HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole June 18 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
Special Committee of the Whole
June 18, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(3:00:23 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann, Carl Weimer
and Pete Kremen.
Absent: Sam Crawford.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL PARCEL
RECONFIGURATION AND OTHER CHANGES AFFECTING THE AGRICULTURE
ZONE (AB2013 -128A)
Samya Lutz, Planning and Development Services Department, read from a
presentation (on file).
Amy Keenan, Planning and Development Services Department, continued the
presentation on the current and proposed development siting criteria.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, continued the
presentation on contextual issues. Regarding the monitoring issue, there doesn't seem to
be a good way to impose that without encouraging more development. There are
alternative ways of doing that, proposed in the staff memo. Move forward with the whole
package or parse it up into just those agricultural areas amendments, which were just
parcel creation and boundary line adjustment.
Lutz concluded the presentation on discussion and next steps.
Brenner stated she's fine with the property line adjustment portion, but has a
problem with clustering. The Agricultural Advisory Committee should consider parcel
reconfiguration specifically.
Kershner asked what the Agricultural Advisory Committee voted on when it sent a
letter November 2012. Lutz stated the Planning Commission had not made substantial
changes, and the Agricultural Advisory Committee urged the Planning Commission to
continue moving forward. The Planning Commission made a few changes, but nothing
substantial.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
Brenner stated cluster development in the agricultural land does not help the farmer.
Mann stated he's okay with the agricultural amendments. They could ask the
Agricultural Advisory Committee to give an opinion on the current proposal for parcel
reconfiguration.
Knutzen stated he's fine with everything except parcel reconfiguration. He's
concerned about creating residences in the agricultural zone. He supports asking the
agricultural advisory committee to give an opinion on potential benefits and negative
impacts of parcel reconfiguration.
Weimer stated move forward with the agricultural area amendments. Delay parcel
reconfiguration until they hear from the Agricultural Advisory Committee and get clarity on
growth management issues regarding water.
Brenner stated they should get a legal opinion on the water issues. She moved to
recommend the full Council introduce the agricultural area amendments, except pull out
parcel reconfiguration to send to Agricultural Advisory Committee at its first meeting in
October.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Crawford (1)
Brenner asked what to do about the water issue part.
Weimer stated he suspects they will get legal opinions on some of that, so it will
become clear.
Kremen stated the water issues will take a considerable amount of time. They won't
yet be able to get a definitive answer on that issue.
2. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TO ALLOW PACKINGHOUSES IN THE
AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT (AB2012 -300B) (3:27:01 PM)
Knutzen moved to recommend the full Council introduce the ordinance as
presented.
Mann stated he didn't support it in committee because of concerns about the
criteria. His biggest concern is with allowing packinghouses as an accessory use. It doesn't
have enough up -front oversight. This is a contentious land use. It should be a conditional
use, but he won't have support for that. The code already allows it as an administrative
approval use in the industrial manufacturing zone. He moved to amend to make
slaughterhouses an administrative approval use in the agricultural zone, not a permitted
use.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion to amend. He referenced Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 36.70A.177 and stated farmers must have a place to process the meat
to make agriculture in Whatcom County sustainable. The RCW says it should be an
accessory use. The agricultural zone has adequate facilities to handle packinghouses.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
issue.
Kremen asked the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) recommendation on this
Knutzen stated the Planning Commission recommended it be permitted.
Joshua Fleischmann, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it has
not gone to the AAC.
Knutzen stated the AAC sent a letter of approval.
Fleischmann stated he had asked the AAC if they wanted to address the ordinance,
but he didn't receive a response. It went to the Planning Commission.
Kremen stated there have been claims that this use is necessary for the survival of
the agricultural industry in the community, but the AAC hasn't even expressed an interest in
it.
Knutzen stated he believes the AAC sent a letter of unanimous support on behalf of
the entire Committee.
Mann stated he doesn't know what version of the ordinance the AAC supported.
Brenner stated she prefers to hear an opinion from the AAC. She won't support the
motion.
Mann stated he's supported responsible slaughterhouse operations in the agricultural
zone from the beginning. As he's learned more about it, he's learned these things can be
extremely hard on the environment and surrounding neighborhoods. Requiring an
administrative approval does not create a barrier to allowing the use. According to the
Planning Department, 97 percent of all administrative approval permits since 2000 have
been approved. The Department of Ecology (DOE) and Health Department have said these
operations create industrial -scale waste and require State waste discharge permits. Make
sure they're sited appropriately.
Knutzen stated that if they're asking someone to invest the money required and to
get financing, an accessory use makes it much easier. Items that make agriculture
sustainable should be an accessory use, per the RCW. People who speak out against the
use have no experience in the agricultural zone and live in the city. The agricultural
community supports this ordinance. This will promote local grown beef.
Kershner asked if this is a rezone or adding an allowable use to the zone.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it is not a
rezone. It is at zoning text change, not a map change.
Kershner asked if there is data on the industrial waste of packinghouses compared to
a medium -sized dairy in Whatcom County. Personius stated DOE and Health Department
discussed the State and County requirements. Treatment and disposal has to be done
carefully. The DOE makes the decision on the State waste discharge permit.
Brenner stated the RCW says accessory uses in the agriculture zone include
processing of plant and animal products. The ordinance needs to include the State
industrial waste discharge language.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
Mann stated he's not arguing whether it meets the definition of an accessory use.
This is accessory to agricultural operations. There's a reason it requires an administrative
approval in the industrial zone now, and why it was outright unpermitted for many years.
They pose some unique pollution discharge problems. It must be an administrative
approval use because of the rigor required for permitting and siting one of these facilities.
If done right, a developer will get the permit as long as all the issues are taken care of.
Knutzen stated the industrial zone administrative approval is for industrial
slaughterhouses that process many animals very quickly. A packinghouse designation will
not be the same thing, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Weimer stated he supports the amendment. The RCW may allow this to be an
accessory use, but concerns show it needs more review. An administrative approval makes
more sense. The person who originally asked to allow this use was ready to start a
business with a conditional use permit. He thinks they should all be conditional use permits.
Brenner stated there were concerns by people who live in the county, not just in the
city. Some farm people have concerns. The Council has taken time, listened to concerns,
and made changes. She would support the motion if she hadn't heard the presentation
from Jeff Hegedus. People must understand that waste is taken care of.
Weimer stated they can add that language in another motion.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Mann, Weimer and Kremen (3)
Nays: Brenner, Kershner and Knutzen (3)
Absent: Crawford (1)
Knutzen moved to amend Whatcom County Code (WCC) 20.40.114(5) and
20.40.164(4), "...a waste management plan, approved reviewed by the Whatcom County
Health Department and approved by...." The Health Department doesn't have jurisdiction of
this issue.
Brenner stated the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) language should be part
of an exhibit. Incorrect information is going around because people look at something, and
don't go anywhere else. This is important enough to include all the language.
Knutzen motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Crawford (1)
Weimer moved to amend to create WCC 20.40.114(9) and 20.40.164(8), "The
facility shall comply with solid waste handling standards as set forth in WAC 173 -350, as
administered by the Whatcom County Health Department as adopted by reference in WCC
24.06."
Knutzen stated he thought this material would go through a digester and be handled
by DOE, which is why they referenced the approved State waste discharge permit instead of
the solid waste handling standards. Fleischmann stated a slaughtering facility would have
to comply with the solid waste handling standards. If taken to a digester, it must comply
with the State waste discharge permit.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
Mann stated the State waste discharge permit allows a land application on a field, for
example.
Personius stated the digester requires the State waste discharge permit. A
packinghouse applicant who handles the waste must meet the solid waste handling
standards.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion. The Health Department is one more agency
that will regulate this use. He asked if they regulate any other agricultural operations in the
county. The Health Department says it doesn't deal with dairy waste and sends the farmers
to the Department of Agriculture, which sends the farmers to the Department of Ecology.
Adding another layer of confusion will make it more difficult to operate a facility in the
county.
Kershner stated the requirements apply whether or not it's in the ordinance. Adding
it to the ordinance informs the applicant of the existing requirements. It doesn't add a
layer. The layer is already there.
Mann stated that this is a use in which the Health Department should be involved in
permitting and siting.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Knutzen (1)
Absent: Crawford (1)
Brenner moved to create a new exhibit within the ordinance that includes the
language of the solid waste handling standards in WCC 24.06; national pollution discharge
elimination system (NPDES) permit; Washington Administrative Codes (WACs) 173 -216,
173 -226, 173 -220, and 173 -350, and; RCW 90.48.
Weimer stated he is against the motion. It would be hundreds of pages. The
Council has never done that.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen and Kremen (3)
Nays: Kershner, Mann and Weimer (3)
Absent: Crawford (1)
Weimer referenced a limit on the size of holding pens for immediate processing so
they don't end up with feed lots. It's still shown as a finding of fact. He moved to insert
the option B language to limit the size of holding pens to 20.40.114 and 20.40.164,
"Holding pens associated with packinghouses shall be limited to that necessary to
accommodate animals intended for immediate process."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Kershner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (5)
Nays: Knutzen (1)
Absent: Crawford (1)
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
Mann stated there was language about not siting them in critical aquifer recharge
areas. He moved to add language to 20.40.114 and 20.40.164 to not site packinghouses
in critical aquifer recharge areas.
Kershner asked if that's covered by the critical areas ordinance.
Knutzen stated it is covered by the critical areas ordinance. They learned they don't
have a lot of data on aquifer recharge.
Mann asked if there are maps that outline the critical aquifer recharge areas.
Fleischmann stated maps show susceptibility according to amount of data.
Kershner asked if they allow building in those areas. Fleischmann stated they do.
Much of the agricultural zone is within a moderate or high susceptibility zone.
Brenner asked if dairies and other types of businesses are located in high
susceptibility aquifer recharge areas. Fleischmann stated be believes there are.
Kershner stated she doesn't support building a slaughterhouse in a critical area, but
it sounds like this is different. She doesn't support the motion to amend.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment to not site in a high susceptibility
aquifer recharge area.
Mann accepted the friendly amendment.
Knutzen stated that if the County has data on the aquifer recharge areas, it should
give the data to the folks at the water symposium.
Mann stated it's in the critical areas ordinance.
Knutzen stated they are basing it on the critical areas, that this is within which
watershed they're draining water into. He asked if that was the criteria of the data they're
referencing. Fleischmann stated he doesn't have that expertise.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Mann, Weimer and Kremen (4)
Nays: Kershner and Knutzen (2)
Absent: Crawford (1)
Mann stated he would like to see those maps.
Weimer referenced finding 19 and asked if adoption of this ordinance negates the
conditional use permit for Keizer Meats. Personius stated it is a question for legal counsel.
He believes they would become an accessory use subject to these conditions.
Brenner moved to refer to the Agricultural Advisory Committee at its first meeting
in October before the Council holds a hearing.
Weimer stated that would be a long meeting, with agricultural reconfiguration.
Knutzen stated he is against the motion. He's sure they've already provided a
recommendation.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
Brenner withdrew her motion until she sees the letter.
Personius stated staff can prepare for introduce in two weeks. He will submit maps
of the recharge areas.
Kershner moved to introduce as amended in two weeks.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann and Kremen (5)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Absent: Crawford (1)
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING ONGOING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH TUBING ON
THE SOUTH FORK OF THE NOOKSACK RIVER (AB2013 -236) (4 :25:19 PM)
Brenner stated the Sheriff's Office feels they can't adequately patrol the area.
Jeff Parks, Sheriff's Office, gave a staff report and stated they have concerns about
logistics and staffing regarding that issue. The issue is seasonal. They don't have programs
or personnel to deal just with it. Problems seem to come up when things are very busy.
There are parking issues on State and County roads. They worked to post no parking zones
and on other issues with residents over the years. Conflicts have escalated to violent and
disruptive behavior. Many issues revolve around the inner - tubing activity, which is difficult
to police due to the location and other difficulties.
Knutzen asked about parking problems on Highway 9 and the standard procedure.
Parks stated they do a number of things. They've towed vehicles, but that presents
challenges also. They issue citations and other violations for blocking the road.
Brenner asked how much budget could take care of the problems and whether the
Sheriff's Office could keep it safe adequately. Parks stated that's unknown. Use happens
depending on the weather. If there were a contingency plan, people would have to be hired
and work the area as if it were a special event. It's tough to address efficiently and cost -
effectively, without overkill. They've dealt with similar issues in other areas by putting
together special emphasis and working on a case -by -case basis. It's hard to give a number
of staff and overtime. It would really require someone there during nice weather in the
mornings before things get out of hand. A pre - planning effort with special emphasis and
enforcement plans is required.
Brenner asked about the possibility of having different private businesses be certified
through the Sheriff's Office to take people to the area. Parks stated he doesn't know how
that would work in an area with unrestricted access. That wouldn't address the problems.
Only those who want to comply would go along with it. Those who already don't want to
comply are the problem.
Kremen asked if they get any assistance from the State patrol. It's their jurisdiction.
Parks stated they've asked for help from the State patrol and the State Department of Fish
and Wildlife. The State budget doesn't allow for extra assistance. The Sheriff is the primary
law enforcement official.
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
Kremen stated he's concerned about disruptive behavior, possibility for fatalities, and
other activity. However, local businesses rely on that business during the short summer
season. They have to deal with the issue in some way.
Kershner stated they discussed having licensed operators who would be responsible
for parking and transporting their clients and regulating their behavior. She asked if that
solution would not be effective. Parks stated he's concerned about the current problem
people who would not do that activity through an operator and does not care about a
structured program.
Kershner asked for a recommendation on how to handle those folks. Parks stated
they must direct resources to the issue and enforce the laws on the books. That has issues
with cost, staff, and logistics.
Mann asked what rights a private property owner has when there are trespassers.
Parks stated there isn't a black -or -white answer. Property owners have the right to not
have people trespass on their property, be secure on their property and with their
possessions, and not have the ill- effects of the use on their property. People have a right to
protect themselves and their property. Law enforcement evaluates individual
circumstances, which must be reasonable and proportional to the threat. It's better to try
and prevent the problem.
Knutzen asked what rights they have for parking along the highway, if the State will
prohibit parking on the easement and put up no parking signs, whether the County could
inventory its property in the area and see if there is property available for some controlled
parking, and having a licensed vendor. Other jurisdictions have similar issues, and have
restricted access. The Tribes voiced concerns about salmon in the river. He asked who is
liable if someone drowns due to salmon recovery structures in the river.
Weimer stated it's a nuisance, but it's also a recreational asset without a
management plan. He doesn't know if the County has the legal authority to manage access
to the river. He asked if they can say how many people per day can inner tube down the
river and charge them a fee, or do other things that could become Parks Department
programs that are supported by fees.
Lynn Wheeler stated it's become a public safety issue for the community. Few who
come to the area respect the property, river, and residents. The users aren't families.
There aren't resources for the Sheriff to enforce the laws. Whatcom County has not
developed the land it owns around the Acme bridge. Alcohol consumed is illegal and creates
an unsafe environment. Put a moratorium on tubing until resources can be provided for
enforcement.
Leea Heeringa stated the County should step up by banning the use or providing
resources for enforcement. She and her family members feel threatened. The tubers have
no responsibility.
Jeff Margolis submitted a handout (on file) and stated the situation has gotten worse
over the decades because the County has not dealt with the issues. He asks the Parks
Commission to consider his proposal. There are issues with the absence of signage, public
notice, authority, sanctioned points of ingress and egress, and sanitation facilities. They
need public education and supervision. The County must take charge. The Parks
Department has data that shows the highest priority of citizens is access to fresh water
shoreline. There is a shortage of that shoreline that is accessible to the public. Manage the
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
area for the public good. Assign oversight and responsibility to manage the problem. Use
the Sheriff Office volunteer force to control access on the Public Works Department
property.
Cassidy Bristol stated there are options besides banning the use. Work to make it an
asset to the community. Citizens can organize to raise awareness and pick up litter. Add
signs to educate the public on the recreational use.
Elizabeth (Inaudible) stated the answer lies in their attitude toward tourism in
Whatcom County. Develop the recreational opportunities to draw in tourism dollars that can
be used to mediate the problems. Tourism creates jobs. Education is important.
Gordon Rogers, Parks and Recreation Commission Chair, stated the Commission is
discussing the situation and formulating a recommendation.
Lee First referenced and read from the Washington public trust doctrine. ReSources
annually organizes a clean up of the south fork of the Nooksack River. The trash is not just
beer bottles and party trash. She's more concerned with pollution, which doesn't have
anything to do with people inner - tubing down the river. It's important to keep the river
open to the public.
Eric Murda stated the County should put trash dumpsters at the put -in areas. The
Sheriff's Office enforcement deputies can get out of their cars and get down to the river.
The property owners need to be more understanding. People coming out of the river just
want to go home. Everyone needs to learn to manage the resource.
Unidentified speaker stated this is an important recreational resource in the county.
Outdoor resources are important to the citizens. Don't ban the use.
Jackie Rossing, Acme General Store Owner, stated the increased activity during the
tubing season makes their year economically viable. The loss of revenue would be a blow to
her business. Something needs to be done to manage the issue. Everyone should work
together. Tubing upstream was banned to protect salmon. It was a compromise. All the
activity has been pushed downriver. Parking fees can pay for sanitation facilities.
Ed Strachilla stated he's witnessed things, been assaulted, and vandalized. He has
no problem with people tubing on the river, but has a problem when they come onto his
land. Public education can help. Garbage is a problem. The government has spent millions
on fish habitat, and they let people float right over the fish.
Marina (No last name), Glacier, stated tubing is a tradition. Her group always packs
up their garbage and doesn't drink much. Keep the area open. Have signs about tubing
responsibility and public education. They could self - regulate.
Rose Johns stated tubing in the river is different from what it used to be. She and
her family and friends inner -tube responsibly. It seems a lot of the problem is from college
students. An option is to create an education program at the river, similar to a program of
the Whatcom Land Trust. It's important to come up with something that preserves access.
Victor (Inaudible) stated trash removal is necessary. Place a volunteer patrol at a
put -in area. A volunteer force at the area is possible. Banning access will not keep people
from tubing the river. Property owners have the advantage of being at the river daily.
Others don't have that opportunity, and get there only when they can. Prohibiting the use
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, 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
3
3
4
4
4
4
only transplants the problem to another location. Volunteers are the solution. Property
owner should be more accepting or consider moving.
Sara Strachilla stated the problem is not with responsible inner - tubers. It's a safety
issue before things such as garbage. Landowners have to deal with the problems daily.
Kremen moved to request that that the Executive, Sheriff, Public Works
Department Director, and Parks and Recreation Department Director have a meeting and
address the issues that are confronting the community to attempt to develop solutions to
these problems. Address specific issues: parking; access; safety; refuse and litter;
disorderly, disruptive, and illegal conduct, and; and adequate sanitation.
Knutzen stated find out also how to restrict parking along Highway 9.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Kershner, Knutzen, Mann and Kremen (5)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Crawford and Weimer (2)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:32 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@�.omhatcomma.us
Special Committee of the Whole, 6/18/2013, Page 10