Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil January 25 20051 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Regular County Council January 25, 2005 Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Barbara Brenner Dan McShane Sam Crawford Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy L. Ward Nelson FLAG SALUTE ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Absent: None 1. DONATION OF LAND FROM KEN AND KATHY HERTZ, AND JERRY AND HEIDI DOORNENBAL (MALIBU ASSOCIATES) TO WHATCOM COUNTY FOR PARK AND WILDLIFE HABITAT USE (AB2004 -017) The item will be rescheduled. OPEN SESSION The following people spoke: Mick Moynihan, Whatcom County Charter Review Commission Chair, stated he invites the Council as individuals or as a group to provide input to the commission on the charter review process. He asked for the councilmembers to comment on an amendment he will propose to raise councilmember salaries from 15 percent to 25 percent of the Executive's salary. There may also be a proposed amendment to change voting for councilmembers from countywide voting to district -only voting. It would be helpful to have the councilmembers' input on that Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. issue as well. The commission meets on the first, second, and fourth Thursdays of every month. The commission's work is scheduled to be done by July 31. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he is concerned about the number of people in the room due to the fire code. He asked for volunteers go into the rotunda. Jean Freestone, property owner at 3286 Creasy Road, submitted information (on file, Exhibit A), and read her testimony regarding the ordinance amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6 and 7 goals and policies related to the Custer Provisional Growth Area (AB2004- 3968). Rezone the site of the Custer intermodal facility to an urban growth area. The land is not appropriate for rural residential. It is appropriate as a transportation hub. Greg Anders, 2313 Northshore Road, submitted information (on file, Exhibit 8) and stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). This action tramples his constitutional rights. Seizing building rights is the same as seizing property. The issues with the lake do not constitute an emergency or seizing his rights without due process. He drinks the water from the lake once it has run through his filtration system. It does not go through the City's treatment plant. He approves of the Council's stewardship of the lake, but they must respect the citizens' rights to due process. Kris Ungern, 2095 North Shore Road, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005 -072A) and is opposed to the resolution to remove the Whatcom Connector from the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (AB2005- 068). He submitted and read from his testimony (on file, Exhibit Q. These appear to be anti - growth measures designed to limit the urban growth boundaries and restrict development in the county. Housing costs are rising because of a reduced housing supply. The Council must find a way to manage inevitable growth and also affordable housing. Development restricts and anti- growth ordinances result in decreased housing supply and higher housing prices. Norm Chamberlin, 2532 Lake Whatcom Boulevard stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005 -072A) and is opposed to resolution to remove the Whatcom Connector from the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (AB2005- 068) and is opposed to the ordinance amending the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 8, Mineral Resource Lands (AB2004 -400). He has taken measures to conserve the lake. The Council is taking his property rights. He has lived in Whatcom County for 58 years, longer than the councilmembers have probably lived here. Dr. Frank James, 3511 Chuckanut Avenue, stated he is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. (AB2005- 072A). He formerly was Whatcom County's health officer. He quit that job because of a leukemia outbreak in children in the north part of the county. They still don't know what caused the leukemia. He is embarrassed by the behavior of the crowd. Women and children cannot eat the fish from Lake Whatcom right now. There are contaminates in the lake that need to be taken care of. They know what the constitution says. It's time to be responsible, positive, and care for everyone. Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, thank Council for its unanimous vote on the electric issue from this summer and for its work opposing the Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX) pipeline. Lynne Findley, Silver Beach, stated she is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). She and her husband live in the watershed. This moratorium is hard for developers. However, for people who simply own homes and live on the lake, the homes will be worth more if there is a moratorium. There is a way to build in the watershed, but it needs a lot more study before building is allowed. Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, submitted information (on file, Exhibit D) and stated she is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). The moratorium is temporary. During that moratorium, the County will do planning on how to respond to State and federal regulations. Her information is a proposed solution to the dilemma that will satisfy both sides. She read from the information she submitted. Once the planning is done, the moratorium can be lifted. In the meantime, health and public safety trumps personal property issues, happiness, and pleasure. A close friend is currently suffering from ALS. One of the presumed causes is toxic pollution contained in the treated water. Jean Waight, 919 Coronado Avenue, stated she is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). It is not a sudden proposal. The critical areas ordinance has not done enough. This is about rethinking costs and adapting. The certainty builders operate under is not a good thing and must fight to keep what they have. However, it's too late for that fight. The situation with the lake has moved past a reasonable cost to save it. Watershed construction is a part of the problem. Developers pay too small a share for the impacts. Neighbors must pay through taxes for cleanup. A taking could apply to the rest of the homeowners as well. They must act now. Linda Franz, 6640 Trent Lane, Ferndale, submitted information (on file, Exhibit E) and stated she is opposed to the ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps to create a Mineral Resource Lands designation near the corner of North Star and Brown Road (James Carr application) (AB2004- 082A). This application has an effect on six property owners for a combined loss of $413,000 in property value. This is property they already live on. It is a residential area. This particular mineral resource land (MRL) Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. is mostly sand, which is not in short supply. It is less than one -third of a percent of the total supply. Balance the effects of this MRL area on the neighborhood versus what they will get from the MRL area. MRL designations are intended to protect significant resource areas from conflicting uses. Don't use MRL designations to spot zone a small tract in an area where conflicting uses are already well - established. Myron Wlaznak, 4215 E. Oregon Street, stated he supports the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). This is the last chance they have to protect the lake before the decline in water quality requires more costly treatment methods. This action will have an effect for 100 years and beyond. Clean water is vital to their economic, physical, social, and community welfare. The Entranco report is the single source used to contradict voluminous amounts of scientific data documenting the declining water quality. He quoted from page two of the summary and paragraph one of the overview of the report. There should be no debate that they need to protect the lake and that water quality is declining. Take effective, comprehensive action now. Jon Raney, 3040 Birchwood Court, stated he is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He commended Councilmember McShane for his courage to bring forward the emergency moratorium. Degradation continues as watershed development takes place. The only question is whether they formally plan now or wait for the natural moratorium that will take place when the watershed reaches build out. It is more reasonable to look at the projected state of the lake at build out and see if that's what they want. The development community won't ever come to the table on this issue until the choice is a workable plan or going out of business. The citizens who don't live in the watershed don't want to be forced to pay for the negative effects of development in the watershed. The right of those who don't live in the watershed to have clean water is on par with the rights of those who speculated on land in the watershed to make a profit. Figure out how to keep the lake healthy. The alternative is not cheap. Terry Prestlien, 2217 W. Birch Street, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He works for Federal Express and his wife is a medical technician. He owns five acres in the watershed that is waiting for a four -lot short plat. The property has all the needed infrastructure. He is not a developer. If the Council implements the moratorium, it will bankrupt him. It would trample his property rights. Review the available science carefully. Give consideration to those who have followed all the rules and made significant investments already. Art Terpsma, 2166 Dellesta Drive, stated Lake Whatcom Boulevard is one of the largest polluters in the watershed. Instead of trying to minimize pollution from the road, the County straightened and widened the road and enlarged the bridge, which encourages more traffic. The government wants to improve its assets and stop the landowners from improving their assets. He is opposed to the emergency Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). Jim Scerjanc, 556 Summit Place, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He hasn't seen any proof that the lake is in jeopardy. The proposal is out of line and uncalled for. Bob Shipp, 3726 Fielding Avenue, stated the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005 -072A) was not on the agenda. That promotes bad faith between the Council and the public. The Council did not encourage public input on whether or not this is an emergency. This should have been on the agenda and had a public hearing. This procedure circumvented the Planning process. The Council has an ongoing responsibility to the City urban growth areas. The County should have removed the watershed from the Bellingham Urban Growth area. The County pledged to cooperate with the City. However, the city is included in this moratorium. That is not an act of cooperation with the City. Drop the portion of the watershed that includes the city and the urban growth area. Pursue an alternative reservoir. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Bill Roessel, resident, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). If people don't like the water, they can buy their water. He has five acres on south side of Lake Whatcom at Strawberry Shores that has all the infrastructure to the building site. He can take measures to protect Lake Whatcom through different measures. Don't pass the moratorium, but use the regulations that work. Kim Sutherland, 1767 Wildhaven Crest, stated she is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). She owns a parcel of land in an established plat to build a home for their retirement. They found a problem that would comply with all the zoning restrictions. They did not buy land for speculation or future appreciation. They paid for the security of buying into an established plat that has the necessary infrastructure in place. Drinking water is an important issue but this is not the way to handle it. Go through the public process and work with the affected landowners. Joe McCaskill, 210 W. Smith Road, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He owns a buildable lot with utilities. His home will cause little or no impact to the lake. The moratorium would be unfair. It causes unfair disadvantages to the economy. Developments in the watershed should have strict guidelines, which they already have. If there is a problem, come up with the rules and regulations needed to correct the mistakes that create the problem. The moratorium is too extreme. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Hank Mauer, 5745 Willow Springs Way, Ferndale, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He plans to build a home to retire in on his five -acre parcel in the watershed. The moratorium won't be temporary. It will be extended again and again. They should explore other alternatives to the moratorium. Reduce or eliminate the current sources of pollution makes more sense than stopping future sources of pollution. Give them more than two weeks to submit their building plan. It takes four weeks to three months just to get an appointment to submit a building permit application. Donna Clark, 2502 North Shore Road, stated she is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005 -072A) and is opposed to resolution to remove the Whatcom Connector from the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (AB2005- 068). She has 33 acres in the watershed she doesn't want to build on, but the County is forcing her to act. She already gave 13 Yz acres out of the center of her property to Bonneville so everyone has power. That devalued her property. The County downzoned her even more. She wants to give her grandchildren the land. The connector has been on the books since 1965 when Sudden Valley was developed. The traffic is terrible. If they take away the option for the connector, there will never be another access road. If they are worried about the quality of the water, take the traffic away from the lake. Steve Hood, State Department of Ecology, stated he appreciates what the Council has done on the downzone and overlay. They aren't enough. He will not advocate for or against the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). Solving this problem is going to be expensive. When they started, they knew that at least some areas around the lake need zoning reductions. Since that time, the amount of development has grown. They've confirmed that the highest amounts of pollution comes from the most developed areas. Run models to see the amount of pollution that would occur given certain levels of development, then decide where they want to be. Degradation is happening farther and farther south in the lake. He's becoming less hesitant and more confident about saying that they need reductions in the lake. That is likely what the model is going to tell them. The trends noted by Dr. Matthews last year are even more notable this year. The final report should be finished by December 2005. Schuyler Durtt, 3129 Brandywine Court, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He is in the construction industry. He has experience with managing stormwater runoff. He is building homes in Sudden Valley. It is a very desirable area that wants a native setting. Don't put a blanket prohibition on everything. Because he takes steps to manage the runoff of his jobsite, he doesn't have an effect on the lake. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Barbara Ryan, Bellingham City Council Member, stated she supports the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). She recognizes the Council's history of trying to protect the water quality in Lake Whatcom. However, the water quality is getting lower and lower each year. This year, they're seeing the same pattern in basin three that is in basins one and two. As development increases, water quality decreases. They need the information from the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study and to understand what is possible before moving ahead with any more development. Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association (BIA) Executive Officer, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He asked what has changed to warrant an emergency moratorium. BIA has asked for a stormwater capture and treatment system for Lake Whatcom. The County and City have purchased lots to reduce the level of development. Runoff from existing development continues to flow to the lake. Recent news coverage of a Department of Ecology study noted that the golf course at Sudden Valley and the restroom facilities at the park need immediate attention. The study did not suggest that new construction is the number one problem for nutrient loading. The BIA has worked to teach builders to develop responsibly. Houses that haven't been built yet are not what's polluting the lake. He asked where buildable lots from the watershed will go so the County meets the Growth Management Act requirements, reduces urban sprawl, and provides affordable housing. They must begin to protect the drinking water resource from what is actually polluting it. Bill McCourt, 3495 Robertson Road, stated he supports the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He is concerned about water quality. He retired from the City of Bellingham Public Works as its operations superintendent last year. In that position, he was responsible for the water system since 1983. He has worked with many people over the years on monitoring and protecting water quality. The lake is a fragile system, and continued urbanization will inevitably lead to significant problems with the lake and ultimately the drinking water. The Bellingham Herald reported that references to degradation are all speculative. It's hard to believe they are still having that debate. The Environmental Protection Agency listed the lake on its for impaired water bodies because of low dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform at Silver Beach Creek. It proposes 12 additional listings for things such as mercury, PCB's, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and others in the lake and in fish tissue. The creeks feeding the lake are beginning to look like storm drains in urban areas. The efforts to treat stormwater have had limited success. The State Department of Ecology is finalizing its TMDL report, which acknowledges that they will have to significantly reduce nutrients entering the lake. He doesn't know why some people don't take this seriously. The City increased the amount of alum needed to treat the water. The City has had to relax its standards on the number of allowable particles in the drinking water, even with the increased Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. chemicals, due to changes in the lake. This is an opportunity to say enough is enough, and take this seriously. The moratorium is the only responsible way to act. Evaluate where they are and the TMDL study. Come up with a plan for their future. Bruce Kraig, 1904 - 18th Street, stated he supports the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He empathizes with watershed property owners, but they must stop building around the watershed. The lake should never have been developed. Humans tend to do things piecemeal. People should think carefully about the choices they make. Dennis Jones, Sudden Valley, stated he supports the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). If they stop current development today, the lake water quality will continue to degrade. The lake will need years to adapt to all the pollution that's been put into it. Eventually, it should reach a stable state. However, they don't know what the water quality will be at that point. The TMDL has teeth. Fairness and common sense demand that they remediate the situation now. If not, the legacy will be huge clean up costs that could have been avoided. Repealing the laws of economics is not possible. One plan would be to completely build out Lake Whatcom and find another water source. Another plan is to protect the lake. He thanked everyone for showing up. The emergency started December 18, 2001 and continues to this day. Jeff Hertz, 3507 Northwest Avenue, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). The Council should take a more measured approach to the moratorium. The situation is very important and contentious. It has been building up for quite some time. However, many people have purchased lots in the watershed and have begun building their homes. No one has mentioned the possibility of not being able to build. The financial ramifications of an emergency moratorium could be devastating. Have a more planned response to this issue. Allow those who have started the development process to continue. Forest Cat, 1099 Sudden Valley, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A) for already platted lots. He purchased and permanently three lots in Sudden Valley for wildlife and water quality conservation. Since the sewer moratorium lifted, the degradation of riparian habitat and stream ecology of Austin and Beaver creeks has accelerated. To preserve the water quality and riparian ecosystems, impose a permanent ban on new subdivisions; increase the water utility surcharge; double stream setbacks for new construction; work with the Sudden Valley Community Association to retire the inventory of unrestricted lots that will be sold for development; work with the Whatcom Transportation Authority WTA to increase public transit; impose a ban on all pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers; increase County staff for enforcement of construction site stormwater control and treatment measures; impose construction impact fees for watershed restoration and land acquisition, and; ban all motorized water and land recreation. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Ted Hanson, 3105 Brandywine Way, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He owns property in the watershed. His son recently purchased a house zoned for multi - family dwelling. An emergency moratorium smacks of panic, not planning. He asked if new construction really is the problem or just a piece of the equation. Is all for planning and for action but not for reaction. A temporary action is a step to permanence. New construction is not the entire problem. Some of the problem is old construction, including old systems that need upgrading. Take a longer look. Ken Murray, 22 Creek Side Lane East, Sudden Valley, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). Sudden Valley was originally platted to have about 4,500 lots. The community reduced that amount to about 3,000 lots. He invested in some lots for his retirement. A moratorium could bankrupt him. Construction is not the problem. Tonight is not enough time to give input on this issue. There has not been one public forum since the last time a year ago the Council introduced a moratorium. Table the moratorium so they can deal with the issue. They need a forum of people and engineers. Sudden Valley is not being polluted by new construction. It is a scapegoat. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) Murray continued to state that the Council should make an intellectual decision, not an emotional decision. Paul Isaacson, Shallow Shore Road, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He has been on many committees regarding Lake Whatcom, Lake Samish and water. Originally, they built an overlay to protect Lake Samish. Then they downzoned Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish and created a tree retention regulation. He has given up a lot of the density he owns and his ability to harvest his trees. He is not giving up any more of his rights and land. The County has taken enough. He has worked with the County for years, but the County has not worked with him. There are many people who own homes and live on the lake who still fertilize their lawns, drive their cars, and are not facing moratoriums on their property. He owns raw property on the lake that does nothing to harm the lake, and he is the one who is losing. William Rink, 995 Lakeview Street, stated he is in favor of the resolution to remove the Whatcom Connector from the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (AB2005 -068). The Whatcom connector should be removed from the six -year transportation improvement plan because of financing and the environmental impact. The State can't keep up with the roads and bridges it's built already. The cost would be $20 million to $30 million so a few people can get into town five or ten minutes quicker. There are environmental threats to the lake from Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. the connector. It will cause more damage from increased runoff, erosion, and chemical and sediment intrusion into the lakes. Now, the County has a 60 -foot easement right -of -way along the power lines along this route. The County will not lose that right -of -way. The connector will lose the rural neighborhood. Joan Casey, 1015 W. Toledo Street, Bellingham, stated she is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). She encouraged the Council to read and study the fact sheet distributed by the People For Lake Whatcom. A byproduct of treating the water creates a carcinogen. Vote for the emergency building moratorium, then immediately convene a citizens group to make a fair and flexible ordinance that everyone can live with in the next 60 days. Mitch Valich, 47 Tumbling Water Drive, Sudden Valley, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). A moratorium would really hurt a first time builder like he is. He's put a lot of money he's saved into this. Let people who have started a project finish. Vince LaLonde, 1317 Roland Street, stated he is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He thanked the Council for protecting the watershed. They must take a long term view. Water degradation is a worldwide problem. Correct past errors they've made. They need to protect the water for generations. Building begets more building. He gave up driving and began riding the bus and his bike. Mike Valich, 2501 E. Sunset Drive, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). The newspaper stated an open forum wasn't called for because they were worried about a rush of building permits. This seems like an underhanded way to solve the problem. This issue needs a public discussion. Disregard the emergency measure and allow a public discussion. Fewer people will feel like the Council is doing something behind their backs. Cary Kaufman, 2065 Squalicum Mountain Road, stated he is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He doesn't want to drink polluted water, eat toxic food, or breath toxic air. He is a physician and serves on professional associations. There is cancer in many of the families that live near him by the lake. However, the cancer rate is not any higher than normal. This isn't an emergency. The Council should take a scientific and rational approach to all health concerns. Dave Ewoldt, 1515 I Street, stated he is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). Lake Whatcom is already over - built. Development has to stop somewhere. He supports the moratorium. Humans are a part of nature, not masters of nature. They are subject to the same biologic, evolutionary laws that the rest of the natural Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. world is subject to. All living organisms expand to fill a niche. If they keep increasing the niche, they will keep expanding. More population is caused by more development. There aren't laws of economics, as someone said earlier. Economics is a human - created system based on various assumptions, including the assumption that prosperity is predicated by constant growth. That's against the law of nature in a finite universe. The idea of a property rights taking is a red herring by those who want to intimidate the Council. He feels compassion for those who have invested money in property. Sometimes it doesn't work out. The government is not responsible to protect people's investments. Jake Smith, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He is a lifetime Whatcom County resident. There is no emergency. Get water experts and biologists to discuss this. This problem didn't hit all of a sudden. There won't be a great catastrophe if they don't approve this emergency ordinance. The emergency ordinance will have repercussions on many people in the county. Don't offend the definition of an emergency. Charles Rending, Sudden Valley Community Association President, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005 -072A) in a number of ways. Sudden Valley is the most environmentally conscience community in the county. Sudden Valley and the County agreed on a plan to deal with all of these environmental issues. The association suffered a financial detriment when it agreed to the plan. This measure will bankrupt a number of people who live in Sudden Valley. Speaking as an individual, this is an arrogant and radical approach that is not consultative and doesn't bring people to the table. They made a move at night with no notice to pass a personal agenda. Brenner stated some of the councilmembers had committee meetings during the day and haven't gotten to their phone messages yet. They've been in committee meetings. Wayne Schwandt, 522 S. State Street, Trillium Corporation representative, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). Trillium is a significant landowner in the watershed. This is not an emergency. Trillium is willing to work with the County to do planning and develop concrete proposals to deal with water quality in Lake Whatcom and the watershed. He would like to be notified of any meetings. Trillium will provide staff and effort to assist the County in this issue. He supports a long -term plan to address the issues in an equitable way. Seth Norman, Sudden Valley, stated he is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He stands to lose a great deal from a permanent moratorium. However, a species of insect, the May fly, is a bellwether species that is declining. It is a sign of Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. serious problems. Most new development makes use of every allowable impervious surface. He supports the moratorium. He would rather work extra years than sell out his kids' futures for his advantage. David Vis, Lynden, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He owns three lots in Sudden Valley. He urged the Council to consider less drastic steps. Maintain existing and failing septic systems. Control stormwater runoff. Place restrictions on acceptable levels of herbicides and pesticides in the watershed. Continue testing the water. The science is disputed. There are options other than the emergency moratorium. Plan for true drinking water reservoir in a canyon somewhere, despite the cost. Don't commit a taking. It's not a red herring. It's real. There are 1,000 buildable lots in Sudden Valley. At a cost of $40,000 each, there is a $40 million taking. There is another 2,100 lots to build on around the lake. Ann Soriano, Donald Avenue, stated she is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). Bellingham and Whatcom County has degenerated since she moved from Seattle 33 years ago. This measure is long overdue. People who live around the lake now are legally allowed to put pesticides and other chemicals on their property. Motor boats on the lake put bad chemicals in the drinking water. A new development near her home cleared all the trees. When it rained, a 6 -inch high mudslide ran down the hill and ran across the road into the lake and other people's houses. There is scientific evidence for this moratorium. Mark Polin, 2125 Michigan Street, stated he is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He lives in the watershed and supports the moratorium. One gentleman asked earlier when it is enough. He hoped common sense would dictate that a foreign substance will degrade water quality. Boat owners and builders have both said they are not the problem. Address the problems as they see them. The water should be pristine. A foundation of the democracy is the seventh generation philosophy. Elder statesmen made decisions based on how they would impact seven generations down the road. Do the same. There are many people with special interests. Take the time to create committees to discuss the issue. Continuous urban sprawl must be regulated or they will lose their quality of life. If they postpone saving the water, it will be beyond saving. Russell Stolzoff, 1117 Lake View Street, Geneva, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). It is absurd that there are boats on the drinking water and they build houses right up to the lake. He has serious concerns about water quality. He has a small house on two and a half acres. He could have sold his property to a developer who could build six houses on his property. He didn't do that because he cares about the land he bought. He would like to build a house on his property that he could live in. This reflexive decision would eliminate the opportunity for him to Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. build a house on his property. Consider the level of each development proposal. Don't approve the emergency ordinance. Instead, measure each proposal individually. Susan Templeton, Sudden Valley, Focus Northwest Co- Founder and President, stated she is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). Her organization is dedicated to the service, education, and needs of new and transitional home owners. She is a mortgage lender. She speaks for many investors, lenders and banks. If this moratorium is approved, a $40,000 would be devalued to less than $10,000. People seek to live a better life here. Quite a few people who live here bring assets to the local economy. New homes mean jobs, which they need in this region. Consider the green building movement. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) Templeton continued to state her organization supports and encourages responsible behavior and sustainable practices. Look at building practices, not development itself. Growth is inevitable and change is unstoppable. Building and homes are not bad. Education and higher standards may be the answer. (Clerk's Note: The Council took a break from 9 :20 p.m. to 9:32 p.m.) Patrick Alesse, Alderson Road, Blaine, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). If they put a moratorium on Lake Whatcom, builders will go to Birch Bay. They need a stormwater utility district in Birch Bay. Stormwater is important, as the ancient Romans knew. Sudden Valley may need a stormwater utility district, which isn't cheap. Jim Dickinson, 2095 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated the Lummi Islanders have to be out of the meeting by 11:40 p.m. He urged the Council to stop testimony on the emergency moratorium so the Lummi Island folks can do their business. Ed Brinson, 7 Strawberry Point, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He is a homeowner on the lake. They need more public input. The emergency ordinance not being on the agenda is wrong. He has empathy for the young people who are trying to get started and who would be hurt by the measure. Sharon Crozier, Bellingham, stated she supports the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). No one wants to take away someone's rights or stifle someone's dreams. Name - calling is destructive. This is not personal. It is about people. People need air, water, food, and shelter. People would like better lifestyles, better property, and economic sustainability. The $40,000 lots in Sudden Valley cost $5,000 three Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. years ago. She doesn't know of any other business where people expect a 400 percent or more profit in three years. There's no guarantee on investments. Green building in the watershed is an oxymoron. Owning land in the watershed doesn't make anyone more knowledgeable than the scientists studying the watershed. People make tricky statements that houses not yet built aren't polluting. When the houses are built, they do pollute. It's past time to move on this matter. This moratorium should probably not be temporary. They do try to fix things incrementally. Do the right thing. Betsy Brinson, 1811 C Street, stated she is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). She is offended by this process. The failure of adequate public notice is offensive. The two proposed moratorium ordinances are over - reaching because it is on all building permits in the entire watershed. It is not for new dwellings, but for all building permits. One can't even repair an existing leaking roof. Step back and go through the regular land use regulation process. If the intent is to limit new dwellings, then the language needs to be fixed. DJ Vanweerdhuizen, North Coast Builders Inc. Founder and President, stated he is opposed to the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). He is projected to build 15 homes in Sudden Valley this year. Right now, he has contracts for 5 custom homes in Sudden Valley. If this passes, he will be in breach of contract. This needs to go slower and be better planned. Builders need 12 to 18 months of planning before construction. They need some warning. He is afraid this temporary moratorium will turn into a disaster. Roger Ellingson, 3033 Alderwood, stated he is in favor of the emergency moratorium to restrict growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (AB2005- 072A). According to State case law, moratoria and interim zoning are generally - recognized techniques designed to preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. The County cannot take away the right to develop any vested lot. A temporary moratoria gives the Council time to develop regulations short of taking away the right to build a home. The Council has to allow people to build a home on a vested lot. However, the Council can eliminate the hardship by purchasing development rights. This isn't just about people going into bankruptcy. It's about the County itself going into bankruptcy. The lake has moved past the point of reasonable cost. This is a crisis of water quality and finances, which means taxes. The cost to modify water treatment is estimated at $43 million. The cost to retrofit for stormwater treatment hasn't even been estimated because staff knows the money isn't there. The cost to relocate stormwater discharge out of the watershed would be astronomically expensive. There will be a cost to purchasing the most sensitive properties. Finally there will be a cost to purchase development rights of landowners. These are all things the County cannot afford. Eighty five thousand people are relying on the Council to keep their drinking water safe. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Caskey - Schreiber stated this item will be on the Council's agenda in two weeks. 9. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN EMERGENCY INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND NEW BUILDING PERMITS WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2005 -072A) Nelson stated he understands the motive for the ordinance. However, he doesn't understand how this can be considered an emergency. He is concerned about the process. Nowhere in the federal regulation does it recommend not having public input and a public process. They've done a lot of work preparing for the potential 303(d) listing. They are working toward a modeling process. An emergency moratorium is not a remedy. The regulation does not expect changes in economic activity and land uses until the designated uses have been achieved. Form a citizens committee. McShane stated yesterday was the first day other councilmembers saw this ordinance. There was some concern about the word getting out, but it did get out and that's good. It's important that this has generated the interest it has. Last spring, the Council received a presentation that indicated the water quality situation is the watershed is becoming severely degraded. The lake has been listed on the federal 303(d) list for several years. The Council has worked hard to protect Lake Whatcom. Three years ago, citizens approached him about a building moratorium. At the time, he opposed it. At the time, he was a bit ignorant about the science. Since then, there have been changed conditions and additional information. There is a clear trend that the lake is in big trouble. It took him time to get his mind around what a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study result will mean for Whatcom County. This is more than a water quality, drinking water issue. It doesn't matter whether or not they are drinking water from the lake. They will be required to protect from future development. They will also be required to reverse the degraded state of the lake. The cost involved in that is frightening. That is a massive issue the community is facing as it is today, without any more development in the watershed. He fears it enormously for the fiscal well -being of the residents of Whatcom County. There have been severe impacts to businesses in the city of Bellingham. Every business in the city is paying a huge price for stormwater. A lot of business friends have complained bitterly about it. every resident in his neighborhood has seen their water bill increase dramatically because they are all paying a stormwater fee on the water bill. Not only that, it's being taxed. Every single drinking water user in the city of Bellingham, including those who are poorer and on fixed incomes, is paying more for water that is lower quality. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. He wants to know who is supposed to pay for this. It won't be fun whether they do a moratorium or keep going the way they are. He is disappointed in himself that he didn't think about this more and push harder for this several years ago. The County has taken enormous strides. The Council has made many difficult, resistant steps that should have happened 20 years ago. The problem is not going away, no matter how they vote tonight. McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. McShane moved to amend: • Page three of the ordinance, item three, "Transfer of development standards rights" • Page three of the ordinance, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED... unless applications were (1) complete prior to january 25, 2005, the effective date of this ordinance; or (2) are submitted during a scheduled appointment with the Planning and Development Services Department that was made prior to the effective date of this ordinance; or (3) building permits for remodels where the total impervious surface will remain the same." These amendments should address some of the concerns regarding things he overlooked when he tried to write this as best he could. Roy asked if this would prevent someone from building a porch or a roof when a building permit is needed. McShane stated that if a building permit is required, a person could not, unless impervious surfaces were reduced elsewhere. Roy stated she has gotten a lot of feedback implying it was already decided how the councilmembers are going to vote on this and that she is anti - growth. One gentleman accused the councilmembers of all being newcomers. She's been here since 1944. The County needs to do a better job of educating people. She is stunned at the number of people who are saying the science doesn't support this. Every bit of science they have says the lake is degrading, due to phosphorus loading from land disturbance. The science is there. There is a relationship between land disturbance and degradation of the lake. However, she cannot support this as an emergency measure. She agrees that the process should be more open and public before they make this decision. A moratorium is an option the Council should consider, but an emergency is not the right option. Transfers of development rights and seasonal land clearing are better options. Some drainages are worse than others. Revisit the seasonal land clearing restrictions, which they backed away from. County staff report that the Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. compromised point system in the seasonal land clearing regulations does not work. Because of these reasons, she doesn't support the emergency nature of this. Brenner stated they need to look at a moratorium. She is disappointed in how this happened. The Council needs to work better with the community and each other. She is opposed to the emergency moratorium at this time. She may support some type of moratorium in the future. People brought up other ideas of things the County should be doing. At least twice, she's brought forward the idea of a ban on pesticides, chemicals, and fertilizers on lawns in the watershed. She could never get the votes. There is not one solution. People on both sides of this issue say the Council should be rational, not emotional. It bothers her that people think the Council is being irrational if it doesn't do what they want. This is polarizing the community more than she needs to. They need to work together better. Crawford stated he is against the emergency moratorium. The Council had a good presentation of the data and its conclusions. Dr. Matthews has the task of gathering data. That is separate from the task of drawing conclusions from that data. Dr. Matthews uses folks to collect data. Any scientific study needs peer review of the data. Individuals are going out to collect data and draw conclusions. When questioned on why the dissolved oxygen level is improving, the Council was told to not look at that as a trend. Her conclusions, when looking at everything, led her to conclude that the water quality was still deteriorating. Twice the Council has asked for some peer review of this data. One time was the Entranco report. They could not draw any conclusions. The other time was a consultant who is no longer working as an analyst of this kind of information. This consultant sharply differed from that of Dr. Matthews. Tonight, Mr. McCourt said he spent years working with Dr. Matthews to present a warning to the community. Dr. Matthews and Mr. McCourt should come to the Council for more presentations. However, they need peer review, which has been far from conclusive. He's trying to understand the science and data, and is not reaching the same conclusions. The moratorium is not the right way to go. Continue to be diligent elected officials in understanding how important the water source is. Continue to monitor and debate, but don't suddenly give notice that they will change people's lifestyles and incomes. Have a reasoned discussion. Fleetwood stated he is impressed by the range of authority of the scientists who concluded that Lake Whatcom is impaired, which includes the federal government, state government, and City of Bellingham. All the experts and scientists associated with monitoring the lake concluded that the lake is impaired. The preeminent scientific observer of the lake said the lake cannot withstand the current levels of development and that they must deal with the stormwater from current development. At some point, they have to acknowledge the marching orders of what they have to do. By the definition many people would like them to Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. take, they would never find an emergency because degradation is slow and incremental. Sometimes emergencies can be present without reaction from people. He is prepared to conclude that they should regard this as something of an emergency. They've proposed a process to purge the temporary moratorium. A permanent moratorium would require a taking. It's not true that this is an unconstitutional taking because the moratorium is temporary. (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.) Fleetwood continued to state this is going to have public process and additional public hearings. No one can say that due process, according to the law and the Fourteenth Amendment, will not be observed. Reversing a negative trend line cannot occur by maintaining the status quo. He supports the ordinance. Caskey- Schreiber stated Mr. McCourt spoke well about what is exactly going on. The City is using higher doses of alum than ever before to treat the algae problem in the lake. As a result of using the alum, they have to use chlorine so it can serve the public. The City used to have the particulate at ten parts per million. They are now going to 20 parts per million. The closer one is to the treatment plant, the better the water. A byproduct of the chlorine mixing with the sediments is a carcinogen. The federal limit on it is 80. The level at the Pacific Highway is 65.4. That is a drastic increase in the water degradation. This is science. People can put out reports and still deny that something is wrong. They are setting up future generations for disaster by not addressing the problem. There is no other source of water. It would cost $10 million to $11 million to move the intake. She questioned who would pay that cost. It will cost $30 million to $40 million to upgrading the treatment system. The least they can do is approach the problem prudently and cautiously. They cannot take away development rights, but they need to know what the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study is going to require they fix first before they add more development to the problem. She asked what it would take for the policymakers to take action. She has sympathy for people's concerns about the system. It has to happen. The TMDL results will cause big changes in the county. Caskey- Schreiber suggested a friendly amendment to amend the ordinance, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, ... applications for subdivisions and new building perngits in the Lake Whatcom watershed..." so this applies only to subdivisions. McShane accepted the friendly amendment. He doesn't want to get into a debate about the science. He read an excerpt from the last Lake Whatcom Final Report for 2002 -2003 regarding the phosphorus levels. Bacteria that produces cyanide have increased at all sites. Oxygen levels are higher at site one. The trends are clear. He read quotes from Commissioner Doug Southerland, who said they need to consider the impacts of development and land use in the watershed and the community's responsibility for protecting its own watershed. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. He submitted to the record of this item and AB2005 -072 the two last reports of the Lake Whatcom Monitoring Plan, the minutes to the Natural Resource Committee presentation by Dr. Robyn Matthews from June 1, 2004, and the June 15, 2004 special presentation to the County Council by Steve Hood, Department of Ecology, regarding the TMDL for Lake Whatcom. He hoped staff and Department of Ecology determine where the moratoriums can be lifted as soon as possible. He hoped the Council will take interim steps for development regulations so they can lift building moratoriums as soon as possible. Nelson stated they have to take action, but disagrees on how they must take action. There are other solutions that they need to look at that may be able to solve the same problem. Caskey- Schreiber stated she submitted to the record a 2004 report from the City of Bellingham Watershed Advisory Board, which made recommendations about the single primary source of non -point pollution being land clearing and residential development. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated he has directed the Water Resources Division to work on a proposal with the City of Bellingham to ban all phosphorous containing nutrients for all landscaping purposes in the Lake Whatcom watershed. That proposal is forthcoming in the near future. The dissolved oxygen in Lake Whatcom is one of or the most important problem to deal with. Phosphorus is the main contaminant. Motion to adopt as amended failed 3 -4 with McShane, Fleetwood, and Caskey- Schreiber in favor. Caskey- Schreiber stated that in two weeks, the Council will have another public hearing, if it makes it out of committee, about the interim moratorium (AB2005 -072). Brenner stated they won't be having another hearing. They'll be having the first hearing. The people who just spoke did so in Open Session. This was no hearing. Roy stated she is open to the notion of a moratorium. McShane stated he would like the interim ordinance include an amendment regarding application timing and building permits. Have a hearing on that instead of putting it in a committee. Brenner stated she would like the hearing version to include the amendment from Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber. McShane stated he would not support that amendment. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Nelson asked the impact this will have on the permitting process. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated his department has already begun to receive calls. Any emergency ordinance has a direct and immediate impact on the waiting line at his department. McShane stated that's why he proposed an emergency. Brenner stated it will be chaos for the staff at the Planning Department, but it takes a while to get a building permit. They aren't handed out right away. Permit applications have to be complete. She doesn't like it that they can't amend the ordinance before it goes to a public hearing. McShane stated this is an interim ordinance. It's a high priority, with the intent of lifting the moratorium in areas as fast as possible. As they gain more information, they can put forward a new interim ordinance with changes. This is similar to what the Council did with the subdivision moratorium. INTRODUCTION ITEMS Addenda: S. ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF NEW APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND NEW BUILDING PERMITS WITHIN THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2005 -072) Brenner moved to amend so that it only affects properties with a density greater than five acres. McShane stated he would not approve of that amendment without significant input from the State Department of Ecology. Caskey- Schreiber stated they will schedule this item for a public hearing in two weeks, and can discuss it further than. McShane stated this item includes the amendments he offered on the emergency ordinance. Brenner asked for comments from staff about her proposal to not include densities of five acres or greater. Caskey- Schreiber moved to accept the introduction items, including Introduction Item (addenda) number five with the following amendment, 'SNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED,... unless applications were (1) complete prior to the Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. effective date of this ordinance or (2) are submitted during a scheduled appointment with the Planning and Development Services Department that was made prior to the effective date of this ordinance, or (3) building permits for remodels, where the total impervious surface will remain the same." Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. Crawford moved to adjourn the meeting and continue next Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. in the County Council Chambers. Motion failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor. 1. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION FILED BY SUMAS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE SAFETY ASSOCIATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL USE PERMIT #ADM1998- 00053, REGARDING COMMERCIAL SURFACE MINING OF APPROXIMATELY 75 ACRES WITHIN THE MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS SPECIAL DISTRICT (AB2005 -029) 2. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION FILED BY RICHARD STEPHENS FOR DARCY GILL REGARDING REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF CUP96 -0028 (AB2005 -028) 3. RESOLUTION TO SELL SURPLUS PROPERTY (AB2005 -081A) 4. RESOLUTION INITIATING THE 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE (AB2005- 084) Addenda: 6. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, SECTION 23.100.20.57, AQUACULTURE REGULATIONS (AB2005 -085) CONSENT AGENDA Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one, two, and four. Item three was held until after the presentation at the Public Works Committee. Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one, two, and four carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM VOLUNTEER CENTER TO PROVIDE VOLUNTEER SERVICES TO Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. MULTIPLE COUNTY OFFICES AND SERVICES LOCATIONS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000 (AB2005 -074) 2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SERVICES OF A LEGISLATIVE SPECIALIST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,055 (AB2005 -075) 3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WILSON ENGINEERING, L.L.C. TO PROVIDE PERMITTING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR A PROPOSED PUBLIC PARKING LOT AT THE FERRY TERMINAL ON LUMMI ISLAND, IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,645 (AB2005 -076) Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that until the Council decides to retain the house on the property, he can't give final direction to the consultant. However, approve the contract so the contractor can immediately begin work when the Council makes its decisions. Fleetwood asked if this contract would limit the Council's ability to consider the proposal brought forward today from the Lummi Island Community Land Trust. Monsen stated the administration won't sign the contract until the issue is resolved. Nelson moved to approve the request. Brenner stated the Council should hold this in committee. Make sure the people from Lummi Island are present. Caskey- Schreiber asked the time issue. Monsen stated he won't debate whether or not there is an issue with holding this item for two weeks. It's more important to schedule the hearing to surplus the house. Brenner stated that's fine. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated this item may be held over. He has a meeting scheduled in one week with the project proponents. It is probably appropriate to hold this item for two weeks. Nelson withdrew his motion. Brenner moved to hold in committee for two weeks. Motion to hold in committee carried unanimously. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE — DSHS TO RECEIVE FUNDING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN THE AREAS OF JUVENILE DETENTION ALTERNATIVES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 (AB2005 -077) PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2005 -2011 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REGARDING THE LUMMI ISLAND FERRY REPLACEMENT (AB2004 -221A) Brenner asked if the Council can hold this item for two weeks. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, gave a staff report and stated time is of the essence on this item. They need to move ahead with preparing grant and other financing applications, which they can't do until this is approved. The first federal grant application due date is this Thursday. This must be approved to make that application. Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Dan Warner, 3854 Squalicum Lake Road, stated he is the chairman of Pro - Whatcom. He is opposed to purchasing a new ferry. It will increase access to and population of the island, which is already overpopulated. The environment is deteriorating all over the county. It doesn't have to be that way. They can stop this bloat. Growth is not inevitable. Deal with the problem now. Art Thomas, 2620 Island View, Lummi Island, submitted and read from his written testimony (on file, Exhibit F). He is a member of the Lummi Island Transportation Committee, which supports the plan. He has not ever heard any testimony from the community that the ferry system will degrade the community. The community concerns are with parking, ferry capacity, and ferry schedules. He's concerned they are putting this off again for another idea that has come forward. There are safety concerns with the parking as it is. McShane moved to allow comments for this item be entered into the record for the next item, the resolution amending the 2005 Annual Construction Program regarding replacement of the Lummi Island Ferry (AB2004- 3358). (Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.) David Puck, 2515 Taft Road, Lummi Island, stated the ferry is over 40 years old, doesn't meet current Coast Guard standards, and is aging. The community doesn't have any other way off the island. He supports replacing the ferry. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 23 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated planning is planning. The ferry isn't meeting the set level of service, so they need to plan for the future. It's not a fact yet that a ferry will affect water availability on the island. There are studies going on now about Lummi Island water. Allow a little bigger ferry. Jim Dickinson, Lummi Island, stated he supports the purchase of a new ferry. In addition, tear down the house on the property that will be used for parking. The house was moved to that location in the 1960's from the Seattle freeway location. It's not historic. It's just a house. If they don't surplus it, it will take up a large piece of the parking lot and cost more money to develop the parking lot. Eventually, it will have to be taken out because they will need more parking. A number of residents want to be included in that discussion about the house. Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing. (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.) Roy stated the objective of the County is to build the parking lot this year. Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated that the administration is committed to building the parking lot this year. If the administration entertains the proposal that was brought forward, it runs the risk of not getting the parking lot done this year. There are merits to the proposal, but there are also things that may not make it possible from a legal perspective. Crawford moved to approve the resolution. Brenner stated she understands they can still get the parking done if the County engages in the proposal. Monsen stated the administration will discuss the possibilities for the parking lot over the next two weeks. Amending the six -year and annual construction programs allows the staff to deal with those matters. Including the parking lot in both documents, specifically gives staff the ability to deal with those matters. It doesn't make it happen. McShane moved to amend the resolution to remove the addition of the parking lot, item 68. He is opposed to parking expansion at Lummi Island. Motion failed 1 -6 with McShane in favor. Motion to approve carried unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2005 ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF THE LUMMI ISLAND FERRY (AB2004 -335B) Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 24 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Art Thomas, 2620 Island View, Lummi Island, stated his testimony provided during the previous public hearing applies to this item as well. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated his testimony provided during the previous public hearing applies to this item as well. Caskey- Schreiber stated that all testimony given during the previous public hearing would be included in the record for this item. Island. Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing. McShane moved to approve the resolution. McShane moved to remove item 39, the parking improvements to Lummi Motion failed 1 -6 with McShane in favor. Motion to approve the resolution carried unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 6 AND 7 GOALS AND POLICIES RELATED TO THE CUSTER PROVISIONAL GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -3968) Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Clarence Bob, Lummi Indian Business Council, Chairman, submitted a letter (on file, Exhibit G), and stated the Lummi Development Authority requests the county rezone the area to light industrial. They have been in discussions concerning this property with the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde for almost a year. The Grand Ronde invested money with one of the developers, who went bankrupt. The Lummi Nation is working out a deal with that tribe. Jean Freestone, submitted (on file, Exhibit H) and read her testimony. Keep the policies that have been deleted. Louis Leclezio, 10021 NE 16th Place, Bellevue, stated he is a proponent of the Custer urban growth area (UGA). The competent planning staff recommended retaining the UGA, only for the Council to totally ignore the recommendation. The Planning Commission asked pertinent questions and ultimately voted 7 to 1 to support the staff's recommendation, only to have the Council reject the Planning Commission's conclusions. He asked how the Council can show a glaring absence of knowledge of the record to reach a conclusion based solely on feelings and innuendos. To justify their decision, a number of the councilmembers had to level damaging personal remarks to the proponents. One of his partners spelled out the obvious benefits to keeping the area in a UGA. However, instead of addressing the Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 25 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. important economic points his partner made, Councilmember Brenner chose to belittle and discredit his testimony at a personal level. He was even more shocked by Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber who stated she didn't know the Grand Ronde Tribe and that she didn't know if she could trust them. That seems to be an oxymoron. Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber also stated that if Burlington - Northern (BN) had wanted this to happen, they would have made a statement on the record. BN did make statements for the record, many times. They are on the record again, tonight. Councilmember Roy made the same opinion. Both councilmembers displayed either ignorance of the record or the capricious and arbitrary nature of the Council decision to oppose staff and the Planning Commission. There is abundant support in the record from the railroad and trucking companies. Councilmember Roy had asked why there was no opinion in the record from the railroad and trucking companies, after she listened to Bob Wiesen, a local long time trucking company owner in Whatcom County. Considering the gross mistakes made during the hearing, he recommended the Council reconsider. He recommendation to his partners is to sue Whatcom County for an arbitrary and capricious decision and to appeal the decision to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Gordon Rogers, Council of Governments (COG) Deputy Director, stated he speaks for the COG full Council. He requests that the language that was amended and changed at the previous hearing regarding the intermodal issues, actions, and support, be replaced. The Council of Governments is the regional transportation planning organization. As such, they are required to do specific transportation planning and plan development. According to the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21St Century, seven planning factors must be incorporated in the metropolitan transportation plan. He read the seven factors and mandates of the regional transportation planning board. Demand for transportation is up. There is a need for connections for trucks and rail to get together. The countywide planning policies also call for intermodal attention. All the guidance from federal and state government speak to the concept of intermodal transportation aspects. Roy asked if intermodal is identified in the regional plan and if the location of an intermodal facility is designated in the plan. Rogers stated the plan includes intermodal transportation, but the location is not identified specifically. The plan does need to be updated this next year. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated this is the premier location for this type of facility, north of Seattle. The location is similar to a natural resource. It would be impossible to replace rail land and highway together in a location that is accessible. Landowners in the area have complained about noise, but that has been going on for years. An intermodal facility will have little impact on noise. In the past years, land in the Custer area has been more affordable, so those landowners have benefited by lower taxes and less costly parcels. If this property is developed as an intermodal facility, it will have an impact on Interstate 5, south of Whatcom County. If they don't want trucks on Interstate 5, they have to be given an option. Congestion on Interstate 5 is a problem. Companies like Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 26 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Burlington Northern and others are looking at alternatives. He's a trucker. There's no sense for a trucker to drive from Blaine to Los Angeles. However, they've had a hard time putting pieces together to make that route work efficiently. Bob Tull, Homeport SSA attorney, stated his client is the proponent for the Cherry Point dock project. The Council is considering a substitute ordinance. He recommends slight changes to policy 613-2, " Consider proposals for an east /west rail freight corridor." And to policy 7C -6, " Consider proposals for an east /west rail line between Cherry Point and Sumas, AbbetsfeFd, B.G. including stops in GusteF, Lynden, and Sum ." Sylvia Goodwin submitted these changes to the Council earlier in a substitute for Exhibit A. The substitute maintains the thrust of the policies, and doesn't rely on Custer for the intermodal facility. David Hunter, 819 Mason Street, Bellingham, stated he spoke as the sole person on the Planning Commission against this recommendation. It had nothing to do with the potential of this being a good business. It had to do with the duty to act in good faith regarding rules established in the past. The rule for the provisional urban growth area policy 2CC -3 provided a prompt resolution of issues surrounding an intermodal center within five years. If no master plan for the overall site was presented and processed within the five years, they are to examine whether the Comprehensive Plan UGA designation is viable, or should return to rural. That is clear instruction. A viable plan did not come forward within five years. Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, recommended the Council adopt the substitute version presented to the Council earlier that day. Crawford stated he recused himself from Council discussion on this item a few weeks ago because his employer developed a portion of this area a number of years ago that the Grand Ronde Tribe has received. After that, he was contacted by proponents, whose attorneys said it was not necessary for him to recuse himself. After discussion with the Council's legal counsel. He is not a partner in the firm. He was not working at the firm at the time it did this work. As long as he discloses the fact he is an employee of the firm, on a fixed salary that has no potential benefit for him to gain, he can participate in this discussion and the vote. Brenner moved to approve the substitute version of the ordinance. She asked if those few word changes will not warrant another hearing. Goodwin stated they won't. Roy stated they have already voted on the zoning issue. It's not what they are discussing tonight. They are discussing amendments to parts of the Comprehensive Plan so the plan is consistent with what the Council already did. The Council will not vote on whether or not it should change this back to industrial. Keep that in mind. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 27 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Nelson stated the Custer facility is feasible, but that's been taken off the table. He will support the substitute version of the ordinance. He'd rather see language about Custer remain. Once it's gone, it will be hard to put back in. It was a mistake to take it out. Fleetwood moved to reinstate policy 6Q -3 to reinstate Custer. He initially supported reinstating the designation to rural due to reasons similar to those stated by Mr. Hunter. However, it's not inconsistent to support the language as a policy in the Comprehensive Plan and also support the rural designation. This policy simply says they will contemplate the potential. Much of the site is classic rural land, but other portions of the site are not. The photos presented by Ms. Freestone made that point. Crawford stated he is in favor of the motion to amend. He is sympathetic to the concerns of the Lummi Nation. There is some viability. The Council should acknowledge the Lummi Nation's desire to discuss this issue on a government -to- government basis by including Custer in the language. Ms. Freestone has much information to support the property owners. From the property owner's standpoint, the project is viable. Since this all occurred, this has been the hottest topic of discussion at the Council of Governments executive board meetings. The regional transportation planning organization wants to keep intermodal facilities in this plan. The removal of the Custer language was probably intended to not identify a site, but keep other references to intermodal. They should be more specific. He questioned where an intermodal facility would happen if not at Custer. They won't find another site that is like this site. Brenner stated this language came from staff, not the Council. If the language is changed, it will be inconsistent with what the Council already adopted. She is against amendment. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is also against the motion. They need to be consistent. There is no reason to target Custer. If someone wants to put an intermodal facility there, that person needs to bring forward a viable plan and go through the Comprehensive Plan process like everything else. Until then, it's unfair for the residents there to have it hanging over their heads. The area also has a lot of wetlands. Creating a lot of impervious surfaces will impact a lot of neighbors. Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Fleetwood, and Crawford in favor. Motion to forward the substitute version to concurrency carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 8, MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS (A62004 -400) Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke: Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 28 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Dan Warner, stated they need to maintain a viable farm economy. Don't allow gravel extraction in farmland. He is trying to get Western Washington University to use local food production to serve the campus. Gravel extraction is not a sustainable industry. Farming is sustainable. A small reduction in viable farms has a significant affect on ancillary industries that support the farm economy. They want to increase the viable farming economy. Linda Franz, 6640 Trent Lane, submitted information (on file, Exhibit I), and stated they need to protect agriculture and water. Don't endanger the quality of life and environment in Whatcom County. (Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side 8.) Franz continued by reading from her handout. The MRL purpose is to identify new resource areas, not expand current areas. Mines that can expand in inappropriate areas without proper study. Allowing expansion does not encourage looking for and developing new, more significant resources in appropriate areas. A lack of criteria means a lack of oversight, which is a big problem locally. There is a problem that the construction material must state standards for common borrow criteria for road bridge and municipal construction. The requirements for MRL's are aggregate and mineral resource lands. According to state definitions, common borrow is not an aggregate or mineral resource. There is a difference between sand and gravel and common borrow. Lesa Starken burg- Kroontje, 115 Front Street, Lynden, submitted information (on file, Exhibit J) and stated she represents the Whatcom Sand and Gravel Association. This is a Comprehensive Plan update. The purpose is for the Council to consider new information and correct mistakes. Since 1997, they've learned there is a mineral shortage, as shown by a number of studies. The proposal tonight limits the reserves further rather than supplements the reserves. Importing a resource is not viable. The cities planned their urban growth areas based on the fact that they will build out, which requires material. Expanding the wellhead protection area to the ten -year time of travel limit extraction potential. The City of Everson aquifer study concluded that there is a relatively low risk to water quality from gravel extraction activities, especially if mining occurs above the water table. The State Department of Health's guidelines say they should exclude medium- and high -risk activity, not low and moderate risks. Farming and mining activities have coexisted for years. They need to protect not just the farm land, but the farming economy. The farm economy relies on the construction industry. It's been said that farmland can only be reclaimed to grow corn or grass. There is lots of land out there right now where that's all that's being grown. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 29 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association (BIA) Executive Officer, stated reliance on imported gravel will have an enormous impact on any future construction. Imported gravel supplies will generate traffic, environmental, shoreline management, and other concerns. The agricultural community wants to ensure there is no net loss of farmland in Whatcom County. He agrees with that. The community is less sure that a total band on gravel extraction is necessary. Many in the farming community have realized a small, occasional profit from selling their aggregate and returning their land to equal or superior crop productivity. More study is needed. More stakeholders must be involved to craft a plan that works for everyone. The Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) crafted such a proposal. Review the SMAC work for further consideration. The BIA is willing to find a more workable solution that works for everyone. Roger Ellingson, stated the City of Sumas is concerned about the ten -year time of travel zone. The City of Sumas is very susceptible. Making that distinction will put the water associations at a disadvantage. The City of Sumas is concerned that they preserve the best soil, Kickerville Loam soil. Everyone in the agricultural community agrees about preserving that soil. Art Anderson, Countywide Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee Vice -Chair and Gravel and Sediment Subcommittee Chair, stated the committee has hired a consultant that will look at river gravel extraction. It's not a total answer, but is a supplement to the supply that they can use. He asked for the Council's support when the committee presents its findings. They need to do something with the Nooksack River. They're losing capacity in the river system. He invited the councilmembers to the next subcommittee meeting. Caskey- Schreiber stated a goal in the Comprehensive Plan is to support extraction of river gravel for flood control and market demands. Fleetwood asked about losing capacity in the river. Anderson stated flood events are occurring that haven't occurred before. The gravel bars are building up. Fred Polinder can tell all about it. The last time gravel was extracted was in 1993. Hundreds of thousands of yards of material is coming down the river on an annual basis. The committee feels that the river bed is filling up. Frank Imhof, Contractor, stated he uses gravel in his work. Whatcom County has one of the most competitive gravel markets. Gravel is about $5 per ton. Of that, $2 is the value of the pit and $3 is in the cost to haul. Last year, three million tons of gravel were mined in Whatcom County. That's 100,000 truck loads. If every truckload took 20 minutes to haul the gravel, the total cost to haul annually is $9 million. If they don't use the gravel they have, they'll have to replace it from someplace. If they have to import gravel, it will take a two- or three -hour haul. Gravel is a huge cost that will hit everyone. A farmer with 20 feet of gravel per acre will net about $100,000 to $125,000. When contractors import gravel, it has to remove unsuitable soil. When that happens, they have to back -haul it to the pit, fill Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 30 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. it in, put the topsoil back over the pit, and reclaim the farmland. That's the most economical way to export gravel and get rid of waste soil. They do not destroy farmland if a pit is properly reclaimed. Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, stated they are trying to fix the result of poor planning. Designate MRL's as they would other natural resource lands. A number of years ago, they should have designated and protected those resource lands. John Matzinger, Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) Chair, stated he is also a consulting engineer. The SMAC wrestled with many facts and figures. The Council instructed the SMAC to seek a 50 -year supply. The estimate of 158 million cubic yards is reasonable. Whatcom County has about 61 million cubic yards of reserves and existing MRL's. That leaves a shortfall of about 100 million cubic yards. If they become better stewards of the resource, the shortfall may diminish to 48 million cubic yards. Experts think that importing the resource is what everyone else does. He is skeptical of that because there is no control. They are bound to do some importing. The commissioned report identified some potential areas, many in agricultural zones. There is about 4,000 acres in MRL zoning currently. About 75,000 acres in agricultural zoning. Of those, 73,000 acres are classified as prime agricultural soils, which must not be touched. Given the size of the potential pits in the agricultural zones, they could end up with a demand of about 1,000 acres of that agricultural land to meet the 48 million cubic yard shortfall. He appreciates the value of a farm. The SMAC made a recommendation. An impact of 1,000 out of 75,000 acres is small. It's worthy of the Council's reconsideration. Allow it as an alternative. Crawford asked if the SMAC recommendation was to keep the door open for developing a process for looking at mining in the agricultural zone. Matzinger agreed. There is a rigorous process to develop a mine. The SMAC recommended more controls in the agricultural area. Agricultural experts would act as advisors to control the process. Doug Campbell, Associated Project Consultants owner, submitted information (on file, Exhibit K) and stated the Council should not reduce the planning period from 50- to 20- years. Whatcom County uses about 100,000 cubic yards per year for infrastructure. Without that resource, the taxpayer will have to pay higher prices for its basic infrastructure needs. Sand and gravel resources were used to make up about 7,000 tons of concrete aggregate and concrete products. The demand for concrete almost equals the demands for transportation needs in Western Washington. Restricting the use of mineral resources will restrict the construction of buildings that require concrete products. That will affect all citizens. He contacted Dave Jennings, the State Department of Health Source Water Protection Manager. His program makes people aware of the need to protect the Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 31 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. wellhead protection zones. He indicated that there is no evidence that gravel mining has caused significant groundwater problems. However the risk is present and low. The State Department of Natural Resources representative indicated there is no propensity of groundwater contamination for mining. Keep the MRL period to 50 years. Don't extend the burden of this change to concrete products. Trust the agencies to act responsibly. Robin Hitz, 4243 Hannegan Road, Bellingham, stated this decision will make it so they have to import gravel. The projects being proposed for transportation in the next six years are affected by the cost of petroleum and the cost of gravel. The County will not be able to do as many projects if the cost of gravel increases. Put more thought into this decision. Restricting this will help the agricultural community, which is split on the issue. The agricultural community uses gravel to access their fields and in their buildings. Increasing the cost of gravel will lower the profit margin of their business. Farmers have told her that farms on top of gravel is poor farming because the land requires too much irrigation and reclaimed land retains water better. Give this more time so others can testify. Steve Cowden, gravel producer, stated he submitted comments earlier in the day. There is enough aggregate reserve in the county to sustain in- growth. The resource needs to be protected and made accessible to the industry. Consider the use of river gravel. The river system produces material every year. They're not removing it now, so the system is getting full. The river removes the softer material, which is the farmland. They are doing some import now, but it's not economically feasible to do a lot of it. It may not be fair to take gravel from other communities, because they are faced with the same situation. Protect what they have locally. Manage it well. David Davidson, City of Sumas City Administrator, stated it is important to listen to the advice of agencies who have provided advice on this topic. He disagrees with the description of what Dave Jennings from the Department of Health thinks. Dave Jennings spearheaded the State's wellhead protection program. He worked with the City of Sumas as it did its wellhead protection plan. In written submission of the letter provided by Peter Willing, there were excerpts from the State wellhead protection documents. Zone three, the ten -year time of travel zone, should not allow moderate -risk activities, according to the Department Health, which lists gravel mining as a moderate risk activity. The Department of Health weighed in and said, in writing, that gravel mining is inappropriate within the ten -year time of travel zone. Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing. Crawford moved to forward this item to concurrency. Crawford moved to amend Council packet page 132 to remove the new language at the top of the page, these aFeas ean substantially Fe-du Tenew 'le- resebiFee" and reinstate the old language. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 32 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Motion failed 5 -2 with Nelson & Crawford in favor. Crawford moved to amend item eight on Council packet page 144, "..within the 4-8 5 year zone of contribution...." Brenner stated this was a tough decision for her. She was impressed that the State Department of Health and State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the County Health Department contributed their opinions on this issue, which they don't often do. They've said there is a risk to water quality in areas where gravel mining hasn't existed before. McShane stated he also struggled with this decision. He's concerned about lack of oversight from Ecology and the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Permit requirements for mining regulations would have to be clarified before he is comfortable with changing it back to five years. They're too loose right now. Nelson stated he'd rather err on the side of the water purveyors. Have the Surface Mining Advisory Committee (SMAC) put together a plan so they can reduce the zone of contribution. A plan would address flow, how the contribution affects the water, and whether or not there is a way to have gravel extraction that reduces impairment of the water. Brenner stated a plan should also include regulations that result in better enforcement. Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor. Crawford moved to amend Council packet page 145 to replace the language in the new item with the language in the old item 12. Roy stated they can't take away a sustainable resource and substitute a one - crop resource. The sustainable resource is a part of the culture and economics of the county. Agricultural land is more important. Nelson stated he supports the motion. He would like to change language to allow a process that it be looked at by the agricultural community. Caskey- Schreiber stated there was a lengthy discussion about how to quantify what agricultural lands they should protect. That's how they decided to identify the prime farmland soils. Brenner stated she's been told that land can be reclaimed to its former quality and productivity, but no one has shown her that's true. She will consider it if someone can prove to her that reclamation to previous productivity can happen, but no one has so far. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 33 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Fleetwood stated he's concerned about whether or not reclamation really works. He's also concerned that they are putting forward something that isn't going to work. (Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side A.) Fleetwood continued to state that if the difference is only 1,000 acres, they could include language that would qualify it somehow. Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the motion. The committee discussed this at length. The B.C. Ministry of Agriculture has never seen any successful reclamation to a previous use, once drainage is removed. They don't have to make this chapter perfect and always have a designated 50 -year supply. They can maybe change policies to reduce exportation and encourage conservation. After that, they can open up more mineral resource lands if necessary. Crawford stated he agrees with Councilmember Fleetwood. They're saying they will seek to designate a supply, and then adopt policies that don't even speculate on a 20 -year supply. The new language is inconsistent. The Whatcom Sand and Gravel Association would be happy to host a tour of successfully reclaimed farmland or agricultural land. Continue to have an option available. Include language that allows them to seek out a process to evaluate particular applications in the agricultural areas. McShane stated that through policy 8P -1, there was an effort to reduce the 50 -year horizon to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act, which has a shorter planning horizon. He is in favor of the longer planning horizon. The county will not have a 50 -year supply. It isn't there. They should think long -term about making the shift to using the resource very differently or importing resource. They don't need to worry about a lack of consistency in the language. Fleetwood asked Councilmember McShane to further explain his statement that the county does not have a 50 -year supply of mineral resources. McShane stated a study was done by a consultant, and SMAC also demonstrated that fact. Crawford amended his motion to replace the language in item 12 with the language from SMAC to develop a process. Motion to amend failed 2 -5 with Crawford and Nelson in favor. Nelson moved to amend item 12 on Council packet page 145 that proposed mineral resource land (MRL) designations shall be required to be approved by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 34 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Caskey- Schreiber stated she would rather address that through a specific Comprehensive Plan amendment. Brenner stated the Agricultural Advisory Committee approved the language that is in item 12. Caskey- Schreiber stated the Agricultural Preservation Committee also supported this language. Crawford stated he supports the motion only because it provides more flexibility, but it's not the way they should go. Caskey- Schreiber restated the motion to amend item 12 on Council packet page 145, "...A Goldin (1983) unless approved by a majority of the Agricultural Advisory Committee." Motion to amend failed 2 -4 -1 with Nelson and Crawford in favor and Fleetwood abstaining. McShane stated there is a lack of broad perspectives on the SMAC. Not all the positions on the committee have been filled. Going into agricultural land should be considered, but initially considered by a group from the agricultural community with limited input from the gravel community. The SMAC may need to spend time working on the conditional use permit requirements regarding to the five- and ten - year time of travel. He needs more assurance before making the shift. Gravel in Whatcom County isn't that expensive. The market can bear an increase. If that increase occurs, the agricultural community will put together an attractive proposal of what can be done to protect the agricultural land. Motion to forward to concurrency carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed. S. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS REVIEWED AND ADOPTED FOR 2002, 2003, AND 2004 COLLECTIVELY CONSTITUTE COMPLETION OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S SEVEN -YEAR REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PER RCW 36.70A.130 (AB2004 -455) Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public hearing. (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued, below.) APPROVAL OF THE 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 35 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS TO CREATE A MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS DESIGNATION NEAR THE CORNER OF NORTH STAR AND BROWN ROADS (JAMES CARR APPLICATION) (AB2004 -082A) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried 5 -2 with Roy and Caskey- Schreiber opposed. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE RELATING TO AIRPORT /LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING (AB2004 -082B) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 - COLUMBIA VALLEY /KENDALL URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -340) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE, CITY OF EVERSON URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -343) Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE, CITY OF NOOKSACK URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -346) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 6. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE, CITY OF SUMAS URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -347) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 36 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CAPITAL FACILITIES CHAPTER AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2004 -338) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM PLAN, CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE, CITY OF AREA (AB2004 -342) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE BLAINE URBAN GROWTH 9. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ESTABLISHING POLICIES TO IMPLEMENT THE BICYCLE PLAN AND CONSIDER UTILIZING ITS TECHNOLOGY IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (AB2004 -355) Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 10. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM PLAN RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION (APPENDIX G OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) (AB2004 -370) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND THE WHATCOM COUNTY 11. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 9 - RECREATION (AB2004 -352) Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 12. ORDINANCE REVISING AND AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPENDIX A (GLOSSARY), APPENDIX B (LIST OF ACRONYMS) AND APPENDIX D (BIBLIOGRAPHY) (AB2004- 354) Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 37 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 13. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 LAND USE, CITY OF FERNDALE URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -344) Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 14. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — LAND USE, CITY OF LYNDEN URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -345) Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 15. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — LAND USE, CITY OF BELLINGHAM URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -341) Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 16. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — SUDDEN VALLEY PROVISIONAL URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -339) Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance. There was a legal issue about whether a legally binding contract could be entered into that says how they will develop in the future, and whether they can legally bind the future City to do that. Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated the issue would have to be resolved if Sudden Valley incorporates. Councilmember McShane added language that the County will only support incorporation if a legally binding agreement is reached. If an agreement isn't legally binding, then it wouldn't be reached. The County would deal with it at that time. Fleetwood stated the question is whether a government can enter into an interlocal agreement with a private organization. He believes that the answer is no. McShane stated State law can always be changed. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 38 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford stated language was changed that the provisional UGA will be designated as a limited area of more intense rural development (LAMIRD). Goodwin stated that is the incorrect ordinance. The language needs to say that the area would be re- designated as a recreational subdivision. Council already approved that the incorrect ordinance is in the packet. Caskey- Schreiber stated they found out that the zoning has to revert to what it was previously. Crawford amended his motion to adopt the ordinance with the provision that the zoning revert back to a recreational subdivision. He asked if the community association considered the drop -dead date at the end of 2006 as opposed to a review at the end of 2006. Caskey- Schreiber stated Steve Greiser told the community that the end of 2006 would be enough time for the association to figure it out. Goodwin stated the date was supposed to be 2006 according to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The association is aware of this change to a drop - dead date. Motion carried 6 -1 with Brenner opposed. 17. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMP. PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — CHERRY POINT URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -395A) Fleetwood moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 18. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — CUSTER PROVISIONAL URBAN GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -396A) McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Crawford stated he works for a firm that did initial planning for some of the properties in this area, but he doesn't have a pecuniary interest. He feels comfortable voting on the item. Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed. 19. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 3 — HOUSING (AB2004 -353) Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 39 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford moved to adopt the ordinance, but he is against the motion because it has inclusionary zoning, to which he is opposed. Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed. 20. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES, ADOPTED AS APPENDIX C OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2004 -272A) McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 21. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 6 AND 7 GOALS AND POLICIES RELATED TO THE CUSTER PROVISIONAL GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -3968) McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed. 22. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 8, MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS (AB2004 -400) McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed. Nelson moved approval of all 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS S. RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS REVIEWED AND ADOPTED FOR 2002, 2003, AND 2004 COLLECTIVELY CONSTITUTE COMPLETION OF WHATCOM COUNTY'S SEVEN -YEAR REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PER RCW 36.70A.130 (AB2004 -455) (Clerk's Note: Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting.) McShane moved to amend the resolution to add two findings: °26. Suburban enclaves in the Lake Whatcom watershed and Lake Samish watershed areas have been amended since the adoption of the 1997 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan." and Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 40 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. "27. The Chuckanut and Toad Lake suburban enclaves may be reviewed in 2005 based on additional information regarding these areas." Fleetwood stated he is in favor of adding finding 26 because it is a statement of what has happened. He is against finding 27. The resolution is about what has happened in 2002, 2003, and 2004 collectively. What might happen in 2005 is not before them. McShane amended his motion to add one finding, "26. Suburban enclaves in the Lake Whatcom watershed and Lake Samish watershed areas have been amended since the adoption of the 1997 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan." Motion carried unanimously. Crawford moved to amend page four of the resolution, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED... amendments have been revised to address changed conditions...." Motion carried 5 -2 with Caskey- Schreiber and McShane opposed. Crawford moved to amend page four of the resolution, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED... amendments are neeessaFy have been revised te address changed conditions...." Motion carried unanimously. Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the resolution as amended. Motion to approve the resolution as amended carried unanimously. OTHER ITEMS 1. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION WITH THE ACME /VANZANDT SUB FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT REGARDING CONCERNS WITH WORK BEING DONE ON THE NOOKSACK RIVER (AB2005 -083) Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated the committee recommends that the Council request a legal analysis of liability and write a letter asking the Executive to request that the Council's deliberations and concerns be considered on this issue when the decision is made Roy moved to ask the Council's legal counsel to see who is liable if the dam and rip rap fail. Motion carried unanimously. Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 41 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Roy moved to write a letter to the Executive to request that the Council's deliberations and concerns be considered on this issue when the administration makes its decision on the plan. (Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side 8.) Roy stated all they are asking is that the Council's opinions be considered when the final decision is made. She assumes these people will come back to the Council. Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed. Roy stated Councilmember McShane will go to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee with photographs the councilmembers received of dumping that is going on along the Nooksack River. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2005 -2006 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET, FIRST REQUEST (AB2005 -067) Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously 3. RESOLUTION REMOVING THE LAKE WHATCOM CONNECTOR FROM THE WHATCOM COUNTY SIX -YEAR ROAD PLAN (AB2005 -068) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated the committee failed to recommend approval. Brenner moved to approve the resolution. Crawford stated a study concluded that the alignments are feasible and future traffic demand will require additional east -west service. Despite the downzones that have occurred, there is a need for this corridor that will continue to grow. It costs the County nothing to leave this as a placeholder for future generations. Fleetwood stated the priority is so low that it won't happen realistically. It can be put back in if removed or remain in. It doesn't matter. Brenner asked why the County's easements would go away if the connector is removed from the list. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated past subdivision proposals in this area have reserved part of the property for this corridor. The County has not actually acquired those easements. This resolution gives him direction to exclude the corridor from the next six -year program that comes forward in May. In May, if Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 42 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. the Council adopts the program without the corridor, the County would stop reserving for the corridor. Crawford asked if the areas they are reserving are the areas in the options known as 3A and 313 from the Reed Middleton study. Monsen stated the County is reserving property in the only one alignment. Crawford asked if a corridor was selected. Monsen stated there are different options for the corridor. However, most of the corridor length is the same in all the options. It is in that stretch of the corridor where the County is reserving property. Motion carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford opposed. 4. RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DECLARE PROPERTY SURPLUS (AB2005 -081) Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and moved to approve the resolution with the substitute Exhibit A submitted earlier in the day that surplus be done by the Treasurer, not the Public Works Department. Motion carried unanimously. S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S REAPPOINTMENT OF CYNTHIA BAULEKE TO THE BELLINGHAM - WHATCOM COUNTY COMMISSION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (AB2005 -079) Brenner moved to confirm the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. 6. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S REAPPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL WERNER TO THE LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT #1 COMMITTEE (AB2005 -080) Nelson moved to confirm the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. 7. JOINT RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE LAKE WHATCOM 2005 -2009 WORK PLAN (AB2005 -082) This item was withdrawn from the agenda. Addenda: Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 43 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 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. 8. JOINT CITY OF BELLINGHAM AND WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR UPDATING THE WHATCOM COUNTY URBAN FRINGE SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2005 -086) Brenner moved to approve the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Caskey- Schreiber requested approval of letter to Senators and Representatives regarding North Fork Regional Resource Center (AB2005- 071). Crawford stated that the letter should be sent to Kelli Linville and Governor Gregoire. In addition, the name has been changed from North Fork to East Whatcom. Caskey- Schreiber stated she already received approval from the resource center staff to use the North Fork name. She would also like to send this letter to all the other state representatives that are on the committees to approve capital expenses. Crawford moved to send the letter to all appropriate legislators. Motion carried unanimously. REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS There were no reports or other items. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:32 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on February 22 , 2005. ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair Whatcom County Council, 1/25/2005, Page 45