Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources June 11 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 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Whatcom County Council Special Water Resources Work Session June 11, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Member Dan McShane in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood L. Ward Nelson Sharon Roy WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2002 -065) 1. RIVER AND FLOOD FCZDAC Prioritization of Flood Control Repair and Maintenance Projects Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, stated the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee ( FCZDAC) visits sites and prioritizes applications for the repair and maintenance program. There are nine new projects this year. The information includes carryover projects from last year and flood hazard repair projects that have come out of the planning process. McShane asked if there is a buyout at Glacier Rim. Cooper stated that project is a single - family residence on a high bank. It falls in the draft Glacier Gallup alluvial fan analysis, which is moving forward. It is in a channel erosion zone. The recommendation is for a buyout. This project would benefit one single homeowner, and is not in the long -term direction they want to move. It would be virtually impossible to permit. Beaver Creek Bank Stabilization Project Brenner asked if the Beaver Creek project would benefit one person. Cooper stated the application was initially prioritized because it would protect the Water District 10 sewer pipeline as well. The Advisory Committee met, and Interfluve came up with two options to protect the pipe and two options to stop the erosion on the bank. The advisory committee struggled with this decision. If they don't protect the pipeline, then it is basically a project to benefit a single homeowner. Their recommendation is contingent on the Water District's participation. Interfluve would like to do a project that stabilizes a bank, and have the Water District do a Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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. project that addresses the problem with the pipeline. If they can protect a section of the pipeline and keep the channel from migrating downstream. Brenner stated they can't guarantee that they can prevent channel migration. She asked how confident they are that this will work. Cooper showed on a map how the channel has been migrating. The project to protect the bank is to build a crib wall that will go around the entire meander line to keep the channel from migrating. A sewer relocation was an option, but it is much more expensive. The Water District's preferred option is to slip -line the existing pipeline. A slip -line is a new pipe inside the old pipe. There are two properties and one single family residence that are at risk. A crib wall is a timber structure that is a fish - friendly design. They can incorporate vegetation into it. The Department of Fish and Wildlife supports it. Brenner stated she's been watching floods that happen in other areas. At one point, they were told that the County has a liability, which is why it pays the cost of repairs. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated Whatcom County has historically been more aggressive in promoting flood hazard matters, more than anyone in the state. As a matter of historical choice, Whatcom County is doing many of the things it is doing today. Few counties set aside a lot of money for these kinds of activities. They are grant- driven. The County may have interests from land use and emergency response perspectives. Brenner asked the County's interest from a land use perspective. Monsen stated the program is designed to require some level of public interest. In this project, the location of the utility is the public interest. It is still a discretionary choice to have this program at all. Fleetwood asked if the County has a duty to protect the Water District's line. Monsen stated it does not. The County has some exposure in situations where it has chosen to build or maintain a structure, and then it walks away from the structure. In this case, the County hasn't made a choice to act yet. Brenner asked if the County would be liable in the future if it chooses to act on this project. Monsen stated that in the past, Whatcom County has executed agreements or easements that imply a long -term responsibly. For those, the County has some liability. The County is not trying to create those relationships anymore. These are meant to be one -time relationships. The County has an ongoing interest to see that the project succeeds, but not a legal obligation. Brenner asked the cost. Cooper stated the cost of the crib wall is about $80,000. The County has done two other projects on this system that were much easier. They were able to put in large woody debris in front of the pipeline and behind it. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 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 what the Water District's response would be if the County made this a low priority. Cooper stated they have to decide whether or not to do this. The advisory committee's recommendation is to go forward with permitting now. If they don't, they won't build it this year. Fleetwood asked if the Water District would be motivated to act on its own, if the County doesn't do anything, because their pipe is threatened. Cooper stated probably not, because they have so many problems right now. The Water District is meeting tomorrow to discuss this project. Caskey- Schreiber asked how much the County is asking the Water District to contribute. Cooper stated the cost for the pipe repair would be about $80,000, in addition to the County's $80,000 for the crib wall. The County will try to keep the creek where it is, and let the Water District take care of the pipeline. McShane asked if the concern is that the erosion along the bank is happening where the pipe is laid, and more of the pipe will be exposed. Cooper stated the creek has migrated and will expose more and more pipeline. Roy asked if the pipe's location is contributing to the erosion. Cooper stated it is not. It is a natural process of a stream to meander. Roy asked if the County would have to put up another crib wall in ten years. Cooper stated the creek might meander less if they stabilize the system. They have not allowed the stream to do it's natural process, so they have to decide whether to clear everyone out, let them fall into the creek, or stabilize the system. Brenner asked if the three properties are contributing to the costs. Cooper stated the property owner with the house is willing to contribute 15 percent. The other property owner doesn't have a structure. Fleetwood asked the County's public interest. Cooper stated the public interest is to keep the house from falling into the creek. The other thing is to stabilize the system to keep from meandering downstream and exposing the pipeline more. The combination of the pipeline slip -line and the crib wall around the bend would be a long -term solution. The Water District's pipeline is a public utility. McShane stated everyone pays into the flood fee. It's not a straightforward situation. Brenner stated they also ask for a cost split, too. There's owner participation. Cooper stated everyone is participating except the owner of the one property that doesn't have a structure on it. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 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. Fleetwood asked if the County is acting as an insurance company. They pay the premium to the County, and the County fixes the problem. Copper stated it is not. Nothing is guaranteed. Caskey - Schreiber asked if there is any guarantee that Water District 10 will fix their part. Cooper stated there is not. The Water District wants the County to do this bank protection project. It looks favorable that they will work on the pipeline portion, but they may not do it this summer. Brenner asked Ms. Cooper's recommendation. Cooper stated Interfluve has $10,000 remaining on their contract that was allocated to this project and more money on another project. Staff told Interfluve to start with the permits for this with that $10,000. In order to get the contract amended to include the additional design money to get this permitted this year, staff will need an amendment to the contract. She asked if the Council is comfortable in proceeding at this point. This is a tough one. They came up with a good solution in getting some public benefit. It is the best thing to do out there at this point. Monsen stated the primary motivation for why they begin to work on a site is because there is a willing party who brings it to County's attention and volunteers to contribute. That doesn't make it the highest priority in the County. The County's first step in considering a project is whether there is a sponsor. The County will prioritizes the sponsored projects. Brenner asked if the County also prioritizes those projects that are needed and don't have sponsors. Cooper stated those typically come out of the flood recovery levy. This project is a high priority. It was prioritized highly last year. It took them awhile to develop the project because it is complicated. Other projects come about that are initiated by the County, because there is a bigger public safety threat. Monsen stated that if they are going to decide to move ahead, they need to do some more engineering. If they are going to get the project done this year, they need to make the decision to move ahead with the engineering right away. Staff will bring back a contract amendment for the consultant to the Council formally. Staff is asking if the Council supports the project in general terms, and will approve a consultant agreement amendment up to $15,000. If they move ahead and find that they need extra money, the Council would then approve it after the fact. Crawford moved to move forward with the project. Brenner asked if the $15,000 is in addition to the $80,000. Cooper stated the $80,000 is a conceptual level cost estimate. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 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 would be any other costs that come up. Cooper stated there would not. The $80,000 is a conservative estimate. They will refine the $80,000 estimate by doing this $15,000 engineering process. Brenner asked if the County would move forward if the Water District doesn't participate. Cooper stated it will not move forward, and it will come back to the Council. Motion carried 5 -1 with Fleetwood opposed. 2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT Roll stated they began scheduling these work session because he needed Council direction for the Planning Unit meetings. Now, there will be a rapid succession of questions for the Planning Unit and technical teams. There are many places where Planning Unit members are expected to give input to move forward. The Council should consider how it wants to modify the process so they don't get bogged down on working through these issues. Watershed Plan Development Schedule Roll stated this is a brief synopsis of stuff coming forward in the next few months. They are going to have to consider how they move forward to stay on track and not get bogged down. Plan Implementation Strategy Meetings The WRIA Watershed Management Plan is funded through the Water Resource fund. They have not decided how implementation of the plan will be funded. There are groups meeting with Parametrix to brainstorm on what implementation means. Brenner asked what the sentence means, "...any thoughts Council members may have on institutional arrangements associated with potential Plan implementation strategies are welcomed by Water Resources staff." Roll stated there is no institution to implement the plan. It gets to the issue of whether there is a need for an institution to carry out implementation. There are a variety ways that different areas in the country are carrying out implementation. Brenner asked if the diagram showing who does what includes some agency that could receive implementation. Roll stated they have to work that out. At this point, that diagram only represents how they've agreed to do business while they are developing the Watershed Management Plan. There will be people who are vested in implementing pieces. As they develop the more clearly defined management areas, they will see who needs to manage certain areas. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 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 Skagit County's plan for implementation. Roll stated it is different. He can make sure the Council also has the matrix of the different implementation strategies out there. He will provide that information to the Council. There will be discussions pushing these things forward. The Council needs to decide where to engage in this process. Roy asked about the timelines. She asked if there is a legal timeline. Roll stated the State Department of Ecology (DOE) has a four -year window for the planning process to be completed. That is the June 2003 date. However, it only relates to grant money. The participants in the WRIA 1 process expect to find closure to the first iteration of the plan by June 2003. Roy stated she heard about adaptive management at the symposium. Adaptive management is meant to respond to feedback of participants. If the schedule makes the decision - makers feel pressured, they can change the schedule. Roll stated that is correct. They have made changes a number of times. Not one singular person understands all of the issues. It is very complex. Roy asked if Dr. Roll is open to slowing down if needed. Roll stated he is. There are caucus members that are having trouble internalizing and being able to provide feedback. A concern is making sure that each piece is fully internalized. Sue Blake stated they need to be careful about the concept of slowing down. They do have contracts that put them at the June 2003 deadline. As an alternative to extending the deadline, they've talked about not ending up with as much in the first iteration in the plan as they'd hoped for. Instream Flow Symposium Follow -Up Roll stated he wanted feedback from councilmembers about the symposium. Fleetwood stated he is looking forward to the report. Brenner stated some of the panels she sat through were a bit dry. At the Nature Conservancy discussion, they talked about everyone working together. At the end of it, a tribal representative said that the law says the tribes get the water, and everyone else has to live with it. She felt defeated after hearing that. She wants someone to say that this will get them all to a better place. Monsen stated there is no guarantee that they are going to get to a better place. However, the chances that they are going to get to a better place are very good because of the relationships and the process. Everyone understands that at some point, there will be legal action. The assumption is that if they do the process well, it will be a friendly action that will take little time. Friendly action means that they come to an agreement and suggest that agreement to the judge. Roy stated she liked what the tribal representative had to say. It's all about fish, and there is not enough water upstream for the fish. She came away with Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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. several things. Several biologists said they don't know how much instream flow they need for healthy fish. That is the bottom line. She asked if the County has decided if it is going for an optimal, nominal net loss, no loss, or targeted loss to fish. They have not talked about that. There are other ways to do instream flow that are cheaper. The County has chosen the Cadillac option for its instream flow process. She understands that Skagit County worked on an agreement with the tribes during their process, not at the end. She asked if the County has thought about that. Crawford stated that depends on the tribe. The tribes have been invited to every step of the process. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Roy stated that the tribes were well represented at the symposium. She is not talking about this process, but a parallel process. She is talking about coming to an agreement outside of the WRIA process. Roll stated a summary would be created of those proceedings. There is a video of the entire symposium. There will be one available for Council review. One issue brought up about how they deal with the other beneficial out -of- stream users, in the context of maximizing optimum flows. To date, staff has been maximizing as many beneficial in- stream and out -of- stream users as much possible. They are trying to narrow the range, and keep everyone in the room talking. There also needs to be a range based on seasonal changes and fluctuations. Fleetwood asked if the caucuses have discussed the conflicts that are likely to arise. Roll stated a lot of people won't know how it will impact them until they look at and digest the information. They have people who have out -of- stream uses and needs. There are areas in the WRIA that potentially impact instream flow and result in out -of- stream uses. Roy stated she got the idea that the County can go through this entire process, and DOE can veto it. A DOE representative assured her that they are part of the process, and that won't happen. McShane stated there are people who interpret the rules very differently from one another. The challenge is how the Council will decide who to trust. John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, stated there are some laws, such as the laws of nature, that are not negotiable. They have to define where there is give and take. If some people think they are going to defeat baseline laws, they are mistaken, but there is a certain amount of give and take. John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, stated the report isn't to identify specific numbers. The purpose of the report is to select the Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 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. methodology. It will be important to identify where they have flexibility. The challenge is to set up a process with the greatest flexibility and to identify how they are going to make decisions and the tradeoffs. Another challenge for the County is deciding on what they have to take a position. Planning Unit Debate Regarding the detailed management areas (DMA's), Parametrix has budget capacity to look at three areas in detail: Lynden North, Ten Mile, South Fork, and possibly Drayton Harbor as a fourth area. Also a possible fifth area is Lake Whatcom. Sue Blake will discuss the alternative parallel process for Lake Whatcom. There is good consensus among the project team members that Ten Mile, Lynden North, and South Fork should be the three areas. The outstanding issue is what to do with Drayton Harbor. There are a couple of options for Drayton Harbor. They can add Drayton Harbor as a fourth area. That will result in an approximate $100,000 cost increase to the Parametrix contract. Another option is to remove or replace one of the others with Drayton Harbor, or not do Drayton Harbor. Brenner asked if Drayton Harbor and Ten Mile are similar enough to do one, and apply it to another. Roll stated there is the potential for that. Blake stated the hope originally was that Ten Mile and Lynden North are similar enough to have money left over to do Drayton Harbor. However, they've just learned that that isn't the case. John Sproul, Program Specialist - Watershed, stated the context of the similarity was regarding land use issues. Roy asked what it means for the end result to Drayton Harbor. Roll stated ultimately they want the WRIA to have a level of detail similar to what they are creating for the DMA's. They can do implementation a little more quickly in these areas. Roy asked if Geoff Menzies has incorporated the stormwater management issues into this process. She feels that stormwater management is outside of the WRIA process. There is ongoing evaluation of Drayton Harbor water quality. Roll stated it applies to a number of areas. Lake Whatcom is an example of where stormwater management applies to the WRIA process. Roy asked if it is true that the Drayton Harbor stormwater issues won't be addressed if Drayton Harbor is not included in this DMA process, as Mr. Menzies implies. McShane stated the County committed to move forward with Drayton Harbor. They pushed and got staffing for the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District. It Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 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. is part of the stormwater overlay. The advantage to bringing it into a DMA is that things may move along a little faster. Crawford asked for a summary of the Planning Unit discussion on this issue. Roll stated this is coming up. It hasn't happened yet. He's looking for direction on this issue from the County Council. Crawford stated that in the past he's deferred to the collective wisdom of the Planning Unit. The Planning Unit is very diverse. If they can reach a consensus on something, he deferred to their wisdom. Roll stated that Ten Mile should be included. Everyone is on board with it. Crawford stated he wants all four included. If it is a financial question, he is frustrated that they can't do four. If they have to do three, he would go with Ten Mile. Brenner stated the councilmembers are saying they want to explore doing all four. Both areas are equally important. Roy asked if Drayton Harbor is bigger than Ten Mile. Thompson stated they are similar in area geographically. Roll stated the contracts for Utah State University (USU) and Parametrix will require a supplemental budget request before the end of the year to deal with this kind of issue. The scope of work is larger than they originally anticipated. If the Council so desires, they can add the cost of Drayton Harbor to the supplemental budget request. Watts stated the reason that the three areas were picked was because they are typical of any other areas in the County. They can be used as a template. Also, Drayton Harbor and Lake Whatcom both suffer from the fact that they are unique. Drayton Harbor doesn't have a program like the Lake Whatcom Management Program going for it right now. Drayton Harbor has an enormous amount of volunteer effort. Brenner asked if the Council could give Dr. Roll an indication that it would like to do the four areas, but first it would like to see how much it will cost. Roll stated Parametrix has not provided enough detail yet, but they can seek that information. Crawford asked what Mr. Monsen thinks about the money situation. Monsen stated they knew that, to finish the WRIA project on this timeline, they needed to divert extra money from the flood fund balance to complete the project. What they are talking about is how much they are going to divert. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 asked if it would help if the timeline were stretched out for one or two of these. Monsen stated they can choose to make a project longer, but there is risk regarding grant funding. However, the grant funding is a small amount compared to the rest of the project. Stretching a project out doesn't make it go longer at the same price. Stretching it out will make the total cost go up. Staff is here to make sure that is understood, but the staff will follow the Council's direction. There are plenty of ways to make the cash flow situation work, but there is a cost to it. Brenner stated she wanted to find out what the cost is to add Drayton Harbor as a fourth DMA. She would be comfortable if the County doesn't convey its opinion to the Planning Unit. Roll stated the Planning Unit members will ask him specifically if there is money to do it. He needs a strong position to communicate to them. Crawford suggested that they limit the DMA's to the three that they know they can pay for. He's sympathetic to Mr. Menzies, but they need to be fiscally prudent. The County Council will let the Planning Unit debate which three will be included. The Council concurred with Nelson absent. Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County will have to hire Parametrix back to do the Drayton Harbor work, or if they can do it locally. Roll stated the goal is to have local control. Ultimately, it will take a combination of local staff and consulting. Caskey- Schreiber asked if it would be less expensive to do Ten Mile later down the road. Roll stated there isn't enough information to answer that. Parametrix needs an answer so they can begin. The issue for them is because of a change of scope. A delay means that the product won't be done at a certain time. Brenner asked if they would set up a local improvement district (LID) in Lake Whatcom and Drayton Harbor to fund stormwater management. Roll stated that is an option to consider. It is a question of where they are going to put their time. There are limited resources. Brenner stated the district would be set up to pay for the things needed for stormwater management. Monsen stated that consumption of resources is about going through the exercise to determine what the LID will do, the fee structure, and putting the LID in place. Once in place, it will be self- sufficient. The resource is needed to put the LID into place. Fleetwood asked if Parametrix has the capacity to do a fourth DMA. Roll stated it does. Fleetwood stated the stormwater overlay is about environmental protection, whereas WRIA and Parametrix is about assessing human beings' effects on water quality and water quantity decisions. They are not getting to the question of Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 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. whether or not to include Drayton Harbor but decided that there are already environmental protections in place. They are two different things. Roll stated they are related. They are not completely separate. The data, decision support system (DSS), and other components being generated will guide them in determining what a stormwater district does from a policy standpoint. It is related to fisheries, water quality, shellfish, and others. They are related. They haven't been linked. In the WRIA process, those pieces will come out. They need to have some process in place to create a structure that will allow them to adaptively change those standards as they gather new science information. That is the same with the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance. There needs to be a process where this information in the WRIA plan feeds into how they make changes to those other plans from a water resource perspective. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) Fleetwood asked if there would be a gaping hole in the data if they don't do Drayton Harbor. Roll stated they are going to have more detailed information for a DMA. There is programmatic, WRIA -wide information. Blake stated there are a number of areas that will have something like a gap. They are only going to get to three areas. The plan is supposed to incorporate this long -term structure to address other areas in the watershed. That will be more critical. The process enables them to look at the entire WRIA, go to other areas, and focus attention on those other areas. Roy stated one of her concerns is that if Drayton Harbor gets left out of this initial review, it will snowball into getting left out of the implementation process. The three DMA's will be on the cutting edge of the process, and those other areas will be left out. Monsen stated a significant part of selecting these detailed areas is to test and refine the tools that make it easier to address the rest of the areas. In implementation, he has to make sure there is a financial capacity to apply those tools easily. The exercise in the plan is meant to have resources and capability in places like Drayton Harbor, assuming that they maintain a financial capacity to do it. Roll stated there would be some pieces related to land use that they can apply to Drayton Harbor. Blake stated models are being developed for Drayton Harbor by USU. The question here is whether they are going to use those models to speculate the best management options for Drayton Harbor. USU has been provided a copy of the memo from Geoff Menzies. Staff asked USU which of Mr. Menzies' questions would the USU model be able to answer. It would be more convenient for USU to do it now rather than have staff run the scenarios later. However, staff is supposed to be able to do that. The tool will be there. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council approved the $1 million loan from the flood budget. She asked what would be added to the timeline with the extra $100,000 added to the loan. Monsen stated that the extra $100,000 would not make or break the scenario. It influences their capacity to carry on implementation of the plan. Caskey- Schreiber stated they are not approving the implementation yet. McShane stated they should advise Dr. Roll to go with Ten Mile, but there is clearly an interest in looking at Drayton Harbor. For the time being, pick either Drayton Harbor or Ten Mile. They could revisit some of the other costs to the WRIA process outside of this choice. There has been good discussion about the priorities. Maybe Drayton Harbor is a high- enough priority to fund and to bump something else off. Roy asked if there is something that they can take out of the budget. Roll stated the two big- ticket items are USU and Parametrix. Staff has stopped work on other things to save costs. This Council and other councils have agreed to this existing scope -of -work. He will have to ask if other members of the project team are willing to not do certain things, and apply the money to Drayton Harbor. That will be a long, laborious process, but it can be done. McShane stated they might want to back off on more detailed items in the scope. Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend choosing Ten Mile as one of the three DMA's, and to ask that staff get information on exactly how much it would cost to add Drayton Harbor. Roy stated she would rather look at the budget and make Parametrix wait to begin. They are faced with a huge decision with lots of impacts. She can't support the motion. She would like to know more about all of them. Fleetwood asked if Parametrix can begin on the three, and then Council could add Drayton Harbor. Roll stated that is an option. Brenner stated they should approve the three right now, and ask for information on the next meeting about how much it will cost to do Drayton Harbor. Roy stated she also wanted suggestions on how to fund it. Motion carried 4 -2 with Roy and McShane opposed and Nelson absent. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 11:55 a.m.) Roll stated there will be many things coming forward for Planning Unit approval. He asked if the Council wants to continue to be engaged in all of the Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 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. decisions and provide direction to him. Another option is that policy decisions would come to the Council. Other decisions would not go to the Council, but he would bring the information back, in the form of an FYI update to the Council. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like to know more about the details, because they are going to try to find areas to cut to fund Drayton Harbor. Crawford stated he would like to see the County vest in Mr. Roll as much decision - making ability as possible, and do the FYI updates, rather than micro - managing the process. It is extremely technical. Dr. Roll knows what the Council wants. When Dr. Roll doesn't know what the Council wants, he knows to ask them. Keep that going. (Clerk's Note: Nelson arrived at noon.) Roll stated they are going to have many decisions to make. They will need significant time during the work sessions and in the Natural Resources Committee to work through them all if the Council wants to make each decision. Crawford stated he wants to stay out of things that don't have a bearing on policy and finances. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would like them to find areas to cut so they can fund the Drayton Harbor DMA. Roy stated that these sessions are very useful. Crawford moved to allow Dr. Roll have discretion to make some decisions on decisions other than policy, overall direction, and finances. Nelson suggested a friendly amendment that the motion be to allow Dr. Roll to make decisions on administrative functions of the Planning Unit, and the County's participation in the Planning Unit. Crawford accepted the friendly amendment. Motion carried unanimously. 4. LAKE WHATCOM Roger Upkiss, Sudden Valley, stated he has a piece of property in Sudden Valley. He started developing it. It is zoned at 12 units per acre. He's built 20 units on it. He has the right to build 64 more units. He paid for 12 additional sewer permits. He ran utilities into the property. Now, he's found out that he is allowed to build only one more unit. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 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 asked if that is something he's been told. Upkiss stated it is in the downzone area. He was zoned 12 units per acre. At the previous Council meeting, they suggested the zoning be changed to three units per acre. Now, they are suggesting they go to one unit per five acres. McShane stated the only part of SV in the proposal is in the golf course and lots zoned three houses per acre right now, and that are larger than 12,000 square feet in the UR -MX zone. He would talk privately with Mr. Upkiss to explain the situation. Nelson suggested that the staff add a public comment period to the beginning of each work session. Lake Whatcom Moratorium Roll stated the Council gave the staff direction to continue down the path of the parallel track of the DMA's with Lake Whatcom. Blake, Resources Planner, stated some people did not want Lake Whatcom to be a DMA. Staff proposed a different process for Lake Whatcom that is to parallel to the DMA process. This is the first proposal for that parallel process. She submitted it to the Council for consideration (on file). She will present to the Planning Unit tomorrow. The proposal is three pages with attachments. There is a timeline for each task. They are focusing on land use and best management practices (BMP's). It is a link to what they are doing related to the lake in the next section. They would look at models developed by USU. The councilmembers can contact her with their thoughts on the proposal. It will be similar but not exactly the same as what is going on with WRIA. Different staff will be involved. There will be a different process for public and stakeholder involvement. The process relies on existing staff and resources. They need more figures on the socio- economic proposal. If it needs an EIS, will come back for financial request. Specific tasks that parallel the Parametrix process is to identify issue priorities, concerns, and goals. Then they will look at the management options next. They will narrow down the list of management options, come up with management options that will work technically, then work through the socio- economic and other factors to come up with a preferred list of recommendations. They also need to review the implementation strategy and the existing Lake Whatcom Management Program to see if anything needs to be tweaked. Finally, it gets written up in a plan by January 2003 for the jurisdictions to review. Watts asked where the funding comes from. Blake stated the Lake Whatcom Management Group would contribute some of the monitoring money to carry it out. The money was already discussed. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, 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 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. Roll stated there would be a supplemental request for this. He hoped the Council gets all the supplemental requests at the same time. Crawford stated this sounds great. It is well thought out. It makes sense. He asked what study, which was mentioned in the media today, determined that there is more pollution in Lake Whatcom's basin two. Watts stated the City Council passed a resolution that supports any action the County Council may take to reduce density in Lake Whatcom. In addition, the City Council was given a presentation by Dr. Robin Matthews and Bill McCourt. According to their report, basin two appears to be degrading further. There is concern that it is as bad as or worse than basin one. In addition, the study shows that there is water migration between basin two and basin three. Crawford asked if it is appropriate for the County Council to ask Robin Matthews to make that presentation. The Council concurred. McShane stated he would schedule the presentation in a Natural Resources Committee meeting. Fleetwood stated that six months ago, the County Council justified lifting the moratorium in six months by implementing these various controls. He asked when they are going to act. In another six months, they will have an ordinance on which the Council can vote. Blake stated they can decide to do certain things now, such as another interim to wait for the results of some of the models. The Council has a choice on how it wants to handle it. The Council will have a technical tool to help it better evaluate some of the technical implications of the management actions. They don't know how well the management options will work yet. There will probably be places that the management options don't work well. Fleetwood asked if the Council could ask staff to try and boil all the proposals down to something that the Council would act upon, so it would have examples of what a proposed ordinance would look like regarding the various actions. Blake stated the Council has just worked on some of that. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Brenner stated she preferred to find solutions rather than just downzone, which is one of many options. Nelson asked if USU can start running models in August. Blake stated the models will be done in July. Nelson stated they set up the moratorium to develop the standards for stormwater best management practices. Those need to be implemented. They Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 15 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. need a baseline under the strictest controls possible. They are going to begin putting other tools into the toolbox. He is concerned about measuring and evaluating that fairly, so they can see if the performance will be good. He asked if it will have an impact to throw different tools into the toolbox that can change the outcomes. Establish a baseline. He asked if the baseline would be developed by September or October. Blake stated they are going to have some information by that point. Nelson asked when they will have a baseline that will show how things are working. Blake stated they will have that kind of information by November or December. The ability of the models to provide good answers depends on the data that is collected. Because they haven't collected loading information in the watershed, it doesn't help. Roll stated it will take three to four years to calibrate the models. For loading and flow information, they need several years of information to get a good handle on flows. Nelson stated a lot of progress has been made. They will continue to make progress. They will never see an end to this. They've done a good job holding the community together as they progress through this process. He's concerned about getting embroiled in something political that becomes non - productive. They all need to work collaboratively, and the public has to see that happening. Nelson asked if this process would speed up the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. Blake stated it would not. Roll stated there will be two models. One model will predict the amount of load that is coming in. The second model will be on how the lake responds to all the stuff coming in. They will initially get very good information on the relative loads that come in. The second model will not provide the extent of information that the DOE study will provide. Caskey- Schreiber stated that one argument for extending the moratorium is that they will have more information on which to base their decisions. Erika Stroebel, Resources Planner, stated the Lake Whatcom watershed action strategy was originally proposed to the Council at beginning of the moratorium. It is the long -term strategy that is the three to four year plan of things that should be targeted. They also worked on the simple model for the Lake Whatcom watershed. They identified different land uses that have higher loading rates that they should target now, including residential and road uses. They presented information to the Planning and Development Services Department for changes to Title 20 regarding seasonal clearing restrictions, stormwater development changes, and impervious surfaces. The Council saw the stormwater development standards that were presented. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 16 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. Chris Breuske, Engineer, stated the standards are ready for the Executive's consideration. Management is trying to figure out implementation. The standards are completed. Stroebel stated that to implement the standards, it would take additional staff resources. Some direction is needed there. Brenner stated the full -time equivalent (FTE) employee discussion needs to happen through the budget process, not here. Stroebel stated that without the FTE employee as described in the plan, the standards could be enacted, but not implemented to the level described. Brenner stated the Executive said this would be done if it were the highest priority, even if they have to move things around. Nelson stated the development standards are approved through the Executive's office. The policies and implementation need to be proposed by the administration for the Council's decision. The objective of the moratorium was to have an interim moratorium while the development standards were completed. He doesn't want to continue moratoriums, because they don't help the public. McShane stated the standards began being developed more than a year ago. That process was already in place. They laid down the Lake Samish stormwater overlay. They did not adopt the stormwater standards for Lake Samish until such time as these standards were brought forward. Nelson stated one priority item was to develop the standards. The intent of the interim moratorium was to speed up development of specific standards to alleviate concerns about ramifications of the lake. McShane stated the Council needs to consider how the stormwater standards are funded and implemented. Brenner stated they've talked about the standards for years. During the six months of the moratorium, the standards were to rise to the top of the priorities, and get done in six months. The goal of the moratorium was to get something they can implement at the end of six months. Stroebel stated there are a number of recommendations for changes to Title 20 that Council already reviewed. Additional language was recommended for road standards. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) supports that language. It will be forwarded to the Executive for enactment. There is similar language that was recommended as a change to Title 20 to make it consistent with the road standards. Low impact development standards and practices were considered as changes to Title 20. Regarding land clearing, there are recommendations for seasonal clearing limitations, phased clearing, and Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 17 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. vegetation retention. There are a number of different educational elements, such as the lake- friendly gardening and pet waste education programs. The Planning and Development Services Department is developing brochures that describe impervious surfaces, clearing limitations, and the stormwater special district standards. These brochures will help guide people through the new standards and regulations. Brenner asked what staff has done to explore the cost to rent or contract out for a street sweeper. Monsen stated Mike Roberts is not here to discuss that. The last he heard, they've been going through the steps to gather that information. Brenner stated County staff hasn't contacted the people in the private sector who she contacted. She requested information a month ago on what the private sector has. The County should go out for a request for proposals (RFP) to find out what's there. Caskey- Schreiber stated staff has put together an amazing amount of work in these six months. They've done the best they can when Council asked them to do the near impossible. Focus on the positive of what they've done. Maybe staff can do what the Council hopes them to do if the Council extends the moratorium for six more months. Nelson stated the administration brought the request to the Council. He asked if there is any further action taken to bring that information forward. Monsen stated they decided to bring that information forward at the July meeting. Stroebel spoke on land preservation. She presented a summary of the options for land preservation. Land preservation has been the incentive based program for acquiring lands or providing incentives to keep land in a more natural condition that will benefit water quality. A number of different regulations provide protection of riparian areas and steep slopes. There is also a number of different educational programs and acquisition programs that they can use until they find a more long -term single funding source. Right now, the Conservation Futures fund is used by a number of different programs, including agricultural preservation interests. They need to have a balanced comprehensive approach to meet the needs of the community. She was asked to describe what they could do with a long -term land preservation strategy. She provided an example of one of the most comprehensive programs out there, which is in the State of Florida (on file). The Florida program illustrates the different elements that they need to consider locally as they develop a more long -term strategy. The elements include land acquisition, land selection, and land management. They don't currently have the money to purchase all of the lands or conservation easements that are currently considered a high priority, so they are going to need a mechanism that will take them beyond the overall view to prioritize and select lands for preservation. Conservation Futures funds cannot be Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 18 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. used for management and maintenance of these lands, so they really need to look at the other sources of revenues to use. Brenner stated the transfer of development rights (TDR) program should be the number one program. Everything else should take a back seat to creating a workable TDR program. She is in favor of the other land preservation techniques, but the biggest dent they can make in the program would be a workable TDR program. Once they set up the program, they can use it for watersheds and farming. It is the most important thing for them to do, and it seems to be missing. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that to do that effectively, the County has to work with the City. They are working now on agricultural areas in the county. They need to coordinate the broad interests. He's hearing that the Council wants the Planning Department to accelerate the program. He will make a suggestion on how to accelerate it. He will put it in the 2003 budget as an additional service request if that's what Council wants. In May 2002, they hit an all -time May record for new housing starts in the county. His department is busy. McShane asked if the forest conversion rules are included in the forest practices category. He's not advocating to accelerate it, but wants to make sure it is included. With low impact development, when someone has forestland and they decide to develop it, the forest conversion rules could be more protective of wetlands and streams. They will get resistance from some timber folks. There are significant areas of the watershed that are being forested, but the zoning is such that they can be converted. Roy stated they need to take a methodical, logical, and inclusive approach to TDR's. If the Council is going to consider downzoning, this will give the individual property owner something for his or her property. It is very difficult to make these programs work. They should not tell the Planning Department that they want this done overnight. Talk to the City, building industry, real estate industry, and others, and start the discussions. Watts stated the City recognizes that it has to be a part of the solution. They have initiated things to do that. It is not going to be an overnight process. It will take a couple of years to get something effective. They are talking about identifying some redevelopment areas, and setting minimum densities, with bonuses allowed in a vertical direction. The land acquisition programs in Florida and New York are excellent. Maryland and New Jersey have excellent TDR programs. Brenner asked if they could allow someone to build houses in forestry areas, as long as the area is still managed. Allow one house per parcel, but the owner would still have to do timber management. Allow a compromise. Nelson stated those are all good ideas. Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 19 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: Crawford left the meeting at 1:10 p.m.) 3. SALMON RECOVERY ESHB 2496 Ranking Process Monsen handed out information (on file). He recommends two steps that should happen regarding salmon recovery. There is a memorandum of agreement between the County and the two tribes on local Chinook recovery. He first recommends that they replace the memorandum with a more comprehensive interlocal agreement between the County, the tribes, and the cities. He also recommends revising the local ranking process to address the conflict that exists today. The conflict is about who is in charge of making the final decision about which projects should be financed by the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board. RCW 75.46 says that the committee will compile the list of projects. The memorandum says the County and tribes will work closely together, but will act without involving each other. Various resolutions by the County and tribes designate the County as lead entity. The Lummi resolution identifies the County as lead entity, but subject to the memorandum of agreement. The County, as the lead entity, must maintain a relationship with the tribes, and still comply with State law. There is a dual process going on. So far, they have successfully worked their way through the two processes. Procedurally, there are significant conversations with the tribes about the basis of identifying and ranking projects. Then, they go through the formality of checking to see if the process was followed and the technical criteria were applied correctly. Each time they've gone through this exercise, there has been some objection or disagreement. They've always worked through it. This time, the technical advisory group and the citizen committee disagree on which projects should be ranked one, two, three, four, and five. Ultimately, the same projects were funded, but it became an issue of who is qualified to put the final ranking together. The tribes put forward a draft ranking process that gives a great deal of more authority to the tribal co- managers. The citizen committee disagrees with the tribal proposal, because the statute says the committee makes the ranking. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.) Brenner stated she thought the reason they did the memorandum of agreement rather than the interlocal agreement was because that was as far as the tribes would go. Monsen stated that was true. He discussed this concept with both Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 20 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 tribes and the City of Bellingham staff. There is willingness to try and pull this off now. Brenner asked for information on the instream flow negotiation in Skagit County. Monsen stated the focus here is on salmon issues. Right now, Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2496 is a grant program, which is not the same as salmon recovery locally. The second recommendation is that they recognize there is a dual system for salmon and salmon projects. They are going to try to bring the parties involved together, so there is a productive relationship. To find a way to facilitate this conclusion, he needs to be able to tell both tribes and also the SRF Board that they are not the only games in town. He needs to pull this together. The County has agreed to work with both. There is a functioning process. The Council concurred with Crawford absent. Caskey- Schreiber asked if they could be equally responsible, rather than have one entity be the lead. Monsen stated the first step is to have a successful fourth round grant process. (Clerk's Note: Nelson left the meeting at 1:15 p.m.) Monsen continued to state that while that is happening, they should put in place the framework to do a long -term interlocal agreement. When they do an interlocal agreement, they will reconsider whether the County should be the lead. Brenner stated they could consider having someone else take the lead. It would save a lot of money and allow staff to do some of the things they want to do. Thompson stated that the lead entity is focused on the grant process. The lead entity has a coordinating function to incorporate local efforts into a statewide recovery plan. The lead entity is just doing the administrative pieces. This is an opportunity to review how to do this right. Brenner stated the Whatcom County Council is the only entity that represents everyone in the county, including the Lummis, Nooksacks, city people, and county people. No other entity does that. OTHER BUSINESS McShane stated he would like input on the downzoning proposal. Roll stated the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County (BIAWC) submitted information on that topic (on file). Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Brenner stated she would consider downzoning, but not without a carrot to go with it, such as the TDR program. The only places where it's been working is where it has been incentive -based and not punishment- based. If they are serious about having the people get some compensation for losing a lot of money they've invested, they need to do this as a package, rather than just a downzone. They can continue the moratorium. They don't need to do an interim downzone to continue the moratorium. It is better to leave things in limbo than negatively impact people. Caskey- Schreiber asked the downside if they continue the moratorium instead of introducing the interim downzone. McShane stated there would be three major decisions on Tuesday regarding Lake Whatcom. One is going forward with a stormwater and land clearing program that will be more protective. It will include subdivisions. The administration is working on the stormwater design standards. Where they will require individual homes to do stormwater management, the cost of doing that is significant. There is a lot of information on stormwater. He is offering a compromise. There is a huge cost to stormwater implementation. They are also talking about creating stormwater districts. There are costs in the short term to land that is speculative. The second thing they will look at on Tuesday is whether or not they will continue the moratorium. The options are to develop the standards and rules, adopt an interim zoning ordinance, and /or continue the moratorium. There are a variety of things to select. The subdivision moratorium has more impact in the short term than interim zoning. There are areas where this zoning proposal does not include where people might be able to subdivide, but they currently can't. As long as the moratorium stays in place, they cannot subdivide. The downzone is not as aggressive as the moratorium. The moratorium blankets the Lake Whatcom watershed. The downzone does not. Brenner stated that people feel that the downzone is not a compromise. She suggested continuing the moratorium in the areas that are critical, and not include areas that they are unsure about. Focus on a TDR proposal during the next six months. Fleetwood asked if another six months will provide sufficient time for the planning process to result in a vote on a permanent ordinance. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated it would on the development regulating. McShane stated the Council needs to make some decisions about land use rules, the amount of area to consider for TDR's, and the number of lots they will need to create for TDR's. If they are trying to create a TDR program, they need to know how many rights they are going to transfer. If they want to work on the Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 22 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. assumption that they want to transfer every development right out of the watershed right now, then they need to create a receiving area that is at least that large. He asked the question earlier about whether or not water quality and stormwater runoff were considered when the zoning was granted in the first place. They were not. They now have new information that there are problems with stormwater runoff and water quality, so they need to look at the zoning again. They may go through all the modeling and get information from the modeling that says more density can be allowed in the watershed. The zoning decisions made in the past around Lake Whatcom were not based on evaluating impacts of stormwater. Brenner stated they all agree about that. Roy asked if the proposed downzone takes that into consideration now, and is based on what they know about the impacts of stormwater in those areas. McShane stated he drew the line at areas where a change in zoning would have an impact. Some areas still need to be worked out. The vast majority of the land has fantasy zoning, which means there are big areas without roads, water, or sewer. These people could never develop that land at that density any time in the foreseeable future. On a short -term basis, they are not talking about preventing anyone from developing now. He may be wrong about that in some areas. He needs to understand lot consolidation rules better. That becomes a significant issue in areas that have a high- density zone. Brenner asked Mr. Hart if they could work on a workable TDR program. They are never going to know how many lots they will transfer, because there may be people who consolidate their lots and who never intend to develop. She asked if they could still move ahead with a TDR program without knowing that number. Hart stated they could. He would propose an ASR in the next four weeks to work on it immediately. He would propose a fee increase. Staff is at the breaking point right now. Caskey- Schreiber stated it is not just up to the Planning Department. Other entities are involved. Hart stated that if the Council wants to go in that direction in the next six months, the direction to staff would be to coordinate TDR and purchase of development rights (PDR) programs. Staff needs that firm direction from the Council to go forward. Roy asked if that is in the County's best interest. Hart stated it is. Watts stated there is work being done by the City on a PDR and TDR program. Every piece of property that the City has filed in the land preservation Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 23 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. plan is taken into account the number of TDR's. The City is banking them. They are accumulating TDR's and PDR's from every piece of property that they buy. At some point, the citizens are going to want to know what the City is going to do with all the TDR's. The City will have to find a way to spit them out. Brenner stated that Councilmembers Roy, Fleetwood, and Brenner are willing to be on a subcommittee to work with the City on TDR's. McShane stated he is worried that other councilmembers think that they will solve the density problem only by using TDR's. Roy stated it is one tool. McShane stated the zoning being proposed does not ignore that tool. The councilmembers are jumping ahead without looking at what is proposed. His proposal has been out for two months, and he has not had any input from councilmembers. Roy stated the TDR program is a tool to use in the future. They need to look at it as one of the many tools to use. She doesn't think that the downzone is contingent on the TDR program. They need to put real thought into the TDR program. They need to do a thorough job, even if it takes them two years to get a good plan. She is not associating it with the downzone proposal. Watts stated that if downzoning is used as a tool, it sends a clear signal to everyone that reducing density is their goal. It will make land preservation techniques a lot more affordable, because property owners will know not to inflate the value of their property based on development potential. Brenner stated she is sensitive about downzoning. They all need to put themselves in the other person's shoes. It's easy to talk about speculators. She knows of people who purchased land, paid on it for years, and want to get out of it what they put into it. They are not speculating to make a fortune. McShane stated they need more input about certain areas. He doesn't want to get into a moral taking issue. He wants to leave people with a reasonable value in their property. He needs to get information from legal staff and those who understand lot consolidation. The Council needs to give the Planning Commission some direction. Roy stated she can support a downzone that is specific to certain areas. She still has some questions about whether they are affecting water quality by choosing these specific areas. She is open to voting for this. Brenner asked if they could continue the moratorium only in certain areas. Goodwin stated they will have to see how the ordinance was advertised. It Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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. depends. They may be able to introduce a substitute ordinance, or they could approve the ordinance and then amend it at the next meeting. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on July 16, 2002. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair Water Resources Work Session, 6/11/2002, Page 25