HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning February 25 20031
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
February 25, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. by Committee Chair Seth
Fleetwood in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Dan McShane None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Also Present:
L. Ward Nelson
Barbara Brenner
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, CHAPTER 20.71 — WATER RESOURCE
PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, CHAPTER 20.80 —
SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS (STORMWATER AND CLEARING),
CHAPTER 20.85 — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND CHAPTER
20.97 — DEFINITIONS, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY
PROTECTION FOR SENSITIVE WATERSHEDS (AB2002 -222B)
Fleetwood stated a substitute Exhibit A was distributed (on file) to include
what the Planning Commission proposed.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated she handed out a revised Exhibit A. The
tree retention language was omitted from the County Council packet.
Fleetwood stated they would work from the revised Exhibit A. Today they will
consider tree retention, seasonal land clearing provisions, and impervious surface
requirement.
Pederson stated she handed out a table of the side -by -side comparison of the
three tree retention options. She explained the differences. The language adopted
by the County Council does not include retaining priority trees. Priority trees are
those that are healthy and mature.
Brenner asked why the Planning Commission did not include site
requirements or exemptions. Pederson stated the Planning Commission adopted
what was in the Blaine ordinance.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
McShane referenced the beginning of the language in the tree retention
language from the December 10, 2002 memo. He asked if 70 percent of a five -
acre parcel could be cleared of trees. Pederson stated that is correct. One is
required to maintain 30 percent, or whatever the remainder would be if the 5,000
square feet is cleared.
McShane asked why 5,000 square feet. Pederson stated that applies to the
smaller lots, such as those in Geneva.
McShane stated that someone with a 5,000 square foot lot could clear the
whole thing. He asked the rationale of the percentage. Pederson stated the
interim language was for 50 percent. The Planning Commission recommended 80
percent. The 70 percent is a compromise. It has been an item of debate.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated there hasn't been any science
to support a particular percentage. The rest of the language is more
straightforward. Staff can't say any one percentage is better than the other, only
that the more vegetation that remains, the better soil retention they have. The
reduction came in response to concerns from the Planning Commission and
members of the public. The rest of the tree retention language is good at assessing
a site and providing mitigation to replant trees.
Roy asked if Planning staff looked at other plans around Western Washington.
Assigning a random percentage makes her uncomfortable. Baumgarten stated
they've seen a percentage of 30 or 35 percent that is retained in other jurisdictions.
For stormwater special district standards on lots over two acres, 65 percent
retention is required based on studies done in King County.
Brenner stated this might not be the percentage that they go by because
other ordinances have other requirements. Baumgarten stated that is correct if
there is a stormwater special district.
Chris Brueske, Engineer, stated that the 65 percent retention requirement on
lots greater than two acres for single - family homes built in the special district
includes the option of doing an engineered plan as an alternative. In the
stormwater special districts, which include the Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom
watersheds and Drayton Harbor, the 65 percent retention requirement applies to
single - family home building permits.
Brenner stated stormwater districts have the 65 percent retention
requirement for lots over two acres. Water resource special management areas
have a 30 percent retention requirement. She asked where they would have a
water resource special management area that's not part of a stormwater district.
Baumgarten stated they overlap. It has to do with what the person is doing with
the site and the permit required. What the committee is working on now is for
someone just clearing a property. If someone is clearing a property to build
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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
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.
something and put in impervious surfaces, then the stormwater special district
standards apply.
Brueske stated the 65 percent retained when building a home is an easy way
out because the builder has to do very little for stormwater controls in addition to
those for the house.
Pederson continued to describe the differences amongst the three tree
retention options.
Brenner asked if a site plan has to be done by a professional or whether a
homeowner could do it. Baumgarten stated they don't require a professionally
prepared site plan.
Baumgarten stated the site plan only has to be reasonably accurate and to
scale. It doesn't require a specialist.
Roger Almskaar, consultant, stated he was a member of the seasonal
clearing work group. They did not have a chance to look at the tree retention
issues. The Planning Commission changed the proposal quite a bit. He is
concerned with the alternative tree retention language that was in the December
10 memo.
People hire him to help through the permit process. There needs to be a
clearly stated public purpose for the tree retention concept, no matter what the
terms are. The rules should make a distinction between urban -sized lots and rural -
sized lots. Section (2) has major problems. The terms are vague. Sections (3)
and (4) are okay.
He'd like to see these things fixed, but doesn't want to slow the process
down. This part of the ordinance could be approved in some form, but revisited
within 90 days for fine - tuning. Section (5) references temporary fencing, which
could be extremely expensive. There are alternatives, such as crime scene tape.
Section (6) is vague. Section (7) regarding replacement trees could get expensive.
Make a distinction between which trees they are worried about and which they
aren't. Section (9) is regulatory overkill to make each tree removed a separate
violation. The definition of "significant tree" needs improvement. The rules for
regulating clearing now are confusing. There are three special districts in this
piece. They all include the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish watersheds. One
includes the Drayton Harbor watersheds, which needs to be pulled out of some of
those restrictions because it is unlike the Whatcom and Samish watersheds.
McShane stated they should think about approving something like this soon
while being open- minded about future changes. Mr. Almskaar could write up
specific suggestions. As time moves on, they will get recommendations from
people who are knowledgeable and some rationale for the recommendations.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
There is good rationale for retaining trees in the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish
areas.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed with including a purpose statement for the tree
retention policy.
Almskaar stated they should create a special section in Title 20 that deals
only with water resource issues rather than have it scattered throughout the code.
Rich Emerson, Building Industry Association (BIA)), stated he submitted a
memo dated February 3, 2003 regarding tree retention. He has questions that are
left unresolved. He suggested that the tree retention and impervious surfaces
could be looked at again so the minute details can be explored by people who know
more about it than the Planning staff and members of the Council, as they did with
seasonal clearing.
Chris Dillard, 1815 Old Fairhaven Parkway, stated he liked the original and
staff recommendations regarding identifying the retained trees on the site plan.
The possible need for a maximum amount of trees to be cleared makes sense.
Being able to clear 70 percent of a five -acre lot sounds excessive. The differences
between these rules and the stormwater special district rules seem like a loophole.
He asked if there are other jurisdictions that have similar regulations.
Pederson stated they have looked at regulations in a number of other
jurisdictions. The range is between 20 to 35 percent retention.
Dillard asked if those comparative jurisdictions were regulating drinking
water sources. The bond requirement should be mandatory. There are examples
of developers who have clear -cut their properties in violation of tree retention
policies. Having a bond would increase the likelihood that the developers would
follow the rules. He agreed with considering each tree removal a separate
violation.
McShane moved to approve the alternative tree retention language
proposed by staff.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane continued to make his motion to approve the alternative tree
retention language proposed by staff as described in the December 10 memo, with
one amendment to the last sentence in section 20.80.735(2)(d)(1), '...but such
areas shall not exceed 5,000 square feet or 70 percent, whichever is greater of the
total lot area, on lots one acre or less, or 50 percent on lots greater than one acre
in size." They should separate between larger lots and smaller lots.
Motion carried unanimously.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
Brenner asked if there is a way to combine the special district areas.
Pederson stated staff has discussed that. They will bring forward information on
what it would look like if they were consolidated. If they put it all together, they
would still have to cross - reference the various chapters of the code.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to add an explanation of the intent for the tree
retention language.
Fleetwood agreed. That is a benefit of having two weeks to make those
changes. Baumgarten stated he could work on it.
Brenner asked staff to work on a stronger definition of "significant trees."
Pederson stated staff has replaced that term with the phrase "stands of healthy
mature native trees."
Brenner stated that is fine. She also recommended that they do something
about temporary fencing. Pederson stated could replace it with protective
measures.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked the language about retaining trees on
sensitive slopes in high hazard areas. Keep what they have, and expand it in the
direction they are going. She supported taping or marking off instead of fencing an
area to be retained.
Brenner asked when they would not require a bond. Baumgarten stated it is
a matter of the time it takes to get a bond. They reserve the requirement for
situations where there is a higher likelihood of a having a problem with the trees.
It is not something they require for every site due to the time and expense it takes
for the contractors.
Brenner suggested including the criteria for determining when the bonds are
required. Baumgarten agreed. Staff wants this to be straightforward and
understandable for the public. View this as an area they are trying to retain, not
individual trees. They are looking to protect the canopy cover. A strong purpose
statement in conjunction with clear expectations should lead to a good product.
Brenner asked if they are making any distinctions between high quality trees,
such as firs, and weed trees that could become a problem. Pederson stated they
did not distinguish between tree species. They provided conditions in which a
hazard tree could be removed in subsection (d)(6).
Brenner stated she would like to see a distinction between trees that have
long -term significance and weed trees.
McShane moved to amend section 20.80.735(2)(d)(5), 'Prior to any land
clearing or development activity, any trees or group of trees designated for
retention shall have be clearly designated by temporary fencing, tape, or other
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
clear indicators installed cernpletely around the drip line of the trees to be
protected. Temporary fencing, tape, or other clear indicators shall be
and shall maintained for the duration of the proposed clearing or development
activity. Trees designated for retention shall not be damaged...."
Motion carried unanimously.
Nelson stated this would still apply to forestry practices and certain rural
forestry. Pederson stated it would apply to conversion /harvest options (co -hop)
and class four forestry practices.
Nelson stated a tree markings are somewhat subjective. Someone could
come into an area and move or add to the tree tags. Pederson stated one
alternative is to mark the outer boundary rather than every tree. There was one
concern about flagging every tree. On a 40 -acre site, one can't reasonably flag
every tree.
Nelson asked if the forest practice application from the State Department of
Natural Resources could be used as the site plan. Baumgarten stated they would
have to give that some thought. It will be discussed at the Forestry Advisory
Forum.
Nelson stated the majority of areas around the Lake Samish and Lake
Whatcom watersheds are forestry areas.
McShane stated these regulations don't apply unless one is converting.
Nelson stated these areas would be impacted by the rules and regulations.
The additional cost may or may not be necessary. Baumgarten stated staff could
discuss it further.
Nelson asked how much area is needed for septic field and reserve.
Baumgarten stated it varies depending on the type of system. He will find out.
Nelson stated it might be difficult locating a house depending on the septic
requirements.
Pederson asked if the staff should stay with the term "significant trees" or
change to the phrase "stands of healthy, mature, native trees."
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to see both options. She prefers to
reference native trees. Native soil and native vegetation should be a goal. The
current language is clear that if a tree is likely to fail, it can be removed.
Brenner stated she preferred to use the term "priority trees." It gives leeway
to staff and property owners. Native conifers should be a higher priority than weed
trees.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
Nelson stated it is a combination of both. A natural biological process takes
place in regenerating a forest. They will generally see a quick in- growth of native
deciduous trees. That is followed by the conifers coming in underneath. That is
Mother Nature's way of providing protection from the elements for the conifers.
They have to look into the biological process. When conifers start to grow, then the
deciduous trees could be removed.
Fleetwood moved the discussion to seasonal land clearing.
Pederson stated section 20.80.735(2)(g) originally included a clearing ban.
She described the history of seasonal land clearing. An appointed committee that
included stakeholders developed an alternative to the ban. The alternative is a
three - tiered point system. If someone does not meet the minimum point
threshold, that person is only required to do the minimum requirements. There are
more requirements for someone who exceeds the minimum point threshold. It only
applies to Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish. Drayton Harbor is excluded. A motion
was made in Planning Commission to put Drayton Harbor back in, but it failed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they could remove the Lake Samish watershed from
this right now since the new downzone and the tree retention regulations will
provide protection.
Fleetwood stated he is inclined to include Lake Samish.
McShane stated he is inclined to consider all the regulations in Lake Samish
and decide whether these rules should be applicable to the entire Lake Samish
watershed. He's not ready to do that now.
Pederson described the new point system in subsection (g)(1)(b).
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Planning staff felt the committee was
unbalanced in favor of developers. She asked if they could modify the point scale
to represent a more balanced approach. Pederson stated staff reviewed the points
allocated. It is difficult to assign points to a particular site condition. If they are
concerned about how thresholds are addressed, it could be addressed through the
code, not the point system.
McShane stated he is not that worried about the process that occurred in the
past. It is not important. What is important is that if people have a concern about
the point system and the land clearing ordinance, they should make their argument
for why it should be changed. They don't need to revisit where that argument
occurred.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
Dillard stated the only reason the process is significant is to understand what
they are holding in their hands. It is a document written by the BIA and pro -
development interests. The committee started with consensus agreement, but
changed to majority agreement. The majority was a majority of builders. It is of
the opinion of People for Lake Whatcom that the only measure that will provide an
adequate level of protection for the lake will be reinstatement of the original
seasonal clearing ban as written and proposed by Planning staff. The science is
clear that erosion control is not effective, and a seasonal ban is the only way to
ensure an adequate level of protection for the lake, according to several studies
and sources. He submitted a number of ideas and approaches the Council should
take if it approves the point system. He's happy to hear that a financial security
requirement is still included in the regulations. The upper threshold would require
engineering. That is a perfect example of the give- and -take that never occurred at
the committee meeting. He recommended that the upper threshold be a cutoff
instead of requiring engineering. Include specific limits for phosphorus. Include a
mechanism for citizen review of the checklist. Have a mechanism for the County to
fix a problem if one occurs. Allow the County access to the private property to fix
failed silt control measures. Have a stringent inspection regime. The State
Department of Ecology (DOE) recommends daily inspections during the wet season.
There is an increased risk associated with developing in the drinking watershed
during the winter. Associated with that increased risk is an increased cost to
administrate the system to make sure the lake is protected. That increased cost
should be borne by the developer.
Brenner stated she is concerned about the citizen inspection suggestion.
County staff is who should review the checklist. Dillard stated he agreed, but there
are limits to the resources. He asked if staff would have an onsite inspection of
every item on the checklist.
Baumgarten stated any development activity requires an erosion control
inspection at the time of clearing. It's a condition of the permit. Staff is working
on making sure that people are more aware of the condition. Right now, there is a
low callback rate from the builders.
Brenner asked if it is illegal if someone does something without an onsite
inspection. Baumgarten stated it is a violation of the conditions of the permit. The
intent is to inspect every site. That's not happening because people don't read
their permits and call for their inspection.
Brenner asked if that is when the financial assurance would make the
builders figure it out pretty quick. She asked if the builders would be more apt to
look at the permit if financial assurance is required. Baumgarten stated that is
possible.
Roy stated the point system is a screening tool. They are only talking about
the wet season in these watersheds. She asked if there has been a site visit prior
to issuance of the building permit. That is the question. The process described by
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
Mr. Baumgarten happens after the permit has been issued. Baumgarten stated
there is a site visit before the permit issued for a majority of the sites.
Roy stated they are talking about a very specific group of activities. She
asked if they could tighten it up so they make sure it could happen for that small
group of focused people. She is uncomfortable with the building permit being
issued without anyone ever going out there on a site visit. Baumgarten stated
almost every site gets a site visit. He prefers to meet with the person who does
the actual excavation. Mr. Dillard is talking about the follow -up to make sure the
erosion control measures are functioning. That's where he can't keep a running list
of every project out there and be there. That's the reason for the requirement to
call for an inspection.
Roy asked if it would be appropriate to have more certainty for the people
who fit into this category, which is just the Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom
watersheds and just during the rainy seasons. Baumgarten stated that is possible.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a way to keep track of the excavating
timeline so Mr. Baumgarten can do a site inspection without a call from the
excavator. Baumgarten stated he does that to the best of his ability. There are a
lot of things that happen between the time a person gets a permit and when they
are ready to clear. The timeline is variable.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the percentage that call. Baumgarten stated it is
about 20 percent.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested refunding a portion of their deposit once the
measures are in place. She doesn't have much faith in the silt fences. Baumgarten
stated there are alternatives to silt fences. They've gone through this issue with
the appropriate staff members and worked with the building inspectors as a
resource. By the time the footing inspection happens, this should be taken care of.
If it is not, they will stop the building.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the tree retention regulations would mitigate some
of the stormwater issues with clearing. Baumgarten stated that any site that is
able to maintain even ten feet or more that separates the clearing from a ditch or
swale would succeed far greater than a site that relies only on a silt fence.
Brenner stated any tightening up should be done by having another person to
do enforcements. She preferred that to having any citizen review the checklist.
The courses that teach soil erosion controls does not promote silt fences. There are
alternatives that are available. It bothers her when people criticize silt fences
because there are alternatives.
there.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that silt fences are what is being used. They are out
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
Brenner stated staff has enough discretion to determine what is best to use
during the rainy season.
Myron Wlaznik, 4215 E. Oregon, Bellingham, stated he represents the Silver
Beach Neighborhood, which already has a land- clearing ordinance. He explained its
ordinance. All the sites subject to the Silver Beach ordinance have been
continuously out of compliance with runoff and land clearing activities during this
wet season. The runoff drains into the lake or into a detention pond. The problem
is with compliance. One person who was out of compliance did not cover the
property for several days during a recent rainstorm. All the mud that was on the
street was gone down the drain after three days. This person was the leader of the
Building Industry Association. That is very galling. It is supposed to be leadership
by example. They can't trust the building industry with the lake in the rainy
season. If they can't enforce five lots in Silver Beach, then they can't expect Mr.
Baumgarten to enforce all around the lake. They need to consider whether this can
be enforced. Recovery is not possible. Once it goes down the drain and into the
lake, they can't take it out again.
Brenner asked what the builder did when the City when to the site. Wlaznik
stated straw was laid down for a day or two. One site hauled dirt, and the ground
was covered with dirt. The next day when it rained, the dirt washed down into the
storm drain.
Brenner stated it sounds like the problems are with enforcement more than
anything. That's the only way they are going to change things and make them
better. Wlaznik stated that it is impossible to stay in compliance while working in
the sensitive watershed during a rainy part of the year. The question is whether
they want to take the chance, given that it's unenforceable. Don't do any land
clearing during the rainy season.
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated the Lake Whatcom
Management Program stresses prevention of pollution over treatment. No system
that is ever adopted will be perfect. That is true of seasonal limits, but they are
better than the alternative. The problems Mr. Wlaznik cited are real and true for
any number of sites. Despite their best inspection and enforcement efforts, the
fact is that most of the legislation is voluntary compliance. They are not a police
state. Doing prevention can help voluntary compliance rather than creating
problems they have to clean up.
The decision is a political decision, hopefully based on best available science
on seasonal construction, which works better than the alternatives. Abstinence
works. It is based on science. Seasonal limits are simple to understand. By
having seasonal limitations, enforcement and administration are much less
expensive. Even though it is not a perfect system, it has worked in the City of
Bellingham, which has had it in effect for over three years now. If Bellingham can
do this, then Whatcom County can do the same.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about the five lots that were cleared, given the City's
seasonal land clearing ban. Watts stated the lots were cleared during the summer,
but were not covered properly. That's when they get into voluntary compliance.
People know what the rules are before they get the building permit. The builders
either comply or don't comply. In this case, the builder didn't comply. By the time
the City chased it down, it was too late to get the pollution out of the lake. No
system is perfect, even the City's system, but it is better than the alternative.
Almskaar stated he was a member of the work group representing the
realtor's association. While on the work group, he tried to work for a compromise.
If people are worried about enforcement, make the fees on those sites higher. If
the staff has to do more work on this class of applications, then charge more.
McShane stated they would staff a position while not knowing how many
applications they actually have. Almskaar stated there is a record of that
information. Mr. Baumgarten should be able to come up with an estimate.
McShane asked if the fees could be set so that people would want to refrain
from developing at all. Almskaar stated some people would wait, and some would
not.
Brenner asked why they couldn't charge by the hour. Some projects may
take more time than other projects. Almskaar stated it is an option.
Goodwin stated some fees in the fee schedule are charged by the hour.
Baumgarten stated that once a permit is issued, staff can't charge any more
fees. They could go back to a site ten times to try and get it into compliance.
Brenner stated the County ought to be able to charge for enforcing violations.
Baumgarten stated there might be a way to charge for penalty assessments.
Almskaar continued to state that subsection (2)(g)((1)(b)(iv) provides for a
24 -hour contact number for emergency work. The product that came out of this
work group was a compromise. An important principal of law is that rules are
supposed to be reasonable and the least restrictive of the alternatives that will
probably work. It is unjustified to have a total seasonal ban when the alternatives
will work.
Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, North Cascades Audubon, stated the
preference is a total ban on clearing during the wet season. A problem with
allowing clearing is how to show that it can be done safely. A problem with the way
this was addressed with the stakeholders was that there were no watershed science
experts on the committee. It is not correct to say there is a committee of experts.
It is unlikely that the Council will adopt a total ban during the wet season. The
checklist bothers him greatly because it assigns point values to things that they
can't assign points to. It would be a lot better to turn this over to Planning staff
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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.
entirely to evaluate the applications, giving consideration to certain things. If that's
too much, maybe adopt the checklist, but lower the point value for requiring
additional review. Regarding citizen review, people aren't notified when these
things are happening. It's very tedious and time - consuming to look through the
legal section of the paper. Post the work better so people know about it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Pratum continued to state that staff sometimes miss things. It would be
good to have some of these things open for public review.
Brenner agreed. She was talking about having a layperson go over the
checklist.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed with Mr. Pratum about the validity of the
point system. She asked if there is a way to modify it so it adheres to some
science. Goodwin stated there isn't any exact science on the specific combinations
of slope, soils, vegetation, clearing size, and proximity to lake would add up to a
value. There is science behind each of the sections of the checklist that they looked
at, including lot size, slope steepness, and soil groups. There is science on each
one of those things.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the point assessment is representative of the risks
involved in those groups. Goodwin stated staff examined five or ten scenarios,
went through the points, and questioned the risk. It is a little more lenient than
the point system would have been if more environmental interests had been on the
committee. If anything, it errs toward development. Looking at some of the sites
that are out there now could be run through the point system to see how they add
up.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a future committee discussion is whether the points
are fair in accessing the true risks of each criterion. She suggested consulting with
experts from Western Washington University who could look at this. Goodwin
stated there are experts on staff.
Rob Baxter, 1309 Samish Way, stated they were originally going to have a
ban during the rainy season. Reasonable objections were made. Have a ban
during the rainy season, except for a few serious exceptions and hardships, such as
someone losing his or her mortgage. The fact is that the lake is being degraded. It
is their drinking water. There is enough science to show that the lake is being
degraded. Until that trend changes, they need to do some drastic things. The
compromise could be to look at allowing more building once the trend changes. If
they allow clearing only for hardship cases, then the point system would make
sense.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that just because she is trying to make this a
healthy point system, doesn't mean she is not willing to consider a total ban.
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, 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
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.
McShane stated Ms. Goodwin answered the question about the point system
very well. This is a model. They can run scenarios to see if it works. He suggested
that slope is not as important as the soil types. A 45- degree slope that is all sand
could have no runoff. The infiltration rate is critical. There are areas around Lake
Whatcom that have high infiltration rates. He's worried about clearing in those
areas. Increase the points by five or ten points.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she agreed.
Fleetwood stated this item would be held in committee for two weeks.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Seth Fleetwood, Committee Chair
Planning and Development Committee, 2/25/2003, Page 13