HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning March 11 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
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
March 11, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 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:
Barbara Brenner
Sam Crawford
L. Ward Nelson
Sharon Roy
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
MAP FROM RURAL (1115A) TO LIGHT IMPACT INDUSTRIAL (LII) FOR
50.3 ACRES ON ATWOOD ROAD NORTH OF THE I- 5 /GRANDVIEW
INTERCHANGE (SITE SPECIFIC REZONE) (AB2003 -104)
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Council decision in
this matter must be made on the official record. The councilmembers do not have
the prerogative to receive new testimony. However, the councilmembers may
make inquiries of staff if they are regarding matters already on the record. This is
a quasi - judicial decision. The Council must exercise discretion in interpreting
County Code, State law, and strict criteria. The decision may be discussed in
executive session because it involves interpretation of the law. The committee can
recommend to the Council to adopt the Hearing Examiner recommendation, reject
the Hearing Examiner recommendation, by resolution send the matter back to the
Hearing Examiner if the Hearing Examiner missed or needs to clarify some point, or
serve the public interest by departing from the Hearing Examiner recommendation.
The Council would have to conduct its own public hearing in this matter. The
Council would have to submit an amendment to the Hearing Examiner
recommendation.
The councilmembers are bound by the appearance of fairness doctrine. If
any councilmember had any ex parte' communication, it must be disclosed, even if
it occurred when the Hearing Examiner was conducting proceedings. The law
requires that the decision maker reveal the communication by producing a
summary of the communication. The committee would have to allow the parties an
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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
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.
opportunity to provide rebuttal testimony. If the decision maker can assure that he
or she can provide unbiased decision, then he or she may continue.
Fleetwood stated they are at the point where the committee members and
other councilmembers need to make disclosures.
Fleetwood stated the committee would ask questions today. He asked if they
should choose to go into substantive debate now or tonight. Grant stated that if
the committee needs to go into executive session to make its recommendation to
the full Council, then it should do so now. If it is not necessary, reserve the action
for this evening.
Crawford disclosed that he's received about forty emails pro and con in this
matter. Grant stated copies of those have been made available to the clerk and are
now a part of the record. They don't need to be disclosed. Written correspondence
received from constituents on this matter and that have already been made a part
of the record need not be disclosed. They are made a part of the record to fulfill
the appearance of fairness requirement. They do not constitute ex parte'
communications so long as they are made a part of the record.
McShane disclosed that his communication has been the same as those Mr.
Crawford disclosed. Grant stated those have been forwarded to the clerk.
Fleetwood disclosed that he also received those emails. He also disclosed
that the weekend before the last Council meeting, he received a phone call from a
neighbor. He went to see the part of the county, met with the neighbor, and went
on a site walk for about an hour. He can still be partial, unbiased, and neutral. The
neighbor learned that there was a project, and wanted him to take a look at it,
which he did. They talked about the neighbor's opposition to the proposal. At that
time, he did not know the issue and how it would be presented to the Council. He
learned later that it was a site - specific rezone. There was some confusion, as often
happens. He's not sure the neighbors were sure of the procedure.
Caskey- Schreiber disclosed that she also received the email. She also
responded to one opponent and encouraged the opponent to testify to the Council,
which was bad information. She also contacted the City of Ferndale Council
Member who stated that this project was premature. She does not feel that it
affects her ability to be neutral. She also received a number of letters that she will
make sure are available for the record. The impact of the communication has not
affected her ability to remain impartial.
Crawford disclosed that he also might have responded to some of the emails.
He can't recall which one.
Brenner disclosed that she also received email. She called several of the
people to get clarification. One email said the City of Ferndale was opposed to the
proposal. She called to find out where the person got that information, which was
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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
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.
information on the record. People on both sides of the issue contacted her. She
was fairly noncommittal in her response. She can be objective. The
communication did not bias her one way or another. She can be impartial in her
decision.
Nelson stated he had no ex parte communication of any sort, did not read
anything outside of the record, and is impartial for the record.
Fleetwood asked if any audience members who are parties of the record
would like to provide information on the disclosed information or challenge any
declared impartiality.
Phil Serka, attorney, stated he represents I -5 Properties, the applicant. He
would like to reserve any challenges to impartiality. He is concerned about one
councilmember going out on the site and meeting with the opposition.
Fleetwood apologized for the visit. It was before he recognized what the
issue was.
Serka stated the party has the right to rebut the communication the
councilmembers received from opponents.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they also received communications from the
proponent.
Brenner stated the letter from Mr. Jansen might be her fault. She could not
meet with him, and encouraged him to write a letter.
Serka stated there was a concern about the water quality. There is a storm
drainage plan in the record. Ten acres are set aside to control and deal with water
quality. There is also a recommendation from the Engineering Division that is
consistent with the Act. All agencies, including Whatcom County, have approved it.
There was an issue brought up about uncontrolled sprawl. This property was
zoned since 1970. It is adjacent to general commercial zoned property. It was
designated in 1997 as a Ferndale short term planning area and is designated light
impact industrial. It has been planned for light impact industrial since the early
1990's.
In terms of consistency with the area, there is a 50 -foot buffer. Two sides
are adjoining light impact industrial and general commercial zones. To the west
there is a ten -acre buffer. To the south are Atwood Road and Interstate 5. There
aren't a lot of homes adjoining the property. It is a short -term planning area. No
traffic would go past the neighborhood on Atwood Road. The roads in the
development are internal and don't go into the neighborhood. Habitat and
stormwater have been approved. The critical areas have been approved by all
agencies. That is all in the record.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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.
The letter in the record regarding the City of Ferndale says that the City will
offer no formal approval as long as five conditions were met, which are conditions
incorporated in the Hearing Examiner recommendation.
The issue brought up by Mr. Verhoeven is that of water quality, which he
already addressed. In addition, the Public Utility District (PUD) will bring potable
water to the area where it doesn't exist now. People in the area will be able to
have potable water instead of well water. The Health Department approval for the
septic system is in the record.
Regarding property values, the residents are more than 400 feet away.
There are buffer areas. Development is primarily next to Interstate 5. The area is
classified as light impact industrial.
Mr. Alan Cheesman says in the record that there may not be a need for this.
However, the City of Ferndale growth has increased from 5,000 to 8,000 since
1990. It is an urban growth area and short term planning area. There is a need
for industrial property. Light impact industrial can be developed with septic. It has
potable water from the PUD. In addition, Ferndale commits to provide PUD water
and sewer when it is extended.
Regarding the issue of industrial waste causing a stormwater problem, there
is no issue of industrial waste. Performance standards will be dealt with in the
zoning code. The stormwater treatment has already been approved.
Mr. John Sarich indicated in a letter that the development is forced to have a
ten -acre conservancy easement. That is not correct. It is just habitat area and a
storm retention area. Four hundred trees will be planted in that ten -acre area. It
will provide habitat that is not there now. The Department of Fish and Wildlife will
develop fish habitat and move a drainage ditch, which is unusual for a light
industrial development to have that kind of approval.
There was a concern by Mr. Sarich about whether the time is appropriate
now for the industrial use. It is appropriate now. It has been designated a short -
term planning area and light impact industrial (LII) zone. The County has 12 acres
of general commercial zone adjoining it, and it is next to Interstate 5 and other LII
properties. It is next to Grandview and Cherry Point. It is not next to a
neighborhood. Traffic will not go past the neighborhood. The Hearing Examiner
has established buffers. There will be a conservancy area.
There is a concern that the two -acre septic site will pollute the drainage
ditch, but it is 1,000 feet away from the drainage ditch.
Brenner asked if the development would enter and exit from Grandview
Road, and does not go onto Atwood Road.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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.
Roland Middleton, Land Use Division Manager, stated the record shows that
access appears to be at the intersection of Grandview and Atwood.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the traffic goes onto
Atwood Road, but very near Grandview Road.
Brenner asked if there is a remedy if a neighboring well is contaminated due
to the development. Grant stated there are legal remedies.
Brenner asked if there would be no traffic where the houses are. Goodwin
stated that is correct. Houses are at the north end of the road. Access is at the
south end of the road.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if that is locked in as a condition. Goodwin stated it
is on the binding site plan. It could be changed if it came back as an amendment.
Middleton stated the Hearing Examiner has approved the binding site plan.
The site - specific rezone is what is before the Council. Anything that increases
impacts to neighbors or environmental issues would be turned back to Hearing
Examiner for amendment.
Nelson stated there was mention of light industrial land in the southwest
corner. He asked about the current occupancy of that land. He also asked if the
Ferndale Comprehensive Plan has goals and objectives regarding light industrial,
and the percentage of light industrial land that Ferndale has used.
Brenner stated she would like to know the number of acres in the urban
growth area and how many have been used. Goodwin stated she didn't think that
is in the record. They are in the process of doing an industrial land supply study of
the entire county now. The City concluded that there is a need for it when it
designated the area as an industrial area. That is in the record.
Nelson referenced the letter from the City of Ferndale Planning Director,
which stated the City didn't need the land at the time, and conditions must be met.
He asked if Ferndale no longer had problems with this once the Hearing Examiner
set those conditions. Middleton stated the letter from Ferndale in the record stated
that if the conditions are made part of the approval, the City will offer no formal
objections to the application made to the County. The Hearing Examiner included
those conditions as conditions of the binding site plan.
Goodwin stated there has been no formal communication or correspondence
from the City of Ferndale since that letter.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the criteria of the Atwood Road community
amiable conditions were met. Middleton stated the only portion that he is sure of is
in page eight of the Hearing Examiner decision, item (C)(vi). Item (vii) if the
decision is regarding the City of Ferndale question.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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.
Brenner asked for a summary of how the onsite sewage would be handled.
Middleton stated the onsite sewage application was given approval by the Health
and Human Services Department. It is part of the record. In the northeast corner,
they propose to put in a septic system, which has been approved by Health
Department.
Brenner asked if the high water table was taken into consideration.
Middleton stated he couldn't speak to that, but assumed so.
McShane asked the widths of the buffer on the east and north side of the
strip. Middleton stated those buffers are 50 feet. That is a code requirement. To
reduce that, the County would have to issue a variance.
McShane asked if there are currently no houses on the north and east sides
of the parcel. Middleton stated that is correct. The Hearing Examiner addressed
that in his findings.
Nelson stated it was mentioned that a number of trees would be planted
along the edge. He asked if they are not there now. Middleton stated the full
mitigation plan is in the Hearing Examiner findings. It describes the planting
schedule.
Nelson asked if it is typical for LII development that plantings go in as the
site is approved. Middleton stated it is typical. The development has to apply for a
specific phasing plan. It would have been part of the review.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is a buffer on the lower portion of the creek.
It looks like there are none designated.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Middleton stated he would have to look and see if it is required. He will look
it up in the record.
Roy disclosed that she had two telephone conversations with individuals in
support of the item. During the time of one conversation, she had not yet read the
packet or any information on the issue. She felt like she was totally neutral
because she had not yet read the Council packet. During the second conversation
with a proponent, she expressed some of her concerns about it, but was clear that
she had not made up her mind about how she would vote.
Grant asked if new information was proposed in the conversations.
Roy stated they were statements of general support. Neither of the
conversations caused her to be biased. She is able to remain unbiased in her
decision.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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
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 asked if any members of the audience wanted to rebut any of the
disclosure made by Councilmember Roy.
(Clerk's Note: No rebuttal was offered.)
Roy asked if the size and type of tree planting are specified. Middleton
stated the Hearing Examiner record describes a requirement for a detailed
landscape buffer plan. That was established through Whatcom County zoning
ordinance Title 20.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the proposed access is the best to avoid impacts
to the neighbors. Middleton directed that question to the traffic study and
conditions that are on the record. It addresses that issue.
Nelson asked if staff would always approve a spot- specific rezone. Grant
stated that is outside the scope of the record.
Nelson asked if the staff has the authority or ability to not approve a spot
specific rezone. Grant stated the staff could make a recommendation to the
Hearing Examiner.
Fleetwood stated that if there is going to be any substantive discussion and
debate between the committee members they need to go into executive session.
They need to decide whether to do that now or this evening. If they wait until this
evening, they will have time to discuss the other agenda item. He asked if there
are any councilmembers who would like to have debate regarding the substance of
the proposal right now.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to go into executive session for ten minutes to
discuss this item.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The committee went into executive session for ten minutes at
4 :05 p.m.)
Fleetwood stated this item is on the Council agenda, and he anticipates
taking action this evening.
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)
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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.
Fleetwood stated the committee would not make a recommendation today,
and would discuss final consideration in two weeks. There have been enough
changes to have a public hearing in two weeks. They would finish the discussion on
seasonal clearing and then take comments.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they need to finish addressing the concerns
expressed by Mr. and Mrs. Henifin.
Amy Pederson, Planner I, stated there is an official code interpretation that
worked out Mr. Henifin's situation. She would bring that interpretation to the
committee in two weeks.
Gary Reid, Gary Reid Homes, stated he is not representing the Building
Industry Association (BIA) at this time. Myron Wlaznik made slanderous comments
about him at the previous committee meeting. His integrity is all he has to sell.
Mr. Wlaznik said that the only five sites he checked all belonged to Gary Reid, and
that Gary Reid wasn't in compliance. Enforcement guys said the only thing that
wasn't right was that the amount of area that wasn't covered, but that is because
he was doing landscaping, which is an exception. The enforcement officer has
found no runoff. It is totally false to characterize him as not caring about the
watershed. The reason landscaping is an exception is because they are bringing in
the final product. Kids squashed the silt fences, but they still retained the runoff.
He took pictures of it. He went through the classes to be a certified stormwater
person. When gutters and rain drains, which is what he's done, are on the house,
they've done 90 percent of what is needed to protect the property. The water is
standing on the adjacent lot. On his lot, with two feet of impervious fill, he is
apparently not okay with it. There was never a complaint against him.
Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shore Road, provided information on his background.
He's very concerned about Lake Whatcom and other watersheds. He reviewed the
amended land- clearing ordinance, which took up a lot of his time. Not everyone
has enough time to properly understand this information. There is almost no public
process anymore. The February 25 draft does not include any of the Planning
Commission or staff recommendation. All that is included is the Council decisions.
It may come down to one person who holds the future of this, depending on the
votes. At the last Forestry Forum meeting, he was elected to speak on behalf of
the Forestry Forum regarding the land clearing regulations and tree retention
requirements. He received an email from Clare Fogelsong about the Forestry
Forum advising the Lake Whatcom Management Committee, not the Council. He
can't speak to the Council about the opinion of the Forestry Forum because it
doesn't follow protocol. The Lake Whatcom Management Committee would have to
ask the Forestry Forum to take a position and then advise the Management
Committee
McShane stated they would all like to hear what the Forestry Forum
recommends. He shouldn't worry about the protocol.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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
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.
Isaacson stated there is no possibility for him to provide clear cut
amendments. Yesterday was the first time he was able to receive the
amendments. County Staff is overworked. If he were to represent the Forestry
Forum, he would say that regulating forestry activity this way is not productive.
Any lands platted after 1960 would require a class IV logging permit, which
establishes the County as lead agency. If the County is lead agency, the property
owner would lose over 50 percent of the trees if the property is over one acre.
That impact on five acres of a typical Douglas Fir stand would have a net loss of
over $18,000. They need to make a provision that if this is the drinking water
source and it is to be protected, then figure out a mechanism to compensate the
few good stewards they've had in the watershed.
They have class I, II, III, and IV permits. Class III, Class IV, and Class IV
special permits are the ones they are talking about. If the County regulations are
difficult, a person may get a class III permit and not have to abide by critical areas
ordinance or other protections. That person could clear cut the property, retain no
trees, and operate near wetlands and critical areas. What the County is trying to
do would be avoided if someone knew they had too high of a tree retention value.
There is a way to circumvent that requirement. If it is circumvented, the creeks
and wetlands are ruined. Encourage people to get a conversion option harvest plan
(co -hop), or to get a class IV permit and the protection that goes along with it.
In King County, it is normal practice to get a class III permit, harvest the
land, not follow the critical areas requirements, get a six -year moratorium, and
then proceed with development after six years. That is what they are creating
here. That isn't what they want in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The class III
permit rules are not strong enough to protect water quality to the level that people
perceive they should be. However, they do have Lake Whatcom watershed
prescriptions throughout the state. They are not as strong as the County wants.
Scientists would argue that protections are already in place. He understands what
this Council and community want to do to go above and beyond the protections.
He is concerned about the unintended consequences.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that the June 18, 2002 memo from Mr. Isaacson
says that parcels larger than two acres or more can get a class III permit. She
asked if Mr. Isaacson is asking that the tree retention language not apply to
anything greater than two acres. Isaacson stated that is not correct. He proposes
a five -acre threshold. Nothing under five acres has much long -term viability for
forestry. Anything over five -acres would be exempt from tree retention.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what prompts a class IV permit. Isaacson stated it
goes by platting, not size. Anything platted after 1960 requires a class IV permit.
Clare Fogelsong told him that the City of Bellingham's position is to promote
forestry in the watershed instead of housing. This legislation promotes conversion
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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
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.
and scares the timber industry. It has unintended consequences that they don't
want. They are going to push people to getting a class III permit.
This version no longer reflects the staff's or Planning Commission's
regulations. They have not consulted with a forester on the tree retention
language. Under the Whatcom County Charter 1. 11, they must consider provisions
for compensation of legislation. They must assume that it is a potential taking.
They have not considered where the compensation will come from. There has been
no consideration of that.
This applies to Lake Samish and potentially Drayton Harbor in addition to
Lake Whatcom. Two or three people are going to control all the future of all this
timber. He recently spoke to his bank, which will not renew his credit line because
it is concerned about the tree retention regulations.
This regulation hasn't been looked at in terms of what it will do to housing
costs. He is more interested in the forestry aspects of this legislation. He is also
interested in conversion because the legal fees, problems, hassles, loss of timber
revenue, change in Canadian market, and influx of South American timber has
dropped his prices dramatically. His alternative is to convert his land, but he
doesn't want to do that. They have to look at the unintended consequences of this
legislation. Don't put it on the weight of the few good stewards who kept their
timber. He would like to provide alternate language, but he didn't have time to
develop them. He would also like time to be given authority to speak on behalf of
the Forestry Forum.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Isaacson continued to state that some or all of the County staff might
support his recommendation on the five acres. He understands that they want to
encourage people to have large tracts in the watershed. Those who have less than
one acre get to clear off 70 percent of the parcel. Those with over one acre have to
keep 50 percent. They are penalizing the larger tract owner. That is not
concurrent with stormwater or urban growth area regulations, which are both five
acres. They want to encourage people to consolidate lots. Many regulations should
be less difficult if lots are consolidated into larger parcels. Encourage that in the
watershed.
Brenner asked about going to the original recommendation of 30 percent
across the board instead of an exemption.
Fleetwood asked that any proposals to fix certain problems be submitted to
Amy Pederson for Council consideration.
Isaacson stated going to the 30 percent would be less of a problem. The
question is whether they lose a little or lose a lot. He just got this draft yesterday.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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.
No one can go through it that fast. He asked to table this for a while and get more
people involved so they can have more discussion.
Roger Almskaar, consultant, stated he agreed with almost everything Paul
Isaacson said, including pointing out the unintended consequences. The County
regulations don't recognized clearly enough the difference between commercial
logging and removal of vegetation for development purposes. He suggested as a
short -term solution that he, Mr. Isaacson, and others work with staff on a revision
on the issue of the rule about removing no more than 50 percent of the tree canopy
on lots greater than one acre. The tree retention part of the ordinance is better
today than a couple of weeks ago. It is a good compromise between specificity and
flexibility. The only exception was what Mr. Isaacson talked about. Regarding
seasonal clearing, it is a compromise. He was a member of the work group that
worked on it with staff. The numbers on the worksheet are a judgment call. There
is no scientific way to come up with those numbers. The reality is that they have to
make a judgment call once in a while. In reading through this, it is easy to get lost
in the numbering system. He suggested that all the stormwater and environmental
rules be pulled out of 20.80 and put in a new section of Title 20. He's worked with
codes for 30 years, and finds them confusing.
Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, North Cascades Audubon, stated he
gave the Council a memo a few days ago, and submitted additional information on
CD -ROM for the record (on file). He attended the Forestry Forum meeting that Mr.
Isaacson referred to. The Audubon representative on the Forestry Forum did not
vote, so it was not a unanimous opinion that Mr. Isaacson should speak on behalf
of the Forestry Forum.
In section 20.80.733 there are exemptions. One of the exemptions is that
proposed activity consists of non - conversion forest practices. He asked why that
does not take care of Mr. Isaacson's issue. Goodwin stated that anything platted
after 1960 is considered a conversion. There are some platted parcels out there
that are five or ten acres that would be treated as a conversion, even though they
are still doing commercial forestry. Staff just discovered this issue, and will know
in a couple of days how many there are. Most of the bigger pieces are not platted.
McShane asked that staff also look into the viability of development at the
plat level that those parcels are platted at. Goodwin stated staff would put the
information onto a GIS map that shows zoning. Many of those platted parcels, if
zoned rural or commercial forestry, wouldn't be developed. She guessed they are
talking about the rural areas. The Committee has a lack of information today to
move this forward for a hearing. Staff can meet with Mr. Isaacson or Mr. Almskaar
for additional input. She shares their concern about the forestry. Staff did not
intend for this to apply to commercial forestry lands. If it does, they need to come
up with better solutions.
Brenner asked the percentage of the Lake Whatcom watershed that is
impervious right now and that would be impervious with full build out. Goodwin
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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.
stated they have to look at the sub - basins. Toward Silver Beach and that end of
the lake, it is 40 percent impervious. In areas of commercial forestry, it is well
under ten percent impervious. Staff has done maps in the past that showed the
impervious surfaces by sub - basin.
Pratum stated the impervious surface of the entire watershed is probably
only a few percent. He was talking about the sub - basins.
Regarding tree retention, they need to find out what the problem really is.
They are not in favor of making a five -acre limit. That could be abused. He is in
favor of promoting forestry over housing. That is the purpose of the Forestry
Forum. He doesn't agree with a lot of the things that Mr. Isaacson said. He is in
favor of the current tree retention language. Councilmember McShane made some
good changes. If they are going to change it, they need to find out if there is a
problem.
Regarding seasonal clearing regulations, he is not in favor of the checklist
system. If it is a qualitative judgment, then call it what it is. He objects to putting
a number on it. If it goes through, allow point adjustments for staff review so
permits don't just sail through. Kurt Baumgarten doesn't have time to cover all the
permits that are out there. The number of permits given out each year needs to be
strictly limited. If the number of applications exceeds the number of permits, there
could be a lottery system.
Brenner asked if having more staff would be a solution. She found places in
the budget for that. Pratum stated the number of permits given out should be
commensurate with the amount of staff required to cover the permits. Another
way to give out more permits would be to charge substantial fees during the winter
months to pay for more staff. Now, it seems like they are giving out more permits
than what the staff can cover.
In section 20.97.187, the definition of impervious surface, gravel roads is
removed. That should be included. Most of the impervious surfaces will be in the
urban residential (UR) zone, which is where most of the building will occur. That is
based on the staff report. Even if the downzone is not adopted, most of the build
out will occur in the urban residential zones. Restricting the impervious surface
could do a lot of good. There is no reason why they can't restrict it more. If they
are going to let people build on those areas, they should be held to strict standards.
Brenner asked about retrofitting in the watershed. Pratum stated he would
not speak on that because he is not an expert. Preventative measures are easier to
do right now. There is some information in the CD -ROM about how well different
stormwater treatment systems work.
Gary Reid, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County President,
stated he would like this discussion held over. He submitted letters on the
impervious surface issue. They have disregarded the fact that they can improve
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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
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.
engineering in this area. Retrofitting can be done. Certain areas have no
stormwater systems, and that should be addressed. The best way to address the
water quality is to address the problems that exist today by retrofits. It is a high
priority of the homebuilders associations.
There is a major flow in how they look at impervious surfaces. There are two
aspects to it. One is the collection of pure water and one is the collection of water
that might run across the bare soil. They should address not having the bare soils.
His biggest concern and the biggest problem is determining a total square footage
allowed for square footage. One could end up with a long driveway and no house.
Just look at the house. Rainwater is considered pure. The rainwater coming off a
roof is pure. If they address how they deal with pure water, it is one step. When
they start limiting the area of a house, they end up with a house that doesn't meet
market needs, especially in the watershed where homeowners are more affluent.
The homeowners also tend to be of retirement age, and want a one -story house.
Square footage limitations have enormous impacts. Separate the house from the
other impervious surfaces, and then address how they deal with clear water.
Caskey- Schreiber stated water needs to be stored and run into the lake all
throughout the year, not just during rain events. That's what Mr. Reid's proposal
would do. Part of the problem with impervious surfaces is that runoff hits the lake
the same day as the rain event.
Reid stated they are not reaching their goal by restricting the size of the
roof. It has a very negative impact on the consumer, who they are supposed to be
protecting. There is a way to engineer subdivisions so the water goes under
ground and there is no impact. In one instance, code restricts impervious surfaces
to no more than 2,000 square feet. However, the subdivision covenants require a
house of at least 2,000 square feet. The lot can't be built on.
McShane stated he's heard of this example. He would be interested in
seeing those covenants. Reid stated every subdivision has to have covenants and
conditions.
In terms of dealing with water, this watershed is unique. It is not like other
basins in the state. This area is far more complex. The impact is much less than
what people are concerned about. Sit down in a committee and get into the detail.
Isaacson suggested that councilmembers review his plat at the top of
Hillsdale Road. There are nine lots. He was required to asphalt it because of the
grade and fire access. Gravel was working fine, but it exceeded the 12 percent
grade. He's seen the water come off the asphalt, but not the gravel. It is clear
that gravel has more retention value than asphalt, but there is no motivation to go
that way.
One person has an impervious gravel path going to the lake. Another person
has a deck that is not pervious. Every year, the person stains the deck. That stain
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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.
goes all the way to the beach. The concrete pathway never gets touched, but they
don't encourage it. That is ridiculous. They do not encourage solid surface docks,
but pervious docks, which are wood. Those wood docks get stained. The best
thing is a concrete dock. There are horrible misconceptions that they have to deal
with. He asked the committee to look through the rules more, and postpone it until
the Forestry Forum and Lake Whatcom Management Committee looks at them.
Goodwin stated it sounds like they have a lot more work to do, and they are
not making good progress. Each meeting, people come forward with issue from
different viewpoints. She suggested giving the public a certain amount of time to
write down their issues and viewpoints and get them to staff. Staff can evaluate
them and provide a recommendation. The committee still needs to make a
decision. Roger Almskaar suggested having a subcommittee. That is not going to
work. They have viewpoints that are too far apart. She can't take environmental
and BIA input and find a solution. There will not be a compromise because it is a
political decision. Staff can provide staff recommendations on the different
viewpoints. Otherwise, they will be here forever. It might take more than two
weeks.
McShane stated he has three amendments to make right now. They need to
get the committee's version done so everyone can look at it. In the future, they
can work with the individual sections, such as impervious surfaces. Start with a
restrictive regulation, with the idea of loosening the restriction of the potential can
be demonstrated. One thing they've heard from everyone is that time is needed to
review the complete package. They are not going to approve this in a couple of
weeks. They could get it out of committee during the next meeting, without taking
any more comments, and then have one meeting just for comments. If they want
to make any more changes, they can do it after those comments are made. Don't
put the staff in the position of struggling with the two opposing viewpoints. That's
the Council's job, not staff's job.
Brenner stated it would help her if staff made recommendations on the
different opinions.
Caskey- Schreiber stated staff has been participating every step of the way.
McShane stated that part of the problem is that the comments they are
receiving are not very specific. They heard comments today that clearly pointed
out difficulties and concerns, but were not specific on how to solve the problem. He
thinks that the public can provide specific solutions.
Goodwin stated that if the committee would like staff to take another look at
this, it won't have time between now and Friday, which is the packet deadline.
Staff can only look at specific comments from the public.
Fleetwood asked that people submit proposals that be an actual fix in the
form of a memorandum, which staff and the Council could review.
Planning and Development Committee, 3/11/2003, 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
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 the public needs to comment on a final draft.
Fleetwood stated the committee will consider final amendments just from the
committee in two weeks, to finish the draft.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 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, 3/11/2003, Page 15