City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 22, 2003
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Pierce, chair; Gerald Robison; Len Boscarine; Mickey Conlin; Jon Newton; Robert Simpson-Clark; Kirsti Weaver
Absent: Douglas Rahn
Others Present: David Johanson, senior planner; Patrick Smith, planner; Ann Root, Adolfson Associates; Amy Dearborn, Adolfson Associates; Mark Greenig, EDAW; Gerry Lindsay, recording secretary
Chair Pierce called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Robison, who arrived at 7:07 p.m., and Commissioner Rahn.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Simpson-Clark and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes
A. April 8, 2003
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Simpson-Clark and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment - None
A. Discussion and Recommendation: Amendments to the Wetland Ordinance
Patrick Smith, planner, said staff concurs with the desire of the Planning Commission to see better representation on the part of the public with regard to the critical area ordinance. The most effective way to inform the residents about the proposed amendments is through a citywide mailing. Accordingly, prior to the August 26 public hearing staff will mail a public hearing notice to all property owners, and evaluate the logistics and effectiveness of writing an article in the City’s newsletter to be published on June 16.
With regard to buffer enhancement and buffer averaging, Mr. Smith noted that both staff and the consultants are recommending using the former as opposed to the latter. With buffer averaging there is no net gain in developable land for the property owners, and the buffers themselves are not enhanced. With the buffer enhancement approach there is a potential gain of 25 percent in the amount of developable land, and the buffers are enhanced.
Commissioner Robison asked if there were any reason why both approaches could not be incorporated in the code to allow applicants a choice. Mr. Smith said both could be included, but staff would still encourage buffer enhancement given the flexibilities the approach offers. Commissioner Robison suggested that in some situations a property owner may not mind giving up an additional buffer because the land is not used anyway, and the lost developable land could be gained back by reducing the buffer in another area that has more value to the property owner. Mr. Smith held that in the final analysis buffer enhancement provides for more developable land than buffer averaging.
Commissioner Newton asked if it would always have to be an either/or situation, or if there could in some instances be a combination of buffer enhancement and buffer averaging used on a single site. Mr. Smith agreed that it would not have to be either/or. Enhancement is to be encouraged, however, because in many instances existing buffers are degraded.
Commissioner Conlin suggested that the City would look better in the eyes of developers if a choice was given between buffer enhancement and buffer averaging.
Commissioner Robison asked if the agricultural use of a buffer or wetland be in compliance with the proposed code. Anne Root, Adolfson Associates, allowed that it probably would not. Existing blueberry farms would be permitted to continue operation, but one could not be planted as part of a wetland enhancement.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark commented that enhancing buffers with vegetation would work well for the first couple of years but after that it would become unenforceable. Blackberries can be removed, but in three years they will be back covering an entire area unless constantly battled, something that is not enforced. That argues in favor of averaging over enhancement, given that averaging is a permanent approach and enhancement is only temporary.
Commissioner Robison reiterated his desire to give the applicant the choice.
Chair Pierce suggested that the experts can argue about the best available science all they want. The bottom line is that near the Hermes Depression there is a spot where there are 50 blueberry bushes growing and providing a wonderful enhancement for the wetland, even though the best available science says that will not work. Too often buffer areas left to appear as though in a completely natural state attract the dumping of trash. Commissioner Newton suggested that little can be done by way of ordinance to prevent that from happening.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark commented that in order to get something enhanced it must be economically attractive to do so. The ordinance, however, has been focused primarily on disallowing most of the things that traditionally have enhanced wetlands, though not from a purely ecological point of view. Most parks are based around water, something that essentially would be eliminated under the proposed ordinance, at least as far as making the water available to people. Putting a restaurant on piers out in a wetland is something that would never be allowed, but is the very sort of thing that would encourage a property owner to maintain the environment for economic reasons.
Chair Pierce said he did not want to end up with runoff areas with chain link fences around them looking like pig sties inside, such as along 4th Avenue Southwest to Southwest 140th Street owned by the City. Commissioner Newton said those are retention facilities, not wetlands, and as such is a different issue. Chair Pierce suggested that if he were a property owner charged with protecting a wetland the easiest way to do it would be to put a chain link fence around it to keep everyone out. Commissioner Robison pointed out that under the proposal a storm water retention facility will not be regulated as a wetland unless created in a wetland.
Commissioner Newton suggested that as proposed sections 19.40.210.6.G and 19.40.210.6.H of the ordinance allow for a choice between buffer averaging and buffer enhancement. He agreed that the enhancement approach is the best method to achieve the benefits of water quality and wetland protection. Mr. Smith said the recommendation of staff would be to delete 19.40.210.6.G, focusing only on the enhancement approach.
Commissioner Boscarine concurred with the notion that the developers should be given the choice as to which approach to use.
Motion to include both sections 19.40.210.6.G and 19.40.210.6.H in the recommended ordinance was made by Commissioner Robison. Second was by Commissioner Simpson-Clark and the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Robison observed that there are currently two ordinances on the books that deal with wetlands buffers and how wetlands are treated. The old ordinance 19.86.180.1 and 19.86.180.2 requires sensitive areas and buffers to be set aside in a separate tract. Sections 19.40.156 and 19.40.157 provide that sensitive areas should have a notice on a piling to be set aside with an easement or a tract. The sections with respect to steep slopes and other sensitive areas were repealed from the old ordinance, and the same should be done for wetlands and buffers so that everything will be covered under the new ordinance.
Commissioner Simpson-Clark said he had originally suggested the elimination of some of the regulations for steep slopes on the basis that steep slopes and wetland areas are both sensitive areas but for entirely different reasons. Steep slopes present safety and engineering problems that must be dealt with for any development permit, whereas protection of the wetlands is not specifically dependent on development once permanently set aside.
Mr. Smith pointed out that Chapter 18 will be repealed with adoption of Chapter 19. Commissioner Robison said the issue is notice on title and whether the buffer and sensitive area are to be set aside in a tract or easement. The applicant should be allowed to decide which approach will work best.
David Johanson, senior planner, said staff would review the issue and report back to the Commission.
New Business
A. Introduction to Streams and Wildlife Conservation Areas
Ms. Root explained that streams are in need of protection because they provide fish habitat and, in some cases, drinking water. The land adjacent to streams, called the riparian area, provides habitat for approximately 85 percent of the terrestrial species in Washington state. In order to protect the stream, the riparian area also must be protected, and protecting the riparian area also protects valuable wildlife habitat.
Protecting the riparian area improves water quality in several different ways: the temperature of the stream is kept lower by providing shading; excess sedimentation into the water is reduced by vegetative material; the stream banks are protected from erosion; and vegetative material reduces chemical contaminants to some extent by serving as a filter.
Continuing, Ms. Root said habitat elements are important in maintaining the health of a stream. Substrate, which is the solid material comprising the bed of an aquatic environment, stabilizes the sediment and provides nesting areas for fish. Riparian vegetation filters sediments that fill gravel spaces in the stream bed needed for spawning. The riparian area also provides a source for large, woody debris which, when it falls into a stream, also provides fish habitat by creating pools and serves as a source of food and nutrients. Pools provide fish with both resting and feeding areas.
Ms. Root used a map to show the location of existing streams in Burien, including Miller Creek, which under the current code would be classified as a Class 2 stream with salmonids and evidence of Coho.
Chair Pierce asked Ms. Root who wrote the report from which she was quoting. She indicated that it was written by herself and one other staff member. Chair Pierce then asked her if she was proud of the work and the response she gave was that she is proud of the document given the limited amount of time allowed to work on it. Chair Pierce said the document does not contain even a close description of Miller Creek. The creek does not start in Lora Lake, and Lora Lake is not within the confines of the city of Burien. The headwaters of Miller Creek are near Kennedy High School on 1st Avenue South. The document also discusses the limiting factors but is not at all clear about where Miller Creek crosses Ambaum Boulevard. He said the document is very poorly written, adding that he did not even want to hear about it.
Ms. Root said there are various tributaries for Miller Creek, making the actual headwaters difficult to ascertain. She said she would take that information into consideration, but said that would not alter the overall description of the stream, which is that Miller Creek has some serious water quality problems due to the heavy development of the area, has some fish blockages, and has problems with upstream development related to the airport.
Commissioner Conlin asked Ms. Root how far up Miller Creek she went to find salmon. Ms. Root said her findings were based on the literature, which says there is evidence of Coho salmon in the creek. Obviously they do not go up past the fish barrier. Chair Pierce said there were many different fish, including King salmon, in Miller Creek up until the mid-60s, at least in the lower reaches.
Ms. Root said the other creeks in Burien are coastal. Two of those are discussed in the report, namely Salmon Creek and Stream 01, the latter of which flows through Seahurst Park. Both are Type 2 streams, and neither has any evidence of salmon.
Commissioner Robison noted that Salmon Creek had salmon in the lower end of it in fairly recent times.
Commissioner Newton said the report indicates Salmon Creek has no large woody debris when in fact a landslide in the lower park has left much large woody debris. Ms. Root allowed that the only part of the stream observed for the report was that accessible as public property. The assessment with regard to large woody debris is based on the adequacy to provide habitat.
From the audience Deputy Mayor Clark asked why the report did not mention Walker Creek. Ms. Root said she did not know why Walker Creek had not been included. The primary focus for the inventory was on Miller Creek.
Commissioner Conlin asked Ms. Root if she was quoting from work done by others or by herself. She answered that she was quoting from background research done by others, and from a very limited physical survey of streams in Burien conducted by Adolfson Associates. The literature relied on is a general overview of streams in the state of Washington.
Ms. Root pointed out that there are additional unmapped and unnamed streams in the shoreline area as well, for which there is no present information as to type or the possibilities for fish presence.
Commissioner Robison noted that no mention was made of Seola Creek in the northwestern portion of the city. Ms. Root said the stream was not looked at for the inventory but will be looked at with respect to regulating the portion that is within Burien. Mr. Smith suggested that most of Seola Creek is in the city of Seattle, though one tributary of the creek begins in Burien.
Ms. Root said the existing Burien stream code has four classes of streams. Class 1 covers generally the shorelines with a 100-foot buffer. Class 2 with salmonids are smaller streams with perennial flows; they also have a 100-foot buffer. Class 3 streams are smaller yet and have a 50-foot buffer, and Class 4 streams have only a 25-foot buffer. The balance of the code has many of the same sections and provisions contained in the wetlands code, including a series of permitted alterations. The stream code includes sections covering stream relocation, stream enhancement and stream mitigation measures.
Ms. Root said most revisions to the stream code will be focused on clarifying requirements and cleaning up some sections. Stream relocation probably will be suggested only as an enhancement measure. The stream types will be revised to bring them more in line with the state classification system, though somewhat simpler. Stream buffer widths will be reviewed for best available science.
Commissioner Weaver asked if Burien could establish stream buffers narrower than those required by the state. Commissioner Robison pointed out that the state guideline is a recommendation only, not a requirement. The state does not have the jurisdiction to establish buffer widths.
Ms. Root said she would be returning to the Commission in two weeks with a proposed code.
Amy Dearborn, Adolfson Associates, explained that fish and wildlife conservation areas are upland from streams and rivers and in some instances may extend beyond the riparian areas buffers. Burien has a diverse level of wildlife, ranging from mink, otters and coyotes to skunks and rabbits. River otters travel up stream channels and sometimes over land between wetlands and streams.
Chair Pierce said he was skeptical of the claim that there are mink living in Burien. He agreed that there are otters. Ms. Dearborn said she had not done a wildlife survey of the area; the information is based on literature of species common to the Pacific Northwest region in urban and suburban areas. Chair Pierce suggested that the chance of a skunk coming to Burien by means other than importation is slim to none. Commissioner Newton disagreed, pointing out that there are skunk living along Salmon Creek. Chair Pierce then concurred with Commissioner Newton. Commissioner Simpson-Clark added that the steep area near Three Tree Point has a population of foxes. Ms. Dearborn said there are species living in Burien that are recognized both federally and by the state that must be given stronger protections.
Ms. Dearborn suggested that significant changes to the existing code will not be proposed. The focus will be on clarifying vague language and the quality of wildlife habitat areas. Such areas need large woody debris, snags, mature forest, emerging areas of low vegetation, and connectivity between other ecosystems.
The commissioners were shown the priorities habitat and species map from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Ms. Dearborn noted that the map is constantly being updated and must be ordered for each project.
Commissioner Boscarine asked if, along with providing habitat for the warm and fuzzy animals, anything can be done about reducing the number of less desirable animals, such as rats, mice and opossum. Ms. Dearborn commented that the Fish and Wildlife department has management techniques for pest species, including live trapping and relocation. Certain animal shelters also will provide assistance. Species such as rats are not protected and can be trapped and eradicated.
Ms. Dearborn said one part of the current code that should be retained is the prohibition against introducing exotic animal species to the area.
Commissioner Conlin expressed concern over the fact that the materials and suggestions for change do not appear to be well researched. He suggested that before recommendations are made to change buffer widths and protect habitat for species that may not even live in Burien, there should be solid, supportable reasons.
Commissioner Robison asked what methodology the state uses for its wildlife habitat survey. Ms. Dearborn allowed that there are dozens of different methodologies for assessing wildlife habitat. There also are a variety of methods available to private developers. Mr. Smith added that as different issues come up, the Department of Ecology is contacted to send out someone who specializes in a particular area. The state undoubtedly uses a number of different sources in updating its wildlife habitat database.
Chair Pierce suggested that the City could gain a good understanding of the wildlife species present in Burien by simply putting out a quick survey asking citizens to indicate which species they have seen in the last year. The request for information could be put on the City’s web site or in the newsletter.
B. Introduction to GMA and the Comprehensive Plan Update Process
Mr. Johanson allowed that the Comprehensive Plan update process involves a fairly aggressive schedule. In addition to the updates required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), the docketed amendments also must be considered, along with the addition of new elements, such as the Economic Element. He said consultants Mark Greenig and Nancy Bird of EDAW have been working with staff on the update process.
Mr. Greenig said the GMA was adopted in 1990. It was controversial then and is still controversial, but it is the law and must be complied with. The planning goals of the GMA are to encourage growth to occur in higher densities within existing urban areas to try and maximize infrastructure. There must be a balance between land use, transportation and other facilities, and financial concerns in terms of planning for the future. Jurisdictions, both counties and cities, are required by the state to develop comprehensive plans consistent with the GMA.
There are five GMA-required comprehensive plan elements: land use, housing, capital facilities, transportation and utilities. Additional elements can be included at the discretion of the local jurisdiction.
Mr. Greenig said three main areas will be addressed during the update process: incorporation of applicable changes made to the GMA, changes in conditions, and strengthening existing policies and adding new elements. The update also will include the docketed items. Steps will be taken to review the 1997 Comprehensive Plan against the requirements of the GMA to identify where there are gaps. The fact that Burien’s Comprehensive Plan was fairly recently updated is positive and will mean the process will be less cumbersome. If no changes are necessary, none will be made. Where changes are called for, the Planning Commission will be involved.
Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan due to changes in the GMA and changes in conditions will not result in map changes. The docketed items may involve map changes.
Mr. Greenig noted that the state requires all comprehensive plans to be updated every seven years. The next cycle year is 2004. The advantage of getting the update work done sooner rather than later will mean a longer span of time until the next update in 2011.
Mr. Johanson said the gap analysis will be presented to the Planning Commission on May 13. The balance of the schedule for the year has yet to be detailed.
Commissioners Boscarine and Newton noted that they will not be present for the May 13 meeting.
Director’s Report – None
Adjournment
Chair Pierce adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Approved:
/s/ Robert Simpson-Clark, interim chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department