HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources April 23 20021
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
Natural Resources Committee
April 23, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Sharon Roy
Also Present:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
Sam Crawford
Committee Discussion
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LAKE WHATCOM MORATORIUM
(AB2002 -182)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated this is a follow up
discussion from the previous work session. Chris Breuske would discuss the
development standards. They will have more work done on the land- clearing piece
by Kurt Baumgarten. Lastly, he would talk about what they've done to date and
discuss some of the policy questions for which they still need direction.
Chris Breuske, Engineer, submitted the standards for single - family homes
and duplexes in the districts including Lake Whatcom, Lake Samish, and Drayton
Harbor. There are two components. One is procedural and one is technical.
The procedural component will determine the requirements for any given
project. Step one is to determine if a project is part of a larger development with
stormwater facilities. If a project is already covered by long plat review or attached
to an existing stormwater pond, then standards do not apply. Only erosion and
sediment controls apply. If a project is not part of larger system, then the
applicant goes to step two. If the property is greater than two acres, it's a simple
procedure to go through. The owner has the option to go through an engineered
stormwater report as an alternative to this process. If a property is larger than two
acres, then the requirements that apply are the erosion and sediment control (ESC)
standards and the protective native growth requirements, which requires that 65
percent of a lot be left in native growth. A covenant attached to the deed of the
property would reflect that native growth protection.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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.
Section four requirements are to use dispersion for getting rid of roof runoff.
The applicant would also have to provide treatment for pollution generating
impervious surface (PGIS), such as driveways and some metal roofs.
For properties less than two acres, the applicant would go to step three.
They make the determination of whether the site soils are suitable for infiltration.
This will require a report from a septic designer or a civil engineer to see if
requirements for infiltration can be met. If so, then they require infiltration first for
the smaller lots, and the regulations apply. If not, the applicant goes to step four
to determine if site can accommodate a dispersion system.
McShane asked how that is determined. Brueske stated the applicant would
come into the Planning Office to show his or her site plan. It's an interactive
process between the County and the property owner. Step 4A is a modeling step
that looks at the amount of runoff that a development would produce. They are
using a threshold of .1 cubic feet per second (cfs) during a 100 -year storm. If the
development increases flow more than that, then they will require some sort of
detention. This will require the applicant to go into the Engineering Division to run
a model on the property. Staff also has a study by Jones Engineers that looked at
different development scenarios. For many cases, they will have the answer
without modeling. Step 4A references a dispersion credit. They are trying to
encourage people to use things other than detention pipes and detention ponds,
because they are difficult for property owners to maintain. Offer credit for things
such as vegetation and soil amendments. Get below the threshold without a pipe
or a pond.
Under step 4A, there are ESC requirements, a requirement to use a
dispersion system, and a requirement to provide treatment for the PGIS.
If answer to step four is no, they have to make a determination on whether
the peak flow rate increases by .1 cfs. If it does, the applicant must provide
detention. If not, the requirements default to the street drainage system.
The rest of the document is the technical requirements for each of the steps.
Roy asked how this is related to the moratorium. She asked if these
standards are considerably different than the current standards.
Bruce Mills, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated one requirement in the
moratorium was to address runoff from single - family residences. This is what they
will use to address that requirement.
Roy asked about the old standards. Mills stated there were none. Single -
family homes were exempt from stormwater requirements.
McShane stated this gets reviewed as a flow chart when someone comes in.
He asked if someone from the Public Works Department would look at it. Mills
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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.
stated they haven't decided yet. It may be possible. Most of this is on private lots.
Typically, the Public Works Department looks at things within County right -of -way.
The Engineering Division staff will provide, at a minimum, engineering assistance
and expertise. They have to work that out with the Planning Department. A
portion of these standards will require Engineering Division review. It will
encompass at least a fulltime position.
McShane asked if there will be thought about fees for this. Mills stated there
would be. This draft has been through the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
As road standards and drainage standards, they don't require Council approval,
only administrative approval. That's where they will go next.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is in step with the Planning Department. The
dispersion credit seems to coincide with low- impact development goals. One option
to avoid a stormwater system is if the developer goes with the route of maintaining
native vegetation. She asked if the standards can also talk about the need to
maintain native vegetation during construction. Brueske stated that is part of the
ESC permit. Staff will request that the developer mark out the native areas not to
be disturbed during construction. That is on the site plan the developer brings in.
It will be inspected. For the small sites, there is not a requirement on how much
that is. Staff asks that it be shown on the drawing. The standards don't require
protecting native vegetation on lots smaller than two acres
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated this is going in
the right direction. The goals are to keep it as simple as possible. The flow chart
process will stop 90 percent of the people so they are doing the right thing from the
beginning by leaving as much of the lot alone as possible. If developing more and
more of that lot, then the developer needs to get the engineering done. This
incorporates some of the low impact development rules.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Technician, stated that if they want to look at
sites smaller than two acres for vegetation retention, they could do that. It starts
to get complicated. They have to be very straightforward and clear.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what staff would recommend for a required area
that would make a difference on runoff. Baumgarten stated it is site - specific. It's
more about the quality of the vegetation and the ground beneath it.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there are benefits to maintaining native vegetation
during construction, and then allowing the developer to remove the vegetation
while putting in the landscaping. Baumgarten stated yes. Avoid removing
vegetation from the ditch line. It makes a huge difference. Make sure that
happens post- construction. Those regulations could be included in the clearing
section and required as part of a site plan. If they want to specify that the existing
vegetation should not be cleared in the situation where there is a ditch, they will
have to say that specifically in the code.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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.
Roy asked if the two departments are working together on this. Hart stated
they are. It's important to remember that the codes implement the Comprehensive
Plan. Engineering standards must implement Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies. The technical administrator of each chapter of the code is either an
engineer, the health officer, or the planning director. They have to do it in a
coordinated, integrated, and cooperative way. Each chapter has a different
technical administrator. There could be four or five switchbacks between
administrators in the development process.
McShane asked if there was discussion by the TAC on impacts to infiltration
and dispersion on sites where they might intercept groundwater. Brueske stated
they tried to address it in some cases. One example is a minimum depth
requirement for the seasonal high groundwater mark. They can't infiltrate areas
with high seasonal groundwater. He also has sketches showing examples. They
have tried to address it.
McShane stated he didn't see that in the flow chart. He asked what would
trigger that review. Brueske stated it's an interactive process with the person who
fills this position. It's hard to answer all questions for all cases. It will be worked
out on a case -by -case basis. It will be similar to what Kurt is doing in the
watershed now.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this position would have to be an engineer or a
planner. Mills stated they haven't figured that out yet. A portion of this job needs
to do some engineering review. One possibility is that the review and site planning
would be done at the Planning and Development Services Department, but the
Engineering Division would do the modeling and formal engineering.
Hart stated the issue for him is who can run the model and when. They will
always need an engineer to back up this position in some manner. They are still
working out the details.
Fleetwood asked if fees would be discussed. Mills stated they will have to be.
These standards will be enacted by the County Executive. Before that happens,
they need to iron out this staffing situation, and enact some type of fee. That will
have to occur soon.
Baumgarten stated he would discuss changes to Title 20. The language in
Title 20 must be consistent with the stormwater standards. The proposal now is
that thresholds for new construction or a remodel that increases the amount of
impervious surface by more than 500 square feet or exceeds 50 percent of the
assessed value.
Fleetwood asked the rationale for the criterion based on value of the home.
Brueske stated there was a case in which someone knocked down a large house
and replaced it with a house with a smaller footprint but was an overall larger
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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.
house. Staff included the criterion for assessed value to catch the major remodels.
The idea is to get some benefit for what occurred previously.
Roy asked if this would negatively affect someone who is not increasing
square footage, but who is doing major interior upgrades. Baumgarten stated it
could, through the assessed value threshold. There was some concern that the
assessed values are far less than what they actually represent. This would catch
someone who is doing a very large, interior remodel.
Roy stated they want to intervene on the impacts to the watershed. She
asked if an interior remodel would do that. Baumgarten stated there was language
in the standards that all interior remodels and roof replacements would be exempt.
That language is not in the standards right now, because they are trying to make it
compatible with Title 20. All of the language related to the watershed protection
overlay districts, the stormwater special districts, and the special management
areas related to clearing should be moved into a section of this part of the code so
they are consolidated. It would be easier for staff to work with, for Council to
review, and for developers to understand.
There has been interest in reviewing the thresholds for the rural, rural
residential, and urban residential zones in section 20.71.302. Staff proposed to
amend section 20.71.302(4) to reduce the threshold from 3,000 square feet to
2,000 square feet. Depending on the zone, a person would be guaranteed a certain
percentage. However, if the lot is so small that ten percent doesn't work, at least
3,000 square feet is guaranteed right now. The City ordinance guarantees 2,000
square feet. County staff thinks that is a good number, and it's good to match the
City.
Baumgarten stated the stormwater special district standards blend structural
and nonstructural BMP's. It fuses low impact development strategies.
Regarding the impervious surface requirements, this is a low- impact
development strategy to limit impervious areas and the amount that people can
convert to lawn, if they want to include that. The councilmembers might want to
talk with staff to consider changing the percentages. The one that is the most
straightforward is the 2,000 square foot threshold.
Roy asked if "lawn" includes sod on top of hard dirt. Baumgarten stated it
does.
Roy asked if it is very effective to pack down the soil at the building site and
then roll out the sod. Baumgarten stated one could use lawn as a bioswale
material. It has a soil amendment beneath it, so it is effective. In a subdivision
where someone strips off all native soils and throws down sod on the top, it's not
good for infiltration. They loose the storage capacity. That gets to the point of
retaining vegetation undisturbed.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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
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.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Roy stated they shouldn't make requirements that aren't going to have a
positive effect. Baumgarten stated they also have to consider whether the staff will
have the time to make sure that is what is happening. Often, staff will specify
something that has to happen in the field, but they can't be there when the
developers are clearing. Once clearing is done, mitigation is a whole other thing.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she liked the lower square foot impervious surface
for small lots. If someone wants more, the owner can acquire a larger lot.
Baumgarten stated it encourages building a house that goes up instead of out.
Baumgarten stated they revisited the alternative surfacing methods and tried
to make them consistent with the development standards. For instance, gravel is
listed as an alternative surfacing, but gravel becomes quite impervious when
compacted.
McShane asked if this is a section that staff reworked in the last few months.
Baumgarten stated it was, as a response to what staff heard from the Council as
they've been going along. It's pretty wide open. It's more user - friendly.
In the coming weeks, they will have a better sense of whether the
stormwater sections are working appropriately with the new standards and they will
try to straighten it out. In the past, things were added that were out of order.
That is in the works with the Engineering Division. In the new standards for
stormwater, they would remove the threshold section and reference the flow chart.
Section 20.80.734 is cumbersome to get through.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated that as 20.80.739 was
written, there wasn't much discussion or thought given to it. An area of 5,000
square feet or greater is automatically subject to it. There are other criteria that
would make someone qualify. It's very complicated. Someone would have to hire
an engineer to calculate the slope and measure the distance. It ought to just be
either 2,000 square feet or 5,000 square feet. Simplify it and tie it to the critical
areas ordinance, which specifies 15 percent slopes. Staff will work on that.
Baumgarten stated staff put together some language regarding the seasonal
limitation. It has the same thresholds as the City of Bellingham's. That language is
in section 20.80.739(2). Erosion control inspections shall be required prior to any
clearing activity, which has to do with retaining existing native vegetation on site.
That might be the appropriate place to add language about vegetation retention or
phased clearing.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to see that included. Retain native
vegetation wherever it would benefit.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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.
McShane stated this will expand the discussion regarding Drayton Harbor.
Goodwin stated that is on for discussion at the afternoon Planning Committee
meeting. Staff will make a recommendation on what to do with Drayton Harbor.
Nelson asked if the Planning Commission approved these standards.
Goodwin stated the Planning Commission recommended that Drayton Harbor be
subject to the stormwater standards when developed, but the Planning Commission
hasn't seen the standards. Staff will probably send the standards to the Planning
Commission for their information, now that they have been completed. They will
not review them again. As a Technical Advisory Committee recommendation, it
goes straight to the Executive. It's not an ordinance, so the Planning Commission
doesn't review them. The Planning Commission could revisit its recommendation
regarding Drayton Harbor.
McShane stated there might be some consideration of tweaking the
standards for Drayton Harbor slightly now that the standards are here, because of
the different property sizes in Drayton Harbor. The Planning Committee will have a
presentation on that this afternoon.
Nelson stated he preferred that anything they do be uniform. Any tweaking
should be to this, not to an area, because it becomes an administrative nightmare.
McShane stated there is also concern about administering in Drayton Harbor.
They may need to put it on hold to digest the new standards.
Goodwin stated there was discussion with staff about putting in some
exemptions in section 20.80.739(2) regarding seasonal limitations on land clearing
if someone needs to do construction during winter and who would be required to
meet higher standards. The current draft doesn't allow specific criteria for
exemptions. Staff can work on that further.
Nelson stated there is no language to allow emergency construction for
failing utilities or other similar scenarios. Baumgarten stated that they don't intend
to halt that kind of activity.
Nelson stated it's better to state the intent in the language.
Baumgarten stated the last change they need to make things consistent is to
the definition of "impervious surface." This matches with the definition that the
Engineering Division has in the development standards.
Nelson asked who made the comment that gravel is impervious once its
compacted. Baumgarten stated that is a standard definition. Gravel doesn't
usually come up as an alternative surface in any regulation. They need to clarify
whether or not it should be counted as an impervious surface when calculating
impervious surface areas. It would encourage people to use pavers that allow
infiltration.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated gravel is essentially impervious. Gravel is 90 percent as
impervious as concrete. One could make an argument that it is worse than paved
roads, because of the sediment runoff. Gravel driveways are not good for water
quality.
Nelson asked what requirements the County will have to adhere to if it
expands County roads in the watershed.
McShane stated the County will eventually adhere to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit, phase III. The City of Bellingham
was required to retrofit an entire road when widening that road. They will have to
talk about that issue.
Roll stated the phase II requirements NPDES permit is required for the City
of Bellingham and its urban growth areas. In that, it specifies conditions that need
to be met. Applications are scheduled to go forward at the end of the year, and
need to be at the Department of Ecology by March of next year. That is when the
applications for phase II communities are due. They will have to have a strategy
on things, such as whether they are going to adopt the Ecology manual or an
alternative. Also, they need to deal with funding. Now, the recommendation is to
consider phase II in the context of the entire watershed. They haven't gone that
far. There is a condition in the phase II requirements that allows Ecology to specify
waters of critical importance under the phase II requirements. They may deem
such things as a 303(d) listing as part of that requirement.
McShane stated they are talking about zoning, which is not necessarily
applicable to roads.
Nelson asked if they are going to have standards for other impervious
surfaces, separate from zoning, that will apply to capital facilities. Make sure the
standards of the County are consistent with the public's standards.
Baumgarten stated that the councilmembers can contact staff with any
questions on these proposed changes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Council would adopt the Title 20 changes.
Goodwin stated it would. The Council can adopt the changes as an interim
regulation and refer to them to the Planning Commission if they want to get it done
by the moratorium. Otherwise, it will go through the normal process. They don't
have much time on the Planning Commission schedule for the next couple of
months. The Planning Commission can adopt them by July or August. The Council
should adopt them before October, since it includes a seasonal restriction.
McShane asked if it is the Council's preference to pursue the changes as an
interim, or to put them in the regular docket. He preferred to do an interim
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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
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.
ordinance. It can be refined and approved later, through the Planning Commission
process.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supported it. She's extremely uncomfortable
lifting the moratorium without regulations.
Nelson suggested lifting the moratorium and enacting this as an emergency
or interim ordinance to get buyoff from the development industry. He concurs with
the chair.
Crawford asked if they put forward an interim that is the draft proposal.
McShane stated the Council could make changes to this draft in the interim
process.
Crawford stated they need to have due public process and a hearing.
Goodwin spoke on the next item, downzoning options. She submitted a map
to the Council (on file). She doesn't have any recommendations on which areas
should be downzoned right now.
Nelson stated he has strong reservations against a downzone. They've gone
through comprehensive planning. These issues with Lake Whatcom are not new.
They are issues that were around when they dealt with the Comprehensive Plan.
They are issues that have been reflected with other jurisdictions. They have to be
very cautious. They need to do more work in these areas to help protect areas,
such as the stormwater management work, planning for recreational uses, and
making sure they have good, quality information before they do changes that will
result in more problems.
Hart stated he recommends working with the City of Bellingham. He has a
commitment from the Mayor for cooperation. The County needs to look at the map
of what lands the City is buying in the watershed. If the City is buying the rural
forestry lands, the County needs to ask the difference that will have to the County
on long -term management and fiscal impacts. There are a lot of questions and
cooperative discussion they need to have. That could result in a downzone of rural
forestry to long -term commercial forestry on a sustainable basis in the watershed.
He can envision making those kinds of recommendations.
Nelson stated he would be encouraged if these discussions go forward
regarding the transfer of development rights. Hart stated the road block is that the
City is busy working with neighborhood issues. Transferring densities into the city
neighborhoods is difficult. He proposes that they have a meeting with City on
transfers of development rights.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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.
Roy stated it isn't just Bellingham and the County. They need to have
another regional discussion. There are other areas that could be affected. It's key
to make it desirable for the person to transfer out of the watershed.
Fleetwood recommended that staff consider areas for potential downzoning,
and present them to the Council for review.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed. She would like to see a recommendation on areas
that might be good to look at. The King County program requires, when an upzone
is granted, that a developer acquire development rights from another area.
Goodwin stated staff is working on a similar plan for agricultural lands. They are
also talking about that for areas where the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA) is
expanded.
Hart stated that for Bellingham, the easiest place might just be in their urban
growth area, rather than sending it to a neighborhood or downtown. He would like
to see it going to the downtown.
Roy stated they need to be creative and not think in terms of what is already
there. Don't predetermine where the transfers of development rights (TDR) should
go. It's a regional issue.
Nelson stated TDR and downzoning are not equivalent.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
McShane stated the tricky thing about transferring development rights is that
if they want to transfer downtown because that's where they want to see a higher
density, then why would they force a developer to buy TDR and penalize them.
They have to find places that are okay to have a high density, but they are not real
excited about. That's difficult to do.
Roy stated they have to give the developer something that he or she can't
get any other way. The developer has to have a reason for purchasing that
development right. One reason is to allow density higher than originally zone.
Nelson stated that is possible downtown. Increase the zoning downtown
from whatever the current capacity is. Increase the capacity.
Roy stated they need to restrict the way the developer can get that privilege
to only getting it through a TDR. Downzoning is something that they want to
evaluate immediately, in terms of the moratorium. TDR programs are long- range.
They are complicated and need a lot of work. There needs to be a community
effort to agree to TDR's.
Nelson stated that a downzone is the quick and easiest way for any
government agency to take action on peoples' lives, finances, welfare, future, and
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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.
assets. That is one way the Council can take that action. They will never know the
impact of that action because it won't be based on any previous or future
knowledge. It is an arbitrary and capricious action. It is an action that has been
measured carefully by previous councils, and rejected. Take this seriously, and not
just something they want to arbitrarily and capriciously put on someone's lives.
Crawford stated he hasn't understood why TDR's hasn't been a natural thing
in the Birchwood area. Goodwin stated the City has a lot of citizen involvement in
neighborhood groups that don't want higher density. The other issue that the City
is looking at is the capacity for services. Whatcom County has a similar area, the
Yew Street Area. There are half -acre lots in that area. The County did a small
rezone to urban residential, four units per acre (UR -4), and didn't require the
person to purchase development rights. The County will need to look at that. The
issue in that area is that sewer will not be there for a couple of years. It's not an
immediate area that can be developed at a higher density. It won't help to increase
the zoning until the sewer is in.
Roll stated they have a target date of June 12 to consider this issue formally.
The underlined items on page three of the Council packet are items they can get
done during the moratorium time interval. Policy questions still have to be
addressed. The next discussion will be about the land preservation options, in light
of the high number of purchases coming forward. They will also discuss additional
areas for education. Another issue is effectiveness of street sweeping as a best
management practice (BMP) in the watershed.
Nelson stated the Public Works Department was recently scraping grass from
the edge of the road, leaving exposed dirt, which creates runoff. It's an example of
the double standard that exists.
Roll stated models show a high percentage of pollutants coming from the
roadways.
Nelson asked where the material that is swept up from the street is disposed.
Roll stated he believed it is going to the City's site. It's not dumped in the
watershed. It's being used as a by- product in making concrete.
Nelson stated the grass along the side of the road grows to the edge of the
road. They are using scrapers to scrape it off, creating a lot of grass and dirt
material, which would contain road runoff. That material is put into dump trucks.
He asked where that material goes. Roll stated he doesn't know. Street sweeping
is costly.
Fleetwood stated the object is to implement some of these items for the
purpose of lifting the moratorium, which is to be done when they think they've
created some level of protection for the lake. He asked if they are going to protect
the lake, reverse the trend toward degradation, and get to appoint where the lake
is stable. Roll stated subtle changes over time are not seen by a single generation.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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.
Look at 20 to 30 years as this becomes a regional supply and feel comfortable that
they are putting guidance into the community that will protect in 20 to 30 years.
They need a lot of the information to see how things change over time, and they
don't have that data. The approach to efficiently and effectively put BMP's in place
is a good way to approach it. There is not a silver bullet to prevent pollution in the
lake. This is an issue all over the U.S. The original action strategy included a
multi -year approach. He needs the available science to show that they are fixing
things.
They are making remarkable progress. They are working collaboratively with
DOE and the City of Bellingham. They are putting in monitoring, stream gauging,
and loading information. That has never occurred here before. It's a joint effort.
They need a few years of that kind of information. With science, they don't have
clear cut, black and white results. Sometimes things are based on an educated
guess. That is where they have to go with the current simplistic model, as well as
the ones they are developing through WRIA. As they go through, they talk about
the limitations and assumptions they can make. They have to be careful when
making decisions that they are based on some assumptions they feel comfortable
with.
Roy asked if it is safe to assume that lakes that don't have development
don't have these kinds of problems. Roll stated there are limited access lakes in
Colorado. That is not an option here. They have to ask how comfortable they are
with the continuum of current development and forestry and where they want to
see this place in five or ten years. He hopes to have more guidance as to
percentages and amounts in four or five years.
Nelson stated Lake Whatcom has improved a lot. This takes time. They are
trying to solve a problem, not create more problems. They have to focus on how to
fix the problem. He is concerned about all the areas they need to retrofit. They
had talked about coming up with a plan to provide funding for retrofitting. Roll
stated estimates for regional retrofit opportunities will not be available for some
time. They are going to need to look carefully at areas such as Geneva regarding
the trade off between structural and nonstructural BMP's that they feel comfortable
with funding.
Nelson asked what the funding options are.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that as they begin to understand
more accurately the level of significance for the various pollutant sources, it
narrows their focus to what they can do at a reasonable price. Lots of retrofit can
happen. Not a lot of retrofits will make a difference. Create a local financing
district of some type. An alternative is a general tax source. They will look for
retrofit opportunities that solve a problem at a reasonable price.
2. UPDATE ON WRIA 1 SALMON RECOVERY FUNDING BOARD RESULTS
(AB2002 -085A)
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, Page 12
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1
2 Roll stated Mr. Thompson deserves recognition for the results of his hard
3 work.
4
5 John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated they
6 have been successful locally because of the outstanding team working locally. They
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
started working on this package a year ago. The result is that they received second
in funding in the state. There are 26 lead entity areas. Whatcom County will
receive $3.5 million for nine projects. Whatcom County received $1.5 million the
first round and $2 million the second round. The reason for their success is because
of a strong community that participates. Another reason for success is that they've
worked out a project strategy. The Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board is looking
for whether or not projects are being done strategically.
There are county links to the projects. The first nine projects on the list were
funded. Project three is the City of Bellingham's Middle Fork Nooksack Fish Ladder
design. This project will produce the final design to build a fish ladder on the middle
fork. Historically, it was accessible to salmon and steelhead. The installation of the
ladder will affect the operation of the diversion, which will affect management of
Lake Whatcom as a water supply.
Project six is the Whatcom Land Trust North Fork Chinook Canyon Creek
Restoration. This is one that Paula Cooper brought forward to the Council last fall.
This grant will allow them to acquire lots in Glacier Springs and The Logs Resort
from willing landowners. This won't buy the structures, but it will buy the underlying
land. Ms. Cooper is working on funding to deal with the houses. This project will
restore habitat processes necessary for salmon. It also deals with human life and
safety issues. It's a voluntary program.
Project nine is the Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 1 Drainage
Structure Inventory and Passage Assessment. This project is from the County's
Public Works Department. The objective is to get an inventory of all culverts and
drainage structures in the county that potentially block fish. Interns have been
working on this for a couple of years. There are many other culverts besides county
roads, including State, private, and forest roads. This project will allow the County
to cover more ground on this project. They will coordinate with existing studies, and
they will consolidate it into a common framework. They will go back to priority
areas and fill in the holes. Get all the culverts they can identify into the inventory.
That will allow them to do a prioritization of the culverts that really need to be fixed.
They are going to divide the inventory area into sub - basins and work their way
through the system.
Crawford asked where SRF board gets it's funding. Thompson stated the
funding comes from State and federal monies.
Roy asked about the impact area. She is curious about the smaller basins of
Dakota, Terrell, and California creeks. She asked if they are included. Thompson
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, 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
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 salmon recovery funding includes all of WRIA 1. For the culvert inventory,
they will look at everything in WRIA 1. They are also going to drop into WRIA 3 a
bit, because it's in Whatcom County and under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
They want to have a complete package. WRIA 3 includes Lake Samish and the
upper Samish River.
Roy asked how long it would take to do the project. Thompson stated the
drainage structure inventory would take 18 months to two years.
Caskey- Schreiber congratulated Mr. Thompson on his hard work.
Fleetwood asked about the Land Trust project to buy out property at Canyon
Creek. He asked if that involves willing sellers. Thompson stated it does. The
largest parcel is The Logs Resort.
Fleetwood asked if the fish are going up the river past the diversion.
Thompson stated that they do get up there. They don't see too many pinks or
chums. Definitely steelhead, Chinook, bull trout, and probably Coho get past the
diversion. A consideration in the ladder design is which species to design for.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 4/23/2002, Page 14