HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources March 19 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
48
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
March 19, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Sharon Roy
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Absent:
Barbara Brenner
Also Present:
Louise Bjornson, Bellingham City Council Member
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member
Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council Member
Grant Deger, Bellingham City Council Member
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2002 -065
1. LAKE WHATCOM
Lake Whatcom Moratorium
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated Sue Blake would
discuss the status of the pollutant - loading model and its relationship to the other
activities on the table now.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated they having a better understanding of
pollutant loading, which will help them determine the most appropriate actions.
Utah State University (USU) is doing work on this topic. Their work will not be
available within the six -month moratorium window. In the interim, staff decided to
take a look at a model developed on the East Coast for use here.
A pollutant load is the total material entering the system from one or more
sources, measured in weight per unit time. The model they will use today is
pounds per year. She will have information on fecal coliform, total suspended
solids, and nutrients. They look at pollutant loads to determine the amount coming
into the system and to evaluate its impact on water quality. It will take more than
the loading estimates to determine the effect on water quality, but this is a critical
piece. Despite all of the monitoring that's been done, they don't have loading
estimates. They have information on concentrations. They have not been able to
say the impact on lake water quality.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
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.
Another reason they look at pollutant loads is to say where they want to
focus their actions. Certain areas might be contributors of certain kinds of things.
A third reason is that they can use pollutant load information to determine
which activities and locations the pollutants are coming from. It gives them an idea
of uses and geographic areas that are contributing.
Finally, they will take a look at all sources and determine the most effective
thing to do. USU is doing the more quantitative work for the County. They are
doing load estimates based on discharges and concentrations. USU will also help
with estimates of loads related to management options. The work the County is
doing now in relation to management options will be helpful to develop the models
and tools that USU will provide. They will have better solid technical information in
the long term.
Nelson asked if this can be done in the six months and tied into what USU is
doing. Blake stated yes. They will not get all data and loading estimates for some
of the watersheds and drainages in the rest of the county in this timeframe. They
need a tool to make management decisions in other drainages if they lack the
discharge measurements. When they did the first phase of Comprehensive
Stormwater Program for the Lake Whatcom watershed in 1998, the consultant
developed modeling proposals at the time. Three people on peer review committee
said there was not enough data to do a complicated model, and the County should
do a simpler model to get guidance for management issues.
The watershed treatment model was developed by the Center for Watershed
Studies. It doesn't require discharge measurements. It does provide load
estimates for structural and nonstructural controls.
One caution is that the model is a work in progress. They have to modify
some of the numbers to reflect West Coast conditions. One limitation is that it only
focuses on four pollutants. It gives information on loads coming in.
One action underway is to work with Brown and Caldwell to do the model.
The consultants are developing the estimates for three drainages in the watershed.
Staff will be trained to apply it in other areas.
The model has two parts. The first part is the estimate of loads and sources,
such as residential, roads, and septic systems, from each drainage area. The
second part is to evaluate how much load reduction they can get from different
management options, such as structural versus nonstructural controls. Source
loads are primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include residential,
commercial, roadway, forest, and rural sources. Secondary sources include septic
systems, active construction, channel erosion, sewer overflows, and other activities.
Part two is the management options. They look at two kinds of options,
structural stormwater controls and nonstructural controls. For this area, there was
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
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.
never a tool to quantify nonstructural controls. That is a benefit of this model.
They can begin to associate numbers with the nonstructural controls, such as pet
waste controls.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are separating pet waste from sewage
overflows. Blake stated they are.
A number of things still need to be done. This is in draft form. They need to
sit down with everyone in the county who is involved to make sure they plug in the
right numbers for the management options. Another thing they need to do is to
refine estimates for future development, add management options for things they
are not currently doing, and refine estimates for existing sources. Staff will
hopefully have that available at the next Council work session.
Nelson asked if this model has been tested on the East Coast. Blake stated it
has been tested in a number of areas. It was developed on the East Coast. It has
been used to make management decisions.
Nelson asked for verification that the model is accurate. Blake stated she
would research that answer. In the case of Lake Whatcom, they will do more
extensive modeling. They will have a opportunity locally to evaluate these results
against what they see happening, and can see if it's reasonable to apply to other
drainages. It will work well to provide guidance.
Nelson asked how they defined subareas, and if they would identify specific
drainages. Blake stated they were able to define all the drainages in Lake
Whatcom.
Nelson asked if the information that goes into the model is existing or an
assessment, when they doing modeling. Blake stated it depends. A lot of it is
existing information, but they have to do some speculation because it is a new
management tool.
Watts questioned whether this is a rough model to give a start for the
detailed model. Blake stated that is correct.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are using data gathered by Robin Matthews,
or collecting new data only. Blake stated water quality data fits into primary and
secondary sources. Dr. Matthews' data is not loading data. It is measured in
milligrams per liter. Staff has used default numbers that get plugged into the
model. When they compare based on milligrams per miter, they are not off by
orders of magnitude. They could add Dr. Matthews' numbers in to see if they make
a difference. They didn't do it yet, because they don't seem that different at this
point. It can be done. If they continue to use this model, they will have specific
loading information that can substitute for all that initial stuff.
McShane stated the lake response is the wildcard in this process. He asked if
they took into account groundwater interception in the modeling. Blake stated it is
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
47
48
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.
a rough and dirty model. They can come up with runoff estimates. They can take
a look at it based on impervious surfaces.
McShane asked if they bored down to it.
McShane stated that could be a way to tweak the model for Lake Whatcom.
In addition to surface water runoff, if they are intercepting groundwater, it adds to
it more. It is particularly a problem in Western Washington.
Roll stated they are looking at using the tool to develop the strategies and
management options the County would like to have. It is not intended to do total
maximum daily load (TMDL) work. It isn't applicable to that. There are some
pieces related to modeling, depending on the types of decisions and how much
resolution they want to have, that will be fed in through the WRIA process. They
will not spend a lot of time drilling down with this model. It gets them information
on order of magnitude of different contributions, and provides some
recommendations for the management strategy to deal with those. Later on, they'll
have to drill down in specific areas. Groundwater is a good example of one that has
an impact on lake response.
McShane stated a concern is low impact development. It's difficult to
legislate or create codes to deal with that issue.
Nelson asked if they have comparables elsewhere for percentages between
surface and groundwater. Blake stated she would check.
Nelson stated there must be some sort of tool that has quantifications or
estimates.
McShane stated he's looked for one.
Blake asked if McShane is interested in how they deal with groundwater for
low impact development.
McShane stated yes. It's discussed. Quantifying is hard. He doesn't want to
concentrate groundwater because it leads to slope instability. It's doable. It is site
specific. People will deal with shallow groundwater when it means their house will
slide off a bluff. It is different in this circumstance.
Erika Stroebel, Planner II, talked about nonstructural best management
practices (BMP's).
Land preservation has been discussed. There are different ideas of what it is.
It is an incentive based approach to water quality protection to provide long -term
preservation of a priority area. Tools include land acquisition, conservation
easements, transfer of development rights (TDR), lot consolidation, riparian re-
vegetation, and community outreach. Land preservation does not just mean land
acquisition. Benefits of land preservation are reducing the impacts of stormwater.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
There are a few areas in the watershed with high- density residential development.
They are seeing higher levels of pollutants in those areas. One tool for reducing
pollutants is reducing current and future impervious surfaces. Land preservation
also reduces erosive forces at stream banks and upland. It can also create a buffer
between upland uses and water bodies.
Another benefit beyond water quality includes reduction of development
potential, such as in Sudden Valley, which is using lot consolidation. They are
trying to keep riparian buffers intact. A tool can provide incentives for buffers in
timber management. New regulations make it difficult to stay in timber
management. Land preservation may be able to provide incentives for timber
managers to protect the critical buffers.
Enhancement of wildlife habitat is a worldwide issue with increased
urbanization. They can retain wildlife corridors.
Increased public access opportunities is another benefit of land preservation.
It is an incentive for property owners who would like to see their land used by the
public and for people to have a better appreciation of nature.
Another benefit of land preservation is protection of private property. Beaver
Creek is an example. They are seeing a lot of erosion along the residential areas of
the creek. During high storm even years, residents can lose up to six feet of the
bank. By working with those folks, they can provide property protection.
Caskey- Schreiber stated low impact development is beneficial to have
riparian buffers on a small scale, during land development. Stroebel stated
retention of vegetation is always helpful. Native soils retention is equally helpful.
It provides water storage capacity.
Nelson asked if preserving native soils is a high priority. Stroebel stated that
if someone is going to take the time to retain vegetation, they could also protect
the native soils.
could.
Nelson asked if someone can enhance native soils. Stroebel stated they
McShane stated the idea is to not strip the topsoil off, then put it back on.
Stroebel stated that if they leave the soils in the natural state, it preserves
the pores that store the water.
There are two elements to the cost of land preservation, the purchase cost
and resource cost. Regarding the purchase cost, they need to consider the cost for
purchase of land easements or development rights. There may be other options
they haven't considered. Cost is associated with appraisals of the properties and
also with property maintenance and improvements.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
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.
In terms of staff resources, staff would have to identify potential preservation
parcels, make assessments of the parcels, negotiate the land preservation, and
conduct annual inspections, enforcement, and property maintenance. They need
different elements for a successful land preservation strategy.
There are four land preservation options with different costs and benefits.
One option is the status quo, which is opportunistic. Another option is the status
quo in specific sub - watersheds. Choose the high priority watersheds and go with
opportunistic opportunities in those areas.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Stroebel continued to state the simple model can be used to identify whether
land preservation is appropriate in a sub - watershed. Within each sub - watershed,
they can look at and compare the relative value with other BMP's. For example,
look at land preservation compared to community outreach.
An example of being opportunistic is people who have heard that the County
is considering land preservation and offers their property. Throughout the entire
watershed on an annual basis, the County may or may not get any number of
parcels per year. There won't be a consistent pattern of parcels that they are
protecting. Also, pressure to develop leads to higher cost, which makes it more
difficult to preserve those critical areas.
The second option is a focused status quo. Focus only in particular areas. It
provides an ability to target areas within the watershed. They can be more
selective about what areas they want to protect. The downside is that they lose
opportunities in other areas.
They can acquire more funds for land preservation in a variety of areas
through grant funds. They can target larger areas within the watershed and can be
more selective of areas within the watershed. There is a cost to that, such as
increased staff time to acquire and administer grants. Many times, a project needs
to be defined before receiving a grant. Staff would spend time defining a project
with no guarantee of receiving funds.
The last option is land preservation with a consistent funding source, such as
a bond, fee, or tax. Other locations have done that. They can target larger areas
in the watershed, be more selective, and use a consistent process for identifying
and selecting preservation areas.
Nelson asked if consistent funding could come from development. Stroebel
stated that is an option.
Fleetwood asked if the Lake Whatcom Citizens Task Force has done some of
this work. Stroebel stated the task force did the first step of the land preservation
program. In the 2000 program plan for Lake Whatcom, there were three identified
steps. The first step was to develop criteria for identifying high priority lands. The
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
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.
second step was developing those preservation and funding tools. The third step
was to put the pieces together to implement the land preservation strategy. The
criteria that were just adopted last week are the criteria that staff, the task force,
and councilmembers worked on. That was the final criteria for identifying high
priority properties. Phase I is complete now.
Fleetwood asked if they identified tentative rankings of priorities for sub -
watersheds. Stroebel stated yes, based on impervious surface levels. She hopes
the simple model will help further define which sub - watersheds are most
appropriate for using land preservation. Geneva, Hillsdale, and Academy areas are
three important sub - watersheds. Sudden Valley and Austin /Beaver Creek area are
also important.
Fleetwood asked if this work considers areas outside the City of Bellingham.
Stroebel stated she hopes to work with the City on its preservation program.
Stroebel asked which options to further investigate: status quo, specific
status quo, consistent funding source, or grant funding.
Nelson stated he is concerned about funding of the programs. They are
stretching resources thin. He'd like to see more information on an expanded
consistent funding source. They need to look at creating a stormwater
management district with elected or appointed board of representatives. He asked
if that can be done through current flood control mechanism. The status quo option
is too hodge podge. It will ultimately be ineffective.
McShane agreed.
Roll stated few people have called him offering land for sale.
Stroebel stated it doesn't allow them to look at connectivity between other
parcels that already have some level of preservation. When they look at water
quality protection, they need protection of an overall system, not just pieces of a
system. Riparian areas have been identified as high priority areas. If they can
organize the land preservation actions, it would be more beneficial for water quality
protection.
Roy asked if Nelson's suggestion include looking at special bonds or taxes.
Nelson stated it does. Explore a basin -wide sub - district.
Kurt Baumgarten, Planning Department, stated the Whatcom County code
describes land clearing regulations. The recommendation for seasonal limitation is
similar to that of the City of Bellingham. Any clearing over 500 square feet would
be restricted from October through April in Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish. The
County reviews and approves all land clearing activities associated with fill and
grading permits, building permits, or other development proposals. This would
address the moratorium on subdivisions and also on single - family residences that
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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.
occur within the subdivisions. In the watershed, precipitation, over - exposed soils,
and steep slopes cause erosion and sediment transport. Approximately 80 percent
of the precipitation occurs October through April. It is more difficult to contain
sediment during the wet season, when exposed soils become saturated. Sediment
still moves through silt fences, even when properly installed.
This would have some impact on the development community. There would
be consistency between the City and the County. That's what developers want. It
is difficult to maintain these structures when the ground is saturated. There would
be a reduced maintenance cost to developers and the County in the longer term.
The clearing and grading season would be reduced. They are not saying that
people can't still build the structure during the wet season. They just can't create
the footprint and do excavation.
Crawford stated the construction process takes about two to two and a half
months for a standard house. During that time, the job site needs the erosion
control methods. He is confused about how construction would occur during the
wet season. Baumgarten stated some people think that no building can go on
during the wet season. However, someone can still build the house during the wet
season, as long as he or she does not disturb the soils. The intent is to not open up
any new site excavation during the wet season.
Nelson stated they couldn't landscape until after the wet season.
Crawford asked if the County Council could look at the seasonal non -
construction window as a cost savings opportunity.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Manager, stated it provides a
lot of organizational opportunities to get to other work they wouldn't get to.
Crawford asked if the City, when discussing the Silver Beach area, considered
whether or not it would slow construction down overall. Watts stated it did not. It
was the best opportunity to fix the lake. There was a concern, but they worked
through it.
Crawford stated that he assumed there isn't much savings because they are
just shifting workloads.
Stroebel stated the simple model could be used to look at expanding a BMP
like this. Looking at sediment loads from active construction sites, they can
develop an estimate of the annual load. A seasonal restriction would reduce the
precipitation effect by about 80 percent. Different factors are precipitation, annual
load, effectiveness of BMP, and regulation, compliance, and maintenance of BMP's.
With the current system without seasonal limitations and with an active
compliance education staff member in the watershed on a weekly basis, there
would be a load reduction of 40 percent. With the seasonal limitation added, the
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
47
48
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.
load reduction increases to 85 percent. The simple model provides an idea of the
relative load reduction of two different types of BMP's.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated other land use regulations
can be considered. Staff is looking for input from the councilmembers on these
other ideas. Without more input, staff will focus on land clearing restrictions.
Other ideas include phased clearing and vegetation retention and impervious
surface thresholds. The City of Bellingham currently allows 15 percent overall lot
size, or a maximum of 2,000 square feet, whichever is greater. The County allows
10 to 50 percent of the site and at least 3,000 square feet.
Other land use regulations include selective downzoning. Some areas are
zoned rural residential, two dwellings per acre (RR2) that don't currently have
water and sewer, around Agate Bay on Northshore and in the Blue Canyon area. It
is still undeveloped and un- platted. The staff, with Council direction, can take a
look at those areas.
Another land use regulation is lot consolidation. Right now in WCC 20.83, if
a property doesn't meet minimum lot size, it is consolidated. There are more
restrictions in the watershed than outside of the watershed. The County could
change zoning and then do lot consolidations. Lot consolidation relief can be
granted through the administrative approval process. Now, it's restrictive for Lake
Whatcom, shorelines, and critical areas. It's not a serious problem because it was
already tightened up for the Lake Whatcom area. There is a liberal lot consolidation
ordinance in the county.
A committee is working on another land use regulation, the Purchase Of
Development Rights (PDR) Program. A draft is being developed right now. They
plan to expand to environmentally sensitive areas in addition to agricultural areas.
With conservation futures, the only revenue source, there is not a lot of money. If
they continue to look at other revenue sources for PDR, the program could be
effective.
Watts stated that in the Silver Beach ordinance, there is a PDR program,
called Transfer of Impervious Credits. Private parties can developed rights from
each other.
Goodwin stated the County could also look at further amendments to the
transfer of development rights (TDR) program, which has not been very effective.
Part of the problem is the lack of receiving areas. Staff has been trying to get
receiving areas within the city. In the City of Bellingham urban growth area,
receiving areas can be designated. A problem is that, when transferring one
development right out of Lake Whatcom, which is very expensive, the value is not
the same for a multi - family receiving area.
A last option for land use regulations is consolidation of watershed
regulations. There are different regulations in different sections of the code. That
is not necessary to do before the end of the moratorium.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson asked to do it for each watershed, also.
Fleetwood asked what the overlay does. Goodwin stated the overlay zone
applies to Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish. Certain uses are restricted, which
might be allowed in the underlying zoning, such as hazardous materials storage and
treatment. The main thing that affects people are the impervious surface
restrictions. It provides tighter control for stormwater engineering and treatment.
Goodwin asked if there is anything on the list the Council wants the staff to
work on.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is interested in low impact development
practices. Develop vegetation retention and soil retention practices. There is value
there, and it would not be costly to implement.
Nelson agreed. Work with the property owners to recognize site - specific
conditions.
Baumgarten stated the Whatcom County Code has a vegetation management
plan. It's hard to do the follow up on the plan to make sure it's implemented. The
Code encourages phasing.
Caskey - Schreiber stated a limited timeframe for excavation would encourage
phasing.
Nelson asked if the City could help work with the county on the TDR
program.
Watts stated yes. This is the year for it.
Nelson stated they should emphasize it if the City is willing to work on it.
Roll stated the TDR would not begin during the moratorium timeframe.
Nelson asked what the product is now for the six -month moratorium.
Goodwin stated the Planning Division is working mainly on seasonal restrictions for
land clearing. The Engineering Division is working on other stuff dealing with
stormwater, and the Water Resources Division is working on acquisition and
modeling.
McShane stated revisit the impervious surface thresholds, and tie it into low
impact development standards in some way. Consider something like the Silver
Beach ordinance for those small lots that cannot accomplish ten percent of
impervious surface.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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.
McShane continued to state that the County Council worked on impervious
surfaces three years ago, and made good progress. There are still problems.
Nelson asked if they want to do that during the six -month moratorium.
McShane stated he doesn't know that it has to apply to the moratorium, but
it is important in regards to the sewer line.
Nelson agreed. Goodwin stated they can docket text amendments by June
30, to be done by the end of the year.
McShane stated he was not sure that the Agate Bay and Blue Canyon areas
are useful for selective downzones, if they don't have sewers. Look at the Geneva
area. There is a potential to exceed the threshold of ten percent in that area.
There is lots of talk about spending money to accomplish that. There are more
ways than just through purchases. Goodwin stated the timeframe on that is very
short. They have to decide soon how many sewer shares they have to purchase.
Crawford stated the deadline is December 31.
McShane stated it is critical to look at it for that very reason. One last thing
is that he is not averse to thinking about extending the moratorium in particular
areas they are struggling with, such as Geneva.
Nelson stated he wanted to know the legal ramifications of that.
Hart stated the recent focus in the newspaper of the bypass has lead to a
very significant increase in inquiries in his office about what people can do with
their properties. People are looking into subdivision inquiries.
Fleetwood stated they are talking about prioritizing these things. They all
seem like things to consider. He asked the constraints keeping staff from
implementing all of them. Goodwin stated the constraints are available staff time
and political will. The staff doesn't want to spend time developing a program for a
downzone if it will not be adopted.
Fleetwood stated the data is there to support all of the ideas. He wanted to
see proposed draft regulations. He would like to see most restrictive ordinances in
the State for similar programs. Consider all of the options.
Nelson stated he won't support a selective downzone. He's not convinced
that it would work.
Fleetwood stated he would consider not looking at that.
McShane stated he would be willing to spend money to reduce the amount of
development, recognizing that it is a problem and it is something they should do.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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.
He questioned why they would spend all that money when they can reduce the
impacts without harming people now. They will harm people if they wait.
Crawford stated people who want to live in the Lake Whatcom watershed in
particular need to pay the cost of living in that watershed. The question is the
financial costs associated that the County can translate into protection of the lake.
That doesn't hold much room for a downzone. If people want to build to the
density they are zoned, there is a cost to that. The cost translates to physical
actions on the lake. That's the direction he would like to go. He doesn't support a
small scale downzone. Staff should work on the physical impact issues.
Nelson stated the question is how much staff time and effort they want to
spend during this six months. Consider a downzone, but not during this timeframe.
Roy stated she respectfully disagreed. They ought to look at all options. If
the biggest impact is development, the key word is 'selective.' If they don't look at
this option, then they have to fix things after the fact, which is expensive. Talk
about the options now. She supported Councilmember McShane's position.
Hart stated there is a compromise to the downzone concept. The City
showed areas where they negotiated a large conservation easement in the
watershed. Some of those areas were rural forestry areas. The downzoning could
occur on rural forestry areas to a long -term conservation forestry zone, or a similar
zone. Maybe they no longer have that large forested area in the right zone. Maybe
it belongs in another zone. There may be other behind - the - scenes things to
evaluate that would be a moderate downzone that doesn't include lots of smaller
lots.
Goodwin stated they would bring more information forward at the next water
resource work session to further discuss this.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a major concern with the Sudden Valley sewer
pipeline is that it is one development, but there are consequences down the road.
If they need to build a road to that area, people are fearful of the Yew Street
Connector. That would be an ideal place for downzoning. It is all forestry now.
Nelson stated he is not opposed to looking at zoning issue, but don't bog
down in certain areas that will prevent them from getting off of the moratorium.
This will take long -term management planning for the entire watershed. The old
developments are creating the impacts. Those are the areas they need to focus on.
Development can have controls on impacts to prevent damage.
McShane stated many of these issues would relate to impacts to individual
existing lots. A moratorium doesn't apply to that. Those lots will have an impact.
There is not an emergency situation, but they need to incrementally work on these
over time so things improve. There will be unexpected costs to development now
and down the road. The moratorium prevents creating vested lots smaller than five
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
47
48
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.
acres. Those are the areas they need to worry about. The question is whether
there are locations where it's going to be a problem.
Nelson stated he didn't disagree, but they are talking about a timeframe
specific to the moratorium.
McShane stated that is why this might take priority to those other items.
Those other items can be done later. Two thousand eight hundred homes are not
going to be built in the next year. The downzone issue is linked to the current
moratorium of not doing subdivisions smaller than five acres. Sudden Valley lots
are already vested. The moratorium has nothing to do with that. The moratorium
only has to do with those who will subdivide and create additional lots.
Crawford stated he could go along with it if it was not a downzone, but
deterring criteria under which people can subdivide. People can still develop to
their density, but to do that would require certain things.
McShane stated that people need to know how much to subdivide. The
Council needs to know how much it will ask these people to pay.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is too late for different development in the dry
months. Goodwin stated those things could still apply. The ones that don't apply
are to already platted lots in individual ownership. Geneva has large blocks of
platted lots that are consolidated under one ownership.
Caskey- Schreiber stated they should prioritize the first two items on the list
first, phased clearing and vegetation retention and impervious surface thresholds.
(Clerk's Note: Five - minute break taken at 12:05 p.m.)
Crawford stated he estimated costs to development. If Water District 10
can't pay for the sewer line through the mechanism it established, it becomes the
County's responsibility. In the State of Washington, laws don't prevent a water
district from taking a significant risk. Funding for this line is not secure.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the water district
comprehensive plan comes to the County Council for consideration in review and
improvement.
Crawford asked if the Council assumed risk for the sewer line when Council
approved the plan.
Fleetwood asked the legal authority that binds the County. Gibson stated the
County becomes caretaker if the system goes bankrupt.
Nelson asked if that typically happens, and if it is the County or City
responsibility. He can't assume the County takes over. Gibson stated Columbia
Valley water district bankrupted. It was in the benefit of the people in the district
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
43
44
45
46
47
48
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.
to not have the County take over. People who are dependent on the service are
better off if the County does not take over.
Crawford stated that if the County becomes a party to this, it has the interest
to make sure the funding scheme happens and that there are plenty of incentives
for 2,000 lot owners to participate. Adding up all the impact fees and costs,
including the sewer connector, connector road, new school, additional Sheriff
substation, and Lake Whatcom protection, could total up to $27,500 for a lot valued
at $10,000. If people knew that today, they might not hook up to the sewer. This
may not be cost effective. He asked at what point the County Council informs
people of the real costs.
Nelson stated he doesn't anticipate that occurring. The County has chosen
not to levy impact fees. The cost of a connector road, school, or substation
wouldn't be borne by 2,000 new lots. Previous decisions had been made that took
these impacts into consideration. There was some adjudication regarding that. He
agreed that additional homes have impacts. Development will happen in those
areas already.
Crawford stated the real estate community promotes Sudden Valley as the
most important place to build in the county because of land costs. Those who
choose to live in the watershed will have to pay the price of living in the watershed.
It will behoove the County to let people know of that cost as soon as possible.
Nelson stated that the cost has to be based on reasonable assumptions. He
disagrees with Councilmember Crawford's assumptions.
Crawford stated one area of concern is that when the detention ponds were
put in last year, a certain number of permits were allowed by Water District 10.
People stood in line at the beginning of the year to get those permits. New permits
were allowed this year. This year, not a lot of people were lined up to get a permit.
That implication makes him nervous for the sewer line.
Roy stated that the County could consider impact fees.
McShane stated people need to go into this with their eyes open. He agreed
with Councilmember Crawford.
Crawford stated he was not willing to rule out impact fees associated with an
overlay.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated he would discuss the result of this
exercise being determining who is responsible for the result and who will monitor
results for new development and the overall watershed.
The assumption now is that funding for a portion the things they've been
talking about would come from a special district. They don't know how much
because they don't know all of what they are trying to accomplish.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, Page 14
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
48
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
There are four classes of land in the watershed:
1. Undeveloped,
2. Land being considered for change,
3. Land in the process of developing, and
4. Land that has been developed.
The focus to this point has been on classes two and three. He's hearing
today that they should be more aggressive with categories one and four.
Organizationally, there has been attention on classes two and three, and limited
attention to classes one and four. On any given year, a low percentage of the land
base is involved in classes two and three. The majority of the land and pollutant
loading comes from classes one and four. With the goal to continually reduce
pollutant loading, it will be difficult to accomplish that goal just in the context of
development activity.
Financing of actions is not simply a matter of creating a governmental
structure. A lot of expenditures in this category are private expenditures. There
will also be public expenditures, in the category of a onetime expenditure. One
example is a permit fee. That is a onetime expenditure for a certain activity,
compared to ongoing revenue towards ongoing expenses. Revenues are fees for
defined services or benefits or a tax for general purposes. That will change revenue
structures. That money will pay for nonstructural and structural activities that are
mitigation, proactive measures, or maintenance.
A question is who is responsible for a particular action, assessment,
monitoring, or repair. Another question is whether they create someone
responsible for monitoring and assurance, separate from someone responsible for
development. If there is rapid, ongoing development, fees can resemble ongoing
revenues. If they are not going to rely on and promote development, then there
must be some other source involved if they want to be proactive.
Crawford asked if they could bond against future fees to be collected.
Monsen stated yes, but bonds would not be at a great interest rate if that is the
source of the payback.
Crawford stated an example from another city is a major road without
restricted development. They put the road in without the development, and said
the impact fees for the road would pay for the road. Monsen stated that is an
example of risk management from a financial standpoint.
Nelson asked for examples of who would be responsible for what. Monsen
stated they don't want to presume that the County has to create a large
governmental structure to do everything for everyone. Individuals will be
responsible for certain things. Everyone on the list will have a particular role,
depending on how big the structure will be. The further down they go on the list of
who would be responsible, the more increased will be the pace and cost.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
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 two, side A.)
Rich Duane, Engineering Manager - Development, stated there are 400 to
600 stormwater utilities in the United States now. There is projected to be 2,500
by the end of this year.
The goals of a successful stormwater utility are to reduce the threat of
flooding, improve surface water quality, ensure appropriate development and
stewardship through education, and be self- funding.
There are many different reasons to implement a stormwater utility. The
main reason is National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). Phase
one of the requirement is getting the permit. Phase II begins March 15, 2003. The
City of Bellingham will receive a greater impact, but the impact will spread into the
urban growth areas. The permit will be based on population. That data is still
being compiled. People are putting stormwater fees together to answer an un-
funded federal mandate.
The requirements of NPDES permit are public education, public involvement,
tracking illicit discharge, monitoring construction sites, post- construction project
maintenance, and pollution prevention. A requirement in NPDES permit is to not
have any more increased pollutant loads. They must monitor to know what the
loads are now, so they have a baseline.
Components of the utility include planning with a vision and a goal;
maintenance of the stormwater system; capital improvement to reduce loading by
large -scale projects that offset impacts of development, and; administration.
The planning components include master planning that identifies the systems
and maintenance schedules; water quantity and quality to reduce loads; inspection
services; development review to make sure new development meets standards,
and; analysis of land use patterns for future needs.
The maintenance component includes ditch cleaning and mowing and low
cost construction projects that aren't considered a capital improvement. The new
capital improvement component is regarding large -scale projects to provide water
quantity and quality protection. The administrative component includes customer
service and billing. Billing is an involved process. It is one of the first things they
have to do. Education is paid for in the administrative component.
The rate structure can be done many ways. Most utilities assess customers
based on an equivalent stormwater unit (ESU). An ESU is based on the effective
impervious area of the average single - family parcel, which is based on a statistical
sample of single - family residential parcels.
Funding from a utility fee versus a tax. A utility fee will be sued. Someone
will challenge it. Churches, schools, and roads have lots of impervious surfaces,
but are exempt from paying taxes. The utility would have to prove that it is not a
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
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.
tax. If money collected by the utility exceeds the amount it needs to pay for
services, and the excess is put to some other use, then the charge may be
considered a tax.
A utility fee is generally collected in response to an NPDES permit. For a
population of 100,000, it will cost between $140,000 and $750,000. This is the
base fee.
Nelson asked if districts could be inter - jurisdictional. Duane stated they
could be.
Nelson asked how this compares to the City's stormwater fee.
Watts stated it is similar.
Nelson asked if the City and County should agree on what the fee should
accomplish. Monsen stated the County should make it clear what the utility is to
accomplish. That will dictate the form and amount of revenue generation.
Nelson asked if this is the tool to use to form a stormwater district. Monsen
stated it is, in some form.
Nelson asked how long it would take to set up a district. Duane stated it
would take between 14 and 24 months.
Monsen stated it depends on what they want to accomplish through the
district. Don't be tempted to tap that resource to do other stuff.
Nelson stated he would like to explore this further. His concern is that they
will have lots of good plans without a mechanism for implementation at the end of
six months.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how long it took the City of Bellingham to put
together their stormwater fee program. Watts stated the time took longer than
expected, due to the pipeline explosion. It took about six months for a consultant
to come up with draft plan. It took more time for their Public Works Department to
work on it, and then several months for the City Council to work through the public
process.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if it is addressing the goals they set out to do.
Watts stated it is.
Roy asked if the rates are dependent upon good practices. Duane stated
utility fees could be incorporated with credits for good practices.
Roy stated they could use it as an incentive tool. A utility is to do different
things, such as stormwater quality control and flood control.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson asked what staff needs from the Council today. Monsen stated the
staff is providing information only right now. Over the next few meetings, they will
have to refine those things they want to do differently, on the assumption that they
will create a utility that will deal with things proactively. Staff doesn't need
direction today. However, if the Council feels strongly that the County must use
current revenue sources to do everything they're talking about, then the staff
doesn't need to go down this path. If the Council believes that the County needs to
advance what it's doing today, they need to identify a revenue source. That is yet
to be determined. A utility is a structure to deal with that range of options. What
the Council decides is a priority will determine how big the structure is.
Nelson asked if a utility would be a tool for new development, or if they have
to wait for development to exist. Duane stated they could base a utility fee on
impervious area or runoff. All property will produce some form of runoff. They can
incorporate undeveloped land in a utility, but it is touchy. Any stormwater fee will
be challenged. However, if the County complies with the goals, and the public sees
that, it will go a long way. The County doesn't have a billing system, so it would
attach the fee through the property tax process.
Caskey- Schreiber asked about purchasing a street vacuum. Monsen stated a
significant contributor is the road system and road department. Part of what they
are talking about is the things that go on in the utility, not to be confused with
creating a new revenue source and its purpose.
Also, this presentation was in the context of Lake Whatcom management.
That is not necessarily the same as being in compliance with NPDES phase II
program requirements for the Bellingham urban growth area, which includes a lot
of area outside the watershed. It becomes more complicated if this deals with
watershed planning implementation through WRIA. It is a vehicle to use to look at
for a number of water resource issues. If it is restricted to Lake Whatcom, the
timeline can be shortened.
Nelson stated they should keep goals and objectives in mind in the broader
picture. Monsen stated that if they do this at Lake Whatcom, they would have to
decide whether to also do it at Lake Samish or Drayton Harbor. As soon as the
Council asks that question, he will ask the Council what specifically it wants to
accomplish that is unique or similar.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is some overlap between this and the flood
fee. Monsen stated that as they talk about implementation, the flood fee would not
be the source to deal with implementation.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that will require some education.
Monsen stated continuing the flood fee in its current form and creating this
stormwater district must be discussed concurrently to create clarity of purpose.
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, 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
48
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.
2. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Role stated he would move four items into the Natural Resources Committee
agenda, including the instream flow methodology. It is the process by which they
mutually agree to set instream flows. Advocates say instream flows should be set
solely from a fisheries perspective. Others feel instream flows should be set with
additional uses in mind. He's looking for comments from the Council about that.
Also, Council should look at three things going to the Planning Unit for
approval, include the phase I deliverables. At the last work session, the Council
talked about how it would receive summaries of the deliverables from USU.
A second item for the Planning Unit has to do with criteria for evaluating
management options to be considered in the WRIA planning process, how they are
developed, and how they are going to be applied.
A third item for the Planning Unit is attributing Planning Unit comments to
caucuses. Now summaries are structured generically, without identifying speakers
or agencies. There has been a push to have specific comments attributed to
specific caucus representatives. He prefers to keep summaries in a format they are
in currently to make sure people can speak freely. The comments are captured well
enough to recreate what particular interest groups said.
Instream Flow Workshops
Roll stated this would be held to the Natural Resources Committee on March
26, 2002. Instream flow will be about how to take all the data and mold it into
instream flow strategy.
Technical Studies and Plan Development
Roll stated this would be held to the Natural Resources Committee on March
26, 2002.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on , 2002.
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, Page 19
1
2
3
4
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.
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 3/19/2002, Page 20