HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil April 13 20101
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
April 13, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann, Sam Crawford, Bill Knutzen, Kathy
Kershner, L. Ward Nelson and Carl Weimer.
Absent: None.
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.02, COUNTY COUNCIL (AB2010 -143A)
- And -
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING
WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.03, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (AB2010-
143B)
Crawford reported for the Committee of the Whole and stated these items are still
works in progress.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
1. QUARTERLY REPORT FROM THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH REVIEW ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (AB2010 -017)
Jack Hovenier, Behavioral Health Review Advisory Committee Chair, stated this
committee was formerly known as the One -Tenth Sales Tax for Behavioral Health, Criminal
Health, and Substance Abuse. He referenced and read from the memos submitted to the
Council (on file) and presented to the Council about the Behavioral Health Advisory
Committee. He has concerns about government administering these programs. However,
these dollars are well- spent. The money they invest in these programs is more than made
up for to the community. Prevention is less expensive to the taxpayers than housing people
in jail. He's frustrated that so much money goes to administrative costs, however he has
some conception of the necessity of it. As a fiscal conservative and social liberal, he's
happy overall with this program, given the constraints they have to work with. He's happy
that much of the money went to schools. The money is being supervised.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brenner stated she is reassured by Mr. Hovenier's comments. She didn't vote for the
tax because the programs are too important for a specialty tax. She likes the name change.
She has faith in what they're doing. The vote to pass the tax was just before budget
discussions, and she would have preferred to go through the budget first, and then consider
other options if there were more needs.
Nelson stated he also didn't vote for the tax because there weren't any programs.
The Advisory Committee has done a marvelous job developing a comprehensive program.
He asked if the program reaches out to those who fall through the cracks. Many people
need services. He asked how they approach that, besides triage.
Anne Deacon, Health Department, stated the Committee made that a top priority.
They conducted a community -wide needs assessment to identify gaps in service and
develop programs and services to ensure those gaps were filled as much as possible. They
established a continuum of care for citizens.
Nelson stated he would like information on how that's being done and funded.
Deacon stated they use other funds besides the sales tax funds, so they build an
infrastructure rather than boutique programs.
Crawford asked about studying the ten most expensive jail inmates. Hovenier stated
the top ten consumers were consuming an exorbitant number of resources. They discussed
intervening here to help the community and take pressure off the system as a whole.
Crawford asked about the administrative overhead for the schools program.
Hovenier stated it's frustrating that writing a check to the schools incurs the same indirect
cost as any other County expense. However, they need to hold that line to be consistent
countywide. He's frustrated that it takes $1.15 to spend one dollar.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
• Fred Rinard, 3854 Cabrant Road, Everson, spoke about septic tanks.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following Fred Rinard requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes.)
• Shane Roth, 3925 E. Connecticut Street, Bellingham, spoke about the Ethics
Committee's decision on a claim that Councilmember Nelson violated the
Code of Ethics.
• Dan Pike, Bellingham Mayor, spoke about the urban growth area (UGA)
boundaries for Bellingham, growth rates, and Caitac.
• Bruce Diele, citizen, spoke on the topic of marijuana reform.
• Mike Gleason, 4761 Mosquito Lake Road, spoke about E- Verify.
• Cathy Lehman, Futurewise, spoke about the UGA settlement conference and
UGA boundaries.
• Renata Mason, 5220 Matheson Lane, spoke about UGA boundaries in
Bellingham.
• Bob Weisen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, spoke about UGA boundaries.
• Clayton Petree, Bellingham, spoke about the UGA settlement conference and
growth rates.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE
OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (WES) GREATER
THAN 500 KILOWATTS, OR MULTIPLE WES PER PARCEL WITH A
CUMULATIVE RATED OUTPUT ABOVE 100 KILOWATTS (AB2010 -116A)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Terry Meyer, 2682 Donovan Avenue, Bellingham, stated he started Cascade
Community Wind in 2009 with home equity line of credit and small investors. It takes a lot
of effort to get to the permit application stage. He has played by the rules, and incurred
$85,000 in costs related to projects in Whatcom County. His business risk was based on a
clear and defined permitting path. If this moratorium is indefinite, he can't risk any more
time or money. This ordinance is an all -out ban on wind energy in Whatcom County. It will
end his business, he will lose his equity, and farmers and landowners will lose a stable
income from harnessing wind energy on their property. Drop the moratorium and consider
amendments to the existing ordinance through the normal process.
Geoff Middaugh, 206 Highland Drive, stated he works with Cascade Community
Wind. Reject the moratorium. Wind energy has economic benefits of creating jobs and
taxes. The local economic impact from projects over the next few years includes 24 jobs
and an increase in annual economic activity of up to $4 million, including $360,000 in
potential tax revenues. Reject the delays of an interim moratorium.
Scott Sanderson,816 20th Street, Bellingham, stated he supports Terry Meyer and
Cascade Community Wind. Alternative energy is vital to their future. The moratorium is a
blow to the momentum they've achieved in their effort to move Whatcom County forward in
the field of sustainability. They want to encourage renewable energy businesses to join the
community.
Abe Jacobson, 2314 Samish Way, Bellingham, submitted and read from his
testimony (on file). The wind energy system (WES) interim ordinance lacks defensible
technical assessment and unjustifiably punishes entrepreneurs who can contribute to the
county's economic development.
Michelle Evans, 3899 Isaacson Road, submitted and read from her handout (on file).
She supports the moratorium. Proceed cautiously with wind energy systems, in a manner
that ensures human health.
Margaret Mawson, 3903 Isaacson Road, stated she supports the moratorium. The
issue is complex. Other ordinances around the country are lengthy, with a lot of provisions
for wildlife, exclusion zones in sensitive areas, wind studies, fencing, communication
interference, noise complaints, and government monitoring. Sound levels are above what is
safe for children. Create a strong regulatory framework for industrial wind projects to avoid
damages to health, the environment, and the greater community.
John Bosche, 6571 Lunde Road, Everson, submitted and read from his testimony (on
file). He is against the moratorium. He is an expert in wind energy, and described his
background. Information submitted to the Council from the Squalicum Mountain Association
seemed to mostly be printed from the internet. Be cautious about what they read. He is
available to provide accurate information to Council.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Alex Ramel, 2308 Woburn Street, submitted and read from his testimony (on file).
Create an additional setback for residential areas and an aesthetic buffer. Science hasn't
shown a link to health and safety problems. A setback range of one to two times the tower
height is what other communities in the United States are doing. Adopt a solution now.
Mike Neelley, 2604 Donovan Avenue, Bellingham, stated he opposes the
moratorium. Do the work to drop the moratorium and make wind energy possible in
Whatcom County.
Leslie Jacobsen, 2065 Squalicum Mountain Road, stated she supports the
moratorium until the Council makes a thorough, measured, and reasonable decision that
doesn't compromise quality of life. There are precedents for setbacks. She would like to
see wind energy in Whatcom County, but it must be safe. Siting and quality of life are the
issues.
Carey Kaufman, 2065 Squalicum Mountain Road, stated he is a cancer specialist and
knows how to do research. He did research on this issue. The issue is the safety of the
community. He supports the moratorium until the ordinance can be written right. The
current ordinance is flawed. Mr. Meyer can run his business once the ordinance is
appropriate.
Matt Gagnte, Portland, Oregon, stated he graduated from Western Washington
University and is a geographic information system analyst. He has worked with Mr. Meyer.
He described his background. Any wind farm built in Whatcom County will have to go
through steps to mitigate concerns, regardless of the ordinance. Drop the moratorium. The
ordinance that exists is sufficient.
Crawford stated a challenge is that they're stretching County staff resources on
many issues. It would really help this Council if someone superimposed layers on the
County zoning map to show what the various setbacks would look like. Include the ones not
on Mr. Ramel's list. They are concerned about how long it will take for the County to get to
this issue, and it seems many have a vested financial interest. The Council and residents
would benefit if they could see what setbacks look like on a map, and the Council could
move forward on specific proposals.
Carol Butz, 2658 Donovan Avenue, Bellingham, stated she is an investor in Terry
Meyer's business. Before she invested in one of Mr. Meyer's projects, she read the County
ordinance and looked at his integrity. Mr. Meyer is creatively serving the community. The
ordinance's conditional use permit allocations gives the County much discretion in creating
additional constraints and considering abutting properties. She supports the existing
ordinance.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Mann stated he would likely vote against this anyway, but he has a motion that may
work better. He moved to amend the ordinance, "NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by
the Whatcom County Council... above 100 kilowatts within 1,500 feet of residential
development, unless the applications were complete...."
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Crawford suggested a friendly amendment, "NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED
by the Whatcom County Council... above 100 kilowatts within 1,500 feet of any residential
parcel or any parcel where homes can be built, unless the applications were complete...."
Mann accepted the friendly amendment.
Crawford stated an ordinance that addresses setbacks would require State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. The existing ordinance will soon expire. It's
unlikely they can pass an ordinance with a setback at this meeting. They may also need
findings for any setback.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated
they could write the ordinance to say the County won't accept applications until they do the
full process.
Nelson stated the County could allow them to be located only in industrial or
commercial forestry zones, where there is no residential.
Mann withdrew his motion.
Nelson moved to amend the ordinance, "NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the
Whatcom County Council... above 100 kilowatts, unless the applications were
complete... effective date of this ordinance or are located in an industrial or commercial
forestry zone." This ordinance provides an exemption by applications completed prior to
this ordinance. Another alternative is to allow applications in commercial forestry zones and
industrial zones.
Brenner stated she spent many hours working on this thing. She didn't have an
opportunity to read input from Mr. Ramel because she didn't get it. She contacted several
people about this. From her research, she found these and others up to distances more
than a mile. The average was a mile, which she felt was good for an interim ordinance.
She's disappointed that it's being said they are banning all wind energy and alternative
energy in Whatcom County. This is for industrial wind energy systems. The impression was
left that they are banning all wind generators. They put an interim moratorium on industrial
sized wind generators until they could set reasonable setbacks. A setback of one mile to
any residential zoning is reasonable for an interim moratorium. She moved to amend the
ordinance, "NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council... above 100
kilowatts within one mile of any residential parcel or any parcel where homes can be built,
unless the applications were complete...." This is temporary until they figure out what
they're doing, as an interim. She doesn't intend for this to be an ongoing moratorium.
Crawford stated they've been given legal advice that the Council cannot do this
amendment without SEPA review.
Nelson withdrew his motion.
Brenner asked if they can approve her motion.
Crawford stated the Council has been told that it cannot do this motion.
Brenner withdrew her motion.
Crawford suggested:
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Adding a fifth finding of fact in the ordinance, "5. The siting of wind energy
systems in heavy impact industrial and commercial forestry zones may cause
noise impacts already associated with noise levels in those zones." The
problem was with residential zoning on Squalicum Mountain with rural
forestry nearby. The problem was the adjacency of that zoning boundary.
Amending language, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED... above 100
kilowatts in the Rural Forestry and Agricultural zones, unless the applications
were complete...."
Kershner asked if the existing emergency ordinance covers the problem on
Squalicum Mountain or if they need to go forward. Stalheim stated the ordinance as
previously drafted included a conditional use process, which requires a public hearing before
the Hearing Examiner and SEPA review on the application. Any project would have to go
through that full public process and environmental review. The issues should be vetted
through that process, depending on the interest of the public. If the projects were not
mitigated, the Hearing Examiner could deny the project.
Crawford stated projects before the Hearing Examiner depend on the arguments
made. They folks are looking for assurances.
Mann stated he believes a case can be made for greater setbacks. However, the
problem is the process of emergency moratoria and interim ordinances. They need to be
predictable. He has no confidence that passing this ordinance will achieve anything they
want. He can't find any doctor who thinks there are verifiable, substantial health risks,
other than Nina Pierpont, who has not done any peer- reviewed studies. That doesn't mean
there isn't annoyances caused by the systems. He's sensitive to that. He doesn't want to
put anyone in the position of getting sick. Nothing submitted included information that was
scientifically verifiable. There isn't an emergency. The conditional use permit process is in
place. He would be content to let the emergency expire and continue to work on a
permanent ordinance that is more coherent and realistic.
Brenner stated the conditional use permit still has to follow the specifics in place,
including setbacks. They need to do certain things to protect the public. Create setbacks.
The absence of science is not the absence of a problem. There isn't much data on it at all.
Find a middle ground and set interim setbacks. Don't walk away from this.
Crawford moved to:
• Add a fifth finding of fact in the ordinance, "5. The siting of wind energy
systems in heavy impact industrial and commercial forestry zones may create
noise impacts already associated with noise levels in those zones."
• Amend language, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED... above 100 kilowatts
in the Rural Forestry or Agricultural zones, unless the applications were
complete...."
Nelson stated that in addition to evidence, the Council must consider the public's
perception. They must get this right, or the Council Chambers will be filled with people.
Brenner stated health risks are possible when located close to people. Perception is
important, but public health is more important.
Knutzen asked when Planning Department staff will develop a permanent ordinance.
He will work with staff on a permanent ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Crawford stated the staff's workload is greater than the time available. This is a
matter of prioritization, as with everything else. The Council has responded to the
community. An option is to assemble a work group of citizens to develop an ordinance.
However, that would also require facilitation and coordination by staff.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County Conservation Resource
Analyst could work on recommendations to the Council.
issue.
Crawford stated include citizens who have already done preliminary research on the
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Kershner (6)
Nays: Mann (1)
Weimer stated the amendments improve the ordinance, but he will still vote against
the ordinance. The Council didn't consider obvious issues regarding residential when it
brought this forward. Those were easy to fix by creating a buffer of 1,000 or 1,500 feet.
He thought this would be scheduled in committee, but it hasn't. He's concerned this will go
on and on, and they won't see the end of it. Let the emergency moratorium lapse. Go back
to the original ordinance. If this is really a concern, come up with a solution more quickly.
They still have the protections in place of conditional use, SEPA, the Hearing Examiner, and
others.
Brenner asked if the conditional use permit administrator can change specific
setbacks or other conditions that may be in the ordinance. Stalheim stated the only way
the Hearing Examiner can change any specifics in legislation is through a variance process.
If there are no setbacks, the Hearing Examiner has broader authority to make sure any
conditional use is compatible with the neighborhood, so he can increase the setbacks to
ensure compatibility. There are criteria for the Hearing Examiner, including consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood compatibility, that allows the Hearing
Examiner to increase setbacks, with findings to support the determination.
Brenner stated the criteria may be subjective. Stalheim stated they are broad
statements. The more specific the prescriptive standards in an ordinance, the easier is the
hearing process. The purpose of a conditional use process is to review uses that don't
normally fit in to the zone. The reason for the public hearing is to go through and resolve
these issues, with conditions.
Brenner asked if they'd be better off if they didn't specify setbacks, other than they
are to be determined in the conditional use permit. Stalheim stated that once they start
including setbacks into an ordinance, they begin to legislate what those setbacks should be.
They may limit the Hearing Examiner from increasing the setbacks.
Brenner asked if it would be harder for the Hearing Examiner to increase setbacks if
the Council eliminates the moratorium, go back to the 350 -foot setback, and rely on the
conditional use permit. Stalheim stated the Hearing Examiner will have to live by that
setback, but may use other criteria within the conditional use permit section of the zoning
code, which includes neighborhood compatibility, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
and any authority under SEPA to mitigate adverse impacts. The Hearing Examiner has all
those tools available.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Brenner asked what happens if they create a larger setback and include language in
the ordinance that allows the Hearing Examiner to reduce the setback in the conditional use
permit if deemed appropriate. She asked if that will indicate that the Council is flexible.
Stalheim stated it's possible. They could discuss it further.
Brenner stated she would support the interim ordinance. She trusts the
administration to have this before the Council in a matter of weeks.
Kershner stated she is against extending the interim for reasons stated tonight.
Businesses deserve predictability and stability. The current ordinance would have taken
care of the problem brought forward when the Council adopted the emergency ordinance.
They do need to make some changes. They don't need to be forced into a position to make
them quickly, but she doesn't want to support a moratorium on this when they have a
current ordinance that would have taken care of the problem.
Crawford stated he will support this ordinance. His primary issue is building a 300 -
foot tower next to his house. It is too close for comfort for many reasons, including
aesthetics and noise. The debate over whether it affects health will go on for a long time.
This deserves further work. Adopt a permanent ordinance with greater setbacks than what
is already provided. That makes good, common sense.
Brenner stated she is interested in making a setback soon. They may not need a
lot of help from Planning staff. She would like to establish a date certain in the ordinance
rather than extending it for six months. She moved to amend the ordinance, "BE IT
FURTHER ORDAINED... shall be effective for not longer than six menths six weeks following
its effective date, at which time a new ordinance shall be introduced but Fnay be renewed
fact are made pFier to each Fenewa4."
Crawford stated he is against the motion. It's not a matter of forcing anyone to do
something. It's a matter of whether they can work with the administration and get
something done. Also, it would be great for Councilmember Brenner to take on this project.
They don't have to keep this interim ordinance in effect for any length of time. It simply
sunsets after six months, unless they renew it.
Brenner stated they can get something in place and do SEPA review. She will
support the ordinance, but only until a date certain.
Knutzen asked what happens if they pass the ordinance with a six -month timeframe,
and then get another ordinance done in six weeks. They can just repeal this ordinance.
Crawford stated the Council can pass an ordinance whenever, as long as they do the
proper public notice.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Kershner, Nelson and Crawford (3)
Mann asked to set a limit of eight weeks instead of six weeks.
Brenner moved to amend the ordinance, "BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED... shall be
effective for not longer than sox menths eight weeks following its effective date, — at = whieh
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
renewal."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen and Mann (4)
Nays: Kershner, Nelson and Crawford (3)
Crawford stated he will vote against the ordinance. This is an absolute mess, with
the time limitation. It's wrong.
The motion to adopt as amended failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Knutzen and Mann (3)
Nays: Nelson, Crawford, Weimer and Kershner (4)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance as presented, with his amendment, and
without Councilmember Brenner's amendment.
Brenner stated she will support the ordinance, but they should make it known that
they intend to do this in a very timely manner. Adopt it with a timeframe much less than
six months.
vote:
The motion to adopt the ordinance with no amendments carried by the following
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner and Knutzen (4)
Nays: Mann, Weimer and Kershner (3)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, TO
CLARIFY AND REVISE THE DEFINITION AND STANDARDS OF HOME
OCCUPATIONS (AB2010 -047)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following person spoke:
Bob Weisen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated they did a good job on this. He
referenced page eight of the ordinance, line 24, and suggested that they specify two
fulltime equivalent (FTE) employees to section 20.84.150(2). He is concerned with saving
the older, classic barns. Typically, they were 40 feet by 60 feet, with two stories. Change
20.84.150(7)(1)(a) to 105,500 pounds for semi - trucks. Page ten, section 20.84.150(10),
isn't clear whether or not they allow telephone sales and e- commerce if it's not tied to
something from the property. There should be no reason why people aren't allowed a mail -
order, telephone, or e- commerce business unrelated to the property. Allow three -phase
electric engines in section 20.84.150(11).
Brenner asked if any barns built before 1975 could be bigger than 8,000 square feet.
Wiesen stated there are. His interest is making it easy for small people to get into business.
Also, it's expensive to restore these older buildings. It's a matter of scale, and how many
square feet someone needs.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to refer to committee. She recalls a change the committee made
that isn't included in this version of the ordinance. The change was to section
20.84.150(4). Rural Residential (RR) and Rural Residential Island (RR -I) were not supposed
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
to be precluded from the 1,250 square foot building nor from having accessory structures
built before 1975.
Knutzen asked if the Council can make these changes tonight.
Brenner stated the Planning Committee made those changes.
Royce Buckingham, Prosecutor's Office, stated that if the changes were discussed
previously in the public forum, the public has reviewed the option, and the Council can
make the change. Others may disagree with his advice.
Crawford stated that according to past legal counsel, if it's a change in zoning that is
substantive, the problem is that the public have been notified they are limited to 500 square
feet. Now the Council is saying it wants to make a change to make the limit 1,250 square
feet. Buckingham stated there's not doubt that the change is substantive.
Crawford stated they don't need to send it back to committee, but they have to issue
another notice and have another public hearing.
Brenner withdrew her motion to refer to committee. She moved to amend
20.84.150(4), °In all zones except RR, RR 1, EI, UR, URM, and URMX, home occupations... of
building floor area. In the RR, RftT EI, UR, URM, and URMX zones home occupations shall
not exceed a total of 500 square feet of building floor area...." Rural residential will be very
rural soon. Rural Residential Island is five acres now. They both are considered rural, not
urban zoning. There will be many of those older barns in these zones that should be used.
People won't restore them without a reason. A home occupation is one reason to restore a
barn.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen moved to amend 20.84.150(7)(1)(x), "...each of which shall not exceed
60,909 105,500 lbs. gvw, and which may include...."
Brenner stated these are allowed on property if someone owns one personally. She
asked how many people they're talking about.
Kershner stated she will support the motion, but this applies to small lots.
Dan Watkins, Lake Samish, stated a typical log truck, dump truck, or semi -truck has
a gross vehicle weight of 80,000 to 105,500 pounds in the state of Washington.
Crawford asked the length of a truck that weighs 105,500 pounds. Watkins stated it
is approximately 62 feet.
Knutzen stated the maximum trailer length allowed in Washington is 53 feet. The
length is approximately 72 feet.
Brenner stated screenings and setbacks seem to be more important than the
tonnage. She doesn't know why the weight is important.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Knutzen stated there are a few instances when a truck driver will drive the truck
home at night, and park it in the driveway. He would rather it be limited to one vehicle at
105,500 pounds.
Mann suggested that the combined weight for two vehicles could not exceed 125,500
pounds, which would allow a pickup truck and a big log truck.
Knutzen restated his motion to amend to amend 20.84.150(7)(1)(x), '...each of
which shall not exceed 68,900 105,500 lbs. gvw, and which may include...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Brenner moved to amend 20.84.150(4), "...in accessory structures built before
1975, home occupations shall not exceed a total of 6009 6,500 square feet of building area.
In the EI, UR, URM, and URMX zones home occupations shall not exceed a total of 500
square feet of...."
Mann asked how Councilmember Brenner decided on the number of 6,500.
Brenner stated it is a compromise between 4,000 and 8,000.
Kershner stated the barn language isn't in the ordinance. It is simply about
accessory buildings prior to 1975. It could allow any building prior to 1975. It is confusing
to distinguish the threshold between a cottage industry and home occupation. She asked if
this language really meets Councilmember Brenner's expectations. Make it possible for
Planning Department enforcement staff to enforce the code without getting the two things
confused.
Brenner stated staff have aerial maps dating to 1975. That's the reason for the
date. It's correct that this includes buildings other than barns. Any big building is worth
saving, but especially barns. She's comfortable with the language.
Mann asked if a threshold of 2,500 instead of 8,000 square feet would be easier for
staff.
Wain Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, stated a limit of
2,500 square feet is the threshold for cottage industry conditional use in all other
circumstances.
Mann stated he recalls that the 8,000 square feet limit was a holding number on
which they would hold the public hearing. He also recalls that a limit of 2,500 is much
easier for staff. Harrison stated a limit of 2,500 square feet would make the code easier to
administer and more consistent.
Crawford stated he will vote against the motion. He supports staff's direction. His
concern is that they need to be consistent in the scale of the businesses. It's inconsistent to
allow this one large structure out there that can be used in the smallest occupation, and
then not allow it otherwise. Unless they are really willing to parse out agricultural
structures and barns and their ages, the regulations will be inconsistent.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Brenner stated the purpose was to allow the use of existing buildings. They already
limit the number of people, which is what home occupations are about. It's not supposed to
be about what is easiest for staff. There are a bunch of illegal occupations in the county
because the County Planning staff is into the minutia. This is for restoration of older
buildings. If they don't find ways to protect these barns, they will lose them. Don't create a
one - size - fits -all regulation to be consistent. If the building already exists, and the same
amount of people work there, there is no impact.
Nelson asked if a person would still be allowed to use 2,500 square feet, if that were
the limit, of a larger barn. Harrison stated that would be allowed.
Brenner asked how that is easier for enforcement staff. That doesn't make sense.
She withdrew her motion to amend.
Weimer moved to amend 20.84.150(4), "...in accessory structures built before
1975, home occupations shall not exceed a total of 8009 2,500 square feet of building area.
In the EI, UR, URM, and URMX zones home occupations shall not exceed a total of 500
square feet of...."
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Weimer, Mann and Kershner (5)
Nays: Brenner and Knutzen (2)
Nelson asked if a wind energy system (WES) could be a home occupation. They may
generate an income from selling energy back to the grid. Harrison stated he would have to
consider it. It would apply to windmills if used in some way that was a business, not for
generation of personal power in the home.
Nelson stated he is concerned about problems with locating windmills. He could
argue that someone would complain about a windmill that interferes with the enjoyment of
life. He asked if that opens a can of worms. Harrison stated the decibel rating would have
relevance in the decision by staff. A small cabinet shop, for instance, would generate more
noise from a table saw.
Nelson stated the language in 20.84.150(9) opens a can of worms. Harrison stated
the burden of proof would be on the complainant. They can include language in the WES
ordinance that says wind energy systems are not home occupations.
Nelson stated address that language also in section 20.84.150(9).
Brenner asked if the State of Washington or Whatcom County requires that anything
not in stated in the County Code is prohibited. Harrison stated he believes it to be a County
policy. It is stated outright in a number of places in Title 20.
Crawford stated staff will bring forward a new ordinance with these amendments for
introduction on April 30 with a hearing on May 11.
3. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2010 ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM TO
INCLUDE POTENTIAL FEDERALLY GRANT FUNDED STRUCTURAL
REHABILITATION OF VARIOUS COUNTY HIGH VOLUME ROADWAYS
(AB2010 -160)
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Crawford stated there may be a chance for more stimulus money. There was a
considerable amount of discussion with the Technical Advisory Committee to the Council of
Governments in terms of prioritization the projects in the various jurisdictions, including
Whatcom County. The Council of Governments made a list of priorities, which included
projects not on the County's 2010 annual construction program. These projects would only
go forward if they receive additional stimulus money.
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee.
Crawford opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
Knutzen asked if $15,000 for engineering will be reimbursed by stimulus money, and
if that engineering money will expire if the stimulus money doesn't come through.
Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, stated that's correct. The federal stimulus
money only funds construction. The $15,000 would cover planning and project inspection
during construction, which is an engineering cost. The County would not incur that cost or
charge anything to this project unless the federal money comes through. In 2010, he will
propose the six -year transportation improvement program that includes this project as an
unfunded project, in case they receive federal funding in future years.
Crawford stated they don't know if this will come to the County. It has to go through
federal approval and State prioritization, first.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: None (0)
Absent: Nelson (1) (out of the room)
CONSENT AGENDA
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one, three, and four.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH DAVID AND SHARON MCCARTHY TO LEASE THE HOUSE
AT 811 MARINE DRIVE, POINT ROBERTS (AT LIGHTHOUSE MARINE PARK),
IN THE AMOUNT OF $975 PER MONTH (AB2010 -174)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #10 -15
FOR ON -CALL CONTRACTOR/ EQUIPMENT FOR LABOR AND RENTAL OF
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TO ALL BIDDERS, WITH THE INTENT OF
OBTAINING FIRM PRICING AND TO ENSURE PREVAILING WAGES ARE PAID
ON ALL ON -CALL PROJECTS, IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT THAT COULD BE MORE
THAN $35,000 FOR A SINGLE VENDOR (AB2010 -175)
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
for the Council to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Mann moved for the Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors to approve
the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #10 -16
FOR ON -CALL RENTAL EQUIPMENT TO ALL BIDDERS, WHEN NEEDED, THE
COUNTY WILL SELECT FROM THE RENTAL LIST BASED ON EQUIPMENT
AVAILABILITY AND SUITABILITY WITH PREFERENCE TO LOW BIDDERS, IN
AN ANNUAL AMOUNT THAT COULD BE MORE THAN $35,000 FOR A SINGLE
VENDOR (AB2010 -176)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #10 -22
FOR THE SUPPLY OF BRIDGE GIRDERS TO LOW BIDDER BELLINGHAM
MARINE INDUSTRIES FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE NOON ROAD TEN
MILE CREEK BRIDGE #210, IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,306.22 (AB2010 -177)
OTHER ITEMS
1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY (SHERIFF'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT
OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT) AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ALLOCATING GRANT FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY TO ENHANCE THE CAPABILITY OF LOCAL UNITS OF
GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT, DETER, RESPOND TO AND RECOVER FROM
CATASTROPHIC AND /OR TERRORIST EVENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $272,825
(AB2010 -173)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.80.210, MINIMUM
SETBACKS, TO IMPLEMENT A TEN FOOT SETBACK FOR PROPERTIES ALONG
THE US- CANADA BORDER (AB2010 -166)
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
adopt the ordinance.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
NEW APPLICATIONS FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (WES) GREATER THAN
500 KILOWATTS, OR MULTIPLE WES PER PARCEL WITH A CUMULATIVE
RATED OUTPUT ABOVE 100 KILOWATTS (AB2010 -116A)
Crawford stated that, due to procedural error, the Council must vote to reconsider
the ordinance before adopting it. He moved to reconsider the ordinance.
The motion to reconsider carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Weimer (1)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance as presented, with his amendment, and
without Councilmember Brenner's amendment.
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner and Knutzen (4)
Nays: Weimer, Mann and Kershner (3)
OTHER ITEMS
3. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE WHATCOM
COUNTY ADDRESS AND ROAD NAME CITIZEN APPEALS COMMITTEE,
APPLICANT: ROBERT EWING (AB2010 -168)
Nelson moved to suspend the rules and to nominate and appoint the position
during this meeting.
The motion to suspend the rules carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Nelson moved to appoint Robert Ewing by acclamation.
The motion to appoint carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
4. NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE WHATCOM
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTING IMPACTED CITIES, APPLICANT: JOHN PERRY (AB2010-
169)
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors.)
Brenner moved to appoint John Perry by acclamation.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
5. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE EXECUTIVE TO HAVE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION PREPARED AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ZONING
CODE AND MAPS TO ALTER THE DESIGNATIONS OF VARIOUS URBAN
GROWN AREAS (AB2010 -183)
Mann moved to approve the resolution. He moved to amend the resolution to
remove number seven regarding the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA) to add the entire
Cordata North / Caitac property. After doing research, it's clear he made a mistake
yesterday on all these UGA's. There is no reason to expand any UGA, given the growth
rates and trends. Item seven is the only item from yesterday where his vote made any
difference, so he wants to change his vote.
Knutzen stated that for the most part, they are restoring a portion of the UGA's that
the Council removed last year, not expanding the UGA's.
Mann stated the Caitac area was never a UGA.
Knutzen stated that according to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, it was a five -year
review area. Most all of the other properties were UGA's that were removed.
Mann stated that technically, the Council is adding these UGA's back.
Brenner stated they are just making the cuts a little less. Most of the jurisdictions
cut back quite a bit. She supports the motion to amend.
Crawford stated it's time for this area to come into the UGA for a number of reasons.
Weimer stated he supports the motion to amend. It's an interesting and good
project whose time will come. However, the City of Bellingham does not want this now.
The time for it is not yet. He supports the wishes of the City of Bellingham.
Brenner stated leaving this in will set a precedent statewide. They've never forced a
UGA on properties. They have an obligation to people in the unincorporated area. By
putting a property in the UGA, they are committing the City, not the County. They are
committing the people in the area to City standards and other restrictions. Respect the
wishes of the City of Bellingham.
Kershner stated she doesn't understand how the County is forcing this on the City of
Bellingham, when it's in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Pike made a threat to sue.
Another direct threat was that Mayor Pike's plan is to make the numbers work so that the
Caitac project will never happen. If the County Council doesn't allow this UGA, the project
will never be created and they will have lost a tremendous opportunity to develop a 21St
Century community of single - family homes that families can afford, housing choices,
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
economic development, outside investment resources, a school, playing fields, and
innovative transportation systems. She will not support the motion to amend.
Mann stated he shares Councilmember Kershner's points. However, in addition to all
the other UGA's they're restoring and given the growth and development trends, this UGA is
too much. There will be time to bring in the Caitac property, but not too soon. Be cautious,
and remove it for now.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer and Mann (3)
Nays: Nelson, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (4)
Weimer moved to amend the resolution to remove number one regarding the
Blaine UGA to add the Beachmont, Windward, and Foster properties. The Council didn't talk
about these at all last year. They showed up late in the game. They weren't even included
in the environmental impact statement. The County is setting itself up for a challenge.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated these properties
were previously in the UGA, so they were included in the environmental impact statement.
There weren't any specific comments that came up about these properties at the Planning
Commission. They did have standing, which is why they are a petitioner.
Weimer stated his motion stands. All three are within critical watersheds. There are
many environmental reasons to not move forward with the development. The Blaine city
limits are big enough for 20 years of growth.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer and Mann (2)
Nays: Brenner, Nelson, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Mann moved to amend the resolution to revise number seven regarding the
Bellingham urban growth area (UGA), the entire Cordata North / Caitac property, to the 25
percent proposal put forward yesterday, which is the lower fourth of the property as shown
on a map submitted yesterday.
Brenner stated she liked that option better, but it was the first time she'd seen the
option. She asked Caitac to scale back the proposal. She didn't have time to talk to the
Mayor about it. It's not appropriate to do that at this time without involving the City of
Bellingham.
Nelson asked if Councilmember Mann would support the reduction after the public
hearing on this item.
Mann stated it depends on what he hears at the public hearing. He can't commit to
vote to anything before a public hearing.
Nelson stated he supports a reduction of the Caitac property to see what gets
developed on the ground. He supports maintaining Caitac, as it is in the Bellingham
Comprehensive Plan. Make sure they have the ability for the City's Comprehensive Plan to
come to fruition. The City has not had any hearings on the option to not allow Caitac in the
City. The City has not heard from the public about Caitac. He will support having a hearing
on reducing this proposal, but is afraid of having it not go forward. Don't use this as a
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
mechanism to make the whole thing go away. He needs a commitment that this project will
go to the public at a hearing.
Mann stated he understands Councilmember Nelson's concern. Yesterday,
Councilmember Nelson voted against Caitac altogether. It's not an easy issue. He can't
guarantee anything. He would like to see what Caitac would come up with in terms of
transfers of development rights (TDR's) and other benefits to the County. Nothing is in
writing yet. A benefit of the 25 percent option is to get the ball rolling to see concrete
proposals from Caitac.
Knutzen stated he is impressed by how willing Caitac people are to work with and
accommodate all the parties involved. They've submitted a portion of their project to
accommodate some people who want proof the development will be done responsibly.
They've submitted a TDR program. He's seen no effort from the City of Bellingham to work
with Caitac.
Mann stated the City said it is doing a thorough review of the numbers. The growth
and development trends are changing. The Mayor is willing to accommodate the numbers,
whatever the numbers say. The Mayor said the City will do Caitac if the numbers can
accommodate it. The growth numbers might show that they don't need anything.
Knutzen stated growth is happening in the county.
Mann stated the growth number for the county is at half a percent. It's down by half
in just two years. He's become convinced that there is no housing shortage, they don't
need all these UGA's, and they're making a big mistake by putting them all out there.
Nelson stated they are supposed to plan for 20 years, not for what happened last
year. They're supposed to look at future impacts, which will be severe. They are going to
force more people to the rural areas and small cities. No one can find what they need in
this community. This is an opportunity to show that this City can provide affordable housing
to keep people in urban areas.
Kershner asked about reserve status. Stalheim stated a UGA reserve is not in a
UGA, but it is set up to become a UGA. The City would be the lead planning entity for the
reserve area.
Kershner stated that would not alleviate her concerns about the City of Bellingham
wanting to do away with this UGA next year. Stalheim stated he anticipates that the City
would come back with a plan to not include that area.
Mann asked if Councilmember Kershner believes the land capacity, housing needs, or
growth needs support inclusion of the entire area.
Kershner stated that she can be convinced the City will need that area within 20
years. She looks also at the economic development the project will bring to the community,
which is also a GMA consideration. She's considering a number of factors. In 20 years, this
will have been a good decisions. Bellingham doesn't have an available land supply to build
many more homes.
Knutzen stated one of the values to this project is the plan for the entire project.
The developer is adhering to all the standards everyone wants, yet the County is still
hindering the development. It seems like they are contradicting what they're preaching.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Crawford stated it seems like an issue of whether they want to stand by a bright -line
rule. The bright -line rule concept is heard more at City Hall. This project is one of the best
things that can help Bellingham, on par with waterfront redevelopment, in terms of what
the community will look like in 20 or more years. The right thing is to include this entire
area.
Mann stated the Bellingham Mayor, who is mayor of the city that holds half the
population, seemed offended that the County responded to all the other cities' requests for
local control, but not for the City of Bellingham.
Nelson stated it was a mediation meeting between litigants. The City of Bellingham
is not part of that litigation. If the City had that much of a problem, it should have gone
through hearings and the same public process the small cities went through.
Knutzen asked how it was different last year when all the small cities made
recommendations that the County neglected, and the City of Bellingham made a
recommendation that the County accepted.
Mann stated if that was wrong then, then it is wrong now.
Knutzen stated the County is not going against the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Brenner stated it was wrong then, and is wrong now. She doesn't support Caitac at
this time. She asked why the City would be a litigant. The City agreed with the County.
There was no reason for the City to be a litigant. The County is in negotiations with the
people who are appealing the County's decision. The City didn't appeal.
Crawford stated this is one of the weightiest land use decisions the County Council
will make. He would consider approving Councilmember Mann's idea if they keep the rest of
it in some sort of designation or status that keeps the door open to considering the area.
There may be some merit to phasing, but Whatcom County has yet to do any kind of large
scale planned unit development to demonstrate to this community that shows what good
planning can do. Since they started zoning in 1972, the result of many planning efforts has
been patchwork. He likes the idea of setting aside a tract large enough to work with the
owner on a plan that includes educational facilities, roads, infrastructure, and parks. Do it
right from the beginning. Set a path for 20 or 30 years of development that makes sense
for all concerns.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Weimer and Mann (3)
Nays: Brenner, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (4)
Crawford asked if there is another option for a designation other than reserve for the
northern portion of the property, if they make the southern portion of the property a UGA.
The County is not forcing the City to do anything. The City holds control through utility
extension and development standards. If the City were to reject utilities to that
development, the development would not happen. Stalheim stated that if such a motion
passes, the staff can explore options to include in its staff report.
Crawford moved to amend the resolution to revise number seven regarding the
Bellingham urban growth area (UGA), the entire Cordata North / Caitac property, and create
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
a UGA designation for the southern portion, and request a designation of urban growth
study area for the remainder.
Mann suggested a friendly amendment to ask staff to come back with a report
on all four options: including all of Caitac, including none of Caitac, including only the 25
percent proposal, or a solution that includes the 25 percent in the UGA and another
designation for the remainder.
Crawford accepted the friendly amendment, with a change. Leave the door open
on item seven. He is less interested in the option to not include any of Caitac. He
amended and restated his motion to amend the resolution to include number seven
regarding the Bellingham urban growth area (UGA), the entire Cordata North /Caitac
property, with a request for staff to also review of the southern portion option as well as a
special designation for the remainder of the parcel. Add the entire Caitac USA / Cordata
North property to the list, and request staff to review options for portions thereof.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford, Knutzen and Mann (3)
Nays: Brenner, Nelson, Weimer and Kershner (4)
Brenner moved to amend the resolution to revise number seven regarding the
Bellingham urban growth area (UGA), the entire Cordata North /Caitac property, to the 25
percent proposal put forward yesterday, which is the lower fourth of the property as shown
on a map submitted yesterday.
Nelson stated that if they are going to change this area, make the commitment to
change the zoning to rural, two units per acre (R2A), so it can be considered in the future.
It already has sewer and water.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Brenner, Weimer and Mann (3)
Nays: Nelson, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (4)
Knutzen asked about the status of the Ferndale UGA's.
Crawford asked if there are any areas they added that weren't in the UGA before the
November 24, 2009 vote. The area east of the freeway at Slater Road and the area east of
the freeway at Portal Drive were added as UGA reserves. Stalheim stated those areas were
not designated UGA's before that vote. They came up with a new, undefined term called
provisional. Staff will have to work through that issue. Currently, they are designated rural
and are not in the UGA. They aren't asking for full UGA status. They want to go through
the planning process to come back at some point in time for designation, which is what the
County proposed for UGA reserves.
Crawford moved to add a new item to the list, "8. Blaine UGA - Add West Blaine
area to UGA."
Knutzen stated he wants to look at this area first.
Kershner stated these votes are just to recommend these things to Planning staff. If
this were approved tonight, Councilmember Knutzen still has time to look at the area.
Brenner stated she can't support it if it's not vested.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Crawford and Kershner (2)
Nays: Nelson, Brenner, Weimer and Mann (4)
Abstain: Knutzen (1)
Mann moved to remove item three, the Ferndale UGA. He asked how they can add
Caitac and all these other areas. The County doesn't have that much growth right now.
Crawford stated he wants to give people housing and lifestyle choices.
Brenner stated the current boundary is irregular. Industry is nearby. It's supposed
to be residential. It doesn't make sense for what is already built there. They don't usually
cut the middles out of UGA's that already exist. The high school was built because it was
supposed to be a central point, but it's not a central point without that area.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Weimer and Mann (2)
Nays: Brenner, Nelson, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (5)
Knutzen moved to amend item three, "Restore Vista - Malloy area to UGA status;
at the eenferenee en ApFil 12, 2 " It's not proper to add anything to their UGA, since
they're not restoring UGA to other cities and areas. He agrees with Councilmember Mann.
They are adding a lot with Caitac and some other things.
Brenner stated a provisional UGA isn't the same as a UGA. They will get to look at
that area and come forward with reasons why it should be there in the future. She doesn't
have a problem with that. They are not changing any UGA in Ferndale by that. The motion
doesn't take away any UGA. It takes away the City's ability to look at those areas.
Weimer stated he supports the amendment. The Ferndale UGA was originally found
to be 50 percent too big. Now they're looking at provisionally including more. The City can
have that discussion in 2011, so there isn't a reason to add provisional areas now.
Kershner stated the City stated it needed the northern area to run its water lines.
She will not support the motion.
The motion to amend failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Knutzen, Weimer and Mann (3)
Nays: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner and Kershner (4)
Crawford restated the motion to approve the resolution
Mann withdrew his motion to approve the resolution as presented, with no
amendments.
Crawford moved to approve the resolution.
Mann asked how they can do this. It's not a good idea to include all these urban
growth areas. People are not moving here. Growth rates are at half a percent. It will
remain that way for awhile. There is no way. They are adding too much.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, 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
Crawford stated they are planning for a 20 -year window. They've had an annual
average growth rate in Whatcom County of 2.2 percent for the last 20 years. They project
a growth rate for the next 20 years of about 1.3 percent. They are doing a poor job of
preparing the communities and County for infrastructure and services needed for future
growth. Transportation issues are near to his heart. If they don't plan for transportation,
they will have a lot of problems in the community.
Mann stated he shares those concerns. The time to address this comprehensively is
in 2011.
Brenner stated she will vote against the motion. She's in shock about adding that
one big area.
The motion to approve the resolution carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Knutzen and Kershner (4)
Nays: Brenner, Weimer and Mann (3)
CORRESPONDENCE APPROVAL
1. APPROVAL OF A LETTER TO THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS REGARDING
PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEVEE VEGETATION POLICIES (AB2010 -126)
Crawford submitted a substitute version of the letter (on file).
Brenner moved to approve the substitute version of the letter.
Knutzen stated the agricultural community is concerned about losing the Corps from
helping with projects. Tread lightly.
Crawford stated they are not opposing the Corps. They are opposing the changes.
They appreciate what the Corps does.
Brenner stated this isn't personal. She's in shock if this happens.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Crawford stated Introduction Items one and two have been withdrawn. There is a
substitute version of Introduction Item six. He proposed an amendment to Introduction
Items eight and nine to add a condition that the Council could shift money between funds, if
they can offset the shift, without going to a vote of the people.
Brenner stated this is an advisory vote.
Kershner moved to approve Introduction Items three through nine, including the
substitute for item six.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, Page 22
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
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.02, COUNTY COUNCIL
(AB2010 -143A)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.03, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS (AB2010 -1438)
3. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE
DISTRICT'S INTENTION TO LEASE PROPERTY AT 7495 EMMERSON ROAD
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH THE HIGHEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, SUBJECT TO A
PUBLIC HEARING (AB2010 -178) (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood
Control Zone District Board of Supervisors)
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, NINTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,451 (AB2010 -179)
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS WCC 20.84 AND WCC 21.01
TO ALLOW FOR THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
OR WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER TO GRANT A ONE -TIME TWO
YEAR ECONOMIC HARDSHIP EXTENSION TO ISSUED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENTS, CONDITIONAL USE, VARIANCE, ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVAL, SHORT SUBDIVISION OR BINDING SITE PLAT, AND CRITICAL
AREA AND GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT REPORTS (AB2010 -180)
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING, ON AN INTERIM BASIS, WHATCOM COUNTY CODE
10.44, HORSES ON CERTAIN ROADS (AB2010 -145A)
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY PROJECT BUDGET,
SECOND REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 (AB2010 -181)
S. ORDINANCE LIMITING TOTAL ANNUAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TAX
INCREASES, INCLUDING THE USE OF BANKED CAPACITY, TO ONE PERCENT
PER YEAR UNLESS A NON - BINDING ADVISORY BALLOT MEASURE WITH ANY
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL INCREASES IS PLACED BEFORE WHATCOM COUNTY
VOTERS (AB2010 -182)
9. RESOLUTION LIMITING TOTAL ANNUAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY TAX
INCREASES FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT,
INCLUDING THE USE OF BANKED CAPACITY, TO ONE PERCENT PER YEAR
UNLESS A NON - BINDING ADVISORY BALLOT MEASURE WITH ANY
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL INCREASES IS PLACED BEFORE WHATCOM COUNTY
VOTERS (AB2010 -182A) (Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control
Zone District Board of Supervisors)
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports or other items from councilmembers.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:38 p.m.
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
22
23
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council@�om hatcom ma.us
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
Sam Crawford, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 4/13/2010, Page 24