HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil February 24 20091
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
February 24, 2009
Council Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Bob Kelly
Sam Crawford
Carl Weimer
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
FLAG SALUTE
MINUTES
Absent:
None
1. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER 9, 2008
Brenner moved to approve the minutes.
Motion carried 7 -0.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS FOR THE
FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT (AB2009 -018)
(Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion
of the meeting.)
Fleetwood moved to authorize the County Executive, acting on behalf of the
Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with
acquisition of two properties on Jones Creek, as long as the purchase price of each parcel
does not exceed the amount discussed in executive session.
Motion carried 7 -0.
Fleetwood moved to authorize the County Executive, acting on behalf of the
Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District Board of Supervisors, to move forward with
and complete acquisition of two properties in Marietta, as long as the purchase price of each
parcel does not exceed the amount discussed in executive session.
Motion carried 7 -0.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 1
1 OPEN SESSION
2
3 The following people spoke:
4
5 Kara Black, A Closer Look Travel Agency Owner, stated she wants to put in an eco-
6 lodge on 80 acres. She described an eco- lodge. The neighbors in the area support her
7 project. The zone is rural, one unit per ten acres (R10A). The parcel could be split up into
8 eight different parcels. At the County pre- application conference, the project was put into
9 the most restrictive commercial classification. There were extraordinarily expensive
10 requirements that make the project not feasible. Consider the scale of business when
11 making requirements. She would have been required to widen the roadway, a 90,000-
12 gallon tank of water with a high speed pump system and hydrant. She was also required to
13 install a very expensive sprinkler in a barn, not just the buildings. The project became too
14 expensive. This kind of code promotes really big developments. Those are the only ones
15 that can afford to pay those costs.
16
17 Larry Helm, 2660 E 41St Terrace, Squalicum Valley Community Association Vice -
18 President, stated the February storm damaged roads and made them impassable. Whatcom
19 County road maintenance staff responded quickly, worked around the clock, involved and
20 responded to neighbors, and did an excellent job in his neighborhood. The Association
21 wanted to thank them publicly.
22
23 Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Executive Director,
24 stated he supports the ordinance staying pro- active enforcement of Whatcom County
25 Code Section 24.05, On -Site Sewage System Regulations, in cases where property -
26 owners are otherwise not transferring title or conveying real estate (AB2009-
27 135). It .recognizes the unnecessary burdens on citizens and staff from the onsite sewage
28 system regulations adopted last November. This ordinance balances the needs of the
29 environment with the needs of the people.
30
31 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, stated he is outraged that today's Planning and
32 Development Committee voted against the Planning Commission's recommended 220,000
33 population projection in the environmental impact statement (EIS), without any public
34 input. The goal was to have the number in the EIS so they can plot from the low number to
35 the high number. Citizens have repeatedly expressed concern about the growth rate in the
36 County. This action disregards those concerns. It will create higher tax bills for everyone.
37 Bellingham won't continue to grow. They don't have to make the urban growth areas (UGA)
38 or cities smaller. The goal is to see what people want. Plan for the lowest cost possible.
39 Reinstate the 220,000 projection. The County Council must have a public hearing if it goes
40 against the Planning Commission recommendation.
41
42 Bruce Deila, citizen, stated the number of hotels that require a credit card in
43 Bellingham is because of a letter he submitted to the attorney general. He read from the
44 letter. Now he's learned that more than one hotel accepts cash. The Chamber of
45 Commerce should notify the motels and let them know, so they don't give out false
46 information. He will begin a petition process to get the City Council and County Council to
47 enact a law that prohibits motels from requiring a credit card. They don't need to prohibit
48 access to shelter.
49
50 Brenner stated this is a State issue. States are allowed to make more restrictive
51 ordinances than the federal government. The federal government does allow a proprietor to
52 accept whatever kind of currency they want. When Mr. Deila was here last time, she
53 provided him with the name of Greg Winters from the Homeless Project at the Opportunity
54 Council. Mr. Winters has a vast list of places all over Bellingham and Whatcom County. Mr.
55 Deila is welcome to give Mr. Winters a call for that list. Those places exist.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 2
1
2 Ellen Baker, 9945 Mt. Baker Highway, Glacier, stated keep in mind the roles of the
3 two advisory committees regarding the Columbia Valley as an urban growth area (UGA) or
4 limited area of more intense rural development ( LAMIRD). The subarea plan advisory
5 committee only looked at the picture from a very narrow perspective. The Planning
6 Commission reviewed the matter from a wider, countywide perspective. She supports the
7 Planning Commission recommendation.
8
9 Jan Eskola, Glacier, stated it was mentioned that the Council should only take
10 comments from Columbia Valley residents on the UGA or LAMIRD issue. However, what
11 happens in the Columbia Valley has huge impacts on the entire Foothills area. All Foothills
12 residents have a stake in this issue. She supports the Planning Commission
13 recommendation. The Council should read the minority report to the draft Foothills subarea
14 plan.
15
16 Trist Shirley, Futurewise, stated reinsert the Office of Financial Management (OFM)
17 low projection number. The committee recommendation contains a range of population
18 numbers. The EIS should contain a range of options. No public input was involved in
19 selecting the population projection of 258,000. He recommends the County start with a low
20 UGA population projection, monitor the population, and adjust it later if necessary. To
21 begin, assume they will expand at the OFM minimum rate, and size the UGAs accordingly.
22 That will provide an adequate land supply until 2017, even if they expand at the much
23 faster minimum rate.
24
25 Chet Dow, 5491 Woodfern Way, stated he supports the ordinance staying pro -
26 active enforcement of Whatcom County Code Section 24.05, On -Site Sewage
27 System Regulations, in cases where property- owners are otherwise not
28 transferring title or conveying real estate (AB2009 -135). Most people can take care
29 of their own systems. The Council should have a public hearing on this item.
30
31 John Lesow, 317 Madrona Place, stated long -range planning. He is concerned that
32 they've moved away from long -range planning and toward trend management. Planning
33 has been turned over to consultants. The historical average population growth over the
34 past 100 years would result in a population projection of 220,000. However, they are
35 projecting for the next 20 years with an eight- to ten -year window. That's irresponsible. It
36 will impact the environment and agriculture. Reconsider the OFM minimum population
37 projection of 220,000.
38
39 Jason Reimer, 9951 Peace Road, Blaine, stated the Council should have a public
40 hearing on the ordinance staying pro- active enforcement of Whatcom County Code
41 Section 24.05, On -Site Sewage System Regulations, in cases where property -
42 owners are otherwise not transferring title or conveying real estate (AB2009-
43 135). The onsite sewage regulations the County enacted effectively asks people to give up
44 their Fourth Amendment right to not have an unreasonable search. Reconsider the
45 enforcement aspect of the regulations.
46
47 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he supports Executive Kremen's
48 position regarding the Terraquarium. Regarding the population projection, the Council
49 should choose the middle number.
50
51 PUBLIC HEARINGS
52
53 1. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND INTENTION TO
54 ADOPT THE FEBRUARY 10, 2009 AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY
55 CODE, TITLE 23 — SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2008 -303C)
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
-AND-
la. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IN ITS ENTIRETY (ALL EXHIBITS
INCLUDED) (APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ON AUGUST 8,
2008)
Crawford asked for an explanation of the process.
Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report and
read from a presentation (on file). A property is nonconforming if it cannot meet the buffer
requirements of 100 or 150 feet and still provide a 2,500 square foot building area outside
the buffer. The buffers have been in effect since 2005. They are not new. These
amendments are an attempt to address building within those buffers.
The public was very concerned about language regarding a home that is destroyed
due to casualty. A structure can be replaced in -kind if not in a hazardous area, which is
defined. This is consistent with previous shoreline management programs and other
building codes. He showed slides of potential lot development options. Incentives will
reduce impacts to shorelines with smaller footprints and lower growth. The alternative is a
conditional use permit, which is still an option. Traditional permitting processes are still
options. This is an alternative.
Nelson asked if the limit of 2,500 square feet applies outside the buffer. Gill stated
the 2,500 square foot limit applies only to the buffer area.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Gill continued to read the presentation regarding next steps. After tonight's public
hearing, they will make modifications. The Council can vote on and approve the
amendments in upcoming meetings. At that point, these amendments are forwarded to the
State for review. The State will review and comment on the amendments. Then, the
County will begin negotiations with the State before adopting any amendments. This could
take months.
Crawford stated the County submitted the current Shoreline Management Plan that
the State Department of Ecology and the County have agreed to. It's got all those
regulations in place, including the 150 -foot setback. Everything just presented is a proposal
to Ecology to make some of the restrictions more flexible, depending on a person's
situation. He hasn't heard that anything proposed tonight is more restrictive than what is
currently the law that is in place now. Gill stated that is correct.
Crawford asked the difference between this resolution and the ordinance scheduled
for later during this meeting. Gill stated this resolution forwards these amendments to
Ecology for review. The ordinance codifies the existing code.
Crawford asked how they are enforcing the regulations if they haven't been codified.
Caskey- Schreiber stated State law trumps County law.
Gill stated it gets into legal issues with State law and who is actually responsible.
Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated that when the Department of Ecology set a
letter to the County on August 8 approving the plan, the law went into effect as a State law.
To enforce the regulation, the County technically does not need to adopt an ordinance. It is
the desire of staff to have it on the County books to be acceptable as a local ordinance. It
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 4
1 becomes a law pursuant to State law. It doesn't have to be enacted as a local law. They
2 adopt the regulation to have it codified.
3
4 Brenner asked the definition of "in kind." Gill stated it means within the footprint of
5 the existing structure.
6
7 Brenner stated there was a court case since these buffers were adopted in 2005 that
8 questions a one - size - fits -all buffer. Frakes stated they are currently in litigation on that
9 very issue. It is County opinion that the case does not affect the validity of the adopted
10 Shoreline Plan.
11
12 Brenner stated the County began using the term `nonconforming' instead of
13 `grandfathered.' The term nonconforming' is more negative. She asked if the term
14 `grandfathered' is a legal term. Gill state the old Shoreline Program also used the term
15 `nonconforming.'
16
17 Barry Wenger, State Department of Ecology, stated he will comment on the size and
18 origin of buffers and the role of the State in shoreline permits. It was always the intent to
19 allow someone to rebuild a home in the same location if it burns down. He supports
20 clarifying that and other changes.
21
22 Regarding buffer sizes, they went through a long process with a citizen advisory
23 committee and a technical advisory committee. They went through many scientific studies,
24 defined the shoreline functions they want to protect, and identified the shoreline distance it
25 would take to preserve those functions. That's how they came up with the buffer distances.
26
27 He submitted information (on file) and state the County rewrote the Master Program
28 in 1993. It took six years. At that time, they needed more flexibility in the setbacks. A
29 person who already had a house and who wanted to expand the house had to get a
30 variance. To get a variance, a person had to show a hardship. That's difficult to do if
31 someone is already living in a house. He talked his agency into using the conditional use
32 process for adding height, building away from the water, or building on the sides of the
33 structure. It doesn't allow building toward the water when already in the buffer. That
34 provides a little oversight and much more flexibility. It doesn't require a hardship
35 determination. That has worked really well for 16 years in this County, and statewide. He
36 read the handout on the conditional use statistics for Whatcom County residences.
37
38 Fleetwood opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke.
39
40 Larry Blanchard, 4131 Saltspring Drive, Ferndale, stated the County violated State
41 law by closing public comment and input in 2008 before making a decision. The County
42 intends to reverse development and turn all shorelines back into their state before people
43 settled the county. The County plan is a land grab designed to prevent property owners
44 from using the buffer next to the water. The plan disregarded specific policies in State law
45 protecting property rights and Constitutional property rights.
46
47 Larry Quinlivan, 2327 Northshore Road, stated he thanks the County for the
48 Shoreline Master Program amendments. A nonconforming designation affects the value of a
49 property, even if the home was built to the codes in place at that time. That isn't fair. This
50 action seems to be an uncalled for abuse of eminent domain. Don't use the nonconforming
51 designation.
52
53 Tim Volwieler, 1050 Larrabee Avenue, Suite 104, Bellingham, stated the State is
54 trying to lay things on the Council that isn't a County Council decision. The County Council
55 is being told by the citizens to go back to the State and do things that really aren't in the
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 5
1 Council's power to do. He is in favor of variances and conditional use permits in the
2 shorelines. He is in favor of managing critical areas more stringently. Regarding the
3 setbacks, the citizens are saying that they want consistency on the one hand and flexibility
4 on the other hand. He is in favor of the 150 -foot setback as a general rule. Absent that,
5 the regulation will be vague and put the power on the individual planners. Honor the intent
6 of the original State Environmental Policy Act and management guidelines. Look to the
7 future and protect the natural environment. Don't give in to all the exceptions that
8 individual property owners have requested.
9
10 Christie Lysne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated she speaks for Kris Ungern at 2095
11 Northshore Road. He is concerned by the nonconforming designation of existing structures
12 on the shoreline, which conformed to the regulations in effect at the time of original
13 construction. The proposed shoreline setbacks are arbitrary and will cause problems for
14 homeowners who wish to sell, remodel, or replace structures. The other major limit is the
15 2,500 square foot footprint limit. New rules for private docks impose arbitrary limits on the
16 walkway, widths, and lengths. The proposed rules have a one - size - fits -all approach with
17 arbitrary rules. Allow flexibility. Variances and conditional use permits are difficult to get.
18
19 Gary Lynne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated Councilmembers didn't read or
20 understand what they read when passing the regulation in 2008. The biggest
21 nonconforming landowner is Whatcom County, which has miles of County roads around the
22 shorelines that are within those buffers. He asked what the County is going to do with its
23 nonconforming roads when they wash out and go into the lake. The real issues are sewers,
24 roads, and runoff. The cure is to replace the councilmembers who voted for this.
25
26 Jim Dickinson, 2094 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated there has been a
27 complete lack of due process. Regarding the nonconforming issue, his house, built in 1897,
28 is about 120 feet from the high water mark, is nonconforming and therefore illegal.
29 However, it's not nonconforming. He has a vested right to that place. They need to change
30 that term and let people know they have a vested right. Lot consolidation is illegal in the
31 State. It is a vested right. Define what feasible means. Decisions will be made by
32 whichever planning staff person looks at the project. It needs to be codified so everyone
33 has the same set of rules. The City of Victoria, B.C. puts out more sewage into the water
34 than everyone in Whatcom County.
35
36 Wendy Harris, Bellingham, stated she objects to the proposed amendments. The
37 proposed amendments do not comply with the County Councils directive to amend the
38 Shoreline Management Program (SMP) for purposes of clarification. The proposed
39 amendments contain substantive changes that expand the rights of shoreline property
40 owners at the expense of the public. They are exempt from current variance and
41 conditional zoning permit requirements up to 500 square feet. The public interest is not
42 being protected by limiting this exemption. Water bodies are impaired by these small,
43 incremental acts. Weakening the SMP does not prioritize the interests of all residents of the
44 state, as required under the Shoreline Management Act. Don't weaken the SMP. People put
45 in five years of hard work and compromise on the SMP. Don't override that community
46 effort to placate the interests of a few intent on forwarding a personal agenda. The
47 proposed amendments make the SMP confusing to understand. Shoreline property owners
48 are entrusted with a precious natural resource that impacts public health and safety. It has
49 been in a state of steady and increasing degradation. Shoreline property owners should be
50 held to a higher standard of care and responsibility than the general public. Extensive
51 scientific evidence supports the need for the imposition of more stringent land use
52 regulation for shoreline property, rather than more lax regulations.
53
54 Terri Temple, 2131 Lummi Shore Road, stated she purchased a house in March,
55 moved in to her house in May, and intended to add onto the house. She now finds out she
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 6
1 can't. She researched building codes and found nothing about setbacks at the time she
2 bought the house. They shouldn't be worried about her polluting. There are cars that drive
3 along the road. She lives on the reservation, and people park their cars, shell fish, and
4 party. The County Council is writing legislation without informing her. The County
5 managed to find her to tell her she owes property tax, but not to tell her the County is
6 about to devalue her property. Property values have gone down, but the County isn't
7 lowering property assessments so people will pay fewer taxes. This Council makes a lot of
8 decisions without talking to the voters. The State does override the County, but the County
9 Council wrote the shoreline management changes, not the State. This sits with the County
10 Council
11
12 Rod Johnston, 2714 South Park Drive, Bellingham, stated he adamantly opposes
13 amendments, especially the setbacks. He's not convinced that there is scientific evidence
14 that shoreline survival requires a 150 -foot setback. The amount of time it takes isn't the
15 issue. The issue is getting it right. That's important. Another issue is that they need a new
16 system for proper notification.
17
18 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
19
20 Johnston continued to state they need proper notification.
21
22 Michelle Luke, Lummi Island, submitted and read from her information (on file). The
23 Ecology piece and the private property piece are not being equally respected. The
24 amendment allowing only one remodel is crazy. The plan should be full of solutions for
25 every development stage. Use best available technology.
26
27 Mike Kent, 5631 Nakat Way, Birch Bay, stated he compliments Mr. Gill on the
28 presentation. As a realtor, he is concerned about disclosure. Clients are required to fill out
29 a statement regarding conformity. A nonconforming designation may be a cause for a bank
30 to decline to loan. He is concerned about the remodeling issue. All rules and changes
31 should be consistent. The culture at the County should be one in which staff show the
32 public how to do things correctly and accomplish their goals, rather than telling people what
33 they can't do. That is the underlying concern of most citizens. People feel too intimidated
34 to try for conditional use permits.
35
36 Nelson asked if the disclosure form specifically asks if the property is nonconforming.
37 Kent stated it talks about zoning parameters. The last question on the form asks if there is
38 any information that a potential property owner would want to know. Potential property
39 owners would want to know about this.
40
41 Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County
42 Governmental Affairs Director, stated she has several concerns. The BIA was part of a
43 stakeholder plan. One concern is that staff chose to write brand new regulations when it
44 was asked to write amendments for clarifications, including new regulations for mandatory
45 lot consolidation on shoreline parcels. Lot consolidation is a function of Title 20, not an
46 overlay regulation.
47
48 They are opposed to the setbacks that make properties nonconforming, especially
49 when the Shoreline Management Act says that single family residences are a preferred use.
50 The terms nonconforming structure' and 'nonconforming use' are blurred. She has been at
51 every shoreline meeting, and tonight is the first she's seen of a 3,600 square foot
52 regulation. They are concerned with the 2,500 square foot limit. She is concerned about
53 adopting something by ordinance, but there was never a public notice. The Council is
54 adopting regulation by resolution, and the County Charter says that resolutions don't have
55 any force of law. Take more time on these regulations.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 7
1
2 Matt Stock, The Buck Law Group attorney 2030 1St Avenue, Suite 201, Seattle,
3 stated he speaks on behalf of many clients with shoreline property. His clients are
4 frustrated that the amendment package didn't address the substantial increase in shoreline
5 setbacks. The effect will be to render just about every existing shoreline house a
6 nonconforming structure. The consequence is serious. It will complicate efforts to
7 refinance, remodel, renovate, expand, and sell these properties. The number of people who
8 apply for conditional use permits will increase, which will slow the process. The County
9 imposes significant fees for a conditional use permit or variance. Properties will be
10 devalued. There was no public notice that this would be adopted tonight. Reconsider the
11 shoreline setback width and application.
12
13 Dannon Traxlor, 709 Dupont, Bellingham, stated she speaks on behalf of many
14 shoreline property owners. There must be better notice to affected property owners. Mr.
15 Gill said these shoreline setbacks have been enforced since 2005, but they were enforced
16 via the critical areas ordinance, not the Shoreline Management Program. The Washington
17 State Supreme Court has ruled that was illegal. Don't have a blanket, one - size - fits -all
18 setback, because it doesn't meet the legally- required proportionality test, and science
19 doesn't support it. Critical areas within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act
20 are governed only by the Shoreline Management Act. The Council had asked staff to work
21 with the State Department of Ecology (DOE) and get input on the legality of the setbacks.
22 She would like to see the outcome of that conversation.
23
24 Ron Jepson, citizen, stated he is an engineer and waterfront property owner.
25 Setbacks sound as if they are for an industry, not a house. The real issue is the setbacks.
26 The setback for saltwater is greater than that for potable water. The wider the lot, the
27 farther back one is forced. The drainfield can be in the buffer, but not the house. There are
28 many inconsistencies triggered by those excessive setbacks. No one who has a vested
29 interest was able to fight for the property rights.
30
31 Perry Eskridge, Whatcom County Association of Realtors, stated he received no
32 notice of the proposed amendments. The regulations need to be reasonable. The language
33 still exists about replacing a destroyed structure if there is no feasible alternative. DOE says
34 it's clarified, but it's not clarified. Subsection (f) says that an owner must meet both
35 conditions.
36
37 He is opposed to the limit to allow only one remodel. He opposes the 2,500 square
38 foot building footprint limit. That size should be the minimum footprint, not the maximum
39 footprint. Private property ownership is a fundamental right in the United States.
40 Regulations must be reasonable. There should be a connection to the purpose. Staff didn't
41 clarify the issues. More work needs to be done.
42
43 Wendy Steffensen, ReSources North Sound Bay Keeper, stated she is an advocate
44 and educator for marine water and fresh water. The 'if feasible' language now applies only
45 to uses other than single family residences. It's untrue that one can't build a home on a
46 nonconforming lot. The 2,500 square foot footprint is what is allowed without a variance or
47 conditional use permit on a nonconforming lot. To build more, one can get a conditional use
48 permit or variance. According to County staff, the County received 10 to 20 conditional use
49 and variance requests over the past two and a half to three years. Of those, four have been
50 denied. County staff does help people to mold their projects so they don't need a
51 conditional use permit or variance. She understands the desire to be flexible, but they must
52 protect the shoreline.
53
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 8
1 Don Wines, 2219 N. Nugent, Lummi Island, stated he is concerned about the size of
2 the buffers. A one - size - fits -all buffer doesn't work. His shoreline is sandstone, and will be
3 there for a thousand years.
4
5 Laura Lee Brakke, 585 Pleasant Bay, stated regulations are written to carry out the
6 intent of the law. The intent of the Shoreline Management Act, passed in 1971, is in
7 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58 and is to protect and preserve the shorelines in
8 the State. The interest of all people is paramount in the management of shorelines of
9 statewide significance. She read the RCW. People must read the law and applicable
10 regulations before they buy land. Living on the water can come with many benefits, and it
11 also comes with more responsibility. They must protect natural resources. Non -point
12 pollution is a major contributor to the declining health of Puget Sound. Using buffers will
13 maximize the aquifer recharge area, preserving the natural mechanisms that keep water
14 clean. Eliminate the use of fertilizers and herbicides in the shoreline jurisdiction. People
15 who receive building permits in hazardous area should sign a waiver to hold harmless and
16 release from liability any County, State, or federal agency so no taxpayer money is ever
17 spent to repair or reimburse for damage to a house built knowingly in a hazardous area.
18
19 Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, submitted information (on file) and
20 described the property in the handout. The property was approved for a restaurant, but the
21 developer ended up adding 35 feet to the shoreline and built two buildings three times
22 larger than the original plan for the restaurant. The County allowed the developer access to
23 a restroom. There are things in the Shoreline Management Program, which Whatcom
24 County enforces, that do need to be looked at. Property would be worth nothing without
25 government.
26
27 Stuart Andrews, 3391 Robertson Road, stated it took him 28 years to acquire a
28 waterfront home. He endorses the private property taking. The U.S. Constitution allows
29 the public to confiscate private property via eminent domain, considering two caveats.
30 First, there must be an overwhelming public need for the property. Second, the property
31 owner should receive market, or just compensation, value for the loss. If market value is
32 too much for the public to bear, the public need may be less than overwhelming. Market
33 value is the value before public tampering, not after. Calculate the value of a 150 -foot
34 swath of residential shoreline property, and then pay it. Then reduce property taxes on the
35 property proportionally. Or, give up on the confiscation. Then it won't be theft.
36
37 Henry Forkade, 8745 Ortell Drive, Blaine, stated they just went through five years of
38 planning and building on their new home. The first two years were involved in consulting
39 with County regulators. They were told all kinds of different information. There was no one
40 single setback for all properties along the marine shore. There was a different setback from
41 the shoreline, depending on specific conditions. Mr. Chalfant told him he would not be able
42 to build a house near the bank, but he was granted a variance on the lot. The house is no
43 where near the 150 -foot setback. Now, the setbacks are more strictly enforced. People
44 receive different interpretations. The Council should do what's right for the private property
45 owners on the shorelines in their jurisdiction. The property owners are the best protectors
46 of nature.
47
48 Lori Hansen, 419 Lakeside Drive, Bellingham, stated she and people where she lives
49 are concerned about water quality. She is concerned about the attitude that people who
50 live on shorelines don't care. She asked about the science behind the reason for the
51 setbacks, and what changed.
52
53 Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Executive Director,
54 stated make sure the ordinance is clear, and that a reasonable person can understand what
55 is required. Make sure that all the regulations are applied consistently among everyone.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 9
1 Make sure that people can count on the regulations that are applied. People must be
2 certain about the regulations. Last, make sure that the regulations are legal. Avoid legal
3 entanglements. There is a problem with the 2,500 square foot limit.
4
5 Janie Earling, 3245 Mosquito Lake Road, stated she is a shoreline landowner and
6 land use consultant. She thanked Peter Gill for the presentation.
7
8 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
9
10 Earling stated she is opposed to the once - per - lifetime limitation, the mandatory lot
11 consolidation, and the lack of notification. Clarify the definition of "in- kind" and indicate
12 that it means within the same footprint. It's vague and capricious. She agrees with Ron
13 Jepson regarding lot width and impact toward the shoreline. Her house was poorly
14 constructed and needs to be rebuilt. Clarify whether she can do that.
15
16 Frank Muljat, 2565 Northshore Road, Bellingham, stated his house is 45 feet from
17 the lake, and wants to know if he would be able to rebuild his home on his original 5,000
18 square foot footprint. He asked how many variances he would need. There are many
19 questions that need to be answered.
20
21 Larry Berman, 3233 Sunset Way, stated he lives on Lummi Bay. The biggest
22 environmental shoreline problem is Mother Nature. He asked why they haven't thought
23 about grandfathering.
24
25 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated people are most worried about
26 Planning Department staff's attitude. The interpretation of these rules will change when an
27 applicant takes a lawyer. The rules can be interpreted in too many ways.
28
29 Skip Jansen, 2024 Northshore Drive, Bellingham, stated the program is good. If a
30 house burns down, it can be replaced in the same footprint. Consider people who
31 purchased lots 30 years ago and would like to build a house now the same size as their
32 neighbor. The regulations should allow them to do that. If the property is devalued, the
33 County should pay the assessed property value plus past property taxes.
34
35 Linda Smit, 992 Paradise Road, stated the primary reason for a lost salmon run is
36 due to untended salmon nets upriver, not mismanagement along the river. Landowners
37 along the shorelines take their land stewardship seriously, using best practices. She is
38 aware that some people pollute the river, which is why they need shoreline management
39 laws. Her main concern is not knowing the definition of shorelines. Definitions change. A
40 drainage ditch was changed to a fish - bearing stream, so a neighbor couldn't build a garage.
41 Don't let those definitions change over time.
42
43 Roger Almskaar, 233 S. State Street, Bellingham, submitted a handout (on file) and
44 stated he appreciates the progress on the nonconforming structure issue. The wording isn't
45 quite there yet. His main concern is with the setbacks. The text doesn't distinguish
46 between buffers and setbacks. He doesn't agree with a uniform buffer on shorelines,
47 especially in areas that are already developed to urban densities. He read from his
48 handouts. In some cases, the buffers make sense, but not in areas that are already
49 developed.
50
51 Sy Eldred, 317 W. Laurel, stated he has a lot at Sandy Point that is 160 feet deep.
52 There is a sewer system and neighboring houses. It's a developed area. There must be
53 discretion for each property. A one - size - fits -all regulation doesn't work. There must be
54 continuity in the permit department. The general public who benefit should pay the cost of
55 this, not the personal landowner.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 10
1
2 Jason Reimer, Blaine, read from a copy of the Declaration of Independence and
3 stated everyone should read it.
4
5 Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing.
6
7 Fleetwood stated they are still within the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
8 period, so the Council will not take final action on this resolution tonight. The ordinance
9 amending Whatcom County Code (WCC), Title 23, Shoreline Management Program;
10 the Official Shoreline Map and associated provisions of WCC Chapter 16.16, Critical
11 Areas, and WCC, Title 20 Zoning Ordinance to update the Whatcom County
12 Shoreline Management Program in accordance with the requirements of the
13 Washington State Shoreline Guidelines (WAC 173 -26) and other applicable local,
14 state, and federal environmental regulations (AB2008 -303) was before the County
15 Council for discussion at tonight's meeting, but the Council has been advised to simply
16 introduce that item tonight.
17
18 (Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 9:45 p.m.)
19
20
21 CONSENT AGENDA
22
23 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services committee and
24 moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through nine.
25
26 Caskey- Schreiber withdrew item one.
27
28 Brenner withdrew item two.
29
30 Motion to approve Consent Agenda Items three through nine carried 7 -0.
31
32 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A SALE
33 AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PEEPLES
34 ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE BUILDING AT 215 N.
35 COMMERCIAL STREET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,800,000 (AB2009 -119)
36
37 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services committee and
38 moved to approve the request.
39
40 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County can negotiate a lower price since the economy
41 is down.
42
43 Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated the County entered into a
44 lease purchase agreement for this property almost three years ago, and negotiated the
45 purchase price at that time. Because of the down economy, the property was recently
46 reappraised. He could provide a copy of the appraisal.
47
48 Brenner moved to hold in Committee. Bennett stated they are exercising the
49 option according to the agreement. The individual would probably not be obligated to sell
50 the property to the County if the County doesn't purchase the property at that price.
51
52 Crawford stated he doesn't recommend that. The agreement was a lease to buy.
53 The sale price was dropped to less than the appraisal price. The seller has signed the
54 contract. The decision was made at the time they decided to lease to buy.
55
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 11
1 Brenner asked if they can wait three weeks. She would like to wait to see the
2 appraisal. Bennett stated he didn't know if they can wait.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber asked how much was budgeted for this item. Bennett stated the
5 budget amount was $1.8 million. The price was negotiated three years ago.
6
7 Motion to hold in Committee carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Fleetwood
8 opposed.
9
10 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
11 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM GUARDIAN AD
12 LITEM SERVICES, LLC FOR SERVICES FOR 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF
13 $310,000 (AB2009 -120)
14
15 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services committee and
16 moved to approve the request.
17
18 Brenner stated she won't support the request. It is the same services with the
19 same people who went over the contact before. She doesn't believe that they won't go over
20 the budgeted amount. It means kids will suffer. They need a registry of people who are
21 capable of providing this service, and get as many people as they can to provide the
22 service.
23
24 Caskey- Schreiber asked why they don't have guardians ad litem on staff rather than
25 have expensive contracts.
26
27 Brad Bennett, Administrative Services Department, stated it probably won't be less
28 expensive. They've run the numbers.
29
30 Nelson stated this process has been evolving for at least six years. They've been
31 trying to start the National Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program. Deciding on
32 the program is a decision of the courts and judges. The Council must work with them.
33 They're elected, and determine how to set this up. It's not the Council's jurisdiction to
34 impose a certain process on the courts. They must work together during the budget
35 process.
36
37 Brenner stated she brought it up during the budget process.
38
39 Motion to approve carried 6 -I with Brenner opposed.
40
41 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
42 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND NW YOUTH SERVICES FOR
43 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TEEN COURT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
44 $18,500 (AB2009 -121)
45
46 4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AUTHORIZE THE
47 PURCHASE OF LIGHT BARS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT FOR SHERIFF'S
48 DEPARTMENT VEHICLES USING WASHINGTON STATE CONTRACT FROM
49 VENDOR AUTO ADDITIONS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,520.48 (AB2009-
50 122)
51
52 5. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #09 -09
53 TO LOW BIDDER, MCASPHALT INDUSTRIES, FOR DELIVERY AND SUPPLY OF
54 ASPHALTIC EMULSIONS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $950,000 (AB2009-
55 123)
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 12
1
2 6. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PURCHASE
3 LIGNOSITE FOR DUST CONTROL ON COUNTY ROADS FROM SOLE VENDOR,
4 MEENDERINCK, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 (AB2009 -124)
5
6 7. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
7 AMENDED CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND CATHOLIC
8 COMMUNITY SERVICES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN ORDER TO
9 INCREASE HOUSING CASE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY NEEDED TO HANDLE
10 INCREASED CASELOADS (IN ASSOCIATION WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
11 WHATCOM HOMELESS SERVICE CENTER) IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,094, FOR
12 A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $103,613 (AB2009 -125)
13
14 S. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
15 AMENDED CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE OPPORTUNITY
16 COUNCIL TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN ORDER TO INCREASE
17 HOUSING CASE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY NEEDED TO INCREASE CASE
18 MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM INTAKE CAPACITY (IN ASSOCIATION WITH
19 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WHATCOM HOMELESS SERVICE CENTER) IN THE
20 AMOUNT OF $20,539, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED AMOUNT OF $134,593
21 (AB2009 -126)
22
23 9. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
24 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE WASHINGTON
25 ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS AND POLICE CHIEFS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
26 SMALL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES TO AID IN COMBATING THE
27 METHAMPHETAMINE PROBLEM IN WHATCOM COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF
28 $18,804.30 (AB2009 -127)
29
30
31 OTHER ITEMS
32
33 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SECOND
34 REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,084,653 (AB2009 -113)
35
36 This item was divided and substituted with two separate items, below.
37
38 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, SECOND
39 REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $768,266 (AB2009 -113)
40
41 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance.
42
43 Weimer moved to amend the ordinance by removing the amount allocated to HDR
44 (Real Estate Excise Tax Fund 1) in the amount of $257,593. Hold that request to the next
45 meeting. He's heard from Alliance Properties that there are serious errors in the HDR
46 report. He would like to hear from Alliance Properties at the next meeting, before approving
47 the HDR request. The new budget request amount would be $510,673.
48
49 Nelson stated Alliance Properties is a proponent. He asked if Councilmember Weimer
50 has had discussions with a proponent, who said there are errors on a consultant's report,
51 and wants to hear Alliance Properties' concern with the property.
52
53 Weimer stated that's correct. He wants to hear what Alliance Property
54 representatives have to say before moving forward with the HDR contract. He is not
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 13
1 making a judgment about HDR one way, or another. Alliance Property talked with the
2 administration and got all the information in the HDR report.
3
4 Nelson asked if this report was reviewed be a separate committee.
5
6 Weimer stated the public hasn't reviewed the report at all, and they're moving
7 forward with the environmental impact statement (EIS) process.
8
9 Nelson stated he has concerns with this direction. It seems to send the message
10 with different property owners that the County may be in trouble.
11
12 Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports holding this item. She's not sure she's
13 satisfied with the amount of money they've spent and what they've gotten from them. She
14 would rather just hear outside opinions about HDR's work.
15
16 Nelson stated they are getting the opinion of a different property owner.
17
18 Crawford stated they need to hear from the County Executive about the relationship
19 with this consultant. The Council had an executive session several months ago in which the
20 jail siting committee gave a report, based on the HDR material. This is a last minute thing.
21 This item just continues the contract. He asked if the Executive objects to the Council
22 holding this item.
23
24 Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the Council can do whatever it deems
25 appropriate. He is not demanding that this move forward now. There is no harm done in
26 waiting. However, questions are raised about a proponent working behind the scenes with
27 councilmembers to do these last minute maneuvers. The Council puts itself at risk, and it
28 raising questions about appropriateness and being above board.
29
30 Kelly asked how the Council approves an expenditure for funding something that the
31 public isn't allowed to see, for reasons that none of them can understand.. He's heard
32 rumors. Some of what he's seen in executive session led him to question some of what he
33 heard from the consultant. The wetland survey seemed to be nothing more than a
34 windshield survey. It wasn't a wetland delineation. There wasn't time in executive session
35 to question that. He doesn't know how to address those questions in light of the executive
36 session requirements.
37
38 Crawford stated he will support the motion, since the County Executive said there is
39 no practical problem with the delay. He is not aware of a potential real estate transaction in
40 which individual councilmembers are apparently having discussions with one of the property
41 owners. That is cause for concern. He has not been contacted by any of the property
42 owners and has not had any discussions. It doesn't seem appropriate. They may need to
43 have another discussion with legal counsel about where they should involve councilmember
44 discussions with potential real estate sellers.
45
46 Brenner stated she wants to find out why they had to be in executive session for it.
47 She doesn't think they had to be.
48
49 Crawford stated that as soon as the Council decides on something, the value
50 increases.
51
52 Caskey- Schreiber stated they need clarification on what is appropriate to discuss
53 with someone who is pitching a project to the County. They must all be open to ideas and
54 input to try and find the best value and location for this project. They all just want to save
55 money for the taxpayers if there is an opportunity to do so. Legal counsel can look into
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 14
1 what is appropriate when a potential contractor wants to pitch a project or point out errors
2 in assumptions built into a very expensive report.
3
4 Nelson stated the report included several different site locations. If there are
5 questions about the report, the entire report should be open to the public.
6
7 Crawford stated he disagrees. The minute the top - ranked site is published, the real -
8 world cost of that site doubles. It seems unclear to the Council that the purpose of hiring a
9 third -party expert who has no vested interest in any site, and who is a proven expert in the
10 market to do this type of analysis, was the reason why they don't go out and try to find the
11 best value. The County hires the firm to do an analysis and give the Council all the facts.
12 At the time the report was presented, the Council didn't ask any question that was off the
13 table. Deciding now to go talk to individual property owners is a different way than the
14 Council approved as being a fair and independent way to come up with the best value for
15 the taxpayers.
16
17 Weimer stated he didn't contact Alliance Properties about anything talked about in
18 executive session. He didn't provide them with any information. They met with the
19 administration and were given the HDR report and all the data that HDR collected. They
20 have since used that data to verify the report. They have concerns about the data they
21 were given, and would like to share that concern with the Council before moving forward.
22
23 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
24
25 Motion to amend carried 7 -0.
26
27 Motion to adopt as amended carried 7 -0.
28
29 1A. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
30 ZONE DISTRICT BUDGET, FIRST REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $316,387
31 (AB2009 -113A)
32
33 (Clerk's Note: Council acting as the Whatcom County Flood Control Zone District
34 Board of Supervisors. Board Chair Weimer assumed the duties of the Chair for this portion
35 of the meeting.)
36
37 Weimer moved to approve the resolution.
38
39 Motion carried 7 -0.
40
41 2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
42 ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND
43 INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED
44 STEETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING
45 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY
46 TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008 -398)
47
48 Caskey- Schreiber reported for the Planning and Development Committee and
49 stated the committee recommends that the Council hold a hearing on March 17 on the two
50 versions of the ordinance. The committee discussed several items during its meeting today.
51 She reported on those items.
52
53 She moved to direct Council Policy Analyst Rebecca Craven to bring the list of
54 questions in her memo, beginning on Council packet page 201, to the Growth Management
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Coordinating Council (GMCC), as discussed today regarding the discussion regarding the
Urban Growth Areas review process (AB2009 -052).
Brenner stated it isn't appropriate to ask the Cities some of those questions in the
memo, such as whether the Cities want densities that are lower than urban and whether the
Cities would want to permit in the urban growth areas (UGA's). She doesn't support some
of the questions in the memo, even for discussion purposes.
Crawford stated he understands those concerns. However, he and Councilmember
Fleetwood can carry that intent back to the GMCC. It's strongly- needed dialog. They won't
resolve the issue, but must make sure the dialog begins. Otherwise, there won't be
coordinated planning between the County and each of the cities. The County isn't
committing to anything that is discussed.
Brenner stated the GMCC plate is full. Some of these topics are outside their realm.
Fleetwood stated they shouldn't take this memo so seriously. It's just to pose a
variety of questions that people need to consider. It isn't binding. It's harmless. He and
Councilmember Crawford can clarify that at the GMCC.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the question is before the Council, although she is
opposed to the recommendation, but she must move to approve a Planning Commission
recommendation to add a fourth alternative to the environmental impact statement (EIS) to
study a population projection of 220,000 by 2029, as discussed in committee today
regarding the review and decision on the Planning Commission's recommendations
regarding the EIS alternatives for the ten year UGA review (AB2009- 052B).
Nelson stated he doesn't support the recommendation, and staff doesn't support the
recommendation, so don't spend money on studying it.
Brenner stated it's a good idea. The economy will continue as it is, and they will
need to plan for less growth. It's at least worth looking at. It's not about what they want.
It's about reality.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's dangerous to think this is an actual option for the
county. In the last five years, there have been 14,000 new residents. With that same
trend, there could be 70,000 more residents in 20 years. This option calls for 30,000 more
residents. The risk of underestimating the population increase is too scary. It would
reverse most of the planning policies and the Birch Bay UGA and subarea plan. That's not
planning. Entertaining that unlikely option is irresponsible.
Kelly stated the white paper is an answer to the Planning Commission
recommendation, which was done because the public asked for it. The public wasn't
adequately informed about the ramifications of selecting that number. The paper is an
education tool.
Brenner stated she believes in the recommendation because it's a possible reality,
not because that's what people want. The last five years has been the biggest bubble ever,
and they won't see that again.
Crawford stated that is completely wrong. They have looked at population growth in
Whatcom County for 20 years.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 16
1 Motion failed 1 -6 with Brenner in support.
2
3 Caskey- Schreiber moved to have the consultant write a white paper on the
4 Planning Commission's fourth population projection alternative. The white paper would
5 explain why that option is not viable, as discussed in committee today regarding the review
6 and decision on the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the EIS
7 alternatives for the ten year UGA review (AB2009- 052B).
8
9 Crawford stated this is a complete waste of money. The County is out of money.
10 Another $11,000, which includes the next item, is piling more money on a very expensive
11 process. They're under a deadline. Don't support this item.
12
13 Motion failed 3 -4 with Fleetwood, Brenner, and Kelley in favor.
14
15 Caskey- Schreiber moved to add light, glare, and noise to the items to be analyzed
16 in each of the EIS alternatives, as discussed in committee today regarding the review and
17 decision on the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the EIS
18 alternatives for the ten year UGA review (AB2009- 052B).
19
20 Motion carried 4 -3 with Fleetwood, Weimer, Caskey - Schreiber, and Brenner
21 in favor.
22
23 Nelson asked how one does an EIS on those issues. He asked the criteria to use.
24
25 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated a noise study
26 could cost $30,000, and he is concerned that it would be difficult to do any. kind of noise
27 study countywide that is measurable. This is more of a qualitative analysis that talks about
28 how noise, light, and glare will be impacted as a result of growth. He doesn't know if it will
29 end up a deciding factor.
30
31 Nelson stated he is concerned about the criteria that will be applied in the urban
32 growth areas and rural areas. He agrees that they would have to spend a fortune to get
33 anything useful.
34
35 Brenner stated she disagrees. The Planning Commission was probably talking about
36 the appropriateness of things.
37
38 Caskey- Schreiber moved to otherwise approve the proposed scope of alternatives
39 presented to the Planning Commission and Council for their hearing last week, as discussed
40 in committee today regarding the review and decision on the Planning Commission's
41 recommendations regarding the EIS alternatives for the ten year UGA review
42 (AB2009- 052B).
43
44 Brenner moved to amend to scope options X and Y at a population of 251,000,
45 which is what the GMCC recommended, not at a population of 258,000. She doesn't know
46 where that number came from. Stalheim stated the population of 258,000 is the most likely
47 population for the year 2029, according to the State Office of Financial Management (OFM).
48 It affects the smaller cities because it provides a wider range for the study. It doesn't mean
49 the final recommendation will be that number. It will provide more flexibility for the
50 individual City's and their proposals. The GMCC made the recommendation of 251,000,
51 which is within the range.
52
53 Brenner withdrew her motion.
54
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 17
1 Crawford stated he is in favor of the motion. The Planning Commission spent a lot of
2 time on it, and it won't cost them anything. He appreciates the Planning Commission
3 coming up with these ideas.
4
5 Motion carried 7 -0.
6
7 3. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON UTILITIES PLANNING AND ADVISORY
8 COMMITTEE, DISTRICT 3 POSITION, APPLICANT: RICHARD MAY (AB2009-
9 116)
10
11 Weimer moved to appoint Richard May.
12
13 Motion carried 7 -0.
14
15 4. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY
16 COMMITTEE, WASTE RECYCLING INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE, APPLICANT:
17 IAIN DAVIDSON (AB2009 -117)
18
19 Brenner moved to appoint Iain Davidson.
20
21 Motion carried 7 -0.
22
23 S. RESOLUTION (JOINT) OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE
24 BELLINGHAM CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF WASHINGTON STATE SENATE
25 BILL 5344 - 2009 -10, RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EMERGENCY
26 RESPONSE SYSTEM FOR THE STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA (AB2009 -132)
27
28 Brenner asked what they are committing to in terms of cost.
29
30 Caskey- Schreiber stated the cost will be passed on to the large cargo ships.
31
32 Crawford. stated the State is currently paying for the emergency response tug.
33 Senator Rankor proposes that the owners of the oil- carrying ships or their contractors pay
34 for it. It's a funding shift from the State to the oil users.
35
36 Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the resolution.
37
38 Crawford stated he is against the resolution. They shouldn't weigh in on State
39 issues. This has nothing to do with local waters. There will be fiscal impacts to industries in
40 Whatcom County. If they are going to consider this, the Council should get input from
41 those industries.
42
43 Brenner stated they're paying for their own protective measures. That's a good
44 thing. She would be surprised if the local refineries have a problem, because they're
45 already doing this.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber moved to call the question.
48
49 Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed.
50
51 Motion to approve the resolution carried 4 -2 -1 with Crawford and Nelson
52 opposed and Brenner abstaining.
53
54 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (WCC), TITLE 23,
55 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; THE OFFICIAL SHORELINE MAP AND
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 18
1 ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF WCC CHAPTER 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS, AND
2 WCC, TITLE 20 ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE WHATCOM COUNTY
3 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
4 REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE GUIDELINES
5 (WAC 173 -26) AND OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
6 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (AB2008 -303) (PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS
7 ITEM WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008) (PLEASE SEE #6A)
8 -AND -
9 6A. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IN ITS ENTIRETY (ALL EXHIBITS
10 INCLUDED) (APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ON AUGUST 8,
11 2008)
12
13 This item was added to the Introduction Items.
14
15
16 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
17
18 Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
19
20 6. ORDINANCE STAYING PRO - ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF WHATCOM COUNTY
21 CODE SECTION 24.05, ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM REGULATIONS, IN CASES
22 WHERE PROPERTY - OWNERS ARE OTHERWISE NOT TRANSFERRING TITLE
23 OR CONVEYING REAL ESTATE (AB2009 -135)
24
25 Caskey- Schreiber moved to withdraw this item, due to added costs by staff to
26 respond to this. She won't support it if it's brought forward.
27
28 Brenner stated that the Council must make interim changes until the low- interest
29 loan program and homeowner classes are set up, or they will have to have onsite sewage
30 system (OSS) police dragging people out of their homes.
31
32 Crawford stated he wants to move this item forward. Because he wrote this
33 ordinance at the last minute, there was a question about whether the Council would reject
34 this item. The councilmembers seemed to think this may save staff time and costs.
35 Introduce this item tonight. They've got three weeks until the hearing.
36
37 Caskey- Schreiber stated it's foolhardy to put this forward if the Council's intent is to
38 not relax the rules for enforcement on OSS.
39
40 Weimer stated he supports the motion to withdraw.
41
42 Motion to withdraw carried 4 -3 with Brenner, Crawford, and Nelson
43 opposed.
44
45 Motion to accept the Introduction Items one through five, seven, and nine
46 carried 7 -0.
47
48 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, CHAPTER
49 20.71, 20.80.635 AND 20.80.735 TO ADD THE LAKE PADDEN WATERSHED AS
50 A WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, STORMWATER
51 SPECIAL DISTRICT AND WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA
52 (AB2009 -118)
53
54 2. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF VACATING A PORTION OF SAXON ROAD
55 (AB2009 -128)
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 19
1
2 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY PROJECT BUDGET
3 REQUEST #1, IN THE AMOUNT OF $900,000 (AB2009 -129)
4
5 4. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
6 NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DIVISIONS OF LAND RESULTING IN LOTS
7 SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
8 (AB2008 -114C)
9
10 5. RESOLUTION AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 100.07, BIRCH BAY
11 WATERSHED AQUATIC AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FUNDING
12 MECHANISM (AB2009 -130)
13
14 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (WCC), TITLE 23,
15 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; THE OFFICIAL SHORELINE MAP AND
16 ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF WCC CHAPTER 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS, AND
17 WCC, TITLE 20 ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE WHATCOM COUNTY
18 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
19 REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE GUIDELINES
20 (WAC 173 -26) AND OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
21 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (AB2008 -303)
22
23 S. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
24 ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND
25 INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED
26 STREETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING
27 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY
28 TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008 -398)
29 (This version of the ordinance contains the proposed language for WCC
30 20.80.211, Front Loaded Garage Setbacks)
31
32 9. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY
33 ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND
34 INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED
35 STREETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING
36 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY
37 TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008 -398A)
38 (This version has the proposed language for WCC 20.80.211, Front Loaded
39 Garage Setbacks, removed from the ordinance)
40
41
42 OTHER BUSINESS
43
44 There was no other business.
45
46
47 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
48
49 Kelly stated at least 28 folks were arrested on suspicion that they were illegal
50 immigrants. There was discussion about the Council accepting the contract for the
51 Stonegard Program. It's an issue that affects folks in Jefferson County. This Council will
52 have an issue to deal with in the next few weeks, if things happen the way he believes they
53 will.
54
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Brenner stated she thanks the County Executive for allowing a Lummi Island resident
to exchange a ferry pass.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on April 14 , 2009.
`��11111i�1► ►1 ►���'
ATTE`�S,fia
��� J�• `N H A TC ••� �'�';
NTY
Gina Br IT T vQF, 4oAncil�lerk
9SHI N G \
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
le'e'twXd, Council
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2009, Page 21
\ }
� d � }.� ......
e va ;
o.
� M- �.
,.,5
9
x
. � ���, .a
'o
�: � �,,
`�t�,�F siiii SR, �.3