HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil March 17 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
March 17, 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
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
None
2. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
REGARDING REQUEST FOR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT, APL2007- 00015,
FILED BY EMIL HECHT (AB2008 -453)
Crawford moved to uphold the Hearing Examiner.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Caskey- Schreiber and Brenner opposed.
MINUTES
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes.
Motion carried 7 -0.
1. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2009
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 10, 2009
3. SPECIAL JOINT COTW /PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FEBRUARY 17, 2009
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 1
1
2 OPEN SESSION
3
4 The following people spoke:
5
6 Kris Ungern, 2095 North Shore Road, submitted and read from his testimony (on
7 file). He is opposed to the proposed changes to the Shoreline Management Program (SMP)
8 The proposed changes don't have a strong basis in science and don't provide predictability
9 during development review and decision- making. There is no way to measure progress or
10 determine the cost of the new mandates. The changes make it more difficult to get
11 approvals. It will be more difficult to get variances.
12
13 Rosalinda Guillen, 2317 F Street, Bellingham, stated she is concerned with the
14 contract with Homeland Security to help with buffer zone protection in the Ross Lake area.
15 They are concerned that the equipment purchased now may be used at a later date to help
16 enforce immigration law. Make the Sheriff accountable in the use of the equipment
17 regarding immigration law.
18
19 Caroline Correa, 653 Hunters Pointe Drive, Bellingham, stated she works with
20 families impacted by the immigration raid at Yamato Motors. She presented a petition (on
21 file) urging the Council to oppose operations by Stoneguard.
22
23 Michael Ramos, 4 Nickerson Street, Seattle, stated Church Council of Greater Seattle
24 Executive Director, and he represents the Washington State Association of Churches. They
25 are opposed to Homeland Security dollars being used to enforce immigration laws.
26 Immigration law is under federal jurisdiction, not local jurisdiction. Reconsider the use of
27 these dollars. Write a clause in the resolution that prevents cooperative enforcement
28 measures.
29
30 Yoshi Revelle, 817 - 25th Street, Bellingham, stated he asks the Council to adopt a
31 resolution supporting the Convention to Discriminate Against All Women. Women are still
32 treated as second class citizens. Recognize women as equal citizens with equal rights.
33
34 Betsy Pernado, 3112 Alderwood Avenue, Bellingham, stated she is also opposed to
35 Homeland Security contracts, and any contracts should include provisions that prevent local
36 law enforcement officials from working with Homeland Security. Local law enforcement
37 should not enforce national laws on immigration.
38
39 Wendy Harris, Bellingham, stated she urges the County Council to vote against the
40 Shoreline Management Program (SMP) revisions tonight. She prefers more stringent rules.
41 The water resources are very fragile. It is important to implement and enforce the most
42 stringent protections for the watersheds and shorelines. She is opposed to amendments
43 that ease restrictions. The true cost of shoreline development is unfairly allocated amongst
44 County residents. Shoreline property residents are left with lovely homes and views. The
45 general public is left with the bill. Increased shoreline development results in increased
46 costs for safe drinking water and habitat for humans and wildlife. Remember all the
47 constituents when voting tonight.
48
49 Charles Law, Bellingham, submitted and read from his testimony (on file) regarding
50 immigration enforcement.
51
52 Bill Blaze, 5496 Grandview Road, Blaine, stated the late fees and penalties assessed
53 to him for his property tax bill are 25 percent, which is too much. The Assessor enforced a
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 2
1 policy to assess for the taxes, even though he doesn't have occupancy. The County must
2 cut tax levels, penalties, and interest as Vancouver B.C. did. Also, he would like someone
3 to inform him of his legal rights for being assessed on a house without occupancy.
4
5 Amy Day, 3185 Grandview, Ferndale, stated she is opposed to the contract with
6 Homeland Security that would empower local law enforcement as federal enforcement. It
7 would further alienate a marginalized community, resulting in more lawlessness and crime.
8 Everyone in the community would be less safe. It will result in an increase in racial
9 profiling.
10
11 Sharon Souters, 2212 - 40th Street, Bellingham, stated she is opposed to the
12 contract with Homeland Security. She submitted an email from Senator Patty Murray about
13 northern border security (on file).
14
15 Alfred Dale, 741 South Chuckanut, Bellingham, stated it takes 45 minutes to two
16 hours to get a deputy to respond to an incident in his area. The Sheriff's Office is already
17 overextended, and should not be enforcing immigration issues.
18
19 Chuck McCord, 3365 Robertson Road, stated the Shoreline Management Act worked
20 very well the way it was originally written. He is opposed to the proposed changes. It is
21 over - reaching. The 150 -foot buffer is ridiculous. Many of the lots are only 170 feet long.
22 He doesn't believe this process was legal. He was never notified of a public hearing in the
23 mail. There was no public hearing. The County is going to spend thousands of dollars to
24 fight this, and then they will lose. Vote no.
25
26 Barbara Rofkar, Whatcom Human Rights Task Force Co- chair, stated do not allow the
27 Sheriff's Office and Homeland Security to collaborate. People are afraid to call the Sheriff's
28 Office and Police Department about abuse issues. Many of these people in Whatcom County
29 are economic refugees due to federal policies.
30
31 Lee First, 1814 West North Street, stated the newest version of the Shoreline
32 Management Plan allows conditional uses and variances to build in the shoreline buffer. In
33 her experience, the County staff almost never denies these conditional uses and variances.
34 Keep the rules they have now, and support the existing buffers, especially the 150 -foot
35 buffer.
36
37 Bern Haggerty, 3240 Carrington Way, Bellingham, stated do not vote for the contract
38 with Homeland Security. He is concerned that his town is being turned into a military zone.
39 Areas that are militarized become zones of increased domestic violence and violent crime.
40 Much of the Sheriff's Office staff time will be spent on training to use the equipment instead
41 of serving individual human beings and providing public safety. None of this equipment is
42 going to help with people who are bludgeoned to death in intimate relationships. He's
43 against the militarization of his town. The only good job left in town is as a Border Patrol
44 agent. They give hiring preference to people who were in the military. He would like those
45 employees to be vetted before coming into this community.
46
47 Juliette Thompson, 3229 Pinewood Avenue, Bellingham, stated she is in favor of the
48 Shoreline Management Program as it stands, before the Council votes on it. Development
49 laws are fairly flexible and work well. Variances are generally approved. Lessening the
50 buffers goes too far. In addition, there was a misleading mailing sent to 17,000 that caused
51 a rush of people who feared their rights will be taken away. She understands the
52 information in that mailing wasn't entirely accurate. A majority of people in Bellingham
53 support the program as it stands.
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 3
1
2 Bruce Deila, citizen, stated he did not receive the information regarding which motels
3 in Bellingham don't require a credit card to rent a room. Hotels should have that
4 information and be able to distribute it to potential guests. Also, the Chamber of
5 Commerce, the City, and the County should provide that information. The President
6 provided money to this community to address homelessness, but it's being used by the
7 programs that still aren't reaching people to begin with. People will continue to fall through
8 the cracks. The solution to homelessness is single- occupancy housing. The stipulations
9 applied exclude too many people. Quit applying it just to people with alcohol and drug
10 abuse issues. Provide housing to everyone who need it.
11
12 Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, stated she supports the proposed Shoreline
13 Management Program. Virtually every request for a variance has been approved, and that
14 continued flexibility should address the concerns of those who are afraid they can't do what
15 they want with their properties.
16
17 Lori Hansen, 419 Lakeside Drive, stated many people have poured their life savings
18 into the property they want to build on. She is in favor of Shoreline Management Plan
19 requirements that make sense, not arbitrary setbacks that devalue property.
20
21 Regarding the contract with Homeland Security, law enforcement has a tough job.
22 She doesn't want to do anything that will tie the hands or hamper them in the performance
23 of their duties. Laws are laws, whether it's immigration or traffic violations. They need to
24 be free to do their jobs.
25
26
27 PUBLIC HEARINGS
28
29 1. RESOLUTION AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 100.07, BIRCH BAY
30 WATERSHED AQUATIC AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FUNDING
31 MECHANISM (AB2009 -130)
32
33 Fleetwood opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing.
34
35 Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the resolution.
36
37 Crawford stated he appreciates staff for working with the public to make this more
38 workable.
39
40 Brenner stated there's no option for people other than to pay money. There is no
41 option for property owners to be able to do low- impact development retrofits and save some
42 tax money. There should be alternatives for incentives. The plan is flawed.
43
44 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
45
46 Motion carried 7 -0.
47
48 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE TITLE 20, CHAPTER
49 20.71, 20.80.635 AND 20.80.735 TO ADD THE LAKE PADDEN WATERSHED
50 AS A WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT, STORMWATER
51 SPECIAL DISTRICT AND WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA
52 (AB2009 -118)
53
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 4
1 Fleetwood opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
2
3 Mary Dickinson, of Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Governmental
4 Affairs Director, stated she objects to the ordinance. There is no published map of the
5 watershed. Recent case law, the Citizens Alliance versus Sims, applies to this. She
6 described the case. She recommends that the Council ask for legal review.
7
8 Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, Bellingham, stated they are all familiar with the
9 cost of trying to restore a lake watershed. This is the opportunity to avoid that with Lake
10 Padden. He referenced the case law, the Citizens Alliance versus Sims, presented by the
11 previous speaker. King County's blanket tree retention regulations are different from
12 Whatcom County's regulations. Whatcom County has the supporting science behind it. The
13 regulations are specific and appropriate.
14
15 Yoshi Revelle, 25th Street, Bellingham, stated he supports this legislation. The idea
16 of private property is not more important than clean drinking water. They must protect the
17 drinking water supply.
18
19 Crawford stated that Lake Padden doesn't provide drinking water.
20
21 Elizabeth Gross, 1949 South Hills Place, stated she lives in the Lake Padden
22 watershed. She supports the ordinance. Thousands of people swim and kayak in the lake.
23 It's the home of wildlife.
24
25 Cal Leenstra, 315 Lakeway Drive, stated he is part owner of property in the
26 watershed. They have spent seven years doing engineering and road work. Preliminary
27 plats were approved. They have spent more than $150,000 and seven years there. Now,
28 the 70 acres which will be downzoned to 10 -acre lots. The watershed protection zone will
29 limit impervious surfaces to 20 percent of the site. It requires clustered subdivisions. It
30 has canopy retention problems. Onsite detention is required. There are clearing
31 restrictions. He has acted in good faith while working with the City. Lake Padden is not a
32 drinking water source. The whereas statements in the ordinance isn't support by science.
33 He asked what he's supposed to do. He does not approve this program.
34
35 Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing.
36
37 Brenner asked for a legal opinion and interpretation of Citizens Alliance v Sims, and
38 whether they need to go into executive session. She asked if this is a violation of law as
39 appealed.
40
41 Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated she has not looked at this case law.
42
43 Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance.
44
45 Crawford stated he supports the point of view expressed by Mary Dickinson, and
46 disagrees with the statements made by Dan McShane. Citizens Alliance versus Sims case
47 law determined that it couldn't be done countywide. However, it didn't conclude that it
48 could be done watershed -wide. The decision was to do an evaluation on a parcel -by- parcel
49 basis, and show the nexus with the problem. He is against the ordinance because Lake
50 Padden is not a drinking water source and he hasn't seen the evidence that indicates Lake
51 Padden has a problem. Virtually every property in South Hills will become nonconforming,
52 and it's very likely at person's property would exceed the impervious surface restrictions
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
about to be imposed. They need to realize that they will probably be facing a legal situation
in the future, because they can't just limit all parcels to the same. restrictions.
Caskey - Schreiber stated they have done this for the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish
watersheds. It's not a stretch to do it for Lake Padden, as well. Whatcom County enjoys
Lake Padden as a resource. Protect it. It's more vulnerable than the other lakes because it
is smaller. It will be restrictive to some developments to proceed. The payoff is greater
than the risks of changing the way they do business. This isn't new legislation in the State.
It's how they slow down the water from hitting the lake. It's a useful tool.
Brenner stated make sure they end up doing something that is legal. There is a
new case they must review. She moved to hold in Council for two weeks in order to get a
legal opinion on the matter.
Fleetwood asked her to hold off on her motion until after Kelly has a chance to make
a statement.
Brenner agreed, and withdrew her motion.
Kelly stated that this is a resource the County Council must protect. Let the courts
settle the matter, and don't be swayed by who may or may not file a lawsuit. He is against
a motion to hold in committee.
Brenner stated no one will sue the County if the Council does things legally. It will
be worthwhile to get a legal.opinion on it.
Nelson stated holding it in Council won't have much affect, because the law is
already in place in other areas..
Brenner stated those laws were in place before this case law happened. They may
be affected by this case law.
Fleetwood stated the interim expires before the next Council meeting.
Nelson stated they are incrementally adding these regulations to locations in the
county. They must have a balance between protecting watersheds and protecting property
rights. There will be issues when they don't clearly tie the regulations to a reason for the
restrictions.
Fleetwood stated that people who live and build in a sensitive watershed should
expect to do that in a low- impact fashion. That's what this regulation does.
Motion to adopt the ordinance carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford
opposed.
3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND
INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED
STREETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND ALSO ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS THAT CLARIFY
TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE (AB2008 -398)
(THIS VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE CONTAINS THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE
FOR WCC 20.80.211, FRONT LOADED GARAGE SETBACKS)
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 6
1 -AND -
2 4. WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, TITLE 20, TO INCLUDE
3 REGULATIONS AND INCENTIVES THAT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF
4 PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED STREETSCAPES IN URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND
5 ALSO ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.97 TO ADD DEFINITIONS
6 THAT CLARIFY TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE ELEMENTS OF THE STREETSCAPE
7 (AB2008 -398A) (THIS VERSION HAS THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR WCC
8 20.80.211, FRONT LOADED GARAGE SETBACKS, REMOVED FROM THE
9 ORDINANCE)
10
11 Fleetwood stated the Council held this because Councilmember Brenner wanted to
12 consider how to address the issue of notifying the cities.
13
14 Brenner stated one or two of the cities approved of what the County was doing.
15 Several cities didn't provide any response. One city didn't approve of this in its urban
16 growth area. The County has said all along that it wants to work with the cities on
17 standards in their urban growth areas.
18
19 Fleetwood opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
20
21 Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association of Whatcom County Executive Director,
22 stated he is against the ordinance. Requiring additional driveways to reach back - loaded
23 garages will impinge upon the allowable footprint on lots. It would add cost to homes and
24 make housing less affordable. It may restrict home placement on a lot that would capture
25 solar advantage, low impact development designs, or other advantages. Homes are usually
26 designed to meet the needs, goals, land use constraints, budgets, and wishes of the
27 homeowner. The option in AB2008 -398A is less onerous and costly. It makes it more
28 acceptable to the city planners, citizens, and neighborhood associations who have their own
29 ideas about how their neighborhoods and jurisdictions should look and perform.
30
31 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he is against the ordinance. He
32 agrees with Mr. Quehrn. This idea will make it harder to accomplish other goals. It will be
33 harder to achieve desired density. In most cases, developers will be forced to use more
34 impervious surfaces with alleys and longer driveways. It will reduce affordability.
35
36 Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing.
37
38 Brenner asked to remove urban growth areas (UGAs) that are not attached to cities
39 from either ordinance. Adopt this only for city- associated UGAs, and send it through Birch
40 Bay Steering Committee. Make it automatic, unless a city objects, instead of developing
41 interlocal agreements with each city.
42
43 Karen Frakes, Prosecutor's Office, stated there wouldn't be a problem with that. The
44 ordinance would have to be specific about which body from a city would have to object,
45 such as a council or mayor.
46
47 Caskey- Schreiber stated most cities have annexation agreements now. She asked if
48 the cities would have jurisdiction before accepting this density.
49
50 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated the
51 current interlocal agreements talking about the County using the cities' development
52 standards, but that's not mandated by ordinance. These standards, as proposed, would
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 7
1 apply within the UGA's, regardless of the interlocal agreements as they're currently
2 structured.
3
4 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County typically allows that type of density without an
5 annexation agreement. Stalheim stated it would not. Also, the Planning Commission
6 ordinance applies only to new land divisions, created after the effective date of this
7 ordinance. It won't apply to existing lots.
8
9 Brenner asked the point of doing this, if it's going to be annexed anyway, and they
10 would do that if annexed. Stalheim stated water and sewer are available in some places
11 outside city limits. It can be extended. It also applies within the unincorporated UGAs and
12 cluster developments.
13
14 Brenner asked if all the cities have adopted ordinance to not extend water and sewer
15 without annexation. Stalheim stated only the City of Bellingham has passed a resolution to
16 that effect. It is a standard practice only in the other cities.
17
18 Kelly moved to adopt the ordinance AB2008 -398. It is a bit much. He doesn't
19 intend to vote for either one of them. He doesn't like the concept.
20
21 Brenner moved to amend the ordinance, "BE iT FURTHER ORIjAINED that,th,►s
22 ordnance,shall,only ' applyyrto UGAs, thatare „aitachecl,to cities,!'
23
24 Caskey- Schreiber stated the regulation will be applied in few areas.
25
26 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
27
28 Caskey- Schreiber continued to state that this won't have a big impact to Birch Bay.
29
30 Brenner stated the city gave its comments. She asked why the County Council
31 would ignore the comments from Birch Bay.
32
33 Nelson suggested a friendly amendment to specify that the motion is to adopt
34 ordinance AB2008 -398, and to add the language to section 20.80 211 as item number one,
35 and move the other items down, "20.8Q 211( -1) This ord'inance;shall : o'nI apply to:'UGAs, that
36 are; associated w�tfcit�es”
37
38 Brenner accepted the friendly amendment.
39
40 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner in favor,
41
42 Brenner moved to amend so that this ordinance takes effect automatically unless
43 any of the cities object. Give the cities a deadline to object. It's not up to the County to
44 say who from the City will make the objection.
45
46 Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Brenner opposed.
47
48 Crawford stated voting for the motion is a vote in favor of the ordinance with the
49 front - loaded garage setbacks.
50
51 Motion to adopt AB2OO8 -398 failed 2 -5 with Fleetwood and Caskey-
52 Schreiber in favor.
53
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 8
1 Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance in AB2008 -398A. Conceptually there are
2 good ideas here. A Planning Commission that works towards developer incentives is the
3 way to go.
4
5 Brenner stated developers have told her this is another tool in the incentive toolbox,
6 and they appreciate it as an incentive.
7
8 Motion to adopt carried 6 -1 with Kelly opposed.
9
10 S. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT
11 THE COLUMBIA VALLEY STATUS AS A UGA BE REMOVED AND THAT IT BE
12 CONSIDERED AS A LAMIRD (AB2009 -131)
13
14 Fleetwood opened the hearing, and the following people spoke:
15
16 Sandy Mackie, 1201 - 3rd Avenue, Seattle, stated he is in favor of the retaining the
17 urban growth area (UGA) status for the Columbia Valley. A designation as a limited area of
18 more intense rural development (LAMIRD) is designed to limit and contain growth. In 1991,
19 the Columbia Valley had only subdivisions, no commercial development. The Hearings
20 Board has made it clear that it is not the purpose of a LAMIRD to provide additional
21 services. Use goals and policies to provide limits and a sustainable community.
22
23 Kathy Warner, Kendall Watch, stated she also speaks for Veronica Deardon and
24 Joyce Abingdon. There have been many improvements in the Columbia Valley in the past
25 five years. Kendall Watch has focused on quality of life, and done much of the work to
26 clean up Columbia Valley. Retain the UGA, which is in the best interest of the Columbia
27 Valley.
28
29 Bill Isenhart, 6380 Isenhart Lane, stated he lived in Columbia Valley since 1965.
30 This is about affordable housing. He built many of the houses in the area. He supports
31 retaining the UGA. They can't continue to build affordable housing if they take away the
32 UGA. He formed the sewer district in 1974 and built the sewer system in 1976. It has
33 capacity. If they remove the UGA, the sewer district is left without what it was designed
34 for. Every lot developed in Columbia Valley should be hooked up to the sewer system.
35 They also have public transportation now that is the most heavily used bus line in Whatcom
36 County.
37
38 Peggy Taphouse, 9243 Black Mountain Lane, Maple Falls, stated she supports
39 removing the UGA and making it a LAMIRD. She wants to live in a rural area, not a city.
40 Wildlife lives in the area, but will be destroyed with new development.
41
42 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated he agreed with Councilmember
43 Caskey - Schreiber's comments from the Planning Committee. They can't undo what they've
44 done. Rather than stop ideas and projects, make them better. Removing the UGA will
45 make it harder to adapt to future changes. The planning process has become convoluted.
46 He supports retaining the UGA.
47
48 Lynn Moser, 6148 Silver Spruce, Paradise, stated she has been in Whatcom County
49 for 60 years. Her family has been here for even longer. She wants to live in a rural area.
50 The urban growth development belongs along the Interstate -5 corridor. She supports the
51 LAMIRD designation.
52
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 9
1 Gary Richardson, 3740 Mt. Baker Highway, Glacier, stated he was born in Whatcom
2 County to a family that has been here since 1900. Faulty science caused most of the issues
3 in a lawsuit, by not defining properly where water drainage was for various rivers. A lot of
4 mistakes have been made in this. After being objective about both options, there's not
5 enough evidence to show that the area is on a newly- discovered fault line. No mention is
6 made that the fault line is very active. The area is also in an area known for lahars. The
7 tradition has been to have two cities, Maple Falls and Glacier. Create an urban center in
8 Maple Falls, or delay it to 2029.
9
10 Lee Clonts, 7770 Ambridge Road, Maple Falls, stated he supports removing the UGA
11 and designating the Columbia Valley a LAMIRD. More development is detrimental to the
12 environment and residents. Increased development would increase traffic. The State
13 doesn't have the money to improve the highway. Also, an increased population will
14 increase the draw from the aquifer, which will limit the water for everyone. More services
15 will require higher taxes. Residents of the area enjoy the rural lifestyle and natural
16 environment.
17
18 Richard Banel, 8525 Juniper Place, Columbia Valley, stated he is a water
19 commissioner in the Columbia Valley and was a member of the Foothills Subarea Committee
20 that recommended keeping the UGA. He supports a UGA designation. The Subarea Plan
21 does not recommend that Columbia Valley becomes a city. That is a rumor. LAMIRD
22 supporters submitted a petition with over 200 signatures from residents who support the
23 LAMIRD. However, nearly 500 Columbia Valley residents signed a petition in favor of the
24 UGA. The survey by the Subarea Committee was non - scientific and the information was not
25 reliable. The Columbia Valley is already developed at an urban level of density, so it's not
26 rural now. Preserving the UGA will take pressure off the rest of the Foothills, and keep the
27 rest of the Foothills rural. The population of the Black Mountain Ranch is transient, mostly
28 Canadians, and is not made up of UGA residents. There are now problems with water draw -
29 down or clean water in the UGA. The opposition to the UGA comes from a corporation.
30 Nearly all their members live outside the UGA. Most UGA residents support the UGA. The
31 reason there has been no development in the UGA is because it is all zoned residential.
32 There is not commercial zoning. The subarea committee recommends commercial zoning.
33
34 Gloria Nelson - Clots, 7770 Ambridge Road, stated she supports the LAMIRD. She
35 circulated the petition supporting the LAMIRD. They would have gathered more signatures
36 if they had more time. Most of the people she spoke to said they did not want more
37 development in the Columbia Valley. The average household income in the area is lower
38 than anywhere else in Whatcom County. They payer a higher percentage of their income
39 into property taxes. It will be difficult to fund a capital facilities plan. She moved to the
40 rural area for the rural lifestyle, not for convenient services.
41
42 Jan Eskola, 8895 Glacier Court, Glacier, stated she supports the LAMIRD designation.
43 She does not represent the Foothills Friends or any other organization. She was a member
44, of the Foothills Subarea Plan Committee. Residents who signed the petition support the
45 Planning Commission recommendation. She read the petition. The Columbia Valley could
46 be one LAMIRD, and the Kendall small town area could be another LAMIRD to accommodate
47 commercial businesses. The County has latitude in designating LAMIRD boundaries. Honor
48 and adopt the Planning Commission recommendation.
49
50 Larry Ilman, 2971 Lampman Road, stated he supports the UGA. He likes living in a
51 rural environment. Preserve affordable housing.
52
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 10
1 Rebecca Boonstra, 682 Sprague Valley Drive, stated she supports the UGA. It is the
2 most environmentally and socially responsible choice to address the existing and future
3 needs of this area. It is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan, Planning
4 Commission minority opinion, County Planning staff recommendation, and Subarea Plan
5 Advisory Committee recommendation.
6
7 Bill Velacich, 7644 Kachina Road, stated he supports a LAMIRD designation to
8 preserve wildlife.
9
10 Ellen Baker, 9945 Mt. Baker Highway, stated she supports a LAMIRD designation.
11 She went door -to -door collecting signatures for the petition. Most people said they wanted
12 more limitation, not more expansion. The subarea plan calls for an incorporation study and
13 says that in time, the Columbia Valley should become a city. Retaining the UGA says that
14 there should be a city there. That isn't what the community wants.
15
16 Carl Steiner, resident, stated he was born and raised in Glacier.
17
18 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
19
20 Steiner continued to state that he supports the LAMIRD for traffic reasons. With UGA
21 development, hundreds of cars would cross the Mt. Baker Highway at Kendall. Get an
22 accurate highway capacity study before voting for the UGA, or else they will have to budget
23 for a four -lane highway from Bellingham to Kendall to handle the projected traffic.
24
25 Larry Dunkin, 5324 Mt. Baker Highway, Deming, stated he supports the LAMIRD
26 designation. The area would be more livable. A UGA will create tax and traffic burdens.
27
28 Ben Thompson, 9308 Mt. Baker Highway, Deming, stated he supports removing the
29 UGA and returning the area to a recreational residential use, which was the original intent of
30 the area. The draft plan doesn't address impacts of the UGA to existing services. Increased
31 services will not be realized. He supports the Planning Commission recommendation to
32 create a LAMIRD designation.
33
34 Nori Zukerman, 9393 Silver Lake Road, stated she supports a LAMIRD designation.
35 Columbia Valley is not an island. If her taxes will increase, she has a voice about what goes
36 on in Columbia Valley.
37
38 Cynthia Purdy, 5334 Mosquito Lake Road, stated she supports the LAMIRD
39 designation. The area was created as a recreational area, not an urban area. Most of the
40 students at Kendall Elementary are below the poverty line. There isn't anywhere else in
41 Whatcom County that is as affordable. Maintain that affordable housing. As a LAMIRD,
42 there could be a grocery store. The IGA grocery store at Nugent's Corner has its own septic
43 system and well. The Kendall LAMIRD also includes the fire department, school, small
44 store, Subway sandwich shop, church, and a new library. There will also be a new tourist
45 center. The Kendall LAMIRD could provide services that the Columbia Valley needs. The
46 road running through Columbia Valley is not walkable. People would know that the area is a
47 LAMIRD and would not expect expanded services when they move there.
48
49 Cathy Lehman, Futurewise Whatcom Chapter Director, stated she supports a LAMIRD
50 designation. She needs to see a capital facilities plan and transportation improvements, or
51 else they won't know if urban level of services can be provided. UGA status doesn't
52 guarantee adequate services and infrastructure.
53
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 11
1
2
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
Bill Vaught, 5446 Mt. Baker Highway, stated he supports keeping the area it is for
safety reasons.
Leta Koon, 6186 Silver Spruce Way, Maple Falls, stated she supports a LAMIRD
designation. She is concerned about the quality and quantity of air and water. Adequate
public transportation will solve many problems.
Gunner Christiansen, 843 Valley Highway, Acme, stated he supports a LAMIRD
designation because of traffic problems on Highway 542 and to retain the rural character of
the area.
Max Duncan, 7537 Wheeler Road, stated he teaches at Kendall Elementary School.
Injecting more people into the community will lower the quality of education when there is a
tax - starved district. He supports a LAMIRD designation. The location of the area has never
been good for a city. Existing development was inconsistent with smart growth in the first
place. It is classic rural sprawl. It's not likely that there will be commercial development in
the area. Few jobs will be developed. It makes no sense to fix the original mistake by
allowing population to expand further.
Norma Otto, 8519 Bluebell Court, Columbia Valley, stated she supports the UGA
because they need a plan to get out of the problems. A LAMIRD will increase existing
problems.
Jack Hovenier, 2740 East 56th Vista, Bellingham, stated there is no light industrial
zoning in the area, which is why there has been no warehouse developed in the UGA. He
supports the UGA. Now, at least 500 people are on the roads driving to Bellingham.
Changing the UGA to a LAMIRD won't change that. The UGA in Columbia Valley is the
fastest growing in Whatcom County.. Don't eliminate the one UGA that is actually reducing
rural sprawl. The best way to meet the needs of the 4,000 people in the Columbia Valley is
not to ignore them and pretend the problem doesn't exist. Give the residents the same
level of planning that other county residents enjoy. A UGA is the best chance for the
residents to have the services they need.
Phil Cloward, 522 Sprague Valley Drive, Columbia Valley, stated he supports the
UGA. There is an urban level of density there, whether they want it or not. Find a way to
serve the people. There is no way to stop people from coming to Whatcom County. The
UGA will protect the other rural areas. The roads in Peaceful Valley do not belong to the
taxpayers. They belong to the residents, who have taken care of them for 20 years.
Martha Sirguy, 9356 Black Mountain Lane, stated she supports the LAMIRD
designation. She is concerned about transportation, infrastructure, taxes, and the
environment. She enjoys the rural character. It's not a good location for urban
development.
Victor Vetkov, 8489 Cimarron Way, Maple Falls, stated he supports the UGA and
everything the County has done in that area. There are improved services. Hundreds of
youth have nothing to do in that area. Support future generations. There are no jobs in
Columbia Valley. There haven't been any complaints about the roads and highway. It's not
an issue.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he supports a LAMIRD designation. A
LAMIRD doesn't prevent services. If it stays a UGA, they are mandated to put growth out
there. That's not what the people want out there.
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 12
1
2 Darin Barry, 1374 West Park Street, Lynden, stated he is active in the Columbia
3 Valley, and he supports the UGA. They have come a long way in the last five years.
4 Everyone who actually lives in the UGA wants it to stay a UGA. There will be no commercial
5 development without the UGA. The cities of Nooksack, Everson, and Sumas have around
6 1,000 people and a decent sized grocery store. The Columbia Valley can easily support a
7 grocery store, pharmacy, and bank. That would significantly reduce the amount of traffic on
8 the highway and raise the quality of life in the area.
9
10 Sean Wilson, 682 Sprague Valley Drive, Columbia Valley, stated residential
11 development rarely pays for itself. He served on the subarea committee. The Columbia
12 Valley does not have any zoning to allow services needed in a UGA. There has been no
13 opportunity for commercial development. For some reason, the commercial zoning is
14 located outside the sewer district. He supports the UGA process, which will help them
15 construct a capital facilities plan, if possible. That's the appropriate time to study the UGA.
16
17 Blair Murray, 2138 Walnut Street, Bellingham, submitted information (on file) and
18 stated the fire district cannot meet the density of the area. They can plan for capital
19 facilities.
20
21 Heather Wolf, attorney, stated she represents property owners in the Columbia
22 Valley UGA. They are asking to maintain the UGA. They don't plan to change the character
23 of or expand the UGA. They are only asking to retain the existing status. This is a high
24 density residential area that needs services. A LAMIRD is not a legal or practical solution.
25 Air quality will improve if residents don't have to drive outside the area. The community
26 wants to produce a capital facilities plan. There are tools to control growth and ensure
27 services at the time of development.
28
29 Amy Mower, Foothills Friends, stated she supports the LAMIRD designation. The
30 signatures on the petition did not include Black Mountain Ranch residents. They are
31 residents of this area. She's not seen a petition supporting the UGA that has 500
32 signatures. Look at Rabel Burdge's report about declining trends. There is concern about
33 lack of funding for mitigation, road intersections, sewer, fire service, law enforcement, and
34 schools. Developers will not provide funds for the entire cost of mitigation. Private sector
35 investment is speculative. According to Mr. Mackie, significant, intensive residential
36 development is required for adequate facilities, well beyond what the area has.
37
38 Brady Webb, 7464 Olson Drive, submitted and read from his testimony (on file). He
39 supports a LAMIRD desgination.
40
41 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
42
43 Webb continued to state that they can meet the needs of the community through the
44 small town commercial component. The objectives of the UGA is not realistic. The
45 discussion of creating local employment isn't possible in this area. The discussion is a
46 distraction from the key issue, which is that the jobs will be found in Bellingham. For every
47 new job they create, there will be ten people who have to drive to Bellingham for work.
48 Therefore, minimize and contain the development of the area, rather than having more
49 people drive to Bellingham. By virtue of its secluded nature, the area will continue to be a
50 commuter community to Bellingham.
51
52 Alex Bezuglyy, Pentecostal Slavic Church Pastor, stated he and his family moved to
53 this area because it is affordable. There are good things about both the LAMIRD and the
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, 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
UGA. He is not against either the UGA or the LAMIRD. They need more services and more
jobs. They don't need more traffic. The young generation want to stay in this area. Do not
vote today. People need more information and clarification on what will happen to this area
in the future.
Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber reported from Planning and Development Committee, and stated
the committee voted 2 -1 to recommend approval of Planning Commission as a LAMIRD.
Even though she voted against the LAMIRD in committee, she moved to approve the
Planning Commission recommendation to change the area's status to a LAMIRD. She is
against the motion. She hates to see the divisiveness that has happened in the community
over this issue. The residents are committed to the community. A LAMIRD won't change
anything in the future. It won't meet the needs of a community with a population larger
than three existing small towns in the county. She hopes that the community can operate
as a small town at some point in the future. The only hope to get some of the citizens out
of the commuter lifestyle is to provide opportunities for jobs. Hopefully things will change
when they adopt zoning for commercial development, as Birch Bay did when they adopted
the Birch Bay Subarea Plan. The air quality will be better with a UGA. They must make
sure there are no more wood- burning stoves or fireplaces. Growth can now pay for itself
due to concurrency. LAMIRDs don't improve on their own. They don't pay for themselves.
They're not a place one can Five and improve quality of life.
Brenner stated she is in favor of the UGA. They can't fix things by ignoring them. If
they don't allow for potential services, they surely won't happen. A UGA doesn't guarantee
that services will develop, but it does guarantee the possibility of services. A city can't
incorporate without a vote of the people, which is a safeguard if people don't want the area
to become a city. If the services don't develop in the area, the area probably won't get any
more density because the districts can withhold a letter to serve. The County decides
whether an area will expand. Everyone on the Planning Commission struggled. She doesn't
see how there could be the kinds of impacts that people are worried about. Safeguards are
in place. However, there could be more impacts and no services if they don't at least allow
for it.
Fleetwood stated he is in favor of the LAMIRD designation. Planning for a future city
in the Foothills is bad planning. It doesn't fit his concept of what Whatcom County should
be in the future. He understands they have to address the reality of the several thousand
people out there. However, according to the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive
Plan, they won't be able to contain this in the long -term. Urban growth areas are places
where they accommodate future populations. The question is whether the benefit of
services in this area outweighs the negative long -term consequences of having a UGA or
city in that area. The problems from capping development with a LAMIRD designation is
probably less than a potentially- expanding city.
Crawford stated he is against the motion and in favor of the UGA. It's not time to
abandon the original concept for this area. In the time he's been on the Council, he's seen
marked improvements in that area. The improvements have to do with real quality of life
issues. The amount of community participation in this process has been greater than
anything they've ever seen. The community contributions are growing. That's encouraging.
They also heard encouraging things from a manufacturer and distributor about
creating a job base in the area. Given the right opportunities, some of those original visions
for the area will happen. They won't see it happen right away, given the economic
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 14
1 downturn. A LAMIRD designation is a step backward for the community. Allow the UGA to
2 move forward, with some possible adjustments they can make next year.
3
4 Weimer stated he is in favor of the LAMIRD. Both choices are flawed. The LAMIRD
5 choice is flawed because it doesn't provide services for the existing 4,000 residents.
6 Choosing the UGA is flawed because it is based on cloudy, wishful thinking. The County
7 must create a capital facilities plan for this area that clearly shows how the County will
8 provide urban levels of service to this UGA. The County doesn't have that plan.
9
10 People in the area like the rural lifestyle of the area. However, the plan calls for
11 3,000 more people in the next 20 years. They can't put 3,000 more people in an area and
12 maintain the rural lifestyle. If the County is going to provide urban levels of services, the
13 new housing will no longer be affordable. The County will set levels of service and raise
14 taxes for things like sewer, fire, and impact fees. The amount of acreage the plan sets
15 aside for jobs isn't enough for everyone out there. It's enough for a few hundred jobs. This
16 is all wishful thinking, and he can't support it.
17
18 Motion to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation and approve a
19 LAMIRD designation in the Columbia Valley failed 3 -4 with Fleetwood, Weimer,
20 and Kelly in favor.
21
22 Weimer moved to adopt a planning population projection of 5,000.
23
24 David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Director, stated the Planning
25 Department staff recommended to the Planning Commission .a population projection of
26 5,000 for the Columbia Valley. That is the current allocation. The Foothills Advisory
27 Committee recommends an increased population of 7,053.
28
29 Brenner stated the County can limit the population of a UGA. The area would have
30 to have a capital facilities plan, or it won't go anywhere. That's part of the formula that
31 they need before anything happens.
32
33 Crawford stated he would like to study the issue longer. He would like more
34 information on the rationale for the various recommendations. He asked if the Council
35 needs to make this decision tonight. Stalheim stated the Council may delay the decision at
36 its discretion. They are going through the urban growth area review process, and they need
37 a number to plug into the countywide allocation formula.
38
39 Brenner stated this was also discussed by the Growth Management Coordinating
40 Council (GMCC).
41
42 Crawford stated he doesn't recall any conversation at the GMCC about a 5,000
43 versus 7,000 projection.
44
45 Weimer stated the best description of the options is in the Foothills EIS.
46
47 Nelson stated the main issue isn't whether they can add more people to the area,
48 but how to make sure they can support the population that is there.
49
50 Motion carried 6 -I with Crawford opposed.
51
52
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 15
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
6. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE
OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR DIVISIONS OF LAND RESULTING IN LOTS
SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
(AB2008 -114C)
Fleetwood opened the public hearing, and the following people spoke:
Dennis ]ones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he is in favor of the ordinance. He also
supports making the ordinance permanent.
Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, stated he is in favor of the ordinance. Many of the
original tasks have been accomplished. They've done a good job in moving forward
regarding stormwater. They now have a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study, which
should help inform them. The main reason for the delay in action has been the decision on
the urban growth area for Bellingham. Remove the urban growth area in the watershed
permanently. In the meantime, change the zoning so no additional lots can be created in
the urban growth area and the LAMIRD area. The reality is that they've crossed the
threshold for impacts to the lake. Don't add more problems to the ones they've already
created. The County will have a better opportunity to restore the watershed if they move
forward with a zoning change. He hopes the City would support the zoning change. Also, it
will allow the County to have control and do things in the right way.
Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, stated she is in favor of the ordinance. Continue
the moratorium. Work on the City to square this away. She will also work on the City. She
agrees with Mr. McShane.
Brenner asked if Ms. Beddill supports taking the ai
growth area (UGA). Beddill stated she does. An urban
government's declaration that there should be more growth
that philosophically and procedurally. However, she is of
argument otherwise, if there is a significant benefit to Lai
hasn't heard that so far. Get rid of the UGA. Declare it
zoning to freeze development,
as out of the Bellingham urban
growth area designation is the
in this area. She disagrees with
m to listening to a very strong
e Whatcom water quality. She
constrained area. Reduce the
Nelson asked if Ms. Beddill thinks the County has the capacity to provide a
mechanism to provide protection to Lake Whatcom if the zoning remains rural, the density
remains as it is, and the area is removed from the UGA. Beddill stated she does. They
have not clarified the essential problem with Lake Whatcom, which is phosphorus flowing
into the water.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Beddill continued to state that the way to resolve the concerns with Lake Whatcom is
to stop the flow of phosphorus. That can be done two different ways. The bad, expensive
way is to try and build a mini - sewage treatment plant along all the creeks and gullies in the
urban areas, so the water is treated before being sent into the lake. She doesn't support
that option. The alternative is source control. The County has the authority and ability to
inform the public about making changes in personal behavior and activities to reduce the
amount of phosphorus on the land and in the water. The County can impose certain
regulations and rules. There are other things the County can do.
Hearing no one else, Fleetwood closed the public hearing.
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 16
1 Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She agrees with Mr. McShane and Ms.
2 Beddill. A third option is to extend sewer for public health and safety reasons into areas
3 outside the UGA, if the City were to agree.
4
5 Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed.
6
7 Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to assign
8 Rebecca Craven to work on this issue since the Planning Department staff doesn't have
9 available staff time.
10
11 Motion carried 7 -0.
12
13 Crawford stated the Council usually discusses Ms. Craven's workload in Committee of
14 the Whole. Continue with the pattern they already started. Have a roundtable Committee
15 of the Whole discussion with Ms. Craven regarding her time allocation. She seems to be
16 willing to take on this project, so he doesn't have a problem with it.
17
18
19 CONSENT AGENDA
20
21 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
22 moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through 11.
23
24 Motion carried 7 -0.
25
26 1. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT
27 AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL
28 DRUG CONTROL POLICY FOR A GRANT AWARD TO SUPPORT THE NW HIDTA
29 BORDER TASK FORCE PROSECUTION INITIATIVE OF THE NW HIGH
30 INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,281
31 (AB2009 -140)
32
33 2. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
34 DEPARTMENT TO DEMOLISH ELEVEN BUILDINGS AT BAY HORIZON PARK
35 THAT ARE IN DERELICT CONDITION AND CONTAIN ASBESTOS (AB2009-
36 141)
37
38 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
39 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNSELING AND
40 PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC FOR SHELTER PLUS CARE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION
41 SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,823.20 (AB2009 -142)
42
43 4. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
44 CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND SHAWN THOMPSON FOR THE
45 RESIDENTIAL LEASE OF 367 E. LAKE SAMISH DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF
46 $985 PER MONTH (AB2009 -143)
47
48 S. RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE SALE OF
49 COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION TO WHATCOM COUNTY
50 PARKS DEPARTMENT — REQUEST #TR2009 -01 (AB2009 -144)
51
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 17
1
6.
RESOLUTION TO SET HEARING AND NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE SALE OF
2
COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION - REQUEST #TR2009 -02
3
(AB2009 -145)
4
5
7.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
6
AGREEMENT WITH SEATTLE CITY LIGHT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERING
7
IMPACT PAYMENTS RELATIVE TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT POWER PLANTS AND
8
DAMS LOCATED IN WHATCOM COUNTY AND IN EXCHANGE WHATCOM
9
COUNTY WILL STATION ONE DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR GENERAL AND
10
EMERGENCY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AND APPROPRIATE BACK UP AS
11
DETERMINED BY THE COUNTY SHERIFF (AB2009 -146)
12
13
S.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
14
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND LAKE WHATCOM
15
RESIDENTIAL AND TREATMENT CENTER FOR SHELTER PLUS CARE HOUSING
16
IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES FOR HOMELESS PERSONS WITH SERIOUS
17
MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,573.80 (AB2009 -147)
18
19
9.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
20
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND PIONEER HUMAN SERVICES
21
TO PROVIDE SHORT -TERM RENTAL ASSISTANCE VOUCHERS FOR EX-
22
OFFENDERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,500 (AB2009 -148)
23
24
10.
REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
25
CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND STEWARD +KING
26
ARCHITECTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING, DESIGN AND
27
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION OF THE EAST WHATCOM REGIONAL
28
RESOURCE CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $450,000 (AB2009 -149)
29
30
11.
RESOLUTION AMENDING CRP #904016 AND AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL
31
FUNDS AND APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO AWARD THE
32
CONTRACT FOR HAMPTON ROAD /MORMON DITCH BRIDGE #261
33
REPLACEMENT PROJECT TO LOW BIDDER MAX J. KUNEY COMPANY IN THE
34
AMOUNT OF $2,579,824.78 (AB2009 -150)
35
36
37
OTHER ITEMS
38
39
40
1.
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE PDR OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE RANKING AND
41
AUTHORIZING WHATCOM COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
42
ADMINISTRATOR AND COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO PROCEED WITH THE
43
ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR ROUND SEVEN APPLICATIONS (AB2009 -138)
44
45
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee and moved to approve the
46
resolution.
47
48
Motion carried 7 -0.
49
50
2.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY PROJECT BUDGET
51
REQUEST #1, IN THE AMOUNT OF $900,000 (AB2009 -129)
52
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 18
1 Crawford reported Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to
2 adopt the ordinance.
3
4 Motion carried 7 -0.
5
6 3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A SALE
7 AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN . WHATCOM COUNTY AND PEEPLES
8 ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE BUILDING AT 215 N.
9 COMMERCIAL STREET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,800,000 (AB2009 -119)
10
11 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
12 moved to adopt the ordinance.
13
14 Motion carried 7 -0.
15
16 4. WHATCOM COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR THE
17 COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH WASHINGTON
18 STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION TO
19 PURCHASE EQUIPMENT THAT WILL AID IN THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF
20 COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING HIGH- PRIORITY CRITICAL
21 INFRASTRUCTURE AND KEY RESOURCE (CI /KR) ASSETS IN THE AMOUNT OF
22 $579,090 (AB2009 -139)
23
24 Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
25 moved to adopt the ordinance.
26
27 Brenner stated the Sheriff's Office has no intention of enforcing any immigration
28 regulations at all.
29
30 Bill Elfo, Sheriff, stated each participating agency will perform law enforcement
31 activities commensurate with their agencies' specific mission and jurisdiction. No additional
32 enforcement authority is granted or implied by participation in Stone Garden.
33
34 Motion carried 7 -0.
35
36 5. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AND INTENT TO
37 ADOPT THE FEBRUARY 10, 2009, AMENDMENTS TO WHATCOM COUNTY
38 CODE, TITLE 23 — SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AB2008 -303C)
39
40 Crawford moved to approve the resolution. This shoreline variance process is
41 massively different from the septic regulations. This resolution doesn't go far enough, but
42 he will support the Council's request to lighten up on some of these regulations.
43
44 Brenner stated she will support it, although it's not perfect. She will bring forward
45 another amendment to change the word "nonconforming" to "grandfathered."
46
47 Motion carried 7 -0.
48
49 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (WCC), TITLE 23,
50 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; THE OFFICIAL SHORELINE MAP AND
51 ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF WCC CHAPTER 16.16, CRITICAL AREAS, AND
52 WCC, TITLE 20 ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE THE WHATCOM COUNTY
53 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE SHORELINE GUIDELINES
(WAC 173 -26) AND OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (AB2008 -303)
Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance, but he is against the motion. The
Council's legal counsel said they don't have to adopt this ordinance. This is out of control.
Kelly stated this was a long process. They probably could have done public comment
better. This is being touted as one of the best programs. He's proud to be associated with
it. Despite what they've heard from folks during the public comment period, he believes the
majority of the citizens in the county support this. They've heard from a minority tonight.
Brenner stated she is against the ordinance. The intent was excellent. There are
good parts to the ordinance. However, she has concerns with parts of it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there was a three and a half year process to create the
ordinance and gather stakeholder input. It's unfortunate that this came under attack
viciously, motivated by one exceptionally - greedy developer. Overall, she's pleased with the
ordinance.
Nelson stated they need to properly thank former Councilmember Dan McShane for
the document and former County Planner Jeff Chalfant for the Department of Ecology grant.
His only concern is with the buffers. He won't support the motion. The buffers are
arbitrary, and they won't necessarily solve the problem.
Motion to adopt carried 4 -3 with Crawford, Brenner, and Nelson opposed.
7. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE NORTH LYNDEN WATERSHED
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, APPLICANT: LARRY STAP (AB2009 -134)
Brenner moved to appoint Larry Stap.
Motion carried 7 -0.
S. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY UTILITIES
PLANNING & ADVISORY COMMITTEE, DISTRICT 1 POSITION, APPLICANT:
LORI HANSEN (AB2009 -137)
Brenner moved to appoint Lori Hansen.
Motion carried 7 -0.
9. APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY (ALTERNATE OR GEOGRAPHIC
REPRESENTATIVE) ON THE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, APPLICANT: JIM HANSON (AB2009 -136)
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
10. CONFIRMATION OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS OF DAVE BUYS,
MIKE FINGER, LESA BOXX AND DEBBIE VANDERVEEN, AS WELL AS HIS
REAPPOINTMENT OF TODD JONES, TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2009 -151)
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 20
1 Brenner moved to confirm the appointments.
2
3 Motion carried 7 -0.
4
5
6 INTRODUCTION ITEMS
7
8 Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
9
10 Motion carried 7 -0.
11
12
13 1. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATION TO
14 WHATCOM COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT - REQUEST #TR2009 -01 (AB2009-
15 144A) (HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED)
16
17 2. RESOLUTION TO SELL COUNTY TAX TITLE PROPERTY BY .NEGOTIATION -
18 REQUEST #TR2009 -02 (AB2009 -145A)
19
20 3. ORDINANCE REPLACING WCC 1.14 (IN ITS ENTIRETY); "D'ESIGNATING THE
21 WHATCOM COUNTY VOTING PRECINCTS BASED ON -NEW ANNE)(ATIONS,
22 LANGUAGE UPDATES AND CORRECTIONS TO BOUNDARY .DESCRIPTIONS
23 (AB2009 -152)
24
25 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY,: BUDGET, TIiIRD
26 REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $720,867 (AB2009 -153)
27
28 S. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2009 WHATCOM COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
29 ZONE DISTRICT BUDGET, SECOND REQUEST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,000
30 (AB2009 -154)
31
32 6. ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON VISTA DRIVE
33 AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROWN ROAD (AB2009 -155)
34
35 7. ORDINANCE REGARDING CHANGING THE SPEED LIMIT ON A PORTION OF
36 VISTA DRIVE (AB2009 -156)
37
38 8. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF STOP SIGNS FOR A ONE -LANE
39 ROAD AND FUTURE ROAD WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS (IF REQUIRED BY
40 CHANGING CONDITIONS) ON EMERALD LAKE WAY AT EACH END OF A
41 LANDSLIDE AREA BELOW AND ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY (AB2009 -092A)
42
43
44 OTHER BUSINESS
45
46 There was no other business.
47
48
49 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
50
51 Caskey- Schreiber stated she takes exception to some of the comments about the
52 militarization of County personnel. The federal workers provide jobs and add lots to the
53 local economy. They are fulfilling a job and the laws of the nation.
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Crawford stated the comments from that one gentleman were way out of line. He is
in favor of gaveling someone using foul language like that in the future.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcri ion
The Council approved these minutes on April 28 , 2009.
``���11IIIIlrrrrr��i
ZZI V .° pF W H4.1 • G
N'
Bana- fflgwD- Etis, Counc$ Clerk
/NGTO •
�IIIIII11W�```````
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Whatcom County Council, 3/17/2009, Page 22