HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 24 20121
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
July 24, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(7:02:51 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
(7:03:51 PM)
Kershner announced there was discussion regarding a proposed ordinance
amending Whatcom County Code 20.14, Wind Energy Systems (AB2011 -223A)
during the special Committee of the Whole meeting today. Planning staff are working on
changes, and it will come back to Council.
Kershner also announced there was discussion of a proposed ordinance
amending Whatcom County Code Title 20, the official Whatcom County Zoning
Map, and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan and Maps, to implement
changes relating to rural land use planning (AB2012 -193) during the special
Committee of the Whole meeting today.
Kershner finally announced there was discussion with Senior Deputy Prosecutor
Karen Frakes regarding pending litigation — rural element (AB2011 -018) in
executive session during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
MINUTES CONSENT
(7:04:59 PM)
Mann moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MAY 22, 2012
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 5, 2012
3. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 5, 2012
4. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 12, 2012
5. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JUNE 19, 2012
6. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 19, 2012
7. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 10, 2012
Kershner moved to change the agenda so the rural element discussion and action
is at the end of the meeting.
Brenner suggested holding the public hearing as scheduled, and postpone
discussion until later.
Kershner accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment.
Kremen suggested a friendly amendment to have the open session before the
hearings.
Kershner accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
OPEN SESSION
(7:08:16 PM)
The following people spoke:
• John Harmon, Bellingham /Whatcom County Housing Authority Executive Director,
spoke about using Economic Development Investment (EDI) funds for multi-
family rental housing.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following John Harmon requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes. The speaker's testimony is available on
the meeting's audio recording.)
• Judy Collins spoke about rezoning her Horton Road property.
• Stu Clark spoke about a cost benefit analysis for a new ferry.
• Paul Isaacson spoke about the integrity of this council and special interests
passing land use laws.
• Anna Martin, Friends of the Nooksack Samish Watershed, spoke about a proposed
mineral resource land (MRL) expansion by Concrete Nor'west.
• Paul Brass spoke about a proposed mineral resource land (MRL) expansion by
Concrete Nor'west.
• Valerie Lloyd spoke about a proposed mineral resource land (MRL) expansion by
Concrete Nor'west.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING 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
(AB2012 -040A) (7:26:38 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Perry Eskridge, Whatcom County Association Realtors Government Affairs Director,
stated Sudden Valley residents are concerned about being able to sell their properties.
They are losing sight of what they can do to improve Lake Whatcom water quality. A recent
video on YouTube.com is about Bellingham flushing Mirror Lake. There was a brown plume
of sediment flowing far into the lake. Talk about what is actually causing sediment in the
lake. People are blaming developers for the poor water quality. Because of the diversion
dam, any number of contaminants from other areas are brought into the system. The
sediment catch system isn't working. Mirror Lake is near Highway 9.
Crawford stated he forwarded these videos to Jon Hutchings, who is communicating
with the City and will let the Council know what it's all about. It's estimated that 24 percent
of the phosphorus entering Lake Whatcom comes from the diversion.
Wendy Harris stated development causes water quality problems in Lake Whatcom.
Nothing else. That's why they need the moratorium. Prevent realtors from prematurely
developing, before the County completes the stormwater regulations, rural element update,
and other regulations necessary to protect the lake.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Weimer moved to adopt the ordinance.
Crawford stated there is some consideration of possibly allowing clustering. That
may come forward later.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Crawford (1)
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LAKE SAMISH BASIN COMPREHENSIVE
STORMWATER PLAN (AB2012 -227) (7:33:52 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Penny Jewett, Lake Samish, submitted handouts (on file) and asked the Council to
delay the plan until they can demonstrate that the recommendations and capital
improvement projects are necessary, cost effective, and will meet the stated goals. The
County doesn't know which culverts and catch basins belong to the County and which are
private. The State Department of Transportation (DOT) vault was installed with no follow
up. She doesn't know if the projects are necessary. She submitted a petition of residents
with concerns. The description of the project near her property is incorrect. Funding
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
projects on private property may set a precedent. High property values indicates the
residents pay more for County services.
Jerry Johnson, Lake Samish, stated he objects to some of the elements, but not
necessarily the plan. He objects to or questions elements that include $28,000 for a
website, $32,000 for communicating with major stakeholders, employee costs to coordinate
the plan, costs of a progress report and expanded lake monitoring. He asked how taxes
collected from Lake Samish residents for stormwater management is used. They are being
asked to pay for the new culverts. Some people can't afford an extra $500 per year in
taxes. Allow the community to vote on the plan. Timber areas are exempted, but they
contribute the most problems in the watershed. The water quality focus is on Lake
Whatcom, and Lake Samish is neglected. They would like to see a common plan for all the
lakes in Whatcom County.
Jeff Monks, Lake Samish, stated he is concerned about the process and the content
of the plan. He's lost confidence in government. They already pay a stormwater tax.
There should be more accountability. There are too many taxes. The oil and water
separator by the freeway was never monitored. No one described the degradation that has
occurred.
Mike Roberts, Lake Samish, stated he supports the plan. Water quality of the lake is
important. Professor Robin Matthews has studied the lake water for five years, and
concluded that the lake suffers from increasing phosphorous loading, causing plant and
algae growth. Residents at the shallow end of the lake are searching for another drinking
water source. Professor Matthews recommends water quality education and phosphorus
loading control. The plan is well thought -out, researched, documented, and has had years
of public input. Many are concerned about the cost of the plan, so consider fairness issues
when deciding how to fund the plan. The greater concern is the greater cost of the water
becomes bad enough they can't drink it. That would cost millions of dollars. Take action to
change the conditions on the lake.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Kraig Olasen, Public Works Department, stated he is available to answer questions.
They've worked on this project for several years. They've done a good job at trying to get
information out to the public. The plan was requested by the community, which was
concerned about the water. The plan has two proposed levels. The first level has no
additional fees. The second level includes ideas for what can be done with the staff and
funding they have.
People are concerned that adopting this plan means the County is going to adopt a
fee immediately. It does not. The estimates shown in chapter seven are to indicate what
costs might be and what an individual fee may amount to. There is no specific
recommendation. It would take a lot more meetings and another year of work to do that.
They aren't here to fund the plan. They are here to achieve what the community wanted in
the plan in terms of capital improvement projects and programmatic recommendations.
Weimer moved to approve the resolution.
Crawford asked about funding proposed projects on private property. Olason stated
some of the projects that are on private property would require easements negotiated with
a landowner. The capital list in plan includes private areas that could use some
improvement.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
Crawford asked about the lake outfall. Olason stated the plan includes the outfall as
well as the stormwater components because it is part of the former Lake Management
District. It's an ongoing requirement for people to withdraw water from Lake Samish. The
facility has a limited lifespan, so they must consider future improvements, buildup at the
outflow, and more sediment that's occurring. There is also concern they aren't meeting the
minimum flow. That's an ongoing activity the County has done as a service to the
community. It's not a requirement of the stormwater plan.
Brenner stated she suggests holding this item until the County responds to concerns
raised in the letter from Penny Jewitt. She asked why the Samish Association couldn't do
some of those things voluntarily and why the County must keep hiring people. Olason
stated the County doesn't determine what should be done and assigned a value to it. If
people will do things for free, he's happy.
Mann asked if there is a rush or deadline to implement the plan. Olasen stated there
is not.
Mann asked how the Lake Samish community initiated this plan. Olason described
the history of the plan. The water district initiated the plan.
Weimer stated Herb Barker and other Lake Samish residents originally asked for
this plan. He's ready to approve the plan, but if it would be good to wait until everyone
understands the process. He withdrew the motion. He moved to hold in Council until
September 11.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
Olason stated he would respond to Ms. Jewitt's letter.
Kremen stated have a meeting with concerned residents to get a more unified
approach toward this effort. They will end up with a better result. Olason stated the goal is
to develop a community product.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO
RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2012 -193) (8:01:33 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
John Lesow stated he is a Planning Commissioner, District 3 representative. He
presented suggestions for Comprehensive Plan section 2DD -1 to the Committee of the
Whole on June 12, 2012. He read the suggestions, which the Planning Commission did not
make. The document is weak as it is.
Michelle Luke stated she is a Planning Commissioner. She submitted and read from
her testimony (on file) and stated the Comprehensive Plan is not effective. It must be
updated immediately.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
Paul Isaacson stated he purchased land on Squalicum Mountain in 1996, after
consulting with the Planning Department, because it had a great deal of development
potential and he respects the environment. Since then, the boundary line changed, and we
were promised some transfers of development rights (TDRs) as compensation. He never
received TDRs, but the boundary changed. He was lied to. When he bought it, it was in the
five -year review area. The City asked him to come out of the five -year review area, so he
did. The City said it would extend public water if he developed at one unit per five acres
instead of one unit per two acres, so he gave up his development rights, and he was the
last person to get City water extended to his property. They never want to talk about it.
His property was the largest downzone to happen in the rural element process, more than
everyone else combined. The watershed boundary line changed, with no supporting
science. The County asked him to downzone from one unit per two acres to one unit per
five acres because they are threatened to lose water and wells. He agreed, and voluntarily
downzoned his property. Don't do any more things to his property that will hurt him, based
on the County's professional staff. He accepts everything the way it is.
Kate Blystone, Futurewise Whatcom Chapter Director, referenced and read
comments submitted to the Planning Commission earlier. Her goal is to help Whatcom
County comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA). She has three points. First, the
acreage in policy 2HH -2A, number four, is too large to be considered a small scale resort.
Amend the language to be five acres as the maximum size. Second, on pages 23 and 24
regarding the discussion of rural communities in policy 211-5, amend to require
consideration of all rural characteristics, including size, scale, use, and intensity, not just
use and intensity. The third issue is regarding water. Reinstate code amendments that
were stricken after the March 6 draft. They were originally Whatcom County Code (WCC)
sections 20.32.500 and 20.36.500 regarding open space. Limit impervious surface to ten
percent of a lot to protect water quality.
Linda Twitchell, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County, referenced the
staff memo from Gary Davis dated July 20, 2012. Page two suggests a conditional use
permit building size that will not cause a need for additional public facilities in a limited area
of more intense rural development (LAMIRD). She read the Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) section 36.70A.070(5)(d). There is no need to limit public services. She referenced
the staff memo's reference to a requirement regarding the conditional use permits and
being in character of an area as of July 1, 1990, in terms of size, scale, use, or intensity.
This is not a requirement for conditional use permits, except in the local document. This is
a requirement for development or redevelopment of a type I LAMIRD. Include language
that a development not meet every one of the four parameters of size, scale, use, or
intensity. According to the Western Washington Management Hearings Board case, those
parameters may be considered.
Simi Jain, Zender Thurston Law Firm, stated she represents Caitac Corporation. She
referenced her written testimony to not limit or reduce the size of rural tourism LAMIRDs in
size. Go forward with the ordinance as it is. Reject the proposal to reduce the size to five
acres. Another issue is re- categorizing the uses permitted within the tourist commercial
district. The County already is required to do that. Uses must be small in scale and comply
with GMA.
She also represents Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. Permit water transmission
lines outright so the district can provide water to its existing customers through the rural
areas. It's a small amendment to WCC 20.82.030(3).
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
Roger Almskaar stated he represents three people, and submitted three handouts
(on file). He read from his letter regarding Mr. and Mrs. Timmins, and stated invalidity is
keeping the county in the recession. The issues are lot coverage and allowed uses and
building sizes. Be consistent. He read from his letter regarding the Filippinis and stated the
main issue again is lot cover. He read from his letter regarding Ms. Heggem and stated
they can live with the zoning and rural density overlay as long as the process is practical.
He recommends a text change. He supports comments from Michelle Luke. The number of
buildable lots in the county is less than what some groups have alleged.
Perry Eskridge, Whatcom County Association of Realtors, submitted a handout (on
file) and stated this process is too complex. He supports Michelle Luke's comments about
starting over on the Comprehensive Plan. Look at three specific things to get this done.
They are the lot coverage requirement, the size of the buildings, and the public facilities and
public services that are available.
Wendy Harris stated the County must protect surface water, ground water, and fish
and wildlife habitat. Little time was spent on resource protection. The County created
LAMIRD and residential overlay zones without considering water quality and quantity or the
local needs of fish and wildlife. Incorporate her suggestions that address these concerns
and protect the Chuckanut Wildlife Corridor.
Mary Dickinson, Mary L. Dickinson LLC, stated she represents the Paul Isaacson
family. She submitted and read from a handout (on file) and stated she wants to make
sure the current rural residential, one unit per five acres (RR5A) zoning remains on the
Squalicum Mountain area, and that they will be able to pursue ordinary activities. Restore
the previous Lake Whatcom watershed boundary line change, which was changed in March
1999.
Scott Swanson, Belcher Swanson Law Firm, referenced the staff memo from Gary
Davis dated July 20, 2012, regarding use types on page three. Adopt the suggested
language for the final sentence of the paragraph. He referenced his letter to the Council
dated July 23, 2012, the bottom of page one regarding WCC 20.80.100(2)(b). Adopt the
language he suggests in his letter.
Heather Wolf, attorney, stated she speaks on behalf of her clients in the type I
LAMIRDs. Support the newly proposed changes to type 1 LAMIRD zones. She supports the
staff recommendation to combine uses and base building size limitations on the combined
building floor area. Adopt the recommendations in her written testimony to add more
flexibility in WCC 20.80.100(2)(b).
Bonnie Barker stated everyone is accountable for their decisions. Be accountable for
the environment.
Jean Melious, Nossaman LLP, stated she speaks on behalf of Hurst et al. The County
must plan to prevent and reduce harm. She previously submitted letters and exhibits. The
County has approved exempt wells that take water that farmers and salmon need. Her
letters also commented about the Chuckanut Wildlife Corridor and parcels available for
development in the county.
Gary Honcoop referenced the type 1 rural community LAMIRDs. Many people
invested in these locations. He referenced the letter Heather Wolf submitted on his behalf
dated July 19, 2012. Be flexible, or LAMIRDs won't be viable economic areas. The intent of
the GMA was to allow infill inside the boundary of the LAMIRD. Good suggestions for
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
language changes were made this afternoon, including changes regarding combining uses
and floor areas, lot coverage, and clarifying the parameters of size, scale, use, or intensity.
Also delete WCC 20.80.100(2)(b)(2)(ii) and (iii).
Patrick Timmins stated he has not been able to sell his property because of the
problem with the moratorium. The Council seems scared of the people from Olympia,
Futurewise, and other people who don't live here. People will move away because of the
constraints.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
(Clerk's Note: Discussion of this item occurred later in the meeting.)
CONSENT AGENDA
(8 :49 :29 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through seven.
Knutzen withdrew items four and five.
The motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through three, six, and seven
carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. RESOLUTION AMENDING CRP NO. 912001 AND APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY
EXECUTIVE TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO THE LOW BIDDER,
WHATCOM BUILDERS, INC., FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM BOULEVARD
STRUCTURAL OVERLAY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $865,752 (AB2012 -248)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ELLIOTT BAY
DESIGN GROUP, LLC FOR ON -CALL SUPPORT FOR THE LUMMI ISLAND FERRY
SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF
$25,000 (AB2012 -249)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
#12 -52 TO THE LOW BIDDER, FOSS MARITIME COMPANY, FOR THE ANNUAL
DRYDOCK REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $348,772 (AB2012 -250)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
#12 -55 TO THE LOW BIDDER, HBD MARINE, FOR THE SUPPLY OF A
REPLACEMENT GANGWAY AT SAMISH PARK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,164.53
(AB2012 -251)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
Knutzen stated he is against the request. He is opposed to using the real estate
excise tax (REET) funds for parks. They have other things they have to do with the REET
funds. Pay for park projects from money dedicated for funds. It's irresponsible to deplete
the REET funds to do park projects.
Brenner stated REET II funds can be used for stormwater facilities, which are
something the county needs. The gangway can last longer. If they have to replace the
gangway, the park improvement fund has $1.5 million. That money shouldn't have been
put into the park improvement fund. The administration put the money in the park
improvement fund, without Council approval. The money was supposed to have been
reimbursed into the conservation futures fund. That was a violation of the law. If this
project is so important, use funds meant for parks.
Kremen asked if another source of funds is available.
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated this was approved
in the 2011 -2012 budget process, when real estate excise tax (REET) II was approved for
several park projects. The park improvement funds are earmarked for other projects. This
project won't receive grant funds because it is a small park. The REET fund was initially
approved years ago to help fund park projects, because there wasn't a source of funding for
capital projects outside the general fund.
Kremen asked how imperative it is that the project be done now as opposed to being
delayed for a couple of years. McFarland stated the fishing dock will have to be removed
permanently if funding isn't approved. They will assess the other dock system after the
winter storms. Next year they will determine if it's useable.
Kershner asked why the cost of these docks is expensive, and what they're doing to
take care of the environment on Lake Samish. McFarland stated this is a public dock, so it's
built to different specifications than a residential dock. It's a commercial dock system.
They need to accommodate the use that occurs on the dock, which includes the boat
rentals. Because of Fish and Wildlife regulations and water quality regulations, they can't
use treated materials over the water and they must have a light penetration system.
Additionally, the existing docks don't have encapsulated foam. They have chunks of
Styrofoam that end up floating in the lake. These days, they could not propose that type of
dock. There are a number of environmental issues with the existing docks that the new
dock system will improve. It will require additional cost.
Brenner stated they can change what the funds are earmarked for if this is so
important. The budget is coming up. Stop using money that should go for essential public
services, including safety and public health. Table this item. It isn't an essential public
service.
Mann stated he will approve the request because, even though the county budget is
tight, they shouldn't stop funding everything that is a "want" while they only repave roads
and build jails. The people of the county value their quality of life and going to the park
with their family. That's worth paying for. People bring their boats to the lake to fish and
boat, and it must be safe and inviting. It's a valid thing to spend money on. The Council is
trying to be responsible. Sometimes it is okay to fund things that improve quality of life,
beyond roads and jails. Today, they voted to approve $1. 3 million in road and ferry
improvements. Now they're being asked to spend $37,000 on a gangway so folks can enjoy
Lake Samish on the weekend. Keep things in perspective.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
Knutzen stated they've spent a number of items on parks in the last two months that
have totaled millions of dollars. Now they're considering allocating funds to a park where
there was a recent gang fight. He doubts anyone was policing the site. They're asking staff
to take closure days. They're asking departments to layoff and freeze positions. They're
asking people to make all kinds of concessions, yet they keep dumping money in parks.
They are using REET money to do it.
Brenner stated it's not just for roads and jails. It's also for stormwater facilities.
They haven't even compromised.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated this project has been before the Council for
approximately two years. The staff have spent a tremendous amount of time getting this
permitted. He encouraged the Council's approval. He will work with the Council on future
projects and a work plan through the upcoming budget process. If they wait for two years,
they will have to go through more extensive permitting.
Weimer stated this morning, they talked about the $6 million in the REET funds and
asked the Executive if that amount is adequate or robust enough to cover the stormwater,
jail, and park issues they're considering. The answer was yes, that $6 million is enough,
and more money is coming into that fund all the time. He supports the proposal.
Brenner stated less money is coming into the fund, which is becoming depleted,
because there are fewer real estate transactions going on. What's the point of having the
meeting if the Council is supposed to be a rubber stamp. They have to start making
changes. She's concerned that budget cuts will be proposed for those things that hurt the
most, in the hope people will complain and the Council will raise taxes. It's not appropriate
to use funds that can be used for stormwater facilities. There isn't enough money in the
County to pay for all the stormwater facilities projects they will have to do.
Mann asked the Executive for a six -year plan for REET II funds.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
#12 -55 TO THE LOW BIDDER, NORTHWEST DOCKS, FOR THE SUPPLY OF A
REPLACEMENT DOCK AND FISHING PLATFORM AT SAMISH PARK, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $130,266.08 (AB2012 -252)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Knutzen stated his comments from the previous item apply, except it's three and a
half times worse.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
53
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID
#12 -60 TO THE SOLE BIDDER, SCOUGAL RUBBER CORP., FOR THE SUPPLY
OF REPLACEMENT RUBBER MOLDED STEEL APRON FLAPS FOR THE
GOOSEBERRY POINT FERRY TERMINAL, IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,567.79
(AB2012 -253)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION
OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS FOR PERSONNEL TO ASSIST WITH THE
REGISTERED SEX AND KIDNAPPING OFFENDER TRACKING PROGRAM, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $140,762.33 (AB2012 -254)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, TENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 (AB2012 -246) (9:10:16 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
Knutzen stated they could build a substantial dock for half of this money.
Crawford stated the total dock improvement project is about $190,000. This item is
the additional supplement to cover the shortage on that project.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR COUNTY COUNCIL -
APPOINTED CITIZEN BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND TASK
FORCES (AB2012 -225) (9:11:57 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and stated
this item is withdrawn.
3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM — EDI BOARD
RECOMMENDATION TO MODIFY GUIDELINES TO ADD SINGLE AND MULTI-
FAMILY RENTAL HOME CONSTRUCTION AS AN ALLOWABLE USE (AB2012-
228) (9:12:15 PM)
Weimer moved to approve the recommendation.
Jack Louws, County Executive, described economic development investment (EDI)
money applied toward housing programs. This is an adequate use of the money. He
encouraged the Council to approve the recommendation. They have a project in Bellingham
on Cornwall Avenue from Catholic Community Services. The Council dedicated EDI money
toward that project. There is also money from the Veteran's Affairs (VA) rural health sales
tax if the project is permitted and funded. They are two separate issues.
Crawford stated this vote is on a policy issue regarding the use of economic
development funds in Whatcom County. The Council agreed to fund money from the mental
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
health sales tax for capital costs of the Catholic Community Services building, but not for
ongoing operating costs. The impact fees are covered. He asked if this is about the project
in which the County agreed to use EDI money for impact fees.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated the motion was to use the EDI portion for
Catholic Community Services, but it has to go through the vetting process to make sure it's
validated. The Catholic Community Service EDI portion would come out of the $1.2 million
if the Council approves. If the Council doesn't approve tonight, the Council's support to
Catholic Community Services won't be fulfilled as per the original motion.
Crawford asked how much money from the mental health sales tax went toward the
Catholic Community Services. Louws stated it was approximately $350,000 from behavioral
health and $200,000 from EDI funds.
Crawford stated the Council committed to $350,000. He asked if they can't commit
the $200,000 if the Council doesn't make this policy change. Louws stated the Council can
commit the money down the road through a separate action.
Crawford stated have a future conversation about funding the $200,000 from
behavioral health. He is against the request. They described the Council's history on using
this fund for affordable housing projects. Home ownership is a fundamental way that
people can find a financial footing and make a long -term investment that they benefit from
on the long -term. Do anything they can to encourage home ownership. He doubted
whether economic development funds should be used for this purpose, but he bought into
the fact that the loan funds would be repaid. Now, they're being asked to add to the
subsidy to create more low income rental housing. That is enough of a stretch away from
economic development. He respects that some folks believe that type of housing helps the
economy because people will spend their money on other things. However, they must be
careful about the amount of low income housing they subsidize relative to the entire
housing market. Home building has suffered due to the economy. Therefore, a significant
amount of rental apartment housing is designated for low income folks. The scale has
tipped to that end. The economic development investment dollars should be used directly
for infrastructure that supports economic development in Whatcom County. This is too far
of a stretch. He won't support the request.
Brenner asked if the Council's previous vote to fund the impact fees for the Catholic
Community Services project would go back to the fund if the Council doesn't approve this
request. Crawford stated the EDI portion of the funds would.
Brenner stated she is against the request. The Catholic Community Services project
was rushed and was not vetted. There were comments that if the councilmembers don't
approve of this request, it indicates they don't care about the homeless and mentally ill.
She has concerns. She resents how the project was done.
Mann stated he is against the request. He agrees with Councilmember Crawford and
Councilmember Brenner. Don't use EDI funds for low income rental housing. If only a
small number of projects have used the fund, the Council should consider cancelling the
project or moving some of the dedicated funding. He does not support that Catholic
Community Services project.
Knutzen asked if the request is from the City of Ferndale.
Mann stated the City of Ferndale administers it, and gets some money for it.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
Kremen described the history of the issue, and stated he supports the request. He
understands the concerns about the downtown Catholic Community Services project, but
the project will happen with or without Council support. It's a separate issue. The
perception that this policy change is wedded to a project that has created some controversy
is unfortunate. He supports home ownership. They must be realistic today. In this
country, home ownership is not as attainable as it has been in past years. The increase in
rentals and rent prices is significant because of high home prices. The problem is
exacerbated for the low income community. This vote is on policy, not on a particular
project.
Brenner stated use some kind of funding as a stable source for low income housing
and for housing for people with special needs. It's a stretch to use EDI money to do that.
The Council passed something without the funding being in place, which is a shock.
Louws stated the Catholic Community Services documents to the Council indicated
that the EDI program needed to be amended. The administration brought this together in
good faith. What they are trying to do and what was proposed was clearly identified. The
majority of the Council voted for it. Nothing underhanded occurred. The change is for a
loan to the community. The EDI dollars will eventually come back into the fund. If the
Council doesn't approve, he will recommend to the EDI Board that the County considers
modifying the program. The $1.2 million won't be used for many years at the current pace
it's being used right now. Make a program that is robust and get the money into the rental
market with a 20 -year payback.
Kershner asked if there interest is collected on the loan. Louws stated the interest
rate is one percent.
Weimer stated he supports the request because it creates jobs. Not many of the EDI
projects have created lots of jobs. These are short -term construction jobs. This does
create some housing for low income people, some of whom have disabilities. The low -end
cost of an apartment in Bellingham today is $600 to $800. Low income folks, especially
those with disabilities, can't afford it. This will create jobs and provide housing for those
folks.
Brenner stated she didn't imply that any underhandedness occurred. She was
amazed something like that got by her. The fact that she didn't notice it when it flew
through approval is evidence that the Council didn't have the time it needed to review it. It
was done at the last minute.
Kershner stated there was a housing project deadline. They needed a commitment.
Also, the City of Bellingham had approved the project. The Council got quite a bit of
feedback about that project.
Brenner stated they got feedback in a month's time. There wasn't outreach or other
things that needed to be done to work on it.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Weimer, and Kershner (3)
Nays: Crawford, Brenner, and Mann (3)
Abstains: Knutzen (1)
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 12.48, ROADSIDE
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2012 -244) (9 :35 :44 PM)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
Knutzen asked why the County does its own hydro- seeding, when every other
construction company in the county contracts with the private sector. The County could
contract out the service.
Kershner stated this ordinance is not to make changes to or approve the contents of
the program. It's simply a change so the plan doesn't have to come before the Council
every year, unless there are major changes or the Council requests it.
Brenner stated it should have a public hearing. The Council may want to make
changes to the ordinance, since it's amending it. It's always been in the Public Works
Committee.
Crawford stated the chemical spraying used to be controversial. At that time, the
County Council said it would like an annual review of the program before the County staff
moves forward. Since 2000, there has been no controversy, no public comments, and few
questions from the Council. Given all the different things that the department does, he
questions why they are spending the time on this presentation when the public is not
providing any input and the Council has few or no questions. The past controversy is over.
The department can get on with the work without having a special meeting about this each
year.
Brenner stated she wants to do away with the report. If Councilmember Knutzen
has questions, he should be able to get answers to them.
Knutzen stated the expense for mowing the roads according to the vegetation
management program is $1.5 million. He's often asked if the County can contract that
service out with the private sector. He has the same question about hydro- seeding. He
asked why the County finds it economically advantageous to do the service when every
other construction company doesn't find it economically advantageous.
Brenner stated she will vote against the motion. If it passes, they can schedule a
presentation for committee anyway. The budget process is coming up.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, and Kershner (4)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Absent: Mann (out of the room) (1)
S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF JOAN
FORTUNE TO THE NORTHWEST SENIOR SERVICES BOARD (AB2012 -256)
(9 :43 :28 PM)
Kremen moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann (out of the room) (1)
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
6. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF TODD
CHILDS TO THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE
COMMITTEE (AB2012 -257) (9 :43 :45 PM)
Crawford moved to confirm the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Mann (out of the room) (1)
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break from 9 :44 p.m. to 9 :53 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO
RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2012 -193) (9 :53 :30 PM)
(Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting.)
Gary Davis, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted and read
from a presentation (on file) and gave a staff report.
Crawford moved to accept the July 24 draft of the Title 20 zoning code exhibit
presented by Gary Davis as a substitute version of exhibit B.
Kremen stated the Council also worked on this substitute version during the Special
Committee of the Whole meeting today.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann asked about Skagit County's perspective on the Chuckanut wildlife corridor.
Davis stated it is in neither comprehensive plan for Skagit County or Whatcom County.
Knutzen asked where the Chuckanut Wildlife Corridor would be in the code and what
special requirements it has. Davis stated it goes in Whatcom County Code (WCC) Title 16.
The draft Comprehensive Plan refers to it in the policies.
Knutzen moved to amend the Comprehensive Plan exhibit A on page 5 of 33 to add
policy 2A -13 "2A -13 Allow for adequate economic development to provide economic
sustainability, adequate employment opportunities and services in and for the rural areas."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
Knutzen moved to amend the Comprehensive Plan exhibit A on page 24 of 33 to
add a new policy between 211-3 and 211-4, "Within the Rural Communities, encourage
adequate economic development to provide current and future residents employment
needs, and provide rural residents places to shop, eat, and access to public services."
Economic development should be their primary concern right now. Allow economic
development in the limited areas of more intense rural development (LAMIRDs).
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen moved to amend the zoning code exhibit B on page 15 of 90 to add
language to 20.59.321, "In a Rural Community designation, maximum allowable floor area
per building shall not exceed the combined floor area of all buildings of a use of the same
type that existed in that designation on July 1, 1990 per WCC 20.80.100(1) except as
provided in WCC 20.80.100(2)." They would give the people in rural communities the
flexibility to get a structure large enough to house their commercial operation.
Crawford stated he is against the motion. There is a way to get through this. He
supports language in 20.80.100 that allows an administrative approval alternative.
Kershner stated she agrees with Councilmember Crawford in supporting the
alternative for an administrative approval instead of the language in this motion. They want
consistent guidelines at the permit counter. They want to give someone flexibility to talk
about the character of their project in an administrative approval process.
Knutzen stated the administrative approval process allows the County staff to not
approve a permit, which isn't good enough for most businesses to invest in Whatcom
County.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Knutzen moved to amend the zoning code exhibit B on page 15 of 90, section
20.59.322, "In a Rural Business designation, the maximum allowable floor area for a new
use is 5,909 7,000 square feet except as provided in WCC 20.80.100(3) and (4)."
Crawford asked about the Hearings Board's comments about the original 35,000
square feet maximum floor area and how staff determined 5,000 square feet was
appropriate. Davis stated this motion deals with the type III LAMIRD. This has to do with
new construction in type III LAMIRDs, which need to be small scale according to the Growth
Management Act (GMA). He studied the Assessor's records for uses in the type III
LAMIRDs, included in appendix G of the LAMIRD report. In the Birch Bay - Lynden and
Interstate 5 area, the Planning Commission felt that small scale was defined as 12,000
square feet. The other type III LAMIRDs, such as Van Zandt, Welcome, and Blue Canyon,
have existing business sizes in the range of 2,000 to 6,000 square feet.
Kremen asked if the allowable floor area' is synonymous with the building footprint
or total square footage. Davis stated it is about the total square feet of a building.
Brenner stated she supports the motion because some existing businesses are over
5,000 square feet. Determine the maximum amount, not the average amount.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
53
Kershner asked if staff's study included the total square footage or footprint.
Kremen stated he supports the motion. In the small type III LAMIRD areas, some of
those buildings could have a second story that serves as living quarters.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen moved to amend
• The zoning code exhibit B on page 15 of 90, to delete the first section numbered
20.59.501, ,
buildings shall not exeeed that ef a use of the sange type that existed in that,
20.80.100(2 �
• The zoning code exhibit B on page 15 of 89, to amend the second section
numbered 20.59.501, "In a Rural Business or Rural Community designation,
building eF stFuetuFa4 coverage of a lot shall not exceed 50 percent of the total
area."
Kremen suggested a friendly amendment that this language be consistent
wherever referenced in other sections of the exhibit.
Knutzen accepted the friendly amendment.
Crawford asked about the Hearings Board's issue with lot coverage.
Knutzen asked why it would make a difference in a type I or type III LAMIRD. Davis
stated the previous language was a percentage.
Crawford stated they must be careful to adhere to the July 1, 1990 issue in rural
communities. Davis stated that the percentage was 70 percent in the small town
commercial (STC) zone. The Council decided to get rid of the lot coverage percentage
entirely. Before that, the general commercial (GC) zone had no limit on lot coverage.
Knutzen asked the problem with putting the percentage at 50 percent. Davis stated
the problem is the 1990 lot coverage, which are now on record, are quite a bit below that in
some of the LAMIRDs.
Knutzen stated it's a lot more in some of them.
Kershner stated she's okay with a 50 percent lot coverage if it's the way they allow
infill in the type I LAMIRD. Davis stated the GMA allows infill in type I LAMIRDs, but
development and redevelopment must be consistent with the character of the area in terms
of size, scale, use, or intensity.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated this issue is worthy of going into a short
executive session.
Kershner moved to go in to executive session.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
53
The motion to go into executive session carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Kershner stated executive session will conclude no later than 11:00 p.m. If the
meeting extends beyond 11:00 p.m., she will step out of the meeting to make a public
announcement.
(Clerk's Note: The Council discussed this item in executive session from 10 :47 p.m.
to 10:59 p.m.)
(10: 59 :38 PM)
Kershner reported that the Council discussed elements of the rural element update.
Councilmember Knutzen has a motion on the floor.
Knutzen's motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Knutzen moved to amend the zoning code exhibit B sections 20.60.302, 20.61.322,
20.63.705, 20.64.708, 20.67.302, and 20.69.302 "In a Rural Business designation, the
maximum allowable floor area is 5,099 7,000 square feet except as provided in WCC
20.80.100(3) and (4)."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen moved to amend the zoning code exhibit B on page 85 of 90, the chart
underneath section 20.80.100, "Maxingurn fleeF aFea peF building, on sEluaFe feet (Maximum
Combined floor area of existing
buildings in square feet."
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to amend the zoning code exhibit B
on page 85 of 90, the chart underneath section 20.80.100,
building, On square The 1990 observed combined area in square feet (Maximung
. Make it clear that this chart is based
on what they know existed in 1990.
Crawford stated it's already covered in the last line of the previous paragraph. He
wouldn't change anything. These were the maximums in 1990. Item two allows
modifications for the entire chart.
Knutzen did not accept the friendly amendment and amended his motion, to
amend the zoning code exhibit B on page 85 of 90, the chart underneath section 20.80.100,
building, on squaFe feet The 1990 observed combined floor area of
existing buildings in square feet ,
ME
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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 moved to amend section 20.80.100(2)(b) on page 87 of 90, "(b) Within a
Rural Community designation, development or redevelopment with a per - building floor area
or combined floor area of all buildings greater than allowed per 20.80.100(1), or
development or redevelopment of a use other than shown in 20.80.100(1), may be
permitted Of a conditional use peffigit is granted peF WCG 20.84.200. The eenditienal use
peFng*t if approved through an administrative approval process per WCC 20.84.235. The
administrative approval is subject to a finding...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend section 20.80.100(2)(b)(2)(iii) on page 87 of 90, " Use,
referring to whether the proposed use is in^ea —in similar to the type of use existing on
July 1, 1990 in the area or." Davis stated the use is included in the list of uses that are in
that type. Similar uses are all listed within a type in that zone.
Brenner stated they may find similar uses that aren't listed.
Crawford asked if the list of uses already say a use can be similar. Davis stated each
chapter lists its permitted uses. They organized the permitted uses by type. Using the
word 'similar' to modify the type of use says that a retail use is similar to an industrial use.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Crawford referenced section 20.67.050 and asked about listing residential type uses.
Davis stated the staff recommendation for that subsection in other chapters doesn't need to
be in this chapter.
Crawford moved to delete the last sentence of section 20.67.050, "Residential t
Kershner stated the purpose of the motion is because they don't have residential
uses in the general manufacturing zone.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to amend the boundary of the Lake Whatcom watershed. Use the
boundary that existed as of March 24, 2009 as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. There
was no science to support the changed boundary. Davis stated that change is not part of
the rural element process. It's an entirely different issue that would have to be done
separately. Brenner withdrew her motion.
Kershner moved to delete section 20.80.100(2)(b)(1) on page 87 of 90, ";Tee
er laFger building size will not cause the need fer additional publie faeolities te be previded in
the area, affd."
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, 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
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 asked why staff thinks this section is important. Davis stated it's not that
important. They deal with the provision for services elsewhere.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, and Kershner (6)
Nays: Mann (1)
Crawford asked if the language says that someone has to make a case in the
administrative approval process that something was bigger in 1990. Davis stated the
administrative approval process is for someone to identify one of the four parameters that
doesn't meet what existed in 1990 and that there is a finding that the use is consistent with
the character of the area, which is what the GMA requires. An example would be someone
who wants to build one 10,000 square foot building instead of two 5,000 square foot
buildings.
Crawford stated correct the numbering of section 20.80.100(2)(b), "(2) The
dDevelopment or redevelopment...."
Knutzen stated there is a scrivener's error in numbering sections 20.59.501 and
20.59.502. Davis said he already made that correction.
Knutzen moved to amend the zoning maps for Axton Road and Guide Meridian and
for Smith Road and Guide Meridian, on the east side of Guide Meridian, to extend the north -
to -south boundary to include two commercial properties indicated on the map, to create a
matching straight line. Those two southern properties had commercial uses in 1990.
Crawford stated the two properties between the existing boundary and the two
properties with commercial uses were not commercial properties.
Knutzen stated they were zoned commercial. The motion would make a logical outer
boundary. There will be a separation from the LAMIRD at the other end. This motion does
what the Hearings Board instructs.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen and Brenner (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Knutzen moved to amend the zoning map for Axton Road and Guide Meridian to
include the two parcels developed in 1990 that front the west side of the Guide Meridian.
Crawford stated those parcels don't touch the existing LAMIRD boundary. There is
an agricultural parcel between the parcels on the east side of the Guide Meridian, and the
commercial parcels on the west side of the Guide Meridian. There is no contiguous
boundary.
Knutzen stated people bought commercial property in that area. Now the Council is
turning those properties into residential. The owners have been paying taxes on that
property. They've purchased that property with commercial use in mind. It sends a
message to the business community that they are unwelcome in Whatcom County. He
doesn't care what the attorney or anyone says. This is wrong.
Crawford stated the Hearings Board acknowledged that those commercial nodes
existed, and said the County could not include them in the LAMIRD.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, Page 20
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 the Guide Meridian connects the two nodes.
Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Knutzen that the Hearings Board
decision is frustrating and unfair. He wants to do something for those property owners, but
the County doesn't have the ability to do that without tying this up in court for many years,
with no hope of winning.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Kershner, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, and Mann (4)
Knutzen moved to amend the zoning map for Smith Road and Guide Meridian to
extend the boundary north on the east side of Guide Meridian to restore the north -to -south
boundary from the Axton Road to the north boundary of the L- shaped property. This
property was all zoned light impact industrial (LII).
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to limit the extended boundary to
include just the two areas marked in red on the west side.
Knutzen accepted the friendly amendment.
Kershner asked if the existence of a house in 1990 constitutes a built environment.
Davis stated it does. It's not built as commercial or industrial.
Knutzen amended his motion and moved to extend the eastern boundary north
to encompass four properties.
Kershner suggested a friendly amendment to amend the Smith Road and Guide
Meridian map, to extend the boundary at the northeast corner north to encompass the four
properties east of the Guide Meridian and east to the existing boundary.
Knutzen accepted the friendly amendment.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Kershner, Knutzen and Brenner (3)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, and Mann (4)
Mann moved to send the ordinance as amended to tonight's Introduction Items.
(Clerk's Note: The Council did not vote on the motion.)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
(12:03:44 AM)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated Introduction Item
three is withdrawn from the agenda.
Brenner reported for the Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee and stated
Introduction Item two includes a substitute exhibit.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, Page 21
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 moved to accept Introduction Items one, the substitute for item two, four,
and item five, which is the rural element as amended tonight.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. RECEIPT OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON CUP2009 -0006
FILED BY DOMINIQUE ZERVAS ON BEHALF OF DICK BOSCH REGARDING
GLEN ECHO GARDENS (AB2012 -226)
2. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE YEARS 2013
THROUGH 2018 (AB2012 -243)
3. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.40, AQUATIC
INVASIVE SPECIES (AB2012 -042A)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, ELEVENTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $153,186 (AB2012 -258)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, THE OFFICIAL
WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING MAP, AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAPS, TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES RELATING TO
RURAL LAND USE PLANNING (AB2012 -193)
OTHER BUSINESS
(12:04:30 AM)
Kershner stated she wants the Council to begin discussing the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan review and moving the Lake Whatcom boundary.
Kremen stated he commends staff and other councilmembers for their hard work.
They have accomplished a great deal today.
Crawford stated the County updated the Lake Whatcom watershed boundary in 2009
when it got the Light Detection and Ranging ( LIDAR) images, which are much more
accurate than what the County had previously.
Brenner stated the LIDAR images weren't more accurate.
Kershner stated she would like more information about it.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Knutzen stated he attended an international meeting of editors hosted by the Lynden
Tribune, which included border residents and the Border Patrol, to discuss border issues.
Weimer stated he attended the Ferry Advisory Committee, which is getting deep into
the issues.
Whatcom County Council, 7/24/2012, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:07 a.m. on Wednesday, July 25, 2012.
The Council approved these minutes on September 11, 2012.
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, 7/24/2012, Page 23