HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil September 10 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
September 10, 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
(7:01:56 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Kershner announced the Consultant DLR Group presented a jail planning
update (AB2013 -042B) during the Special Committee of the Whole meeting.
MINUTES CONSENT
(7:02:51 PM)
Knutzen moved to approve Minutes Consent items one through nine.
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 JUNE 18, 2013
2. SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION FOR JUNE 25, 2013
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 9, 2013
4. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 23, 2013
S. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 23, 2013
6. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 23, 2013
7. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR JULY 30, 2013
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
S. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR AUGUST 6, 2013
9. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR AUGUST 6, 2013
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR
OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT (AB2013 -290) (7 :03:44 PM)
Erin Osborne, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report.
Mann asked for the Planning Commission recommendation and staff recommendation
for each application. Osborne stated the Planning Commission recommended denial for the
Sefton application and the Kennedy applications, and recommended approval for the Smith
application.
Kremen asked the Planning Commission vote for denial on the Kennedy application.
Osborne stated she doesn't remember who voted for and against the application. The vote
to deny the Kennedy application was not unanimous. The Smith application vote was
unanimous. The Sefton application to deny was not unanimous.
Kershner asked the Planning staff to note that the Council would like to have the
Planning Commission's actual votes in the record.
Brenner stated it's important for the Planning Commission minutes to be more
complete. Council staff should do those minutes. The Council is not getting complete
minutes. They talked about this last year during the budget.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
William Kennedy submitted a handout (on file). The Planning staff use a checklist
that parallels the code requirements. He urged the Council to read his handout and approve
his application. Staff gave the application a perfect score. When it came before the
Planning Commission, the decision was denied. His application meets all the requirements.
The certified arborist who helped him prepare the report also emailed the Council.
Ellen Thompson, Whatcom Association of Celestial Observers President, stated she
urges the Council to support the Sefton application as a possible dark sky park where the
club can host its star parties. It's difficult to find a dark sky site in Whatcom County that is
accessible to all. Now, they go to a clear cut location on the Van Zandt dike in the winter
and the Artist Point parking lot in the summer. Neither are totally acceptable to people in
Bellingham because of the distance. There is a danger to going up a logging road in the
dark. Having a site that is at a lower elevation and more accessible would be wonderful.
The current outreach programs reach about 800 people per year. They are part of the night
sky network. Many people like to know where to go after dark that is safe and legal to
watch the stars, Perseid meteor showers, or northern lights. There are few places to do
this.
Royal Sefton stated he and his wife own the property on Goodwin Road. He urges
the Council to support the application. He described the property size and location. Trails
are mowed through the trees. The land and soil aren't suitable for agricultural purposes.
They are not growing trees for harvest. It originally had been a Christmas Tree farm, but it
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
went to seed several years before he purchased the property. They will make the property
available to Boy Scouts, the astronomy club, and other groups. There is adequate parking
because the land is basically gravel. There are no soft spots. He will begin to do some
mowing for club use. There was a voice vote at the Planning Commission, so he doesn't
know who voted which way.
Brenner asked about the tree farm. Sefton stated that when he bought the property,
the trees were there and he thought they were marketable Christmas trees, but they
weren't. They were planted too close together and had never been thinned. They were
oversize. They are too small for timber right now. At this point, they are scraggly fir trees.
Sue Sefton stated other clubs interested in the property including the Trailblazers
jogging club and the Girls on the Run club through the YMCA. A professional marathon
runner wants to train on the property. The programs are to boost self- esteem in young
people. She's very excited about hosting the astronomy club. She also contacted a pony
club, but didn't hear from them. The people she's spoken to have been very enthusiastic.
They are the only application for Open Space for recreation and public access. Currently,
people have to go to parks. It's very convenient. She doesn't want to log the land. They
must preserve it.
Aubrey Stargell stated he is the certified arborist who drafted the timber
management plan for the Kennedy application. He supports the Kennedy application. In
spite of receiving the maximum number of points possible and a staff recommendation for
approval, the Planning Commission recommends denying the application. The application
meets all requirements of the law. The Planning Commission recommended denial based on
vague feelings and an apparent dislike of the law that allows these applications. The
application should not be rejected for these reasons. Mr. Kennedy diligently implemented
the timber management plan. He planted and tends the trees. Growing trees benefits all
Whatcom County residents. Approve the application. There was no good reason for denial.
He sent an email.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(7:23:51 PM)
Knutzen moved to approve the resolution and to amend the resolution to approve
all three applications listed in the resolution.
Mann stated he supports the motion. He thanked the Seftons for the outreach they
did to make sure people can enjoy the property. Owners often attempt to hide the public
access requirement on the properties from the public.
Brenner moved to amend the amendment, to remove the Sefton Open Space /Open
Space application from consideration. What they're doing sounds very nice. For years it's
been in agricultural open space. This goes against what the Council wants to do with
agricultural land. There are many pretty places in the county. It's surrounded by
agricultural use on all sides. She's concerned about locating an intensive public use in the
middle of agricultural land. They will immediately get complaints about usual and
accustomed agricultural practices. Don't take property off the tax role because it's
beautiful. Most of Whatcom County would meet that criterion. She's concerned about the
location and about changing from agriculture to open space. They must prioritize open
space applications. The owners could do a different agricultural use. The benefits they
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
would provide would be provided regardless of open space designation, including the
protection of natural resources and not developing the land.
Weimer stated he is against Councilmember Brenner's amendment to not include the
Sefton application. He supports the Sefton application. The County has been doing this for
years. It's unfair to change the rules in the middle of the process because they are
uncomfortable with the open space application process and rating system in general.
People have applied and come forward in good faith. Also, the application says that this site
is 87.6 percent not prime agricultural soils. As the applicant said, a lot of it has already
been mined for gravel. Last, moving it to an open space designation doesn't preclude the
option of returning to an agricultural open space designation in the future.
Brenner stated she has a hard time believing the soils aren't productive. The best
gravel pits are below agricultural soil. That's why they have a hard time siting gravel pits.
Great soils aren't necessary to grow trees. The soil is good enough. There is a lot of
agriculture in the area.
Kershner stated the Council is using criteria that's 24 years old. They must revise
the criteria. It's not fair to people who pay an application fee and go through the process to
find out that the priorities have changed, even though Planning staff rates an application
highly. She is against Councilmember Brenner's motion to amend.
Brenner stated work with the administration and waive the fee. The Seftons should
get their fee back. They have discretion to do that.
Kershner stated she agrees that the process should be revised, but not on the backs
of people who are in the middle of the application process. The Planning Commission
alerted the Council last year that these criteria were old. The Council should have taken
action then to revise the criteria.
Councilmember Brenner's motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner (1)
Nays: Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
The motion to approve with an amendment to approve all three applications carried
by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO
ALLOW PACKINGHOUSES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT
(AB2012 -300C) (7 :34:55 PM)
Josh Fleischman, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff
report on changes made at the last meeting.
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Matt Petryni, ReSources for Sustainable Communities, stated he encourages the
Council to continue to look at the ordinance due to concerns about water quality. He likes
the changes they've made about sourcing the livestock from local areas, reducing the size of
the facilities, and other things. Requiring anaerobic digesters for waste would help to
protect water quality. Remove wetlands and aquifer recharge areas. There are solutions to
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
allow value -added products for the agricultural community and meet needs for water and
soil for the future.
Charles Law read from Dr. William Tuttle about the relationship between human
beings and livestock and the human condition. There is a correlation between domestic
violence and slaughterhouse workers, who have no other outlet to express their
frustrations.
Ken Kaliher submitted and read from a handout (on file). He has several concerns
about water and air quality and concerns of neighbors. He asked the Council to withhold
action until it can reconsider the issues.
Tip Johnson stated the Council can't fix this ordinance. He referenced and read from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) publication Slaughter and Processing Options
and Issues for Locally Sourced Meats. There are no standards for quality or treatment of
the livestock. Producers should partner with consumers and retailers, establish quality
standards, aggregate production that can support a facility, do a needs assessment, work
with local government for siting and financial support to find the very best place for one
adequate facility. The size will be 3,000 to 5,000 square feet and serve more than one
county. They don't need 88,000 acres of it. Small facilities are marginal. This is the wrong
approach. Consumers will not support brands with negative impacts and inhumane
treatment standards. The community will mobilize to overturn the policy and support
candidates who oppose this.
Ronna Loerch stated the Council allowed land speculators to ride over the interest of
local citizens and spent thousands of dollars to fight a State law to coddle special interests.
The jail proposal is out of touch with the times and concepts of restorative justice. The
Council is unwilling to recuse itself from the proposed coal terminal deliberations so they
can represent the citizens they serve. This ordinance is a guise for a rezone. It's not been
studied for water use or wastewater. Comments and signatures regarding this proposal are
95 percent against it and five percent for it. Given all these issues, they've excluded the
public from deliberations. The Council is running a racket favoring private citizens and
interests, not public citizens. Defeat this ordinance.
Terry Wechsler stated they must protect water rights. She referenced the public
trust doctrine. The public holds rights to water in trust for the people. They must protect
the water. This ordinance hasn't had State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Table
this ordinance, or the courts will.
Greg Brown stated the human condition is for survival. They need to eat. The
Council has compromised on this issue for nine months. The Planning Commission also
compromised. Compromising further would not allow packinghouses. That is the goal of
the naysayers of this project.
Max Perry stated they have spent 20 months working on this issue. People opposed
use emotions and fears, saying slaughterhouses on agricultural land would contaminate
water and soil. If this is truly a concern, an inspected and regulated packinghouse would
protect from contamination. Adopt the ordinance.
Wendy Harris stated she is against the ordinance. Issues have not been resolved.
Problems have been amplified. The climate and soil give them a viable agricultural industry.
They must protect prime agricultural soil. This proposal requires they avoid prime
agricultural soil where feasible. It does not limit the number of facilities that can be built.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
It's difficult to enforce regulations that talk about doing things to the extent feasible.
Making the farmers rich with this use would appease a few people, but the entire
community will lose. People without a financial interest in this ordinance are showing up.
There's more at stake than the enrichment of farmers.
Kate Blystone, FutureWise Whatcom, referenced a letter she sent yesterday and
stated she appreciates recent changes. She is still concerned about screening and setbacks,
limiting impervious surface, limiting the use to non -prime agricultural soils, and requiring
applicants to obtain a water right. Do not adopt the ordinance tonight.
Carol Follett stated she thanks the Council for making changes. She asked the
Council to continue to listen and make the changes suggested by FutureWise and ReSources
regarding water considerations and preservation of soil and land. She is concerned that this
regulation will not protect them from a facility starting small, but growing too big. If they do
a needs assessment, they will find they may not need this in the community as much.
David Haggith, Washington State Dairy Federation, stated he supports the ordinance.
It supports all animal agriculture in the county, not just dairy farming. It supports the
county's economy. It supports animal welfare. There are few facilities in Whatcom county,
so they must travel long distances, which is stressful. In terms of water quality, a 20,000
cow slaughter facility will produce less concentrated waste than a 200 cow dairy. Requiring
waste to go to an anaerobic digester does not make the waste go away. It can help
manage the waste in certain aspects, but it's still waste.
Nancy Metcalf stated she also has concerns and asks the Council to halt this
ordinance as it stands. Limit the number of facilities that would be allowed in Whatcom
county. Initiate water studies.
Jill MacIntyre Witt stated she sent an email earlier today. Consider climate and
water impacts. Industrial agriculture contributes to CO2 emissions. It takes 600 gallons of
water to produce one hamburger. Consider the bigger scale. Table the vote or vote no on
the ordinance. Improve the ordinance to include restrictions on the proposal. In every
decision made in Whatcom county, consider climate and water impacts.
Michelle Smith stated she sent a letter to the Council. The definitions of
packinghouse and slaughterhouse are confusing. Look at the definitions in terms of what
whether it includes fresh meat. Regarding limitation on building area, there are concerns
about the capacity necessary to serve the volume of livestock. There are also concerns
about environmental impacts from the volume of livestock processed. Neither has to do
with the size of a building, which must include many different uses and areas. Businesses
should be able to make the best choices they can to protect the environment, meet
regulatory requirements, protect employees, and provide a safe and healthy work
environment. The size is restricting.
Nicole Brown stated areas in the South Fork Valley are at sea level. The area is
extremely wet, has standing pond water and flood areas. Debris flow areas come down
from the mountain. There is Nooksack River shoreline. The wells aren't very deep. She
supports on -farm slaughter, but acknowledge these facilities have known pollution
pathways. They may due to accidents such as floods. Protect areas that supply water. She
encourages a conditional use and protecting sensitive areas.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
Lorraine Newman stated she supports adoption. Meat producers need support
facilities for their businesses. Meat packing is legal and highly - regulated. Create space to
provide the support service.
Kris Halterman stated there is a 60 percent growth in the arctic cap this year. The
amendment gives farmers a means to bring profitability to their farms and gives a benefit to
associated businesses and residents. Adopt the ordinance as proposed.
Richard Reese stated the proposal should not go forward without water quality and
quantity analysis, evaluation, and study. The Council assumes the proposal would help
farmers stay on the land. The opposite is true due to the water quality issues. There is a
tremendous threat to unrestrained or unevaluated water use in Whatcom County.
Understand the pressures they'll face in the future. Recycling water from the
slaughterhouse doesn't sound good. He's concerned about the margin of error for recycling
water. Whatcom County is fully functional under the Growth Management Act, which
requires that they pay attention to these things. There must be critical review, study, and
protection of critical areas, including aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas.
Noncompliance with the GMA may cause things that cost money, such as lawsuits and lost
revenue streams. He referenced Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.340. Don't
spend money if they don't have to. Do a study.
Gary Knaus stated they should be worried about the water quality because the
Department of Ecology will be watching. Farmers are under scrutiny of these agencies all
the time. The farmers know the State will watch every move they make. There will be
frequent inspections. The number of animals locally won't support more than one or two
slaughterhouses. There aren't going to be a bunch of them. There's no reason to be
scared. There will be zoning and other regulations. The facility will be inspected before
anything is done. Adopt the ordinance.
Jeff Rainey stated there have been numerous slaughterhouses in Whatcom County in
the past. Not one has required cleanup. He hauls cattle to Stanwood for slaughter. That
slaughterhouse is a beautiful facility. No one would know it's a slaughterhouse. There are a
lot of false statements. Adopt the ordinance. Add value to Whatcom County cattle.
Esther Faber stated she is concerned about the number of facilities. Limit the
number of facilities to just a few.
Irene Morgan stated they need to be concerned about water. She ran Morgan Meats
for 20 years. They used a lot of water. They lose 45 to 50 percent every time they
slaughter a cow from standing weight to hanging weight. There is a lot of waste. They quit
23 years ago because of the regulations. They were inspected by three separate
jurisdictions. They don't have to be worry about spills because the use is so regulated. The
use should not be on wetlands. Requiring a conditional use permit is very appropriate. It
needs to be carefully and thoughtfully studied. There is a need for a slaughterhouse or two.
Have definition regulations on how they're operated and where they're located.
Carol Perry stated she supports the ordinance. There was marvelous testimony
before the Planning Commission. Most of the people who testify are from the city, have
never lived on a farm, have never seen an animal slaughtered, and are against eating meat.
Don't delay adoption.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
Roger Bajema stated that if agriculture is going to survive, let them have a
slaughterhouse. It's stressful for cattle to be transported to a distant packinghouse. Help
farmers stay in business.
Wes Kench stated he supports the ordinance. Lack of regulations won't cause
problems. The county needs an economic boost. It will provide jobs. There won't be
88,000 acres of slaughterhouses. The county can't support more than two or three
slaughterhouses. Rules and regulations are in place.
Ben Elenbaas stated he supports the ordinance. No one is asking for a rezone of
88,000 acres. They are only asking for a definition for an agricultural accessory use. It is
compliant with the 13 goals of the GMA and with the County Comprehensive Plan. There is
infrastructure in the agricultural zone that supports the berry and dairy industries. His
business relies on a packing facility. It's equal to a milking parlor. Nothing in Title 20
regulates the size of a milking parlor or the number of allowed milking parlors. The
agricultural district isn't littered with them. Acknowledge that slaughtering is the most
highly regulated agricultural activity. Just because the use isn't regulated by the Planning
Department doesn't mean it's not regulated. No other agricultural activity has a federal
inspector on site. The ordinance will benefit farmers and consumers who want to buy local.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(8:37:53 PM)
Knutzen moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner asked if one of these operations would be allowed in frequently flood area
governed by critical areas regulations. Fleischmann stated he's not familiar with how the
River and Flood Division would regulate it, but they review every proposal in the flood zone.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the
regulations allow building above the flood plain level.
Knutzen asked if an activity like that could get flood insurance. He doesn't think it
could.
Personius stated the use isn't regulated, but the structure is. Much of the concern
about water quality, which ties into flooding, is the requirement to have the Department of
Ecology approve a State waste discharge permit. The State would be highly unlikely to do
that in a frequently flooded area.
Brenner asked if there are basic humane rules for worker treatment. Someone
talked about the inhumane treatment of the workers.
Crawford stated the comment was that workers were more prone to domestic
violence because they were desensitized.
Brenner asked if a facility would have to obey water rights laws, just like everyone
else. Personius stated they would have to get a water right or some adequate water supply.
The existing processing facility is subject to that requirement. The biggest issue is getting
the water right and making sure it's adequately treated.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
53
Brenner asked about a concern that 88,000 acres being turned into packinghouses.
She asked how many would be allowed if everyone who met all requirements could develop
a packinghouse. Personius stated the concern is about the proliferation of these uses.
People have supplied the needs analysis based on the number of cattle and their turnover.
All of that processing occurs outside the county except for the local slaughterhouse, which is
a minor amount. One option is to limit the number of facilities, but the market will dictate
that limit.
Brenner stated it's hard to get water rights. There aren't a lot available. Personius
stated these will be capital- intensive businesses. It will take a lot of capital upfront to do
the necessary planning and get permits. Only folks who are serious about this will put the
money into it.
Weimer asked about the definition of packinghouses limiting those facilities to only
cured and smoked meats versus fresh cuts of meat. He asked how staff would interpret
that definition and if an applicant could supply fresh cuts of meat to the community.
Personius stated he's comfortable that it would allow fresh meat products.
Brenner moved to amend the definition of packinghouse, section 27.97.282.1,
"..into cured, smoked, canned or other prepared meat products, including the cutting and
wrapping of fresh meat." Their purpose was to expand the types of meat, not to eliminate
fresh meat.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion to amend. They researched this and did a
lot of work on it. They also researched the definition of slaughterhouse. The difference
between the two is that a slaughterhouse would just cut these things in half and send them
out the door. These are two different things. The packinghouse will supply a finished
product. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does a fine job of defining it. The
Council has gone through this process for over a year. He's comfortable with the ordinance
the way it is. It includes a lot of compromises. The Council has done its due diligence. If
they make changes, they will have to open this up to another public hearing. It's time to
move on.
Brenner stated this amendment would not require another hearing. It's a
clarification, which doesn't require another hearing.
Kershner stated legal counsel is indicating that adding the word "fresh" to the
definition would not trigger another public hearing.
Brenner restated and amended her motion to amend the definition of
packinghouse, section 27.97.282.1, "..into fresh, cured, smoked, canned or other prepared
meat products."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Knutzen (1)
Brenner moved to amend to include language, "Packinghouses shall not be allowed
on frequently flooded areas." It is based on a map that shows frequently flooded areas.
Crawford stated it's a huge, substantive change. He'd be surprised if the attorney
allows them to make a change without another hearing. Regardless, constructing in an area
threatened by flood hazards requires an expensive building design up to and above the
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
flood line. That is in designated flood zones. Frequently flooded areas maps covered about
half the agricultural zone.
Brenner stated that map was the critical aquifer area map. She has a map of
frequently flooded areas map that shows very narrow ribbons of area. A property owner
would have to move the use to a part of the property that isn't frequently flooded.
Crawford stated that would require more study by the Council to find out the extent
and impact of the motion. He would want to hear from flood staff who review building
permits. This motion opens up many other issues.
Kremen stated he supports the intent of the motion. However, adopting the
amendment would require another public hearing.
Kershner stated legal counsel indicates that the motion to amend would require
another public hearing.
Mann stated the requirement to have a second public hearing isn't a good criterion
for not making a change. If the change is good enough, it should be done. Requiring a
conditional use permit would take care of Councilmember Brenner's concern. Many of these
questions about water quality, pollution pathways, and frequently flooded area can be
addressed on a case -by -case basis. They can learn as they go what it's like to monitor,
permit, and live with these uses. He's been trying to figure out a way to support slaughter
in the agricultural zone. He can't support it as an accessory use, only as a conditional use.
Kremen stated he has a concern that the public expressed tonight regarding
ambiguous language in section 20.40.114(9) about avoiding prime agricultural soils. He
asked if this language is strong enough to enforce.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated that should be discussed in executive
session.
Brenner's restated her motion to amend to include language, "20.40.114(11)
Disallow packinghouses in frequently flooded areas." She asked if another hearing is
required if the proposed amendment is more restrictive, or only if the amendment broadens
the allowed use. Frakes stated that's not correct. If there is a substantial change to the
proposed ordinance, there needs to be another public hearing, whether they tighten or
loosen the regulation.
Kremen stated he agrees with the intent, but the language is a problem. It would
have to be more specific or delineate what exactly a frequently flooded area is.
Knutzen asked if there are any restrictions on other uses in the agricultural areas
that restrict them from building in a frequently flooded zone, such as berry or dairy
distilleries. Personius stated there may be permit restrictions on a site -by -site basis, but
not in the code.
Brenner's amended her motion to amend to include language, "20.40.114(11) In
frequently flooded areas, when there is area available on the property that's not frequently
flooded."
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Mann (2)
Nays: Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Weimer stated he has an amendment to address the concerns of Councilmembers
Brenner, Kremen, and Mann to address concerns about water quality, water quantity, prime
agricultural soils, critical areas, hazardous areas, and public notice and comment. He
moved to amend to strike all of section 20.40.100, Accessory Uses, and change section
20.40.164 (1), -The total allowable building area is larger than 7,999 square feet and no
larger than 20,000 square feet." Everything would be approved with a conditional use
permit. They can address all those concerns on a case -by -case basis.
(9:08:13 PM)
Mann stated he supports Council Weimer's motion to amend. That's the simplest
way to resolve the concerns. He would vote for the entire ordinance if the Council approves
that amendment. He worked on a farm and supports the concept of having slaughterhouses
in the agricultural zone. It's good. He wants to buy and eat local meat. He wants to know
his farmer. The original intent of this process was good. Over time, it's become polarized
to the extreme. He appreciated any comments from the middle regarding the content of
the ordinance. He would like to incorporate some of those ideas. They can address a lot of
the concern with the conditional use permit. They talk about all the other regulations that
are overlaid on the slaughterhouses. He doesn't know that a conditional use permit process
will be more onerous. It would have to go before the Hearing Examiner and the neighbors
will be aware. If that happens, everyone will know what's going on, the owner will have
approval to go forward with clear rules and supervision on behalf of the County and the
Department of Ecology on a case -by -case basis. They will be able to examine frequently
flooded areas and critical aquifer recharge areas. They don't have to throw out these
concerns globally. There is merit to considering them on a case -by -case basis.
Slaughterhouses pose unique pollution threats, more than rotting raspberries and cow
manure. It's not reasonable to compare them. He would like to support the ordinance if it
were a conditional use.
Knutzen stated this originally came from the Planning Department as a permitted
use. They compromised and made it an accessory use, with the stipulation that the
Planning Department would mail notices to all the neighbors. They've considered this
amendment several times already. No one wants to run a conditional use permit business.
All the properties for sale on the Guide Meridian are a good example of how well that works.
Kremen asked if berry processing facilities are a conditional use. Fleishmann stated
they are permitted outright for up to 20 employees. It's an accessory use when there are
more than 20 employees.
Kershner stated that when this ordinance first came to the Council, it modeled the
exact businesses in the agricultural zone. The Planning Commission did a good job
researching and modeling an ordinance that was exactly what they already have.
Brenner stated they've heard many comments about how many facilities would be
viable in Whatcom County. Consider limiting the number allowed to six, with a condition
that the permit for the facility would expire if the facility isn't used. Don't tie up the number
of allowed facilities if a facility isn't operating.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
Knutzen stated the Growth Management Act calls this an accessory use that supports
agriculture.
Brenner stated accessory uses have limits. She doesn't support a conditional use on
smaller operations.
Knutzen stated conditional use is based on size. The smaller facilities are an
accessory use, and the larger facilities are a conditional use.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Kremen and Weimer (3)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford, Kershner and Knutzen (4)
Brenner moved to limit the number of allowed slaughterhouses to six.
Kremen stated six is too many. Even the proponents of this ordinance say they only
need two or three facilities in Whatcom County. If they are going to set a limit, it should be
no more than three. If there is a future need, the Council can change the number of
facilities allowed in the future.
Brenner amended her motion and moved to limit the number of allowed
slaughterhouses to three.
Kershner stated she is against the motion to amend. This is not a business plan.
This is a code that allows a use. It's not up to the Council to decide how many
packinghouses they need in the county. It's up to the farmers to decide based on
economics.
Knutzen stated they discussed this already, and decided it's not good for the
ordinance. They concluded that 75 percent of the product would come from Whatcom,
Skagit, or Island counties. That will limit the amount of product they can process and the
number of facilities.
Kershner asked how many of the three allowed would be the larger size and how
many would be the smaller size.
Brenner stated limit to three small facilities allowed as an accessory use.
Crawford stated they debated this several months ago. This is tricky constitutional
territory when they start telling business how many locations can exist. Also, they
discussed the hypothesis that one company could immediately apply for the three and
monopolize the business. Don't limit the number allowed. He asked the attributes of a
limit.
Kremen stated he didn't say he would support the amendment. If there is going to
be a limit, a better limit would be three.
Brenner asked if there is a constitutional issue with limiting the number allowed to
three. Frakes stated they've gone over this before. There isn't a problem with a limitation.
Mann stated he is against the motion. He agrees with Councilmember Crawford.
This goes against his basic principles of how capitalism and the government should
intersect. The limit feels arbitrary. Set the rules, and let the market sort out how to best
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
achieve it. Require a conditional use for all these facilities, and they can have as many as
the market will bear. He doesn't like a limit, but it might achieve some of the protections
that some citizens have asked for. He's conflicted about it. He asked if Councilmember
Brenner would support the conditional use amendment if this fails.
Brenner stated she would not.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann and Weimer (3)
Nays: Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (4)
Kershner stated sections 20.40.114(5 -7) address the concerns about water quality.
That language was included to protect the public from a slaughterhouse discharging into the
rivers or groundwater. They can't do it. It isn't permitted. Also, they talked about flood
areas, slides in Acme, and other critical areas around the county. The critical areas
ordinance will prevent a packinghouse from being sited in a critical area. One person
testified it takes 600 gallons of water to make a hamburger. She would like to see the
source of that data. All the water out of slaughterhouses is recycled. Dairies recycle water.
It's possible to do. This is not a rezone of 88,000 acres. It adds a use to the agricultural
zoned land. She agrees with Wendy Harris, who testified that they must allow farmers to
make a profit for a feasible agricultural community. The Planning Commission
recommendation was a simple ordinance. This is a compromise to ensure public safety,
allow the use, and add value -added product to the farming community. She fully supports
the ordinance.
areas.
Brenner moved to add language that they do not allow packinghouses in critical
(Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
Kershner stated this will have to comply with the critical areas ordinance.
Brenner stated Planning staff said this does not preclude them. Frequently flooded
areas are critical areas.
Kremen referenced finding five, which requires that the zoning amendment be
consistent with the Growth Management Act and County Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner asked if the Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Act preclude the
building of a packinghouse in a critical area. She's concerned about more than just critical
areas.
Crawford stated the critical areas ordinance is a layer of protection for certain
locations that meet certain criteria. The critical areas ordinance doesn't say one can't build.
It provides a menu of options that push building into the least impactful way. If impacts
can't be avoided, they must be mitigated. There isn't language that says one can't build a
packinghouse or anything else in a critical area. The Code is designed to inhibit activity in
critical areas, not prohibit activities. If an activity has an impact, the impact must be
mitigated by improvements.
Mann stated a lot of the concerns that Councilmember Brenner is bringing up one at
a time would be addressed on a case -by -case basis under a conditional use permit. Require
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
a conditional use permit for all these facilities, regardless of the size. The concerns will be
addressed each time.
Knutzen stated the concerns will be addressed with an accessory use permit as well.
Brenner stated she doesn't want a conditional use on small facilities. If they don't
allow the small facilities as an accessory, they will only have bigger facilities.
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner and Kremen (4)
Nays: Weimer, Mann and Brenner (3)
OPEN SESSION
(9:37:07 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Bob Burr spoke about allowing revised candidate statements for the voter's
pamphlet.
• Joy Gilfillen spoke about the environmental impact statement for the
proposed new jail.
• Kris Halterman spoke about not discouraging business from coming to
Whatcom County.
• Yoshi Revelle spoke about the justice system and packinghouse ordinance.
• Ronna Loerch spoke about a site for the proposed new jail.
• Chet Dow spoke about the proposed new jail.
• Irene Morgan spoke about the proposed new jail and jail alternatives.
CONSENT AGENDA
(9:55:17 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through nine.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
I. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE A
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES 17 (AB2013 -293)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO RENEW
INSURANCE FOR THE WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY FOR POLICY YEAR
09/30/2013 THROUGH 09/30/2014 (AB2013 -294)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM FOR 2013 BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT FUNDS TO
PURCHASE TRAINING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IN SUPPORT OF
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
REGIONALIZED ACTIVE SHOOTER RESPONSE TRAINING, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$12,878 (AB2013 -295)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SEA MAR COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTERS FOR OUTPATIENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES, IN THE
AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $203,000 PER YEAR FOR A TWO -YEAR
PERIOD (AB2013 -296)
5. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CATHOLIC COMMUNITY
SERVICES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON NW FOR OUTPATIENT SUBSTANCE
ABUSE SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $672,000 PER YEAR
FOR A TWO -YEAR PERIOD (AB2013 -297)
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNSELING &
PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC FOR OUTPATIENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES, IN
THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $316,000 PER YEAR FOR A TWO -YEAR
PERIOD (AB2013 -298)
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID 13 -64
AND ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE LIGHTHOUSE MARINE PARK BOAT RAMP TO LOW BIDDER, HB
HANSEN CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $241,058.79 (AB2013 -299)
8. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID 13 -63
AND ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE
PAD AT CENTRAL SHOP TO LOW BIDDER, NORTHERN CONCRETE AND
CONTRACTING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,033 (AB2013 -300)
9. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PURCHASE
REPLACEMENT COMPUTERS FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE
WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT, FOR A TOTAL OF $62,158.14 (AB2013-
301)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SCHEDULE FOR JOINT COUNTY AND CITY
REVIEW OF URBAN GROWTH AREAS (AB2013 -303A) (9:55:57 PM)
Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
approve the resolution.
Crawford stated the Lummi Tribal representative invited the group to go to the new
tribal center for the December meeting. It's one of the most spectacular buildings in
Whatcom County.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, 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
2. ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 2013 -037, WHICH IMPOSED AN
INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR
DIVISIONS OF LAND RESULTING IN LOTS SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES
WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2013 -277) (9:57 :16 PM)
Mann 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. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF JON
STRONG TO THE BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2013-
304) (9 :58 :13 PM)
Kremen 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)
4. APPOINTMENT OF ONE COUNCILMEMBER TO SERVE ON A REVIEW
COMMITTEE THAT WILL EVALUATE THE COMPOSITION OF THE WHATCOM
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS (AB2013 -307)
(9 :58 :46 PM)
Kershner moved to nominate and appoint Councilmember Kremen.
Crawford asked if it's a conflict for the current board member to sit on a committee
that evaluates the composition of the board.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated that according to WTA staff, the
representative can be the same as the WTA Board representative.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated it's not a legal conflict of interest. She
understands what Councilmember Crawford is saying, but the WTA has the right to have
whomever it wants to review the makeup of their Board. If the WTA is okay with sitting
members, then it's fine.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE WHATCOM
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
GEOGRAPHIC AREA REPRESENTATIVE - APPLICANT(S): IAN SMITH
(AB2013 -308) (10 :01 :38 PM)
Brenner moved to appoint Ian Smith.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, Page 16
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
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
(10:02:08 PM)
Mann moved to accept the Introduction Items, including the substitute document
for Item three.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, TENTH REQUEST,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $832,504 (AB2013 -305)
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE POINT ROBERTS CHARACTER
PLAN (AB2013 -306)
3. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2014
THROUGH 2019 (AB2013 -302)
OTHER BUSINESS
(10:02:39 PM)
Brenner reported for the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee regarding the
resolution approving the Whatcom County Six -Year Transportation Improvement
Program for the years 2014 through 2019 (AB2013 -302) and stated the committee
made amendments to the resolution.
Brenner moved to have the Council Clerk transcribe the Planning Commission
meeting minutes.
Kershner stated she supports the motion. Much detail is being left out of the
Planning Commission minutes. Having more detailed minutes from the Planning
Commission would alleviate much of the repetitive questions and actions the Council takes.
She asked the Executive to transfer money from the Planning Commission budget to the
Council budget to pay for the Council staff to transcribe Planning Commission minutes,
when preparing the budget amendments for 2014.
Brenner stated that when they discussed the Open Space resolution, there was no
information on how the Planning Commission voted. She had to call a Planning
Commissioner to find out. The basic information wasn't included.
Crawford stated get a general report from the Executive of what it would take for
Planning staff to do more detailed minutes.
Kershner stated that when the Council adopted the budget last year, it
recommended this transfer. The Planning Department said they would work to do a better
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, Page 17
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
job. That's not happening. There is an opportunity in the budget process to move the
responsibility to the Council staff.
Crawford stated it would be nice for the Council to express its concern to the folks
who are responsible, and let them come to the Council with a recommendation on how to do
it, rather than the Council dictate how to do it.
Kershner stated she agrees. They did that, but it's not working. Even the Planning
Commission didn't remember the details, and had to listen to their own tapes to get the
details to answer questions for the councilmembers.
Brenner stated detail is missing from the minutes.
Kershner stated the detail missing is what the Commission has discussed and how
the commissioners came to their conclusions. Then the councilmembers end up repeating
the same discussions for months.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, asked if the
information was problematic for only the open space meeting.
Kershner stated there are other.
Personius stated a concern is that Council staff would not know the voices of the
individual commissioners when transcribing from an audio recording.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated Council staff would attend a few
meetings to get to know the commissioners.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. He's found the minutes valuable and
doesn't have trouble with them. This year, they've consistently gotten the minutes. A lot of
it is good chairing, too. The Chair should recognize the people who speak. It shouldn't be
difficult to transcribe those things or hear who is talking. The votes need to be called out by
the chair as to who votes which way. If that isn't happening, it might be an issue with the
Chair. If every speaker is recognized by name, and the votes are spoken out by the chair,
he doesn't see a problem. If he'd had any concern tonight about open space, he would
have listened to the audio on the internet in the course of his research. He hasn't had an
issue with figuring out what is going on with the Planning Commission.
Brenner stated she has had an issue. She likes really specific minutes. It's not an
issue with the chair. It's an issue with the minutes.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
Mann stated he has had a couple of comments from people who want an extended
comment period on the jail environmental impact statement (EIS). Send a recommendation
to the Executive. Thirty days would be better than 15 days.
Kershner asked if the extension would cause a problem with making a purchasing
decision before the purchasing agreement expires.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, Page 18
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
Crawford stated he encourages councilmembers to postpone a vote until two weeks
from tonight, when the Executive can respond.
Brenner stated take a vote to indicate if they agree.
Brown -Davis stated have a discussion with the Executive. If necessary, she can
schedule it before the Council in two weeks for a formal Council decision.
Mann stated he will talk to Executive Louws.
Kremen moved to request that the County Executive direct the appropriate
Planning and Development Services Department staff to revisit the open space process,
including the thresholds. It's been 25 years since the program was developed, and things
have changed significantly. It would be appropriate.
Crawford stated it's laudable, but it opens up a set of difficult issues. They could ask
the administration if things need to be changed. He would like to know specifically what
needs to be changed. State law says they have to do this. He asked if the problem is with
the way points are scored.
Kremen stated that is the problem.
Crawford asked which scores.
Kershner stated that's what they need to review.
Crawford asked if they are asking for staff's opinion.
Kremen stated that is exactly what he's asking for. The Council can't direct staff to
do anything. The Council must go through the Executive. Make that request of the
Executive to direct his Planning Department staff to revisit the open space application
process. Staff is well aware of the concerns of the councilmembers. The open space
programs are being abused and overused. They must tighten up what should be
recommended and approved.
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to include the Planning Commission
in developing the new criteria.
Kremen accepted the friendly amendment.
Brenner stated the committee talked extensively today about what is wrong with the
process.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Crawford, Knutzen, Kershner, Weimer and Kremen (7)
Nays: None (0)
Kershner stated she would like to ask the Auditor if there is a chance for the voter
pamphlet statements can be revised by all the candidates.
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, Page 19
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
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
(10 :20 :20 PM)
Brenner reported she attended an event at the new Lummi Tribal center.
Knutzen reported that he attended a Brigadoon Service Dogs charity auction. It's a
great organization. They help many people every year to place service dogs. The
auctioneer at the event included comic relief.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on October 8, 2013.
ATTEST:
Council Clerk
- Minutes Transcription
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Kathy Kershner, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 9/10/2013, Page 20