in Birch Bay, there needs to be a tax base sufficient to support a city. That will
happen as soon as there is a commercial development.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that's not in the plan. Goodwin stated it is. The
plan talks about the number of jobs, amount of commercial development, and
assessed valuation is in the plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated equal coverage in the plan is given to not doing
anything, which is not an option. Goodwin recommended striking language in
chapter 16 of the plan that makes leaving things as they are an unattractive option.
Fleetwood asked the conversation about this in the steering committee.
Goodwin stated the GMA doesn't say all growth has to be in cities. It says growth
has to be in the UGA's and that, generally, urban services should be provided by
cities. Nothing in the Growth Management Act says that UGA's must incorporate.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the GMA says they cannot have UGA's anywhere,
aside from an area that will be annexed. Anything developed at an urban level of
development should be annexed.
Brenner stated it is encouraged, not required. There are exceptions. They
want to encourage incorporation, but they can't force it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if not, the County doesn't have to
accommodate urban levels of development out there.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
Roy stated the County does have to accommodate urban levels of
development out there. The County has designated the area as an urban growth
area. This subarea plan started as a community plan. It started with the
community determining its vision for the future. To get participation in the
process, the group that started it decided to take a neutral stand on incorporation.
Later, the group said it is not a plan for incorporation. That's why the plan is
neutral on incorporation. Later on, the plan morphed into the subarea plan. The
reason for the option of doing nothing, voters have the option of voting against
incorporation and leaving the area as it is. That's the reality.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Hearings Board determined in another case that
it is inappropriate to establish a non - municipal UGA in close proximity to a
municipality with no plan for the transfer of governance. Annexation and
incorporation of urban areas in UGA's are the means to achieve this transfer of local
governance. Birch Bay is right next to Blaine.
Brenner stated that case is about a new UGA, not an existing UGA. It
specifically talks about an already existing UGA being the exception.
Fleetwood stated the point is the logic of incorporation. There should be
some language in the plan that addresses the concern. Goodwin stated Chapter 16
is on that issue. Modify that chapter by striking some of the stuff in the option to
remain status quo or add language to make it seem a more unattractive
alternative. At the same time, level the playing field by making it as expensive to
develop in Birch Bay as it is in every other city. Add impact fees, a parks and
recreation levy or fee, a stormwater utility, and other fees. Now, it's much cheaper
to develop in Birch Bay. That's the way to generate the revenue to pay for
infrastructure and make it more attractive to incorporate.
Caskey- Schreiber asked to put just that language in the plan. Goodwin
stated the language is in the plan, but the language can be stronger. She
recommended it to the steering committee and Planning Commission. Only the
Council can make it stronger. The County Comprehensive Plan said a year ago that
the County would develop a transportation impact fee ordinance within six months.
It hasn't happened.
Fleetwood asked that language be drafted to address these concerns. The
specific language addressing the concerns would come forward at another meeting.
Caskey- Schreiber asked staff to come up with language. Strike language on
plan page 16 -32, which is so strong in favor of keeping Birch Bay unincorporated.
Roy stated the County can implement some fees, and other fees can be
implemented by special districts. Include that information about fee collection
within the recommendations. Goodwin stated it is already included in the plan on
page 16 -33. The language can be stronger. The governance chapter could include
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
action steps. There are things the County can do to encourage incorporation. The
County could publish and circulate information on incorporation. The County can
encourage people to incorporate. If staff could be dedicated to help Birch Bay
incorporate. The first thing it needs is the tax base.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they should talk to the County administration about
setting aside Birch Bay property tax money to help start the process. She
referenced road level of service. Don't go to the higher standard of road when the
County has to pay for it. The County doesn't have road and traffic impact fees yet.
She previously supported the higher standard.
Fleetwood stated he would also retract his support for a higher level of
service.
Roy referenced governance action steps. There is an implementation
committee on incorporation, which is an offshoot of the Birch Bay Steering
Committee. The action steps can refer to coordination with the community
subcommittee for incorporation. Goodwin stated they will need extra County
staffing if they are really going to go to these meetings and push incorporation. A
consultant may be an appropriate way to go.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that's a good idea. Birch Bay is larger than existing
small cities, which have their own staffs.
Fleetwood referenced the northern arterial. The steering committee opposes
it. Goodwin stated the steering committee originally supported the northern
arterial along Loomis Trail Road. Then there was a vote to remove the language
about the northern arterial. The recommendation was to have the County Planning
Department study the feasibility and route. That's what the steering committee
supported. There are citizens who don't want the County to study that route, and
want the language stricken. She recommends adopting the language. She doesn't
think the northern arterial is feasible.
Roy stated she put forth the amendment and agrees with Ms. Goodwin. The
committee was very lukewarm and then very negative about this, which is another
freeway entrance along an environmentally sensitive area. The people from that
area spoke. The idea came out in the plan a lot stronger than what it was. The
Public Works Director says the idea is a bad idea. Take it out of the plan. It's been
looked at and rejected.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to remove all reference to the northern east -
west arterial.
Roy stated her recommendation in her memo lists all the references to that
arterial.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
Goodwin referenced the Lincoln Road clustering and the rural corridor. She
submitted language to consider in the Council packet on page 138.
Fleetwood suggested wording to amend language in the second paragraph
about Lincoln Road, "...should be developed of sufficient quality to ensure a visual
vegetative barrier, along both sides of the road...."
Caskey- Schreiber asked who pays for buffer. Goodwin stated the
landowners that live along there would pay for it probably. Lincoln Road is very
narrow. The six -year transportation plan includes acquiring additional right -of -way
along Lincoln Road. The County can also require developers to dedicate it and
make the improvements as the area develops.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is an arterial for a rain garden. Goodwin stated
it could be. They might do a combination of the County acquiring, maintaining, and
managing it and the developer building the bike trail and road improvements on
their road frontage. Maintenance of those things is a big issue.
Brenner stated having each developer develop their portion is a great idea,
but don't assume it will work in their lifetime. Goodwin suggested strengthening
the policy so that it will remain a long -term planning area until all or a majority of
the property owners get together and changes it by forming a local improvement
district.
Brenner suggested that a majority pay for it, and then get a latecomer's fee
from other property owners. Goodwin stated they could, but a latecomer's fee is
good for only a certain amount of time.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the latecomer's fee. This kind of local
improvement district would improve the owners' property values. She would rather
have language saying the area is a long -term planning area until a local
improvement district is formed. Everyone hates having to do a latecomer's fee.
Brenner stated it only improves property value if the owner wants to sell the
property. Until then, it's something people have to pay. She would only support a
local improvement district if it's done by a latecomer's fee. Goodwin suggested the
language be written more broadly and include options. Until it's designed and
funded through a local improvement district, by the developer, or by a
transportation improvement district.
The committee concurred with Ms. Goodwin's suggestion.
Fleetwood referenced his suggested language about a visual barrier.
Goodwin stated she would change the language to agree with the landscape buffer
that is already in the code.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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
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.
Fleetwood referenced proposed policy LU -3b on Council packet page 136 and
suggested an amendment, "...prior to approving conversion to Short Term Planning
Area of sufficient quality to ensure capture of polluting runoff into Birch Bay." The
number one goal is to protect Birch Bay as they create this dense city around it.
Include language that imposes the duty that whatever someone does must not hurt
the bay.
The committee concurred.
Roy stated the measurement of a low- impact development is the lack of
runoff going into the bay. Goodwin stated she will talk with staff about monitoring
the runoff levels.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Goodwin continued to state that some Birch Bay subdivisions with
engineered stormwater systems don't do their jobs. The engineering and design
doesn't always produce the desired results. They may need to do follow up
monitoring to achieve the results they want.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Mr. Hart said the same thing during the
presentation at the Natural Resources Committee meeting. They're going to need
monitoring, enforcement personnel, and someone to make sure the plans are
implemented.
Roy stated that when they start something new, sometimes they can take
the people from the old process and assign them to the new process. People who
used to be experts at putting in pipes and detention ponds can become experts in
low impact development and stormwater standards.
Caskey- Schreiber asked why they included the Point Whitehorn area in the
UGA. Goodwin stated it has been zoned urban residential for decades, is in the
water district, and has public water. It doesn't have to stay in the UGA. There are
also policies in the Growth Management Act that says they shouldn't extend public
services outside the urban growth areas. The main area in that location has
unplatted 20 -acre parcels. The area is less than half of a square mile. The
potential build out is about 400 houses. However, they won't reach that maximum
density. With the view at that location, developers will build estates on larger lots.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she originally didn't support this area for the UGA.
She supports mandating low impact development standards in this area. The
beach below the area is pristine. Goodwin asked if they want to specify Point
Whitehorn or other areas to plan pages 10 -11 through 10 -13.
Roy stated they don't. She feels strongly that this whole area is one system.
Point Whitehorn and Birch Point are feeder bluffs for all of Birch Bay. Treat it as a
system. That's one of the problems with singling out Birch Point. They need low
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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.
impact development standards for the whole area. If this is the largest recreational
shellfish area in Puget Sound, they need those standards all around this bay.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Birch Point and Point Whitehorn are on severe
slopes and are high erosion bluffs, whereas the flatlands in Birch Bay are not. They
are a little bit different.
Roy stated they're all sensitive areas. Make low impact development
standards apply all around the bay.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County has already allowed dense platting
around the bluffs. Creating more impervious footprints above them will exacerbate
the erosion.
Goodwin stated Jim Dawson from People for Puget Sound told the Birch Bay
Steering Committee that the one place they don't want to use low impact
development standards is on unstable slopes. They don't want to encourage
infiltration of the water. They want to encourage stormwater that gets the water
out of the area. They'll have to develop a different type of low impact development
for unstable slopes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the biggest low impact development measure is
tree retention, which mitigates runoff. She asked how that can be contrary to what
they're trying to do on those bluffs. Goodwin stated tree retention works. They
don't want things like rain gardens and infiltration measures.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they need some serious tree retention standards on
both of these bluffs.
Fleetwood stated they'd work on language for that for the next meeting.
Roy stated tree retention should be part of the plan for the whole area, not
just the bluffs.
OTHER BUSINESS
Caskey- Schreiber asked the status of the Lummi Island Subarea Plan.
Goodwin stated that if they don't adopt anything different, the 1979 plan continues.
The County Council can't approve the plan update until they've dealt with the water
study. There would be insufficient environmental information without it. He's
withdrawn his determination of non - significance until the study is done. The zone
now is rural residential island, one house per three acres outside of an aquifer
recharge area. There is a moratorium on subdivisions because of the ferry
capacity. There is not a moratorium on short - plats. If the Council wanted, it could
impose a moratorium on short -plats until the study is done.
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, 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
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 will not support a moratorium because that study could
take awhile.
Goodwin stated the staff needs to work on the water study. The chances of
being challenged to the Hearings Board were quite high. With the study, the
County won't be challenged because of a decision based on a lack of information.
Land Use Division staff is working on a scope of work. They will need funding for
the study.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 5/18/2004, Page 12