HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil May 21 20131
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
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
May 21, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Kershner announced there was a discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor
Karen Frakes regarding a draft ordinance amending Whatcom County Code Title
20, the official Whatcom County zoning maps, and the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan and maps to implement changes related to rural land use
planning (AB2013 -180) in executive session during the Special Committee of the Whole
meeting.
Kershner also announced there was a strategy planning discussion and
positions to be taken regarding collective bargaining (AB2013 -018) in executive
session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
MINUTES CONSENT
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR APRIL 23, 2013
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 7, 2013
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. COUNTY EXECUTIVE JACK LOUWS TO PRESENT THE "STATE OF THE
COUNTY" ADDRESS (AB2013 -018) (7:04:58 PM)
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
Jack Louws, County Executive, submitted and read the State of the County address
(on file, Exhibit A).
2. COUNTY EXECUTIVE JACK LOUWS TO READ A PROCLAMATION REGARDING
PUBLIC WORKS WEEK (AB2013 -018) (7 :17:14 PM)
Jack Louws, County Executive, submitted and read the proclamation (on file).
3. ANNUAL AND QUARTERLY REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL ON THE LOCAL
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PROGRAM FUND (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE
CHEMICAL DEPENDENCY AND MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM FUND) (AB2013-
186) (7 :20 :18 PM)
Joe Fuller, Health Department, gave a staff report and stated they have served 9,000
individuals in the county since 2009. Over $500,000 was returned to the fund in 2012 due
to cost savings, grants received, and additional funding made available. The fund balance
at the end of 2012 was about $1.4 million. Recent survey results include positive outcomes
regarding substance abuse issues, including teen drinking, and problem drinking, but there
were concerns with mental health issues. They plan to dedicate more funding for youth and
family services to bolster that part of their prevention efforts.
Staff is looking into proven successful intervention efforts for substance abuse and
mental health. He does site visits with the schools regarding the school contracts. School
services have been essential.
Crawford stated he's glad to see how the money was spent in 2012. There is a
housing support services item for $87,000. He's glad housing support services is not a
higher percentage of the overall budget. The intent of the Council is to get the treatment
dollars into treatment, and let housing dollars come from other sources in the community
that can weigh need and demand. Keep the housing number a small part of a much greater
program.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAPS,
AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS TO
IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATED TO RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2013-
180) (7 :26 :38 PM)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, read from the
presentation (on file) he submitted at today's Special Committee of the Whole meeting.
Crawford referenced the map of North Bellingham and asked for clarification on the
staff recommendation.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Eric Hirst stated his primary focus is that after eight years of litigation over the rural
element update, that the County adopts an ordinance that really abides by State law, the
1990 Growth Management Act, and responds adequately to the orders from the Growth
Management Hearings Board. The GMA has 14 goals. The County Council has consistently
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
focused on one goal primarily, which is to protect private property rights. There are lots of
other goals in the GMA, including encouraging development in urban areas, reducing sprawl,
encouraging efficient multi -modal transportation, maintaining and enhancing natural
resource -based industries, retaining open space recreation and so -on, and protecting the
environment and enhancing the state's high quality of life. In the County Executive's State
of the County Address, he mentioned three priorities for the County: jobs, the economy,
and environmental quality. When they adopt a final ordinance for the rural element, pay
more attention to that goal, and protect water supply and water quality.
Warren Sheay stated in the last 20 years and more, they've had periodic visioning
get - togethers that allow citizens to express their thoughts about what kind of place they
want this to be. The results have been consistent. The majority of citizens want the bulk of
development to occur in cities and towns, which already have services to meet the needs of
additional populations, and leave rural areas alone. It is pretty simple and in keeping with
the dictates of the Growth Management Act. Yet continued efforts are made to undermine
this perfectly reasonable approach to development, which is why Whatcom County has been
in continual conflict with the State Growth Management Hearings Board. He's not aware of
any other county in the state that has had such strife. They must protect their land from
those who would degrade it and from those who feel that, because they own a piece of land,
they can do whatever they want with it, without regard for the environmental ramifications.
As they grow more crowded, they will need more environmental and zoning regulation, not
less. With that said, he specifically supports recommendations made by Futurewise, which
include endorsement of the County staff proposals versus those of the Planning
Commission, because the staff proposals demonstrate more concern for the environment
and maintaining our rural character. Specifically he supports the staff's proposal for rural
neighborhood boundaries in North Bellingham, Fort Bellingham, and Marietta, because it
removes a number of large parcels that could be subdivided in the future if left at a higher
density. These are not parcels that are well suited to urban style development because
there are no urban services there to be provided. He also supports the staff proposal for
the Birch Bay Lynden and Valley View LAMIRD and the Smith and Guide Meridian LAMIRD
because it will protect our rural character and is compliant with State law and the Growth
Management Hearings Board's order.
Linda Twitchell, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County ( BIAWC), stated
this is the other side. The reason they have so much strife over this in this county is that
those who have one goal only, which is environmental protection at the cost of property
rights and a vibrant economy, have been repeatedly challenging the County. She submitted
a letter earlier in the day with specific points. In general, after the Committee of the Whole
meeting today she was asked by one of their members what she is hearing from the
builders, and are people upset because of delays in terms of not reaching compliance.
That's not the sentiment she's hearing. The sentiment she's hearing is that it's time to do
this right. If they have to push back to protect property rights in the county, their
constituents' ability to use their property as zoned, etc., she hopes they do that. The BIA
supports solutions that will provide the most benefits for all. Again it was said by one of the
councilmembers this afternoon they have reached the point where the benefits to the
community do not seem to outweigh the takings and damages to individuals. She hopes
the County Council pays attention to that and stands up for the individuals. The State
Department of Commerce suggests they define rural character by what the people who live
in the district have to say about it. The same way in Bellingham. We don't come in from
Pole Road to tell people how to run the Roosevelt or Sunnyland neighborhood associations.
She hopes the considerations of the people who actually live in the rural districts are taken
into consideration here, not just the complaints from the people in the city who like the
views, etc. She is a rural resident. In general, the BIAWC supports, with all due respect to
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
the hardworking staff, the Planning Commission version of the rules being put before the
Council. They support solutions that will provide the most benefits for all. They are
concerned as an industry about buildable land supply and how this affects home
affordability for the average median income citizen. They are concerned about restrictions
that are going to impact their ability to use their land. The letter she mentioned went over
specifics including minimum cluster reserve tracts. The tracts here have been extremely
high, 80 percent. She hopes those are cut considerably. If they can't do it now, please
consider that during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan reconsiderations. Please keep the record
open tonight, so people who want to sign for the written comment can do so.
Edwin Brown stated he is retired from the Western Washington University Geology
Department and has lived in Whatcom County for 47 years. He spent time in many other
parts of the world, and has always found Whatcom County the place he loves to return to.
It's not so much a consequence of development here as it is the natural surroundings of the
area. He finds that the wide open spaces, landscapes, clean water and air, and wildlife,
those are things that give him high quality of life. The low density part of the county needs
to be protected for the future. It's a treasure. He sees from his time in Bellingham, 47
years, a lot of change. He sees also that the population has grown from 75,000 when he
got here to over 200,000 now. It's more than doubled in that period of time. He sees no
reason why that rate of population increase isn't going to continue on. They will have
another doubling in another 40 or 50 years. It's an exponential growth. The County
Council needs to take a hard line in protecting the natural resources and the quality of life
that's based on enjoying the natural environment. He strongly urges them to support staff
proposals for modification of the County zoning.
Amy Mower submitted and read her testimony (on file, Exhibit 8, attached).
Don Hickey submitted and read his testimony (on file, Exhibit C, attached) and
stated his mother -in -law lives by the South Hills neighborhood. That's been developed.
Timberlake has been developed. East of her has been developed. She's stuck in the middle
with a five acre plot. Lot consolidation happened, and they can't go there anymore. They
are looking for any way to find out to get a downzone. He asked if he has to go out to the
Planning Commission. He would like to know any future things that would help him out.
She's paid taxes on her property for 45 years. He can't even help her because she's had
neck surgery. Now she needs help with upkeep. He can take care of it. His two little girls
can go to the nice, new Wade King Elementary, which he heard is having a hard time
getting a lot of students over there without everybody driving them over there, because
there's not enough children in the neighborhood. They are burning up a lot of gas with all
the cars going up to that school. The poor little kids get to walk down the street there
without a sidewalk or anything. It would be nice to move over there and help his mother -
in -law out.
Greg Brown stated the big words today at the Committee of the Whole were
micromanagement, and you commented on that. He wants them to know he attended the
last two Planning Commission meetings that went over this issue. They worked very very
hard and very late to make the best decisions they could with the information they had, the
direction they had, and common sense. Today, in the meeting, one councilmember belittled
this effort, and (inaudible) time constraints, not agreeing with the Planning staff, and not
agreeing to everything the Hearings Board wants. He also listened to other councilmembers
today say the Growth Management Board is political, and that its rulings and
recommendations have become confusing and inconsistent. He also listened to another
councilmember who couldn't attend the meeting for some reason today, say on the radio
that there are no options, and they must comply. He offers three other options. Don't
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
accept the Growth Management Hearings Board recommendations. Challenge them. Two,
support our legislature and those who are trying to get this state to audit the Growth
Management Act, as it's totally out of control. Third, get out of it. They chose to be in it.
They didn't have to be in it. They just have to take a little bit less money and a fewer
headaches. This has to come to senses. If they heard themselves today, they would be
embarrassed.
Max Perry stated the Council has appointed a very knowledgeable group on the
Planning Commission. They do diligent research and have thorough discussions on all the
items the Council assigns to them. Therefore, he recommends that they rely on the
Planning Commission's recommendation for the rural element update.
Wynne Lee stated she lives in a rural area. She speaks as someone who has been
involved one way or another with land use since moving here in 2000. She was on the
Lummi Island subarea plan land use committee for six years, so she knows something about
land use. She urges the Council very much to support the Planning Department
recommendations. She honors the Planning Commission's efforts, but they are not
professional and do not seem to share her concern that it's time to move ahead past the 20
years of noncompliance that the County has had with regard to the Growth Management
Act. She doesn't see how they will be able to move ahead with the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan revision if they aren't on solid legal footing, where they are not going through all these
very expensive iterations. She has never seen, and she imagines she will never see and no
taxpayer will ever see, the total cost of all of what has happened the last few years in terms
of Planning Department staff time, legal staff time, Council staff time, other executive staff
time. It's time to come to a close and become compliant with the Growth Management Act,
which is no more a political appointee group than the Planning Commission. It's time to
move ahead, stop fighting compliance to the State Growth Management Act, and get on
with things. From her perspective as a taxpayer, at this point, it's the most efficient and
most productive thing they can do. By adopting the Planning Department
recommendations, perhaps with some modifications as the women earlier pointed out would
still be feasible, they are going to put Whatcom County finally on the right track. She urges
them to accept the Planning Department's recommendations and not those of the Planning
Commission, which are inconsistent with State law. She believes in law and order.
Roger Almskaar, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Chapter for Whatcom County
President, submitted corrected comments (on file, Exhibit Q. There are technical matters
about the percentages in required rural cluster reserve areas. He'd like to make
introductory comments. His group is mainly just ordinary people who think that they've got
too much regulation now on land. He's been in planning and land use since 1971, when he
was hired by Whatcom County to do the first shoreline management program. In those
days, they didn't have enough regulations. Now, almost everybody would agree they have
too many regulations. From the big picture angle, that is one of the reasons our country is
still struggling to get out of this recession. The rate of growth is still not satisfactory
compared to their population growth. They heard talk about compliance on the radio this
morning and here this afternoon. Based on his experience, and he's been working in
Growth Management since 1990, when it was passed, there is no magic formula to get to
compliance. Every person they talk to will have a different idea. Every group will have a
different idea of what that really means. They heard tonight that the County has not paid
any attention to the environmental goals, the sprawl goals. That's absolutely untrue. Part
of the problem is that for the last ten years, they've been ignoring the economic goals, the
affordable housing goals, and the property rights goal, and have been over - emphasizing
open space and the environmental goal. It's time to find a balance. The Hearings Board
does not do a very good job of finding a balance. Their last order has major mistakes in it.
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
One of his points is that now the Board wants reserve cluster tracts to be forever set aside.
That's based on one little rule in the Department of Commerce rules that is in his letter and
the Building Industry letter, and it says "should." It doesn't say "shall." He urges the
Council to talk to its legal counsel seriously about objecting to that item. In his letter, he
goes into more detail on that. It's time to find some balance here and pay attention to all
the Growth Management goals. He is looking for reasonable, clear, and effective rules. The
complex of rules in the State of Washington, and Whatcom County, and the City of
Bellingham do not meet that test.
Carolyn Smith stated she is speaking to put a face on her property in the Fort
Bellingham neighborhood, rather than just having it be a place on the map. She is
concerned about the zoning of Smith Gardens property at 1265 Marine Drive, approximately
39 acres located on the waterfront in the Fort Bellingham neighborhood. This property has
been owned by the Smith family for 112 years, being purchased in 1901. They have
operated a truck farm and then nursery on the property for all of that time. It is now being
operated by the fourth generation. There is a potential that this nursery will be closed in
the future and hopefully the property will be used for development for family members and
others. The property has historically been zoned one house per acre, and is now
surrounded by less than one to two acre lots in the rural neighborhood. It is totally not
understandable why her property would be singled out to be zoned one house per five acres
when it is surrounded by much smaller lots. It does not make sense. They are being
punished for operating a business, providing employment, paying taxes, and not developing
their property previously. The Planning Commission recommends zoning at the Fort
Bellingham /Marietta rural neighborhood of RR2, which is less dense than the current RR1
zoning, but the Planning staff asked the Council to remove Smith Gardens from the Fort
Bellingham /Marietta rural neighborhood entirely and give it R5A zoning. This is based on
the Growth Management Hearings Board ruling that larger parcels cannot be in the rural
neighborhood. This makes no sense in her case. If Smith Gardens is not developed, it will
leave a gaping hole inside the rural neighborhood between Smith Gardens and the
Satushek's property because they will have no incentive to do anything other than to leave
the greenhouses there. Again this makes no sense because the neighboring properties are
smaller, between one and two acres. Moreover, the dead infrastructure of the greenhouse
business will remain with little other use. It will resemble the dead cement plant on Marine
Drive near the city limits. We have two appeals pending with Whatcom county Superior
Court because they think the Growth Management Hearing Board is incorrect regarding her
property. Please follow the Planning Commission's recommendation, and keep Smith
Gardens in the Fort Bellingham /Marietta rural neighborhood.
Simi Jain, Zender Thurston Law Firm, stated she is speaking tonight on behalf of
Caitac USA, and she has a brief comment on behalf of the Birch Bay Water and Sewer
District. She too would like to echo Ms. Twitchell's request to leave the record open after
this evening to allow for submission of further written comments. Her first comment is on
issue one on the County Comprehensive Plan changes. The Planning Commission tried their
best to take into consideration all the comments made during the process. There are a
couple of things that could be clarified a little bit further. In the preamble prior to the
policies listed under 2GG, it should state that rezones from R10A to allow higher densities
are limited to those R10 areas that are abutting higher density or higher zoning or
development. That will make it more consistent with what the Planning Commission
adopted under policy 2GG -3(A). Also, Caitac urges that the preamble contain language that
specifically calls out the R10A land should not be precluded from being included within the
UGA once the County goes through that process. That's something that may have been
missed. They had proposed that to the Planning Commission, but somewhere between the
public comment period and the recommendation, it didn't get adopted, and she didn't hear
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
any opposition to that. It's more of a clarification type comment. Staff's comment to policy
2GG -3(A) suggests that the options should be removed completely. She respectfully
disagrees with that suggestion. What would be remaining then is only the option under B,
which has a number of faults with it. It goes too far. It's also somewhat arbitrary at a 500 -
foot boundary line. Finally, it's difficult for property owners to figure out whether or not
they meet that criteria. On issue two, she agrees that the staff recommendation to change
the definition of reserve tract is a good one and should be adopted by the Council. They
also agree with the changes made to the percentages of reserve area that the Planning
Commission has adopted. She urges the Council to keep those. On behalf of Birch Bay
Water and Sewer District, they made comments on issue eight and they agree with the
Planning Commission recommendation and hope that the Council will adopt that.
Kate Blystone, Futurewise Whatcom, stated she appreciates staff and Planning
Commission's consideration of this issue. Her specific suggestions are in a letter she sent to
Council last week. It's been referenced a couple times tonight. Generally, she recommends
that the Council support the Planning staff's recommendation over that of the Planning
Commission. Specifically, she supports provisions to permanently protect the open space
parcel in cluster subdivisions, but has concerns about some of the other provisions. She
outlines those very specifically in her letter. The original boundaries for the Fort
Bellingham /Marietta, Welcome, Smith /Guide Meridian, and Birch Bay Lynden /Valley View
LAMIRDs in rural neighborhoods, she supports staff's original recommendation from the
March 11 memo. That was reiterated in the May 6 memo. She also supports amendments
to WCC 20.80.030(3)(B) for water services. She appreciates the work staff has done on
that. These amendments will get the County into compliance with the Growth Management
Act. They support staff's original proposal to not allow rezones from R10 to R5 based on
the lack of R10 land that is left. But, if they are going to adopt criteria for these rezones,
she really supports Planning staff's recommendation. She also suggests they consider
criteria that are listed in her letter for habitat and availability of water. In conclusion, she
urges the Council to adopt something that is compliant with the Growth Management Act.
Staff's recommendation will help them achieve this compliance. It is a reasonable approach
to the Growth Management Hearings Board order. She hopes that after tonight's hearing,
the Council requests an ordinance based on staff's recommendations.
Dale Vander Giessen stated lives in Blaine. His property of concern is a Hinotes
Corner. Like the BIA's staff, he recommends and encourages the Council to do this
properly, and not without forgetting about the property owners' rights. This entire process
has been unfair to the property owners. Their taxes maintain as if their potential growth is
there, but they can't get a building permit because of what's going on. This has been going
on for quite a few years. They can't sell the property. No developer will look at it. He
bought a piece of property with potential rights to build six units. First he couldn't get
water. Then when he could get water, he can't a building permit. He bought this so he'd
have some retirement money. Do it properly. They have to help people out. They have to
do something pretty soon. This is not fun. The Council expects the taxes. He's tied to the
one -acre parcel on a golf course and all he can build is a single family home. No one is
going to pay him the value he needs or the money he's invested for a single family home.
Jack Swanson submitted a handout (on file, Exhibit G, attached.) and stated he has
to take a breath when he listens to this stuff, not as a lawyer representing a client, but as a
person who has lived his entire life in this community. When he listens to Mr. Vander
Giessen, he contemplates the fact that what they've done by implementation of the Growth
Management Act is cause a huge loss of wealth in the community. It created a lot of
individual hardship that they simply didn't need created in the first place. Frankly, it's
irritating. His particular topic tonight is the Birch Bay Lynden/ Valley View Road LAMIRD.
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
He referenced and read the handout he submitted. The limited area of more intense rural
development (LAMIRD) was downzoned from 80 acres to 11 acres. He read from the letter.
Kristen Reid, attorney, submitted handouts (on file, Exhibits D and E) stated she
speaks on behalf of two property owners. The first client is Mr. Doug Pullar who owns
property on the Guide Meridian. Until the 2013 Growth Management Hearings Board order,
his property was contained in the Smith Road and Guide Meridian type one LAMIRD. For
the first time ever in that order, the Board found that inclusion of his property and the
property to the north of him was "a stretch too far" in using the LAMIRDs for rural planning
purposes. The Board deliberately downplayed the significant use that has been ongoing on
his property as well as property to the north, specifically a Culligan water retailer, a
veterinarian office, a paintball business. Currently it is occupied by a church. Rather than
recognize the indisputable uses of the property, the Board found that not only did inclusion
of the property violate the logical outer boundary criteria in the GMA, but also violated GMA
goal two, which is to reduce sprawl. Regarding those two reasons why the Board found the
boundaries of the LAMIRD to be clearly erroneous, she gives the following commentary:
First, the logical outer boundary criteria for a LAMIRD requires the County to consider a
physical boundary, such as boundaries of water, streets, highways, and land forms and
contours in the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. This property is bound by
the Guide Meridian on the east and developed lands on both the north and south. It would
seem those are rather logical boundaries to use for a LAMIRD according to the RCW.
Second, the GMA goals are to be considered equally when determining compliance with the
GMA. The Board contends that goal two is violated because the property's seven acres are
included. Amazingly, however, the Board took this a step farther and determined that the
Smith Road and Guide Meridian LAMIRD was invalid. Consider what those seven actually
mean countywide. The property is only 472 lineal feet along the Guide Meridian. The
LAMIRD has over a mile of frontage on both sides. The portion of the property in the
LAMIRD is 6.5 acres. The LAMIRDs in Whatcom County contain a total of 7,361 acres. That
means the property is .088 percent of the total LAMIRD area. The property is also .0053
percent of the total rural area. This small area certainly cannot constitute sprawl. Nor can
it substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals. Including it in the Smith Road and
Guide Meridian LAMIRD does not violate the GMA. Moreover, the Board does not bother to
consider any of the other GMA goals. For instance, GMA goal three is about transportation.
This property is in the middle of the county on the Guide Meridian. Transportation to and
from the property could not be more efficient. GMA goal five is economic development,
which is also applicable as the property is in the right place to have a business that can
serve rural Whatcom County efficiently. The board completely ignores goal six, which is
about property rights. That goal is supposed to protect Mr. Pullar from actions like that
ordered by the Board here. Removing the LAMIRD designation from the property would
remove virtually all of Mr. Pullar's value in the property unnecessarily. It is for those
reasons as well as the reasons stated in the letter that they respectfully request the Council
follow the Planning Commission recommendations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law
related to the property and retain the rural community Comprehensive Plan designation and
associated RGC zoning currently on place on the property.
Ellen Baker stated wants to commend the Council and Planning Department for doing
a good thing in this case. She's delighted to see this hearing is preceding the actual vote to
make the determination. For once she's happy to see that there is a hearing weeks before
the decision will be discussed. That is a real pleasant surprise. She strongly supports the
proposal that transmission lines for water line size be flexible in rural areas. They need to
cover large distances. There is a lot of friction loss in water lines. There is a real distinction
between rural supply versus urban supply. She strongly supports that correction. She can't
imagine why the Growth Management Hearings Board would continue to be confused about
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
that issue. The idea of restricting the supply of water in order to limit sprawl or growth
seems like restricting the availability of air, food, fire protection, or other good things. They
need those services and resources in rural areas. That is a very good thing that is easy to
support. She agrees with some previous speakers who spoke to urban viewpoints
dominating this entire process. It's unfortunate that there has been less rural input to the
process and that so many urban tastes, definitions, and perspectives have driven the
inflexible law cases that have come before the Growth Management Hearing Board. Listen
to rural people. Their community needs to reflect their lifestyle and needs. A few years
ago, she sent photographs of a lovely bank in Baker City, Oregon that had been established
in an old Victorian house. It was a lovely bank. The cash machine was in a little woodshed.
Anyone driving by would never suspect that there was a bank in this rural town. As a rural
resident, it made an impact on her. Be flexible about what may and may not be allowed in
rural areas in the future.
Lorraine Newman stated she realized today during the committee meeting that even
councilmembers are at the heart of what Thomas Jefferson thought was the most important
part of the government, which is a strong local government. They are here to reflect the
wills of the people right here that they live with. She also heard that they have worked long
and hard to best incorporate all their diverse needs, wants, and desires into this. They sent
it to the State with the best intentions. They sent it back. It sounds like most of the
councilmembers thought what the State sent back was capricious. The Council must now
step back from all this minutia and consider what James Madison had to say, "I believe
there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and
silent encroachments of those in power than by violent or sudden usurpations. This danger
ought to be wisely guarded against." They will now have to step back, as much as it may
cost the County or cost in time, and consider guarding them against what has become really
a slow abridgement and silent encroachment of the freedoms here in the county. Consider
that.
Kris Halterman stated she appreciates the work the Council does because it is hard,
and they are working for the citizens, even if it's not always exciting. Talking about
Futurewise, Futurewise are not the taxpaying citizens of Whatcom County. The Planning
Commission's efforts are not strong enough in protecting their property rights. The Growth
Management Hearings Board and Futurewise have gone afar from the objectives of the GMA
to preserve a functioning, vibrant, and diverse rural community. They've been shutting
down their resource land and rural diversity, the opposite of what the original objective of
the GMA was. The County needs to not only fight for the private property owners, the
taxpaying citizens of Whatcom County, and consider the county's future. Are we willing to
agree to plan with the GMA guidelines, or isn't it time to rethink if this county and the
property taxpayers can afford to continue to do so.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing and stated the written
record is left open.
(8:38:47 PM)
Brenner stated the Council must continue working on the Planning Commission
recommendation. She will recommend changes to it, but agrees with the majority of their
work. The Hearings Board members are political appointees, not experts. Councilmembers
are lay experts because they spend so much time on this. The Planning Commission
developed a recommendation that is fair. The Council has repeatedly changed this and
gone with the wishes of the Hearings Board, which has become another layer of court rather
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
than preventing things from going to court. She would like to go through the ordinance
point by point and read the information received tonight.
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance as presented. If there are changes that
merit another hearing, they can do that another time.
Brenner moved to hold in committee.
Kershner asked to hear from other councilmembers to see if they've got any
comments on Councilmember Crawford's motion to approve.
Brenner withdrew the motion to hold in committee.
Knutzen stated he commends the planning commissioners for the work they did,
which didn't go far enough. He supports the Planning Commission recommendation.
Crawford moved to amend the Planning Commission recommendation for policy
2GG -3, "A. Rezening area abuts zening ef higheF density eF intensity (paFeels aFe abutting
." There isn't a pressing demand
to convert from R10 to R5. People can still apply under policy 2GG -3(B) if there are
extenuating circumstances.
Kershner asked if Council considered that the Council approved a settlement last
year between Caitac and Futurewise. Part of the settlement was that they would give up
their five -acre zoning and go back to ten -acre zoning if Futurewise gives them permission to
build a small hotel on their own property. The Council voted to go ahead with that
settlement approval, because Caitac wanted to get started on developing something on
their property, and didn't want to fight Futurewise anymore. She asked if the Council would
make it impossible for Caitac to rezone if it adopts the Planning Department
recommendation. That would be underhanded. Davis stated staff did that calculation for
the Caitac property for the Planning Commission. They found that Caitac would be eligible
for rezone under staff's recommendation for the 500 -foot density calculation.
Brenner stated she supports the motion to amend. This doesn't downzone anything.
There is some ability to upzone to R5A under certain circumstances.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Knutzen (1)
Davis stated the items in that section would be renumbered.
Crawford moved to amend to add language to policy 2GG -3 to add a criterion, "C.
The proposed rezoning area is not within an area designated as a rural study area in the
2007 Rural Land study accepted by the County in resolution 2009 - 040."
Brenner asked about potential unintended consequences. Davis stated unintended
consequences are limited. Thirteen properties are affected one way or another. If they
exclude the rural study area, 13 properties would not be eligible to rezone.
Brenner stated the affect is minimal, except to the people it affects. She won't
support the motion.
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
Weimer stated he supports the motion. It's part of the agricultural strategic plan to
protect these areas for agricultural land. Even if it's only 12 or 13 parcels, it makes a lot of
sense to not let them subdivide.
Knutzen asked if seven of those are in the urban growth area (UGA) reserves. Davis
stated they are.
Crawford asked if they go from UGA reserve to UGA concurrent with their change to
UGA status, they would probably be rezoned. He asked if they zone really high in UGA
areas. It's like going from one extreme to another. A concurrent rezone if in UGA status
would be hard to imagine.
Kershner stated the UGA status is the most protected land in the county. Nothing
can happen on it until it's annexed.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Brenner moved to amend to change the terms "reserve area" and "reserve tract" to
"conservation" regarding issue two and lot clustering. As it is, the word "reserve" is
misleading. The word "reserve" makes people think the property is reserved for future
development. That's how they used to use that term. If this is not reserved for future
development, say what it is, which is conservation. It can be undone if it becomes part of a
city. It's not the same thing as a conservation easement in perpetuity with some other
party. The conservation tract can be developed if the area inside it is left the way it is. The
change will be less confusing.
Crawford stated he disagrees. It will become confusing when it goes into a UGA, and
people question what this conservation area is if it can be changed. Leave the language as it
is because it gives the most options for property owners in case the City ever reaches them.
Brenner stated a majority of these areas will never be part of any UGA or any city.
It will be confusing for those people.
Crawford stated the permanence of conservation easements exceeds their lifetime.
Don't anticipate what will happen someday.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Weimer (2)
Nays: Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (5)
Crawford moved to amend section .315 to correspond with the uses listed in the
individual zoning chapters, "A portion of a reserve tract may be developed but development
within a reserve area easement shall be limited to that permitted per the reserve area
standards for the zoning district in which the tract is located
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
48
49
50
51
52
53
Crawford moved to amend Whatcom County Code sections 20.32, 20.34, and
20.36 to add language, ".315(2) ... structures used for onsite
agricultural uses permitted in WCC 20.32.054 [or 20.34.052, or 2036.052]. Above - ground
hard surface...." The term "agricultural purposes" is broad. This motion will restrict
agricultural uses to those already permitted outright.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Weimer moved to amend 20.32.320, "For the purposes of this section, "reserve
tract" is defined as that portion of a proposed subdivision or short subdivision which is
intended for agricultural, forestry, er epen spaee pHFpe open space, or other future -
approved development purposes. All "reserve tracts" created through the subdivision
process shall be subject to the following provisions:"
Brenner asked if this is a clarification that doesn't change the intent. Davis stated
the Planning Commission struggled with the definition of a reserve tract if it's not the same
as a reserve area. It's appropriate to restore the previous wording.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann asked if there are limits now to the number of units that can be in a cluster.
Davis stated it's based on the density, zoning, and size of the lot.
Mann asked if they would allow clusters near agricultural areas. He asked if there
are a maximum number of lots that can be in a cluster. Davis stated the limit in the rural
zone is 16 lots in a cluster. They aren't proposing any changes to the number of lots in a
cluster or spacing between clusters. Lot clustering provisions can be a docketed item for
next year.
Weimer moved to amend sections 20.32., 20.34, and 20.36, ".315(1), "A nete An
easement on the subdivision shall...."
Knutzen asked the criteria for this easement. Davis stated the easement size would
have to exceed the minimum percentage of the parent parcel that is set aside as a reserve
area. An easement would show up on the plat spatially. Rather than having a written note
on the plat saying there is a reserve area, an actual easement is shown on the plat.
Knutzen stated he prefers something like a deed restriction. He is against the
motion. Easements go on in perpetuity, especially in agricultural zones.
Crawford asked who the beneficiary of the easement is.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the public is the beneficiary.
Knutzen asked what happens if it is put into a UGA with a conservation easement.
Davis stated that when it goes into the UGA, it doesn't necessarily have to remain as an
open space easement. The notes would discuss the easement.
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Mann moved to refer to Committee of the Whole for a work session.
Brenner stated she supports the motion so they have time to read the information
given.
Kremen stated he supports the motion and agrees with Councilmembers Brenner and
Mann. They are keeping the record open. Allow people extended time to submit their
recommendations and the Council time to hone this item.
Crawford stated he supports the motion so they have time to address the
contentious items. Don't end that Committee of the Whole meeting on June 4 until they're
done, because they will have to introduce it that night.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment that staff prepares a verbatim
transcript of the testimony given.
Weimer suggested a friendly amendment that staff should come prepared with a
redline version of their recommendations.
Mann accepted both friendly amendments.
Davis asked how long the written record will be held open. Consider closing the
written record before the meeting date.
Crawford stated close the written record on May 31 at 4:30 p.m.
Kershner stated the motion is to hold in Committee of the Whole on June 4 and
includes direction for staff to prepare verbatim minutes of testimony and submit a redline
version of its recommendations. The Council will hold open the written record until May 31
at 4:30.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
OPEN SESSION
(9:27:46 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Tom Fenton submitted a handout (on file, Exhibit F) and spoke on the issue of
wetlands.
• Steven James Carter spoke about a motocross track on Hemmi Road.
Brenner asked about the Sheriff enforcing noise levels. Dust from the track is a
public health issue.
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
• Greg Brown spoke on the issue of the proposed packing house ordinance
(AB2012- 300B).
• Max Perry spoke on the issue of the proposed packing house ordinance
(AB2012- 300B).
• Donna Clark spoke about the issue of the Lake Whatcom connector and other
transportation upgrades at Sudden Valley.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY HOMELESS SERVICE CENTER,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,391, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,958,096 (AB2013 -185) (9 :40 :18 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2013 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SIXTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $702,109 (AB2013 -178) (9 :41 :05 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated prioritize real estate excise tax (REET) II money on stormwater
facility requirements, not for things that aren't as essential. They can't afford to do
everything they would like to do.
Knutzen asked about closing the park improvement fund.
Mann stated they are only removing the budgeted item, not the fund. The $94,000
was part of the $1.5 million that was moved out. It is no longer there.
Kershner asked if the Lookout Mountain project is to provide parking space to people
who now park in front of the gated road up to the communications towers.
Rob Lamb, Parks and Recreation Department, stated it is.
Brenner stated it is up to the Parks Department to prioritize their park
improvements.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, Page 14
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
49
50
51
52
53
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 81 -06, AUTHORIZING THE
TREASURER TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO BE KNOWN AS THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND (AB2013 -179) (9:45:18 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -030 ESTABLISHING A
PROJECT BASED BUDGET TO FUND CIVIC CENTER EXTERIOR REPAIRS
(AB2013 -176) (9:45:52 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
NO. 13 -33 TO THE LOW BIDDER, TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE
LOWER CANYON CREEK PHASE 2 RESTORATION PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,268,758.60 (AB2013 -184) (9 :46:34 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance. He is opposed to the motion because it's too expensive for too few
properties. He's opposed to bailing people out who built in ridiculously dangerous areas.
Brenner stated staff said there could be impacts from a 100 -year event, but they
would not be as devastating as they would be if the County didn't do the project. They're
not just talking about people's homes, which are important. They're also talking about
public roads.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Weimer (5)
Nays: Mann and Kremen (2)
S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF ROGER
SASNETT TO THE DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BOARD (AB2013 -187)
(9:48:51 PM)
Mann moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, 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
49
50
51
52
53
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
(9:49:26 PM)
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 9 (PUBLIC PEACE,
MORALS, AND WELFARE) TO REVISE SECTIONS PRE - EMPTED BY STATE LAW
(AB2013 -182)
2. RESOLUTION RESTORING THE WRIA 1 PLANNING UNIT TO ASSIST THE
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL REGARDING WATER RESOURCES (AB2013-
190)
OTHER BUSINESS
(9:51:38 PM)
Knutzen stated schedule the proposed packing house ordinance in a special
Committee of the Whole meeting in two weeks.
The Council concurred.
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee on an update on proposed
Whatcom County Code Chapter 20.51 Lake Whatcom Watershed Overlay District; PLN2011-
00015 (AB2013 -102) and stated this item should be introduced in two weeks.
Brenner asked for a presentation on homeless housing efforts.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Kremen reported that he will participate in an upcoming Washington State
Association of Counties (WSAC) conference in Yakima via conference call. The meeting will
be an update on the status of the legislative special session, the State budget, and other
legislative issues.
Kershner reported that Whatcom County sends its best wishes to the citizens of
Moore, Oklahoma, who suffered tragedy over the past couple of days. Whatcom County is
fortunate that it isn't in a tornado zone and doesn't have many natural disasters. She
appreciates living her all the more.
Knutzen reported on a water symposium at the end of May. He and Councilmember
Weimer will serve as moderators. They must figure out a solution to water problems for the
farmers in the future.
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on July 9, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Whatcom County Council, 5/21/2013, Page 17