City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 8, 2002
6:30 to 9:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Pierce, chair; Gerald Robison; Len Boscarine; Jon Newton; Robert Simpson-Clark; Kirsti Weaver; Bruce White
Absent: Douglas Rahn, Mickey Conlin
Others Present: Scott Greenberg, planning director; Diane Hennessey, consultant, Adolfson Associates, Inc.; Gerry Lindsay, recording secretary
Chair Pierce called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Robison, who arrived at 6:41 p.m., and Commissioners Rahn and Conlin.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Weaver. Second was by Commissioner Simpson-Clark and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
A. September 10, 2002
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Boscarine. Second was by Commissioner Newton and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment - None
A. Discussion of Draft Critical Area Review Process Changes
Scott Greenberg, planning director, provided the commissioners with a memo outlining the changes proposed to the critical area review process. He said the biggest change had to do with reducing the level of review process. The exemptions section was expanded to include, among other things, the addition of a certain amount of impervious surface to an existing development. Under the current provisions, anyone wishing to add a patio in a critical area or within a critical area buffer must go through the Type I review process, which can take 120 days or more and cost more than a thousand dollars. In reviewing the matter, staff and the consultant could not see any benefit to the public resulting from the process. Most smaller projects never get any public comment.
Mr. Greenberg said the proposal includes a required review for all projects similar to a building permit. In fact, an applicant would be permitted to combine the critical area review with the building permit. All of the pertinent reviews would be conducted and then there would be a critical area determination issued. There would be no public process involved except for new structures on vacant lots.
A public hearing on the draft is scheduled for October 22 before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Newton suggested that paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of 19.40.020 were focused on purpose, whereas paragraph 3 defines scope and paragraph 4 objectives. Mr. Greenberg said he had struggled with the same thing. He suggested that paragraph 3 is more of a finding and proposed moving it ahead of paragraph 1, not numbering it, and having it serve as an overall finding for the section. Paragraph 5 could be moved to follow paragraph 2 so that all of the purpose statements are together, leaving paragraphs 4 and 6 last in the section and changing the name of the section to “Purpose and Goals.” Commissioner Newton said he agreed with the proposal except that he would meld paragraph 6 with paragraph 3 and have the new paragraph serve as the finding for the section.
Commissioner Boscarine asked how much acreage is designated critical area in Burien and how the determination is made. Diane Hennessey said the state definition of critical area includes wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Mr. Greenberg showed the commissioners the map of critical areas in Burien. He said the map was prepared by taking all of the critical areas that have been formally designated, the adopted King County maps, and all new information. The data was all input into the GIS system, then all of the borders were expanded by 100 feet, and the resulting map is used as the red-flag indicator. Anyone coming to the counter whose property is shown to be within a critical area as shown on the red-flag map is automatically selected for further review to determine if in fact there is a critical area involved.
Ms. Hennessey pointed out that the critical aquifer recharge areas are not on the map because they have yet to be identified.
Commissioner Robison asked if bald eagle’s nesting sites are considered critical areas. Ms. Hennessey said they are included as fish and wildlife habitat areas. On the map they are generally located in the Seahurst area. Species of local importance also are included. No critical habitat areas are shown on the red-flag map because they have yet to be identified.
Commissioner Boscarine asked if the practical application of the proposal would be to allow homeowners to jump through fewer hoops in the process of rebuilding following a natural disaster of some kind. Mr. Greenberg explained that there is already an emergency exemption in place. Rebuilding projects still are reviewed for safety and still need a building permit, but they are exempted from the process. Those exemptions will remain in place. The proposal is to reduce the number of hoops for existing homes that simply want to add a limited addition.
Mr. Greenberg called attention to paragraph 4 of Section 19.40.040, Adjacency, and said more work needs to be done on the section. As written, any property adjacent to a critical area must meet the requirements of the chapter. Taking that provision to its extreme, any property within half a mile of a bald eagle nest in Seahurst Park would have to go through the Type I review process. That is not the intention of either the City Council or the Growth Management Act, provided that all issues relating to bald eagles are reviewed.
Commissioner Robison asked if there is any best available science behind the number used in paragraph 4B of Section 19.40.040. He said the number appeared to be somewhat arbitrary. Ms. Hennessey said studies on human disturbance have been done on bald eagle nesting. The half-mile range represents a good compromise. Commissioner Robison noted that bald eagles voluntarily build nests in the yards of people and in Alaska the nests are constructed very close to freeways and railroad tracks.
Mr. Greenberg agreed that more work needs to go into making sure the numbers make sense and are backed up by best available science. Ms. Hennessey said it may only be necessary to limit construction during the nesting season, which is between January and May for bald eagles.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark suggested including language in the ordinance referring to the laws the ordinance must be in compliance with so that if a statute with respect to distances is changed Burien will still be in compliance. Ms. Hennessey agreed with the suggestion.
Mr. Greenberg proposed that for the purposes of the October 22 public hearing all references to the bald eagles nests and the critical aquifer recharge area will be eliminated. Later in the process, as the numbers are clarified, they can be added back in.
Chair Pierce suggested that paragraph 4D of Section 19.40.020 should be revised to read “Avoid public and private expenditures to correct misuses of critical areas.”
Commissioner Boscarine asked if could be considered discriminatory to make property owners within the designated areas on the red-flag map jump through more hoops than people in other areas must jump through. It was noted that the ordinance applies to all property owners in the city, but only comes into play for properties with critical areas. Properties in areas with weak soils are required to have foundations that are different from those required in other areas, and that is not considered to be discriminatory.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark commented that there are really two issues being addressed by the proposed ordinance. The ordinance does not try to protect steep slopes, only to make them safe. The ordinance does not try to make wetlands safe, only protect them. He suggested that those two separate issues should be clearly separate in the language of the ordinance. He noted that paragraph 4A of Section 19.40.020 talks about preserving and enhancing the ecological values of critical areas and maintaining the integrity the natural environment. The integrity of the natural environment cannot be maintained absent disallowing all development, but the functional integrity can be maintained by mitigating the impacts. He also pointed out that the term “ecological values” should read “ecological value.” Throughout the ordinance the reference to “critical areas” should be to “those areas determined to be critical.”
Commissioner Robison agreed, pointing out that too often people see the goal of the City as preventing any development on steep slopes, when in fact the focus is on avoiding creating new hazards.
Commissioner Robison said he saw nothing in the proposed ordinance regarding the timelines in which the City would agree to handle the reviews and studies. For people planning to do anything, it would be very helpful to have some idea how quickly things will move through the process. Mr. Greenberg said all Type I review actions are covered by the code in Section 19.65. He agreed that an additional time limit could be added for the administrative Type I review being proposed.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark commented that there should be something in the ordinance between paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 19.40.110 to cover critical areas present with only limited impacts. Mr. Greenberg explained that where only minor impacts are determined a critical areas study is still required. Commissioner Simpson-Clark said the appropriate level for deciding what to do should be based on how much impact there will be. For instance, under the current rules a person with an old house that was constructed without any consideration for critical areas would be allowed to construct an addition, making a bad situation even worse. On the other hand, someone with a piece of unimproved property bordering a wetland, who could have several options for where to locate a new structure to avoid impacts altogether, would have to go through the entire review process, even though going into it everyone knows it will be allowed. Mr. Greenberg said staff had discussed doing away with all Type I reviews for anything in critical areas provided there are adequate development standards in place to either provide for safety or to protect the resource. It is the review process that adds time and cost. He said the argument could be a hard sell to the community but added that he was willing to put it forward.
Commissioner Boscarine questioned the need to include paragraph 3 in Section 19.40.030. Mr. Greenberg agreed that nothing substantive would be lost by deleting the paragraph. However, a large number of people believe that complying with local requirements will exempt them from any state or federal exemptions.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner Weaver relative to paragraph 1 of Section 19.40.120, Mr. Greenberg said the City does not have any of the qualified professionals listed in paragraph 2. There are cases where the only thing the geotechnical expert looks at is how to build a structure safely, and often the building officials can simply read the report without subbing it out for independent evaluation at additional cost. Much comes down to what level of risk the city staff are willing to take on themselves and what should be assigned to a hired professional for peer review. Where the professional hired by the applicant has done a good job, the cost of peer review is quite inexpensive. Too often, however, applicants hire the least expensive experts available, who do not read the codes and get the data all wrong. In those instances, peer review is often more expensive. Usually a report comes back with a list of things yet to be done or information still missing. That is given back to the applicant to follow, and more time is required.
Commissioner Robison suggested that, as written, the second sentence of paragraph 2 of Section 19.40.070 could be interpreted to mean that the least amount of impact would be no development at all. The sentence should be revised to refer to reasonably minimizing the impacts.
Commissioner Robison also thought paragraphs 3B, 3C and 3D should be written to allow maintenance of private facilities as well as public facilities. Mr. Greenberg said he would look at that and seek the proper balance.
Commissioner Robison stressed the need to include time limits for the critical area review. He said it should not take as long as four months or longer for the City to determine that an applicant will have to go through the full critical areas review. It should be possible to know what process will be required within 30 to 60 days.
Mr. Greenberg said too often people submit incomplete applications. Staff must then direct them to go back and come up with additional information, and then they complain that it takes too long to work through the process. He said staff is doing a much better job of not taking in applications that are grossly incomplete. He agreed that some timelines should be included in the ordinance.
Commissioner Boscarine asked if paragraphs 5A and 5B in Section 19.40.070 were conflicting. Mr. Greenberg said they are not. He explained that the reasonable use exception cannot be used to construct a use that would otherwise not be permitted in the zone, or to permit additional density.
Commissioner Newton observed that throughout the proposal there are references to functions and values. The terms are used in both a broad brush approach and as review criteria, yet they are not fully defined. Mr. Greenberg said the description of the general scientific values and functions will not be available by the public hearing date. He said he would come up with something fairly general for the public hearing and add the specifics later.
Adjournment
Chair Pierce adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m.
Approved
/s/ Robert Pierce, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department