Council sees cliff, backs up
Published 7:00 am Saturday, March 17, 2007
Changes to steep-slope protections will go back to planners for retooling.
A tumbling slide of public opinion hit City Hall Wednesday, spurring officials to reconsider amending environmental protections along steep slopes.
“It’s foolish and shortsighted,” said Emerald Way resident Steve Todd, referring to a proposal that would loosen building restrictions in areas designated as “geologically hazardous” under the Critical Areas Ordinance.
The amendment could put “human life, property and the environment” at risk from landslides, Todd said.
The council voted to send the proposal back to the planning department, asking for a draft that better addresses environmental concerns as well as those of property owners seeking less cumbersome land use policies.
“The public is relying on us to protect them,” said Councilman Bill Knobloch during the council’s short discussion on the issue.
Tackling his first land use controversy, the city’s new planning director, Greg Byrne, said the “issues raised need to be dealt with.” He pledged to “review and refine” the amendment and present a new draft sometime this spring.
Planning staff drafted the initial amendment to redress “unintended consequences” in the CAO that prohibit building that would have little environmental or slope impact.
“We need to come up with a solution that’ll work for everybody,” said planner Steve Morse, who said he has received about a dozen complaints from landowners frustrated with a CAO variance process that prohibits small-scale construction in seemingly stable areas.
The CAO was revamped last year after a long public process. The variance requirement was added, in part, to ensure that buildings were not constructed in unstable areas and would not endanger neighboring residents.
As written, the ordinance prohibits construction in areas that likely would pass geological safety tests, Morse said. As an example, Morse pointed to a large area in Crystal Springs that seems stable but remains restricted.
“The map shows that there was a slide a number of years ago,” he said. “But that probably went down a thousand years ago, but it’s classified as a geologically hazardous area. You can’t build a garage there.”
Architect Roger Katz estimated about 75 percent of the residential projects he’s worked on over the last 17 years would likely run aground under the current CAO rules.
“This is an extremely unfair burden to put on homeowners,” he said.
But many residents stressed that the amendment would remove public oversight and place project approval in the less-trustworthy hands of geological engineers employed by landowners. Some of these hired hands may be more beholden to the desires of clients than the safety of neighbors, said some residents.
Developer John Green disagreed, stressing that all engineers hired for slope stability assessments are trained professionals.
But one expert opinion sometimes isn’t enough, said Eakin Drive resident John Waldo.
“People with impeccable credentials say global warming’s not a problem,” he said. “I’m not going to say the right initials after a name are enough.”
Marcia Lagerloef of South Beach Drive also linked global warming to island slopes.
“We’re predisposed to slides (and) global warming means more precipitation in the area,” she said. “When you talk about adding a garage…you’re talking about lives on the other side of the equation.”
For Seaborn Road resident Curtis Winston, the debate over steep slopes depends a lot on where you live.
“I live under a 100-foot cliff where someone’s constructing a 5,000-square-foot ‘McMansion,’” he said. “Where you stand on this depends a lot on where you sit. Where we sit, we’re fearful for our safety.”
