City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 10, 2003
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present: Robert Simpson-Clark, interim chair; Jon Newton; Bonnie Isenberg, Rebecca McInteer, Douglas Rahn, Janet Shull, and Barbara Williams
Absent: None
Others Present: David Johanson, senior planner; Patrick Smith, planner; Teresa Vanderberg, Adolfson Associates; Gerry Lindsay, recording secretary
David Johanson, senior planner, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Simpson-Clark. Second was by Commissioner Newton and the motion carried unanimously.
Introduction of New Commissioner Members
Each commissioner took a moment to introduce himself or herself and indicate a little of his or her background and interests.
Election of Interim Chair and Vice Chair
It was agreed to elect a chair and vice chair to serve in the interim until the normal date for elections.
Motion to elect Commissioner Simpson-Clark to serve as interim chair, and Commissioner Newton to serve as interim vice chair, was made by Commissioner Rahn. Second was by Commissioner Williams and the motion carried unanimously.
Approval of Minutes - None
Public Comment – None
Old Business
A. Presentation and Discussion on Draft Stream Regulations
Patrick Smith, planner, indicated that a draft version of the wetlands and aquifer recharge areas documents will be before the commission once the various elements have been studied, perhaps in August. In addition to the stream regulations, still to be studied are the habitat and wildlife conservation areas, and frequently flooded areas. For each category the best available science must be taken into consideration.
Mr. Smith explained that there are four stream category classifications depending on if they are fish-bearing or not, and if they have a perennial flow or an intermittent flow. He said the buffers being recommended for the four categories closely match those imposed under the existing regulations. It was mentioned that proposed Burien stream classifications are different than the present and proposed King County standards. There are no Type 1 streams in Burien. For Type 2 streams with salmon, the proposed buffer is 100 feet. Type 3 streams are not used by salmon but are used by other kinds of fish, and the proposed buffer is 50 feet. Type 4 streams have either a perennial or intermittent flow and are not used by any fish; the buffer for Type 4 streams is proposed to be 25 feet. Staff explained in general terms that the proposed system of classifying streams is a more simple approach as compared to the system that King County is proposing to use.
Commissioner Rahn noted from the staff memorandum that Type 1 streams are those inventoried as “shorelines of the state” and asked what that means. Teresa Vanderberg, Adolfson Associates, said shorelines of the state are defined by the Washington Administrative Code. With respect to streams, the term refers to streams of any size that have a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second or greater. Streams that fall into that category do not exist within the city limits of Burien.
Commissioner Rahn asked if each of the Type 2, 3 and 4 streams identified in the city have names. Mr. Smith allowed that not all of the streams have names. Commissioner Rahn said it would be helpful to know how each named stream is classified. Ms. Vanderberg said Miller Creek is a Type 2 stream, and Salmon Creek is a Type 3. If salmonids were to be found in Salmon Creek, the stream would be reclassified as Type 2. There are a number of streams in the city that are steep and that flow into Puget Sound directly; most of those have not been categorized, and most would be Type 3 or Type 4 streams. The two streams flowing through Seahurst Park are not officially named; they are referred to only as the north stream and the south stream.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark commented that the United States Geologic Survey is the final authority on geographic names. It would be possible to give names to currently unnamed streams, but the process is quite onerous.
It was agreed that having all streams in Burien named would go a long way toward increasing stewardship on the part of the public.
Asked who documents the presence of salmonids in streams, Ms. Vanderberg said the state conducts that work and provides the information to the local jurisdictions for the habitat priority habitat and species maps. Special studies can be done in addition to that, such as those done as part of an application for a development proposal; if done by a qualified biologist, those findings can become a documented record.
Mr. Smith said the impervious surface setbacks, another term for the building setbacks from the buffers, are proposed to be 15 feet. He said the purpose of the setback is to allow people to maintain their homes and buildings. Things permitted in the buffer area include play equipment, patios, uncovered decks and fences.
The commissioners were informed that under the proposal some alterations to the streams are allowed. The relocating or piping of a Type 1 or Type 2 stream is not permitted, unless undertaken by a public agency and for the enhancement of the stream. Relocating or piping a Type 3 or Type 4 stream may be permitted if the alteration is unavoidable and a mitigation plan is approved by the City. Alterations to stream buffers are not permitted unless part of a buffer enhancement plan or buffer width averaging.
Commissioner McInteer arrived.
Ms. Vanderberg explained that in 1995 the Growth Management Act required the use of best available science for updating and revising critical areas ordinances. However, the requirement was confusing and many jurisdictions chose to do nothing about it. Clarification was provided by the Washington State Legislature in 2000 which indicated best available science is research that has been peer reviewed and published in a technical journal. Special consideration must be given to protection of salmonids.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark noted that the principle concern for Burien is Miller Creek. The problem is that the City largely has no control over the stream given that only a three-block section of the stream lying between two culverts and the headwaters is within the city limits. Accordingly, it will do the City very little good to have a restrictive code without a complete basin compact coordinating all activities among the various jurisdictions involved. Ms. Vanderberg said jurisdictions that do not control the mouth or majority of a stream must coordinate actions with those jurisdictions that do. The best available science considers entire watersheds.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark said it was his understanding that the stream flowing through Seahurst Park could conceivably provide habitat for salmon in the same way Salmon Creek does.
Commissioner Newton noted that the 303(a) list, which highlights bodies of impaired water, included Lake Garritt, also called Hicks Lake, because of high levels of fecal coliform. That body of water more than likely has a feeder into Salmon Creek. Ms. Vanderberg said one of the intents of buffers is to improve water quality. In urban areas, however, the buffers are less effective because of storm water runoff. Creeks that have residential lakes for headwaters are often a problem because of the presence of geese and ducks and other animals. Those issues can be addressed through water quality monitoring, but not through City regulations.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark suggested inserting into the recommendation language calling for development of a multi-jurisdictional approach to dealing with streams.
Commissioner McInteer concurred, highlighting the importance of jurisdictions talking to each other about common issues.
Commissioner Williams moved to add policy language along the lines of “The City of Burien shall coordinate its activities with other jurisdictions with regard to regulated streams.” Second was by Commissioner Newton and the motion carried unanimously.
Answering a question posed by Commissioner Williams, Mr. Smith allowed that there is a specific definition of “ditch” in the back of the ordinance. Commissioner Williams then asked if the stream running out of the Salmon Creek drainage and alongside the Segale property qualifies as a stream or a ditch, and Mr. Smith said he was not sure, allowing that the majority of the tributary streams have not been classified. Commissioner Williams said she was concerned that the waterway could be classified as a ditch because it is not a natural flow any longer, and because there is no documented fish usage. Ms. Vanderberg said classifying a body of water as a stream or a ditch can get very tricky given the guidelines. Streams that were sometime in the past ditched are still considered streams, whereas artificial waterways that convey primarily surface waters and do not have documented fish use is a ditch.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark noted that the zoning code speaks to nonconforming but continuing uses. In those instances redevelopment or remodeling often triggers full compliance. The same should be considered for streams. An existing stream crossing should be considered a continuing use, and any reconstruction of the roadway should trigger full compliance with the current code. In the case of First Avenue South, any major alteration would require the crossing of Miller Creek to be brought up to current standards. Mr. Johanson said much depends on the nexus between the upgrade and the requirements.
Commissioner Williams said Salmon Creek is the only fully held major stream in Burien and that as such whatever is done to it should be done with great care and without adding to the confusion.
It was agreed that staff will return to the commission with a more complete explanation of how to handle stream treatments that are out of compliance with the current code.
Commissioner Newton said he has been working with the DOE on the issue of Salmon Creek and getting a quality assessment program set up. Programs also are being set up with the Environmental Science Center to find out what has been done in the creek to date and to determine what can be done with it in the future.
Commissioner Rahn noted that significant streams have different buffer requirements. He asked how property owners who could be thus affected are to be notified of changes in the requirements. Mr. Smith allowed that the commission has been concerned over the lack of attendance at the public hearings and open discussions of the issues. The current plan calls for an all-city mailing outlining the proposals for streams and wetlands regulations to increase the attendance at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The commissioners proposed including an article in the Burien newsletter with maps showing the locations of streams in question.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner McInteer about the state requirements for stream connections, Ms. Vanderberg allowed that in Burien many of the streams fall directly to Puget Sound. Given that environment, the connection language does not seem necessary.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark proposed that at some point the City should update its maps to show not only the location of streams but their classifications as well. He allowed that the first step will be to adopt by ordinance the standards to be used in creating the map.
Mr. Johanson informed the commissioners that there are already some existing classification maps. The only problem with them is they do not address all of the little tributaries, only the main bodies. Miller Creek and Salmon Creek are shown on the map as Type 2 streams with salmonids, but for the smaller streams King County simply did not conduct the inventory so they are left out. Until someone proposes a development, there often is no specific classification. As wetlands inventories and surveys are conducted, their results are written on the maps so as not to be lost. Some additional survey on the part of the city may be necessary as the process moves along.
The commission asked staff to bring to the next study session the maps showing all of the known stream classifications and the location of streams that remain unclassified.
New Business
A. Introduction to Tree Retention
Mr. Smith said direction for the commission to develop regulations for tree retention on private property came from the City Council. The Tree Board will be working with the Public Works Department to come up with regulations for tree retention on City-owned lands and rights-of-way.
Mr. Smith said four major issues have been identified by staff, the first of which is that developed single family lots are exempt from the tree retention requirements even though a large lot may be subdivided. The existing tree retention ordinance applies only to new development or existing development with nonconforming landscaping.
Having been asked for an example by Commissioner Shull, Mr. Smith said a single-family home on a four-acre lot will most likely have trees on it because the site is largely undeveloped. However, because of the existing house the site is considered to be developed and is therefore exempt from the tree retention ordinance. If an application to subdivide were to be submitted, the tree retention ordinance would kick in, but there is nothing to stop a property from removing the trees first and then making application for subdividing the lot.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark said the situation could be addressed by having the tree retention ordinance kick in where trees have been removed within a certain period of time. The requirement could be for a replanting effort that would not otherwise be required.
Mr. Smith confirmed for Commissioner Rahn that no city permit is needed for a single-family homeowner to cut a tree down on a property, but a permit is needed to remove a tree from a sensitive area. The latter requires review by a certified arborist before a permit can be issued.
Commissioner Newton stressed the need to have the definition of significant trees very clearly spelled out in the ordinance.
Commissioner Rahn spoke against ordinance language that would allow the City to keep the owner of a developed single-family lot from removing a significant tree from the property, but said he could support having a prohibition against removing significant trees on undeveloped lots or in critical areas, as well as on properties that could potentially be subdivided.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark suggested that it might make more sense for the ordinance to talk about areas of coverage by significant trees rather than just percentages of significant trees.
Mr. Smith said the second issue identified by staff is the fact that the existing code requires excessive replanting to replace the removal of significant trees on undeveloped lots. The ordinance requires the planting of new trees at a replacement rate of 1.5 inches diameter for every one inch diameter of significant trees removed. If a property owner were to remove a significant tree with a 20-inch diameter, they would have to replant with ten three-inch caliper trees that over time would be far more encompassing.
Commissioner Newton noted that for each species there is recommended plant spacing for planting purposes. He suggested that such a template over a given property area could serve to indicate how many trees should be planted. He added that a mortality rate should be factored in as well.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark said one approach would be to leave the admittedly draconian approach in the ordinance but add in the possibility of having an alternative plan approved by the director.
Mr. Smith allowed that the draconian approach does serve as an incentive not to remove significant trees. He said the landscaping ordinance encourages the retention of existing vegetation to meet the intent of the landscaping requirements.
Commissioner Shull asked if other jurisdictions in the area impose monetary penalties for removing significant trees illegally. Mr. Smith said he would research that. Commissioner Shull added that the companion piece to the tree retention policies and regulations will need to be a good public education component.
Mr. Smith said the third issue identified by staff is the fact that in critical areas, specifically on steep slopes, proper professionals are not always reviewing tree removal permits. He said as written, the current code requires a tree arborist to determine if removal of a tree will increase the risk of landslide or erosion. Staff has questioned whether a geotechnical engineer should be involved as well. While that may ultimately lengthen the process and make it more costly for either the city or the applicant, the result would be greater protections.
Commissioner Newton questioned whether an arborist is qualified to make a call regarding landslide hazards.
Interim chair Simpson-Clark said there is a wide diversity of opinion among professionals with regard to the soil-retaining properties of trees. He suggested that if only a tree or two is being considered for removal, the issue is generally not a significant one geologically. However, there should be review of any vegetation plan for a major development. The ability of vegetation to hold back soils is a very complex and site-specific issue. Turf cover is generally recognized as the optimal method for protecting slopes; earthen fill dam is never planted with trees, but they are often covered with grasses.
There was general agreement in favor of requiring a geotechnical review for certain levels of tree removal only, and to retain the practice of requiring review by a certified arborist in critical areas. There also was agreement that in all cases the City should be the final authority in granting approval for the removal of trees from critical areas.
Commissioner McInteer asked what originally made the staff bring forward the notion of having a geotech involved in the review. Mr. Smith said it was past experience and a general knowledge of steep slopes. He said there are a large number of variables involved with each case. He allowed that the city attorney also would prefer to see a geotech involved for liability reasons.
Commissioner Newton thought it would be helpful to know what other jurisdictions require in terms of an arborist or geotechnical expert.
Mr. Smith said the fourth issue identified by staff is that the review process for tree removal permits is confusing and cumbersome, especially with regard to the required mitigation for the illegal removal of trees from steep slopes. Under the current regulations, property owners are required to select a certified arborist from a list compiled by the City to go out and make an assessment of what should be replanted given the trees that were removed. The problem has been that a very large number of the reports coming from the certified arborists do not meet the city qualifications to protect a steep slope. The City must then send out its own arborist to review the situation.
Mr. Smith said one option would be to have the city’s arborist be the only qualified party to determine what should be replanted when trees are removed without permit.
Commissioner Newton suggested that each certified arborist on the city’s list should be provided with the necessary information to construct a plan that meets the requirements of the city.
Commissioner McInteer proposed that any arborist on the city’s certified arborist list that does not develop plans in keeping with city requirements should either be better educated or removed from the list. Commissioner Newton concurred and added that there should be an annual meeting of everyone on the list with city officials to reiterate the pertinent requirements.
There was consensus among the commissioners that property owners should be required to hire an arborist from among those on the city’s list to produce a report.
Director’s Report - None
Adjournment
Interim chair Simpson-Clark adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m.
Approved:
/s/ Robert Simpson-Clark, interim chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department