HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil February 24 20041
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
February 24, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
FLAG SALUTE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Absent:
None
McShane announced that the Committee of the Whole held a discussion
regarding consultants for critical areas and the shoreline update.
McShane announced there was discussion regarding PDR purchase
issues (AB2004 -018) and discussion with the Administration regarding a
proposed property acquisition (AB2004 -018) in executive session during the
Committee of the Whole meeting.
MINUTES CONSENT
1. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2004
McShane moved to approve the minutes, including the substitute page,
which was submitted earlier.
Motion carried unanimous /y.
2. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2004
Brenner moved to approve the minutes.
Motion carried unanimous /y.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated the Lake Whatcom Watershed is a
special overlay area. The 1992 joint resolution resolved to do education, put land
in public ownership, collect accurate data, and to encourage sustainable forestry
over development. Recreation is to be promoted where feasible. Lake Louise in
Sudden Valley essentially died from surface water and stormwater runoff.
Today, he was physically threatened by a person who is a general contractor
and a former board member at Sudden Valley for his activities. He has been like a
ping pong ball between Chris Dillard and Bill Querhn for ages. He can't be
physically threatened. They have agreed to do what it takes to sustain Lake
Whatcom water quality.
They have agreed to maintain sustainable forestry, which is a way to do
preserve water quality. Private forestry laws need to be redone. He's not against
clear cutting, but it's a disaster right now. Enforce the laws they have.
Mike Kaufman, 1620 Huntley Road, thanked the Council for the vote
opposing Jeff Morris's house bill in Olympia at the last meeting. Keep as much
control as they can in the county. Oppose the Energy Facility Site Evaluation
Council (EFSEC) until it has a true energy plan.
Regarding the electric moratorium issue, the language he proposed in
December 2002 is still sitting there. It's still pertinent. The information Puget
Sound Energy put back on his language hinged on the term "average" loading.
Tom Anderson with the local Public Utility District agreed. Support Councilmember
Caskey- Schreiber on this issue.
Al Hanners, 3007 Plymouth Drive, Bellingham, stated the City of Bellingham
has proposed limiting the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the watershed. It's
about time. It's possible to raise insect -prone plants without pesticides. He has
done it. The City of Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department lists his yard on
their visitation list because it is a virtually pesticide -free lawn. He's invited the
public and City and County councilmembers to his yard to learn about pesticide -free
lawns on February 29. He will make another date available to the folks who will be
out of town on that date.
Evelyne Roose, 8244 Birch Bay Drive, Birch Bay, submitted pictures and
spoke with her daughter -in -law, the next speaker (below).
Myla Kelstrup, 8243 Cedar Avenue, Birch Bay, stated the photos are of a
methamphetamine lab found a month ago at 8233 Cedar Avenue, which was two
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
doors down from their property. The property owners live in Canada. There is no
code in Whatcom County for when the owners have to clean the place up. The
hazardous material was cleaned up, but there is a lot of garbage still left there.
The door is open, and the kids are still running the neighborhood. The immediate
neighbors wonder when cleanup and decontamination will take place. The owners
have bids from contractors a few weeks ago. The property is listed for sale, but the
owner can't sell the property until the contamination process is complete.
Roose stated she is concerned about the kids being over there. The property
isn't posted as a hazardous place. It is not a safe place. There is nothing to keep
the kids out of the place. Close off the house so the kids don't go in there.
Brenner stated she's working with the Health Department, Star Task Force,
and Northwest Regional Drug Task Force staff to put together legislation to make it
easier to clean up these properties. Kelstrup stated she's already talked to the staff
at the Health Department, who recommended that she talked to the County
Council.
Crawford stated that a number of the councilmembers are aware of the
situation and are actively trying to figure out what to do. Barricading this property
would be an important step. This site is not a meth lab, but a site where a meth
lab existed. The primary problem is that the chemicals are in the carpet and
drywall in that trailer. The issue is with an owner who may let the property go into
foreclosure. It's encouraging that there is real estate development. It's difficult for
the County to deal with because there isn't a fund to clean up old mobile homes,
but at the same time must address the health risk to the community. He's not sure
how they'll address it yet, but they are aware of this specific situation.
Cathy Cleveland, 4961 Morgan Drive, Blaine, thanked the Council for joining
in the lawsuit regarding the Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX) pipeline.
Many citizens wanted the Conditional Use Permit in the Birch Bay plan, but
it's not. She submitted information (on file) that says the Growth Management
Hearings Board hearings were violated regarding the Birch Bay plan. A lot of the
issues are moot now, but she wanted to make the Council aware that many times
Mark Kask would not include things the citizens wanted if it didn't benefit the
businesses and developers. The citizens have to make time constantly to go to the
meetings to object to the things the developers want. The developers have 40
hours per weeks to pursue the County Council and the changes. The citizens don't
have that time. There needs to be a more equitable process. The process leans
too much against the citizens who want to have quiet enjoyment of their properties
without having things constantly changing around the homes.
Cathy Seemann, 6057 Birch Point Road, asked the Council to hold a public
hearing on the rezone at Birch Point as part of the Birch Bay Subarea Plan. The
planned retreat fits with the vision of the Birch Bay community. More neighbors are
in favor of the rezone than are against it.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Tim Paxton, 2120 Ellis Street, stated the Clean Water Alliance supports a ban
of watercraft on Lake Whatcom. Some of the debate has focused on the benzene
contamination, but that ignores polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
contaminants that are going into the lake as a byproduct of internal combustion
engines. The County Board of Health should look at the reports from the
toxicologists regarding the chemicals of concern from combustion engines. Robin
Matthews is coming out with a new report on Lake Whatcom this year. Hire a
toxicologist to get an opinion on the real problems in Lake Whatcom.
Kathy Berg, 7585 Sterling Ave., Birch Bay, stated she agrees with the
County Planning Department about the Shea /Birch Point rezone is consistent with
the Birch Bay Community Plan and the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. The
Planning Commission's denial was decided based on innuendo, fear - mongering, and
misrepresentation. She requests that the County Council have a public hearing on
this case.
Cindy Reimer, 6159 Semiahmoo Lane, Blaine, stated she lives next door to
the proposed resort commercial rezone. She is concerned about the impacts on her
children. This land has been in her family for years. They envisioned a quiet, safe
life. They dreamed of passing the land down to their children. A Comprehensive
Plan goal is for predictability to property owners and land use designations. Since
learning of this proposed rezone, she has to question the kind of neighborhood this
will become. She asked how the rezone can be compliant with the stated goal for
predictability. The Planning Commission voted against the rezone because it is a
spot rezone. One hundred percent of Semiahmoo Lane and the vast majority of
Birch Point and Semiahmoo residents say no to the rezone. She requested that a
public hearing be held on the issue. The majority of names and addresses on the
petition submitted by the investors are not from citizens who live in the immediate
area and who aren't negatively affected by the spot rezone.
Patrick Alesse, 4825 Alderson Road, Birch Bay, stated the Planning
Commission is doing it's job. As far as the Shea rezone is concerned, he'd like to
have it next to him.
Rita Foley, South Lake Whatcom stated there are three novices on the
Council Natural Resources Committee. There should be a balance. She doesn't
want any decisions made by the current committee members. The committee
members are making a decision about the inter - jurisdictional committee for Lake
Whatcom and the Forestry Forum. The Forestry Forum has been in existence for a
long time, and is very knowledgeable about what's going on in the watershed. She
is for forestry, not houses. People are building very large expensive houses right
on the water. No logger could do that. When the County allows these things to go
on, it's not doing its job. There is property for sale in the watershed that will wash
out if its built on. Get rid of the Water Resources Committee that does nothing.
Start doing something. The interjurisdictional committee is wrong. Qualified
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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
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.
people on the Forestry Forum know what they're doing. People behind the scene
are trying to stop the Forestry Forum.
Donna Ray Pederson, 6167 Semiahmoo Lane, stated she is opposed to the
Birch Point rezone request by Ellen Shea. She is familiar with the area's
comprehensive plan and zoning particulars. With the help of many, research has
been gathered and shared with local residents. The vision for the rezone is creative
and first - class, but she and other residents don't want the traffic and activity in this
residential environment. The ten -acre parcel is in an isolated pocket of land, three
and a half miles from the nearest commercial center. Although it is possible to
attach restrictions to the property on a concomitant agreement, any new owners in
the future would only need to appeal to the then - sitting Council for changes and
variances allowed. Once the rezone is accomplished, they open the door to much
more than Ms. Shea's project. They will forfeit the current predictability,
atmosphere, and ambience the residents currently enjoy. Rather than forfeit the
neighborhood, the residents prefer to retain the existing urban residential, four
units per acre (UR -4) zoning. Any petition for a rezone should be subject to the
rezone process currently in place.
Jo Slivinski, 3920 Silver Beach Avenue and 6163 Semiahmoo Lane, stated
she is opposed to the Birch Point rezone requested by Ellen Shea. The residents
are opposed to the rezone, not Ms. Shea and her vision for the property. They
hope she finds a piece of land that isn't in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
More than 150 people in that immediate area signed a petition against the rezone.
That is the majority of the neighborhood.
There are environmental issues related to the rezone. The State
Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) determination on the Birch Bay Subarea Plan
applies to the plan as it existed in September 2003 when the public hearing for the
plan officially closed. Ellen Shea submitted her written comment and proposal after
that hearing closed. The Planning Department provided a determination of non -
significance on the rezone. It claims that a separate, project- specific SEPA review
is not required because the proposal would not have significantly different
environmental impacts than the current residential zoning. Before the sewer comes
in, a total of eight houses can be on that ten acres. Two acres are tidelands. She
questions this determination. It is required. She also questions several aspects of
the proposal on the following grounds. The proposal bypassed the September 2003
hearing on the subarea plan, so it was not subject to the full public disclosure
mandated by the SEPA review process. The proposal was not part of the subarea
plan when the plan underwent SEPA review. The proposal had a public hearing only
after the subarea plan underwent the SEPA review. The proposal includes several
permitted and conditional uses that are significantly different from the residential
uses that were evaluated by the SEPA review. There is a list of prohibited uses that
Ms. Shea specified. She submitted a list of probated uses (on file). Neither the
Planning Development or developer have addressed possible accessory uses
pertaining to chemicals and solvents requisite to operating a spa. Certain Planning
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
Commission members question whether a separate project- specific SEPA review is
required by law before this can be considered.
Ellen Shea, 1050 Larabee Avenue #104, Bellingham, stated there seems to
be some misinformation and a lot of allegations that she's been given special
privileges in being able to submit her rezone as part of the plan. She was assured
by numerous sources that this is something that happens quite often. Rezones are
attached to community plans. That's when they suggest that rezones happen. She
has been assured by the Planning Department that a SEPA review is necessary to
get a building permit. If she's willing to go ahead and put her money down on a
SEPA review, that's her problem, not their problem. She's not getting any special
treatment. She still has to go through the permitting process. She would walk
away from this project if she felt it wasn't in the best interest of the area. For
every person she hears of who doesn't like the project, there are 25 or 30 in the
community who support her. She currently has over 200 signatures supporting the
project. She asked that just the facts be addressed, and not the innuendos that
seem to be flying around.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #09 -03 (AB2003 -412A)
McShane stated the total costs are $446.73. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
McShane moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #10 -03 (AB2003- 413A)
McShane stated the total costs are $485.11. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber moved approval.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #11 -03 (AB2003 -414A)
McShane stated the total costs are $401.95. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #12 -03 (AB2003- 415A)
McShane stated the total costs are $438.18. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Nelson moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #13 -03 (AB2003 -416A)
McShane stated the total costs are $438.18. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #14 -03 (AB2003 -417A)
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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
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 total costs are $438.18. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Fleetwood moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #15 -03 (AB2003 -418A)
McShane stated the total costs are $438.18. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
8. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #16 -03 (AB2003 -419A)
McShane stated the total costs are $479.56. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Fleetwood moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #17 -03 (AB2003 -420A)
McShane stated the total costs are $479.56. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Brenner moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously,
10. RESOLUTION TO SELL TAX -TITLE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION,
REQUEST #18 -03 (AB2003 -421A)
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated the total costs are $443.32. The Property Management
Committee recommends that the resolution be passed subject to a restrictive
covenant, which is before the Council.
McShane stated the public hearing is held open from the previous Council
meeting. Hearing no one, McShane closed the public hearing.
Fleetwood moved approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. ORDINANCE ORDERING THE CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF DELTA LINE
ROAD NORTH OF GRANDVIEW ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED
NEW ROAD ALIGNMENT (AB2004 -097)
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, gave a staff report and stated page 308 of
the Council packet shows new alignment and the closure. It is not a road vacation.
The county will maintain the underlying right -of -way, remove the pavement, and
realign the road over to Vista Drive 400 -feet north of Grandview. This agreement
included the developer, his engineer, and the State Department of Transportation.
McShane opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
Crawford asked if the developer pays all cost. Rutan stated the developer
will remove and realign the road.
Crawford asked what happens to the County's right -of -way on the closed
road. Rutan stated it remains with the County.
Motion carried unanimously,
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
12. ORDINANCE REGARDING INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT
VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS ON CERTAIN COUNTY ROADS (AB2004-
102)
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, gave a staff report and referenced Council
packet page 311. Numbers one, eight, and nine are existing roads. The remainder
are new roads.
McShane opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Nelson moved to adopt the ordinance.
Brenner stated that every time this comes to the Council, she asks for a map
to see where the stop signs and speed limits are going in. Rutan stated he was
unaware of the request, and will make sure the maps are included in the future.
Crawford referenced Kellogg Road where it goes into James Street. He
asked if that is going to be open. There was quite a bit of discussion in the past
from the neighbors.
Mike Donahue, Engineering Manager - Traffic /Development, stated the
Hearing Examiner decided through the hearing process that the road will remain
closed until 2005 or 2006, according to an agreement with the City.
quite.
Brenner asked if that area is in the city already. Donahue stated it is not
Motion carried unanimously,
13. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMITS ON
CERTAIN COUNTY ROADS (AB2004 -103)
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, gave a staff report and stated these are
all new subdivisions. In the future, staff will provide maps.
Roy asked the process for changing a speed limit. She asked if citizens can
petition for a change. Rutan stated that if people request, the department can do
a speed study on the road. The speed study includes placing equipment on the
road to record speeds and vehicle types. Staff compares the data with the 85th
percentile, which is the threshold of where people are naturally comfortable with
driving. Then they look at things like site distance, clear zones to the side, and
access issues. At some point, they will make an engineering judgment. If
someone wants a speed limit, they can contact his office. They do speed studies
on regular intervals.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
McShane opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Brenner moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
14. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 12.44 TO CLARIFY
PROCEDURES FOR FILING OF APPLICATION SUMMARIES AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS CLARIFICATIONS (AB2004 -104)
Crawford stated he requested that the chair of the Public Works Committee
put this back in committee in two weeks. He has some substantial amendments he
would like to propose.
Joe Rutan, Public Works gave a staff report and stated two of the changes
are a recording requirement with the Auditor's Office and the permit approvals that
trigger the collection of the easement. These changes were requested by the
Public Works Committee. The rest of the changes are to clean up the ordinance
and take care of grammatical errors.
McShane opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Crawford moved to remand the item back to the Public Works Committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
15. DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT APPLICATION FOR MISSION ROAD
(AB2003 -369A)
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, gave a staff report.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how payment of the assessment is arranged. Rutan
stated the Public Works Department, Engineering Division acts as an administrator
for the developer to collect the assessment. Any permit would trigger payment of
the assessment. The Public Works Committee requested that something more
substantive than just a permit would trigger the assessment.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the assessment is retroactive for an existing
home. Rutan stated it is retroactive if the owner is within the assessment area and
short -plats the property or obtains a building permit for any activity.
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Richard W. Anderson, 5044 Mission Road, stated he lives in the D.L. short
plat. At the time D.L. short plat was created 15 years ago, it had to satisfy all the
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
County road specifications. He bought a home in that short plat. He paid his dues
at that time. Now someone is proposing something again and he gets to pay
again. He is happy with things the way they were. He is over 1,000 feet off the
road, so he isn't notified about any kind of hearings. He should be exempt.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is an example where he would have to pay
the assessment if he remodels or expands his home. Anderson stated he is being
required to pay the assessment fee if he has to put on a new roof. Mr. Hodges
dropped in from Texas to make some money. It isn't going as well as Mr. Hodges
thought it would, and that's his problem. Now, the Council is trying to pass his
burden onto the other residents so Mr. Hodges can make some money. The
County should have mailed him an notice.
Linnea Brown, 5030 Mission, stated she has owned her property for 15 years
and had her building permits before the Hodges' development plan. They are
exempt because they have been there for so many years. She understands where
a latecomer comes into effect for people who move in after the fact. However,
when a short -plat is made it has to fulfill the County's requirement at that time. If
the County approves the short -plat, the road requirements have been met. She is
not a latecomer because she was there before the developer purchased the land.
Gary Hall, 4945 Mission Road, stated he has been a property owner for about
ten years. According to the Public Works Department, the intent of the latecomer's
agreement is to provide a means for the developer of the road improvements to
recover a share of the costs from other property owners who benefit from the
improvements and would have been required to make similar improvements before
developing their own properties. There is no further development possible on his
five acres. The benefit is that their quiet, country road has turned into a drag
strip. They don't want to be required to subsidize the developer at the end of the
road. The developer chose to purchase his property for development knowing the
terms he was required to develop under. He made his profit. It's not right to
make the other homeowners pay for it. This is a misinterpretation of the statute.
Don Caffell, 5050 Mission Road, stated he feels violated. His property was
developed in 1988 and is in the D.L. short plat. They are certainly not latecomers.
He has not been informed about what has been going on because they were
exempt. They have been exempt until now. The money is an issue. He is
supporting his in -laws. He can't make any improvements to his home without
having to pay for the road. He is not benefiting from the road, which has turned in
to a drag strip. They used to be able to walk along the road, but they can't now.
He's complained to the Sheriff's Office about it.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
Crawford moved to remand this back to the Public Works Committee for
further review and amendments.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
McShane stated this application came forward with rules in place. He asked
if the Council is obligated to deal with this application under the rules that existed
when the application was provided.
Randy Watts, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that regarding
applications for building permits, the applicant is entitled to be considered under
the law at the time of the completed application. He'd have to look into that for
latecomer's agreements. There is a strong argument that an individual is entitled
to have a project reviewed in light of the rules in place of the time of application.
Brenner stated she thought that a latecomer's agreement is up to the
discretion of the Council to leave it as it is, modify it, or deny it. Watts stated
that's probably in the existing ordinance. This project would be reviewed under
the ordinance in place at the time the application was completed. If that ordinance
allows them to modify, change, or find no benefit, then the Council is entitled to do
that. The criteria they must considered is that which was established at the time
the development was submitted.
Crawford stated an agreement hasn't been made on this yet. Watts stated
the Council is in the position to formulate an agreement. He was asked about the
criteria to use to determine whether a party has been benefited. The Council must
use the criteria in the ordinance in place when the project was applied for. The
Council can still consider whether or not there is benefit.
Brenner asked about residents being told by the Engineering Division that
the developer would pay the costs. Rutan stated he is unaware of that happening.
If someone asked him that now, he wouldn't be able to answer yes or no because
it's the Council's decision.
McShane stated the Council, not the Engineering Division, has the discretion
to evaluate the agreements.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the sale of a home with an assessment
requirement triggers the assessment or if the assessment requirement expires.
Rutan stated the assessment expires after 15 years, but it goes with the property.
A sale would not trigger collection.
Caskey- Schreiber asked when a home buyer would find out about the
assessment. Rutan stated the assessment would be filed and revealed during a
title search.
McShane stated the proposal on Council packet page 337 drops out everyone
who testified at the hearing because they have existing homes. Mr. Miller's ten -
acre parcel with one home would be subject to an assessment if the other five
acres are developed, as would all the other ten -acre parcels. That's what the
Council should approve. This was before the Council once before, it went back to
committee, and now it's back to the Council.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford stated he thought this was still in committee. The committee
never voted on it.
Roy stated they've discussed part of this, but the changes in this exhibit
have not been in committee.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she prefers to approve table 1 on packet page 337.
This table reflects what a latecomer fee really is.
Nelson stated it's good to have a discussion about the process, it may not
make a difference for this agreement. Table 1 on Council packet page 337 reflects
what the Council prefers. He prefers that table, also.
Crawford stated his concern is that there are six property owners who are
bearing the financial burden of this road improvement.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Crawford continued to state that as they work out the procedure over the
next few weeks, he hopes they come up with a much more equitable situation.
That's what he meant by saying it might influence the Council's decision. He's
suggesting that the financial burden gets spread out over more neighbors.
However, the likelihood that the developer will collect from these folks who are
established is almost nothing. On the other hand, future developers can consider
that.
Brenner stated that may be true in some of the cases. She was moved by
the gentleman who is caring for his parents. He will have to make some sort of
remodel to have his parents there, which will trigger the threshold. Table one on
page 37 would protect his family also. The rules they're contemplating for the
ordinance itself would not protect him in the future. Go ahead and do Mission
Road tonight.
Motion to remand to committee failed unanimously.
McShane moved to accept the reimbursement table one on Council packet
page 337, which is the alternate proposal submitted to the Council at the
December 9, 2003 hearing from the applicant's engineer, Mr. Freeland of Freeland
and Associates.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the process of appeal of this decision for those being
assessed the latecomer's fee.
McShane stated this is the last appeal process available.
Motion carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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
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.
CONSENT AGENDA
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through five.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one through five carried
unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES RECOVERY CENTER TO PROVIDE
SUBSTANCE ABUSE EVALUATION AND SERVICES TO YOUTH
REFERRED UNDER AND SENTENCED UNDER THE CHEMICAL
DEPENDENCY DISPOSITION ALTERNATIVE IN THE JUVENILE COURT,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 (AB2004 -109)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WHATCOM CONSERVATION
DISTRICT (WCD) TO PROVIDE PLANNING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE,
AND OVERSIGHT OF PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE WORK
SUPPORTING RIPARIAN RESTORATION WORK ON DRAINAGE
DISTRICT AND COUNTY FLOOD PROJECTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$190,000 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$200,000 (AB2004 -110)
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
WHATCOM COUNTY AND KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES FOR
CANYON CREEK AND JONES CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN RISK ANALYSES
AND SWIFT CREEK ALLUVIAL FAN MANAGEMENT PLAN, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $76,240 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $183,240 (AB2004 -111)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND WALKER
& ASSOCIATES FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY FOR SUBSEQUENT
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING FOR RIVER AND FLOOD DIVISION
PROJECTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,987 (AB2004 -112)
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM
COUNTY AND THE PORT OF BELLINGHAM TO IMPLEMENT PHASE II
OF THE MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE BLAINE MARINA PILOT
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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.
PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 FOR A TOTAL AMENDED
AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,000 (AB2004 -113)
OTHER ITEMS
1. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED
FORESTRY ADVISORY FORUM AS THE INTERJURISDICTIONAL
COMMITTEE UNDER THE LAKE WHATCOM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
(AB2004 -086)
Roy reported for the Natural Resources Committee and stated this item
comes forward without a recommendation from the committee. She will continue
to work on the issue.
Brenner moved to approve the resolution. The Forestry Forum as it's set
up has been doing an incredible job. Whether it's intended or not, taking them out
of the loop now is a slap in the face to all the work it's done, even though there's
some plan to put them back in. If this issue had to do with agriculture, they would
never be talking about getting rid of the Agricultural Advisory Committee and
starting another committee. They shouldn't do it regarding logging in the Lake
Whatcom watershed, either.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the current Forestry Advisory Forum membership
doesn't include the technical expertise that they are looking for in the Inter -
Jurisdictional Committee (IJC). Also, she doesn't want to recommend any IJC
membership structure until she has discussions with Executive Kremen, Mayor
Asmundson, and Water District 10 representatives. She doesn't know if the Council
has any influence over the structure of the IJC. She would love to see this on the
agenda of the Joint Lake Whatcom Management meeting. This is a discussion they
should have with all stakeholders present so they can put forth one request from
this county to the Board of Natural Resources.
Nelson stated that if they want foresters involved in the IJC, there are
foresters already involved in the Forestry Forum. If they want an IJC that will
provide advisory information, he doesn't want the Forestry Forum to be simply
advisory. It is more effective if it is more than advisory to the State Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). Now, the IJC is just advisory to the DNR. He hoped that
the result is that the IJC be responsive to the community and councils as well as
DNR. By simply removing or not supporting the Forestry Forum, they're removing
an opportunity for discussion. The Forestry Forum can have a different
membership with different tasks. By voting against this resolution, they're saying
that they will form a new IJC that includes foresters and have no further use for the
Forestry Forum.
McShane stated the Landscape Planning Committee made a recommendation
that there be an IJC to review certain types of proposed harvests. The scope is not
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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
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.
nearly as broad as that of the Forestry Advisory Forum. The Landscape Planning
Committee recommends that the IJC be a technical committee that has expertise
on specific types of issues. The Forestry Forum doesn't focus on those issues. He
doesn't want to change the structure of the Forestry Forum to fit the IJC role.
However, the Forestry Forum will play a more important role than ever if the
landscape plan is implemented. They need a resolution to define the role that the
Forestry Forum will play for the county, not the Board of Natural Resources. This
resolution must define that role for the Forestry Forum.
Roy stated there has been another citizens group working hard for years on
this Landscape Plan. That group has put a proposal forward. Her motivation is to
be true to the Landscape Planning Committee. The focus of the resolution as it is
written now is different from the focus of the Landscape Plan. They can still
recommend the Forestry Forum as the IJC, but not through this proposed
resolution. They would need to write a new resolution, not amend the proposed
resolution. The Council needs to know the opinions of the other players, including
the City and Water District 10.
Fleetwood stated the Natural Resources Committee did not reject the
prospect of the Forestry Forum acting as the IJC. The committee rejected the
language in this resolution. They can join Forestry Forum and IJC.
Nelson suggested new language for the last Whereas statement, "WHEREAS
the Lake Whatcom Forestry Advisory Forum has performed some of the same tasks
as proposed for the IJC (Interjurisdictional Committee) as defined in the Lake
there is a need for a
technical team to continue to support both DNR and landowners in decision - making
policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council
that the Lake Whatcom Watershed Forestry Advisory Forum as defined in Joint
Resolution 2000 -041 can and should continue to serve as be part of any process
with the IJC." The amendment will recognize the history of the Forestry Forum and
recognize the need for technical information in the decision - making process for both
DNR and private foresters. They need a process to bring in technical experts, which
they can work out with the other jurisdictions. Recognize that the Forestry Forum
has played a part in policy- making in the past, but there is a weakness regarding
DNR lands. Recognize that the Forestry Forum wants to work with an IJC technical
team.
McShane stated there needs to be a change to the title of the resolution.
Nelson suggested an amendment to the title of the resolution, "Resolution
Establishing the Roles and Responsibilities of the Lake Whatcom Watershed
Forestry Advisory Forum as the interjur-isdietienal Gengmittee 1JndeF the Lake
Whateern Management " This is only a resolution that clarifies how the
Council wants the Forestry Advisory Forum to be a part of the process.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane stated they should take this to the Joint Lake Whatcom
Management Committee meeting.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council is one spoke in the wheel. They should
have a public discussion on this with all the players present, if the Council has this
kind of influence.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the Commissioner of Public Lands
suggested or demanded his position. If the County isn't consistent with his
position, it will probably not do much. That should not preclude the Council from
taking a position. He supports the Forestry Forum. It should continue. It does a
lot of good, productive work for the community. Consider language to include "in
conjunction with" so it's more precise.
Brenner stated a resolution has no force of law. It's a statement of what the
Council believes should happen. Vote on this to take to the Joint Lake Whatcom
Management Committee meeting in March.
McShane stated they should rework the resolution based on the suggestions
made tonight. Bring it forward at a later date.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is reluctant to go to a joint meeting with an
already- determined agenda. It's worth holding back to see where they're coming
from and thinking, and trying to reach consensus with the City and Water District
10. Bring a resolution to the joint councils that night.
Nelson stated the City Council and Water District 10 already approved their
own resolutions regarding the IJC, without acknowledging the Forestry Forum.
They took their own individual action. This Council doesn't seem to want to take
action. The Council has a jurisdictional right to approve its own resolution. Most of
these lands are in the county, not the city or Water District 10. Most of the
forestlands having nothing to do with the city or water district. The County
represents these foresters and their lands. Make a statement of support for groups
that have been active and are participating to resolve many difficult issues. He
doesn't disagree with the Landscape Planning Committee's recommendation of an
IJC for technical support. He's advocated for that need in the past. One of the
reasons he brought the Forestry Forum under the Lake Whatcom Management
Committee was to get that kind of support. The Forestry Forum is still in its infancy
developing a relationship with the DNR and public living in the watershed.
Roy stated the suggestions for the last Whereas statement does that. She
liked that suggested language. She would like to support Councilmember
McShane's idea that he, as a representative of the Landscape Planning Committee,
and Councilmember Nelson, as a representative of the Forestry Forum, work
together on this language. The statements on the first page of the resolution are
focused on the economics of forestry, which is not what the Landscape Plan is
about. This is in response to the Landscape Plan. They want to also acknowledge
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
the role of the Forestry Forum. The IJC is a function of the Landscape Plan. She
asked the two councilmembers to work together.
Nelson stated over a month ago resolutions were approved by the City
Council and Water District 10 supporting IJC, with no mention of the Forestry
Forum. He received a letter from the City saying there was no longer a need for
regular Forestry Forum meetings. It was a message from the City on the direction
they wanted to go. They did not consult the County Council or any councilmember.
They went forward with their action. He and Councilmember McShane have and
can continue to work on this agreement. DNR is making the decision on the IJC
now. The DNR needs to understand that one IJC advisory to DNR will not solve the
problems in the watershed.
McShane stated the DNR decision is held until April. He is interested in
working to bring this forward to the Joint Lake Whatcom Management Committee.
They are part of the Forestry Forum as well. Make sure the Forestry Forum issues
are addressed the way they should be. The letter from the City shouldn't have
happened the way it did. A resolution will bring it to the level of the policy- makers,
who will decide the future role of the Forestry Forum.
Nelson stated he would like a resolution from this Council by the next
meeting to take to the Lake Whatcom Management Committee meeting.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's not their intent to do away with the Forestry
Forum. She wants to have discussions with the city first.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
SECOND REQUEST (AB2004 -105)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to recommend approval of the substitute version submitted earlier.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford stated there is some concern in the veteran community about the
distribution of these monies. The County Executive is forming a Veterans Relief
Fund Advisory Group consisting of those who are concerned. One of the tasks that
group may choose is a set of more specific approval guidelines. A lot of folks had
an opportunity during the committee meeting today to express their concerns and
feelings on these issues. He's optimistic the issue is moving forward.
Crawford stated the Finance Committee also had a presentation
regarding domestic violence indicators and criminal justice data (AB2004-
119) and an update on the emergency medical service (EMS) situation. The
committee also received a quarterly report by the Public Facilities District
(AB2004 -120). There is some desire among various organizations to coordinate
efforts regarding downtown Bellingham. Therefore, the committee approved a
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
motion to recommend to the full Council to request a letter of comment from the
Public Facilities District regarding the long term Master Facilities Plan proposals the
County is considering. The PFD representative was willing to provide that letter of
request. He moved to request a letter of comment from the Public Facilities
District Board regarding the long term Master Facilities Plan proposals the County is
considering and how it relates to the Public Facilities District and downtown area
issues.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY SOLID WASTE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING THE
DRAFTING OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE MANDATORY
COLLECTION ORDINANCE (AB2004 -085)
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated this
item is held in committee. It will be too expensive and complicated and will become
a legal quagmire to change what's in effect right now. Councilmember Crawford will
bring forward a letter to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee for approval by the
Public Works Committee and Council at its next meeting.
4. APPOINTMENT TO NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT 4,
APPLICANT TERENCE MCNABB (AB2004 -107)
Brenner moved to appoint Terence McNabb.
Motion carried unanimously.
S. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
ROBERT LEMMON TO THE MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE (AB2004-
116)
Brenner moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously.
2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES (AB2003 -075B)
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated the
committee amended and approved the ordinance. The Council will schedule a
public hearing on March 9, 2004. There are a significant number of amendments.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Nelson moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Motion carried unanimously.
Fleetwood asked if these items will automatically go forward to the Planning
Committee on March 9.
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council, stated that is the Planning
Department's preference, but it's up to the Council.
McShane stated they should have a hearing on the Birch Bay Community
Plan. It's a big deal for that community. People will have comments they want to
make.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
McShane suggested a public hearing during a meeting, and then voting on it
at a later meeting.
Roy stated they should decide it tonight. Birch Bay community members
need to be notified so the word can get out.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, suggested that the County Council hold its
public hearing in Birch Bay.
McShane asked the councilmembers if they'd prefer to schedule this item first
in Planning Committee or during a Council public hearing.
The Council concurred to first hold a public hearing.
Roy stated they need to get this moving as quickly as possible. Get it done
sooner rather than later.
Fleetwood stated there is a request from the Point Roberts community
members to reconsider tree retention and other issues in Point Roberts, which will
occur in the Planning Committee on March 9. Birch Bay deserves an entire
committee meeting with just that one issue. He would like the issue to go straight
to committee, before a public hearing.
McShane stated they will schedule a public hearing in Birch Bay at a date and
location not yet decided.
Roy asked if they would do the subarea plan and the rezone separately.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated there are two ordinances
related to Birch Bay. One is to adopt the subarea plan and the other is to amend
the County's Comprehensive Plan so it's consistent with the subarea plan. They
have to do both together. No rezones or zoning amendments are proposed.
Fleetwood stated the Planning Committee will only have the Point Roberts
issue scheduled on its March 9 agenda.
1. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMIT ON
NORTHWOOD ROAD FOR A SCHOOL ZONE (AB2004 -117)
2. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BIRCH BAY COMMUNITY PLAN
(AB2004 -121)
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TEXT AND MAP REGARDING THE BIRCH BAY URBAN GROWTH
AREA (AB2004 -122)
OTHER BUSINESS
Caskey- Schreiber moved to rescind motion made at February 10, 2004
Council meeting that forwarded the ordinance amended the land use chapter
of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 2), which includes
rural lands (AB2003 -07SE) to the concurrency hearing. Quite a few people from
the Foothills area are extremely upset with some of the language approved
concerning Glacier, specifically the language from Councilmember McShane that
alerts people to the risk of development in Glacier. A lot of people think that the
language will shut down any opportunity for economic development in the area and
will affect their ability to promote tourism. She empathizes with their concerns.
That's not her intent. From her discussion today with Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor
Randy Watts, she understands that what they put in the Comprehensive Plan can
be a blueprint for future zoning. They can soften the language to the point where it
still gets the message across that this is a hazard area. They aren't at the point
where they need to shut down development.
McShane stated he intends to address zoning in that area. It's a bad idea to
increase the amount of potential development that can occur. However,
discouraging development goes too far. He's not comfortable with the language
that is suggested, but can offer an amendment, "Glacier is built in a flood,
landslide, alluvial fan, and volcanic hazard zone." Let policy be designed around
that. Don't say 'development in this area should be located and designed to
consider these."
Caskey- Schreiber stated she accepted that language suggestion.
Motion to rescind carried unanimously.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend last line of the Northeastern Towns
section on page chapter 2 -71 of the ordinance amending the land use chapter of
the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan (chapter 2), which includes rural lands
(AB2003- 075E), "...constrained by physical limitations. For example, Glacier is
built in a flood, landslide, alluvial fan, and volcanic hazard zone, and develepngent,
ef this area should be diseeuFaged."
Crawford stated there are other aspects of this ordinance that he doesn't
agree with.
Nelson stated he now agrees with that language. It is better than it was
previously.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to forward the ordinance as amended to the
concurrency hearing.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Nelson opposed.
Crawford stated he met yesterday with Port of Bellingham and Point Roberts
regarding the pier project at Point Roberts. There is some merit in the project. The
overwhelming support of the residents to form this district indicates the
community's support of the project. The next step is for the Port and County to
meet. To be eligible for grant money to do the studies and engineering, the County
will have to become the applicant for the project. He'd like to talk about that being
the appropriate mechanism with legal counsel so he can present something to the
Council. The issue they're facing is that no one wants to talk to them about
submitting grant applications until there is a permit application. Now, they lack
anyone who will file that permit. The special district that was formed cannot file
that permit.
Brenner stated she will not support the County being the applicant. The Port
said it would be that applicant for the engineering and preliminary studies.
Crawford stated there are reasons why the Port can't do that, although it is
maintaining a strong commitment to facilitate things that will cost money. The Port
remains heavily involved.
McShane stated the Council will hold a public hearing in Birch Bay on the
ordinance adopting the Birch Bay Community Plan (AB2004 -121) if an
appropriate meeting place with adequately designed equipment can be located.
Otherwise, the meeting will be held in the Council Chambers.
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Caskey- Schreiber stated she and Executive Kremen attended a lunch
sponsored by the Economic Development Council (EDC). The new head of the
State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development was the guest
speaker, who said that most economic development comes from within the local
area. They need to work hard to support what they have locally already.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she looks forward to more discussion on the
emergency management system (EMS).
Crawford stated the administration knows how often the councilmembers are
contacted about this issue. This is a big issue for the constituents, and the
councilmembers need to respond.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated there have been a number of
meetings with the service providers over the last month or two. There is a series of
meetings with all the fire districts, which are exploring options to modify their
ability to provide an increased level of service. The fire districts will meet with the
County Executive in March to discuss their ideas. There are also other discussions
going on with other stakeholders. This county is committed to and will continue to
be committed to EMS.
Crawford stated the County administration did a good job during the election
of reassuring the public that EMS will continue to be provided to the public. There
were entities that were threatening during the election. If they go out for a levy,
he hoped all governments can approach it in a professional way that reassures
people. People were told things that just aren't true, that people will lose their
service.
Pete Kremen, County Executive, stated the administration was trying to be
honest and candid with the people of Whatcom County. There will continue to be
service. The level of service is in question. He's committed to continuing the same
level of funding for the next three years. That's a lot of money. With the rapid
escalation of costs for the system they currently have, they won't be able to
continue the same level of service. There will be service, but not as high a caliber
as they enjoy. The administration is working with the City and fire districts to keep
the costs down and still be able to provide the same level of service. In those
discussions, everyone is willing to work together to fine tune the system that they
have now.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that if they go to the fire districts, there will be
questions of jurisdiction. There was a 9 -1 -1 call where the responders didn't know
the correct jurisdiction for the address, and the person calling died because the
government couldn't figure out who was responsible to respond to the area.
Kremen stated he doesn't share the feeling that would happen in Whatcom County.
They're too collaborative locally for that to happen. However, there are problems,
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, 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
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.
given the number of fire districts they have. One of the things they're talking about
is consolidating into three or four fire district regions to get a more collaborative
working arrangement. That is one of many factors that they have to work on. The
system is not broken right now. They have to find a way to operate it more
efficiently and get more stakeholders involved in service delivery.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on March 23 , 2004.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Whatcom County Council, 2/24/2004, Page 25