HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 26 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
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Regular County Council
July 26, 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
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
Dan McShane
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
None
Caskey- Schreiber announced there was discussion with Public Works
Director Jeff Monsen regarding a land acquisition (AB2005 -018) and
discussion with Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Karen Frakes, regarding
pending litigation (AB2005 -018) in executive session during the Committee of
the Whole meeting.
OPEN SESSION
Shannon O'Brien Charter Review Commission Secretary, thanked the Council
for the opportunity to serve on the commission. The commission has six proposed
amendments to put forward to the voters.
(Open session continued below.)
MINUTES CONSENT
Fleetwood moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR JULY 12, 2005
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
2. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR JULY 12, 2005
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Tim Paxton, 2120 Ellis Street, Bellingham, stated the Clean Water Alliance is
suing Whatcom County over designation of Sudden Valley as an urban growth area
in the Lake Whatcom reservoir. The designation was based on three fallacies. One
fallacy is that there was a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process. A
determination of non - significance (DNS) was issued without taking public comment
so there was no SEPA process on the impact of allowing Sudden Valley to become a
city. Another fallacy is that an agreement with the Sudden Valley Community
Association would keep the future City of Sudden Valley from increasing density.
Really, the County is unleashing an uncontrolled civic entity in the reservoir. The
third fallacy is that there is no impact from the designation. The State Department
of Ecology predicted that buildout of Sudden Valley could lead to the end of Lake
Whatcom as the drinking water reservoir. Dr. Robin Matthews is saying this is
already happening. The increased phosphorus causes an increase of
trihalomethanes. He would like the County to hold a public hearing on the urban
growth area (UGA) in the watershed.
Sharon Crozier, Bellingham, stated the Council should pass the critical areas
ordinance. Whenever they do something to protect the environment, the Council
comes under fire from the same group of people. Look at where the county was
ten years ago, compared to where it is now. Do anything they can to prevent more
development.
Kathryn Hanowell, 3850 Gilmore Road, Everson, stated she thanks the
councilmembers who supported the mushroom substrate ordinance at the last
meeting. She is in Fire District 1, which includes Everson, Nooksack, and Deming.
She thanked all who worked on the emergency medical service (EMS) levy
proposal. A regional approach is best for this issue. The cost - consciousness of the
work that went into the plan is merited. Residents of unincorporated Whatcom
County needs the highest level of emergency care at times and depends on a
regional public service. Support the Finance Committee recommendation to
support this plan.
Chris Covert - Bowlds, Bellingham, stated there are health implications
pertaining to the Ferndale regional mall area in Ferndale. He supports a
development that is closer downtown to promote bicycling, walking, and less car
use.
John Flarry, Lattimore Road, Ferndale, stated he supports the resolution
coming forward to oppose the proposed regional mall in the Ferndale area. The
size of the mall is a concern. Ferndale residents are concerned about the mall
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
development. In a very short time, he collected over 400 signatures of Ferndale
citizens who are opposed to the development. He worked with the City of Ferndale
to mitigate. The City of Ferndale PUD ordinance is inadequate. This mall is not in
keeping with the Ferndale Comprehensive Plan or countywide planning policies.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated that the way the public
hearings are scheduled is unfair. There are too many hearings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLING STOP SIGNS ON MILL ROAD
(AB2005 -282)
Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Carol Tan, 2121 Whalen Drive, Point Roberts, stated they really need to have
a four -way stop at this location.
Crawford asked if there is anyone who doesn't want this to happen, for any
reason. Tan stated there isn't anyone opposed that she knows of.
Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance. She doesn't know of anyone who is
opposed to it, which she told Point Roberts residents recently.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE (INTERIM) AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, SECTION 23.100.20.57,
AQUACULTURE REGULATIONS (AB2005 -085A)
Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the
public hearing.
Roy moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated this and some other ordinances scheduled for a public hearing
tonight are interim ordinances, extending ordinances that are already in place.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Nelson opposed.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (WCC) TITLE 20,
SECTION 20.80.735 (ON AN INTERIM BASIS) TO IMPLEMENT A
SEASONAL RESTRICTION ON LAND CLEARING ACTIVITIES WITHIN
THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED WATER RESOURCE SPECIAL
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
MANAGEMENT AREA BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1 AND APRIL 30
(AB2005 -125A)
Caskey - Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Tom Pratum, 2241 Northshore Road, stated the Council should extend the
interim ordinance. It hasn't had an effect yet. It's important to control the building
that is happening in the watershed. Try to control the runoff that occurs due to
clearing activities during the wet season. The point system didn't work well
enough.
Bill Quehrn, Building Industry Association (BIA) of Whatcom County
Executive Officer, stated his comments apply to this issue and the next ordinance
also. The point system offered advantages and was working. However, the
imposition of the dysfunctional moratorium and the subsequent elimination of the
point system has resulted in an increased workload for building services staff and
chaos for home buyers and builders. The 2,500 square foot impervious surface
limit allows sufficient design flexibility for marketable homes to be constructed on
buildable portions of the watershed and to respect the architectural design
standards in Sudden Valley. There is no scientific evidence to show that a
reduction of the impervious surface limit by 500 square feet will make a different to
water quality protection. It does make an enormous difference in the kind of home
that can be built. The reduction was proposed with inadequate public notice. It will
unfairly harm many permit applicants with 2,500 square foot projects that will be
deemed out of compliance and make it impossible to qualify before September 1 of
this year. Creating a single building season cripples the County staff's ability to
serve the customers, disrupts home building, and increases housing costs. No
where and at no time have these actions considered compensation for those unduly
burdened, as required by the County charter. Litigation by those harmed should be
expected if all these regulations come to bear at the same time.
Wendy Stephenson, North Sound Bay Keeper, stated her organization
studied construction activities in the county and in Sudden Valley. They found that
best management practices were not being used or maintained. There was not
enough inspection to ensure that the best management practices were maintained.
There weren't enough fines being levied or corrective notices being issued. She
supports a wet weather ban on clearing activities.
Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing.
McShane moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner moved to amend the closure dates to October 1 to April 1. That is
the wet season.
McShane stated the issue isn't just the wet season. The issue is also that
September 1 is better in order to allow vegetation time to grow. It ensures that the
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
cleared lands are prepared for the wet season. If clearing happens in September,
vegetation won't be established once the wet season begins in October. He agrees
that September is not a wet month generally. However, if vegetation and erosion
control isn't established during that September growing period, there will be
problems in the fall if there are early heavy rains. There were many systems that
they tried that didn't work.
Nelson stated that if there is no one out there inspecting and issuing
corrective notices, the dates don't make a difference. Address the issue of
enforcement. There is no reason to change the dates. They need to modify the
point system and other protective methods in the watershed. Be sure they are
solving a problem, not creating more problems. There are other ways to address
the issues, through the inspection process. Shortening the period would create
other problems.
Brenner stated a concern was about working with the developers who are
violating, rather than fining them. However, that allowed the few bad players to
make it not work for everyone. Most good developers would have appreciated it if
the County had beefed up the enforcement, charging high violation fees. This is a
more appropriate date.
(Clerk's Note: Beginning of tape two, side A.)
Roy stated that people can still build their projects during the wet season.
This ordinance simply limits land clearing.
Caskey- Schreiber stated many permits were processed and vested to which
this regulation won't apply. They will still see a lot of land clearing this fall. The
buildout of this watershed is happening in the next five to ten years. They won't
get a second chance to do things better. Be as cautious as possible. If they really
want development to continue, and have no negative consequences to the lake, this
is the best option. Keep sediment out of the lake. It leads to eutrophication. Don't
fuel that growth by adding even more sediments. They have to get roots
established.
Nelson asked what the dates have to do with it. They are worried about
precipitation. There are materials that can be put down in that time. They still
don't have inspection and enforcement. People will eventually just clear the land
when they need to. Instead, cooperate with the public and make sure there is a
consequence to the action. Changing dates doesn't change the quality of water.
Crawford said there is erosion going on, but it is an erosion of the public's
rights to enjoy their property and the lifestyle they enjoy today in a prudent and
environmentally sound way that makes sense. This is another step in a continuous
effort of the County Council to make it more difficult to live, enjoy, and prosper in
Whatcom County. The councilmembers enjoy that lifestyle, but don't want others
to enjoy it. That is wrong.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
McShane stated the reason for the September 1 date is due to the amount of
growing degree days in September being double what they are in October. This is
a degraded lake. It is the drinking water source for 80,000 people. He has a right
to affordable drinking water. As a Bellingham resident, he's watched his water bill
go up and up. More and more fees are applied to drinking water utilities. What
they've done in the past hasn't worked. The County may be successful with other
approaches, but he hasn't seen any proposals for increased staff or fines. This isn't
the perfect solution. There is no perfect solution. The County Council recognized in
January that there is a big problem with this lake. Knowing that, he hopes for more
support to create more stringent criteria. It's amazing they allow any development
at all in the watershed.
Brenner stated everyone on the Council is trying to do whatever they feel is
right to protect the watershed. It's strange to portray them as wanting to have
costs go up. No matter what the Council does or doesn't do, either the costs of
protecting the lake will go up or the County will be such a big mess that no one will
want to live here.
Nelson stated there used to be 70 permits applied for in the Lake Whatcom
watershed. Now there are up to 500 permits applied for. Perhaps the reason there
has been such an increase in permits is because of the actions of the Council. It
may encourage the public to consider its ability to develop their properties. These
types of actions may be detrimental to water quality by encouraging people to
develop now. He is frustrated with the City's efforts to discourage the State from
giving the County a grant for stormwater control. The Council needs to work with
the community on stormwater management. There isn't one ordinance that will be
the answer. However, this is not the appropriate step to work with the community.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the City of Bellingham is doing a lot. They do care.
The County has a good working relationship with the City. She hopes to continue
that relationship.
Roy stated the people from Bay Keeper have provided startling statistics.
Personally, she's driven around and counted the number of flattened silt fences.
Eighty percent of the silt fences are laying down flat, and not just in Lake Whatcom.
They tried the point system, but it didn't meet the objective they hoped, which was
keeping flow out of the lake. When they look at a countywide stormwater
management system, they can look at some of these things again. Maybe then the
Council can lift a seasonal clearing ban. For now, there is ample evidence that what
they've done hasn't worked.
fa v o r.
Motion to amend failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Brenner, and Crawford in
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
Brenner stated she would support the ordinance as an interim ordinance.
She hopes the final ordinance has more enforcement staff and charges people for
the cost of issuing violations.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she has reservations about adding staff time to
baby sit these sites. They've heard from the State Department of Ecology how
frequently these sites change. There is no way that inspectors can be at 300
different sites more than once every two weeks.
Motion to adopt the ordinance carried 5 -2 with Nelson and Crawford
opposed.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE (WCC) TITLE 20,
CHAPTER 20.71 - WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY
DISTRICT (ON AN INTERIM BASIS), TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
(AB2005 -0728)
Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Craig Ostrom, 2310 Williams Street, stated he works for Sudden Valley.
Sudden Valley has reduced density greatly already. Also, Sudden Valley
implements a stormwater plan that keeps a footprint below 2,500 square feet.
There are stormwater retention systems. The County should join them. He is
concerned about the footprint restriction of 2,500 square feet. Sudden Valley
already has a height restriction. A maximum of 2,500 square feet of allowed
impervious surface is a good size. He is against the ordinance without that level.
He is concerned about the new language in 20.71.302(3). He would like
clarification on the kinds of restrictive covenants to which that language refers.
There are all kinds of restrictive covenants. This language isn't specific. That was
their incentive for consolidating lots. With two lots, they only have to pay one dues
and also build that garage, for instance. He's concerned that language will remove
that incentive.
Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing.
Roy moved to adopt the ordinance.
Nelson moved to amend the ordinance to restore the original square
footage of 2,500 square feet of impervious surfaces allowed. Five hundred square
feet is about the size of a garage. He is concerned people being able to put in
ramps and surfaces that are conducive to a wheelchair. People need the flexibility
to put in accessibility items that come up in the future. There is no evidence that
reducing the impervious surfaces by 500 square feet will change anything.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
Roy asked what percentage of an average lot is 2,500 square feet. Research
has shown that a total impervious surface of ten percent or more has negative
impacts to things such as shellfish beds.
Crawford stated people are currently allowed 20 percent of the lot for
impervious surfaces. A lot that is 12,500 square feet can currently build a footprint
of 2,500 square feet. This action will take it down to a lot that is 10,000 square
feet, and a person will only get 2,000 square feet for a footprint. This affects all
lots under one - quarter of an acre, which is all of Sudden Valley. Most Sudden
Valley lots are less than 10,000 square feet. Those people will be able to have a
footprint of 2,000 square feet. Other areas of the watershed will also be affected.
McShane stated there is a break for those who don't have lots with a 20
percent opportunity, in the urban zone. In the rural areas, the limit will still be 10
percent. In the rural areas, a small lot will get some extra square footage of the
percent puts the total footprint area below 2,000 square feet. There is also
language the Council added to encourage lot consolidation.
Amy Pederson, Planner II, stated that language in section 20.71.302(3) is
currently before the Planning Commission for consideration.
Brenner asked how many lots are left in Sudden Valley that have not been
developed. Ostrom stated a rough estimate is between 800 and 1,000, including
those that have permits pending.
Crawford stated the permits that are out there are not vested.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it depends on when the permit appointment is
scheduled with the Planning Department.
Nelson stated a carport and mobile home would reach the 2,000 square foot
limit. One couldn't get any additions for wheelchair access.
McShane stated this is an interim ordinance. Wheelchair access is a concern,
no matter how big the footprint is. If someone build a footprint of 2,500 square
feet, and then needs to expand for wheelchair access, it's the same problem. If
that is the concern, allow an exception to allow that access. That issue has never
been addressed, and probably should be considered to allow a deviation from the
rule for that reason.
Brenner stated the final ordinance should include an incentive to do low
impact development that would allow for increased square footage. She will
support this amendment. She was impressed with what she saw on the low impact
development tour, but most of it was about the house being built up, not out. Baby
boomers are aging. Make sure there is enough square footage for people to be able
to move around.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
Nelson restated the motion to amend 20.71.302(3) to replace 2,000
square feet with 2,500 square feet.
Roy stated she agreed with Councilmember Brenner about allowing additional
impervious surfaces if there are low impact development strategies and if
stormwater can be kept onsite.
McShane stated this is an interim ordinance. If they go that route, it will
require some additional staff. That will be very site specific.
Fleetwood stated he will support the motion. When the Council considered
the land clearing ordinance in 2003, it went down from 3,000 square feet to 2,500
square feet. He appreciates the reasoning for reducing it further, but he will stay
with his vote two years ago for 2,500 square feet.
Nelson stated they deal with low impact materials that can be used. There is
nothing that gives someone a benefit for using that material. They may want to
address that in the future. He would rather stick with something that can be
quantified, and work with the public on alternative surfacing methods that are
stormwater friendly.
McShane stated that if there are 1,000 lots in Sudden Valley, the difference
between 2,000 square feet and 2,500 square feet is the equivalent of 12 acres.
There would be 12 acres of additional impervious surfaces within Sudden Valley.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is against the amendment. The ocean suffers
when there is more than 10 percent of impervious surfaces. A lake would be far
more fragile. It's best to err on the side of caution.
Brenner stated they know not much more will happen this season. It will
give staff and the Council a great incentive to get to the final ordinance. Offset the
extra square footage by other low impact development options, more than what is
included currently. Those 1,000 lots won't be developed during the interim period.
There are plenty of people in Whatcom County and other counties who do this for a
living, including Sustainable Connections. Have the applicants do it through their
own consultants. The County's job would be to oversee it to make sure it's fine,
but not take the initiative to do all the intermediate stages. It's a worthy goal that
won't make things more difficult than they are now. She is in favor of the
amendment.
McShane stated the purpose is to establish the 2,000 square feet as the
threshold with the type of impact they will see and to encourage low impact
development. If this is the threshold they strive for on an interim basis, the low
impact development will try to achieve that low impact. By increasing the level of
impervious surfaces, they are just saying the threshold of what they will tolerate is
higher, and the motivation for low impact development becomes less. How one
gets to the equivalent of a 2,000 square foot threshold is complicated. It should
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
create incentive to do low impact development that really does work. Otherwise,
they're allowing the equivalent of a lot more runoff.
Motion to amend carried 4 -3 with McShane, Caskey- Schreiber, and
Roy opposed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council will not vote on the ordinance tonight.
The Council will hold another public hearing in two weeks.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY CRITICAL
AREAS ORDINANCE, WCC CHAPTER 16.16 — CRITICAL AREAS AND
ASSOCIATED PROVISIONS OF WCC TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.33, AND
WCC TITLE 20 (AB2005 -226)
Caskey- Schreiber opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Hilary Culverwell, 208 Bayside Road, Bellingham, stated she works for the
Puget Sound Action Team as the liaison to Whatcom County. She served on the
Technical Advisory Committee and commented on this ordinance. She thanked the
Council and County staff for an excellent process and a very good ordinance.
Almost all of her recommendations were incorporated into the final draft. Many
Puget Sound problems are directly related to changes in the landscape. There is
much scientific evidence linking the two. Protecting critical areas through a tool like
this is powerful to reverse the downward decline in Puget Sound's health. The
State puts that power in the hands of local government. Bring back Puget Sound to
a level to protect and support fish and wildlife populations and, ultimately, people.
She supports the ordinance. It is based on sound science.
Elizabeth Denny, 7082 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated she is a disabled
advocate. Wheelchair ramps and therapy hot tubs, with doctor prescriptions, must
be considered exceptions. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules allow them as
medical equipment. They are as important as prescription drugs.
Richard Gilda, Jensen Road, Bellingham, submitted information (on file,
Exhibit 8). This is similar to the old Lake Whatcom ordinance. This new ordinance
is much larger. Much of it is not needed. Consider carrying over the decision for
two weeks or a month so changes can be considered. Not all environmental
problems are manmade. In the name of environmental protection, new problems
are created. The rights of some citizens are infringed upon. Acreage is taken off
the tax roll. Everyones' taxes go up. Agriculture is cut back due to the loss of land.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Gilda continued to state that everyone is hit with overregulation. Land prices
are going up because the land is taken for environmental reasons. Wetlands are
planted with trees that suck up the water. Many of the trees they are planning are
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
nodular trees that produce nutrients. As they decay, more nutrients go into the
water. People complain that they have a problem with nutrients in the water.
Regarding Whatcom County Code (WCC) section 16.16.235 on activities
allowed with notification. He asked if notification with permission is an exemption.
If notification is necessary, then two days is more than enough.
Tom Pratum, North Cascades Audubon, stated water quality and wildlife
habitat are being eroded. This ordinance is fairly good. Preservation of wildlife
habitat corridors is not really addressed in this ordinance other than the Chuckanut
wildlife corridor. The exemption for category IV wetlands is not good policy. No
wetland should be compromised without mitigation. Wetland buffer widths should
not be under 50 feet. The critical areas ordinance (CAO) is complex and lax in its
protection of critical areas. Don't weaken it further.
David Hovde, Association of Realtors Government Affairs Chair, submitted
information (on file, Exhibit C). Don't approve the critical areas ordinance as it is
currently written. The current law provides protection. The proposed ordinance will
only hurt property owners and the community. This ordinance extends buffers up
to 300 feet, which are based on theory of restoration. This ordinance goes beyond
the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The wording in the
ordinance is vague. There are undefined critical areas in the buffers required for
them. Firm guidelines need to be set for critical areas and buffers instead of
leaving the decision to one individual. The ordinance will negatively affect their
ability to grow and expand. Natural buffers offer 50 to 70 percent effectiveness to
maintain water quality in the first 50 feet. They require an additional 200 feet to
gain an additional 10 to 20 percent effectiveness. Modern drain systems are more
effective. The solution should not hurt the economy. A client of his lost more than
40 percent of her density to buffering a seasonal drainage stream that had no
biological life. Many larger parcels are getting only 60 percent of their yield.
Brenner asked if the client could have developed her original density outside
of the buffer. Hovde stated the allowed zoning can be met through clustering.
However, the minimum lot size did not allow the full density. The client lowered
the lot size and clustered, but still lost 40 percent of the density. For many of the
larger lots, the owners are losing 40 percent of their yield.
Carolyn Dwyer, Windemere Realtor, stated she represents small property
owners who have held land for many years and now want to do something with
their lands. Those owners are trying to recoup their investment. The owners are
required to hire professionals at their own cost and complete the mitigation plan,
which is a huge financial burden. The owners are required to fix any problems.
They should be required to fix only problems that are at risk. The owner must
monitor potential risk of failed mitigation for five years. This requires that technical
people be allowed to come onto the property during that time. Demand the most
effective protection, without consideration of the cost to the property owner. A
surety bond 125 percent the cost of the mitigation is a financial burden. The
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
government technical people have an enormous amount of latitude given to them in
the ordinance.
Bill Henshaw, 2653 North Park Drive, Bellingham, stated there are elements
of the Growth Management Act that need to be addressed, including the housing,
facilities, transportation, and other elements. There is a lot of focus on the critical
areas. Best available science must be produced through a valid scientific process.
The definition in the ordinance is significantly broader than that. A valid scientific
process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the
consequences of a local government's regulatory decisions. They haven't looked
hard enough at what those consequences are. The courts and Growth Management
Hearings Board said that the duty is to protect critical area functions and values,
not each component of the system. The ordinance focuses on restorative value
rather than functions and values. Create incentives, rather than heavy regulation,
for improving function and value. Also, required buffers may encroach upon a
neighbor's property.
Jon Soine, Windemere Real Estate Associate Broker, stated the Council
should vote against the ordinance. There is a cost to individual property owners
who lose money due to the ordinance. The property owner must pay for a building
permit, a professional mitigation plan, mitigation implementation, annual
monitoring, and a 125 surety fee. A friend lost his property due to required
wetland mitigation.
Richard Baila, Realtor, Washington Realtors Legislative Steering Committee
Member, stated the ordinance is unfair. People who develop their properties must
pay for it in a way that is not equitable. There is too large a financial burden on the
landowner. The government could bear some of the expense. In WCC
16.16.245(D), the technical administrator can choose to hire a third party to review
the permit application, at the expense of the applicant. The applicant has no say as
to who is appointed as the third party reviewer or how much it will cost. It's ironic
that the applicant already paid for a professional report to be made as the
government mandated. Now the government gets to have the applicant pay for
someone to review the original report. This is unfair. An unfair ordinance make the
property owners feel backed into a corner. The councilmembers risk the ire of the
property owners at the poll. There is no protection for citizens against the
government's regulations and authority. The State Constitution says the
government must err on the side of the individual property owner, not the
collective.
Roger Almskaar, Land Use Consultant, submitted information (on file,
Exhibits D through G). Protect the environment, but pay attention to who is
paying. Leave the record open for at least ten days. The critical areas ordinance
ignores the 13 planning goals. The emphasis on best available science is not
consistent with the goals and policies of the GMA. This ordinance would increase
sprawl. Buffers are too large. When doing development regulations, a county must
provide sufficient land supply. Counties shall include best available science. It
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
doesn't say that counties only consider best available science. The County must
also consider the economics and peoples' rights.
Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association (BIA) Government Affairs,
stated she is against the ordinance. Implementation will not keep the community
compliant with the GMA. The amount of land that will have to be used as buffered
will take land away from the available land supply. The land supply analysis
submitted to the State will be affected. The large buffers will be a burden to
landowners. The requirements make it difficult to exempt any of the wetlands. The
recommended buffer sizes are at the high end, as recommended by the State
department of Ecology. Development over one dwelling unit per acre is not a high
intensity land use. Don't value a three -lot subdivision the same as a mall parking
lot complex. There is a lack of coordinated planning between the County and City
of Bellingham. Keep the written record open.
James Syke, People for Puget Sound, stated he supports the ordinance. It
protects the marine shorelines, eelgrass, shellfish beds, forage fish habitat, and
other sensitive habitat. New development must be set back 150 feet from the
beach. The County and staff have done a good job using best available science
needed to develop the protection needed to keep marine shorelines healthy and
safe for future generations. Adopt the ordinance.
Polly Hanson, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, stated that states with
higher environmental standards have a stronger economy. Water is the basis of
life. The glaciers are melting, including Mt. Baker. When the Deming Glacier is
gone, there will be an effect to the Nooksack River. Wetlands are all connected.
They are not isolated. Look at the whole picture. The costs are to protect the
purity of water. However, there is also a cost of medical treatment due to poisoned
water.
Peter Roberts, Whatcom County Association of Realtors President Elect,
stated he is opposed to the changes to the current critical areas ordinance because
it takes away the opportunity to transfer development rights, which is allowed in
the current version of the critical areas ordinance. The County zones land at a
particular density. A property owner with critical areas agrees not to develop the
property to the allowed density. The owner then files legally binding paperwork
saying the property will not be developed to the allowable density. The left over
development rights can be used or sold to someone who has a right to build at a
higher density within the urban growth areas (UGA's). The County must provide a
certain amount of housing for the citizens of Whatcom County. The City and
County councils and planners spent many hours figuring out where to put
development. The CAO takes away that potential developable property. To cover
those lost densities, allow property owners to transfer their development rights.
Selling unused development rights is a way to cover losses from the designated
critical areas. By keeping the transfer of development rights (TDR) provision in the
ordinance, the County may avoid takings claims because there is still value left in
the development rights.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
Alan Friedlob, 6934 Holeman Avenue, Birch Bay, submitted and read from his
testimony (on file, Exhibit H). Support the proposed CAO. Discuss how to create
and implement effective management of tree canopy in the UGA's. Be concerned
about the effects of stormwater runoff on water quality and stream degradation.
The tree cover in critical areas should be considered urban forests that are
maintained. Benefits will accrue to all citizens of the UGA's and enhance property
values. Avoid land cover changes, a consequence of development projects, through
regulation and enforcement.
Albert Marshall, 2781 West Shore Drive, Lummi Island, thanked the Council
for working on this issue. Identify aquifer recharge areas. He is worried about
contamination of the aquifer. Support a strong ordinance for those who rely on
groundwater.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Darcy Jones, 4164 Meridian Street, Suite 200, Bellingham, submitted
information (on file, Exhibit A). Make sure the ordinance is legally defensible,
practical to use, and easy to understand. They will lose 40 to 50 percent of the
density in the urban growth area (UGA). There should be an environmental impact
statement. Do an economic impact analysis of the loss of revenue to the tax roles.
The Chuckanut wildlife corridor is a good approach. Do resource -based planning.
Establish a resource inventory. The fire marshal needs to review this ordinance and
be part of the committee discussion. Give people longer than 18 months to rebuild
a structure destroyed by fire. It will take the insurance company longer than 18
months to settle the claim.
Jo Slivinski, 6163 Semiahmoo Lane, stated the Council should adopt the
ordinance. Protect all wetlands, even those smaller than 4,356 square feet.
Address the issue of wildlife corridors in tandem with the concept of the continuing
development they cannot stop. Allow animals to migrate where there is
development.
Larry Helm, 2600 East 41St Terrace, stated he is doing a farm plan for five
cows, which cost him $2,000. That is his profit for six years. Do not vote for the
ordinance. Allow more time at another meeting for comment. The notification
section, WCC 16.16.235, is a disguised permit section. It should be rewritten. The
technical administrator is given too much authority in this document. Include a
clear appeal process in section 16.16.240. The farm plan section is a concern.
Clearing ditches now requires a long permit process through the State Department
of Ecology. That requirement doesn't make sense. The farm section should be in
one section, not spread throughout the code. Water Associations maintenance
activities should be exempt. The legal basis of the critical areas ordinance is to
regulate activities that cause environmental damage. Many small hobby farms with
less than one animal unit per acre must have expensive farm plans. They are not
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
an environmental threat. Therefore, the owners' constitutional rights are probably
being violated by this process.
Lincoln Rutter, 8373 Semiahmoo Drive, stated Councilmember Crawford and
many who have testified talked about the erosion of people's rights to enjoy their
property. In fact, only 23 percent of Americans owned their own home 30 years
ago. Recently, that number has increased to almost 70 percent. More people are
enjoying property rights as never before in the history of America. There are more
new homes built each year than in any time in American history. More single family
residences are being sold. The reason for the increase is because the Federal
Reserve system lowered the rate to one percent, and kept it there. The U.S.
banking system is awash in reserves. That is what has driven up the price of home
ownership. More Americans are in debt now than ever before. Builders,
developers, and realtors have never had it so good. People are building homes in
more sensitive areas. The ordinance is critical to protect the critical areas of this
county. Urban growth areas have to be enforced and properly sized. The CAO
should be established in that context.
Trevor Hoskins, 8686 Great Horned Owl, Blaine, submitted information (on
file, Exhibit I). The Birch Bay and Blaine area is exploding with housing
development with little regard for the environment or wildlife. Adopt the ordinance.
Barbara Burk - Zielsta, 316 Willow Court North, Bellingham, stated the Council
should pass the ordinance even though it is a compromise. There will always be
people who will be unhappy with it. Protect the water and wildlife resources and
critical areas.
Alison Simmers, 316 Willow Court North, Bellingham, stated she used to take
for granted what they have. Now, she appreciates what they have. Many people
will look out for their best interests and see how they can profit from land. There is
no guarantee in investing in land. Protect critical areas.
Fred Bovenkamp, 700 Fern Drive, Lynden, stated the wetland buffers and
mitigation ratios are extremely onerous. Professional and respected local wetland
biologists agree, especially with the buffers for category IV wetlands. The State
says it has a limited resource value. Many category IV wetlands were created by
poor farming and poor land management practices years ago. Further review those
sections.
Bob Wiesen, 3314 Douglas Road, Ferndale, stated that according to the
section on citizen rights in the Whatcom County Charter there must be
compensation to those unduly burdened. The ordinance requires private
landowners to provide a large public benefit at a high cost in loss of use of their
properties. Look into the information available that refutes the best available
science of the State Department of Ecology. Many people were appointed to a
committee that worked for months to create a plan. A lot of compromises were
made. Then, agencies and people who didn't participate in the committee process
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
think other changes should be made. Many people don't know how this may affect
them. There are unintended consequences, including urban sprawl. They are
reducing the amount of buildable lands in urban growth areas. Another unintended
consequence is increased housing costs. The existing, working residents of the
county are not the ones buying houses. The rich people from other places are the
ones who are coming in and buying the houses. The working man can't afford a
house. That's not good for the community. There will be higher utility costs due to
the lack of density. There will be higher taxes, also.
Ellie Friedlob, 6934 Hollman, stated she is in favor of the ordinance. There
has always been tension between individual rights and the obligations to the
community. Both sides of the issue made excellent points. Most people recognize
the rights of the individual. However, they have something special here. If they
lose this, it will not be through a mass action. The ordinance will be interpreted by
the Hearing Examiner and judges. Things can still be whittled away one decision at
a time. The people in the audience should think beyond their own narrow self
interest and think about the future of the community.
David Dickinson, 4100 Legoe Bay Road, Lummi Island, stated the technical
administrator would hold more power than any other official in the County. There is
no information on the credentials and qualifications required for such a position.
There is no information on the bonding that would be required to see to it that the
technical administrator doesn't use his or her official position to forward the agenda
of a private interest group. Hold open the comment period.
Mike Kent, 8201 Chehalis Road, Birch Bay, stated he is concerned about the
County being left open to takings consideration. People will vehemently fight for
their property rights. That will lead to division instead of cooperation and
communication. Use the transfer of development right (TDR) program and other
incentives to create environmental protection and incentives. Provide an
environment they can all enjoy while also providing adequate desirable housing.
Developers and environmentalists should speak together countywide, as they do in
Birch Bay.
Wendy Stephenson, North Sound Bay Keeper, stated the American Dream is
also having a healthy environment, clean water, and wildlife. Wetland buffers are
too small but they are the compromise at which they arrived. Planning took the
most flexible and lenient wetland buffers that were sanctioned by the Department
of Ecology. A 300 -foot buffer will be used rarely. It's only for category I wetlands.
There may not be any in Whatcom County. There is no mechanism to ensure that
wildlife habitat will be connected. That needs to be a County Council priority.
Cyrilla Cook, People for Puget Sound, submitted and read from information
(on file, Exhibit J). The staff, Planning Commission, and County Council used best
available science in the development of these protections. Adopt the ordinance.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
Dennis Jones, Sudden Valley, stated the CAO is one of three tools in the
state to protect the county. They all want to protect the living environment.
People have found Whatcom County. Property values are doubling. He hopes the
ordinance has teeth for enforcement. The other tools are zoning and restrictive
covenants. They are a lot more expensive. Adopt the ordinance.
Ellen Gray, Futurewise, submitted and read from information (on file, Exhibit
K). This ordinance will help the County with flood, water quality, and natural
hazard issues. There are costs to not protecting the environment. Look at the tree
retention and impervious surface limits countywide. Look at the stormwater
management plan. Both of those regulations may be a better fit for the
recommendations in her letter. Even small wetlands store water. Consider the cost
of flooding by allowing the exemption for small wetlands. Consider floodwater
mitigation for those exempted wetlands. The public process was excellent. Adopt
the ordinance tonight.
Hearing no one else, Caskey- Schreiber closed the public hearing.
Brenner stated there is a lot of new information that she would like to look
through. She moved to refer to committee for further discussion.
McShane stated he is against the motion. These are all issues that were
discussed in committee. The letters address many of those issues, and are follows -
up of the same comments they've seen. They've gotten the same comments from
Futurewise before, for example. There is nothing new that he sees. There isn't a
reason, other than for appearance, to go back to committee. He doesn't
recommend it.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 3, side A.)
Brenner continued to state she is not willing to create the wording regarding
transfers of development rights (TDR's) without the assistance of Hal Hart and Troy
Holbrook. The TDR issue was not brought up in committee. It was new information
for her. She doesn't know if there is something new in them. It's not about
appearances. She would like to finish reading the information.
McShane stated some questions could be readily answered tonight. Staff and
the consultant have done a great job on this ordinance. He asked if TDR's were
ever a part of the original CAO that they're amending. Chalfant stated TDR's were
mentioned as a non - regulatory action that could be used, but there was no
implementing ordinance to make TDR's occur. The TDR program is part of the Title
20 zoning ordinance. That section of the code identifies sending and receiving
areas, but it doesn't relate back to the CAO. To have that connection and to
identify critical areas as potential sending areas, Title 20 would have to make that
connection. The Planning Commission decided to take it out of the CAO because
there was that confusion. There were no implementing tools to make it happen.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
McShane stated it's an attractive program. The Council received a comment
regarding wildlife corridors. He disagrees that they should create more wildlife
corridors through the CAO. Wildlife corridors should be created through other
mechanisms, including TDR's. The Council should explore a TDR program that
would include the opportunity for people to opt out of the critical areas ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Futurewise asked the Council to drop wetlands to
2,500 square feet for exemption. She's now comfortable with the level the Natural
Resources Committee set. This is a situation where the Council won't make anyone
happy. The environmental community would like the Council to do more. The
builders would like the Council to do less. She's inclined to deal with it tonight.
Nelson stated they've gone through a long process for this. They have a CAO
in place now that has some protection mechanisms. The proposed CAO goes
beyond the scope of that CAO. Some modifications are good, and others he can't
support. This is a draft that has gone through a lot of committee work. It hasn't
had a lot of public examination, which the first CAO had. He would like the
opportunity to go through the materials handed out tonight and to address global
issues such as smaller acreages. A question is why people would want to protect
and enhance their properties when they will be restricted and scrutinized when they
own more than a lot. To be fair, have an economic evaluation of this if possible.
One cost to look at is enforcement. He asked the effect in the rural areas where
people have plans to use their acreage. Many people have been impacted in urban
areas. An issue to consider are flow of water and ditches. He asked if the
Agricultural Advisory Committee has looked at the proposed CAO. Chalfant stated
the advisory committee reviewed the ordinance and support it.
Roy stated she supports Councilmember McShane. The meetings were in the
newspaper and on the website. The committee held three special meetings. A
community committee worked on the ordinance. There has been input from the
Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. During
every Natural Resources Committee meeting, the public was invited and given the
opportunity to speak. There has been much thought and public input. If it goes to
committee, they will just start all over again. This is a good document. There has
been a lot of discussion. She is ready to vote on the ordinance.
McShane stated he is against the motion to refer to committee. The
committee did not make that many changes. The changes made were technical
changes implementing recommendations of staff based on comments from many
groups. In some cases, they've already debated some of the issues were brought
up tonight. If this is sent back to committee, there won't be any more changes.
Brenner stated there may not be many changes before the vote. The
committee did not work on this in the evening. Many people work during the day.
The people who are not paid to be here work during the day. Also, the purpose of a
public hearing is to look at the information the Council received. She understands
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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 frustration of the committee, but it's their job to consider the information from
the public. They won't take a lot more time on this.
Chalfant stated that if the Council takes action tonight on staff's
recommended changes, there must be another public hearing.
McShane stated that's why they should deal with the changes now, with the
entire Council.
Motion to refer to committee failed 3 -4 with Nelson, Brenner, and
Crawford in favor.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a break. Beginning of tape four, side A.)
McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Adopt the ordinance as it is
tonight, without amendments, with a request that Planning staff bring forward
amendments at a later date.
Brenner stated they would have to have another hearing anyway, if there
were amendments.
McShane stated the hearing on amendments would be very narrow, focusing
just on the amendments, versus the entire ordinance.
Brenner stated she would support this tonight if she could address a couple
of important issues.
Roy stated the basic principles are covered. It is about critical areas. From
that foundation, the Council can do some fine - tuning. She supports
councilmembers adding amendments. She supports Councilmember McShane's
suggestion.
Nelson stated the suggestion would be difficult. The reason for the hearing is
to get the public's input. He has issues about the role and responsibility of the
technical advisor. He has troubles about impacts on Class IV's. He needs an
economic evaluation. He has one amendment tonight to bring forward. He asked
why they don't just put it back in committee.
Roy stated they want to pass 98 percent of the ordinance tonight.
McShane asked if a future ordinance to amend the critical areas ordinance
(CAO) would have to go through the Planning Commission.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it may have to go to the
Planning Commission.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
McShane stated he's changed his mind, because a future ordinance would
have to go to the Planning Commission. It's not a good idea after all.
Nelson stated there was much information about the power of the technical
administrator. The technical administrator helps with the administrative process.
He asked if there is an appeal process before the Hearing Examiner in the code.
Jeff Chalfant, Senior Planner, stated the appeal process is in Whatcom
County Code (WCC) section 16.16.280. He explained the process.
McShane moved to amend WCC section 16.16.310(C)(1)(b)(i) as
recommended by staff in the memo from Jeff Chalfant to the County Council dated
July 26, 2005 regarding recommended amendments to the July 12, 2005 Council
Natural Resources Committee Draft Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance,
"...failing or very likely to fail w4t#in the next near future."
Chalfant stated the staff geologist said defining 100 years would make
administration of the ordinance difficult and onerous, and it would have unintended
consequences on over - regulating folks who could otherwise engineer structures to
be safely located within an active geologically hazardous area.
McShane stated this language is not the problem, however language in
another section becomes a problem with this language.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant stated the next proposed amendment from staff is to section
16.16.610(E)(7). It deals with exempt category IV wetlands that are less than
one -tenth of an acre in size. The committee added language to not allow wetlands
in special protection areas to be exempted, regardless of size. However,
administration of this would be very difficult. There are certain wetlands that have
no function, yet would be regulated per this section.
Nelson stated this is a useless exemption. Any birdbath with a frog in it
would have to be buffered.
Margaret Clancy, consultant, stated amphibian habitat has been one of the
key concerns with regard to exempting small wetlands from regulation. Many
amphibian species in Western Washington are declining because of wetland loss,
among other things. For a wetland to have breeding habitat for frogs and
salamanders, the wetlands must have stable hydrology, clean water, and the right
types of plant species. The wetlands tend to be less disturbed and, therefore, more
valuable.
Nelson stated any wet area, from small mud puddles to large wet areas, will
have habitat and can fit into this definition.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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 stated that if those wet areas have habitat, then they should be
protected. If an area is an amphibian breeding area, and 100 percent of the small
wetlands have them, then the small wetlands may need to be protected. They are
a part of the cycle.
Nelson stated the new buffer requirements that restrict land use don't give
people incentive for protecting those wetlands.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the motion is to eliminate some of those
restrictions. She is inclined to not delete the language. Those wetlands are very
important. She asked for an explanation of category IV wetlands. Clancy stated
the exemption in subsection (7) is meant to exclude the category IV wetlands that
have potentially important functions and values. In this case, if the County didn't
allow this exemption, they may regulate things that could be a patch of creeping
buttercup that is wet for two weeks out of the growing season. It is a low quality
wetland of small size. This section seems to be onerous.
Nelson asked if property owners would be allowed to remove blackberries
that may surround small wetlands. Clancy stated they would. There are provisions
that allow removal of invasive species. Depending on the nature of the vegetation
clearing activity, notification may be required.
McShane moved to delete 16.16.610(E)(7) as recommended by staff in the
memo from Jeff Chalfant to the County Council dated July 26, 2005 regarding
recommended amendments to the July 12, 2005 Council Natural Resources
Committee Draft Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant referenced section 16.16.630(C). The amendment clarifies that the
technical administrator can change land use categories from high intensity to
moderate intensity, if applicants can prove they are taking measures to reduce
impacts and intensity of the land use.
Brenner stated she is in favor of the change proposed by staff.
McShane moved to amend section 16.16.630(C) as recommended by staff
in the memo from Jeff Chalfant to the County Council dated July 26, 2005 regarding
recommended amendments to the July 12, 2005 Council Natural Resources
Committee Draft Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant referenced section 16.16.650. He recommends having criteria for
buffer averaging that mirror the criteria for the buffer reduction section.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
Brenner moved to amend sections 16.16.650(D) through (F) as
recommended by staff in the memo from Jeff Chalfant to the County Council dated
July 26, 2005 regarding recommended amendments to the July 12, 2005 Council
Natural Resources Committee Draft Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance. This
is very clear. She appreciates it. It also gives more flexibility.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
Chalfant referenced section 16.16.680(E)(4). Staff asked for flexibility for
the technical administrator to adjust the replacement ratios for mitigation when
criteria are met. The provision in subsection four actually applies to the entire
section. It should not be a numbered item. In order to maintain the no -net loss
criterion mandated under the Growth Management Act (GMA), add that the ratio
shall not be less than 1:1.
McShane moved to approve amendments to 16.16.680(4) as recommended
by staff in the memo from Jeff Chalfant to the County Council dated July 26, 2005
regarding recommended amendments to the July 12, 2005 Council Natural
Resources Committee Draft Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chalfant referenced section 16.16.680(F). Staff is responding to a concern
raised by the Building Industry Association. The amendment clarifies that offsite
mitigation can occur outside the same sub -basin or watershed where they end up
with the greatest ecological benefit and greatest likelihood of success. A mitigation
site inside a residential development may not be as successful as an offsite
mitigation bank.
Clancy stated there are now two criteria. The mitigation must provide the
greatest ecological benefit and also must have the greatest likelihood of success.
McShane moved to approve the amendment to section 16.16.680(F) as
recommended by staff in the memo from Jeff Chalfant to the County Council dated
July 26, 2005 regarding recommended amendments to the July 12, 2005 Council
Natural Resources Committee Draft Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance,
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner referenced section 16.16.235(C)(1). She talked to Jeff Chalfant,
who said it is a policy decision. She moved to amend 16.16.235(C)(1), "The
landowner may cut hazard trees from within critical areas and buffers. SUeh haZa..a
trees i9gay be eat PFieF ... ." The Council has already said that
people can't cut trees that aren't hazardous without permission. People with hazard
trees and who have their own chainsaws won't think about calling the County about
removing the hazard tree. If the trees that are cut aren't a hazard, and they don't
contact the County, then they are violators. This language will create more
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
paperwork. It is purely complaint driven. Don't get into the minutia about who
should do what.
McShane stated he is against the motion. These trees are within a protected
area. The system will be complaint driven. He's concerned about what happens
when those complaints come in. When people remove hazard trees, it's too their
advantage to notify the technical administrator. Then, the technical administrator
is aware of the hazard and can respond to the complaints. It provides protection
for the people who remove the trees. Otherwise, there could be debates about
whether or not the trees were really hazardous.
Roy stated the technical administrator has a lot of responsibility. This is yet
another task for the technical administrator. It is something the bureaucracy can
let go of.
Brenner stated they can tell whether a tree was a hazard after it is cut down.
McShane stated they won't know if the rot doesn't go down all the way to the
stump.
Nelson stated he needs to know the definition of a hazard tree.
McShane stated there is a definition.
Motion to amend carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
Chalfant stated the amendment just passed doesn't achieve their intended
purpose. The section needs to be relocated to the exempt activity section.
Otherwise, it is still an activity allowed with notification.
Brenner moved to relocate section 16.16.235(C)(1) to the exempt section
of the code.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner stated several people testified that the County would lose 40 to 50
percent of density in urban growth areas (UGA's). She asked if there is protection
in the UGA's to allow the density they want in the UGA's. She asked if this will end
up in expanded UGA's. Chalfant stated the type of wetland resources they find in
the UGA's are typically not the category I or category II systems. They are really
looking at lower grade systems that have smaller buffers. In addition, section
16.16.260(E) allows alternative mitigation strategies for planned unit developments
(PUD's) and major development permits (MDP's), which are the types of projects
that people have when trying to get the density in the urban growth areas.
Through the alternative mitigation strategy, people can deviate from the strict
standards of this ordinance if they can prove they have the fiscal and organization
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
capacity to carry out that more robust mitigation plan and really achieve those
functions in the long term.
Brenner asked if this allows the County to work with cities on compatible
buffer sizes. Chalfant stated that can be achieved through memoranda of
understanding. Also, it will be negotiated with the Bellingham urban fringe plan.
There are different ways to achieve that compatibility.
Roy stated that regarding the supposed 40 percent loss of land use in UGA's
that would create sprawl, the first thing the Birch Bay Steering Committee did when
creating it's subarea plan was to work with County planners to delineate the
wetlands and plan population around the wetlands. It was part of the plan. The
population projects can be included in the UGA if the zoning is based on those
wetland areas.
Crawford stated that he hopes that is the case, as they begin to look at the
UGA's. However, from the 1995 reviews, there was testimony about how that isn't
the case. Don't discount the developers, who have a bad experience with this. It is
a real problem.
Nelson stated Councilmember Roy's work with the Birch Bay community will
become obsolete if this ordinance is passed.
Roy stated it will protect the shorelines and estuary more.
Crawford moved to amend section 16.16.630(D)(1) through (3) to make
the maximum buffers 50 feet for all categories and intensities. If the number is
less than 50 feet now, leave it at what it is. Staff can do a scrub on the
corresponding numbers and the rest of the sections that have formulas based on
these three tables.
McShane asked the best available science and rational to support
Councilmember Crawford's motion.
Crawford referred to a document from Skip Richards and stated the use of
diminishing returns analysis is either faulty or nonexistent. In evaluating buffer
effectiveness, the consultant examined levels of effectiveness alone, without regard
for the various costs to parcel owners, the cumulative impact of those costs on the
local economy and community as a whole, and the environment. The available
capital for remediation comes from that same economy. A proper diminishing
returns analysis takes cost - effectiveness into account, and can't possibly qualify as
the best available science. Until they quantify the diminishing returns correctly,
there is no reason to go over a 50 -foot buffer.
McShane asked what diminishing returns have to do with best available
science.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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 stated they don't have anything to do with it.
Motion to amend failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor.
Crawford moved to amend section 16.16.680(C)(2) to make all maximum
ratios greater than 3:1 to a ratio of 3:1.
Brenner stated the technical administrator now has flexibility to lower the
ratios if necessary. An engineer from Jones Engineer, Inc., said there is a 97
percent rate of failure of mitigation. These ratios are okay as they are.
Motion failed 1 -6 with Crawford in favor.
Brenner referenced section 16.16.290(C)(2). She is concerned about the
requirement for verbal notification. She is concerned about requiring that
something be verbal because it can end up being one person's word against
another person's word. People need to have a written notice. Chalfant stated the
amendment is a result of receiving a letter with recommended amendments.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side A.)
Chalfant stated staff met with George Boggs from the Conservation District
and the Department of Ecology to discuss the letter of recommended amendments.
It was agreed that something along these lines was appropriate because it clarified
how the notice was supposed to be and how notice was to occur.
Brenner stated it should be clear, but they will have legal problems if
someone trespasses on property without notifying the property owners.
Roy stated she is more comfortable removing 'verbal" and saying they will
provide reasonable notice. The technical administrator would know to make a note
about a phone call or send a letter. She moved to delete the word verbal from
section 16.16.290(C)(2).
Motion to amend carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
Nelson referenced section 16.16.275(C)(1). He asked if they've talked to the
fire marshal about how long it generally takes to get insurance approval. Chalfant
stated they have had a lot of experience with those particular issues. A key phrase
in that nonconforming use section is that the nonconforming use has to be
intentionally abandoned. That overriding concept still applies. It would be fine if
they want to reference intentional abandonment.
Nelson stated he doesn't know how they define intentional abandonment. If
a fire destroys his house, he will intentionally abandon it. Chalfant stated owners
can demonstrate that they are working with their insurance companies and that
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
permits are in process, they've demonstrated that reconstruction process has
commenced within 18 months.
Brenner asked about transfers of development rights (TDR's). There isn't
anything that provides for administration of a TDR process to transfer development
rights from wetland areas to other areas. Chalfant stated that is correct. The
language says people can do it, but there is no mechanism for it to happen. There
aren't any criteria. The TDR section lays out that process. It's not referenced in
that section at all. The process belongs in the TDR section.
Roy asked if they are going to work on getting some language in Title 20.
Chalfant stated Mr. Holbrook would have to comment on that.
Roy stated they need to take care of that.
Brenner stated she feels a lot better. She will support this.
Motion to adopt as amended carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Nelson
opposed.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council shouldn't have voted. It will have a
public hearing on the amended version in September.
CONSENT AGENDA
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through 22. There is a substitute
resolution for Consent Agenda item 16.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, LOCAL 17 (AB2005 -291)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
NORTHWEST WASHINGTON TO CONDUCT THE " "SCHOOL BUDDIES
PROGRAM" FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $22,500 (AB2005 -292)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF WHATCOM COUNTY TO PROVIDE
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION SERVICES FOR ADOLESCENTS, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $17,500 (AB2005 -293)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WHATCOM COUNSELING & PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC FOR 2060 REPAIR
AND RETENTION FUNDING FOR REPAIRS TO 9 -UNIT APARTMENT
FACILITY AT 1604 I STREET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,902 (AB2005-
294)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT RENEWAL BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES/ DIVISION OF ALCOHOL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TO
PROVIDE SUBSTANCE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,480,258 (AB2005 -295)
6. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
SERVICES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES TO PROVIDE HOME VISITS
TO FAMILIES WITH BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN REFERRED BY
CPS THAT ARE AT RISK FOR CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $23,434 (AB2005 -296)
7. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
SERVICES TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES TO DEVELOP A
HEALTH "PASSPORT" FOR CHILDREN RESIDING IN OUT -OF -HOME
CARE AS A TOOL FOR PROMOTING ONGOING HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
AND APPROPRIATE FOLLOW -UP AND TREATMENT SERVICES FOR THE
CHILD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,398 (AB2005 -297)
8. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND MILLER'S
PAINTING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PAINTING AT WHATCOM COUNTY
FACILITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 (AB2005 -298)
9. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO AN
AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND NORTHWEST INDIAN COLLEGE FOR AMBIENT WATER
QUALITY MONITORING UNDER CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND
GRANT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,435, FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,234 (AB2005 -299)
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
10. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR THE
NORTHWEST STRAITS: MRC YEAR 6 ADMINISTRATION AND ACTION
PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $157,800 (AB2005 -300)
11. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR LEVEE REHABILITATION WORK ON
THE VANDERPOL LEVEE LOCATED ON THE LEFT BANK OF THE
NOOKSACK RIVER NEAR LYNDEN, IN THE AMOUNT OF $252,000,
WITH THE COUNTY'S COST SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,400
(AB2005 -301)
12. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR LEVEE REHABILITATION WORK ON
THE TWIN VIEW LEVEE LOCATED ON THE LEFT BANK OF THE
NOOKSACK RIVER NEAR EVERSON, IN THE AMOUNT OF $275,000,
WITH THE COUNTY'S COST SHARE IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000
(AB2005 -302)
13. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE IBI
GROUP FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OFF -BOAT TICKET SALES FOR
THE LUMMI ISLAND FERRY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,280 (AB2005-
303)
14. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND RH2 ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. FOR LUMMI NATION
RESERVATION -WIDE TRAFFIC STUDY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000
(AB2005 -304)
15. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND CH2M HILL, INC. FOR CABLE STREET STORMWATER OUTFALL
POLLUTANT REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$75,000 (AB2005 -305)
16. RESOLUTION AND REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
EXECUTIVE TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION FOR THE
PLANTATION RANGE TARGET CARRIER UPGRADE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$85,000, WITH THE COUNTY'S SHARE OF THE PROJECT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $42,500 (AB2005 -306)
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
17. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ROAD PROJECT NO. 900902
FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM BLVD. HIGH BRIDGE #115 REPLACEMENT,
AND REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD
CONTRACT TO MOWAT CONSTRUCTION CO. AS LOW BIDDER IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,525,465 (AB2005 -307)
18. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #05-
51 FOR SECURITY SERVICES AT GOOSEBERRY POINT PARKING AREA
TO THE LOW BIDDER, GREG RUSTAND INC. DBA SSP, IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $55,000 (AB2005 -308)
19. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #05-
58 FOR ANNUAL DRYDOCK REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE TO THE
WHATCOM CHIEF FERRY TO THE LOW BIDDER, FOSS SHIPYARD, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $155,697 (AB2005 -309)
20. RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY
SURPLUS PROPERTY AND THE SETTING OF A DATE FOR PUBLIC
HEARING (AB2005 -310)
21. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
SUB - RECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WHATCOM COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE , DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND
THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM (AB2005 -311)
22. RESOLUTION TO ELECT EXPENDITURE OF NATIONAL FOREST
RELATED SAFETY -NET PAYMENTS UNDER PL106 -93 (AB2005 -312)
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A HOMELESS HOUSING FUND (AB2005-
284)
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT FUND
(AB2005 -285)
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2005 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
SEVENTH REQUEST (AB2005 -286)
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to adopt the ordinance. There is a substitute page with updated costs.
Motion to adopt the ordinance with substitute costs carried
unanimously.
4. COUNCIL REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES PLAN AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION
RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION (AB2005 -155B)
Nelson reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee and
moved to approve the substitute resolution.
Crawford stated he supports this plan conditionally. They need to continue
to look at how this funding mechanism is going to work. It is enabled by State
legislation that allows them to do this. He is still interested in looking at doing two -
tenths or three - tenths of one percent so the community can realistically get funding
for emergency medical service (EMS) out of the general fund. However, this has
been a product of considerable amount of negotiation and compromise by the City
of Bellingham, Whatcom County, fire districts, and the small cities. It's worthy of
the Council's support at this time.
Caskey- Schreiber stated this is necessary. They should approve this.
Otherwise, that service can't continue with supplemental funding.
Brenner stated she hopes the word can get out about how much the
administration did to reduce the necessary funding. This is not the same proposal
that was out last year. She hopes there is enough time to get the message out
about this lesser cost.
McShane stated the administration did a good job. This proposal will be less
for County government. There is a significant commitment from each of the fire
districts and small cities. This proposal is appealing because it involves them as
well.
Nelson stated the County will maintain its support at the current level.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
ROBERT J. BRANDT FOR RIGHT -OF -WAY AND ASSOCIATED ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS (AB2005 -313)
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and moved to
approve the agreement.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. REPORT ON COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED
PIONEER PARK MALL PROJECT IN FERNDALE (AB2005 -287)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution opposing the proposed regional -
type mall in Ferndale.
Brenner moved to amend page three:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Whatcom County
Council opposes the development of Ferndale's proposed regional -type
retail mall; —ands
because
the Council believes it is
out of scale with the Ferndale community and is not in the best
interest of the Whatcom County community at large; and
BE IT TTTfVALLY FURTHER RESOLVED, the County Council believes
only through collaborative efforts with other jurisdictions will Ferndale
be able to avoid creating negative county -wide impacts."
Roy stated it's a regional issue. The development is out of scale with the
community. The transportation issues are horrendous. She is not comfortable with
the first resolved statement. She agrees that they need to work together
collaboratively with Ferndale. At one point in the resolution, they're saying they're
totally opposed, and next they're saying they will work collaboratively. Stick to the
issues. She hasn't even seen the application for the development, so she can't say
yet that she is absolutely opposed.
McShane stated he is comfortable with the second resolved statement. It
really lays out their concern. He suggested a friendly amendment to add
another resolved statement, "BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the eeunty eeuneil believe.
enly thFeugh eellaber-ative effer-ts with ethei= jur-isdietiens will Ferndale be able te
that the Whatcom County Council
supports a very thorough review of traffic impacts to County roads, state highway
systems, and transportation systems, and coordination of critical area and
protection of natural resources."
Brenner stated the project has been touted as a regional -type mall to serve
all of lower British Columbia to Skagit County. They used the term "regional- type"
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
mall. The question is whether this type of mall is in the community's interest. She
amended her motion:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Whatcom County
Council eppeses the develepn9ent e believes Ferndale's proposed
regional -type retail mall;; anal,
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Whateern Geunty mil
Ferndale's believes is out of scale
with the Ferndale community and is not in the best interest of the
Whatcom County community at large; and
BE IT C"',TZNALLY FURTHER RESOLVED, the County Council believes
only through collaborative efforts with other jurisdictions will Ferndale
be able to avoid creating negative county -wide impacts."
(Clerk's Note: This motion was not voted on.)
Roy moved to remove the first resolved statement.
Fleetwood stated he would support Councilmember Roy's motion. At this
time, he is uncomfortable opposing the development. However, this is something
that will come to the County Council formally. The County Council will have an
opportunity to analyze the project, which it has not yet done at this point in time.
At this time, he is more comfortable expressing the concerns they've expressed,
with the deletion of outright opposition. Later, after thorough review, it is outright
opposition, the Council can express that with a strengthened resolution at that
time.
Brenner stated she is concerned that the councilmembers believe they
wouldn't support the concept of a regional -type mall, but will wait for the plan. She
hoped this resolution will have some effect on the Ferndale City Council. Once the
plan is accepted, the plan is vested. The County Council doesn't have much direct
authority. This is a statement that they don't approve of any regional malls in
Whatcom County. They don't have to specify Ferndale's project. It's very
important at this point to make a statement that is clear. The Council should say
something now, before the project is vested.
Nelson stated the process for discussion is through the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) process, which would address things such as habitat
protection, traffic impacts, and mitigation. This is the process for expressing the
concept of whether or not they want a regional mall. He is not opposed to Ferndale
having a mall. However, the County needs to be more involved, especially when it
is located on the edge of the urban growth area, which will impact county traffic.
He questions whether more malls in the Whatcom County region are necessary.
Don't build up businesses for Canada. He questions whether any dollars will be
available after the 2010 Olympics. The project is probably intended to benefit from
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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 traffic generated by the 2010 Olympics. He questions what will happen to the
mall after that event. There needs to be that discussion to avoid adverse impacts
to Whatcom County and Ferndale.
Fleetwood stated this resolution isn't going to influence the process of
whether or not the project will be vested. That argument is a moot point. It's a
question of whether they want to state outright opposition. There is a question of
fairness when they haven't seen any application or supporting documents. He is
comfortable saying something softer now, and stronger at a later time.
Brenner stated the Council hasn't seen anything because neither the
developer nor the Ferndale City Council has shown anything to the County Council.
She went to the meetings and saw the proposal. She asked the Governor about
State transportation dollars being used for projects that don't have community
support. The Governor said that she would not support using State transportation
dollars on a proposal that isn't integrated with the community at- large. She
suggested a friendly amendment to Councilmember Roy's motion to remove the
reference to Ferndale instead of deleting the entire statement.
Roy accepted the friendly amendment and restated her motion, "NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Whatcom County Council opposes the
development of regional -type retail mall; and...." She is
uncomfortable with the in- your -face attitude toward the City of Ferndale. She
would rather just say the Council is opposed to a mall.
Crawford stated he has no idea why the Whatcom County Council would be
opposed to a mall.
Caskey - Schreiber stated the committee had an in -depth discussion about it.
A question is who is looking out for the traffic pattern of Interstate 5. There is a
bottleneck of traffic everywhere there is a large -scale mall. That is likely to happen
if this mall were developed. The State Department of Transportation can't ask for
impact fees from the developer. It's not likely that any developer will invest in the
infrastructure needed for this type of thing.
Her bigger concern is that a large regional mall brings in large, corporate
stores. That will close down Mom and Pop businesses in the county. She asked
how the Ferndale downtown and Bellingham downtown stores will compete. They
don't have a chance. All the stores in the Alderwood Mall are corporate stores.
Those profits go elsewhere. Those are enough reasons for alarm. Traffic would
affect the County roads. The project may impact Ferndale's sales tax revenue, but
at the expense of lost jobs and a new retail service sector.
Brenner stated the Council worked on the Comprehensive Plan to go an
entirely different direction, which is to have in- scale, community -sized commercial
areas for small communities. Instead, developers should restore the downtown
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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.
area of Ferndale. It would be a boon for everyone. Developers aren't doing it
because they want to draw people in from other areas.
McShane stated focus on the issue, which is captured in the second resolved
statement. They can make the point softly. He is uncomfortable saying that
regional malls are off the table. He would rather strike the entire first resolved
statement. They already have a regional mall that may need to expand at some
point, or there may be a regional mall in a downtown core. The concern is about
regional malls in this area.
Brenner stated this is about their vision. She disagrees that a regional mall
has a place. They're trying to make sure they are dealing with communities with
retail at scale.
Fleetwood stated the problem is that the Council is pretending that it knows
precisely what all regional -type retail malls are. It's a mistake to make a blanket
statement when they don't know what someone's concept of a regional -type mall
might be. Perhaps someone might have a notion of a retail mall that's entirely
different from what they're thinking of today. Making a blanket statement that
they're opposed to all conceptions of regional -type retail malls is a mistake. The
second resolved statement is a true statement. He can live with that.
Motion to approve Councilmember Roy's amendment failed 2 -5 with
Brenner and Roy in favor.
Fleetwood moved to delete the first resolved statement.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Roy, Nelson, and Brenner opposed.
McShane moved to amend the last resolved statement, "BE IT FINALLY
RESOLVED,
jur-isdietiens wall Ferndale be able te aveid er-eating negative eeuntywide
that the Whatcom County Council supports a very thorough review of traffic
impacts to County roads, state highway systems, and transportation systems, and
the coordination of critical area evaluation and the protection of natural resources."
The SEPA process of evaluating the impacts of the project is where the County has
some potential authority, if the City of Ferndale approves the project.
Brenner asked if Councilmember McShane wanted to keep the last resolved
statement, and add his language as a new resolved statement to be placed at the
end.
McShane stated he did. The motion is "BE IT rcTnvALL FURTHER
RESOLVED, the county council believes only through collaborative efforts with other
jurisdictions will Ferndale be able to avoid creating negative countywide impacts;
and,
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Whatcom County Council supports a very
thorough review of traffic impacts to County roads, state highway systems, and
transportation systems, and the coordination of critical area evaluation and the
protection of natural resources."
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion to approve the resolution as amended carried 6 -1 with
Crawford opposed.
7. 2005 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS —
OFFICIAL FILING WITH THE COUNTY AUDITOR (AB2005 -289)
Crawford moved to forward the amendments to the Auditor to be included
on the November general election ballot.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated he is opposed to charter amendment five. He had suggested
some language that would more accurately reflect what it is that the Council does
in terms of meetings. Somehow, it got turned into the language as proposed. He
thinks the amendment as it is is ineffective in terms of saying this is what should be
in the charter to promote good government.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated (inaudible).
Brenner stated the Council meets much more often than 22 times per year.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Nelson stated the motion includes the amended critical areas ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2005 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
REQUEST #8 (AB2005 -314)
2. ORDINANCE DECLARING INTENT TO ACCEPT A NEW SECTION OF
DELTA LINE ROAD AS A WHATCOM COUNTY ROAD (AB2005 -315)
3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF WHATCOM COUNTY
SURPLUS PROPERTY (AB2005 -310A)
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, 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
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. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL WHATCOM COUNTY ZONING
CODE, CHAPTER 20.80.800 — LIVESTOCK REGULATIONS (AB2005-
316)
5. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 20.71 — WATER
PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (ON AN INTERIM BASIS), TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY PROTECTION FOR THE LAKE
WHATCOM WATERSHED (AB2005 -072C)
(Note from Clerk of the Council on Introduction Item 5: "...consider it
introduced, as they do talk about the need to introduce the new version... during the
discussion following the public hearing on this item. ")
OTHER BUSINESS
Crawford stated the Council didn't adopt the critical areas ordinance tonight,
but the Council is deeply indebted to Mr. Chalfant and the staff for his work.
Fleetwood stated Mr. Chalfant's fluency, competency, and knowledge in this
subject matter is impressive.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
There were no reports or other items.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:49 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on September 13 , 2005.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 7/26/2005, Page 36