HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil September 25 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
54
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
September 25, 2012
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
(7:02:49 PM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:03:24 PM)
1. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, DATED SEPTEMBER
12, 2012, (SUBMITTED BY PHILIP BURI, ATTORNEY FOR CONCERNED
NEIGHBORS OF LAKE SAMISH), REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SLEEPY HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (FILED BY BRAD
SWANSON, ATTORNEY FOR PEACHWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC; MERCEDES
HOLDINGS, INC.) (AB2012 -275)
Crawford moved to dismiss the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
(Clerk's Note: this item continued later in the meeting.)
2. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION, DATED SEPTEMBER
17, 2012, (SUBMITTED BY BRAD SWANSON, ATTORNEY FOR MERCEDES
HOLDINGS, INC. AND PEACHWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC) REGARDING
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SLEEPY HOLLOW
SUBDIVISION (AB2012 -275)
Kershner reported for the Committee of the Whole and stated the Council will not
grant the time extension because the appeal was dismissed.
(Clerk's Note: this item continued later in the meeting.)
3. DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR DEPUTY PROSECUTOR KAREN FRAKES
REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, FUTUREWISE AND CITY OF
BELLINGHAM V. WHATCOM COUNTY (CAITAC PROPERTY) (AB2012 -018)
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
54
Kershner reported for the Committee of the Whole and moved to approve the
settlement agreement.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (6)
Nays: Kershner (1)
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. UPDATE FROM THE WHATCOM VOLUNTEER CENTER (AB2012 -017) (7:06:17
PM)
Kris Palmerton, Whatcom Volunteer Center Board of Directors President, gave a
presentation of what the Volunteer Center does for the community. They provide
volunteers for community businesses, government, and nonprofits. Whatcom County
government supports the Volunteer Center with money and in -kind services, and the Center
provides volunteers to the County, in the amount of 37,000 hours in 2011. He described
different agencies for which the Volunteer Center provides volunteers.
Sue Ellen Heflin, Whatcom Volunteer Center Executive Director, concluded the
presentation regarding Volunteer Center programs, including the Volunteer Chore Program,
Project Warm Up, House to Home Network, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP),
Northwest Youth Services' Youth Grown Program, Homeless Connect, the Human Race, an
awards celebration, Make A Difference Day, museum docents, and programs with the
Sheriff's Office and Emergency Management Division.
Kremen stated he's worked with Ms. Heffle
Center. For every dollar invested in the Center,
value. The Center enables senior citizens to have
expertise to provide a fulfilling life.
ANNOUNCEMENTS (7:03:24 PM)
n for years, and is proud of the Volunteer
the community receives at least $7 in
self worth and uses their experience and
1. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, DATED SEPTEMBER
12, 2012, (SUBMITTED BY PHILIP BURI, ATTORNEY FOR CONCERNED
NEIGHBORS OF LAKE SAMISH), REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SLEEPY HOLLOW SUBDIVISION (FILED BY BRAD
SWANSON, ATTORNEY FOR PEACHWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC; MERCEDES
HOLDINGS, INC.) (AB2012 -275)
Kershner reported that the Council voted unanimously to dismiss the appeal.
2. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION, DATED SEPTEMBER
17, 2012, (SUBMITTED BY BRAD SWANSON, ATTORNEY FOR MERCEDES
HOLDINGS, INC. AND PEACHWOOD INVESTMENTS, LLC) REGARDING
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON SLEEPY HOLLOW
SUBDIVISION (AB2012 -275)
Kershner moved to deny the time extension because the appeal is dismissed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
53
54
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR
OPEN SPACE CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT (AB2012 -273) (7 :26:09 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following person spoke:
Michelle Luke stated the Planning Commission recommended denying most of the
non - forest open space applications, even though they met the criteria set by the Planning
Department, because the public benefit was not worth the tax shift. The criteria were
established in the early 1980's, and need to be revisited. There must be an inventory
assessment. Have a clear and current understanding of what they want, what they have,
what it costs, and how often these issues should be revisited. Establish a moratorium on
open space applications until the County can complete its 2016 update.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to approve the Planning Commission recommendations. The
Council has talked about reviewing the criteria and classifications. Make sure the open
space /open space has a big public benefit. Send the open space /open space criteria to the
Planning Commission for review.
Mann stated he used to vote against all these because he found the criteria
outdated. He encourages a staff review of the criteria. He supports the recommendations.
Kershner stated she supports the motion. She looks for a public benefit when
approving an application because the tax burden is shifted to the neighbors. Make sure the
public gets access to these areas. She agrees with reviewing and revising the criteria.
Brenner stated the open space /timber applications require a timber management
plan, which is difficult. The open space /open space designation is most troubling because it
doesn't always allow full and open public access.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner moved to request the Executive and Planning Commission to review and
amend open space taxation categories.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he would like time to work on this in the
context of the 2016 update workload.
Crawford stated the Council has worked on the criteria since the 1980's. This
Council worked on it in the last decade. A previous Council worked on it in the 1990's. This
is not the first time since the 1980's that the criteria have been considered. However, this
gets very complicated very fast.
Kershner stated she would be in favor of a moratorium on open space until the
Council makes the criteria less complicated.
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
54
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated the open space designations are a State tax
law, and the County can't establish a moratorium on them.
Brenner stated she doesn't agree. They could adopt a moratorium as an emergency
action.
Crawford stated that if the Council is serious about wanting to change this, they
must engage the Planning Staff and the Assessor. There are many implications to a
moratorium. The Assessor has discussed with the Council the pros and cons of different
aspects of this. Have a committee meeting to talk about this with the right people.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Brenner, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Crawford and Knutzen (2)
Crawford stated he understands this is important, but it needs to be prioritized with
many other things. He's not ready to ask Planning staff and the administration to start
working on this.
2. ORDINANCE PREVENTING THE RELEASE AND SPREAD OF NON - INDIGENOUS
AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES IN THE WATERS OF WHATCOM COUNTY
(AB2012 -042A) (7 :39:49 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Larry Helm stated consider that Canada geese carry this stuff around before passing
laws against boaters.
Wendy Harris stated she is disappointed with the lack of action and the content of
the ordinance proposed. They discovered an Asian clam infestation a year ago. They
haven't tried to develop a management plan. The population can explode unexpectedly.
The response to this substantial problem is underwhelming. The City and County engage in
actions that increase the risk of aquatic invasive species, such as allowing development in
the lake watershed and allowing seaplanes. This isn't a serious attempt. They must do
better.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
John Hutchings, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated the scope
is a work in progress. These species can cause high -cost problems for utilities and can foul
beaches. This ordinance means to clarify the County's possible enforcement actions. They
will develop a program as they estimate costs and determine needs based on cost
estimates. That work is underway, based on the inventory work done by Ms. Baldwin and
City staff, including the boater surveys. There are a lot of unknown factors. This is likely to
be a serious issue. The incidents of the invasive clams have been isolated. They are still
determining nationwide how to deal with them.
Today, the ordinance will clearly state the County's interest in prohibiting certain
activities in the watershed related to these invasive species as a whole. The existing bodies
of law are focused on invasive weeds. Another body of State law has to do with aquatic
animals such as mollusks that enter the water body. Manage the introduction of those
species. Determine what State laws already exist and format those laws so they can be
administered by the County.
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
53
The information in the ordinance already exists in law, with the exception of where
enforcement occurs in the county. A portion of the responsibility and enforcement will be in
the hands of Weed Control Officer Laurel Baldwin and existing law enforcement.
Many concerns from councilmembers have been discussed during committee. They
will have to deal with the issue of administering this ordinance to managing sea plane
traffic. There are many administrative questions to answer, such as how aggressively they
must pursue non - motorized craft, the extent of the County's presence at the access points,
and how the County and City integrate their program administrations.
Brenner asked if algae blooms can cause mollusk eruptions, and vice versa.
Hutchings stated he suspects there is some interaction, but he doesn't know. He doesn't
know if there has been research on the effect of increased algal blooms on invasive clam
populations. There is some evidence that these invasive clams do cycle nutrients. In
locations where there is a high density of the clams, they could potentially move nutrients
out of the sediments and into the water body.
Brenner stated she's said for years that Lake Whatcom needs aerators, at least in
the lowest basin. People complain about water quality, but it seems like they don't want to
fix it because there would be more development. She asked how to justify that money
coming out of the flood control fund. Hutchings stated the main fund available to forward
program development is the Flood Control Zone District tax. In the 2013 budget, he
proposes to include $10,000 each year for the development of this program. The guidance
staff received from Council is that this program should be principally or completely funded
through boater user fees. Before they can scope the entire program, it will be necessary to
have an idea of the kind of revenue they can expect to receive. The funds earmarked from
the flood fund now for years 2013 and 2014 are for program development activity.
Brenner stated this doesn't have anything to do with flooding. Hutchings stated the
flood control zone district fund can be used for a broad cross - section of water resource
activities. In the end, the Council gets to debate the appropriate source of funding.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She moved to amend the ordinance to
remove the authority to use the Flood Control Zone District budget authority. The Council
keeps expanding the use of that money. People supported the flood fee, which turned into
a tax. Stick to using the funds for flooding issues. This ordinance is a good start. Instead,
use existing grants and the general fund.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he finalized the budget proposal and forwarded
it to the Finance Division for compilation and printing. In his proposal, the flood funds are
allocated for this. If the Council chooses, he recommends taking action on the ordinance
tonight, and then bring it up during the budget discussions.
Brenner amended her motion and moved to use existing state grants and other
funds as deemed appropriate by the County Council.
Kershner stated the sentence Councilmember Brenner is trying to amend is actually
part of the memo attached, not the ordinance.
Brenner stated the memo goes with the ordinance. She can't support the ordinance
if the funds come from the flood fund.
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
53
54
Mann stated it's appropriate to use the flood funds. The County uses those funds for
many surface water - related activities.
Kremen stated a reason why the Council and County decided to use flood funds was
because 40 percent of the County's constituents reside in the city of Bellingham. They are
assessed the flood fee, but there are no real flood issues in the city. For years, the City of
Bellingham informed the County that they would like to use flood funds to deal with Lake
Whatcom issues, because it was the only way they would be able to benefit from the flood
fund.
Brenner stated people all over the county, no matter where they live, benefit from
the County preventing and fixing flood problems so people can get in and out of their cities.
It has morphed into a pot for almost anything. Many people don't live in the Lake Whatcom
watershed or benefit from it, but everyone benefits from flood repairs. She supports the
ordinance, but doesn't want to fund it from the flood fund.
The motion failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nays: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Kershner stated she thanks everyone. As the program develops, they will see more
and more.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2013 ANNUAL ROAD
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2012 -299) (8:01 :13 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report and stated this program is
the same as the first year of the six -year road program, with two exceptions. He referenced
the two items in the staff report on Council packet page 178.
Crawford moved to approve the resolution.
Knutzen asked if item three in the staff report includes the berm at Birch Bay. Rutan
stated it does. This will get the County one -third of the way through the design process, to
the point when he can provide more details on the design.
Knutzen asked if there is potential for more funding for this project. Rutan stated he
hopes there is a lot more funding.
Mann stated he's had problems voting for the Potter Road $10 million bridge. He's
happy to find that the Nooksack Tribe agreed to submit for over $1 million of funds, which
would be 100 percent applicable to the local match. Rutan stated that is correct. He hears
that federal funding source is going away.
Mann stated he will vote for the resolution, but still isn't happy about the project.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
54
Nays: None (0)
4. ORDINANCE FOR ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AGRICULTURAL
SLAUGHTERING FACILITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT
(AB2012 -300) (8:05:20 PM)
Kershner opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Kate Blystone, Futurewise Whatcom Director, stated Whatcom County needs
additional slaughtering facilities to support farmers. It will help keep farm dollars here. She
shares concerns with County staff about Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance. Talk
to staff about this issue. Remember the original intent of the application, and consider the
next step for this ordinance. The applicant asked for an amendment to allow small scale
slaughtering facilities on agricultural land, using the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act as a model to limit the size of the facility to ten employees or $2.5 million in
annual sales. The proposed ordinance doesn't meet the intent of the original application.
As proposed, the ordinance could allow large scale facilities. Other counties allow such
facilities as a conditional use. Amend the ordinance to allow the use as a conditional use,
not as an outright permitted use. Require that the conditional use permit application be
reviewed for adequate water and septic facilities, and adopt a limit of ten employees and
ten -acre lot size. Allow slaughterhouses as an accessory to an existing permitted use.
Gabriel Claycamp, applicant, stated Whatcom County has the most depressed price
for animals in the state. They also have the highest price for slaughter. There is only one
slaughterhouse. It costs more than anywhere else in the state, by 50 percent. Whatcom
County needs a local, sustainable slaughterhouse. His application asked for a limit of ten
employees, as a starting space. Since working with the local farmers and understanding
their needs, he's learned that farmers must trust that the slaughterhouse will be there in
the future. It takes 18 months at a minimum to increase herd size, and it's a massive
amount of risk. The Planning Commission has made changes to make it a more viable
alternative. It's necessary to use the whole animal. To support the farmers, they need the
most value -added options possible. Don't split hairs to determine the difference between
slaughter, value- added, and rendering. He supports the ordinance.
John Lesow stated he urges the Council to reject the proposal. The public hearings
were inconsequential. The Planning Commission didn't hear enough from the agricultural
community. The staff proposal was ignored. It may not be compliant with GMA. It is not
an innovative zoning technique. If challenged, the County would lose. The County is zoned
for slaughtering in the rural industrial areas and light industrial areas. Vote against the
ordinance.
Jerry Blankers stated he is a small farm beef owner. They are starving for a
processing plant for their product, similar to a berry processing plant. There isn't any
difference. He understands the existing facility is out of compliance. The next closest
facility is in Moses Lake. The cattle farmers can't be profitable without a local facility.
Roger Bajema stated he is a small herd dairyman. There is no facility and no way to
market their meat. Dairy farmers are leaving. He asked what is going to happen to the
land if people can't make money on beef land. There are 50,000 dairy slaughter cows.
Don't make it hard for someone to help the farmers.
Michelle Luke stated the majority of the Planning Commissioners believed that the
proposal made butchers out of farmers and used up too much acreage. Therefore, the
Planning Commission came up with a different recommendation. There was enough data to
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
53
support the need for the agricultural business, and that it should be a stand alone business.
There was good input at the public hearing about costs, equipment, and staffing from the
owners of the only local existing USDA operator. When asked whether the changes were
legal, legal counsel didn't have an opinion. The majority of the Commissioners believe that
small scale slaughterhouses are an agricultural related business.
Ellen Baker stated she used to raise a 300 -head herd of cattle. She supports
comments from Mr. Bajema. Slaughter activities are a part of agriculture. There is no
public purpose for the requirement that 50 percent of the animals be locally raised. There is
no reason to remove the use from the agricultural district. Any restrictions should be
meaningful.
Dave Onkles stated the proposal fixes a defect in Title 20. No one raises livestock
for pets. Since no allowance is made for the harvest of this crop, the code is defective as
written. The staff report suggests that permitting the use outright would violate the
Washington Administrative Code because it would convert natural resource land to other
uses. Instead, it converts the land to a more intensive agricultural use, and is wholly
compliant with the Growth Management Act. It serves to adopt the conservation of
agricultural lands, since it makes raising livestock more economically viable in Whatcom
County. This proposal maintains enhanced natural resource -based industries. This proposal
meets policies 8B -2 and 8B -4. The County should allow this use of any size and scale as a
permitted use. Consider an amendment to not include rendering facilities.
Larry Helms stated he is a small farmer. It takes four to five hours to butcher a cow
completely. It's necessary to have support facilities for the industry. The County should
have more revenue come in from other sources besides property tax.
Wendy Harris stated the proposal exceeds existing demand in Whatcom County. The
proposal will result in environmental consequences and external costs borne by the public.
Neither the staff nor Planning Commission reviewed these environmental costs. These uses
are resource intensive, particularly with water use. Slaughterhouses would be limited to
5,000 gallons per day under the groundwater permit exemption and would compete for
water with existing farmers, who already complain about not having an adequate water
supply. A slaughterhouse facility will handle all the contaminated, diseased, and infectious
animal byproducts and the carcinogenic chemicals produced by slaughterhouse operations.
They have not analyzed whether rural septic systems can handle additional waste and
manure. The proposal will have water quality impacts from pesticides, antibiotics, and
hormones. Deny the proposal.
Emily Weaver stated she was the farmer's market manager for four years. It's a
shame that the small scale beef producer who sells at the market is from Skagit County.
She has confidence in the County Health Department to regulate the use. This doesn't open
a floodgate for big producers in Whatcom County. This is a value -added service. There will
be impacts, but the County will be able to regulate the industry. It's important to connect
people with their food. A ten - employee limit is ridiculous. These are opportunities for
people to finish their product and make some money.
Shane Roth stated the Planning Commission disregarded staff recommendation. The
last time that happened, the result was an invalidity order. Consider how much they should
trust the judgment of this Planning Commission. Often, the staff presents the Planning
Commission with an ordinance to provide the tools the agricultural community needs, but
the Planning Commission would make decisions their own way. He doesn't doubt the
sincerity or beliefs of Planning Commission members, but he doubts their judgment. They
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
54
shouldn't wholesale ignore what staff says. Send the proposal back to the Planning
Commission to do better.
Kris Halterman stated there were many slaughterhouses in the community in the
1950s. Nothing is more rural than the ability to raise cattle and slaughter it sustainably
nearby. Don't limit the employees to ten. The Growth Management Act doesn't ask the
Council to stop growth. It asks the Council to design growth so it retains rural elements.
Allow local, sustainable slaughterhouses. It will grow the agricultural industry and related
businesses. They can manage the industry so it's safe for the public.
Hearing no one else, Kershner closed the public hearing.
Mann moved to adopt the ordinance as presented by the Planning Commission.
(Clerk's Note: The Council did not vote on this motion.)
Crawford asked about sending it to Planning and Development Committee. The
Planning Commission recommendation changes completely the staff proposal. The Council
should spend some time working on this. He is not ready to vote on any version or
modifications.
Mann asked if the 50 percent rule is no longer in the ordinance.
Josh Fleischmann, Planning and Development Services Department, stated it is no
longer in the ordinance.
Mann asked about legal opinions from staff regarding the Growth Management Act
(GMA). Fleischmann stated he was on leave, and did not get a legal opinion to staff at the
Planning Commission meeting. The County Codes accessory uses are parcel- specific.
Growth Management speaks more to accessory uses supporting the agricultural industry.
The staff's original proposed language was that the use must be accessory to a primary
permitted use on the parcel. The Planning Commission changed that.
Mann asked if the 50 percent rule is practically enforceable. Fleischmann stated
berry processing plants have that type of a rule.
Mann stated he would support the ordinance tonight if the 50 percent rule is left in
the ordinance. That is the check necessary to prevent the use from becoming an industrial
scale slaughter facility on prime agricultural land. Some protection against that is in order.
Kershner moved to amend to allow complete processing and rendering of the
animal at the facility in section 20.97.010.2, "...Agricultural slaughtering facilities do not
may include rendering facilities." She doesn't know why they would have a 50 percent rule.
She can't imaging out -of -area farmers bringing their cows or berries here to process.
(Clerk's Note: The Council did not vote on this motion.)
Brenner stated anything about rendering should be done in a separate ordinance.
She respects the Planning Commission. A ten - employee limit is ridiculous. It's about
slaughtering and packaging. She's not yet convinced about rendering. There shouldn't be a
minimal lot size. It's not financially feasible for this use to be an accessory to farming. It
will be a full -time job. At least 50 percent of the product will be local. They should have
this facility locally. She supports the ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
53
54
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she is concerned about the statement that
this hasn't had legal review. She asked the Council to send the ordinance to committee so
legal staff has a chance to do a legal review. Her signature indicates that the ordinance was
reviewed as to form only. She has not reviewed the legal content.
Kremen stated this is very frustrating. They've been lobbied for years about having
a viable agriculture industry in Whatcom County. He agrees with the comments that they
need a processing plan to make farming viable. If there is a problem with the Growth
Management Act, which encourages the preservation of agricultural land and open space,
there is no way to win. It's prudent to get a legal review and to send it to committee. He
has a feeling they will run afoul of the GMA, which is frustrating.
Knutzen stated the frustrating part for him is that the unemployment rate in the
county is going up, and this is the third business this month that has asked to resolve an
issue, but regulations and red tape have gotten in the way. There is such a culture against
economic development in this community. There must be a simpler way to cure the
problem. All they're doing is putting up road blocks.
Kershner stated she is frustrated that this has been with the Planning Department
and Planning Commission, but it hasn't been reviewed for legal GMA compliance. She is of
the mind to remove all the regulations and let the applicant build the slaughterhouse. The
system doesn't seem to be working.
Mark Personius, Planning and Development Services Department, stated staff has a
potential fix to address the Growth Management Act (GMA) concerns and concerns about
rendering. Many of the uses are allowed in the County Code, just not in the agricultural
zone. Staff needs the time to work through the committee and with legal staff. Staff will
have it ready in two weeks.
Brenner stated they are not running afoul of GMA. They can't operate in fear of this
all the time. The Hearings Board isn't always correct. She's tired of the bullying to keep
the Council from making local decisions.
Personious asked if the Council would like a recommendation in two weeks.
Knutzen stated he would like to see a recommendation in the Planning and
Development Committee in two weeks.
Mann stated the Planning Commission is supposed to make recommendations. The
50 percent rule should be a part of the regulation. A giant meat - packing plant can open on
industrial land. He's annoyed this is happening right now.
Weimer moved to refer to the Planning and Development Committee in two weeks.
Brenner stated she doesn't want the Planning staff to come back with a proposal.
Staff should come to the committee with a recommendation the Council wants.
Mann stated that is what the Planning Commission is for. They do an incredible
amount of research. Their recommendation should still come forward with four or five
options from staff and a legal analysis. Staff should not bring forward the recommendation
they presented in the first place.
GMA.
Kershner stated she would like to have a thorough review of compliance with the
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
54
Kremen stated he would like staff to make a recommendation that is consistent with
the goals, objectives, and intent of what the Planning Commission provided.
Kershner stated staff should be prepared to explain why regulations are
recommended. Personious stated staff surveyed almost all the other counties in the state.
Almost all require a conditional use permit for slaughterhouse facilities because of the
potential unknown about scale, noise impacts, traffic impacts, whether there is rendering,
and water and wastewater needs.
Kershner stated the County has code that addresses all that. Personious stated all
those conditions are a condition of the permit. All the information is all there, which makes
it convenient for permitting an application. If allowed as a permitted use, a neighbor
wouldn't have an opportunity to be noticed or comment.
Kershner stated she is going to ask about the purpose for all the regulations
recommended. She wants to know that the purpose is for issues and reasons that are
bigger than addressing the unknown factor.
Brenner stated those factors mentioned still have to be addressed if the use is
permitted. Personious stated there is no limit on size in the current recommendation, which
was in the original application. If a facility becomes much larger, there will be larger
impacts, and the potential is for adverse impacts. That's where they run afoul of the GMA.
Brenner stated a 20 -acre threshold is not massive compared to ten acres. The
Planning Commission really went through the issues.
The motion to refer to the Planning and Development Committee carried by the
following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
OPEN SESSION
(9:02 :43 PM)
The following people spoke:
• Larry Helm spoke about water rights and septic system program fees.
• Mike Kaufman spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Delaine Klisbe spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Arrent Ayers spoke about large jet noise at the airport.
• Greg Brown submitted his testimony (on file) and spoke on the
Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Lisa Newlicht submitted handouts (on file) and spoke about increased
jet noise at the airport.
• Matt Paskus spoke about the large jet noise at the airport.
• Carl Uppiano spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Karen Brown spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Shane Roth spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance ani
ordinance regarding Ethics Commission.
• Max Perry spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Chet Dow spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Kris Halterman spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 11
La ke
large
the
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
54
• Peggy Uppiano spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Arthur Uppiano spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
• Carol Perry spoke about the Lake Whatcom watershed reconveyance.
CONSENT AGENDA (9:42:48 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one, two, and three.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AMENDMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND RMS
CONSULTING SERVICES TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO
THE RMS REPLACEMENT PROJECT FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $26,600, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $84,200 (AB2012 -303)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND GARY DOLIN FOR MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT SERVICES, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT THAT IS VARIABLE
DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SERVICES PROVIDED AND WILL BE
AUTHORIZED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT (AB2012 -304)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MATTHEW MEYER FOR
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SERVICES, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT THAT IS
VARIABLE DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SERVICES PROVIDED AND WILL
BE AUTHORIZED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AS PER THE ATTACHED
REIMBURSEMENT RATES (AB2012 -305)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2012 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, TWELFTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $108,908 (AB2012 -298) (9 :43 :25 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.104, CODE OF ETHICS
(AB2012 -158) (9 :44 :08 PM)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to adopt the ordinance with one amendment, as suggested by the Committee, to section
2.104.020, "No elected county official shall knowingly participate in the decision - making
process." A member of the public brought up the question of a practicing attorney or a
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
53
54
retired attorney. He asked if there is a definition of a practicing attorney. He asked if the
Council wants to be more flexible and allow retired attorneys.
Brenner stated attorneys can't practice without being active members of the
Washington State Bar. The Commission should include a current attorney, who is more up-
to -date with the law.
Kershner asked why the Ethics Board recommended adding language about
designating an appointed member who is a practicing attorney.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she's not aware of the background of the
recommendation. She agrees that a practicing attorney is someone who is an active
member of the Bar.
Mann rescinded his original motion, and moved to adopt the ordinance in the
packet. He moved to amend the ordinance, as suggested by the Committee, to section
2.104.020, "No elected county official shall knowingly participate in the decision - making
process...."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Mann moved to amend language in section 2.104.080, "One of the five appointed
members shall be a pFacticing atterney an active member of the Washington State Bar
Association."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. ORDINANCE REVOKING ORDINANCE 2005 -044, WHICH ESTABLISHED A
$50.00 PETTY CASH REVOLVING FUND FOR JUVENILE COURT
ADMINISTRATION (AB2012 -297) (9 :50 :46 PM)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON WHATCOM COUNTY
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ALTERNATE AT -LARGE REPRESENTATIVE,
PARTIAL TERM. APPLICANT(S): EMILY WEAVER (AB2012 -302) (9 :51 :46 PM)
Knutzen moved to nominate and appoint Emily Weaver.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
5. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENTS TO
THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS (AB2012 -307) (9:52 :31 PM)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointments.
Kremen stated one of the appointees, Wendy Eickmeyer, appears to have a conflict
of interest.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he is aware of the appearance, but there is no
conflict since she has retired.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Kremen (1)
INTRODUCTION ITEM
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 9.32.160 TO CLARIFY THE
AREA COVERED BY NO- SHOOTING ZONE NUMBER 5 (AB2012 -301)
Crawford moved to accept the Introduction Item.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
OTHER BUSINESS (10 :12 :17 PM)
Crawford moved to accept the recommendations from the County Executive's
memo dated September 17, 2012 regarding the Lake Whatcom reconveyance. Refer to the
Natural Resources Committee to work with staff on forestry management issues, a park
plan, and other items. The Executive proposes to work on these items in the next four to
six months. That is a manageable plan.
Brenner stated she would like to also discuss the item in the Planning and
Development Committee.
Crawford stated don't pick the committee in which it will be discussed just yet. He
suggested the Natural Resources Committee because it might be a home for most of the
issues. However, if the staff feels there is a planning issue, that might be an appropriate
time to deal with it. They will wait and see what specific issues come up, and how to adjust
the committee schedules accordingly.
Kremen stated he supports the intent of the Executive's memo. It doesn't hurt to
have more scrutiny and information about the plan. He's not sure if the Council needs four
to six months. The Council doesn't need to set a time specific. As long as the issues raised
in the memo are adequately addressed, they will have fulfilled the intent of the Executive's
request.
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
53
54
Crawford stated his comment about the timeframe wasn't meant to be time - specific.
He simply wanted to contrast it with his very time - specific proposal of two weeks ago, which
was to take it up in four weeks. His motion tonight would preclude what he said two weeks
ago. The Executive's letter indicates he is willing to devote staff resources and his time to
help with this.
Mann stated he supports the motion. This is a good idea due to the outpouring of
questions and misinformation on both sides of the discussion. Folks expressed concerns
because they just learned about it. The Council should take the time necessary to answer
the questions in the memo for the public. Most of the questions in that memo have already
been answered for him. They can compile the information and have an agreed -upon set of
facts from which to make a decision.
Brenner stated the concerns raised are legitimate, and she doesn't have the answer
to most of them. She would like those answers. It might take longer than four to six
months.
Kershner stated the Council should also look at alternatives, such as working with
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on a recreation plan or leaving the property as
it is.
Mann stated DNR is so understaffed that no one may be available to work with the
County. He doesn't believe the DNR can come up with a recreation plan.
Kershner stated it's an option, and she would like to look at that option.
Knutzen stated the County could have used the money invested in this reconveyance
to develop a first class DNR recreation facility already in place. The DNR is more than
willing to explore options if the County funded a recreation plan. The County would get
more benefit for it's investment than from the $1.2 million or $1.6 million they are throwing
at this right now. They left that meeting with totally different opinions. He left there
knowing that the DNR was willing to work with the County if the County gave the DNR the
resources.
Brenner stated the Lake Whatcom landscape plan includes language about
developing a recreation easement with the DNR. They can consider a recreation easement
for the North Fork park, also.
Kershner stated she wants to clarify the reason and purpose for the reconveyance.
Mann stated he agrees with Councilmember Knutzen. If the County throws money at
the DNR, the DNR would have the resources to hire outside consultants and produce a
recreational plan. His point was that the DNR doesn't have a lot of resources itself.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Crawford stated he formally resigns from the Council of Government (COG) and
Bellingham International Airport Advisory Committee (BIAAC) due to scheduling conflicts,
and moved to appoint Councilmember Kremen to the COG and Councilmember Mann to the
BIAAC.
Mann stated he would accept the appointment if it doesn't take too much time.
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
54
time.
Kremen stated he would accept the appointment, especially if it takes too much
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Kremen, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Kershner referenced the request confirmation of the County Executive's
appointments to the Whatcom County Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials
(AB2012 -307) and stated she also paid WayComm for graphic design services on October
26, 2009. However, she doesn't think that disqualifies her. She paid Sunshine Printing for
printing brochures and mailers, also.
Brenner stated she attended the Blaine City Council meeting last night. The City
Council is close to declaring eminent domain on residents who have owned their property
for over 100 years, to obtain an 80 -foot easement for a road and bike path for a
development that doesn't exist yet. She understands the City wants to go the cheapest
route. According to the property owners, there is a stream on the property. She would like
to convey a County easement on H street to the City of Blaine so the City won't have to go
through the middle of the property owner's property. There is little reason to ever do
eminent domain. There are other options to go on the sides of the property. It wouldn't be
as direct and may cost the City more, but government should not do eminent domain unless
there is an issue of life and death. The owners need to be compensated for the loss of the
property. There has been no press on this issue, and it's a big deal.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated he would be happy to call the Blaine City
Manager to see if there is anything the County can do to help the situation.
Kershner asked if the airport noise is germane to County business.
Kremen stated the County doesn't have purview over the issue, but the County can
express a collective opinion or position and send it to the Port of Bellingham. The issue is in
the jurisdiction of the Port and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Brenner stated that issue has been brought up quite a few times. It's a federal
issue. The FAA makes a rule. The County can't tell the FAA what to do.
Brenner stated there have been emails from a resident to the County Sheriff
regarding the location of sex offenders near schools. That should be a decision that is made
locally. She was surprised to find out it isn't. The Sheriff sent the Council a copy of his
response. The Sheriff wants it to be a local issue. The Council should add it's voice to the
debate. She read a letter she drafted to support an amendment to State law to allow local
jurisdictions to mandate the proximity of sex offender housing and schools. She moved to
send the letter. The County used to have that authority.
Kershner stated she is against the letter because the sex offenders are managed
through the State Department of Corrections. The guidelines are set statewide. It would be
very complex for the State to manage the program if each locality set its own rules for how
it would work. Look at the problem and lobby the legislators to change the State law so
location is more restrictive.
Brenner stated the County can always make things more restrictive than the State.
All the sheriffs in Washington State are frustrated with the leniency accorded many sex
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, 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
offenders, and are in contact with the legislature on this issue. She doesn't trust the State
to do a good job. The State is keeping the authority, but does not have the ability to do a
decentjob.
Kershner asked how much it costs to manage that program.
Brenner stated it wouldn't cost anything. It would be part of the Comprehensive
Plan. They do it with jails and other things. However the State took away the County's
ability to do that.
Mann stated he is against sending the letter right now because he doesn't yet know
what the issues are. He needs more information before registering a formal opinion with
the State.
Brenner stated housing is permanent, and kids don't have a choice to not go to
school. It's a burden on the school. It's a problem the Sheriff identified.
Mann stated he's not prepared to debate the merits right now.
Brenner withdrew the motion and agreed to discuss the letter in the Public Works,
Health, and Safety Committee.
Kershner asked if Councilmember Weimer is willing to host the reconveyance
discussion in the Natural Resources Committee.
Weimer stated he is willing. There are good questions.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports or other items.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
The Council approved these minutes on November 7, 2012.
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
Whatcom County Council, 9/25/2012, Page 17