HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil October 26 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
October 26, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
ANNOUNCEMENTS
McShane announced there was discussion regarding the Council's travel
policy (AB2004 -018) during the Committee of the Whole meeting.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETE KREMEN TO PRESENT BUDGET MESSAGE
(AB2004 -017)
Pete Kremen, County Executive, read from the budget message (on file).
MINUTES CONSENT
Caskey- Schreiber moved to approve the Minutes Consent items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. BOARD OF HEALTH FOR OCTOBER 12, 2004
2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FOR OCTOBER 12, 2004
4. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
5. REGULAR COUNTY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 12, 2004
6. WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION FOR SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
OPEN SESSION
The following people spoke:
Lou Piotrowski, 9999 Mt. Baker Highway, stated he would address the
resolution opposing any consideration of a "'Foothills Element" in future
Washington State Commerce Corridor planning (AB2004 -376). He supports
the resolution. This issue has polarized the community. The issue is complex.
When an act of the government makes it difficult for the people to come to a
conclusion, it's difficult for the Council to address. There has been strong
opposition to this issue. The study was based on finding a fatal flaw, which was
found to be Seattle's water district. It needed to cross the Cedar River drainage
area by 23 miles. Twenty -five communities were opposed. There are other fatal
flaws in this area also. Let them know this is not a wise use of money or land.
Linda Franz, 6640 Trent Lane, Ferndale, stated she commended County
Auditor Shirley Forslof on a vote -by -mail presentation last night. It was an
excellent presentation and she was very patient with everyone's questions.
Second, she wants to address the inclusion of the North Star mineral
resource land (MRL) in the Comprehensive Plan. She was denied due process.
There is now a difference in the way the determination of non - significance was put
into the newspaper, which was a little late for her. However, the change has been
made and all the information is now there. A property recently sold in her area.
The person selling the property received four offers, which were all rescinded due to
the potential MRL. This person lost $17,000, which is approximately 20 percent.
Twenty percent of the equity in her property is about $60,000.
The Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution doesn't
allow this. The purpose of MRL designation is to prevent people from moving into
the MRL area. In this case, there was no MRL and the operators didn't own the
property, the existing residents didn't know. Whatcom County has some liability.
This MRL constitutes a nuisance. The residents' properties are uncomfortable to be
in. The nuisance is continuous and recurring. The entity that has the power to
control the project is liable in a nuisance case, according to State law.
In addition, spot zones are illegal. This is a spot zone for the benefit of a
particular person and an industry that is hauling material to Canada. This issue
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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
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.
subsidizes the mining industry on the backs of the citizens to send products to
Canada.
Klaus Klix, 5563 Hillard Road, Everson, stated he is available if the Council
has questions about the Delta Vista connector project in the Economic
Development Investment Program funding applications and
recommendation of the EDI Board (AB2004 -361) later in the meeting.
William Rink, 995 Lakeview Street, stated he wanted to speak on the Lake
Whatcom Connector. Ordinance adopting amendments to the Capital
Facilitates Chapter and Transportation Chapter of the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan (AB2004 -338). He is being forced to forfeit a 20 x 665'
buffer along the waterfront because of the connector. He won't be able to use that
land. There are economic feasibility concerns and impacts to Lake Whatcom. The
idea is unpopular with citizens. His impression from talking with most City of
Bellingham and County officials is that the connector won't ever happen. For these
reasons, he would like the connector removed from the future plans of the County.
Barry Englestad, 995 Lakeview Street, stated he wanted to speak on the Lake
Whatcom Connector. Ordinance adopting amendments to the Capital
Facilitates Chapter and Transportation Chapter of the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan (AB2004 -338). The connector has been on the six -year
Transportation Improvement Plan for eight years. The connector is not close to
happen. For eight years, citizens have paid a price for this road being on the list,
even if it's low on the priority list. He asked the Council to remove the connector
from the transportation plan with a unanimous vote. It can always be put back on
the list when the project is more viable. The proposed location might not be the
location where the road is constructed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ON THE NORTHFORK COMMUNITY
RESOURCE CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY (AB2004 -357)
Randy Scott, North Fork Community Resource Center Association President,
discussed his background and the background of his association. This project is the
number one project on the Washington Community Economic Revitalization Team
(WA -CERT) priority list. They have procured grants and the Stewart +King
Partnership to do the feasibility study.
David King, Stewart +King Partnership, stated the association has been
amazing. The feasibility study was to do formal fact - finding, put together a scope -
of -work, and describe a building that would meet identified needs. His agency
assessed the needs in the east county area, called the North Fork area.
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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
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.
They interviewed residents and service providers in the area to determine
what is needed for the community. This meeting is the last aspect of phase one,
and they can move into phase two. He showed a map and photos of the area.
There is a high crime rate in this area. The advisory committee includes
representatives from agencies who have tried to provide services in this area. They
created a list of needs in the community. There is a high poverty rate, a high
population growth, substance abuse, and little opportunity for economic
development in the area.
The citizens advisory committee was created based on the individuals who
could influence the development of this project. They began to define what
resources need to be provided to the community. The community needs meeting
space for a variety of groups, adult education, a library, medical facilities, a senior
center, facilities for the Sheriff and other County services, and youth activities.
The survey result shows that a medical clinic and youth activities are a high
priority of the community. He began to put together a scope -of -work for a building
that would be easily maintained, easy on the environment, and appropriate for the
rural nature of the community. The providers were specific about their needs for
space in the building. There is space for a meeting room, a clinic, a library, and a
multi -use area. The site hasn't been identified.
The purpose of the feasibility study was to identify the scope -of -work, the
project cost, the funding source, and a plan for future maintenance and operation.
The site would include playfields, landscape buffers, and stormwater detention.
Some of the service providers that can participate in the community include the
Opportunity Council, Interfaith Clinic, Work Source, the library system, the Literacy
Council, the food bank, and the Boys and Girls Club.
Paul Schissler & Associates was responsible for identifying funding options.
They're trying to define the project to a point where it is easily understood by those
who would approve grant funding. They're still trying to get some of the pieces to
fall into place. Ongoing discussions pertain to building ownership, management
scenarios, maintenance and operation scenarios, and site selection. They're
working with the Mt. Baker School District. They would like the facility to be next
to a school so students can walk to the facility after school.
Lou Piotrowski, 9999 Mt. Baker Highway, stated this project has been done
right. When they're talking about this, they need to have technical, professional
assistance. Through the leadership of the Executive's Office, they were able to
make an arrangement with Mr. King and Mr. Schissler. This is a great model for
helping the community members address its needs in a reasonable way. He
thanked the citizens advisory committee.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
Piotrowski continued to thank many who were involved.
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Dolores West, 705 -12th Street, Bellingham, stated she is a member of this
group's advisory committee. The community residents have been a large part of
pushing this project forward. This has not been agency driven. The agencies face
access challenges with that area of the county. There are few facilities where
agencies can go to provide services. Residents also have problems with accessing
Bellingham. The center would benefit the agencies and the residents both.
Everyone is willing to collaborate on a facility. Common spaces can be shared by
all to provide services to children and families. Her agency serves families with the
lowest possible poverty income eligibility, which is 100 percent of poverty level.
Roy asked if they currently have Head Start in the area. West stated Head
Start has space in Deming. The majority of the families are from Kendall and
Paradise. It would help to be closer to the families. Right now, the program
provides transportation, but there are issues with that.
Fleetwood asked the working definition of the poverty level. West stated
they use the federal poverty guideline, which is $18,850 per year for a family of
four.
Ellen Dalen, 7684 Silver Lake Road, Maple Falls, stated she resides in the
Kendall area. There is a tremendous need for this facility. The children would
benefit from more services. Many people in the community support this project.
Joan Erothy, Whatcom County Library System Director, stated the Whatcom
County Library Board completely supports the project. Initiative 747 limits the
system's growth to one percent per year. The libraries are growing at about eight
percent per year. The library board recognizes the purpose of a library to
encourage lifelong learning and to support children. The board is willing to work to
find ways to improve library services in that area.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
Crawford asked about the potential revenue coming from the State. King
stated the estimates are the amounts they're hoping for.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated that there will be a push to the
legislature to make an appropriation out of its capital budget. The State has
funded these kinds of efforts in other communities. They are also pursuing federal
funds.
Caskey- Schreiber thanked the administration and Council for supporting this
effort. They all have high hopes for this center. The County will probably have to
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
commit staff to manage the building. It will be a County asset. She thanked the
citizens for being great self- advocates.
Brenner stated they will save money in the long run with a project like this
because of reduced crime and expanded educational services. The residents voted
to increase taxes to increase Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) services.
She asked if that has equated to any increase in any service in the Kendall area.
She asked about existing bus service to the area. King stated there is a recent run
to the Kendall area. The population has been increasing. The location of a bus line
has a lot to do with site selection for the facility. If WTA expands its service, it may
open up other opportunities, but now there are many reasons to go to Kendall.
Brenner stated she hoped the bus line would expand out in that area.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2005 ANNUAL
ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2004 -335)
Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, gave a staff report and stated this is a
one -year program, which is the first year of the six -year Transportation
Improvement Program. On Council packet page 552, he added project 37 last
week. The County Road Administration Board amended the form, which he
submitted to the Council. He will transfer the information onto the new form.
There is no significant change in information other than the county population and
the special maintenance amount, which is out of the County budget. He expects to
spend about 75 percent of the total budgeted amount. There is $10 million in the
road fund.
Roy stated she's concerned about the Birch Bay Drive sidewalk project from
Alderson Road to Harborview Road, project number 49. Rutan stated that project
is on the alternate list that staff would work on if time permitted.
McShane opened the public hearing and, hearing no one, closed the public
hearing.
Roy stated the Council just approved a subarea plan for this area. The
community just met recently. The beach restoration berm is a top priority for the
community. Putting in sidewalks along Birch Bay Drive is a top priority. People will
see a walkway on top of the berm. There is another issue of trees being removed
for rights -of -ways. In order to expand sidewalks, the County cannot remove one
tree. The community would rather have dirt paths. She would like to see the
Public Works Department discuss this further with the community. She's not sure
more sidewalks is what the community plan is about. Rutan stated the plan was to
separate the sidewalk from the curb, and wind it around the existing trees.
Nelson moved to approve the resolution. As these projects come up and
surveyors are working an area, many times the public is confused about what's
going on. He asked if there is a public notice process. There is also no plan for
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
incorporating a bike trail or other activities in a difficult area. Rutan stated there is
not a notification process for surveying. The six -year plan and annual program are
considered notification for preliminary engineering. On Northshore, they wanted to
get a head start on the area, which is challenging. The survey crew has a lot of
knowledge on plans and projects because people stop to ask them about their
work. They are a method for good outreach. When the County begins right -of -way
acquisition, permanent designs, and special construction, the department does a lot
of outreach.
Nelson stated he's not sure Northshore is the optimal route for a bike path.
He asked if there will be an opportunity to see the design. Rutan stated there will
be a lot of public outreach for the Northshore Road work. They want to put
shoulders on the road, improve storm drainage, straighten curves, and deal with
sight distance issues. A lot of people would like to see the opposite happen.
McShane stated people are expressing grave concerns about any widening of
Northshore Road. Regardless of water quality issues, they also have to consider
that the road is very dangerous, and people have died on it. They will have to look
at that balance carefully.
Crawford stated they can accomplish both safety and water quality
mitigation.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the message the County is sending about the
Whatcom Connector. Ordinance adopting amendments to the Capital
Facilitates Chapter and Transportation Chapter of the Whatcom County
Comprehensive Plan (AB2004 -338). Rutan stated the connector is not on the
annual construction program. There is money for preliminary engineering in years
four through six as there has been for a number of years. It is also listed in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Subarea Plan as a high - priority project. Therefore,
the department taking some action as projects are built out there. The road will be
an arterial. The County manages access that will create safety issues. They have
asked to reserve the right -of -way necessary in case the connector does go through.
For every other project on the six year plan, the County is requiring actual
dedication of right -of -way as development occurs.
Caskey- Schreiber asked when that subarea plan was done. Rutan stated it
was done in the mid- or early- 1990's. The existing subarea plan lists the connector
as the highest priority in that area.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Council has to remove the item from the
subarea plan before the administration does anything with it. Rutan stated it also
has to be removed from the six -year Transportation Improvement Program.
Crawford asked if there is a way a developer could sign a no- protest
agreement and put in the driveway configuration he wants to do right now, and
then make changes if the connector goes in. Rutan stated he would be concerned
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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
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.
about property changing hands, that the configuration of the properties would not
allow for realignment for driveways, and that septic fields and other infrastructure
may also not allow for the realignment.
Crawford stated that any problem could be resolved through legal design,
description, and recorded attachment to the deed. Rutan stated he's concerned it
would be a problem to deal with that many of structures that could not be
relocated. Also, the easements that allow those joint accesses would no longer be
in place. Garages are constructed in relationship to the location of the driveway.
There have been three or four recent subdivisions out there that have been
required to do this.
Crawford asked how the Council could work on allowing that option.
Developers in the area have a unique situation. Because of the tentative and
political nature of the watershed, the situation is unique. It's possible that more
impervious surfaces are created by the designs required by the right -of -way. One
set of rules end up defeating another set of rules, in terms of their goals for the
Lake Whatcom watershed. Rutan stated he's heard that argument before, and is
not convinced of it. This decision isn't the issue. It's the next 99 decisions that are
based on this precedence. They deal with this across the county. It is very much
not a unique issue. He wants to be fair. Other shortplats in the area have been
done recently where this right -of -way was required.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING WCC TITLE 24, HEALTH CODE, TO CREATE
WCC 24.12, MUSHROOM SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION FACILITY RULES
(AB2004 -300) (COUNCIL ACTING AS THE HEALTH BOARD)
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Bill Street, Ostrom Company President, submitted a list of questions (on file)
and stated the proposed regulations are unfair to Ostrom. There is a lack of
scientific evidence of harm. The regulations are unnecessary because Whatcom
County has other ways to deal with mushroom compost odor problems.
The regulations as proposed apply only to Ostrom's, the only mushroom
farm in Whatcom County. Ostrom's has been around since 1978 and has a very
good record. Yet, it is the only company impacted by these proposed regulations.
The farm employs 55 to 60 full -time employees. It is one of the larger agricultural
employers in Whatcom County, and operates year- around. Ostrom's Farm pays
living wages and taxes to support Whatcom County. It's payroll is over $1 million
annually.
The IMS facility in Ferndale generated over 1,000 complaints in only a few
years. Ostrom's only generated about ten complaints since 1978. Regulations as
drafted will put Ostrom's at a competitive disadvantage, which could result in the
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
closure of the farm in the future and the elimination of all the jobs. The regulations
require indoor composting, bio- filters, and ammonia scrubbers could cost millions of
dollars. It's not affordable by a farm of this small size.
According to the regulations, existing facilities, which is just Ostrom's,
cannot modify operations to meet changing market conditions. If they cannot do
that, his competitors gain an advantage. He must be able to grow the business
over time. If they can do that, it means more jobs in Whatcom County.
On November 2, the Council will meet again as the Board of Health. He
submitted a short list of questions he would like answers to from the Health
Department.
Christopher Street, Ostrom Farm Chief Operating Officer, stated he works to
make sure the mushroom substrate he produces is done correctly and of the best
quality. Doing that minimizes odors that people object to. The proposed
regulations has no input from Ostrom's. He's the most knowledgeable in the
county regarding mushroom substrate production. The County should have sought
his input.
The problem with the draft regulations is that it refers to existing facilities.
His is the only existing facility. He can't grow his business under these regulations.
Any change in compost production requires compliance with all design
requirements. It's possible they would go out of business because of the high cost
of these technologies. Existing facilities cannot timely react to changes in the
market place. Any violation of the performance standard at any time makes his
facility no longer exempt from design requirements. The small farm can't bear the
cost of that kind of facility. If there are more than three violations in any three -
year period, the Health Department can suspend his operating permit. Therefore,
four complaints in three years suggest the County could shut down his company.
Ostrom's can't invest in its farm under those regulatory conditions. Indoor
composting, bio- filters, and ammonia scrubbers do not alleviate odor problems.
The IMS facility composted indoors and used a bio- filter, yet generated over 1,000
registered complaints in a four -year period. The proposed regulations will put his
Everson out of business, and does not truly address composting odors.
Demonstrate fair and reasonableness in this ordinance development process.
Direct the Health Department to work with Ostrom's and the community to produce
an ordinance that benefits everyone.
Mark Meyers, Ostrom Farms legal counsel, stated mushroom compost odors
are not a public health threat. The proposed regulations are based on the premise
that off -site odors pose a threat to public health. Yet there is no scientific or
medical evidence to support that finding. Specific scientific medical studies have
been done. They show that there is no public health impact. An expert in this field
from the University of Washington Department of Environmental and Occupational
Medicine found there is no such evidence. He wrote to the County Council and
Health Department. Neither the Northwest Air Pollution Control Authority, Centers
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), Washington Industrial and Safety Health Act
(WISHA), the Washington State Department of Heath, nor the Washington State
Department of Ecology have ever found a public health threat. It is a nuisance. It
is not a public health threat.
The Whatcom County Health Department admits that studies have not
shown any specific disease in a community setting from exposure to mushroom
compost. The Health Department has done no medical investigations. It relies
primarily on self- reported symptoms from people who oppose mushroom compost
facilities. Public health decisions should be based on medical science, not on
speculation or the statements of biased individuals. This is a political, not a public
health, issue.
The regulations are arbitrary and capricious. There is no difference between
mushroom compost production and any other compost production or many other
ordinary agricultural activities. There is no logical reason why the County should
regulate mushroom composting activities and not all other similar composting and
agricultural activities. If these regulations are enacted, the logic behind them can
be applied to many other similar agricultural activities in the county that create
odors or dust. Any farmer in the county should be concerned about the
regulations. They are arbitrary, unjustified, and unnecessary. Existing zoning and
nuisance laws give the County authority to regulate new mushroom composting
facilities and the expansion of exiting facilities.
Ken Ryan, 7098 Goodwin Road, Everson.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Ryan continued to state that he would speak on behalf of the Hopewell and
Glen Echo Associations. The Council is now in position to protect Whatcom County
and its residents. According to import estimates, $43 million of mushrooms come
over the border to Seattle annually. This is not about growing them here. It's
about substrate. No one wants to live adjacent to a mushroom farm. Nor should
they have to. Everson is a farming community. They love to live around true
farmland. They feel differently about the express purpose of making ammonia. He
thanked the Council for letting them be a part of the process.
Harold Swanson, 6770 Goodwin Road, Everson, stated this isn't about
nuisance. His wife's family are dairy farmers. They don't mind normal farming.
The Council has seen a great deal of material from the Hopewell and Glen Echo
Associations that refute what Mr. Meyers said. The Council should doubt the effects
of commercial substrate production on the community's health. In the face of
doubt, it's reasonable to act to protect public health. He hasn't seen anything
relating to the effects of mushroom substrate production on veterinary health.
They need to know more. He supports the ordinance. He is not willing to have an
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
industry self - regulate. There is an unfortunate tendency of industry to export its
problems to areas where there is no regulation or where regulation is lax.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to adopt the ordinance as written.
Brenner stated she is in favor of the motion. As someone who dealt with a
mushroom composting operation for many years, she knows there were many sick
people around that operation. Deciding when a nuisance becomes a public health
threat is a matter of degree. People were sneezing and coughing all the time.
Residents couldn't keep their windows open at all. She's appalled that anyone
would say it's a nuisance, but not a health threat.
Crawford asked the Health Department's position on the health issue and
whether odors from other farming operations, such as dairies and manure
spreading are compared to this particular operation.
Regina Delahunt, Health Department Director, stated the mushroom
composting operations give off emissions and odors. The main component of those
odors are ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Those are the components that cause
people to have health effects. The concentrations are significant enough to cause
health effects in the area. Councilmember Brenner expressed that neighbors have
experienced symptoms where the odors are overwhelming and cause significant
discomfort. The speaker from Ostrom's talked about there haven't been studies
that have linked disease to emissions from mushroom composting facilities. It is
always very difficult to link specific disease states to emissions. However, the
Board of Health must determine whether the health discomfort are public health
problems. They all believe the people are experiencing the health symptoms. The
question is whether this is just a nuisance or whether emissions can be significant
enough, if uncontrolled, to cause people actual symptoms of disease.
Crawford asked if that level of discretion of the Board of Health is within the
authority of the Board of Health as vested by the State of Washington.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated it is.
Delahunt state that if they also look at the authority, it's not only to remedy
situations, but to also prevent situations that are a public health threat, which is
specified in the language of the ordinance.
Nelson stated he's concerned about the spiraling problem of regulatory
practices when dealing with nuisance health effects, which are ambiguous. He truly
believes that the citizens of the Hopewell community are having problems with this,
but this isn't the mechanism to solve the problems. It is a nuisance. Many smells
from the agricultural community can be a nuisance. He's afraid of setting a
precedent. A pro - development Council that wants to make more land available for
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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
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 may apply the argument of health effects. He asked if the statement
about health effects refers to physiological effects documented by a physician.
Delahunt stated the effects are documented by a physician, but not necessarily
directly linked to the mushroom composting operations. Direct linkage is difficult.
McShane asked if the human physiological response to hydrogen sulfide gas
can be detected, and what happens when exposed over time. He did research in a
volcanic area in the past and had to be aware of the effects of hydrogen sulfide.
After a time, one loses the ability to detect the odor. It's interesting that one can
be around that odor and then not detect it anymore after a few minutes.
Roy stated she experienced a health effect of involuntary gagging while
driving by the facility in Ferndale. There is a difference in physiological response to
this stuff than from other agricultural odors such as dairy manure. Involuntary
gagging is a health effect. The Whatcom County Agricultural Preservation
Committee has said it is concerned about declaring odor a risk, but recognizes that
producing mushroom compost beyond what is needed for the growing of
mushrooms on sight is not something they want to protect under the Right -to -Farm
ordinance, and that trying to defend such a controversial practice would weaken
the Right -to -Farm ordinance. This is an operation that can be done anywhere in
the county, including the middle of a city. It doesn't require agricultural land. The
Agricultural Preservation Committee seems to want to disassociate itself from it.
She resents the notion that they aren't discriminating between normal farming,
which the Council supports, and something that creates involuntary gagging. There
is a difference. They know the difference.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there are documented complaints from their past
experience with IMS. The Northwest Air Pollution Authority received 1,100
complaints about that operation since 1999. The majority of the complaints result
in headache, burning eyes, vomiting, and an inability to be outdoors. Those are
true, measurable effects. The Monies Mushroom case in British Columbia included
the exact same set of complaints. First and foremost, it is the Board of Health's
duty to protect the citizens of Whatcom County. They know these kinds of
operations, when operate to export compost, becomes vile. No one has a problem
with Ostrom's creating compost for its own use, only when it gets in the business of
exporting the material. The ordinance is reasonable. Ostrom can continue to
operate in the fashion it has been. If they want to increase production levels, they
need to go through the process and minimize effects. Ostrom's did this already at
its Lacey facility, which is a closed facility.
Brenner stated there is a difference between farming smells and the stench
from the IMS facility. Ostrom's has done a good job and can continue to do a good
job. The regulation is only if Ostrom's expands. If it expands, it's just like any
other big facility that would come into the community. Now, the Council is giving
Ostrom's special treatment by exempting them.
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
Crawford read from the ordinance about exempting existing facilities. It
refers to a good local employer, which contributes to the community in a positive
way. The community doesn't want Ostrom's to leave the community. They
appreciate what Ostrom's does. From the first day this came up three years ago,
he stipulated they cannot punish someone who has not created the problem.
Ostrom's has had a good working relationship with the neighborhood. In turn, local
government can do whatever it can to support it's continued operation in the
Whatcom County.
Nelson stated he didn't say this Council hasn't acknowledged agricultural
practices. This Council does protect agricultural practices. He's concerned about
this ordinance having impacts such that future councils may use it to restrict
regular agricultural practices.
The odors of hydrogen sulfide are naturally occurring in some areas such as
Harrison Hotsprings. People do things every day that are around odors and smells
that impact health. There needs to be something in place to protect against these
smells. He would rather do something in terms of a nuisance rather than a public
health. Anecdotal gagging can honestly be used against any odor. This has to be
done in a way to protect agricultural practices. This has been a good company in
Whatcom County. He asked why Whatcom County hasn't worked with this
company in this process.
McShane stated he would support the ordinance as a health issue. He
regrets that the exemption for expansion was removed. He won't make the motion
now, because it won't pass. If they allow expansion, some of the design standards
could apply. Expansion would be an opportunity to improve health risks if the
operation isn't going well. He supports this being a health issue over a nuisance
issue.
Brenner stated the examples that Councilmember Nelson gave about
Harrison Hotsprings is true, but the difference is that he made the choice to go
there. These are not choices the neighbors are making. When not run properly,
production causes public health problems for the community.
Fleetwood stated he agreed with Councilmember McShane. He would
support this as a health ordinance. He was also in favor of allowing Ostrom's to
permit to some expansion. This is one of the most stringent ordinances of its kind
in the country. The performance standards are what is important. If the Council
allows expansion of some amount, the neighbors would still have a right to enforce
the performance standards.
Motion to adopt the ordinance carried 6 -1 with Nelson opposed.
CONSENT AGENDA
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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 reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to approve Consent Agenda items one through four.
Nelson withdrew item two.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items one, three, and four carried
unanimously.
1. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND
NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A HYDRAULIC MODEL OF THE SOUTH FORK NOOKSACK RIVER FROM
SAXON TO THE CONFLUENCE WITH THE NORTH AND MIDDLE FORKS
AND FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE POTTER ROAD
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000
(AB2004 -362)
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO ENTER INTO A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY
AND BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THE
COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION OPEN SPACE PLAN, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $155,416 (AB2004 -363)
Nelson moved to approve the request. He asked the administration what
they need for future population growth. He hoped they look for a clear objective
they need to achieve in the future to meet the needs of the community. That
information should come from community input, not from the County.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated the County has certain service
and standards in its capital improvement plan. The various groups who have been
working on this plan will review it carefully and use that information as a basis for
examining that issue. If the group finds that there needs to be a different
standard, it will talk to the County Council about it.
Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated
determining the answer to the question of levels of service will be part of the
planning process. Those are policy decisions that need to come before the Council.
Once those decisions are made, they can move ahead with the next step.
Nelson asked how they get the public involved in deciding what it wants in
the future. He's looking for a level -of- service policy decision based upon public
input. There are no policies to guide the Council in buying open space. The
question is how much open space they should buy. The public wants parks, but the
question is how many and what type of parks the public wants and needs.
McFarlane stated there is a mechanism in the scope -of -work for public input. It
asks for a minimum of ten public open houses or workshops to work directly with
the public on various aspects of the plan. There is also a minimum of two
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
stakeholder meetings, which will be public meetings where parts of the plan will be
introduced. In addition, a steering committee will specifically address level of
service. That question is left open purposefully because there are a number of
different user groups and different aspects to the plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated all the councilmembers want and expect to know
what the public wants, what areas need more parkland, and to prioritize areas for
future acquisition.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #04-
70 TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, EBENAL GENERAL, FOR THE ONE -STOP
PERMIT CENTER AND REMODEL AT THE NORTHWEST ANNEX, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $226,138 (AB2004 -364)
4. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO AWARD BID #04-
71 TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, MILLER'S PAINTING, FOR
MISCELLANEOUS PAINTING WITHIN COUNTY BUILDINGS, IN THE
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 (AB2004 -365)
Addendum:
S. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO COMPLETE THE
PURCHASE OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY UP TO A TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $382,500 (AB2004 -378)
Crawford moved to approve the request.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER ITEMS
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2004 WHATCOM COUNTY BUDGET,
THIRTEENTH REQUEST (AB2004 -356)
Crawford reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to adopt the ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT PROGRAM FUNDING
APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE EDI BOARD
(AB2004 -361)
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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
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 reported for the Finance and Administrative Services Committee
and moved to recommend that the full Council authorize the County Executive to
sign an interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham for the implementation of
the grant award of $214,000.
Roy stated this is a wonderful project that blends the rural and the urban.
Motion carried unanimously.
Crawford moved to recommend to the full Council to authorize the County
Executive to enter into a developer agreement process for the Delta Line Road
project for $170,000.
McShane asked what was discussed about the developer agreement. He
asked if there is a latecomer's agreement.
Dewey Desler, Deputy Administrator, stated there was some discussion in
committee about a latecomer's agreement, but there wasn't any formal action by
the committee. There is a question by legal counsel that this would not qualify as a
latecomer's agreement because it is really a grant. In this case, it's a grant to the
County. This is not like a road project, where they've invested road fund money in
a road, and then watched the money get transferred to another fund. In this case,
the County is making a grant to the entire community.
Crawford stated the context of the discussion in committee was around
whether the County could be reimbursed if the City of Ferndale annexed the area.
Because this is a grant and not a collected road fund, it would not be reimbursable.
Desler stated it is an issue the County can discuss with the City if the City
decides to annex the area. It could be an issue the County discusses as part of the
exchange. A definite reimbursement is not a condition of this program.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that because funding is from the sales and use tax,
it is a benefit to everyone in the county. It is not something that is only the
County's. The developer has already put forth a lot of his own money to this
project. It's not necessary to require a reimbursement.
McShane stated he is against the motion. This sets a precedent. The County
requires developers to improve public County roads all the time. The property
owners in the vicinity who will financially benefit from this, at the expense of
taxpayers. Other developers have an opportunity to get reimbursed through a
latecomer's agreement. There is an opportunity for a latecomer on this particular
project.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
McShane continued to state that he doesn't see a benefit of economic
development. He's not comfortable with creating this precedent.
Brenner stated she is in favor of the motion. It won't set a precedent. The
name of the program is the Economic Development Investment program. It's a
risky business for everyone. The developer will make that road a lot safer, which is
what the County needs to do anyway. The developer has already done all the
engineering and negotiated an easement. The safety value alone makes it worth
the County's while. She's very impressed with the environmental work that has
gone into the project.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of the project. It is an economic
investment in future jobs. The developer has done work in good faith. The
development is laid out nicely. It will be an attractive place for businesses to
locate. The County Road Engineer said the developer will do the work to County
standards at a cost no more than what the County would pay, and the County
would assume responsibility.
Nelson stated the councilmembers talked about supporting good paying jobs
and infrastructure. This meets all the criteria.
McShane stated he doesn't see any assurance in the application that these
jobs would happen and to the benefit of the local community. That's his concern.
Brenner stated there's no assurance about the farmer's market proposal or
anything. She's glad this developer was willing to take this risk.
McShane stated the farmer's market proposal has assurances and is based
on a record of providing local jobs. The local venue is a benefit to local businesses
and the community, which makes purchases at the market.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the developer provides local jobs in his steel
fabrication business. His intent is to provide that atmosphere.
Motion carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
3. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COUNCIL REGARDING GEORGIA STRAIT CROSSING
PIPELINE'S REQUEST FOR SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE (AB2004 -360)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and
moved to remand to the Hearing Examiner pending application of a major
development permit.
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
Crawford asked if there is an issue of fairness because staff originally told
the applicant that the major development permit was not required.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated this was a point in time
when the employee and the applicant was unaware the project would require a
State environmental review process, which is what brings it under the umbrella of
the major development permit process. At that point, State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) review wasn't required. The employee's instructions were
correct at the time.
Motion carried unanimously,
4. REQUEST CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTIVE'S APPOINTMENT OF
JAEL KOMAC TO THE AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILITIES ACT
COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE (AB2004 -366)
Roy moved to confirm the appointment.
Motion carried unanimously,
S. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2005 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING SCHEDULE (AB2004 -375)
Brenner moved to approve the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY CONSIDERATION OF A " "FOOTHILLS
ELEMENT" IN FUTURE WASHINGTON STATE COMMERCE CORRIDOR
PLANNING (AB2004 -376)
Fleetwood stated he had been asked to prepare a resolution by some folks
in the South Fork Valley, which he did. He wrote the resolution, submitted the
resolution for introduction, and the next day the State changed its mind. At the
urging of others, he continued to bring this resolution forward because the issue
isn't dead. The citizens want the County Council on record as being opposed. He
moved to approve the resolution.
Crawford stated he is opposed to the motion. He asked if this is just a
political statement.
Fleetwood stated it is not. The concern of a number of neighbors in the
Foothills is that this could come back. It's entirely appropriate for the Council to
state its opinion.
Crawford stated he is the Council representative to the Council of
Governments, which has been fully aware of this issue since February. He brought
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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 issue forward to the Foothills Economic Development Association, which wasn't
aware of it.
He did his best at the time to explain what this was. It's been politicized to a
point where the study is exaggerated and distorted. The State does need to do
transportation planning. This was never about a transportation corridor going
through the Highway 9 valley. If there was any reason or concern, it has been
validated that this will never happen in Whatcom County. The positive aspect is
that the future of large transportation planning will be along the existing I -5
corridor. This allows the State transportation planners to understand that heavy
transportation is not as viable in the foothill areas. The local legislators also made
it clear that this isn't wanted. It seems the purpose of continuing with this is to
breathe political life into an issue that was bogus from the start.
Brenner stated she's being guilt- tripped into believing this is over or that
she's just trying to politicize this. She's truly concerned about it. If
Councilmember Crawford is not concerned, he should respect that others are
concerned. It's important for the Council to make a statement. Their taxpayer
dollars are being spent on this study. This resolution just says the Council opposes
any future consideration. If Councilmember Crawford is opposed to the corridor,
then he shouldn't want any future dollars spent on the corridor anyway. This is a
real issue she's concerned about.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of the resolution. This is not
politically motivated. Councilmember Fleetwood is trying to represent their
constituents, who have said loud and clear that they do not want a freeway going
through the eastern part of the county. From now on, the legislature will know how
the Council feels about the issue.
Crawford stated the rhetorical question is how the Council would have the
State plan for future large scale transportation improvements. The State must be
able to study and plan. It's not appropriate to say that the State is not to look to
the future. The needs will be there. I -5 in its current condition will not carry the
projected traffic burden in 2040 or 2050.
Motion carried 5 -2 with Crawford and Nelson opposed.
2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES
CHAPTER AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (AB2004 -338)
Brenner reported for the Public Works and Safety Committee and stated the
committee recommends approval, as amended and distributed to the Council before
the meeting. She moved forward to the concurrency meeting and moved to
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
amend policy 4L -2, page 255, "Projects selected for the six -year capital
improvement program shall not degrade result in a net degradation of habitat for
threatened and endangered species."
Motion to amend policy 4L -2 carried unanimously.
Motion to forward to the concurrency meeting carried unanimously.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated this item must have a
public hearing if amended.
Nelson moved to reconsider the motion to amend. The change isn't
significant.
Crawford asked why this must go to a public hearing. The change is not
substantive.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the amendment doesn't
have to be substantive. The Whatcom County Code says the Council must hold a
public hearing if it changes the Planning Commission recommendation. The only
way to not have a hearing is to accept the Planning Commission's recommended
language. The ordinance cannot go to the concurrency meeting until after there is a
public hearing.
McShane asked if the administration has concerns about implementation of
the policy.
Crawford explained the discussion during committee. Staff indicated during
committee that his suggested amendment is fine.
Goodwin stated staff is happy with the language as amended. Staff was
originally concerned with the Planning Commission's recommended term "shall,"
which is generally reserved for regulations, not policy guidelines.
Nelson withdrew his motion.
McShane stated this would go to a public hearing.
McShane moved to rescind the vote on the motion to amend.
Motion carried 4 -3 with Nelson, Crawford, and Brenner opposed.
McShane moved to forward the Planning Commission's recommended
ordinance to the concurrency meeting.
Crawford stated he is against the motion.
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
Brenner stated she liked the amendment, but they need to move this on, so
she will support the motion.
Roy stated she liked the word "shall." She liked being firm about these sorts
of protection. She likes the Planning Commission's recommended language.
Motion carried 6 -1 with Crawford opposed.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — LAND USE, CITY OF BLAINE URBAN GROWTH
AREA (AB2004 -342)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee moved to
forward to the concurrency meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — LAND USE, CITY OF FERNDALE URBAN GROWTH
AREA (AB2004 -344)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and
stated the committee moved to amend the ordinance to remove the underlined
language at the top of Council packet page 317.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the reason for the amendment was to just focus on
areas in the urban growth area (UGA).
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
McShane stated this item would require a public hearing.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — LAND USE, CITY OF LYNDEN URBAN GROWTH
AREA (AB2004 -345)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and
stated the committee moved to amend the net densities from five to seven units to
six to eight units, to be equivalent to Ferndale and Bellingham.
Brenner stated the language talked about the larger cities growing to a
density of six to eight units per acre. Lynden is now the second largest city in the
county. It shouldn't be treated differently from Ferndale and Bellingham. Lynden
should accommodate more growth.
Nelson asked if Lynden still has one of the greatest densities of any city in
the County, as it did years ago. Goodwin stated it is not still correct. Bellingham,
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
Ferndale, and Blaine have more density. Lynden still has quite a few areas that are
zoned for 10,000 square foot lots. However, Lynden has the Homestead area and
other areas with townhouses. Lynden has a mix of density.
Nelson stated Lynden used to be at a density of six units per acre, and have
since expanded its UGA.
Crawford asked if the staff could concur with changing the density. Goodwin
stated the argument for the change was to make Lynden's density consistent with
Ferndale, which is logical. Lynden might have some concerns about it.
Caskey - Schreiber suggested that the change be five to eight units. It would
provide more flexibility.
Fleetwood withdrew his motion.
Caskey- Schreiber moved to amend the net densities on packet page 360,
"...at average net densities of five to seven eight units per developable acre...." The
goal of this was to slow the spread of sprawl into farmland and flood plain. She
hoped Lynden grows responsibly.
Crawford asked the purpose of this language.
McShane stated the County has goals for areas where it has land use control.
It would like to see the cities go to some level of density. If the cities help the
County in that regard, then the County may be more receptive to expanding the
urban growth area.
Crawford stated this language sounds like it is referring to something else
when it refers to County goals. He asked if there is a list of goals.
McShane stated the goals begin on the next page.
Goodwin stated a goal on page 404 of the Council packet, regarding
Bellingham, also needs to be amended for consistency.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B.)
Crawford asked if this relates to the population projections and if there is a
valid reason to do this, substantiated by the concurrency of all of these projections.
Goodwin stated there are enough valid reasons in the agricultural chapter, which
says they should not encourage cities to expand into agricultural land.
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
McShane stated the Council would schedule a public hearing on this item.
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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
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.
S. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, CHAPTER 2 — LAND USE, CITY OF BELLINGHAM URBAN
GROWTH AREA (AB2004 -341)
Fleetwood reported for the Planning and Development Committee and
stated the committee moved to amend and recommended sending to the
concurrency meeting.
Goodwin submitted a substitute Exhibit A that includes the amendments from
committee earlier in the day (on file).
Fleetwood moved to amend Goal 2P, "Encourage Bellingham to establish
new residential developments at densities averaging six to e+g -l=-t twelve units per
net residential acre..."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend Goal 2P, "...encourage Ferndale and Lynden to
establish new residential developments at densities averaging five six to seven eight
units net residential acre; ...." It's not consistent with what the committee did.
Brenner stated the language for Ferndale was fine when the language said six
to eight units per acre because that is what the Ferndale ordinance said. The
Council didn't change the ordinance for Ferndale to five to eight densities. They
have to amend the Ferndale ordinance.
McShane withdrew his motion.
Brenner moved to amend Goal 2P, "...encourage Ferndale an-d Lynden to
establish new residential developments at densities averaging five to eight units per
net residential acre..."
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane moved to amend Goal 2P, "Encourage Bellingham to establish new
residential developments at densities averaging six to eig4t twelve units per net
residential acre; encourage Ferndale to establish new residential developments at
densities averaging six to eight units per net residential acre; encourage Ferndale
a-Rd Lynden to establish new residential developments at densities averaging five to
eight units per net residential acre; and encourage...."
Motion to amend carried unanimously.
Crawford asked if there is a definition for "net residential acre." Goodwin
stated the language could be clearer, but if the area is residentially zoned, and the
net developable acre would be within the residentially zoned area.
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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
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 asked if the language is clear enough on the definition to use the
terms interchangeable. Goodwin stated it is.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmembers McShane and Nelson left the meeting at
10 :15 p.m. Council Vice -Chair Caskey- Schreiber took up the chair's duties.)
Fleetwood stated there are a number of scrivener's errors that the staff will
correct. He moved to amend Policy 2T -1 as shown in the handout with the
amendments from committee (on file), "Establish and periodically review update
procedures for joint City /County review of development proposals in the UGA prior
to annexation."
Motion carried 5 -0 with Nelson and McShane absent.
Fleetwood moved to amend Policy 2T -4 as shown in the handout with
amendments from the committee (on file), "Review land supply analysis and set
appropriate urban growth area boundaries consistent with the Growth Management
Act, Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, County Comprehensive Plan, County -wide
Planning Policies and the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan."
Motion carried 5 -0 with Nelson and McShane absent.
Crawford asked if Bellingham's Comprehensive Plan is always current with
the County Comprehensive Plan, or if this restricts the County from adopting a
Comprehensive Plan change if the County were to disagree with the City of
Bellingham on a particular issue. Goodwin stated that's a good point. This new
language doesn't tie the County's hands, but it says that the County's UGA
boundaries has to be consistent with the City's UGA boundaries. The question is if
the County would have to amend its Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Fleetwood moved to amend Policy 2T -4 as shown in the handout with
amendments from the committee (on file), "Review land supply analysis and set
consider appropriate urban growth area boundaries consistent with the Growth
Management Act, Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, County Comprehensive Plan,
County -wide Planning Policies and the Urban Fringe Subarea Plan."
Motion to amend carried 4 -1 with Nelson and McShane absent and
Crawford opposed.
Crawford asked if that language is acceptable. Goodwin stated the Council
could consider boundaries consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and then adopt
something else.
Fleetwood moved to amend Policy 2T -10 as shown in the handout,
"Annexation should be considered prior to or concurrently with the extension of City
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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
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.
sewer and water and prior to urban development. Annexations should be a logical
extension of the city boundaries and not create unincorporated islands."
Crawford stated this language finishes the sentence that was left unfinished
in the Council packet.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Nelson and McShane absent.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Council would schedule a public hearing on this
item.
INTRODUCTION ITEMS
Brenner moved to accept the Introduction Items.
Motion carried unanimously.
1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2005 -2006 BUDGET
(AB2004 -027B)
2. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY
CONSERVATION FUTURES PURPOSES FOR 2005 (AB2004 -367)
3. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY ROAD
PURPOSES FOR 2005 (AB2004 -368)
4. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF TAXES FOR COUNTY AND
STATE PURPOSES IN WHATCOM COUNTY FOR THE YEAR OF 2005
PURSUANT TO HOME RULE CHARTER SECTION 6.10 (AB2004 -369)
5. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (APPENDIX G OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) (AB2004 -370)
6. ORDINANCE REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMIT ON
LUMMI VIEW DRIVE FOR A SCHOOL ZONE (AB2004 -371)
7. ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE SUNSET DATES FOR DRAYTON HARBOR
AND PORTAGE BAY SHELLFISH DISTRICTS (AB2004 -372)
S. ORDINANCE REVISING THE WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER
3.28.010, OPEN SPACE CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURE (AB2004 -373)
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, 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.
9. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CURRENT STATE BUILDING CODE AND
REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTERS IN TITLE 15 OF THE WHATCOM
COUNTY CODE (AB2004 -374)
OTHER BUSINESS
Roy moved to approve the letter she handed out (on file) to the State
Department of Ecology supporting the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association's
(NSEA) grant proposal for the Birch Bay /Terrell Creek Project. NSEA has worked
closely with community members from Point Whitehorn and Birch Bay. It's a strong
program. She asked for the Council's support.
Brenner stated she supports the motion, and thanked Councilmember Roy for
writing the letter.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Nelson and McShane absent.
REPORTS AND OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Caskey- Schreiber stated the Northwest Air Pollution Authority officially
changed its name to the Northwest Clean Air Agency.
Crawford stated there is a concern about County resources to deal with
methamphetamine issues. A Meth Action Team meets this Thursday. The primary
topic of discussion will center around how various entities are involved. He asked
the administration to keep an eye on this. It will involve some awareness at the
highest level of administration. Coordination is a concern.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on November 23 , 2004.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, Page 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.
1 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Dan McShane, Council Chair
2
3
Whatcom County Council, 10/26/2004, Page 27