HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 16 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
March 16, 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, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken
Mann, L. Ward Nelson and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Crawford announced that the Committee of the Whole discussed the following items
in executive session:
1. CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY WHATCOM COUNTY
REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
ON APL 2009 -0023, FILED BY WESLEY MUSSIO (AB2010 -052) [Discussion
of this item may take place in executive session (closed to the public)
pursuant to RCW42.30.110(1)(i)]
Mann moved to deny the motion to dismiss given the efforts that were made to
have it delivered.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. DISCUSSION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING UGA APPEAL ISSUES
(AB2010 -018) [Discussion of this item may take place in executive session
(closed to the public) pursuant to RCW42.30.110(1)(i)]
3. DISCUSSION WITH ASSISTANT CHIEF CIVIL DEPUTY PROSECUTOR DANIEL
GIBSON REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (AB2010 -018) [Discussion of
this item may take place in executive session (closed to the public)
pursuant to RCW42.30.110(1)(i)]
MINUTES CONSENT
Mann moved to approve the minutes, including the substitute pages.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JANUARY 26, 2010
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 26, 2010
3. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 2, 2010
4. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2010
S. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2010
6. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR MARCH 2, 2010
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
• Mark Robbins, Point Roberts Taxpayers Association, submitted information
(on file) and spoke on the floating dock pier at Lighthouse Marine Park.
• Dominique Zervas, Langabeer Tull Attorney representing Caitac, spoke on the
UGA timeline proposed.
• John Lesow, Point Roberts, submitted information (on file) and spoke on
family wage jobs in Whatcom County and on the Planning Commission
appointment.
• (Clerk's Note: The speaker following John Lesow requested that his /her
testimony not be included in the minutes.)
• Joe Knight, 3880 Cabrant Road, Everson, spoke on the process to appoint
Council vacancies and board and commission vacancies.
• Mike Gleason, Mosquito Lake Road, Deming, spoke on using E- Verify for
background checks for County contractors and employers.
• Liz Gleason, 4761 Mosquito Lake Road, Deming, spoke on using E- Verify for
background checks for County contractors and employers.
• Joan Dow, 5491 Woodfern Way, Bellingham, spoke on using E- Verify for
background checks for County contractors and employers.
• Bruce Diele, Bellingham, submitted information (on file) and spoke on alcohol
regulation and legalizing marijuana.
• Skip Jansen, 4167 Mitchell Way, spoke on the Harbor Shores plat for the
Comprehensive Plan docket.
• Wendy Harris, Bellingham, spoke about setting urban growth area litigation in
backroom deals and the West Blaine urban growth area.
• Sue Brown, 2188 E. Berg Street, spoke about being called a progressive.
• Shane Roth, Bellingham, spoke about the Charter, Whatcom County Code,
and whether the Council must have four votes to approve anything.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE 2010 -015) IMPOSING A
MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR WIND
ENERGY SYSTEMS (WES) GREATER THAN 500 KILOWATTS, OR MULTIPLE
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
WES PER PARCEL WITH A CUMULATIVE RATED OUTPUT ABOVE 100
KILOWATTS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (AB2010 -116)
(Clerk's Note: The Council adopted this ordinance on February 23, 2010.)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Abe Jacobsen, 2314 Samish Way, Bellingham, submitted and read from information
(on file) supporting wind energy.
Geoffrey Middaugh, 206 Highland Drive, Bellingham, submitted and read from
information (on file) supporting wind energy.
Bob Kingsley, 1855 Vineyard Place, Bellingham, stated he is opposed to the wind
energy system on Squalicum Mountain. Don't repeat what happened at the Altamont Pass
in Oakland, California, which has hundreds of wind towers. The economic resource
production predictions were never fulfilled. The cost of maintaining these systems is
extraordinarily high. Animal and bird habitats will deteriorate. There are many raptors in
his area that would be ill- affected by machines of this nature. Wind technology is old
technology. Bloom energy generators are new technology, and are powering many large
corporations. Allow the type of electrical generation that doesn't harm the environment in
any way, is economically feasible, and returns power to the power grid. Look at
opportunities that are technically advantageous to the community, rather than the old
technology being presented.
Leslie Jacobsen, 2065 Squalicum Mountain, stated she is against the wind energy
system. The jury is out on wind power technology. There is global reporting about the
negative impacts of noise and vibration coming from wind turbines. As a psychotherapist,
she is concerned about symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression.
Chuck Bebee, 4038 Springland Court, Bellingham, stated he is in favor of any Council
decision that protects this area. Alternative sources of energy is important, but they must
have adequate regulation to protect the public and property. Industrial wind turbines have
affects on natural environments. Ask about the known and unknown affects to those living
in proximity of proposed energy facility, the benefits of the proposal, and where a project
like this should be sited. The emergency ordinance allows review of these questions and
development of a permanent ordinance that would adequately protect the public. New
regulations should require setbacks from residential housing that are a minimum of one and
one - quarter mile.
Alex Ramel, 2308 Woburn Street, Bellingham, Sustainable Connections Energy and
Policy Manager, stated the Squalicum Mountain project is cancelled because the proponent
doesn't want to do a project if the neighborhood is opposed for any reason. However, this
community generally wants renewable energy projects here and many residences and
businesses opt to pay for green power. People want to keep here the jobs, economic
development, and energy security. The support for clean energy in the community is a
magnet for businesses. Don't continue this moratorium indefinitely with inaction. Look at
good science. Create regulatory certainty.
Adrian Eissinger, 899 Piper Road, Ferndale, stated he is a student at Western
Washington University (WWU). Wind turbines are an important part of their future. They
have to make sacrifices in the new economic times. Many things make noise. A
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
52
moratorium on wind turbines specifically is unfair. There are stringent regulations to site a
wind turbine. It is not an easy process.
Lisa Newlight, 899 Piper Road, Ferndale, stated she was shocked when she saw the
moratorium on wind turbines. She has stood below a large wind turbine and it didn't sound
like a jet engine. Many in this county support alternative energy. Do the research and base
decisions on science. The opposition is a case of people who don't want this in their
backyards. Clustering development in rural lands is a problem, because those people get
upset when there is any farming or other activity that is the original use of the land.
Michelle Evans, 3899 Isaacson Road, stated she is concerned about the
environmental impacts to people who live too close to wind energy systems. Proceed with
caution. There is evidence of negative impacts. She asked the Council to consider two -mile
setbacks and strong rules for measuring noise, including low frequency noise. She asked
that the emergency moratorium be changed to an interim moratorium.
Liz Vennos, 1848 Vinyard Place, stated there are reasons why people don't want
wind energy systems in their back yard, including issues regarding health, noise, view, and
environmental impacts. The Council should be certain there is no environmental impact
from the use of the devices. She is a physician. Certain technologies come into use, and
they find out later that they are a detriment to human and animal health. The wind turbine
syndrome has been written about and published. Symptoms include neurological, visual,
and cardiac disorders. If the device is allowed, be certain there are no negative impacts to
health and the environment. She supports renewable energy, but wind turbines of this
magnitude are not either green or renewable.
Margaret Mawson, 3903 Isaacson Road, Bellingham, submitted information (on file).
She is an attorney and has researched wind farms in other parts of the country and world.
Use experience from other areas to create a better ordinance. The critical issues are
setbacks and noise, including low- frequency vibration. She suggests one- to two -mile
setbacks.
Terrance Meyer, 2682 Donovan Avenue, Bellingham, stated he is no longer doing his
project at Squalicum Mountain. He is in favor of the technology. In the regulation, the
setback was based on the height of the tower. The noise limits are the same regardless of
size. Small and large turbines have the same impacts. The conditional use process would
address special circumstances and objections. They have an opportunity to improve the
ordinance. Other jurisdictions love their turbines. The Squalicum Mountain community
didn't want a turbine. Allow communities to make the choice.
Cary Kaufman, 2065 Squalicum Mountain Road, submitted information (on file) and
stated rural forestry regulations had a building height limit of 35 feet for 23 years, until
2008, when they changed the zoning laws for wind turbines. There are documented health
risks. Read the data and testimonials from people who live near wind turbines.
Tom Anderson, 1744 Sapphire Trail, Bellingham, stated he requests that concerns be
addressed in terms of a progressive ordinance that allows projects to go forward. They will
need new energy sources in the future. It would benefit the economy to build something
local if possible. Spend little time debating this moratorium. Instead, debate the changes
needed to the ordinance that would allow projects to move forward. They need forward
motion and new jobs in Whatcom County.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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 asked if the public utilities district (PUD) every look at something on local
industrial lands. Anderson stated wind in Whatcom County is questionable because of the
amount of annual wind in the area. However, if people are willing to take that risk, it's their
business. He wouldn't do it as a government. The PUD looked at it when he was there.
They decided to not do it because there wasn't enough evidence that it was financially
practical.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Brenner stated they need to work on an agreement on a setback. They don't have
lot of information one way or another. This is a learning curve. This is the next step.
Crawford stated they need to have something to introduce soon on an interim
ordinance.
Mann stated he will help Councilmember Brenner develop an interim ordinance.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE, TITLE 20, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF CLARIFYING AND REVISING THE DEFINITION AND
STANDARDS OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS AND SECOND COOKING
FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE CODE (AB2010 -048)
Crawford opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Gary Honcoop, 770 E. Wiser Lake Road, referenced the language, "that there shall
be only one dwelling unit on the property" on Council packet page 370, section 20.97.087,
the definition for Cooking facility. As written, staff can interpret it later to exclude the
possibility of a future accessory dwelling unit or apartment. Also, staff and the committee
have done a lot of work on accessory apartments. It looks good, and he supports it.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he has the same concern as Mr.
Honcoop. The definition may create a permanent limitation on the property from having an
accessory dwelling. That would be bad.
Maggie Hanson, Smith Road, stated she went through the process of developing an
accessory dwelling about ten years ago. Everything is in place to build a bigger house on
the Smith Road farm she grew up on, and retain the original house of 800 square feet so it
will become the mother -in -law house. She hopes this ordinance doesn't change what is
already in place on the map. Consider allowing more accessory dwellings.
Hearing no one else, Crawford closed the public hearing.
Brenner stated she agrees with Mr. Honcoop's point. The Council intent was to
make sure that the building is a single family home, and not turned into a duplex. This
could be interpreted to not allow an accessory dwelling unit. That would upset her. She
moved to adopt the ordinance. They need to amend the language.
Mann moved to amend section 20.97.087 for Cooking Facility, "...means a room or
portion thereof designated and /or customarily used as a place for the preparation,
sanitation and cooking of food. A second cooking facility will be allowed within a permitted
single family residence if a covenant or agreement document is signed, notarized, and
recorded with the Whatcom County Auditor acknowledging that the cooking facility shall not
be allowed as part of a separate dwelling unit theFe shall be only ene dwelling unit on the
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
property. The County may draft the covenant or agreement upon whatever terms the
County, in its discretion, deems proper." The whole point is that they don't want the second
cooking unit to be it's own separate dwelling unit.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated acknowledge
only one single family dwelling unit. The context of this conversation is a second cooking
facility within a single family dwelling unit. It doesn't talk about the accessory dwelling unit
at all. Just add 'single- family" to the language, and leave the rest as it is.
Brenner stated it can still be interpreted to allow only one single - family dwelling unit
on the property. Acknowledge that the second cooking facility is still part of a single - family
dwelling unit. Stalheim stated the context of that definition is about that cooking facility in
a single - family dwelling unit. It is not in the context of anything else.
Brenner stated delete the words "on the property." Otherwise, it could be
interpreted to not allow an accessory unit.
Mann amended his motion and moved to amend section 20.97.087 for Cooking
Facility, "...recorded with the Whatcom County Auditor acknowledging that the cooking
facility shall not be allowed as part of a separate dwelling unit there shall be enly ene
dwelling unit en the pFepeFty. The County...."
Knutzen stated the purpose is to avoid apartment units in the county, while
accommodating people who want to take in aging family members. Director Stalheim's
suggestion accomplishes that purpose.
Mann stated this particular cooking facility will not be allowed as part of a separate
dwelling unit. If there is a permitted accessory apartment, that is a separate part of the
code and it would not be affected.
Stalheim suggested language to amend section 20.97.087 for Cooking Facility,
"...recorded with the Whatcom County Auditor acknowledging that the second cooking
facility is permitted only as part of the single - family dwelling
dwe"Ong unit en the pr-epeFty. The County...."
Mann withdrew his amendment and moved to amend section 20.97.087 for
Cooking Facility, '...recorded with the Whatcom County Auditor acknowledging that the
second cooking facility is permitted only as part of the single - family residence theFe shall be
enly one dwelling unit en the pFepefty. The County...."
The motion to amend carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
The motion to adopt as amended carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
53
CONSENT AGENDA
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through 11, including the replacement pages
submitted before Committee.
Brenner withdrew Consent Agenda item two.
The motion to approve Consent Agenda items one and three through 11 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
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND ACS - ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS
FOR AN UPGRADE OF THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE RECORDING SYSTEM TO
ALLOW FOR MAP IMAGES ON THE INTERNET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,000
(AB2010 -127)
2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CARLETTI ARCHITECTS FOR
THE FINAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE HOVANDER MAINTENANCE
FACILITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $53,025 (AB2010 -128)
Mann reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve the request.
Brenner stated she is against the project, which will cost about $500,000. Even
though the Council already approved the project, the councilmembers can change their
minds. Councilmembers aren't obligated to do this. The money can be used for planning,
acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or
improvement of roads, highways, bridges, domestic water systems, and storm and sanitary
water systems. Some of these things are critical and a higher priority. Deal with this
through the County budget process, not a budget amendment. See it in the context of all
the other higher - priority items. Don't fund this at this time. The real estate excise tax
(REET) fund is finite. They will run out of money and still have extremely urgent projects
that must be done. This isn't urgent.
Mann stated he agreed and voted against the funding for the facility. That facility
funding and contract is already done. This contract is to finish the final design. They can't
build it without this step. The Council voted to build this, even though the didn't vote for it.
He will vote for the design, because he wants the drawings to be correct, so they build a
good building.
Brenner stated nothing has been done yet. The Council gave general approval. She
hadn't mentioned all the things that this money could be used for. The Council can not
approve the project at this point. Compromise by tabling this project until this summer,
when the Council can discuss it in context of the budget.
Crawford stated this is part of a long -term effort to consolidate maintenance
operations in the Parks Department, by locating them in a geographic area that will be more
efficient for the Parks Department, and address the needs of the greater majority of the
Whatcom County citizens. It also allows them to continue to surplus the Mt. Baker Highway
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
facility for the Parks Department. The taxpayers will see a benefit. He appreciates the
administration's effort to look into the future and make this government operate as
efficiently as possible. This is a step toward that efficiency.
Brenner stated that Mt. Baker Highway property can be go into surplus with or
without this building. The County will never have enough money for the things it must do.
This is not urgent. People will demand stormwater fixes.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (6)
Nays: Brenner (1)
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FERNDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR THE PROVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN THE
DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,500 (AB2010 -129)
4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND BELLINGHAM SCHOOL
DISTRICT FOR THE PROVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES WITHIN
THE DISTRICT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,500 (AB2010 -130)
S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CANTRELL COUNSELING FOR
THE PROVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SERVICES TO WHATCOM
COUNTY RESIDENTS WHO HAVE NO OTHER READILY AVAILABLE SOURCE OF
FUNDING (AB2010 -131)
6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
NOTICE OF GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY,
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, AND US FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF LILY POINT MARINE
PARK (AB2010 -132)
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A LEASE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND FREEDOM 2000 (DBA
CANDO RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL) FOR OPERATION OF THE POINT
ROBERTS LANDFILL FACILITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $750.00 PER MONTH
(AB2010 -133)
S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS RELATED TO FEMA PROJECT ON FRAGRANCE
ROAD (LARRABEE STATE PARK), IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$36,460.80 (AB2010 -135)
9. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
BELLINGHAM FOR OPERATION OF THE LAKEWAY YARD WASTE FACILITY IN
THE AMENDED AMOUNT OF $55,000, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF
$185,000 (AB2010 -136)
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
53
10. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PURCHASE FROM
VENDOR OM WORKSPACE THROUGH KCDA CONTRACT, ADDITIONAL
CUBICLES AND MOVING SERVICES TO RELOCATE PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING WORKSTATIONS FROM UNITY STREET TO THE CIVIC CENTER
BUILDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,385.95 (AB2010 -137)
11. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ACCEPT ALL BIDS FOR
ANNUAL SUPPLY OF ROCK, GRAVEL AND SOIL FOR USE AS NEEDED FOR
VARIOUS COUNTY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS, AND SELECT THE
APPROPRIATE VENDOR AS DICTATED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF
EACH PARTICULAR JOB, IN AN AMOUNT TO EXCEED $35,000 (AB2010 -138)
OTHER ITEMS
1. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, FILED BY MAYFLOWER EQUITIES, INC.
FOR "MONTEREY HEIGHTS" (PUD2007- 0001), PRELIMINARY LONG
SUBDIVISION (LSS2005 -0004) (AB2010 -122)
Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
approve the planned unit development.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
2. RESOLUTION INITIATING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS FOR 2010 (AB2010 -113A)
Knutzen reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
approve the resolution with changes that include:
• Deleting 2009 -H regarding lot consolidation
• Deleting all but the last sentence of the description on Council packet page 294 for
2008 -G regarding the agricultural program update
• Adding File # PLN 2010 -0009 regarding Council initiation of Zoning Amendments
• Adding File # PLN 2010 -0010 regarding the rezone from R10A to R5A in Birch Bay
Weimer asked about language regarding Harbor Shores. When this came forward
during the urban growth area (UGA) discussion in November, there was discussion that it
was already approved for sewer. He asked if the sewer is really approved and who will be
the sewer provider. He asked if these lots would be developed with septic instead of sewer
since the lots have already been created.
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the lots were
created quite a few years ago. They are legal lots of record. Mr. Jansen secured shoreline
and other zoning conditional use permits to extend water and sewer to this property from
the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District. They also have active discussion with the City of
Blaine to annex into the city of Blaine, which requires it to be in the UGA, pursuant to State
law.
Weimer stated this is a critical marine resource area. He asked if they really want
more houses in this area, and if these lots will not be built if the Council turns this down.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
Stalheim stated he's not sure the houses will be prevented from being built. They are legal
lots of record. The County will have to find a way to accommodate reasonable use of those
lots. The lots can be sold to individual owners. The applicant explored the option of
community drain field systems. The property has quite a few wetlands. The effort to get to
a reasonable use would cause more impact on the wetlands than having a public sewer.
Weimer asked if reasonable use applied to septic approval. Stalheim stated there
has to be some economic use of the property. To get to some of those results, there will be
some development there. It may not be the same level of intense development. They
applicant went through quite a few scenarios of how that could happen and the impacts.
The applicant is going to the Hearing Examiner with a developer agreement to work on a
coordinated strategy for this property and for wetland mitigation purposes. They are
working on addressing the concerns on the entire property as a whole, not the individual
lots. From everything they've seen so far, that is more responsible than trying to sell it off
individually.
Crawford asked about adding UGA components to the docket, particularly the
applications of folks such as Caitac. The fees are not an issue with Caitac. They are willing
to pay the fees. He asked the difference between saying they are going to deal with this
through a settlement and docketing. It doesn't make a lot of difference. The Council's will
is clear that it would like another look. His efforts the last two months have in trying to
work with the administration to use the County's resources the best way possible. He made
it clear to everyone on December 31, 2009 that the Council needs to take another look at
the UGA's. He's torn. The applicants feel like there is a big difference whether or not the
Council dockets these items. He's explained to the applicant that he doesn't think there is a
difference. The desire of the Council to take another look at UGA's has been well- expressed
over the last month or so. They are walking away from docketing it. He's trying to figure
out the difference, and whether the Council should or should not docket it. He asked the
meaning of docketing at this point. Stalheim stated the docketing concept is to amend the
Comprehensive Plan only once per year. Most jurisdictions came up with a process to do
that docket. However, the County can go outside that process under settlement
negotiations on appeal in front of the Hearings Board. The docket can be amended through
settlement discussions. If settlement discussions fail, the County would carry forward
regardless if those items were on the docket.
Crawford stated he's undecided. There is a compelling concern of those who feel
affected by this, including the cities and landowners. He has felt that the administration has
gone to great lengths in the last several years to work with the Council to give clear policy
direction in a way that allocates the appropriate level of resources at the Planning and
Development Services Department with a means of prioritizing projects. There are so many
things they would like to do, but they have limited resources. He hates to hand to the
administration a docket that includes everything but the kitchen sink. He has to think about
it.
Brenner stated the difference is that it gets finalized this year or next year. It's
expensive for the small cities to wait an extra year. Most or all have done their work. It's
not a big step to tweak certain things.
Knutzen stated they can pick up docket items if necessary after the settlement
meeting. They are giving the small cities and landowners time to converse with the County
and negotiate a settlement. He is in favor of settlement discussions.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
Brenner asked if it makes a difference this year for the small cities if it is docketed
now or later. Stalheim stated it doesn't change the end result. The earlier they have that
conversation and direction, the easier it will be. The challenge is that annual amendments
have to be done through the Council by February of next year. If they want to do any of
this stuff, staff has to get going on it. Some of them may have to go through the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission agenda for the year is almost full. If it has already
gone through the Planning Commission, it wouldn't have to go there again.
Nelson stated the idea of docketing is to provide concurrency and the idea they are
working on the whole picture. Many of these have already gone through the Planning
Commission. He would rather see everything together, including new proposals that come
forward.
Crawford stated he would like to go into the settlement meeting with a strong and
persuasive message of believing in the self- determination of these cities, that adequate
urban growth areas are important to the concept of good planning, that they intend to look
closely at these things so that legal counsel can face inevitable legal challenges, that they've
created a process, and that the whole community agrees, so the Council is doing what the
community wants to see. He understands the dilemma they have. There is a legal
conundrum for these folks. Once the ordinance was adopted, they entered into a realm of
legal response rather than political or legislative action.
Kershner asked what the settlement process will eventually yield. She wants to
make sure that some of these petitioners have a some resolution sooner rather than later.
She doesn't know if docketing will be that answer.
Brenner stated that according to Mr. Stalheim, anything that the Council will get into
the settlement process about has already been through the Planning Commission. If
something isn't settled, it can be docketed and not have to go through the Planning
Commission.
Kershner asked if some of these cities and petitioners will not have to wait until the
2011 update, and if the Council will have an opportunity to make some changes if it decides
it is appropriate. Stalheim stated that any changes have to have an ordinance and go
through the public hearing. He doesn't believe there has been a specific proposal subject to
hearing from Caitac before the Planning Commission. There has never been a specific map
or zoning amendments for that proposal before the Planning Commission. Everything other
proposal has already been subject to some sort of direct review by the Planning
Commission. Those proposals don't have to go back through the Planning Commission
process.
Crawford stated there is a tremendous feeling among the folks who have appealed
that docketing is extremely significant to this process. It's a particularly strong feeling from
the private landowners. They believe the Council is making a serious mistake by not
docketing. He wants to make sure the Council has clearly vetted that concern before they
finalize this docket.
Nelson stated he would much rather all these issues go forward to concurrency. All
the docket items should be together, whether or not they go to mediation.
Kershner moved to amend to include Caitac in the docket in 2010.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
53
Karen Frakes, Prosecutors Office, stated she doesn't understand why the landowners
feel the need to be docketed. Clearly, when they have filed appeals and the County is in
the process of pursuing settlement, the County can consider those things outside the docket
process. The County can address anyone who files an appeal, including Caitac, without
them being on the docket.
Brenner stated that even if docketed, Caitac will have to go through the Planning
Commission if there is no settlement. All the rest can come straight to Council. That's the
case whether or not it's docketed. Leave it as it is and work on the settlement.
Mann stated he agrees with Councilmember Brenner. They've talked about this a lot.
Knutzen stated it is not fair to add some applicants and not others. The County is
asking them to negotiate with the Council in good faith, knowing they aren't on the docket.
Either add all to the docket and remove them later, or add none and add them to the docket
after settlement negotiations.
Nelson stated whether or not the cities and landowners are on the docket will have
an effect on the settlement negotiation. Add them all to the docket, and go through the
mediation process to determine what stays on the docket.
Weimer stated he agrees with Councilmember Knutzen. It may not make a lot of
difference. The Council can do whatever they want between now and June, as they have
the settlement discussions. Leaving them off the docket as they go into discussions makes
more sense than having some of them on the docket. It makes more sense to leave them
all off the docket now. As they move forward, they can add proposals.
Nelson suggested a friendly amendment to add all Comprehensive Plan
amendments and 2010 suggested zoning amendments to the docket.
Kershner accepted the friendly amendment.
Stalheim stated not all UGA petitions are on the docket list. The Cities of Sumas and
Nooksack don't have applications. The only application they have is from Councilmember
Crawford for Ferndale. They have private petitions for the UGA's, but not all of them are on
the docket list, either. When they add these, they still have not added everything, because
no one applied for those as private amendments. By adding them, they really aren't adding
everything.
Weimer stated that's why they should all be left off the docket.
Nelson withdrew his suggested friendly amendment.
Kershner withdrew her amendment.
The motion to approve the resolution carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Brenner stated someone mentioned that the Council has been having secret
settlement meetings. She hasn't been at them. She would like to know. That bothered
her.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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 two of the private landowner attorneys requested to meet with the
Council's legal counsel. He and Council Policy Analyst Rebecca Craven sat in on meetings
with the Caitac and Trillium attorneys. They each proposed a settlement that favored their
development. They sat and listened, said thank you,' and that was the end of the
meetings. Councilmember Brenner maybe didn't get a copy of the proposed settlement
agreements. He can provide that information. It is appropriate for their attorneys to
contact the Council's legal counsel and have that discussion.
Brenner stated she wasn't a part of any secret settlement stuff.
Crawford stated there was no discussion about settlement.
Nelson stated a settlement could not occur without the Council. A meeting does not
constitute Council action.
Crawford stated he made it clear that the Council intends to have this an entirely
public process. He credits Councilmember Knutzen for saying this needs to be kept open
and public. That was in response to a lot of information the Council gets almost daily from
many appellants and attorneys on many issues. During the summit meeting, everyone will
have equal time around the table. He suggests allocating time for all the appellants to
present their important points. Those settlement discussions occur on the record with the
public. There is no backroom wheeling and dealing. Once the Council crafts an ordinance,
it will go through a public process also. The process will be very inclusive. A meeting of the
attorneys doesn't constitute a settlement meeting.
Nelson stated it would be helpful if the councilmembers are notified of these
meetings and their agenda. He didn't know about it until after the fact.
Crawford stated the attorneys requested some time with Karen Frakes, who informed
him and Ms. Craven. They agreed to sit down and listen to what the attorneys had to say.
No one from the Council said anything in those meetings that offered anything. The
attorneys wanted to talk about the legal framework for settlement, but it wasn't a
negotiation.
3. APPOINTMENT TO FILL A WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DISTRICT 2 VACANCY (PARTIAL TERM ENDING 12/31/2012) — APPLICANTS
NOMINATED AT THE FEBRUARY 23, 2010, COUNCIL MEETING ARE:
RICHARD BANEL, DONALD KNUTZEN, MARY KAY ROBINSON, MARY BETH
TEIGROB, SCOTT THOMPSON, AND TERRY SHILEY (AB2010 -053)
Crawford stated the Council made nominations at its previous meeting.
Knutzen voted for Mary Beth Teigrob.
Kershner voted for Teigrob.
Nelson voted for Mary Kay Robinson.
Mann voted for Scott Thompson.
Crawford voted for Teigrob.
Weimer voted for Thompson.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
53
Brenner voted for Richard Banel.
Nelson moved to take another vote for the top two vote - getters, Teigrob and
Thompson.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
Knutzen voted for Teigrob.
Kershner voted for Teigrob.
Nelson voted for Teigrob.
Mann voted for Thompson.
Crawford voted for Teigrob.
Weimer voted for Thompson.
Brenner voted for Thompson.
The Council appointed Mary Beth Teigrob.
4. CONFIRMATION OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF JOHN
STEENSMA TO THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE (AB2010 -139)
Mann moved to confirm the appointment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
5. REPORT ON PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES AND EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER
AUTHORITY OF THREE (3) PROCLAMATIONS OF EMERGENCY (WRITTEN
REPORT ONLY) (AB2010 -140)
Nelson moved to accept the report.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
6. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM'S GOOGLE FIBER FOR
COMMUNITIES SUBMITTAL (AB2010 -144)
Mann reported on the project and moved to approve the revised resolution. If
Google invests in the City, it would be an awesome opportunity for the City. The future is
going to be high speed internet. Everything will happen digitally at high speed. If Google
invests in the community in 2010, it can set the stage for job growth and economic
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
development for a very long time. Bellingham is part of Whatcom County. Support this
effort.
Nelson stated this is an example of a private - public partnerships that make sense.
He supports the resolution. He is concerned about any potential costs to the community.
Also, the federal government is trying to get high speed internet access across the nation
for these same reasons. Unfortunately, they want to put about $60 billion into it. By the
time it is done, there will be new technology.
Crawford stated the federal project is to provide broadband access to all parts of the
country. Google proposes to increase the broadband network speed by 100 times.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS RELATED TO FEMA PROJECT ON CLEATOR
ROAD (LARRABEE STATE PARK), IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$106,440 (AB2010 -146)
Nelson moved to approve the agreement.
Brenner asked if there are any strings attached.
Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, these are not County roads, so the
County doesn't maintain them. They are asking for assistance to do their Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)- related repairs on their roads. There are no
strings attached.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS RELATED TO FEMA PROJECT ON CLEATOR ROAD
(LARRABEE STATE PARK), IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $69,232.80
(AB2010 -147)
Nelson 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)
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Mann moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, 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
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Nelson, Crawford, Brenner, Weimer, Knutzen, Mann and Kershner (7)
Nays: None (0)
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID &
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (AB2010 -141)
2. RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF PORTAL WAY (AB2009 -406A)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2010 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, EIGHTH
REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $462,943 (AB2010 -142)
OTHER BUSINESS
Mann asked what happened to the discussion about limited areas of more intense
rural development (LAMIRDS).
David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated
they are ready to go when they get the Council go- ahead. He suggests two Committee of
the Whole meetings of two hours apiece to review the Planning Commission
recommendations and statute, then have a public hearing on the Planning Commission
recommendation, and then start working on any alternatives. Staff is ready to go.
Crawford stated community members are advocating for a two -year extension of plat
approval on vesting plat applications. They need to put together an ordinance. Stalheim
stated the LAMIRD discussion is complicated, and will take the Council's attention for a block
of time, with no other items on the agenda. He recommends getting the councilmembers
up to speed at these two meetings, so they have background when the public comes
forward to speak.
Mann stated all councilmembers should attend those two meetings.
Brenner stated schedule those two meetings as special Committee of the Whole
meetings, not on regular Council meeting days.
Crawford stated he doesn't agree. Schedule it in a regular Planning Committee
meeting.
Knutzen asked if these meetings should be scheduled before or after the UGA
settlement meetings. Stalheim stated schedule it after that settlement meetings. Be able
to focus solely on the LAMIRDs.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Knutzen stated he and Councilmember Mann participated in Operation Homeless
Connect. It was very well -run and gave him a new appreciation of the homeless in the
community. It's alarming how many are recently homeless or just hanging on. The
community is hurting. Anything they do to help is good.
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Kershner stated she attended the Bellingham International Airport Advisory
Committee. The airport will be closed September 1 through September 21 for runway
expansion. Also, she is a member of the Community Development and Advisory Board for
the City of Bellingham. They distribute federal funding to community organizations and will
look at the potential duplication of efforts and funding gaps amongst all the incoming funds.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on April 27 , 2010.
1
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
zj 360 - 676 -6690 or council4o.whatcom.wa.us
Whatcom County Council, 3/16/2010, Page 17