HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil February 12 20081
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
February 12, 2008
Council Chair Carl Weimer 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
Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
MINUTES CONSENT
Absent:
None
Brenner moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR DECEMBER 4, 2007
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER 4, 2007
3. SPECIAL COUNTY COUNCIL FOR DECEMBER 10, 2007
4. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JANUARY 15, 2008
S. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 15, 2008
OPEN SESSION
Weimer stated the Council will address the urban growth area (UGA) items after the
open session. The public hearing on the Bellingham UGA is closed.
The following people spoke:
Bill Schoonover, 606 Chuckanut Drive, Bellingham, read a list of ten things people
can't do. Because of the direction this county has gone in the past three or four years, his
family will move out of Whatcom County as soon as possible. They will move to a place
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 1
where the government believes more in property rights and does not inflict itself on every
aspect of their lives.
Johnnie Grames, 1506 E. Maplewood Avenue, Bellingham, stated the war machine is
out of control. Public citizens cannot get on BTV10. They won't hear from Ralph Nader or
Dennis Kucinich. They have very important things to say.
The Whatcom County Law & Justice Council meets tomorrow. They are like a secret
government. He tried to get public disclosure from them about someone who was taking
notes. They purged the name off the minutes.
Steve LaCocq, Bakerview James Annexation Committee Chair, stated their
annexation is a big deal. He described the area and agreement. They need County help.
Everyone has been supportive. Area 2A on map 8 is where the County and City haven't
agreed on zoning. The County wants a lower density than the City. The zone should be as
the City recommends. He asked the Council to amend the resolution to make that area
zoned as the City requests.
Clayton Petree, 2219 F Street, Bellingham, stated the Planning Commission certified
that the 10 -year review of the County's Comprehensive Plan is complete, despite general
Commission agreement that it was not complete. The County did not seek or receive any
formal process by the cities, as required by law, to occur in conjunction with review. There
was no city input. Information in adopted city comprehensive plans was modified to meet
standards staff considered appropriate. Staff doesn't have the authority to modify adopted
city comprehensive plans.
Seasonality or second homes weren't considered in UGA's other than Birch Bay,
despite County planning policy 2AA -3. Seasonality was also not considered in city UGA's,
where it is shown as a significant land supply accommodation requirement.
There was no analysis about achieved density as measured against zoned density.
Either the data is seriously flawed, or no one lives in any of the houses built in the County
outside the UGA's from 1995 to 2002. The County Planning Commission knew of and
ignored data problems.
Mel Marcoux, 6128 Kickerville Road, Ferndale, stated he will speak on onsite septic
system (OSS) issues.
Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset Drive, Bellingham, stated there has been no meaningful
public input or input from leaders of other cities on the ten -year review process. The
Planning Commission rubber - stamped the process. The law requires that cities have
meaningful input into this plan. He described the history of the UGA process. Read the
second Whereas statement in the resolution and ask whether anyone understands what the
succeeding twenty years means. This process characterizes the entire growth management
process they've gone through.
The State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED)
says the County should be compliant with its countywide planning policies. They should
delay the process, because they aren't compliant with the policies.
Holly Koon, 7537 Wheeler Road, Kendall, stated she thanks the councilmembers for
their responsiveness to her neighbors about the Columbia Valley UGA portion of this report
and its findings. Their concerns have been addressed.
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 2
1
2 She referenced the fifth Whereas statement. The Columbia Valley UGA has no city.
3 She referenced the eighth Whereas statement. She asked who speaks for the residents.
4 Those two statements seem to mean that Matt Aamot is their voice. She asked that the
5 resolution identify the voice of the Columbia Valley UGA as something other than city staff.
6
7 Whatcom County has very good planners. They have been in the county for a long
8 time and they have lots of experience. However, don't get engaged in a process that limits
9 the public's ability to comment.
10
11 Ann Botwin, 349 Cove Road, Bellingham, stated Bellingham should accommodate 40
12 percent, not more than 50 percent, of the county population increase. That is consistent
13 with their current population percentage. Population increases of the smaller cities should
14 be consistent with their current population figures. In many smaller cities, a modest growth
15 is most welcome. It would encourage more business to locate there, provide employment
16 opportunities, provide better housing options, and stimulate the economy. Don't overrun
17 Bellingham with development., The neighborhood character is being compromised.
18
19 She is strongly opposed to expanding the UGA only to King Mountain and Queen
20 Mountain. They can't justify cutting down more forests when there are brown fields in
21 existing downtowns that need the improvement. Both City and County government should
22 require responsible infill and renovate run -down urban areas before allowing the forests to
23 be cut down forever.
24
25 The intent and rationale of the Growth Management Act (GMA) was to encourage
26 them all to be good stewards of the land, including rural farmland and forests.
27
28 Wendy Setter, 4320 King Mountain Road, Bellingham, stated she is opposed to
29 including more property into the UGA. If they use the higher numbers in the methodology,
30 they would come out with a lot less land needed. She doesn't understand why it is
31 necessary.
32
33 R.E. (Ted) Stannard Jr., 4328 Francis Avenue, Bellingham, submitted and read from
34 information (on file). He is opposed to including King Mountain and Queen Mountain in the
35 UGA. There is has been almost no general public discussion on including King Mountain and
36 Queen Mountain into the UGA. The County Council has not explained its decision. There
37 should be a public discussion about this decision.
38
39 Betty Shaw, 4372 Francis Avenue, Bellingham, stated she is opposed to including
40 King Mountain and Queen Mountain into the UGA. Past promises from developers haven't
41 been kept. The traffic is dangerous. Remove this area from the UGA, and the entire county
42 will benefit. Many people value the outdoors, beauty, recreation, and low density. Don't
43 grow over one of the biggest assets they have. They would need a lot more public
44 discussion before that happens. The City has said it can't provide police and fire protection
45 to the area.
46
47 Dave Pros, 1466 Roy Road, Bellingham, stated he is opposed to adding land to the
48 UGA. Neither people nor the City want the UGA to expand. They need to discuss a design
49 for the county. The construction industry will still be employed if they protect the tourism
50 industry. However, never ending development will kill tourism. Choosing to have
51 Bellingham grow at a rate faster than the rest of the county ensures that the Seattle -to-
52 Lynnwood design concept continues. High density at the furthest reaches from Bellingham
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 3
1 limits their options to move away from that design concept. Instead, reduce the population
2 projection for Bellingham for many reasons.
3
4 Geoff Menzies, 988 W. Laurel Road, Ferndale, referenced the ten -year UGA process.
5 This has happened quickly. There was a long period when the Planning Commission didn't
6 have any meetings at all. They've been challenged with staff. Staff did a great job
7 answering part A of the requirements for the ten -year UGA review. They didn't do a good
8 revising based on that review. The review versus the possibility of revision didn't come
9 through.
10
11 The City of Blaine has an enormous UGA. The Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection
12 District Advisory Committee recommends that they don't urbanize the area around Drayton
13 Harbor. He is concerned about all the speculative land investment that will continue to take
14 place in that urban growth area. People are buying the land with the assumption that it will
15 be urban. The Planning commissioners didn't want to take the step to shrink the UGA. The
16 intent is to review and then revise the UGA's to make them appropriate.
17
18 Brenner stated the Blaine City Council was interested in shrinking the UGA a year
19 ago. The Council docketed that item. It hasn't come forward yet.
20
21 Fleetwood asked if the Planning Commission took up the question of revision.
22 Menzies stated the Planning Commission talked about their responsibility to review and or
23 revise. He voted against this. The Planning Commission didn't address revisions.
24
25 Fleetwood stated that the obligation is to review to determine if there is sufficient
26 land to accommodate growth projected. If they determine there is sufficient land, then no
27 revision is required. In this instance, there is a finding that there is sufficient land available.
28 He asked what revision is needed. Menzies stated the UGA is twice what is required.
29 Revisions don't just go upward. They can possibly go downward.
30
31 Fleetwood stated the Council doesn't have the power to seek to reduce the Blaine
32 UGA before 2011. Menzies stated the County has control over the UGA's. It's a choice
33 that's been made to not revise.
34
35 Crawford stated he asked questions today during the Planning Committee about
36 what they're doing now, as opposed to those types of changes. Sumas and someone else
37 had not enough. They all share that same concern. However, they received assurances
38 that they are meeting the legal requirements to do the revision while the actual debate
39 about urban growth size for every area will be part of the 2011 change. Menzies stated the
40 time to address that is now.
41
42 James Stanford, 1841 Front Street, Suite B, Lynden, stated there is an opportunity
43 with the City and County to develop a platform for the common good of all citizens in the
44 cities and county. They speak of growth as if it's done in an operating room. It's antiseptic
45 and sterile. The City of Bellingham is convinced that every new person who wants to move
46 here wants to live in an urban village. That's not true.
47
48 A four -plat subdivision takes a very long time to permit. The County doesn't have a
49 long -plat subdivision. The Council determined that bad soil is agriculturally sensitive. It's
50 not true that a city doesn't want any more growth in the UGA. He asked where folks will
51 live if they don't want to live in downtown Bellingham. Consider what might be best for the
52 people who move here.
53
Whatcom County Council, 2/1212008, Page 4
1 Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Bellingham, stated his children and grandchildren
2 moved out of state because they couldn't find good opportunities in Whatcom County. Also,
3 Geoff Menzies lives on a five -acre parcel, not in a condo or apartment like where he wants
4 everyone else to live. The Blaine UGA may not be big enough.
5
6
7 OTHER ITEMS
8
9 4. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPLETION OF THE URBAN GROWTH AREA
10 REVIEW (AB2008 -082)
11
12 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
13
14 Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
15 approve the resolution.
16
17 Brenner stated she would support the motion. Regarding King Mountain and Queen
18 Mountain, that land can and will be logged if something else isn't done. If this land comes
19 into the UGA, it could be developed appropriately.
20
21 Weimer stated Councilmember Brenner's comments have to do with the next item on
22 the agenda. There is a second substitute ordinance that includes one amendment from the
23 Planning Committee to resolved statement eight "...Foothills Subarea Plan update, nor will
24 these findings be used to approve or deny that plan or proposed developments within the
25 Columbia Valley UGA." Residents want to make sure that this resolution can't be used to
26 approve any developments in the UGA out there.
27
28 Brenner stated she supports the new language. The County staff will ultimately be
29 the ones who represent the interests of the people in the Columbia Valley and Foothills.
30
31 Crawford asked if this review is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Growth
32 Management Act (GMA). He would like assurance from legal counsel that this meets the
33 requirements of the GMA.
34
35 Royce Buckingham, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, stated they can have a legal
36 discussion in executive session. He signed everything on the forms, so it was an oversight
37 if he forgot to check a box on the paperwork. They sign the paperwork as to form. If they
38 want to talk about content of the legal arguments, they should do that in executive session.
39 He hasn't signed to say the legal argument is sufficient or insufficient. They should have
40 those other content discussions.
41
42 Crawford moved to go into executive session to discuss the resolution with legal
43 counsel.
44
45 Motion carried unanimously.
46
47 (The Council discussed this item in executive session from 8 p.m. to 8:11 p.m.)
48
49 Motion to approve the resolution carried unanimously.
50
51 S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
52 MAP, TITLE 20 ZONING MAP, AND THE URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA PLAN
53 (AB2007 -318A)
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 5
1
2 Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and moved to
3 adopt the ordinance.
4
5 Crawford stated the Council has been lobbied by people regarding area 2A of map
6 eight, the intersection of Bakerview Road and James Street. The City recommends a higher
7 density. He asked how a motion to amend the density on that map back to the City's
8 recommended density would change the process.
9
10 Karen Frakes, Prosecuting Attorney's Office, stated they would need to hold a public
11 hearing just on the issue of the amendment, but she wasn't sure how that could be
12 separated out. It would delay the process.
13
14 Crawford stated changing the density according to the Planning Commission
15 recommendation would require that the rezone be docketed. The only other options for
16 those folks is to go forward with the annexation currently in process and go to the City
17 Council for a rezone.
18
19 Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the suggested amendment. That is a high
20 traffic intersection. A density of ten to 24 units per acre would not be the best use for that
21 area, especially if commercial property is also developed.
22
23 Crawford stated the City plans an urban village for that area. The City doesn't have
24 a current zone at the density they propose. The City Council will create a zone for that and
25 other urban villages.
26
27 Caskey- Schreiber stated that if the City annexes the area, it will change the density
28 to whatever it wants, anyway.
29
30 Crawford stated he wants to make that amendment, but he won't based on the
31 advice of legal counsel. He feels badly for those folks. They have done a great job of
32 developing a vision for the neighborhood. They are months away from annexation. They
33 will now have to stay at the current density, unless the City changes its policy about
34 keeping density of annexed areas the same.
35
36 Brenner asked why the City would create an impediment to what they want.
37
38 Crawford stated the City has policy issues. He is against the ordinance. They have
39 not come up with an appropriate amount of buildable land for the city of Bellingham. There
40 are areas around Bellingham that can absorb more growth, rather than putting growth in
41 areas they want to protect. Funnel much of the growth into that area. This proposal isn't
42 enough.
43
44 Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports the ordinance. This has been a long process.
45 It's not perfect. She would have liked the City to have had a better attitude from the
46 beginning. The County Council looked at the City request and each area of the UGA. She is
47 concerned about the quality of life loss at King Mountain and Queen Mountain, but those
48 areas are already pretty urbanized. She hopes the developers creates walkable
49 communities. Areas with higher densities are successful when alternative modes of
50 transportation are available. This area is close to jobs in the county. There can be a short
51 commute to get to worksites and commercial services. If and when the County conditions a
52 development, it should negotiate for a huge park. That's the only way she can feel good
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 6
about including this area. They must do their best to ensure that some of the natural areas
are preserved. She's heard that's possible, and will hold the developer to that promise.
Staff, the public, and the councilmembers have put many hours of hard work into the
plan. The County and City can work together. She regrets that they can't make everyone
happy. She must be true to what is best for the county. The County Council has tried to
achieve what is best for the county.
Brenner stated they could do a better job of protecting the natural environment at
King Mountain and Queen Mountain by not adopting this change. Much of that land is
forestry, and can be cut. If the developers do what they say, this is a perfect opportunity to
ensure that nothing happens that doesn't follow a conservancy plan. She will support the
ordinance for that reason. She would like to see a statement somewhere that developers
will develop infrastructure, and neighboring residents don't have to pay for infrastructure
unless they hook up to it. Frakes stated that isn't appropriate in this ordinance.
Fleetwood stated he agrees with Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. The ordinance
isn't perfect. Nothing in this sort of process can be perfect, but it's fundamentally a good
plan. It demonstrates a commitment to a land use ethic of a majority of the Council. They
are aware of the fact that continuously expanding urban growth area boundaries will
ultimately and quickly urbanize the entire county.
This effort has shown a great deal of community understanding about the bigger
picture of growth management. A city is now committed to infill. The County is poised to
hold the line on significant expansion of urban growth boundaries. They are doing well. He
looks forward to helping the cities create ways to densify while making it more livable and
pleasant. He supports the ordinance.
Weimer stated they have set a good standard. He appreciates the City and new
Mayor changing their opinions in favor of the County's decision. They are including too
much land in the UGA, and he would like to remove King Mountain, although the other
councilmembers would not agree. They are supposed to look at UGA areas and decide the
density in those areas. Next, they are to set the starting point at the maximum capacity.
Then they back out safety factors and land availability factors. If they follow the correct
formula, they can remove King Mountain from the UGA and still have enough land left to
accommodate all the people in the City's analysis.
Kelly stated he would support Councilmember Weimer's motion.
Weimer stated this is a good ordinance, but it could be better.
Nelson stated they can't make everyone happy. The State determined the planning
process. Sometimes, rules and political whims change. The old subarea plans reflected the
community spirit better than this process. He appreciates the work of the committee, but
he can't support the numbers.
Motion to adopt carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed.
(The Council took a break from 8:30 p.m. to 8:42 p.m. Councilmember Fleetwood
left the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 7
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 24.05, ON -SITE SEWAGE
SYSTEM REGULATIONS (AB2008 -071)
Weimer announced that Council will refer this item to a Council committee following
the public hearing. The Council will not take a vote on the ordinance this evening.
John Wolpers, Health Department, gave a presentation. He referenced Whatcom
County Code section 24.05.160, the onsite sewage system (OSS) regulations. That is the
operations and maintenance (0 &M) section. The section follows the State regulations, with
a couple of exceptions.
One exception is under section .160(A)(4) regarding a licensed 0 &M specialist. That
information was inserted into the code.
Another exception is .160(A)(11) and .160(A)(12) regarding a report of system
status being done at the time of property transfer.
"chose are two of the big issues. The staff heard from the Council and public at the
last public meeting. They tried to revise the sections to include or allow homeowners to do
inspection.
The local regulation mirrors the State requirements. Many people are concerned
about inspection frequency. That is a State regulation. It's not something the County came
up with.
The section of the code that allows homeowners to do their own evaluations is WCC
24.05.160(6) and 24.05.160(C). He read through the new language. Some properties
have had repairs done, but couldn't meet any of the current regulations. The County still
allows drainfields, but they do the best they possibly can. Subsection (13)(4) is a last
chance effort to allow a drainfield on a piece of property. Homeowners should not look at
those critical drainfields. They should be inspected appropriately and on time.
Homeowners would be required to have training to inspect their own systems. Those
details aren't specified in the management plan. Staff has talked with other counties about
some of the things they're doing. Staff is looking at that process.
The homeowner would not be allowed to do two consecutive evaluations. An 0 &M
specialist would do initial evaluations throughout the county. People whose drainfields are
not in the shoreline _management program area would be allowed to do their own
evaluations with training.
The local management plan has language to allow homeowners to perform their own
inspections. The proposal, as it currently reads, would allow that. The plan document must
be developed through the State Washington Administrative Code (WAC) about how the
County would carry out operations and maintenance. That's what the local management
plan does. The local management plan had to address specific items, including database
enhancement, identification of sensitive areas, operations monitoring and maintenance in
sensitive areas, and a marine recovery area strategy. He explained the definition of the
marine recovery area strategy, which they've determined to be Drayton Harbor. They have
to identify all failures in the marine recovery area by 2012.
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 8
1 Since the effective date of the regulations, 580 evaluations were performed on
2 property transfers. Of those, 367 were considered satisfactory. He indicated the locations
3 on a map. Also, there were systems that needed maintenance and systems that were
4 failed. Of the total, 180 systems needed maintenance and 33 systems were failures. They
5 haven't yet found one area that is failing more than other areas.
6
7 When a system is a failure, the Health Department goes to the site and verifies
8 failure. There has been confusion about the definition of a failed system. He read the
9 definition, which includes six different items.
10
11 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
12
13 Wolpers continued to state that staff recently met with citizens to explain what the
14 Health Department expects to see from the public. There are no specific statewide
15 standards. Counties do evaluations differently. Staff reviewed how Whatcom County had
16 done loan certifications prior to operations and maintenance specialists coming on board.
17 That is what they stayed with in requiring the O &M specialists sewage system evaluations.
18
19 They are trying to develop tighter standards for the flow tests. Staff has worked
20 with Councilmember Brenner and Executive Kremen, who feels that homeowners should be
21 allowed to do their own systems.
22
23 They have been working on a loan program, and how they can best get grants and
24 low- interest loans. Some of these systems can be expensive. Through the State
25 Department of Ecology revolving fund, the County can apply for those funds. The Treasurer
26 is willing to take on management of a loan program.
27
28 Brenner referenced section 24.05.160(B)(4). The language in that section is correct,
29 and is not about separation criteria from current standards. If the standards were to
30 current standard, everyone would fail. Most of the systems were done at a different
31 separation standard because the standards changed in the last few years. Wolpers stated
32 that if a system is deemed a failure, the Health Department may allow a designer to do a
33 Table 8 repair, which is a State regulation. Those systems are the last option for a
34 property, and meet the absolute minimum standards. The Health Department doesn't feel
35 that homeowners be allowed to evaluate those.
36
37 Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
38
39 Mel Markoux, 6128 Kickerville Road, Ferndale, stated he has an issue with the
40 mandatory $300 inspections, which are problematic for him. In Mason County, a one -day
41 free workshop will qualify homeowners to do their own inspections. Whatcom County
42 should consider doing the same. Thurston County has quality control monitors for problem
43 areas. No one wants to pollute the environment, but this requirement will create a hardship
44 for many seniors. Certified septic tank owners can measure their own accumulations and
45 pump when required. That will prevent unnecessary expense in pumping tanks that don't
46 need to be pumped. He submitted information (on file). He thanked Councilmember
47 Brenner for her efforts to make changes.
48
49 Jerry Ward, 2700 Brown Road, Ferndale, asked if Glendon Biofilters are included in
50 the list of people who would be allowed to do their own inspections. Wolpers stated they
51 would not. It is a proprietary device. Glendon Biofilters does not allow homeowners to do
52 their own. The Health Department only looks at the unit when it does an inspection. It
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 9
doesn't inspect the unit. Glendon Biofilters will not allow the County staff to inspect their
system.
Ward stated he was told his system is good for 25 to 50 years, and won't need any
repairs. He's not happy with this situation.
Weimer stated they can address that specific issue in committee.
John Davies, Opportunity Council Home Repair and Winterization Program Director,
stated this is a difficult and real hardship for low- income and fixed - income residents. They
need to make the inspection process less expensive. Concentrate on the critical areas. The
Opportunity Council operates a revolving loan fund for home repairs for about 70 families a
yea r.
Weimer asked if the Opportunity Council considered the idea of starting a non - profit
inspection system service. Davies stated they will look into that service.
Wes Kentch, 6870 Enterprise Road, Ferndale, stated this State proposal is overkill.
He has only had to pump his system once in 30 years. When the State legislative bill was
passed, he didn't see the one -year and three -year inspection requirement. That schedule is
from the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The WAC is not the same as the law.
The local Health Department has chosen to go with the WAC, which is more than necessary.
There may be failing systems they need to find.
John Urban, 357 Birch Bay Lynden Road, stated he also speaks for his neighbor,
Bernie Schuyleman. They are both retired and on disability. The fees would be detrimental
to a lot of people in the county.
Andrea Hood, Whatcom Conservation District, stated the plan is good. The Health
Department has done a good job in identifying the marine recovery areas and including the
shoreline management areas as the sensitive areas. The Conservation District is willing to
help the County by writing grants and helping with education. Many publicly- vetted
environmental management plans. identify onsite septic systems as problematic.
Jeremy Beck, 5575 Knight Road, Bellingham, stated he and his wife purchased a new
home on Sand Road before the new O &M inspection requirements for the sale and transfer
of property. At the time, the septic system inspection was deemed a standard test. They
had not owned a septic system before. They closed on the property and attempted to
expand. In order to expand, they would have had to install a new septic system at a cost of
approximately $25,000. Instead, he and his wife decided to sell the property after the new
regulations were in place. The inspector failed their septic system. It was a $25,000
expense he and his wife had to come up with in 60 days. The Health Department gave
them options to either vacate the property, fix the system in 60 days, or pay a $150 per
day fine. There was no financing available for the system, so he had to finance it himself on
a credit card to avoid bankruptcy, vacating the property, or paying a daily fee. Figure this
out. It is a train wreck now. It has financially ruined his family.
Bill Schoonover, 606 Chuckanut Drive, stated this is an unfunded mandate to the
County from the State. When the unfunded mandate is passed on to the people, the people
have no way out.
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 10
1 Gayle Pattenaude, 5809 Aldrich Road, Bellingham, stated senior citizens can't afford
2 this. Health Department staff love this because it gives them more jobs. She asked the
3 number of licensed inspectors.
4
5 Unidentified person said there are 11 licensed inspectors.
6
7 Pattenaude asked if the County is going to start preventing hardware sales from
8 selling septic tank supplies.
9
10 Wes Haworth, 5237 Defiance Drive, Bellingham, stated he managed a water system
11 as a volunteer for 20 years. He took classes and passed a State exam to become certified
12 as a water operator. Septic tank rules are getting larger and larger. His volunteer work
13 became like a job. The regulations will become more and more as time goes on. The $300
14 inspection every year is overkill. It is an indirect tax on his property.
15
16 Louise Sager, 5659 Olson Road, Ferndale, stated people are being treated like they
17 can't take care of their own property. Most people in the county will take care of any
18 problems with their septic systems. There seems to be a small number of problems that
19 could have been taken care of in a better way. She hopes State representatives will change
20 the rules. This is a hardship for many people. It isn't necessary. The regulations will drive
21 people out of their homes.
22
23 Les Bjorkstan, 8172 Van Buren Road, Everson, stated he would like larger name
24 plates for the councilmembers. He asked if there is any way to qualify people without two
25 years of experience, to have more than 11 inspectors. Perhaps pumpers could also do
26 inspections.
27
28 Brenner stated pumpers will be doing inspections. One inspector says he charges
29 $170. It sounds like the fees are coming down. It doesn't solve the problem, though. She
30 doesn't know what other people charge.
31
32 Ed Henken, 6960 Northwest Road, referenced Whatcom County Code 24.05.160.
33 The Council is the Board of Health. The Health Department works for the Council. The
34 Health Department staff are giving the Council lip service about allowing people to do their
35 inspections. The amended language does not accommodate the request to allow people to
36 do their own inspections. There are too many restrictions. He recommends that the Council
37 delete section .160(B)(1) and the third sentence in section .160(C).
38
39 Nelson asked about Mr. Henken's email regarding State requirements. Henken
40 stated that applies to the proposed management plan. The intent to protect the sensitive
41 areas is good. They don't have to do the entire county. Most lands in the county are
42 suitable. Properly designed systems will function without these additional inspections. The
43 State only requires this for sensitive areas. He suggested the regulations be required just in
44 the sensitive areas.
45 -
46 Patrick Grover, 3965 Loomis Trail Road, Blaine, stated the State mandated
47 inspections, but said nothing about 0 &M specialists doing those inspections. Allowing
48 homeowners to do their own inspections on alternating years is one step, but it isn't
49 enough. They need to be able to do those inspections for a longer period of time. He can't
50 afford the inspection fees.
51
52 Michael Skehan, 2040 Granger Way, Lummi Island, stated not enough inspectors are
53 available in the county. About half of the 30,000 systems need to be inspected annually.
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 11
1 They've only done 600 to date. They are behind by about 14,200 short with two months
2 left. This is an unsustainable program. With the gravity systems, there will be 60,000
3 inspections per three -year cycle. There are too few inspectors.
4
5 In other counties, inspectors must have only six months' experience. The ordinance
6 is too restrictive of the inspectors. Allow more people to do inspections. One option is to do
7 a phased -in approach similar to the San Juan County program, which addresses the most
8 critical areas first. That was the intent of the original legislation. Target sensitive areas
9 first. Whatcom County has nearly three hundred licensed designers, pumpers, installers,
10 and water system operators. He is one of them. He is happy to take additional training so
11 he can inspect the systems in his area.
12
13 Fred Rinard, 3854 Cabrant Road, Everson, stated he pays $2,000 year taxes and is
14 retired. He sent a letter to Councilmember Brenner with suggestions and concerns. He
15 asked what standards make a person a certified inspector. Many people have good
16 knowledge of these things and could probably pass the test with a little schooling. His
17 septic system has been pumped once in 35 years.
18
19 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
20
21 Caskey- Schreiber moved to refer to the Board of Health.
22
23 Weimer stated the Council has a Health Committee that could take up this matter
24 also.
25
26 Brenner stated she needs time to get things together.
27
28 Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated the next Board of Health
29 meeting is in April.
30
31 Nelson asked about people defaulting on their loans. That usually requires some sort
32 of repayment. Wolpers stated that is correct. It came from the County budget to repay
33 those loans back to the Department of Ecology.
34
35 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
36
37 Nelson asked if there are other mechanisms that won't put liability onto the County.
38
39 Crawford stated that's no different from someone not paying property taxes. The
40 County would put a lien on the property, foreclose, and sell the property. There is no
41 difference with this program. Wolpers stated the Health Department would not manage it.
42 A third party, such as the Treasurer, would manage the program. Other counties do have
43 good, successful programs.
44
45 Crawford asked if the County would have recourse if someone didn't pay back a
46 County - guaranteed loan.
47
48 Nelson stated that is the question he has, also.
49
50 Weimer asked if the Council is under a State timeline to get this done. Wolpers
51 stated the regulations are in place. The local management plan was to have been done and
52 adopted by July 1, 2007 also.
53
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 12
Brenner stated they don't have to have everything completely done until 2012.
Wolpers stated that has to do with Bill 1458 for the marine recovery areas. The Department
of Health has allotted $100,000 for the 12 Puget Sound counties to help this effort move
along. Those funds can't be released until the county adopts their regulations. Whatcom
County is one of three counties that are yet to adopt a local management plan.
Brenner asked if all their plans are as restrictive as Whatcom County's plan. Wolpers
stated he has not read those plans.
Crawford asked about implementing the regulations in the shoreline areas only.
Wolpers stated WAC 246 -272A requires evaluations. It doesn't say that a licensed 0 &M
specialist has to do the inspection. The WAC says that homeowners with an onsite septic
system, not just in sensitive areas, have to do an inspection at a certain frequency.
Weimer stated the Council can decide whether to put this item in the Board of Health
or the Health Committee.
Caskey- Schreiber restated her motion is to schedule the item before the Board
of Health.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A WHATCOM COUNTY ON -SITE SEWAGE LOCAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN (AB2008 -072)
See Public Hearing item one for the staff report on this item.
Weimer opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Geoff Ilenzies, 988 W. Laurel Road, Ferndale, stated he encourages adoption of the
local management plan. He worked to help shape the plan. The plan reflects community
input. He thanked Health Department staff for working on the plan.
The Drayton Harbor watershed is identified as a marine recovery area according to
the State Revised Code of Washington (RCW). This designation does not include any more
stringent requirements for septic system maintenance than are required throughout the
county. All it means is that this is the area where the local management plan will initially be
implemented. The Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee
recommends the plan.
Develop a program to do intensive monitoring upstream. Focus efforts on the worst
streams. Do a risk -based program similar to a Thurston County program.
The County recently began conducting more intensive water quality monitoring
programs in the California Creek portion of the Drayton Harbor watershed. The total
maximum daily load (TMDL) study in the Drayton Harbor watershed is underway. It will
identify specific problem drainages. The Puget Sound Restoration Fund and Whatcom
County has completed a pilot study to delineate human from other bacterial sources in
portions of the California Creek watershed.
The Health Department will consider findings from all these programs to help
investigate and control bacterial pollution. He thanked Health Department staff for working
on the plan.
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 13
1
2 Bob Bingham, 9019 Kendall Road, Sumas, stated he recommends that the Council
3 not approve anything until the inspection program is fully developed and the integrity of
4 those inspections are upheld. He was invited to review the Jeremy Beck situation. He
5 compared his system inspection with Mr. Beck's. There were no written procedures for the
6 inspections and tests used to prove or condemn a septic system. Inspectors are using the
7 hydraulic tests and dye tests inconsistently. The hydraulic test is prone to false failures and
8 is greatly impacted by rain, snow, and other factors, according to the Department of Health.
9
10 The Beck system was overstressed and not completed in a technically correct
11 manner. Septic systems should be tested consistently. The County Health Department is
12 responsible for administration and integrity of the program and inspectors. Other failed
13 systems may not actually be failed, as Mr. Beck's wasn't. Before any onsite septic system
14 program is adopted, the program integrity must be assured.
15
16 Mel Marcoux, 6128 Kickerville Road, Ferndale, stated some inspectors have conflicts
17 of interest. He was given false information by an inspector, and forced to put in a system
18 that has to be inspected yearly instead of every three years. He has done his own
19 inspection. Two -years of experience doesn't qualify someone any more than what he
20 learned.
21
22 Ed Henken, 6960 Northwest Road, stated it's premature to go forward this quickly.
23 Take another look at it. He is concerned about the broad regulation on everyone in the
24 county. This needs to apply to the sensitive areas only. The Health Department has done a
25 lot of work defining true sensitive areas. Concentrate on those areas.
26
27 Jeremy Beck, 5575 Knight Road, Bellingham, stated his system was tested outside of
28 a controlled environment. 0 &M Inspectors use no scientific data on which to base their
29 findings. It had rained for several days prior to the day of his inspection. That can have a
30 lot of impact on the drainfield. The home inspector for the potential buyers was working on
31 the property at the same time. That home inspector was running the bathtub, two
32 additional kitchen sinks, a washing machine, and flushing the toilet all at the same time,
33 which added substantial water to his tank. Simultaneously, the O &M inspector ran a garden
34 hose into the tank. Two days after the installation of his new septic system, water was
35 running from his house to the drainfield. It turned out that a drainpipe under the house was
36 leaking groundwater into the septic tank the entire time. They fixed the leak and water quit
37 running into the septic system. One - quarter to one -half gallon of water ran into that pipe
38 per minute. That equals 20 gallons per hour, and 480 gallons per day into a 900 gallon
39 septic tank.
40
41 That seems like a small oversight. With no rules or regulations for O &M inspectors,
42 mistakes like this happen and have huge impacts to people. There must be firm, clear,
43 outlined rules and regulations for the inspectors to follow.
44
45 Hearing no one else, Weimer closed the public hearing.
46
47 Brenner moved to refer to the Board of Health.
48
49 Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
50
51
52 CONSENT AGENDA
53
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 14
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved
to approve Consent Agenda items one through three.
Brenner referenced Consent Agenda item one. Make sure the Public Works
Department can't do whatever they want at their own discretion. The thing about loading
and unloading conditions is strange. If someone has a pattern of not delivering on time, the
County should not use that person as a preferred vendor. Most of this has already been
dealt with. She's concerned about adding the wording to what they already have. She
thought it was already there. This makes it look broader.
Nelson stated that's not correct.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one and three carried 6 -0 with
Fleetwood absent.
1. APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #08 -07 UPON REVIEW OF
ALL BIDS AND THE SELECTION OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE VENDOR AS
DICTATED BY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR JOB FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ROCK GRAVEL AND SOIL FOR COUNTY ROAD MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS (AB2008 -084)
Addenda:
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR PAYMENT
OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS COSTS IN SKAGIT COUNTY, ET
AL. V. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL. (AB2008 -092)
3. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TREASURER'S LIST OF PETITIONS FOR
PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS (AB2008 -093)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION TO FORMALIZE THE COUNCIL'S PROCESS FOR
PRIORITIZATION OF INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
(AB2008 -066A)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the resolution.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent
2. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE'S RANKING OF APPLICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE WITH PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
ACQUISITIONS FOR ROUND 6 (AB2008 -087)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 15
3. REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER IN TO AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY
OF BELLINGHAM UGA FOR APPROXIMATELY 305 ACRES IN THE VICINITY OF
DEWEY VALLEY AND THE MOUNT BAKER HIGHWAY (AB2008 -086)
Caskey - Schreiber reported for the Planning and Development Committee and
moved to approve the request.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
6. RECOMMENDATION TO FORWARD TO JOINT COUNCILS AND COMMISSION:
APPROVAL OF THE 2008 LAKE WHATCOM WORK PLAN (AS AMENDED ON
1/29/2008 TO INCLUDE, FOR COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION
PURPOSES, AN ADDITIONAL TASK TO FORM A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
JOINT COUNCILS /COMMISSIONERS) (AB2008 -081A)
Weimer reported for the Natural Resources Committee.
Brenner moved to approve and forward the plan.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
7. COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REQUESTS CONFIRMATION OF HIS
APPOINTMENT OF ALLISON AURAND TO THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (AB2008 -088)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
S. COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN REQUESTS CONFIRMATION OF HIS
APPOINTMENT OF ALICE SIMMONS TO THE BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AB2008 -089)
Caskey- Schreiber moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
9. ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 2.02,
COUNTY COUNCIL (AB2008 -076)
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Fleetwood absent.
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 16
1
2 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 12.24, FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS (AB2008-
3 077)
4
5 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC 20.92, REGARDING WRITTEN ARGUMENT,
6 ORAL ARGUMENT, TIME EXTENSION, AND TRANSCRIPTS FOR APPEALS TO
7 COUNTY COUNCIL (AB2008 -060)
8
9 3. ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2008 BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST #4 IN THE
10 AMOUNT OF $2,323,460 (AB2008 -090)
11
12 4. ORDINANCE (INTERIM) RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
13 MANAGEMENT (AB2008 -091)
14
15
16 OTHER BUSINESS
17
18 There was no other business.
19
20
21 REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
22
23 Caskey- Schreiber stated she had a lovely time in Paris, but the population density is
24 overwhelming.
25
26
27 ADJOURN
28
29 The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
30 y1�
31
33 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
34 01111111111111111
35 \\\14 (z 1, 9 oved these minutes on February 26 , 2008.
37 ,�f,'•y1N AT C0�.� '� WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
38 z • k .� WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
0.p .
39
40 =
41
42
43 Di?h Br&(+, a��iS, Coil Clerk Carl Weimer, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 2/12/2008, Page 17